So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?
Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?
Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.
... If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.
Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
... I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound. Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end. If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.
I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.[Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, th
I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
No, you stated this:
... One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?
I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.
I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]
I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.
So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".
... are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?
I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the globe isn't warming. Can we agree that even the bottom edge of the confidence interval is positive, indicating net warming from 2005 to 2013?
So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.
@ProfBrianCox Having said all that, this particular evidence has been based on data from the GRACE satellite, which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace... but they say they have the problems worked out now. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-20]
Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
At the risk of provoking this response, could you please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace?
... how could I be "reflexively dismissing it" if my own statement, which you quoted, was "THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for"???... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
Only if you suggested that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m.
... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]
... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]
But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.
Except I did not do that. You have had a very nasty habit of twisting what other people say. That's dishonest. I've pointed that out to you many times, over a period of years. You really need to start reading what people actually say rather than interpreting so heavily. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.
... are you now claiming, as you seem to be, that the "missing heat" cause of the pause in surface warming is actually hiding in the UPPER ocean, rather than the lower? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]
I'm claiming that Llovel et al. 2014 concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the g
The “pause” (political doublespeak) is 18 now. And a recent study showed “missing” heat is NOT in the ocean. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]
... the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]
Did you see my comment about Argo, or not? The ISSUE here was precisely the deep ocean (> 2000m depth). Upper temps were known. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]
Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?
... As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-22]
... The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier. According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-23]
No, that blog summary discusses sea surface temperatures. How could that possibly contradict the Llovel et al. 2014 study of ocean temperature data down to 2000m?
But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.
Perhaps Jane simply hasn't read Llovel et al. 2014. Their conclusion depends on the fact that:
total sea level rise = thermal expansion + land ice melting
Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites. The remaining sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. Since ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m depth using ARGO, only the abyssal thermal expansion below 2000m is unknown.
Llovel et al. 2014 basically re-arranged that equation:
thermal expansion below 2000m depth = total sea level rise - thermal expansion above 2000m - land ice melting
That's why Jane can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while claiming that their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct. Their abyssal ocean temperatures are obtained by subtracting the ARGO upper ocean temperatures and GRACE non-steric sea level rise from the total sea level rise revealed by satellite altimetry.
So if Jane claims that ocean temperatures above 2000m depth aren't warming, that means the steric sealevel rise must be due to abyssal warming below 2000m depth. Physics says that Jane can't have his cake and eat it too.
Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures. Seriously. There's like 2000m of difference between the two
Llovel et al. 2014 concludes "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
So it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming." Hopefully you just hadn't read to the last sentence in their abstract before making that absurd claim. But now that you've read that sentence, you can't honestly keep claiming that "the globe isn't warming" unless you first debunk Llovel et al. 2014.
He might have gotten his absurd "4 inches" projection from Jane Q. Public's ridiculous sea level rise lectures:
"The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reported that even if the worst predictions of the CO2-based warming model were correct, the oceans would rise an estimated 4 inches over the next hundred years."
"And yet NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, probably the most capable agency of its kind in the world, has itself released a paper stating that even if the global-warming alarmist's worst-case scenario were to happen, the oceans would rise an average of four inches worldwide over the next hundred years. Who should I believe, do you think?"
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]
As I've repeatedly pointed out, you've never written down the very first energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You've only provided this incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
No. Once again, that's absurd, Jane.
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]
A Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are incompetent or dishonest. A real skeptic would at least consider the possibility that professional physicists understand physics better than they do, and that the physicists are trying to point out a genuine fundamental flaw in the skeptic's argument.
Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
This is all clearly too difficult for Jane, despite the fact that this is the very first equation necessary to solve this problem. Because Jane is so far out of his depth, I suggested that Jane ask a physicist he respects this simple question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
If Jane were a real skeptic, he'd at least ask a physicist he respects this simple question. But Jane refuses. Why?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing. Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
That's why Jane refuses to ask a physicist he respects this simple question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
"Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again. Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways.. because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements.. I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums... it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change"). Hmmmm... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?.. you "scientifically" show squat.. you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion. I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding. I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish.. or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one... Are you allergic to simply telling the truth?.. you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof... I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally... Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games... you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously... you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning..."[Jane Q. Public]
"I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist... Now you've gone so far off base, I can hardly do anything but laugh. This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile. The "mainstream physicists" are the ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass... You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong. And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it... You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics. There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore... I really have no further reason -- absolutely none -- to have to read this utter nonsense... Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems... this distorted nonsense of yours. If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you... NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Holy fuck, you're a dimwit... No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner... NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING. I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply. Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely... You have repeatedly shown, quite clearly to anyone who bothers to read this, that you are willing to deliberately distort and misrepresent the words of others in order to have your way. That's LYING. And it isn't just right here.. you've been doing it for years. As I have documented... No, that's just another lie... You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole... Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you... I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own. I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well..."[Jane Q. Public]
".. None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air... That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument?.. This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them... you dishonestly distorted the meaning of my words... Do you have any other ways you want to try to out-of-context or distort my comments, and claim that I said yet more things that I actually did not? After I had already clearly explained them to you IN context? You do realize the potential consequences of that, do you not? Remember, I'm recording all of this... this is just trolling on your part... I have demonstrated you to be lying, I wasn't just saying so. This time yet again. Distorting other people's words by taking them out of context in a deliberately misleading way is a form of lying. I've publicly caught you at other forms of it too. I know I've said this before, but no more replies. You're a very good troll, but when all is said and done, all you're really doing here is trolling. You already have answers to the questions you're asking, and you haven't once shown a legitimate error in my calculations. Everything else here is trolling in a hot-air balloon... just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense.. That is a form of lying... your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic... Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself..."[Jane Q. Public]
".. I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show... you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again.. You're straw-manning again... You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before... Why are you lying again.. That's stupid... That would be STUPID... I'm just sick and tired of your incessant lying about what went on before, and attempts to re-hash old arguments that you lost a long time ago. I have nothing further to say to you at this time... I said you were "lying".. lying by implication.. blatant dishonesty.. just another dishonest way to distort the argument... Another dishonest distortion.. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie... I reserve the right to laugh at you again... stop the bullshit.. just more blather.. You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist... I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things..."[Jane Q. Public]
".. If you ignore extrasolar energetic particles you're just being stupid... Based on other arguments with khayman80, to be honest I would not trust him to build a bridge over a creek, much less a spaceship. That's just the truth... Stop being a grandstanding asshole. I don't have to keep repeating my answers every time you demand them. That's called ASSHOLE behavior, asshole. You have already seen my calculations and my answers to all these questions. By bringing them up and demanding them AGAIN in a different forum, you are advertising your own dishonesty. It didn't work. Don't worry, as I promised this will all be published when I find the time... pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. I don't appreciate this constant harassment over something that has been explained to you clearly many times over. If you truly still don't understand it, that is sad but it is also not my problem. A textbook might help... Stop trying to be insulting. I'm not the one who got it wrong... you insufferable ass... Your constant blathering.. Stop pretending ignorance about things I already explained to you clearly several times. I can only conclude that you're doing this in order to harass... I repeat: look it the hell up. I have not just one but 4 textbooks here, plus Wikipedia, plus the testimony of experts in the field of heat transfer. They ALL disagree with you. It's that simple... are you finally willing to admit you have been proved wrong?.. Your BS "explanations" are not informative to readers who actually want to be educated... your methodology contradicts itself. I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of your blather. Because your whole argument was PUT to rest weeks ago and your failure to understand that (or at least admit it) is rather like a zombie which hasn't quite realized it is dead yet. I repeat: I have documented this all. I have the reputable and credible (and MAINSTREAM, "ACCEPTED") references which show you to be wrong. For a while I thought explaining this in different ways would show you that you were wrong. But over time, I have come to accept that you simply won't admit it, no matter what. That's too bad, because I had really hoped you would listen to the actual accepted SCIENCE behind this, and further accept that it was right and you were wrong. I no longer hold any such hope. I have myself come to accept that you are either a religious zealot, or a self-interested liar. And I very seriously doubt that you were ever actually a physicist... You're just re-hashing old arguments that I've already shot down. Why are you doing that, if your purpose is not dishonest?.. YOU are the one going against "established" physics here... you're wrong. If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. Instead, you're arguing ineffectively with some person on Slashdot, about something every textbook on the subject, as well as other sources, say your are wrong about... When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron?.. You're trying to give me some crackpot story.. You're just wrong.. