Trenberth's Energy Budget

[gslack]

by the way gslack, you still havent responded to the question of why you support wirebender's 'math' even though he used the wrong temperature in the S-B equation. why do you think others should respond to your questions when you wont reply to other people's questions?

Ian you haven't responded honestly to any of my questions, so go shit in your hat..

You spent days being a posturing imbecile and now you try and pretend you want an answer from me?

A post or two ago I was too dumb to talk too anymore, now you want my opinion.. I have an opinion for ya, You are a douchebag and a internet fake.. how's that?

 

[gslack]

WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..

3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..

polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.

You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!

How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?

 

[wirebender]

You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!

How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?

Maybe he sleeps at Holiday Inn Express a lot.

 

[IanC]

what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'.

Wirebender made no mistakes Ian. If you could do the math, you might be able to check but clearly you can't. There are a few things that you apparently don't know about the SB law. The first is that the SB law calculates the radiation emitting from any surface that is above absolute zero. It does so even when the background is not at absolute zero. As I said, if you could do the math, you could check the math and see for yourself that I made no mistake.

I did do the math. you used T^4 - 0^4 for temperature radiating into space. but the experiment defined the receiving container as 255K not 0K. (T^4 -0) does not equal (T^4 - 255^4). it works out to about a ten degree difference.

why cant you just admit to making a simple mistake?

 

[polarbear]

1.) @wirebender...I have not had a chance yet to read the whole thread who said what ...but I`m going to...this is a very interesting discussion...and I`ll try answer that to the best of my ability...

I`ll start out by saying that in Physics text can be expressed as equations, and anyone who truly understands an equation has no trouble to substitute the equation with words..., that anybody can understand..
That is especially true with all the German Physics literature...it is a lot easier to understand than reading the same statements in English.
Many therefore prefer to study Physics and certain Math in German although that is not their mother tongue.

I could do this either way, in Text form or with equations...I do have all the necessary symbols in my alternate keyboard tables...which do You prefer..??

Thanks. Given a choice, I would prefer an explanation in words. I took a good deal of math, chemistry and physics in college, but when I decided to go into medicine, most of that fell by the wayside. I can do the math, but it is an endeavor every time I do. I don't make my day to day living with the math; I bend wires (orthodontics).

I do remember though from physics class that we weren't allowed to just use algebraic properties with physics problems because we found the problem easier to work out as a result of applying the property. When you alter the equation, even when the answer is the same, you have altered the physical meaning of what is happening.

Specifically, the claim that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) represents the same physical processes as P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4). To my understanding, the first represents the SB law as published by SB, that being a blackbody at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background (no back-radiation); whle the second represents the net difference between a black body at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background and a colder background which is represented to be a black-body radiating into a warmer black-body which is represented as a colder background. The answer is the same, but the physical processes they describe seem to me to be very different. One representing reality and the other representing a means of promoting AGW alarmism.

If you don't have back-radiation, you don't have AGW alarmism.

GW also uses back-radiation where nothing is missing from convective heat transfer, which is a massive amount...
But as You noticed they are also using the same proportionality factor (sigma) of the ideal black body to make the case for CO2 as a black body
radiator....
a black body can absorb light energy at all wavelength, that`s why it is called a "black body"

CO2 does not even qualify as a so called "grey body"
the Bolzmann law quantifies "j" as a THEORETIC thermodynamic Temperature

"Thermo-dynamic temperature" has the dimension of watts per square meter AT a GIVEN Temperature and the Bolzman law states it the original German text, that a black body, which absorbed X amount of watts in the form of radiation will re-radiate the amount (j) again at so many watts per
square meter...
The original Bolzmann equation therefore expresses the ENERGY FLUX DENSITY, which is a far cry from the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE which has the single dimension deg K...and even more of a far cry is to claim as
GW alarmists do, that CO2 acts as if it ACTUALLY had been IRRADIATED by a black body which by an actual black body that,... as their latest claim would have it ACTUALLY at 288 deg Kelvin.


First of all if anyone wants to go from a flux density which is watts / m^2 at any temperature to express it as an actual temperature, this calculation cannot possibly done, unless we also assign on what receiving mass the (j) watts per square meter is acting.
If we use for an area, let`s say 1 m^2, that still leaves us with a number that expresses Watts.
Which is a POWER UNIT,...the same as calories per time is....
So to get rid of the dimension for time let`s say we choose 1 second, now we have an energy unit as in (j) Watt seconds or (j) calories...
But in order to be able to calculate the EFFECT, by how much the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE (j) Watt-seconds would be raised per one second there is no way around specifying on what mass these (j) Watt-seconds
have been exerted.

