Utopia Talk / Politics / Sam can't do maths continued

Seb rank	Tue Oct 03 22:27:58 2017 I think you will find I said dT/dz must increase because of power balance issues. Which is true. You then argued that atmospheric height could increase instead. I said that the increase wasn't linear. I've since proved - using the equations you suggested, that it is indeed the case. You've demonstrated a clear inability to manipulate equations to prove your point, and also an inability to follow basic derivations or recognise operations performed on them. Do your homework.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 03 22:31:48 2017 Its own thread? Well, spin-off series are sometime successful. Who am I to judge.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 04 00:22:37 2017 "must increase because of power balance issues. Which is true." Back to throwing out 2nd thermo i see. Lol seb. Creating and maintaining an atmospheric temperature gradient against the forces of dissipation=work. Backscatter=not work. Lol sebdumb. "I've since proved" Oh well since you think you proved it i guess we should throw out all of meteorology because seb proved some new physics!!! You should publish a paper with your proof. Youll be totally famous!
Seb rank	Thu Oct 05 23:26:09 2017 Sam: Sam once again believes backscattering is thermodynamically imposible. The work is done by insolation. All backscatter does is reduce the rate at which the system can cool itself. This does not constitute backscatter doing work. Failure to fully analyse the system - this is like the creationists that think increasing complexity of ecosystems and information content of DNA violates thermodynamics. Climatology is consistent on temp gradients increasing. Thankfully, we don't need to throw out meteorology. We just need to throw out incompetents that missunderstand how to apply it.
Seb rank	Thu Oct 05 23:54:46 2017 Sam would die of hypothermia, convinced that to put on a jumper could not warm him because thermodynamics forbids it. How could a jumper warm him up? It's cooler than him, so by definition net heat flow must be from him to the jumper, so putting one on cannot raise his temperature.
Seb rank	Thu Oct 05 23:59:00 2017 Sam: Question: If you stuck a shielded, well calibrated, well colimnated IR sensor facing the sky, and recorded the power spectrum coming down, would you not see the total power rise over time as CO2 concentration increases?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 00:07:46 2017 "The work is done by insolation. All backscatter does is reduce the rate at which the system can cool itself. This does not constitute backscatter doing work. " Correct! You finally got it. Everyone clap for seb!! Congrats on learning second thermo though. Took you a while. "Climatology is consistent on temp gradients increasing. " A dumb wrong lie.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 00:10:42 2017 Downward IR flux will increase seb. Outbound IR flux will increase as well, balanced after equilibrating to the new temp.
jergul rank	Fri Oct 06 00:22:05 2017 What equilibrium are you talking about sammy? Are atmospheric CO2 levels no longer increasing?
jergul rank	Fri Oct 06 00:23:58 2017 Or are you just making the philosophical statement that once something is in equilibrium, then it is in equilibrium?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 00:29:53 2017 Both. The atmosphere reacts pretty rapidly to its radiative and convective. forcing. The non-equilibrated portion is very minor in a warming world, and 0 when we stop using fossil fuels.
jergul rank	Fri Oct 06 00:41:59 2017 "The non-equilibrated portion is very minor in a warming world" Which is why temperature increases are also very minor. Just fractions of a degree C per year on average. "and 0 when we stop using fossil fuels." Lulz. What Accord are you citing that has us stop using fossil fuels?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 00:44:53 2017 "Climatology is consistent on temp gradients increasing. " Its too bad you made your dumb wrong lie to a guy thats litterally sitting in front a machine with the entire history of the worlds weather balloons on it. Took me about 5 minutes to calculate the average low level temperature and the average upper level height at a given station. For example at the very old station at chatham i calculate a dT/dt of about 1 degree C, and a dz/dt of the 250mb millibar level to be about 40m. About 0.34% and 0.38% of their respective means. Rofl pwnt.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 00:48:14 2017 "Which is why temperature increases are also very minor. Just fractions of a degree C per year on average. " Correct. "What Accord are you citing that has us stop using fossil fuels?" None of course. Simply an assumption that a technological society rapidly moves on to better technology.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 06 09:30:22 2017 Sam: "Downward IR flux will increase seb. Outbound IR flux will increase as well, balanced after equilibrating to the new temp." This is precisely and exactly what I've said all along, which you have continually said is impossible.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 06 09:32:03 2017 Not sure how weather balloons are relevant for measuring predicted changes that are not predicted to manifest yet. Are they made of crystal?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 15:05:23 2017 "This is precisely and exactly what I've said all along" No. You are claiming outbound latent heat and or sensible flux will increase. Confused as always seb. "sure how weather balloons " They are useful for showing the ongoing linear nature of the change, matching the thickness equation, which you deny. Most importantantly, they blatantly refute your dumbass climatology statement.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 06 21:52:00 2017 No Sam, that's your inability to read. I said upward flux would need to be larger to compensate for backscatter so as to give the same outbound flux as before. I repeatedly said that in equilibrium, net power flow must be zero. It's there in black and white. You weren't paying attention. F