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics... You're trying to play some kind of trick.. EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you..."[Jane Q. Public]
".. you were "hanging yourself", as the saying goes. Hoist by your own petard... You are busted... I'll be here watching and laughing all the way... It doesn't matter how you try to squirm and twist this. You have been owned. End of story... I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal... Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics. Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost. Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning. To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts. I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much... Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off?.. It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter. You're owned, man... PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody.. You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this? You're just going to look that much more foolish later... YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose... Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself... no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules... I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again. I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it... No more bullshit... I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting... Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be?.. You are giving physicists a bad name, and I repeat that I am going to show this to all the world to see... This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it... I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics... You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong. And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too. So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include
So you still haven't managed to write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? If you did, you'd quickly realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting..
Jane, you've been spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation for years. In the process, you've repeatedly, baselessly and libelously accused me and my colleagues of incompetence, dishonesty and fraud. I'll stop debunking your misinformation when you stop spreading it, and not one second before.
Since writing down a simple energy conservation equation is apparently too difficult for Jane, I suggested asking Prof. Brian Cox this question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
And seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.
".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead.. he is either lying.. dishonest.. intellectually dishonest.. intellectually dishonest.. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty.. Pathetic... you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person... cowardice.. odious person.. you look like a fool.. utterly and disgustingly transparent.. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit... spewing bullshit.. You're making yourself look like a fool... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool... a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume).. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do... stream of BS.. idiot.. Your assumptions are pure shit... I'm done babysitting you.."[Jane Q. Public]
"Jesus, you're a dumbshit... your adolescent, antisocial behavior.. keep making a fool of yourself... you're being such a dumbass.. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid... you were too goddamned stupid.."
That's a silly question. Conspiracy theorists already think research they don't like is propaganda.
To a crackpot, there's no difference. They might be vaguely aware of NASA's multimillion dollar climate satellites, but they'll just say this is equivalent to the Heartland Institute's propaganda. After all, remember all those expensive scientific expeditions the Heartland Institute funds to place sensors in remote polar regions? Remember the fleet of thousands of robotic probes the Heartland Institute operates to monitor the oceans? Remember the time that the Heartland Institute lost millions of dollars because their Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in a launch failure?
Yeah, me neither. But don't even try convincing a contrarian that research is different from propaganda. You'd have better luck educating your coffee table.
Your math doesn't mean squat because it's based on invalid assumptions, as I explained earlier. There is more information available to your GPS receiver than you are accounting for. But since you seem so resistant to the very IDEA that you could be wrong, I'll just leave you to your preconceptions. It isn't really worth an hour of my time to draw a decent diagram.
An hour? Just write down the three trilateration equations from three satellites that are supposedly sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock. That would only take a few seconds.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
If Jane could write down equations showing that three satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, Jane would've done that years ago. Jane can't, because 3 equations aren't sufficient to solve for 4 unknowns.
But I want to repeat: we've hashed this all out here on Slashdot before, and several of us found detailed references. I do know how it works.
Translation: Jane's gone on a similar rant before, except that last time Jane didn't blame the need for 4 satellites on positioning errors and relativistic effects. Last time, Jane asked: "why do the military only require 3 satellite locks? Eh? Answer me that, you fucking genius.... you are a moron...."
The military would only require 3 satellite locks if their GPS receivers had atomic clocks, which would be ridiculously expensive, bulky, and way too fragile for military use.
You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position. I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.
No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:
You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position. I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.
No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:
... Yes, it is a simple yes or no question. But it doesn't sufficiently describe the problem. For just one example, you haven't mentioned that the walls are being actively cooled.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]
That's because it doesn't matter whether the walls are actively cooled. Their temperature affects electrical heating power regardless.
