Conversation with a Slayer of The Sky Dragon

First, perhaps the most relevant post

I had suggested surrounding a internally heated body with a froven - a fridge/oven giving active heating and cooling to a set temperature.
Also body and inner surface of froven are black bodies with same albedo

 The post with clarification added!:

thefordprefect says: 2013/04/04 at 11:52 AM

[JP:... If the body has a heat source then it will stay at the temperature it was at without the oven heating it from a higher temperature. If the oven is cooler than the body than it can not heat the body. Photon quanta from a cooler source do not warm up a warmer source, even if they might exist. It is not a "sudden" cessation of effect when the oven becomes cooler than the body - it is a smooth transition in the direction of q, of heating.]

This cannot be correct.

If the temperature of the froven is warmer than the body you suggest it heats the body.
If the froven is cooler than the body you suggest it has no effect.
If the body is radiating quanta from a 100°C source then the hotter froven will be radiating to the body quanta from its 100C+ walls.
 If the body is radiating quanta from a 100°C source then the cooler froven will be radiating nothing from it 100C- as if it were at absolute zero thats one heck of a sudden step.

 Do I understand correctly?

[JP: Not quite yet. If the body is warmer than the oven, then the body heats the oven. If the oven is warmer than the body, then the oven heats the body. This is a smooth transition in the direction of heating as a function of the temperature differential: -2 -1 0 1 2 etc. A smooth transition, not a sudden stop.]

thefordprefect says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 2013/04/05 at 11:52 AM
  Seem to have problems posting so I’ll try again:
[JP: Not quite yet. If the body is warmer than the oven, then the body heats the oven. If the oven is warmer than the body, then the oven heats the body. This is a smooth transition in the direction of heating as a function of the temperature differential: -2 -1 0 1 2 etc. A smooth transition, not a sudden stop.]
===========
you have stated definitely that there is no transfer of energy from cold to hot:

“but what I do know is that they do NOT work by cold heating hot – hahaha what a stupid idea.”
“[JP Reply: Trashed because we've already answered you. q from the shell to the planet is 0. ZERO. There is no heat loss from the shell to the planet. Even if the shell is emitting on the inside, there is no heat loss to the planet. The only direction the shell can lose heat is outwards, and hence it loses the equivalent of 800 W/m2 outwards.]”
“Radiated energy does not equate to net heat transfer or even net energy transfer. The equation of heat flow for radiation, from physics, from actual physics textbooks and from actual universities and actual physics degrees, is q ~ (T2^4 – T1^4). If T2 = T1, then q = 0, and nothing heats up, even though there’s all that radiation. ”

So firstly I hope you would agree that the quanta of energy leaving a surface cannot depend on the final destination of the quanta i.e. its temperature, material and surface – it only depends on the source material and temperature.
I also believe this describes your point of view:
The final destination of the radiation determines what happens to the quanta (rejected or absorbed)

where 100C- a very very very! small bit less than 100C 100C+ a very very very! small bit more than 100C w greater than y
y greater than x
and x greater than z

oven at 101C transfers zero quanta to body at 10000C (equivalent to back radiation)
body at 10000C transfers w quanta to oven at 101C

body at 100C transfers zero quanta to oven at 101C (equivalent to back radiation)
oven at 101C transfers x quanta to body at 100C

oven at 100C- transfers zero quanta to body at 100C (equivalent to back radiation)
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 101C-

oven at 100C+ transfers x+1 quanta to body at 100C
body at 100C transfers zero quanta to oven at 100C+ (equivalent to back radiation)

body at 100C transfers y quanta to oven at 99C
oven at 99C transfers zero quanta to body at 100C (equivalent to back radiation)

oven at 10000C transfers w quanta to body at 100C body at 100C transfers zero quanta to oven at 10000C (equivalent to back radiation)

at 100C- to 100C+ oven temperature the body quanta changes from outputting x to receiving x+1 quanta
.
Somehow this does not seem to be a smooth or logical transition