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 22:01:26 2017 False. You said that outbound flux had to increase beyond equilibrium, because of your magic backscatter defying the laws of thermo. Furthermore you are failing to specify IR verse weather energy flux. I am glad you are finally beginning to understand proper physics though, and are beginning to rectify some of your previous errors.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 06 22:03:30 2017 Maybe your mind just needed a few weeks to relearn physics 101 after you hurt it so bad with fuzzy studying and social justice whining for so long.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 06 23:56:35 2017 "Sun Sep 10 17:06:25 Sam: From a power flow it does! Your argument was that as insolation hasn't increased, total powerflow out must remain the same, so dT/dz must be same. Model the atm as a series of elements_i But from an elements point of view, net power flow_i = power_up_i - power_down_i - back_scatter_i If net power flow is zero at equilibrium (i.e. 1360w in from the sun, so at eqm 1360 must go out) then as back_scatter increases due CO2 increase, then power_up must rise. That requires a rise in temp differences between each element. If everything gets warmer by the same amount the upward power flow would be the same as before the increase in back scatter leading to net power flow down (i.e. not equilibrium)." Clear as day Sam.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 06 23:57:47 2017 Like I said at the time, I think you got yourself confused. You are merely now confirming it.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 00:08:44 2017 Backscatter doesn't violate the laws of physics or thermodynamics. I've explained this before. The fact you believe that backscatter would have to do work in order for the temperature to rise merely indicates your lack of God physical intuition. Increased backscatter isn't a driver. What's physically happening is that every second, about 1.4kj of energy per square meter is streaming into the planet, and in eqm the energy leaving is the same. But the "temperature" of the radiation leaving is lower. That's the increase in entropy. Increasing backscatter doesn't do work rising temperatures, the direct solar radiation does. I even explained the key insight in statistical mechanics that lets you resolve this false paradox - that photons are identical - it's essentially the same thing as the mixing problem. Seriously, this is is a classic first year undergraduate thermo problem to test you understand thermo rather than merely being able to apply it.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 00:13:55 2017 Sam, you know what you're argument is exactly like? It's like KreeL and his crap that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and so only thermite could explain molten metal in the world trade centre ruins. He also argued thermodynamics prohibits an oven getting hotter than the flame temp of the fuel inside it.
jergul rank	Sat Oct 07 00:56:05 2017 Seb The probem may rest with back_scatter_i. The formula you are presenting is a bit odd.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Oct 07 01:22:16 2017 "total powerflow out must remain the same" Which is true for what i actually said, net power flow. "That requires a rise in temp differences between each element" No. The backscatter is balanced by the increased outgoing IR from higher element temp in the new equilibrium. IR can bounce around between layers all it wants without doing effective work itself. Also your solar flux is way off. 200w is more in line with the average earth surface. ~1350 is the orbital direct normal value, which is far removed from average planet surface. "Increasing backscatter doesn't do work rising temperatures, the direct solar radiation does. " Correct. And now you should try to think through the next step... only the inbound solar can ever do work. Common seb. Join the logical side young padawan. Bow before me, admit your error, and you shall have peace.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 01:35:23 2017 Sam: What part of total confuses you? "increased outgoing IR from higher element temp in the new equilibrium." No, because if the temp difference between the two elements are the same, then when you do the full spectrum analysis, that doesn't lead to the right balance. Remember, backscatter is the same as forward transmitted radiation, just emitted in the wrong direction. "IR can bounce around between layers all it wants without doing effective work itself." No shit Sherlock. I Explained that to you three threads ago. "~1350 is the orbital direct normal value, which is far removed from average planet surface." This figure is the relevant one for thermodynamically analysing the system. If you use other values, you end up black boxing part of the system and then wondering - as you have done - where the work is coming from. "Correct" I know Sam, you are the one claiming that increased backscatter can only increase temperature if it does work. Think through this: If I take a shiny, polished ball of metal and hang it in orbit round the sun until it comes into thermal equilibrium, and then I scuff its surface until it's matt, what happens to the temperature of the ball, and what did the work to change it?
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 01:36:42 2017 Or actually, let's just say I paint it black.
