You are consistently confusing net flow with the radiative flow from an object.
Lets break it down shall we,
The IR object 1 is radiating is proportional to T1^4.
The IR object 2 is radiating is proportional to T2^4
At no point in time does either object depend on the temperature of the other to determine the rate at which they radiate energy.
What is obviously confusing you is that whilst in this particular configuration object 1 is radiating energy it is also absorbing energy from object 2, and of course object 2 is receiving energy from object 1. Energy is moving in both directions at the same time.
The net flow of energy from object 1 is thus the difference between the energy out and energy in,, Ei - Eo.
From the history of almost most AGW denialists it seems that the same error is being made consistently. Even when the energy of an object is increasing due to incoming radiation it is still radiating energy. Put it this way if you had your two objects and slid a piece of paper between would you think it impossible for it to be heated from both sides at the same time?
if it is only the surface that is radiating energy. what is to stop the surface energy being absorbed further into the object. if it is then the total energy leaving the object must be less when it is absorbing energy.
Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.
Did you follow the link, read and ignore, or did you simply swallow the misinformation without applying any level of thought.
and of course an active sun reducing the number of cosmic rays therefore less cloud. does not agree with rising temperatures.?
We’re supposed to trust the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because much of the research on which it relies was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
But what happens when the people who are in charge of these journals are the same ones who write IPCC reports?
But since njp was not talking about the net heat flow between two bodies, but rather the amount of radiated energy from one body, your argument remains incorrect, just as you were told right at the outset.
But NJ, give that you were refering to a highly complex system your statement was too generalized to make that claim.
Or are we expected to guess which bits you are not talking about?
that depended on a little known fact in AGW religion. it was called common sense. back in those days most people used it.
The whole point of the article was that people "back in those days" used less energy and resources because they had less stuff. Are you now advocating that we should have less stuff too?
But NJ, give that you were refering to a highly complex system your statement was too generalized to make that claim.
Or are we expected to guess which bits you are not talking about?
I really can't decide whether you, Eel or Millam should take the crown for the most fatuous post made in an attempt to show that of one of your own errors was in fact somebody else's error.
The whole point of the article was that people "back in those days" used less energy because they had less stuff. Are you now advocating that we should have less stuff too?
that's what your side wants. that's why say you want to take us back.
why not use the billions of pounds/dollars being spent on useless climate science on something useful like alternative energy sources other than wind-farms.
that's what your side wants. that's why say you want to take us back.
why not use the billions of pounds/dollars being spent on useless climate science on something useful like alternative energy sources other than wind-farms.
So you like alternative energy now? Good, but why not wind generators? Is there some irrational fear of the wind among deniers?
And in the latest manufactured scandal from the deniosphere, Mrs Raspberry (I like to imagine her emitting a perpetual non-voiced lingolabial trill, to match the quality of her posts) has noticed that some experts on climate have applied their expertise in more than one place.
Clearly, this is a job for The Auditors!
[Don't forget to read the comments on that website, in which scientists are compared to child molesters. Then remind yourself that this is the sort of place where bmillam receives all his science education.]
Do we? But you were praising the people "back in those days" as having "common sense" because they had less stuff.
It seems to me that even you can't work out what you think.
yes we had less stuff, and it all got recycled. it was worth too much to just throw away. so used their "common sense" in getting value for money.
now we throw millions away to climate scientists for what?
So you like alternative energy now? Good, but why not wind generators? Is there some irrational fear of the wind among deniers?
probably because its the least reliable of them all. at least you know when the sun is going down or when the tide will change.
If I had to Reilly on one now I wouldn't have had any power for three weeks now.
And in the latest manufactured scandal from the deniosphere, Mrs Raspberry (I like to imagine her emitting a perpetual non-voiced lingolabial trill, to match the quality of her posts) has noticed that some experts on climate have applied their expertise in more than one place.
Clearly, this is a job for The Auditors!