And that is the only way ACTUAL TEMPERATURE could be calculated from Bolzmanns THERMODYNAMIC TEMPERATURE equivalent energy flux.

And again that would assume that the other mass is absorbing THE ENTIRE Bolzmann energy flux...
And only an ideal black body could do that

"climatology" does make this (blatant) assumption and then goes on to run this second "black body" the CO2 yet again through the same Bolzmann equation and feed energy back to the first original radiating body
without assigning a value for the mass yet again and try tell You, that this will now heat this radiation body to an even higher temperature as it could have achieved without the second body, which has received only a
portion of the energy from the first radiator ...

So they have a lot more watts (= Energy per time) and have it generated by another passive body, yielding in total now more than
the original watts (Energy per time) coming in from the sun which has fed the entire system.

I don`t care who is using what kind of rhetoric, but neither Bolzmann, Planck or any other Physisist would try tell You, that You can take X amount of Energy (watt-second) and simply by placing another object (...which does not GENERATE any ADDITIONAL energy whatsoever...)
that some how You can now have X+x /y energy ...
or X+x /y power as in watts or calories per second.

Then every engineer to date has been stupid...we could have squeezed X+1 times x/y Energy out of every fuel known to man, had we only increased the mass of the apparatus, that burns these fuels.

Why stop with one single passive receiver- or so called "back radiator"...lets use 10 of them,...then we can apply the Bolzmann and the Planck equations not just twice as these quacks are, but 10 times...
Then we boost the energy with 10 more "back radiation" steps to to a new X which in their logic is now X= X + x/y + (x/y)^2 + (x/y)^3....and so on till + (x/y)^10
and all we need to start with is just X watt-seconds.

This is the very same 'logic" that novices to higher math fall for, Aristotle has used it to test the intellect of his pupils in a very similar mathematical manner with this statement:
Although the sprinter can run faster than the turtle he can never overtake the turtle...
because while he is running x amount of time, covering x times his speed (v1) the distance d1, but the turtle has meanwhile moved x times its speed (v2) =d2.
So now the distance separating them is not just the original distance d-d1 but is d-d1+d2.
This will add to the time when the sprinter can overtake the turtle the time
delta t = d2/ (v1-v2)....
but after the sprinter has run for delta t, the turtle yet again has added the "extra distance" delta t * v2 =d3 to the distance
and so on...all the way to 1/infinity....
And that is exactly the same joke "climatology" has performed with the "extra" -"back-radiation" energy.

Yes I know in the strange world of finance "math" this is routinely done and You can "generate"
million$ more starting with way less $$ without even spending any energy as in "work"..simply by using compound interest $$$%%%% which like "back radiation" is not just an interest percentage of the original principal amount of $ they started with but is the principal + p% and then
doing it again ...and now they have $$$= principal$ +p% + (Princ.$ + the new $+p%)* p%...and so on and on...and by repeating this step over and over again they "generated" many million$ from next to nothing
without any additional input...so they claim...but we all know by
now what really does happen with this "magic money" generator...the same as any other perpetual motion machine that have supposedly been invented...they all stall after having
consumed the original energy,...and then it`s up to us tax payers to fork over our money which we earned with real & hard work to "re-stimulate"
this magic interest "back-radiation" money machine , ...and are supposed to believe, that if we participate we`ll get more out of it as we put in to begin with...
Hey You could even apply the same "black body" and "back-radiation" analogy to the way banks should work in theory.

By the way no matter where You look but especially so at "wikipedia"...every definition of almost every law of Physics that may be applied to "climatology" has been shit and
pissed over by "climatologists" adding their own assertions...
Example:

Stefan
Stefan–Boltzmann law


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates. As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (14 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have."

No math, no measurements, no proof, nothing more than an assertion and a very ridiculous one at that...


and that was written by P. K. Das,

retired Metereologist @ the U of Nairobi (retired)
in a publication ", The Earth's Changing Climate"
before that he was a meteorologist @ the meteorological department of India...
a bureaucrat.

The problem is, that people who`s major is not in physics will interpretate that as a valid amendment to Staphan Bolzmann`s laws
because Wikipedia lists his garbage on the same page.