jergul rank	Sat Oct 07 01:43:43 2017 Well, at least this is getting dumbed down to high-school physics once the fancy words are dispensed with. Increased in planetary heat = heat in - heat out. Where increased CO2 decreases heat out. It aint exactly rocket science.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 12:11:25 2017 Jergul: Baby steps. He's trapped in the mixing paradox and has convinced himself that it's thermodynamically impossible for backscatter to increase temperature of an object because he thinks that means the backscatter is doing work. Basically, we need to teach him how ovens work. Once he's figured that out, we can make progress.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Oct 07 17:56:26 2017 "because if the temp difference between the two elements are the same, then when you do the full spectrum analysis, that doesn't lead to the right balance." of course it does. Try it. "I Explained that to you three threads ago. " Incorrect. You keep trying to magically make it do work. Because you are dumb. "This figure is the relevant one" ROFL dumb. Very dumb. Can you stop being dumb? You don't even know which flux value to use. The planets surface is not a flat plate that sits tangent to solar radiation with no atmosphere. Dumb seb. Very dumb. "you are the one claiming that increased backscatter can only increase temperature if it does work" No sebdumb. Learn to read. What I actually said is "Something can only maintain gradients against dissipation if it does work". Again you are confusing gradients, and absolute values. Because you are clearly dumb. Mistake after mistake after mistake. You keep going back and forth between temeperature gradient and temperature itself, confusing yourself and maintaining a mask of stupidity on all your subsequent thoughts. Also I notice you ran away from the climatology stats. I wonder why? Also 1350 for absorbed bottom of atmosphere flux. What a retard.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Oct 07 18:03:15 2017 So far in the course of this discussion seb has... 1) Forgotten second thermo 2) Forgotten the ideal gas law 3) After the existence of the ideal gas law was pointed out, claimed nonlinearity 4) forgot how to convert natural logs and e^ 5) confused a value with the rate of change of that value 6) Thought adiabatic lapse rates were strongly pressure dependent 7) Ignored the thickness equation 8) used a very wrong value for bottom of atmosphere flux. 9) lied about climate stats Yikes. This is perhaps your most embarassing performance ever.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 21:13:27 2017 Sam: "The planets surface is not a flat plate that sits tangent to solar radiation with no atmosphere" The atmosphere is part of the system, black boxing it leads to part of your false paradox. Tangent to solar radiation? I think you mean normal. "Something can only maintain gradients against dissipation if it does work" I'm not sure what you are trying to say any more because that sentence has no technical meaning. A gradient against dissipation? Does the refractory lining of a blast furnace do work in order to increase the temperature gradient been the core and the outer skin compared to what it would be without it? "Also 1350 for absorbed bottom of atmosphere flux" We,no. You wanted to know where the work comes from. Well, that's it. Obviously energy scattered and absorbed in the atmosphere needs to be accounted for. Or does it magically vanish from the power balance?
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 21:14:16 2017 So like I said, do you maintain that painting an object black does work on it?
Seb rank	Sat Oct 07 21:19:48 2017 To understand why the 1400 figure is the right one to use, once you start using surface averaged and neglecting the atmosphere, you lose the understanding of where the entropy increase in the system is. This is why you think backscatter must be doing work, when actually all it does is effectively extract more work from the incident sunlight. Akin to changing albedo.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Oct 07 22:19:09 2017 "To understand why the 1400 figure is the right one to use" You are neglecting clouds, atmospheric reflection and absorption, surface reflection, and best of all... the day, night and latitude. So dumb. "A gradient against dissipation? " Yes dumbseb. Without the energy constantly added by the sun, mainly to earths surface, there would be no temperature gradient, no weather.
Seb rank	Sun Oct 08 12:52:14 2017 Sam: No I'm not. By taking only the surface and ignoring the rest, you get an incomplete view. As you are now seeking to argue backscatter is thermodynamically impossible, you need to consider the power spectrum going into the atmosphere and the power spectrum going out. Otherwise you end up missing crucial insights into where the entropy increases occurrs. For example, even in your narrow view that temp gradients are impossible to generate she backscatter, your assessment is based purely by a mental model that considers the surface as an isotherm and the only incident radiation being that emitted by a lower temperature source. What you've failed to consider is the incident radiation from the sun. Thermodynamically speaking, the important insight is photons of a given energy are indistinguishable particles. So, thermodynamically a photon absorbed by the surface is simply the same as one that hasn't been emitted. When you tot up all the states and do the maths, what you find is that all the increased backscatter means is the equivalent of changing the emissivity of the surface. Hence my thought experiment you ignored. So what drives the temperature rises and gradients? The incident radiation from the sun. This is perfectly acceptable thermodynamically. "Without the energy constantly added by the sun" Yet your argument was that backscatter must be doing work, not the solar radiation. I was the one arguing that the sun did the work. Once again, flip flop. The whole structure of this conversation has been me correcting you, you posting some word salad, then claiming that word salad is consistent with things I explained to you (sometimes entire threads ago) and acting as though it's insight.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Oct 08 19:34:03 2017 "By taking only the surface and ignoring the rest" Sebdumb, you are the one ignoring the rest Planets are round, idiot, and here you are using a flat plate value. You litetally can get nothing right. You are neglecting what is reflected on top of that. Lol dumb You are learning that backscatter does no work though. Granted it took you a month, and you are trying to weasel your way out of it in a pathetic attempt to dishonestly save face, but deep down you know you were wrong. You do admit, finally, that backscatter does not do work, do its a step in the right direction. Also i see you still not responding to climatology. Conceding that one? Be a man and admit it, at least.
Seb rank	Sun Oct 08 23:48:10 2017 Sam: I'm not "learning" backscatter does no work. You are the only one that thinks it needs to do work in order for it to have a physical impact on temperature gradients. The straw man attempts fool nobody Sam. This borders on delusional.