It doesn't matter if electrical heating power is constant. Even if the source temperature is held constant rather than electrical heating power, the electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
... You haven't mentioned the geometry or the dimensions of the objects we discussed... on and on and on. The fact that your proposed tweet is a simple yes-or-no question is irrelevant. It's not the same question.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]
The dimensions and geometry also don't matter. Regardless of size or shape, electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. And that's exactly what Jane denies:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
... And you consistently neglect the fact that it was MY solution to the problem that was quite literally represented the textbook, "mainstream" physics. Not the "khayman80" theory about how it should work. I repeat: why don't you pick up a textbook and find out for yourself? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]
Again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.
Jane, if you're so sure that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature... why not just ask Prof. Cox if it does?
It's pretty clear that you're just scared he'll say "yes", which would mean that your entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Hahaha. You slay me. (Pun intended.) First, you asked me to make him a BET, but you're not willing to do it yourself? Second, you honestly expect a tweet to describe the actual conditions of the experiment? It took us something like 2 days to even agree on that, with hundreds of lines of messages back and forth.
I do not take such things very seriously. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]
Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:
... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]
This is a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem. Jane, this is a simple yes/no question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Jane, my answer is "yes". What's yours? What answer do you think mainstream physicists would give to this simple yes/no question?
... If I were a "real skeptic", I would have researched the real answer to this problem. But wait... I actually did! Unlike you, who found some equation for "electrical heating power" which applies to a space that is air-filled and subject to conduction and convection, I looked up the actual power equations for a vacuum-filled space with only radiant heat transfer.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
This is a very fundamental physics principle.
In contrast, Jane found a "radiant power out" equation, and wrongly assumed that "electrical heating power = radiant power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
If Jane tried to write down that energy conservation equation just once, he'd realize that "radiant power out" isn't equal to "electrical heating power".
... maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature? I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?
... I already know the answer to the problem, and that answer is supported by multiple textooks and experts in the field. So please explain to me what possible motivation I might have to bother, much less bet, Prof. Cox about it?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]
I didn't suggest that you bet Prof. Cox. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
Jane's only possible motivation to bother would be if Jane has a single shred of skepticism and curiosity, and if Jane has any respect for Prof. Cox.
The reason I suggested Jane ask Prof. Cox is because Jane simply dismisses any physicist who disagrees with him. I've repeatedly failed to convince Jane that he might want to write down an energy conservation equation to determine "electrical heating power". But Jane might listen if a physicist he respects tells him that electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
... If I had been "afraid" of what you would find, I would not have encouraged you to do so. I just have zero reason to do it myself.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Jane, it's okay if you don't want to bet money. But I'll only ask Prof. Cox that question if you promise not to start calling him a dumbshit dumbassfucking moronidiot if he says yes. That hasn't been very educational.
I'll ask Prof. Cox that question, but only if Jane promises that if Prof. Cox says "yes", Jane will at least try to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms to determine "electrical heating power".
Slashdot Mirror
So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?
Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?
Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.
Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.
Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.
Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, th
No, you stated this:
Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?
Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.
Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.
I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.
So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".
Past experienc
What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?
So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.
At the risk of provoking this response, could you please link to evidence of these rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy which in the past has turned out to be something of a DISgrace?
Only if you suggested that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m.
You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.
I'm claiming that Llovel et al. 2014 concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the g
Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?
No, that blog summary discusses sea surface temperatures. How could that possibly contradict the Llovel et al. 2014 study of ocean temperature data down to 2000m?
But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.
Perhaps Jane simply hasn't read Llovel et al. 2014. Their conclusion depends on the fact that:
total sea level rise = thermal expansion + land ice melting
Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites. The remaining sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. Since ocean temperatures have been measured down to 2000m depth using ARGO, only the abyssal thermal expansion below 2000m is unknown.