No matter where You look, these people have been pissing ink by the barrel fulls all over the internet and
it would take a lifetime and the entire physics community to go through all the red tape involved with editing
invalid claims like these from Wikipedia.
These bastards are taking full advantage secure in the knowledge that most people don`t have their own
books or have access to a University library where they could read up on Bolzmann without these garbage attachments disguised as amendments which "climatologists" have added almost everywhere You look.


@ IanC...
No I don`t cite "my own opinion" as You accuse me of how I "back up my own claims"...
I do`nt need the internet for this either, but I do have shelves full of Physics & Chemistry books that I needed for my work and I do have access to my Universities Library even though I am now retired.

Come see me and I`ll show You what`s really in the book that for example publishes the original German Text, say regarding Stephan Bolzmann`s laws.
So, but when a "Meteorologist" who worked as a civil servant in India adds his crap opinion and that is now being used as a reference by all the rest of this "climatology" crowd to back their rather strange opinion You accept that as a "proven fact of science".
But hey...I don`t care, stay the course...and let these clowns "educate" You,...if You so prefer...
I doubt it though, that this way You would pass even an entry exam in Physics...maybe at some holy cow town U in India where You can tip them like a a waitress expects a tip and then get passed the exam... or maybe in "climatology"...
I passed my exams probably long before You were even born and then went on to teach Physics & Chemistry at several U`s in North America...but I never ever taught my OPINIONS to anybody.

 

[IanC]

WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..

3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..

polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.

You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!

How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?

please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.

 

[IanC]

@ IanC...
No I don`t cite "my own opinion" as You accuse me of how I "back up my own claims"...
I do`nt need the internet for this either, but I do have shelves full of Physics & Chemistry books that I needed for my work and I do have access to my Universities Library even though I am now retired.

I am too terse and you are too verbose. what I meant by your own opinions is that you synthesize your understanding of a process from basics rather than accepting them whole cloth from someone else. I like your abilty to analyze things coming from different directions rather than simply accepting authority.

 

[wirebender]

what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'.

Wirebender made no mistakes Ian. If you could do the math, you might be able to check but clearly you can't. There are a few things that you apparently don't know about the SB law. The first is that the SB law calculates the radiation emitting from any surface that is above absolute zero. It does so even when the background is not at absolute zero. As I said, if you could do the math, you could check the math and see for yourself that I made no mistake.

I did do the math. you used T^4 - 0^4 for temperature radiating into space. but the experiment defined the receiving container as 255K not 0K. (T^4 -0) does not equal (T^4 - 255^4). it works out to about a ten degree difference.

why cant you just admit to making a simple mistake?

Here is a newsflash Ian, you still haven't proven me wrong. I doubt very seriously that you even understand what you have written, but it does not prove me wrong.

 

[IanC]

GW also uses back-radiation where nothing is missing from convective heat transfer, which is a massive amount...
But as You noticed they are also using the same proportionality factor (sigma) of the ideal black body to make the case for CO2 as a black body
radiator....
a black body can absorb light energy at all wavelength, that`s why it is called a "black body"

CO2 does not even qualify as a so called "grey body"
the Bolzmann law quantifies "j" as a THEORETIC thermodynamic Temperature

I am not supporting GW or AGW except to say that extra CO2 does send some radiation back at the earth. I am not trying to quantify other than to say it is one process occuring in the atmosphere that adds to energy retention by choking off energy loss along one pathway.

I am not supporting the specific calculations done for Trenberth's energy budget other than to say the pathways identified are indeed pathways for energy to come in and go out.

I am not claiming the earth is a perfect blackbody or that the S-B laws can be used in any fashion other than to give a general idea of what may be going on.


my dog in this fight is to prick the balloon of pomposity that wirebender carries around when he shouts 'here is my position, and the math to prove it'. but when push comes to shove he chickens out. he refuses to show the post where is math is, now that he finally provided some math that he copied from someone else to debunk Spencer he refuses to admit a simple mathematical mistake at the very beginning.

as far as Spencer's experiment goes, I have problems with it as well. and I have pointed them out. but wirebender's 'math' is completely out to lunch.


oh, and one of your comments intrigued me. if you did shine an airplane or train light at a car headlight and waited for it to come to equilibrium are you sure that no change would occur? I think it would draw less power rather than change emmission values but it could be both.

 

[wirebender]

@ IanC...
No I don`t cite "my own opinion" as You accuse me of how I "back up my own claims"...
I do`nt need the internet for this either, but I do have shelves full of Physics & Chemistry books that I needed for my work and I do have access to my Universities Library even though I am now retired.