Seb rank	Sun Oct 08 23:48:46 2017 I'm not bothering to respond to you as you've not responded to any of my points.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 09 03:41:15 2017 "I'm not "learning" backscatter does no work." Well you spent about 300 posts trying to convince me that backscatter could do work. Remember all that quantum bullshit you came up with, trying to claim energy could flow backwards? Lol.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 09 03:45:11 2017 So you have learned that backscatter does no work. So all the work done on the atmosphere comes from the sun. All the weather, created by the sun. Which was my entire fucking point that you have been arguing against. Concede.
Seb rank	Mon Oct 09 09:27:36 2017 Sam: No. I spent 300 posts explaining to you that the question of whether backscatter can do work was a red herring as the effect it has does not require it to do work; and your assumption that it must do in order for it to have the effect I outlined is simply wrong and stems from your failure to consider the whole system. Does the effect of increasing backscatter increase temperature gradients? Yes. Is that thermodynamically impossible? No. Does it require, as you assert, that work be done by the backscatter on the lower layers? No. So why does the temperature rise then? What provides the work to raise the temperature? Insolation. But, but, how? Simple Sam, the effect of backscatter is to decrease emmisivity, as such the effect is to increase the amount of work extracted from insolation. If you turned off the sun, and increased CO2, you would merely slow down temperature decline, not increase temperature. Therefore, it is simply false to say - as you did - that backscatter must do work in order for increased backscatter to result in higher temperature gradients. I have boy leaned that backscatter does no work. You have learned that backscatter doesn't need to do work in order for it to give rise to temperature gradients. Because the earth isn't in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun and space, it doesn't constitute a closed system, so naive approaches to thermodynamics that fail to consider this lead to faulty analysis.
Seb rank	Mon Oct 09 09:50:41 2017 *I have not. "Wed Sep 13 09:07:17 Seb, backscatter effectively delays outgoing IR. It does not effectively create more surface energy to create more storms. Useful power does not flow from colder upper level air back to the warmer surface. That is a fundamental thermo error you are making." For reference, this above was your statement. If this statement of yours were true, and you started off with a pure nitrogen atmosphere, and added CO2, according to this statement surface temperatures would not rise. Essentially you are saying that the greenhouse effect contradicts thermodynamics. It's simply not true.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 09 18:36:09 2017 "is to increase the amount of work extracted from insolation. " Wait what? How does an outgoing change have any impact at all on inbound absorption? How retarded are you? "Essentially you are saying that the greenhouse effect contradicts thermodynamics. " No dumbseb, i am not saying that at all. You appear to be confusing greenhouse effect with something else. What that else is i cannot say, as you have basically confused and mistaken everything. "you would merely slow down temperature decline, not increase temperature. " Indeed. Yet you are the one trying to increase surface available energy with this effect that is a delaying mechanism only. It does not create more energy... except in your mind when applied to hurricanes. You are starting to learn that backscatter does no work, yet you have not made the next step in your learning (hurricanes=work).
Seb rank	Mon Oct 09 21:46:11 2017 Sam: I already explained this to you. Because photons are indistinguishable particles, thermodynamically there's no difference between a photon backscattered and reabsorbed is no different from one not emitted. If you understand stat mech and how thermo arises from it, it's no biggie. Consider putting a giant, 100% reflectiveacross all wavelengths mirror on the night side of the planet would have impact. It wouldn't mean there was a heat flow from the mirror to the planet. It would mean the mirror/ planet system was better at extracting work from the near parallel rays from the sun than just the planet on it's own. By trying to consider the sun, space, the surface and atmosphere independently but not completely, you miss key insights. And yes, the meaning of what you wrote suggests that adding cO2 to the atmosphere cannot increase the temperature because that would mean the backscatter was somehow doing work.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 09 23:07:14 2017 No dumbseb. The backscatter is not doing work. Its simply allowing the system to cool slightly slower. You are confused by what work is, i think. A hurricane is work being done. That work has all come from the sun, a value that is unchanged. "Because photons " Because learn what scale we are working in, please. "It would mean the mirror/ planet system was better at extracting work from the near parallel rays from the sun than just the planet on it's own." No. Not at all. A massive and fundamental fail. The solar radiation and albedo of the solar side would be unchanged, neglecting ice changes. The energy recieved/work done is nearly the same. Actually a little lower, since the outbound is at higher T.