Warmists would say quanta emitted from an object depends only on the object and its temperature. the final destination of the radiation is immaterial (well actually the quanta knows nothing until it hits the surface)
The sum of all quanta determines the rate of loss/gain of heat

oven at 101C transfers y quanta to body at 10000C (equivalent to back radiation)
body at 10000C transfers w quanta to oven at 101C

oven at 101C transfers y quanta to body at 100C
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 101C (equivalent to back radiation)

oven at 100C- transfers x-1 quanta to body at 100C (equivalent to back radiation)
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 101C-

oven at 100C+ transfers x+1 quanta to body at 100C
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 100C+ (equivalent to back radiation)

oven at 99C transfers z quanta to body at 100C (equivalent to back radiation)
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 99C

oven at 10000C transfers w quanta to body at 100C
body at 100C transfers x quanta to oven at 10000C (equivalent to back radiation)

Consider 100C- to 100C+ oven temperature - the100C body quanta output is x and at 100C- it receives x-1 quanta and at 100C+ it receives x+1 quanta

A smooth and logical transition.
I assume that I have this wrong somehow so perhaps using x,y,z you could explain your position

[This last post did not get past moderation!]
===========================
In pictures:

Assumed output from body and shell at 0K this is zero at 10K this is 100 quanta

.

As the energy quanta increases from zero to 100 from body B with the temperature of B increasing from 0 to 10K

 the energy quanta from shell A goes from 100 to zero as the temperature decreases from 10 to 0K

The temperature determines the quanta of energy released from the bodies

The warmist view would be that all energy from A gets absorbed by B and all energy from B gets absorbed by A irrespective of the temperature of each body

The Slayer version suggests that if the temperature of A is less than B then the transfer to B becomes zero/is reflected/cancels /nulled

and if the temperature of B is less than A then the transfer to A becomes zero/is reflected/cancels/nulled

This is shown in this diagram.

If one then looks at the net flow of quanta from A to B then the slayer version has a discontinuity where the temperatures are the same. The warmist version is a simple straight line which at B=A temperature the net transfer is zero.

===========================================



=========================================================================
The whole thread

(on line of course at http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/#comment-1559)

WUWT - cherry picking again

Water Vapour
The Watts nail in the coffin of AGW headline:

Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor

Posted on December 14, 2012by Guest Blogger

New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)

Well, the paper this blogger / expert reviewer is behind a paywall so we have to assume that what he quotes is correct. But a quick search pulls up this paper

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-2-245

This from the abstract TPW=total precipitable water:
...Further, we found out that the TPW anomalies are driven by the global surface temperature anomalies, but with a lag.

and from the text:

Time series plots of monthly and annual anomalies of TPW for the two datasets are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b, respectively. Also included in Fig. 8 is the global surface temperature anomaly, computed based on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global surface temperature data (Hansen et al. 1999).

The first 3 yr (1988–90) and part of 1996 show significant discrepancies between the anomalies of the two TPW datasets. There is, however, a good agreement for most parts of the other years. Linear regressionsbetween the two datasets show a correlation coefficient of 0.66 for the monthly anomalies and 0.74 for the annual anomalies. TPW anomalies are closely correlated to surface temperature anomalies. The correlation with surface temperature is higher for R-2 than for NVAP (Fig. 8d). The maximum cross correlation between TPW and surface temperature is reachedwhen the temperature leads the TPW by 2 months and equals 0.67 for R-2 and0.50 for NVAP. This suggests that precipitable water anomalies are driven by the temperature anomalies.

 

The problem is which cherry to pick?!!!!

 

 

Then of course Watts puts his foot in the wet and smelly with this blog post:

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’

Posted on December 13, 2012by Guest Blogger

So in this headline post we have a total misreading of a document. One of the authors  (and surely he should know) sais so on Australian Radio: .

The leaked IPCC drafts cover a range of subjects from the quality of climate models to measurements of sea level rise and Arctic ice loss.

Professor Steve Sherwood is a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

He is also a lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report, which happens to be the one the sceptics are claiming for their side.

But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that's completely ridiculous. I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.

MARK COLVIN: They're saying that it is the first indication that the IPCC recognises something called solar forcing.

STEVE SHERWOOD: It's not the first time it recognises it. What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything. The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.

And there have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic ray/cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that that doesn't actually work.

MARK COLVIN: So you're saying that you've managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that's available now, that looks extremely unlikely.

MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?

STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3654926.htm

It looks as if IPCC has played a blinder.

They can see where the "skeptics" will find inconsitancies and then clarify before publishing and all for free

They also show that sketics cannot read or comprehend!.