I am too terse and you are too verbose. what I meant by your own opinions is that you synthesize your understanding of a process from basics rather than accepting them whole cloth from someone else. I like your abilty to analyze things coming from different directions rather than simply accepting authority.

Spoken by the guy who blindly accepts authority.

 

[gslack]

polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.

You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!

How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?

please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.

I never said you claimed it, or even said it.. I said you think it, and that is plain as day. it shows in your behavior and actions all too clearly. You have done nothing, I repeat nothing but talk shit and post googled terms. You pretend you know, but your behavior, manner, lack of knowledge, lack of everything except your pathetic big talk and deliberate attempts to confound everything you cannot disprove with a google search, tell us all the exact opposite..

Come on douchebag, you think are a genius and whats more THE GENIUS.. You show it in the way you respond to anyone who dares to show any mathematical ability or knowledge and express opinions or facts that may differ from your own. You sit back call them wrong and cite googled terms and definitions you do not understand while pretending some greater knowledge and they're so far beneath you..

You do it all the time tool, you did it with wire, then me, and now polarbear who was actually trying to clarify what he felt (by giving you the benefit of the doubt) was a simple misconception of a few of the finer points in spencers experiment. he wasn't rude, dismissive, or belittling you in any way shape or form but you had to be rude to try and cover your lack of knowledge..

What you think your act is new? HAHAHAHAHA! Dude your act is as old as web forums. Gimme a break there are so many like you on these kinds of places, every forum has at least a few of you. You talk shit and pretend to be so much above everyone else usually your types are in some kind scientific field... Coincidence? I think not.. Dr Gregg, was supposed to be a chemist and as it soon turned out he was a fraud. That was just a year ago on this very forum. We have several others trying the same act, all of it bullshit and all of it may differ slightly but still the same act.

You choose science because in your vanity you believe you can out think anyone even though you have no reason to believe it. You obviously haven't had the education for it, you most assuredly don't have the ability to think on more than one level at a time, and as far as I can see you just unjustifiably deem yourself better my right or by intellect.

You have been dismissive of everyone who dares to disagree with you. Whats that tell you Ian.. Wire, me, and now polarbear all of whom you have agreed with at times, and even shown respect for. Respect until anyone of us dare to challenge your superiority then you become a rude, arrogant, egomaniac who will do or say anything to protect his pride.. A pride which YOU have not earned. You bullshitted your way into it and did it so long you forget the reality.

Reality check Ian..

1. You are no more a physics expert or even competent student than I am a one-armed lion tamer..

2. Being the smartest guy in a room full of idiots makes you the smartest idiot, not a genius.

3. You cannot fake real knowledge. Every time you have to go into depth or detail you will ALWAYS do or say something that a perceptive person who is not easily intimidated by titles (real, implied or imagined) or claims of brilliance you have yet to show, will call you on it. Just like I did, I tested you multiple times and you failed every single one miserably..

4. There is a little white spot on top of chicken shit, and despite its pure white appearance, that part is chicken shit too. That means no matter how much you sling or how good you think your bullshit is, its still limited by the simple fact it is bullshit, and susceptible to the weakness of its originator. Meaning YOU are the weakest link in your fake internet persona. only bullshit requires a salesman, the truth just is and will stand on its own. You try to hard Ian, bullshitters always do.

5. You are internet phony nothing more. You play a part online, and thats the extent of your brilliance. And being weasel enough to talk in circles and dismiss everyone off-hand is not a win by any standard other than your own.

Ian truth is I would bet there are at least 50 people on this board I have talked to that can think rings around you. At least 20 with far superior applicable mathematical knowledge than you, and at least as many who can dance and posture better than you do. you aren't even a good second place in any area i can think of here. Except maybe being a total douchebag... Well no there are better ones than you at that too..

 

[IanC]

You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!

How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?

please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.

I never said you claimed it, or even said it.. I said you think it, and that is plain as day. it shows in your behavior and actions all too clearly. You have done nothing, I repeat nothing but talk shit and post googled terms. You pretend you know, but your behavior, manner, lack of knowledge, lack of everything except your pathetic big talk and deliberate attempts to confound everything you cannot disprove with a google search, tell us all the exact opposite..

Come on douchebag, you think are a genius and whats more THE GENIUS.. You show it in the way you respond to anyone who dares to show any mathematical ability or knowledge and express opinions or facts that may differ from your own. You sit back call them wrong and cite googled terms and definitions you do not understand while pretending some greater knowledge and they're so far beneath you..