Seb rank	Mon Oct 09 23:29:26 2017 Sam: I know, that's what I've been saying all along sam. You were the one that claimed: "Useful power does not flow from colder upper level air back to the warmer surface." Increased backscatter can raise temperatures without transferring useful power from upper level air to the lower. Simply by acting to reduce emission it can cause the same insolation to lead to a higher syrface temperature. Your entire argument is sterile. The fact backscatter does no work does not mean increasing atmospheric backscatter cannot raise temps (which requires work to be done) or gradients as you asserted; because alongside the backscatter there is also the insolation. Why is this so hard for you to understand Sam? "The solar radiation and albedo of the solar side would be unchanged" Irrelevant. Do you not agree that the planet would warm? Does not raising the temperature of the planet require work? Does not maintaining the planet at a higher temperature wrt space - a greater disequilibrium - require more work being done on the surface than before? The mirror itself isn't doing work. The only source of work is the sunlight, which hasn't changed. The combined mirror/planet system is better at extracting work from the same amount of sunlight than the planet alone. That's a direct analogue for the effect of increasing co2 concentration. Arguing backscattered radiation does no work is looking for the wrong mechanism in the wrong place.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 00:31:36 2017 "Increased backscatter can raise temperatures" But not temperature gradients. Here you are again confusing the two. "Do you not agree that the planet would warm? Does not raising the temperature of the planet require work?" Yes, but not from backscatter. From the sun. You are learning that the active source of all weather is the suns absorbed radiation, and nothing else. Continue down this path, and you will find truth, young padawan. "Does not maintaining the planet at a higher temperature wrt space - a greater disequilibrium - require more work being done on the surface than before? " No. The surface, and each element, is cooling at the same rate, once the new equilibrium is reached. The blanket is thicker. The heat source is no stronger. "backscattered radiation does no work is looking for" It is specifically refuting your previous statement that backscatter would effectively do work.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 10 01:30:21 2017 Sam: "But not temperature gradients" There is no thermodynamic reason this should be the case at all. As repeatedly pointed out, and as you have belatedly come to accept, as the sun, planet, space system isn't in thermal equilibrium and being perpetually driven, changes to the heat flow can simply result in more work being extracted from the incident sunlight. "Yes, but not from backscatter. From the sun. " Semantics. The causal reason for the system extracting more work from the sun is because of the increased backscatter (same as reduced emmisivity). So increasing backscatter can result in increased temperatures and temperature gradients, because as you have learned from me, work to do so is provided from incident sunlight. Therefore, there is no thermodynamic argument against rising co2 leading to increased temperature gradients. "The surface, and each element, is cooling at the same rate, once the new equilibrium is reached." Think about that for a second. A hotter body is radiating the same amount as the previously colder body did. Hotter bodies are supposed to radiate more, all things being equal. The fact it is not is due to greater inefficiency in radiation aka more extraction of work from the incident radiation. Thermodynamically speaking, the planet is now further from thermal equilibrium with space than before. That requires more work to be being done on the planet to sustain that imbalance. Space hasn't got colder or warmer. Heat flow from the sun hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is backscatter. This doesn't mean backscatter is doing work on the surface, but it does mean there's no violation of thermodynamics from increased backscatter leading to increased temperatures or temperature gradients. "It is specifically refuting your previous statement that backscatter would effectively do work." I have never claimed backscatter does work. You on the other hand original claimed that in order to increase temperatures or needed to do work, which it thermodynamically can't, meaning increased temperature gradients must violate thermodynamics. A claim you just repeated. Now I've demonstrated that's not the case, you've created some nonsense that it would be thermodynamically impossible for it to increase gradients, which is also untrue. (Consider the thought experiment, add a semi transparent material surrounding the black body. Does the temperature gradient in that change when you add the mirror? Yup. How? Work extracted from sunli high t again). The argument you previously made regarding expansion was at least plausible, if wrong. This line of argument is just plain wrong.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 01:53:22 2017 "more work being extracted from the incident sunlight. " Rofl what kind of flat earth physics is this. The sunlight does a certain amount of work. The atmosphere releases that at a certain rate. But the sun will not change, nor will our albedo change much. The result is that you are completely wrong again. You have no concept of what actually does what. "There is no thermodynamic reason this should be the case " You need to add a few gas physics laws to make the complete case, but this is beyond you. "I have never claimed" That kind of dishonesty is why everyone makes fun of you. You specifically stated many times that backscatter could increase the available energy of the surface, its ability to do work. Man up and admit your mistake. "was at least plausible, if wrong. " The science is wrong!!!!! The ideal gas law is FAKE!!! -seb the flat earther "meaning increased temperature gradients must violate thermodynamics" Increased gradients=increased net energy flow=work. You are trying to magically do more work while the sun stays constant. Everything you say is not only wrong, but childishly wrong. Its like talking to a 3rd grader that thinks they can build a perpetual motion machine. "extracting more work from the sun " Here we go again. Child magic. Seb thinks the planet magically grabs more solar energy. 1) Forgotten second thermo 2) Forgotten the ideal gas law 3) After the existence of the ideal gas law was pointed out, claimed nonlinearity 4) forgot how to convert natural logs and e^ 5) confused a value with the rate of change of that value 6) Thought adiabatic lapse rates were strongly pressure dependent 7) Ignored the thickness equation 8) used a very wrong value for bottom of atmosphere flux. 9) lied about climate stats 10) thinks a planet can randomly choose to "do more work" with its sunlight.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 01:55:55 2017 Did the planet eat too many celestial hot dogs? Is earth getting fatter? Is that how our planet is intercepting more solar energy?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 02:08:00 2017 If you didnt think backscatter could do work, why did you spend so much time focusing on how, at the subatomic level, energy could flow against the gradient?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 02:08:45 2017 Why did you litterally just mention photons doing that 2 posts ago? Bwahahahahahalol
Cherub Cow rank	Tue Oct 10 02:57:47 2017 This has been an entertaining thread series, Sam. I've only been reading your posts, but it looks like someone [who shall not be named] has been trying&failing to be an expert in another person's field (again).