Llovel et al. 2014 basically re-arranged that equation:
thermal expansion below 2000m depth = total sea level rise - thermal expansion above 2000m - land ice melting
That's why Jane can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while claiming that their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct. Their abyssal ocean temperatures are obtained by subtracting the ARGO upper ocean temperatures and GRACE non-steric sea level rise from the total sea level rise revealed by satellite altimetry.
So if Jane claims that ocean temperatures above 2000m depth aren't warming, that means the steric sealevel rise must be due to abyssal warming below 2000m depth. Physics says that Jane can't have his cake and eat it too.
Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures. Seriously. There's like 2000m of difference between the two
Llovel et al. 2014 concludes "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
So it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming." Hopefully you just hadn't read to the last sentence in their abstract before making that absurd claim. But now that you've read that sentence, you can't honestly keep claiming that "the globe isn't warming" unless you first debunk Llovel et al. 2014.
He might have gotten his absurd "4 inches" projection from Jane Q. Public's ridiculous sea level rise lectures:
"The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reported that even if the worst predictions of the CO2-based warming model were correct, the oceans would rise an estimated 4 inches over the next hundred years."
"And yet NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, probably the most capable agency of its kind in the world, has itself released a paper stating that even if the global-warming alarmist's worst-case scenario were to happen, the oceans would rise an average of four inches worldwide over the next hundred years. Who should I believe, do you think?"
No, that source concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
As I've repeatedly pointed out, you've never written down the very first energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You've only provided this incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:
No. Once again, that's absurd, Jane.
A Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are incompetent or dishonest. A real skeptic would at least consider the possibility that professional physicists understand physics better than they do, and that the physicists are trying to point out a genuine fundamental flaw in the skeptic's argument.
Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
This is all clearly too difficult for Jane, despite the fact that this is the very first equation necessary to solve this problem. Because Jane is so far out of his depth, I suggested that Jane ask a physicist he respects this simple question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
If Jane were a real skeptic, he'd at least ask a physicist he respects this simple question. But Jane refuses. Why?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive.
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
That's why Jane refuses to ask a physicist he respects this simple question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
"Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again. Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways.. because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements.. I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums. .. it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change"). Hmmmm... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot? .. you "scientifically" show squat.. you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion. I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding. I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish.. or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one. .. Are you allergic to simply telling the truth? .. you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof. .. I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. .. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games. .. you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously. .. you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning. .." [Jane Q. Public]
"I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. .. Now you've gone so far off base, I can hardly do anything but laugh. This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile. The "mainstream physicists" are the ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass. .. You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong. And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it. .. You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics. There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore. .. I really have no further reason -- absolutely none -- to have to read this utter nonsense. .. Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems. .. this distorted nonsense of yours. If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you. .. NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Holy fuck, you're a dimwit. .. No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner. .. NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING. I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply. Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely. .. You have repeatedly shown, quite clearly to anyone who bothers to read this, that you are willing to deliberately distort and misrepresent the words of others in order to have your way. That's LYING. And it isn't just right here.. you've been doing it for years. As I have documented. .. No, that's just another lie. .. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole. .. Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you. .. I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own. I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well. .." [Jane Q. Public]
".. None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air. .. That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument? .. This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them. .. you dishonestly distorted the meaning of my words. .. Do you have any other ways you want to try to out-of-context or distort my comments, and claim that I said yet more things that I actually did not? After I had already clearly explained them to you IN context? You do realize the potential consequences of that, do you not? Remember, I'm recording all of this. .. this is just trolling on your part. .. I have demonstrated you to be lying, I wasn't just saying so. This time yet again. Distorting other people's words by taking them out of context in a deliberately misleading way is a form of lying. I've publicly caught you at other forms of it too. I know I've said this before, but no more replies. You're a very good troll, but when all is said and done, all you're really doing here is trolling. You already have answers to the questions you're asking, and you haven't once shown a legitimate error in my calculations. Everything else here is trolling in a hot-air balloon. .. just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense .. That is a form of lying. .. your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic. .. Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. .." [Jane Q. Public]