You do it all the time tool, you did it with wire, then me, and now polarbear who was actually trying to clarify what he felt (by giving you the benefit of the doubt) was a simple misconception of a few of the finer points in spencers experiment. he wasn't rude, dismissive, or belittling you in any way shape or form but you had to be rude to try and cover your lack of knowledge..

What you think your act is new? HAHAHAHAHA! Dude your act is as old as web forums. Gimme a break there are so many like you on these kinds of places, every forum has at least a few of you. You talk shit and pretend to be so much above everyone else usually your types are in some kind scientific field... Coincidence? I think not.. Dr Gregg, was supposed to be a chemist and as it soon turned out he was a fraud. That was just a year ago on this very forum. We have several others trying the same act, all of it bullshit and all of it may differ slightly but still the same act.

You choose science because in your vanity you believe you can out think anyone even though you have no reason to believe it. You obviously haven't had the education for it, you most assuredly don't have the ability to think on more than one level at a time, and as far as I can see you just unjustifiably deem yourself better my right or by intellect.

You have been dismissive of everyone who dares to disagree with you. Whats that tell you Ian.. Wire, me, and now polarbear all of whom you have agreed with at times, and even shown respect for. Respect until anyone of us dare to challenge your superiority then you become a rude, arrogant, egomaniac who will do or say anything to protect his pride.. A pride which YOU have not earned. You bullshitted your way into it and did it so long you forget the reality.

Reality check Ian..

1. You are no more a physics expert or even competent student than I am a one-armed lion tamer..

2. Being the smartest guy in a room full of idiots makes you the smartest idiot, not a genius.

3. You cannot fake real knowledge. Every time you have to go into depth or detail you will ALWAYS do or say something that a perceptive person who is not easily intimidated by titles (real, implied or imagined) or claims of brilliance you have yet to show, will call you on it. Just like I did, I tested you multiple times and you failed every single one miserably..

4. There is a little white spot on top of chicken shit, and despite its pure white appearance, that part is chicken shit too. That means no matter how much you sling or how good you think your bullshit is, its still limited by the simple fact it is bullshit, and susceptible to the weakness of its originator. Meaning YOU are the weakest link in your fake internet persona. only bullshit requires a salesman, the truth just is and will stand on its own. You try to hard Ian, bullshitters always do.

5. You are internet phony nothing more. You play a part online, and thats the extent of your brilliance. And being weasel enough to talk in circles and dismiss everyone off-hand is not a win by any standard other than your own.

Ian truth is I would bet there are at least 50 people on this board I have talked to that can think rings around you. At least 20 with far superior applicable mathematical knowledge than you, and at least as many who can dance and posture better than you do. you aren't even a good second place in any area i can think of here. Except maybe being a total douchebag... Well no there are better ones than you at that too..

wow! what a rant!

just out of curiosity, what would make you put as much time and effort into discussing the topics at hand as you do in typing out ad hom smears?

 

[wirebender]

I am not supporting GW or AGW except to say that extra CO2 does send some radiation back at the earth. I am not trying to quantify other than to say it is one process occuring in the atmosphere that adds to energy retention by choking off energy loss along one pathway.

Of course you are Ian. To accept backradiation is to accept AGW alarmism because without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism. In order to use the SB law to prove backradiation you must call CO2 a blackbody radiating to the earth and in order to do that you must call the earth a cooler background than CO2.

That is what I mean when I say that you don't even begin to understand the math or the ramifications of your claims. You rely on your instinct and your political leanings to determine whom you should trust.

I am not supporting the specific calculations done for Trenberth's energy budget other than to say the pathways identified are indeed pathways for energy to come in and go out.

Those "pathways" Ian, are EM vectors and there is a very specific set of physics and mathematics that govern operations with them and there is no "pathway" by which CO2 can radiate back to the warmer earth.

my dog in this fight is to prick the balloon of pomposity that wirebender carries around when he shouts 'here is my position, and the math to prove it'. but when push comes to shove he chickens out. he refuses to show the post where is math is, now that he finally provided some math that he copied from someone else to debunk Spencer he refuses to admit a simple mathematical mistake at the very beginning.