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 04:48:22 2017 Sammy Still waiting on you to do some, I dunno, actual math. CC Physics is actually more that other person's field than it is Sammy's. It boils down to pretty basic stuff. Served with a delicious bottomless bowl of word salad.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 05:16:57 2017 Ahhh jergul, ask for specific, logical math, and you shall recieve it.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 05:18:50 2017 Cc, i aim to please.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 05:54:29 2017 A mathematical expression of radiative forcing would be a nice departure point.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 10 10:09:55 2017 Sam: "The sunlight does a certain amount of work." If that's true, where did the additional work cone to raise surface temperatures? If the surface temp rises, work must have been done. The only place it can come from is the sunlight. And clearly different amounts of work are being done. "You need to add a few gas physics laws to make the complete case" So you admit that your argument that thermodynamics forbids this was wrong! "You specifically stated many times that backscatter could increase the available energy of the surface" You still don't get the distinction between backscatter doing work, and increased backscatter being a change in emissivity of the earth-atmosphere system allowing greater extraction of work from sunlight. This is not at all magical. Consider a sheet of glass in orbit around the sun in power balance. Now increase its opacity. Temperature rises. More work extracted from sunlight. No magic, just physics. Sufficiently advanced science can seem like magic to those that don't understand it though. Describing the change in effective emmisivity as "random choice" is funny. I thought everyone was very clear that the mechanism is increased concentration of co2. But fine, if that's true, explain what would happen if we added a dense co2 atmosphere to the moon. Would the surface temp rise? If it did, where would the work cone from to raise its temperature? Anyway, at no point did I say backscatter would do work. I've always been clear that to understand where the work comes from one must look at the whole system. Meanwhile you have consistently argued that because work cannot be done by backscattered radiation that means temp gradients cannot rise. This is not true as it ignores the direct sunlight. Further, if that argument held then increased backscatter couldn't result in higher temperatures as work most be done to raise the surface temp. And if you accept that increased backscatter can lead to that outcome, then you can also have increased temp gradients. The ideal gas law is right, the fact you can't actually apply it correctly just means you are fake, not the law itself
Seb rank	Tue Oct 10 10:11:59 2017 Sam: Photons aren't doing work in that context. I don't know why you think I am saying the opposite of what I said. Perhaps because you don't understand stat mech.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 10 10:14:54 2017 CC: One can lead a horse to water...
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 16:24:22 2017 Seb, lets get back to the very basics, as you are very very confused. 200w/m2 is absorbed by a surface. If the surface T is not changing significantly, what must the net power leaving that surface be?
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 16:31:57 2017 Sammy Maths. What is the formula for radiative forcing? To answer your question to Seb: Not significantly less than 200w/m2 would leave the surface. Stop with the wordsalad. Use mathematical formula to express what you are trying to say.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 16:35:31 2017 Jergul, planks law integrated over all height and all wavelengths. Its scary(emissivity is highly nonlinear with wavelength) in its purest form, even for a computer. Lots of approximations. But the result after good approximations is fairly tame. With a bit of programming skill in a fast language (do not do this in an excel chart or a shell script or matlab or the other retard languages), even you might be able to do this :)
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 16:36:28 2017 That is word salad. What is the formula for radiative forcing?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 16:36:57 2017 "Not significantly less than 200w/m2 would leave the surface. " Not significantly more net power either. You forgot half.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 16:43:49 2017 "What is the formula for radiative forcing?" In the most simplified manner, power radiated per unit area is emissivity times the 4th power of T times a constant. The power absorbed is much simpler, incident radiation times emissivity.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 17:28:22 2017 Sammy This is like pulling teeth. You are not convincing me that you like to play around with formulas much. Delta F = Radiative forcing. The formula: Delta F = Delta T[s]/Lima. Now, what is the approximated Delta F[CO2] for CO2? Point of order. Reference value C[0] equals preindustrial CO2 levels as the formula is logarithmic (it matters when you define the reference value. Defining it as last year gives a higher yearly change than defining it in 1750).
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 18:09:12 2017 Radiative forcing is the result of that above messy integration. If you want a specific value, its 0.5 to 1 watt or so per meter squared, increase due to co2 and h2o increase over pre industrial levels. Compare to the 100w/m2 or so that is normal weather. And the settling of earths atmosphere to its new equilibrium means the actual weather impact is less than the absolute forcing. Global warming warming is at least 2 orders of magnitude less than normal weather energy flow rates.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 18:49:04 2017 Sammy Needless complication is an appeal to authority fallacy. Hence my requesting numerous times that we use actual equations. The equation you are inferring we use gives an increase of 0.5-1 joules per meter per second. The time element clearly shows there is no equilibrium state, but rather a persistent increase. We know it is driven by a factor appromimately expressed as a logarithmic function. Otherwise I would have been tempted to calculate exactly when a continual process would give average temperatures hot enough to boil water (it would take 100ds, not 1000nds of years as a linear equation).