".. I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show. .. you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again .. You're straw-manning again. .. You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before. .. Why are you lying again.. That's stupid. .. That would be STUPID. .. I'm just sick and tired of your incessant lying about what went on before, and attempts to re-hash old arguments that you lost a long time ago. I have nothing further to say to you at this time. .. I said you were "lying" .. lying by implication.. blatant dishonesty .. just another dishonest way to distort the argument. .. Another dishonest distortion .. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie. .. I reserve the right to laugh at you again. .. stop the bullshit .. just more blather .. You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist. .. I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things. .." [Jane Q. Public]
".. If you ignore extrasolar energetic particles you're just being stupid. .. Based on other arguments with khayman80, to be honest I would not trust him to build a bridge over a creek, much less a spaceship. That's just the truth. .. Stop being a grandstanding asshole. I don't have to keep repeating my answers every time you demand them. That's called ASSHOLE behavior, asshole. You have already seen my calculations and my answers to all these questions. By bringing them up and demanding them AGAIN in a different forum, you are advertising your own dishonesty. It didn't work. Don't worry, as I promised this will all be published when I find the time. .. pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. I don't appreciate this constant harassment over something that has been explained to you clearly many times over. If you truly still don't understand it, that is sad but it is also not my problem. A textbook might help. .. Stop trying to be insulting. I'm not the one who got it wrong. .. you insufferable ass. .. Your constant blathering .. Stop pretending ignorance about things I already explained to you clearly several times. I can only conclude that you're doing this in order to harass. .. I repeat: look it the hell up. I have not just one but 4 textbooks here, plus Wikipedia, plus the testimony of experts in the field of heat transfer. They ALL disagree with you. It's that simple. .. are you finally willing to admit you have been proved wrong? .. Your BS "explanations" are not informative to readers who actually want to be educated. .. your methodology contradicts itself. I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of your blather. Because your whole argument was PUT to rest weeks ago and your failure to understand that (or at least admit it) is rather like a zombie which hasn't quite realized it is dead yet. I repeat: I have documented this all. I have the reputable and credible (and MAINSTREAM, "ACCEPTED") references which show you to be wrong. For a while I thought explaining this in different ways would show you that you were wrong. But over time, I have come to accept that you simply won't admit it, no matter what. That's too bad, because I had really hoped you would listen to the actual accepted SCIENCE behind this, and further accept that it was right and you were wrong. I no longer hold any such hope. I have myself come to accept that you are either a religious zealot, or a self-interested liar. And I very seriously doubt that you were ever actually a physicist. .. You're just re-hashing old arguments that I've already shot down. Why are you doing that, if your purpose is not dishonest? .. YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. .. you're wrong. If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. Instead, you're arguing ineffectively with some person on Slashdot, about something every textbook on the subject, as well as other sources, say your are wrong about. .. When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron? .. You're trying to give me some crackpot story .. You're just wrong .. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics. .. You're trying to play some kind of trick .. EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you. .." [Jane Q. Public]
".. you were "hanging yourself", as the saying goes. Hoist by your own petard. .. You are busted. .. I'll be here watching and laughing all the way. .. It doesn't matter how you try to squirm and twist this. You have been owned. End of story. .. I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal. .. Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics. Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost. Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning. To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts. I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much. .. Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off? .. It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter. You're owned, man. .. PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody.. You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this? You're just going to look that much more foolish later. .. YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose. .. Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself. .. no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules. .. I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again. I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. No more bullshit. .. I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting. .. Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be? .. You are giving physicists a bad name, and I repeat that I am going to show this to all the world to see. .. This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it. .. I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong. And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too. So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include
So you still haven't managed to write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? If you did, you'd quickly realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
Jane, you've been spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation for years. In the process, you've repeatedly, baselessly and libelously accused me and my colleagues of incompetence, dishonesty and fraud. I'll stop debunking your misinformation when you stop spreading it, and not one second before.
Since writing down a simple energy conservation equation is apparently too difficult for Jane, I suggested asking Prof. Brian Cox this question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
And seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.