On top of all else, now you have become a liar ian. Congratulations. I brought that math from spencers experiment because it effectively proved him wrong and unlike you, I recognized it as proving him wrong. Had I done the calculations myself, the answers would have been the same. That's the thing about math Ian, when you do it right, everyone gets the same answers. As to the math I did earlier regarding EM fields, again, you were in the conversation and had no comment whatsoever on the math other than the sort of hit and run snide remarks that rocks makes about things he doesn't begin to understand. If you are interested, I suppose you could find it but since you are apparently so brilliant it involved the subtraction of EM fields. If you could do the math and understand what it means, you wouldn't be claiming that CO2 radiates an EM field back to the surface of the earth. In fact, you would reject the notion of backradiation entirely. You don't, so you accept backradiation and even tried to defend back convection and back conduction.

oh, and one of your comments intrigued me. if you did shine an airplane or train light at a car headlight and waited for it to come to equilibrium are you sure that no change would occur? I think it would draw less power rather than change emmission values but it could be both.

No light from the more cooler fillament would ever reach the warmer fillament. If it did then the warmer fillament would absorb it and in turn emit more light, some of which the cooler bulb would absorb and re emit which the warmer bulb would then absorb and become brighter and on and on in an endless perpetual motion feedback loop. When you break the laws of thermodynamics Ian, you must be willing to accept and prove the consequences. The consequences in this case is an endless feedback loop that would result in each light eventually emitting an infinite amount of radiation. You know and I know that it would never happen but you, unlike I am not willing to break the laws of thermodynamics just a little in order to try and prove a point.

By the way, does a heated bar in a 0F chamber in any way accurately represent earth in cold space? That was spencer's goal and he made so many mistakes in his thought experiment that calling OK OF would be the least of them. If you redo the calculations at 0F, the cooler bar is still not going to cause the heated bar to get warmer. If pointing out want amounts to be a spelling error on spencer's part gives you a sense of victory, you truely have my deepest pity.

 

[IanC]

an interesting excerpt out of Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establ via Judy Curry's blog

Unfortunately, there is not simply good and bad thinking in the world, both easily recognized as such. There is also bad thinking that appears to be good and therefore wrongfully, sometimes disastrously, used as the basis of very important decisions. Very often this “bad thinking” is defended and “rationalized” in a highly sophisticated fashion. However flawed, it successfully counterfeits good thinking, and otherwise intelligent people are taken in. Such thinking is found in every dimension of human life and in every dimension it does harm; in every dimension it works against human well-being.



Sometimes when people think poorly, they do so out of simple ignorance. They are making mistakes, they don’t know they are making mistakes, but they would willingly correct their mistakes if they were pointed out to them. Often mistakes in thinking are quite humble.

Such thinking may be quite uncritical, but is not pseudo critical thinking. Pseudo critical thinking is a form of intellectual arrogance masked in self-delusion or deception, in which thinking which is deeply flawed is not only presented as a model of excellence of thought, but is also, at the same time, sophisticated enough to take many people in.

Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone.

“Skilled” thinking can easily be used to obfuscate rather than to clarify, to maintain a prejudice rather than to break it down, to aid in the defense of a narrow interest rather than to take into account the public good.

It is extremely important to see that intelligence and intellect can be used for ends other than those of gaining “truth” or “insight” or “knowledge.” One can learn to be cunning rather than clever, smooth rather than clear, convincing rather than rationally persuasive, articulate rather than accurate. One can become judgmental rather than gain in judgment. One can confuse confidence with knowledge at the same time that one mistakes arrogance for self-confidence. In each of these cases a counterfeit of a highly desirable trait is developed in place of that trait.

There are many people who have learned to be skilled in merely appearing to be rational and knowledgeable when, in fact, they are not. Some of these have learned to be smooth, articulate, confident, cunning, and arrogant. They lack rational judgment, but this does not dissuade them from issuing dogmatic judgments and directives. They impress and learn to control others, quite selfishly.

reasoned judgment; neither fact alone nor opinion alone.

pseudoscience can make a good case for itself if allowed to cherrypick what facts it wants presented, and when it can establish the opinion among many that it is reasonable and accepted. but real science must always be open to questions, no matter how awkward or uncomfortable. climate science is rotted through and through with pseudoscience. sometimes its the actual data that is screwed up, more often it is the faulty conclusions drawn up and presented as fact.

 

[IanC]

and just for wirebender and gslack. from the same blog post at Disinformation and pseudo critical thinking | Climate Etc.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
7. Question motives.
8. Invoke authority.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’
12. Enigmas have no solution. paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
20. False evidence.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
25. Vanish.