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 18:49:26 2017 per meter squared*
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 18:50:21 2017 per m2*
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 19:02:40 2017 "The time element clearly shows there is no equilibrium state" When you combine with temperature and mass, and integrate over time, it does settle into equilibrium. Pretty quickly too. The atmosphere is mostly in equilibrium already to the changes we give it. Also, there are many versions of these equations with various degrees of approximation. Some valid, some not.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 19:18:59 2017 Sammy Word salad. Express as a function please. You seem to be suggesting that mathematical equilibrium can occur without C[0] = C. Which is obviously wrong, but I need to look at the function to see what you are doing wrong.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 20:00:54 2017 "Express as a function please. " There is no easy equation for the full integration. So one will brute force it with a computer. The full code can be found in any number of 1d column models. RRTM and RRTMG are 2 common ones in wx models, but i think these aholes wrote only in fortran. Also the equilibrium I refer to is radiative convective balance, which all planetary atmospheres settle into based on their composition and orbital parameters. Now we keep tweaking our atmosphere, so our equilibrium goalposts are moving ever so slowly to higher temperatures, but most of that work goes pretty quickly. Years is the timescale in question. Days for dry deserts. Perhaps a few decades for deep oceans.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 20:21:41 2017 The full equation is superfluous. Needless complication being an appeal to authority fallacy. "radiative convective balance, which all planetary atmospheres settle into based on their composition and orbital parameters" The composition assumes C[0] = C. We have identified what you are doing wrong. "Now we keep tweaking our atmosphere, so our equilibrium goalposts are moving ever so slowly to higher temperatures" This is in a sense valid. You are modelling a dynamic system as if it where a series of static systems. The problem here rests in finding equilibrium where none in fact exist. Bringing us back to the inevitable conclusion: Delta F = 0.5-1 joule per M2 per second with absolutely no end in sight. This is not exactly rocket science.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 10 20:34:22 2017 Sam: Stop dodging the question. I've laid out some very specific thought experiments and questions for you do answer. Stat there.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 21:03:42 2017 Seb you need to take a step(or 10) back and start rebuilding your fundamentals. You keep trying to go in circles, either ignorant of basic law, or justifying a current mistakes with previous mistakes. Round, and round mistake after mistake. So back to basics. 200w is the net in at the surface. Now if T is approximately stable, 200w is the net out. Got that? Jergul, much of that 0.5 to 1w is already accounted for by the previous planetary adjustments. Even if it was not, thats an energy level 2 orders of magnitude less than normal weather. Do you see how utterly trivial that global warming signal is to weather?
jergul rank	Tue Oct 10 22:42:04 2017 Sammy It sounds like you have accepted that the planet is heating continually at a rate of 0.5-1 joules per M2 per second. The relevance to hurricanes depends on how important you think threshold criteria for hurricane creation and sustainment are. I am thinking here of 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of 60 m. Even a 2 degree increase in ocean temperatures considerably increase the hurricane template in both time and in space. Again, it is not exactly rocket science.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 10 23:50:50 2017 Hurricanes form due to a temperature gradient, not just surface temp itself. You are forgetting temp aloft. Cold temperatures up high are just as important as warm temperatures down low in fueling a hurricane. That is why there is no statistically significant change in hurricane strength. The gradients are not changing much.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 00:29:34 2017 That thesis argues that we should not expect a linear increase, but does not suggest there is no increase. One precondition (water temp) occurs more often. Another precondition (sufficient delta T) occurs as often. The condition will occur more often. Venn diagramme it if you cannot see it intuitively.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 01:02:45 2017 Sufficient delta T is the only thermodynamic consideration. Warm water plays into that, but exhaust level cold T is just as important. Surface water is warming but upper level temps are also warming, at approximately the same rate. The net result is no significant change. Boring. I WANT hurricanes to increase. That would be fun. Alas, it is not to be.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 01:17:49 2017 I see you cannot see this intuitively. Hurricanes have increased for most if not all your life (I don't know if you were born before 1980). You are just attributing all the increases to interdecennial sinus, and not in part to climate change. Again, IF delta T is a precondition that occurs as often AND water temp is a precondition that occurs more often, THEN the condition will occur more often, but less often than if it had been a pure function of f(water temp). Draw it out sammy. The VENN diagramme is your friend. The conclusion will make you happy (you would of course have been more happy still if you had figured that out on your own).
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 01:25:02 2017 A venn diagramme is two circles with a partial overlap. I am suggesting that if one of the circle becomes bigger, then the overlap will become larger if the relative distance between the centres of the two circles remain the same. The increased overlap represents more hurricanes. Yay.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 01:25:52 2017 At least two circles. But what the fuck.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 01:36:46 2017 Or x preconditions. x circles with a common overlap. x-1 circles remain the same size. 1 circle increases in size. The relative distance between the centre of all circles remains the same. Does the overlap increase? Yes! More hurricanes. Yay. You should actually take this and monetize it. I owe some Finnish poster a bottle of whiskey. Give it to him from me.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 02:55:16 2017 You do realize water temp is part of the temperature gradient, right?