[Don't forget to read the comments on that website, in which scientists are compared to child molesters. Then remind yourself that this is the sort of place where bmillam receives all his science education.]
so long as they don't write papers listed in the IPCC reports yes.
IceCube is looking for very high energy neutrinos (in the TeV range) such as those from Gamma Ray Bursters, and is doing so in a way that also allows their direction of origin to be revealed.
So, oh wise one. What's the difference between those particles and high energy GCRs?
That's its USP. It's not trying to measure GCR, and wouldn't be able to, even if the experimenters all went mad and decided to do that instead.
Like.. say.. build IceTop?
Why can't you just stop waffling about things you don't understand, and admit your error?
Hmm? What error? Reading stuff like this-
Therefore, from the perspective of a neutrino astrophysicist, the goal of IceCube is to reveal the source of high energy cosmic rays by catching" neutrinos
So.. nah, neutrino observatories have nothing to do with GCRs... in your strange mind. Or maybe these are the wrong kind of GCRs? Or their origin isn't interesting, despite potential climate effects.
Why do you imagine that studying cosmic ray events (which ones, at what energy?)
Hmm.. say 3.5GeV? But we've simulated those. Why study them? Well, if say GCR's have climate effects, it might be kinda useful to know what effects and say.. the source of GCR's and then whether those effects could be fed into say, climate models or even weather models to improve predictive skill. Kinda thing scientists would be interested in, but you're happier denying.
Oh, right. You "kinda ignored" what I said, and decided I was wrong based on something I did not say..
You don't seem to understand this stuff. How are your 'primary' GCR's detected?
Oh.. and protons again. Are GCR's the only source?
Did you follow the link, read and ignore, or did you simply swallow the misinformation without applying any level of thought.
Someone did, not me. It's as Black Cloud said. CLOUD results add to the knowledge but it's too early to confirm or deny anything significant, like claiming 'no trends' when CLOUD shows unexpected aerosol results for example.
So, oh wise one. What's the difference between those particles and high energy GCRs?
You are seriously asking me to explain to you the difference between high-energy GCRs and high energy neutrinos? Are you back to thinking they are interchangeable, as you previously thought with neutrinos and neutrons?
Words fail me.
Hmm? What error? Reading stuff like this-
Therefore, from the perspective of a neutrino astrophysicist, the goal of IceCube is to reveal the source of high energy cosmic rays by catching" neutrinos
So.. nah, neutrino observatories have nothing to do with GCRs... in your strange mind. Or maybe these are the wrong kind of GCRs? Or their origin isn't interesting, despite potential climate effects.
You never understand anything you read. Yes, they want to know where high energy cosmic rays come from. Neutrinos are the way to do that, because unlike charged particles, they rarely interact with matter, and travel in straight lines from their source. So the neutrinos they are interested in are the ones that were created along with the high-energy cosmic rays of interest. Most GCRs (including all the ones that Svensmark thinks are important) are at much lower energy, as are the neutrinos that are created by spallation in the atmosphere. This is noise, to be filtered out.
Once again, nobody is using neutrino measurements, or veto detectors, to measure GCR flux. The former wouldn't work, and the latter would just be silly.
You can ramble on all you like, but it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
Hmm.. say 3.5GeV? But we've simulated those. Why study them? Well, if say GCR's have climate effects, it might be kinda useful to know what effects and say.. the source of GCR's and then whether those effects could be fed into say, climate models or even weather models to improve predictive skill. Kinda thing scientists would be interested in, but you're happier denying.
Eel: "All new science shows the IPCC is wrong".
3.5GeV you say? Well, the thing is, the "bonus science" you got all excited about was looking at cosmic ray anisotropy in the multi-TeV region of cosmic ray energies (median energy 20 TeV). But still, what's a few orders of magnitude between deniers? And needless to say, it had nothing to do with cosmoclimatology, or Multi-decadal Leprechaun Oscillations or whatever you are pinning your hopes on this week.