I think wirebender and gslack are especially talented in performing 4,5,7,9,17 and 18.

but they are best at just not answering the question!

 

[wirebender]

and just for wirebender and gslack. from the same blog post at Disinformation and pseudo critical thinking | Climate Etc.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
7. Question motives.
8. Invoke authority.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’
12. Enigmas have no solution. paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
20. False evidence.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
25. Vanish.

I think wirebender and gslack are especially talented in performing 4,5,7,9,17 and 18.

but they are best at just not answering the question!

Funny Ian, you were the one who was constantly changing the parameters of spencer's experiment or inventing new experiments all together. The very definition of a strawman and 9 describes every bit of your argument up to and including this last post. Your constant altering of the parameters of spencer's experiment and the "new" experiments you injected were also examples of changing the subject. Clearly, you are doing nothing more than attempting to blame your opponent for what you are doing.

Your constant appeals to the board are most telling Ian. If you honestly believed you were right, you would not need to appeal to the board for approval. If you want rocks to come around and give you some more sugar out on the public board, why not just send him an IM and ask him to come around. I am sure that he would jump at the opportunity to praise anyone who was arguing with me. Appealing to the board is one of your most obvious "tells" ian, when you are unsure of yourself, you appeal to the board. It has been obvious through this whole discussion that you are unsure of yourself and equally obvious that you were out of your depth.

 

[wirebender]

an interesting excerpt out of Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establ via Judy Curry's blog

Unfortunately, there is not simply good and bad thinking in the world, both easily recognized as such. There is also bad thinking that appears to be good and therefore wrongfully, sometimes disastrously, used as the basis of very important decisions. Very often this “bad thinking” is defended and “rationalized” in a highly sophisticated fashion. However flawed, it successfully counterfeits good thinking, and otherwise intelligent people are taken in. Such thinking is found in every dimension of human life and in every dimension it does harm; in every dimension it works against human well-being.



Sometimes when people think poorly, they do so out of simple ignorance. They are making mistakes, they don’t know they are making mistakes, but they would willingly correct their mistakes if they were pointed out to them. Often mistakes in thinking are quite humble.

Such thinking may be quite uncritical, but is not pseudo critical thinking. Pseudo critical thinking is a form of intellectual arrogance masked in self-delusion or deception, in which thinking which is deeply flawed is not only presented as a model of excellence of thought, but is also, at the same time, sophisticated enough to take many people in.

Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone.

“Skilled” thinking can easily be used to obfuscate rather than to clarify, to maintain a prejudice rather than to break it down, to aid in the defense of a narrow interest rather than to take into account the public good.

It is extremely important to see that intelligence and intellect can be used for ends other than those of gaining “truth” or “insight” or “knowledge.” One can learn to be cunning rather than clever, smooth rather than clear, convincing rather than rationally persuasive, articulate rather than accurate. One can become judgmental rather than gain in judgment. One can confuse confidence with knowledge at the same time that one mistakes arrogance for self-confidence. In each of these cases a counterfeit of a highly desirable trait is developed in place of that trait.

There are many people who have learned to be skilled in merely appearing to be rational and knowledgeable when, in fact, they are not. Some of these have learned to be smooth, articulate, confident, cunning, and arrogant. They lack rational judgment, but this does not dissuade them from issuing dogmatic judgments and directives. They impress and learn to control others, quite selfishly.

reasoned judgment; neither fact alone nor opinion alone.

pseudoscience can make a good case for itself if allowed to cherrypick what facts it wants presented, and when it can establish the opinion among many that it is reasonable and accepted. but real science must always be open to questions, no matter how awkward or uncomfortable. climate science is rotted through and through with pseudoscience. sometimes its the actual data that is screwed up, more often it is the faulty conclusions drawn up and presented as fact.

Interesting that you don't recognize yourself in the quote you brought here ian.

 

[gslack]

please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.

I never said you claimed it, or even said it.. I said you think it, and that is plain as day. it shows in your behavior and actions all too clearly. You have done nothing, I repeat nothing but talk shit and post googled terms. You pretend you know, but your behavior, manner, lack of knowledge, lack of everything except your pathetic big talk and deliberate attempts to confound everything you cannot disprove with a google search, tell us all the exact opposite..

Come on douchebag, you think are a genius and whats more THE GENIUS.. You show it in the way you respond to anyone who dares to show any mathematical ability or knowledge and express opinions or facts that may differ from your own. You sit back call them wrong and cite googled terms and definitions you do not understand while pretending some greater knowledge and they're so far beneath you..