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 03:01:38 2017 You are doing your little venn diagram wrong. If you want increased surface T to be on one side... you want a loss of upper cold air on the other. One increases in frequency, one decreases in frequency, in your conceptual model.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 12:14:32 2017 You seem to be claiming it is not delta T between upper air and the ocean surface, but rather the absolute temperature of upper layer air that is a precondition for hurricane formation. That seems a rather outlandish statement. Delta T remains the same. Valid Delta T a precondition for hurricane formation and sustainment. Water temperature above 26 C to a depth of 60 m more often and over a greater geological area. This is a precondition for hurricane formation. Conclusion: Hurricanes will form more often and gain strength through positive feedback loops that last longer more often. This can be be seen on a VENN diagramme, if not outright intuitively. This aint exactly rocket science.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 16:15:05 2017 "Delta T remains the same. " Well its dT/dz that stays the same but close enough. At least you have learned that bit. Thats a step above seb! "Water temperature above 26 C to a depth of 60 m more often and over a greater geological area. This is a precondition for hurricane formation. " Delta T is the only thermodynamic condition that matters. You can either consider surface T AND upper T, or delta. Not both. You cant choose delta T and surface T and leave out upper T. That is silly and wrong. Your skipping half the equation.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 16:49:06 2017 Sammy If delta T had been the only condition that mattered, then hurricane formation and sustainment would be independent of surface temperature. Hurricane formation and sustainment is dependent on surface temperature (oceans 26 C + to a depth of 60 m). Giving us two preconditions that only give a condition when both exist. Bringing us back to the VENN diagramme, if not intuitively obvious. You are ironically arguing that only surface temperatures matter for as long as we assume a constant lapse rate. Which is surely not what you are trying to do.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 18:06:52 2017 "If delta T had been the only condition that mattered, then hurricane formation and sustainment would be independent of surface temperature. " Lol no. You do realize that surface T is part of delta T. Rofl.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 18:37:31 2017 Sammy You are wiggling in word salad. Assuming constant lapse rate, then delta T is a fixed number of degrees C that is independent of surface temperature. The ocean could be -1 C or 28 C and it would have no impact of hurricane generation. For delta T is the same in both cases (x degrees C colder than the surface temperature). You are very very wrong. You are infact arguing that surface temperature is the only factor that matters given that the lapse rate is constant. Which is surely not what you are trying to do. This is actually getting pretty scary. You are supposed to be able to see stuff like this.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 19:36:54 2017 I am not supposed to be able to see the delusions of a retired fisherman. I am a atmospheric scientist, not a psychiatrist. The bottom line is you keep neglecting upper level cold temperatures, and instead are fixated on only surface warm temperatures.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 21:53:38 2017 Bottom line is that assuming constant lapse rate, upper level cold temperatures are not ignored as they are part of delta T just as surface temperatures are also part of delta T. Maybe you should look into a degree in fuzzy studies. You seem to have the maths for it.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 22:11:30 2017 Delta T = (dt/dx)*s[km], where s = distance from surface to altitude of "upper level cold temperatures" The assumption of constant lapse rate is now expressed mathematically. The main problem with your perspective is that only surface temperature is relevant, as upper air temperature is simply a function of distance s to the altitude of upper air. This is surely not what you meant to say. Hence two independent preconditions. If we are looking at a direct dependency, then hurricane formation and strength would be a direct linear function of surface temperature. Which neither of us is claiming. So you should stop saying that.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 11 22:48:38 2017 "upper level cold temperatures are not ignored as they are part of delta T just as surface temperatures are also part of delta T. " Correct. You have learned that they both count, and for the same amount. Now you should see how an equal change to both cancels in terms of driving temp gradient.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 11 23:12:00 2017 I have always known they are both part of delta T sammy. Because maths. There is always an equal change in both. This is given: Delta T = (dt/dx)*s[km] Which means you are expressing yourself poorly as we actually both agree that delta T is a precondition for hurricane formation. Perhaps express yourself using maths. What could possibly go wrong? This however does matter: C[water] = 4185.5 J/(kg⋅K) A common minimum threshold for hurricane creation is 26 degrees C to a depth of 60 m over an area of minimum 200 km2. This being the actual energy source for the work a hurricane performs.
Seb rank	Wed Oct 11 23:51:11 2017 Sam: I've taken it right back to fundamentals with those thought experiments I posed. It is you that do not have a firm grasp of the fundamentals. Answer the questions I posed and prove otherwise. I'm not going to answer yours given you haven't had the courtesy to address mine and explain why you think they are wrong.
Seb rank	Wed Oct 11 23:56:15 2017 "if T is approximately stable, 200w is the net out." Is it now? I don't think you understand what the word Net means. 200W out net of what? The net is ... well ... think about it :) 200w emitted. 200 watts absorbed. Emitted net of absorption would be? Or, are you trying to say that 200w is emitted net of backscatter? If so, I'm not sure why you think that would be relevatory given I've referenced that repeatedly. You are very sloppy and imprecise with your language, which robs what you say of meaning. You would have not got very far in any of the tutorial groups I ran.
	show deleted posts