Comments
Like it.:)
if it is only the surface that is radiating energy. what is to stop the surface energy being absorbed further into the object. if it is then the total energy leaving the object must be less when it is absorbing energy.
and of course an active sun reducing the number of cosmic rays therefore less cloud. does not agree with rising temperatures.?
Er, I thought sceptics didn't favour (the sceptics presentation of) "green" as taking us backwards?
Levels and trends, dear boy, levels and trends.
levels = activity
trends = less cloud. = higher temperatures
dear boy
that depended on a little known fact in AGW religion. it was called common sense. back in those days most people used it.
But NJ, give that you were refering to a highly complex system your statement was too generalized to make that claim.
Or are we expected to guess which bits you are not talking about?
I just said I liked it because I found it amusing.
Nothing more nothing less.
But that has to be quite a strong contender.
that's what your side wants. that's why say you want to take us back.
why not use the billions of pounds/dollars being spent on useless climate science on something useful like alternative energy sources other than wind-farms.
It seems to me that even you can't work out what you think.
Clearly, this is a job for The Auditors!
[Don't forget to read the comments on that website, in which scientists are compared to child molesters. Then remind yourself that this is the sort of place where bmillam receives all his science education.]
yes we had less stuff, and it all got recycled. it was worth too much to just throw away. so used their "common sense" in getting value for money.
now we throw millions away to climate scientists for what?
probably because its the least reliable of them all. at least you know when the sun is going down or when the tide will change.
If I had to Reilly on one now I wouldn't have had any power for three weeks now.
so long as they don't write papers listed in the IPCC reports yes.
http://www.cfact.org/a/2004/New-precedent-supports-climate-skeptics
Orri?
So, oh wise one. What's the difference between those particles and high energy GCRs?
Like.. say.. build IceTop?
Hmm? What error? Reading stuff like this-
Therefore, from the perspective of a neutrino astrophysicist, the goal of IceCube is to reveal the source of high energy cosmic rays by catching" neutrinos
So.. nah, neutrino observatories have nothing to do with GCRs... in your strange mind. Or maybe these are the wrong kind of GCRs? Or their origin isn't interesting, despite potential climate effects.
Hmm.. say 3.5GeV? But we've simulated those. Why study them? Well, if say GCR's have climate effects, it might be kinda useful to know what effects and say.. the source of GCR's and then whether those effects could be fed into say, climate models or even weather models to improve predictive skill. Kinda thing scientists would be interested in, but you're happier denying.
You don't seem to understand this stuff. How are your 'primary' GCR's detected?
Oh.. and protons again. Are GCR's the only source?
Nope.. Did you mean this one instead?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays.html
Someone did, not me. It's as Black Cloud said. CLOUD results add to the knowledge but it's too early to confirm or deny anything significant, like claiming 'no trends' when CLOUD shows unexpected aerosol results for example.
Words fail me.
You never understand anything you read. Yes, they want to know where high energy cosmic rays come from. Neutrinos are the way to do that, because unlike charged particles, they rarely interact with matter, and travel in straight lines from their source. So the neutrinos they are interested in are the ones that were created along with the high-energy cosmic rays of interest. Most GCRs (including all the ones that Svensmark thinks are important) are at much lower energy, as are the neutrinos that are created by spallation in the atmosphere. This is noise, to be filtered out.
Once again, nobody is using neutrino measurements, or veto detectors, to measure GCR flux. The former wouldn't work, and the latter would just be silly.
You can ramble on all you like, but it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
Eel: "All new science shows the IPCC is wrong".
3.5GeV you say? Well, the thing is, the "bonus science" you got all excited about was looking at cosmic ray anisotropy in the multi-TeV region of cosmic ray energies (median energy 20 TeV). But still, what's a few orders of magnitude between deniers? And needless to say, it had nothing to do with cosmoclimatology, or Multi-decadal Leprechaun Oscillations or whatever you are pinning your hopes on this week.