".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead .. he is either lying .. dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty .. Pathetic. .. you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. .. cowardice .. odious person .. you look like a fool .. utterly and disgustingly transparent .. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. .. You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. .. Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. .. spewing bullshit .. You're making yourself look like a fool. .. Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. .. a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. .. Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. .. if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) .. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. .. stream of BS.. idiot .. Your assumptions are pure shit. .. I'm done babysitting you.." [Jane Q. Public]
"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. .. your adolescent, antisocial behavior .. keep making a fool of yourself. .. you're being such a dumbass .. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. .. you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. .. you were too goddamned stupid .."
That's a silly question. Conspiracy theorists already think research they don't like is propaganda.
To a crackpot, there's no difference. They might be vaguely aware of NASA's multimillion dollar climate satellites, but they'll just say this is equivalent to the Heartland Institute's propaganda. After all, remember all those expensive scientific expeditions the Heartland Institute funds to place sensors in remote polar regions? Remember the fleet of thousands of robotic probes the Heartland Institute operates to monitor the oceans? Remember the time that the Heartland Institute lost millions of dollars because their Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in a launch failure?
Yeah, me neither. But don't even try convincing a contrarian that research is different from propaganda. You'd have better luck educating your coffee table.
An hour? Just write down the three trilateration equations from three satellites that are supposedly sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock. That would only take a few seconds.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2
(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
If Jane could write down equations showing that three satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, Jane would've done that years ago. Jane can't, because 3 equations aren't sufficient to solve for 4 unknowns.
Translation: Jane's gone on a similar rant before, except that last time Jane didn't blame the need for 4 satellites on positioning errors and relativistic effects. Last time, Jane asked: "why do the military only require 3 satellite locks? Eh? Answer me that, you fucking genius. ... you are a moron. ..."
The military would only require 3 satellite locks if their GPS receivers had atomic clocks, which would be ridiculously expensive, bulky, and way too fragile for military use.
Equations would work better, as I've explained:
No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2
(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:
(x - x4)^2 + (y - y4)^2 + (z - z4)^2 = (c*(t - t4))^2
That's why GPS receivers without atomic clocks require 4 satellite locks.
No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.
At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.
(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:
(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2
(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2
If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.
But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:
(x - x4)^2 + (y - y4)^2 + (z - z4)^2 = (c*(t - t4))^2
That's why GPS receivers without atomic clocks require 4 satellite locks.
That's because it doesn't matter whether the walls are actively cooled. Their temperature affects electrical heating power regardless.
It doesn't matter if electrical heating power is constant. Even if the source temperature is held constant rather than electrical heating power, the electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
The dimensions and geometry also don't matter. Regardless of size or shape, electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. And that's exactly what Jane denies:
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
Again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.
Jane, if you're so sure that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature... why not just ask Prof. Cox if it does?
It's pretty clear that you're just scared he'll say "yes", which would mean that your entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.
Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:
This is a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem. Jane, this is a simple yes/no question:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Jane, my answer is "yes". What's yours? What answer do you think mainstream physicists would give to this simple yes/no question?
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
This is a very fundamental physics principle.
In contrast, Jane found a "radiant power out" equation, and wrongly assumed that "electrical heating power = radiant power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
If Jane tried to write down that energy conservation equation just once, he'd realize that "radiant power out" isn't equal to "electrical heating power".
I didn't suggest that you bet Prof. Cox. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
Jane's only possible motivation to bother would be if Jane has a single shred of skepticism and curiosity, and if Jane has any respect for Prof. Cox.
The reason I suggested Jane ask Prof. Cox is because Jane simply dismisses any physicist who disagrees with him. I've repeatedly failed to convince Jane that he might want to write down an energy conservation equation to determine "electrical heating power". But Jane might listen if a physicist he respects tells him that electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Jane, it's okay if you don't want to bet money. But I'll only ask Prof. Cox that question if you promise not to start calling him a dumbshit dumbass fucking moron idiot if he says yes. That hasn't been very educational.
I'll ask Prof. Cox that question, but only if Jane promises that if Prof. Cox says "yes", Jane will at least try to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms to determine "electrical heating power".
Deal?