You do it all the time tool, you did it with wire, then me, and now polarbear who was actually trying to clarify what he felt (by giving you the benefit of the doubt) was a simple misconception of a few of the finer points in spencers experiment. he wasn't rude, dismissive, or belittling you in any way shape or form but you had to be rude to try and cover your lack of knowledge..

What you think your act is new? HAHAHAHAHA! Dude your act is as old as web forums. Gimme a break there are so many like you on these kinds of places, every forum has at least a few of you. You talk shit and pretend to be so much above everyone else usually your types are in some kind scientific field... Coincidence? I think not.. Dr Gregg, was supposed to be a chemist and as it soon turned out he was a fraud. That was just a year ago on this very forum. We have several others trying the same act, all of it bullshit and all of it may differ slightly but still the same act.

You choose science because in your vanity you believe you can out think anyone even though you have no reason to believe it. You obviously haven't had the education for it, you most assuredly don't have the ability to think on more than one level at a time, and as far as I can see you just unjustifiably deem yourself better my right or by intellect.

You have been dismissive of everyone who dares to disagree with you. Whats that tell you Ian.. Wire, me, and now polarbear all of whom you have agreed with at times, and even shown respect for. Respect until anyone of us dare to challenge your superiority then you become a rude, arrogant, egomaniac who will do or say anything to protect his pride.. A pride which YOU have not earned. You bullshitted your way into it and did it so long you forget the reality.

Reality check Ian..

1. You are no more a physics expert or even competent student than I am a one-armed lion tamer..

2. Being the smartest guy in a room full of idiots makes you the smartest idiot, not a genius.

3. You cannot fake real knowledge. Every time you have to go into depth or detail you will ALWAYS do or say something that a perceptive person who is not easily intimidated by titles (real, implied or imagined) or claims of brilliance you have yet to show, will call you on it. Just like I did, I tested you multiple times and you failed every single one miserably..

4. There is a little white spot on top of chicken shit, and despite its pure white appearance, that part is chicken shit too. That means no matter how much you sling or how good you think your bullshit is, its still limited by the simple fact it is bullshit, and susceptible to the weakness of its originator. Meaning YOU are the weakest link in your fake internet persona. only bullshit requires a salesman, the truth just is and will stand on its own. You try to hard Ian, bullshitters always do.

5. You are internet phony nothing more. You play a part online, and thats the extent of your brilliance. And being weasel enough to talk in circles and dismiss everyone off-hand is not a win by any standard other than your own.

Ian truth is I would bet there are at least 50 people on this board I have talked to that can think rings around you. At least 20 with far superior applicable mathematical knowledge than you, and at least as many who can dance and posture better than you do. you aren't even a good second place in any area i can think of here. Except maybe being a total douchebag... Well no there are better ones than you at that too..

wow! what a rant!

just out of curiosity, what would make you put as much time and effort into discussing the topics at hand as you do in typing out ad hom smears?

Ian that was just 15 minutes.. Actual thought occurred as written.. Impressed aren't you... Yeah I get that a lot. See that's how it works when you actually DO SOMETHING besides sit on your ass calling yourself a genius..

Ian everything in that regarded what we have seen from you here in this thread.. Ad hom is vital in this instance because your character and moral fiber are in question due to your actions.. You sir are a liar and fake and that is fact... The words Ad Hominem literally translate to "to the man". So when you start showing character and stop lying, weaseling, waffling, obfuscating and generally acting like a child, you cry about ad hom attacks..

You going address anything I brought up in the last 20 posts honestly? Nope didn't think so. until you do you are bringing your character into this discussion.

Now go cry punk..

 

[gslack]

I find it all too telling that after I put my own thoughts and words on Ian's behavior down to type, he goes and googles up a list in response... Not his own words, not his own thoughts, but someone else's... And he is supposed to be so much more educated...

Lets see here.. Me, not a physicist, or expert and teaching myself as I go. Ian, supposedly educated in physics and from his big talk we would have to assume he must claim to be some kind of expert in the field. I use my own words, write my own thoughts and write on her what i think and why or how I come to my conclusions. While Ian, googles up terms and what other people think..

Hmm...Maybe logic and reason have changed since last I checked but I am pretty sure the first requirement in any scientific study would be to think... Ian must have never had to show his work...Ever..

 

[wirebender]

And then accuses me of "cribbing".