Michael Mann’s Students No Longer Allowed Outside

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis

The outside is just too dangerous for college students these days.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Michael Mann’s Students No Longer Allowed Outside

  1. lance says:

    Risky? Okay, maybe add driving to!

  2. arn says:

    That’s how scared sheeple are made.
    By creating threatening scenarios out of the most usual things.
    (that’s how global warming exists btw)

    And a fantastic quote by Lewis
    as it does not just deliever a conclusion most people aren’t capable of because it contradicts everything they believe in
    but he also delievers a rational explanation why.
    (and tens of millions of dead people in russia and china know very well how right he was about such systems)

  3. Bleakhouses says:

    All hot plates and warming dishes in the cafeteria to be banned as well. Salads and bologna sandwiches only from now on. No more coffee or tea; caffein to be consumed only in cold soda. No electric outlets in the dorm rooms, cold showers only (can’t risk scalding), all elevators and stairs are now closed—all classes to be held on first floor only. Safety first you know. Oh, but as long as you use a no combustion vaping device feel free to get as high as you want, we want you to enjoy yourselves.

    • Russ Wood says:

      No, no, no! No Bologna sandwiches either! South Africa has just got over a small epidemic of deaths from the listeriosis disease, which was finally traced to polony (our spelling) made in one particular factory. So – no processed meat either!

  4. Hivemind says:

    We will protect you from your freedom, whether you like it, or not.

  5. MrGrimNasty says:

    Ludicrous. Volenti non fit injuria.

  6. Gator says:

    What?! No Pokémon Go! The horror!

    Poor snowflakes. I wonder if this will stop the student gun protests, one of them got run over recently.

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/student-11-hit-car-and-killed-during-national-school-walkout-896498%3famp=1

  7. Kris Johanson says:

    “Outing Club” sounds ironic…. Wasn’t Penn State the one where scores of students were raped and/or otherwise banged in the showers by employees in the athletic department over several decades, and the Governing Body knew about it and turned a deaf ear/ blind eye so that their beloved institution wouldn’t be tarnished? Isn’t that the one?

    • Kent Clizbe says:

      Don’t worry. Those alleged incidents were “investigated by the same university administration that “investigated” Michael Mann’s “research” irregularities.

      They found that everything was A-OK!

      OK?

      Now, move along, nothing to see here.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Okay. I feel better now. It’s comforting to know that the Whitewash Commission has everything under control.

      • Charles Higley says:

        As long as the perpetrators had a good time, what’s the problem, right? They need to have a way to express themselves, after all. It’s simply a problem of viewing students as an expendable resource, as there are always new ones coming in the door.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Penn State is a strange outfit. There are other freaks:

      Penn State Professor Arrested For Rant On Plane

      PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Penn State University professor Karen Bettez Halnon was arrested earlier this week after smoking and going on a rant while on an American Airlines flight from Nicaragua to Miami.

      She cited the “United States declaring war on Venezuela” as what inspired the incident.

      “The FBI and the TSA tortured me when I got off that plane. They chained me. They tied me up, I asked to go to the bathroom repeatedly, they would not let me go to the bathroom. They made me soil myself completely and then they laughed at me…Torture is not democracy.”

      One of the consequences of her actions abroad and on the airplane, she feels is biological warfare. She feels that just like the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whom she is under the belief that the United States gave him cancer via a rogue agent, she is a victim of biological warfare and she feels the CIA behind it.

      http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/03/18/penn-state-professor-arrested-for-rant-on-plane-speaks-to-wpht

      Meanwhile, serious Penn scholars are under attack by the snowflakes and their allies among administrators and faculty:

      Amy Wax and Free Speech at Penn

      In August 2017, Amy Wax, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Larry Alexander, a law professor at the University of San Diego, wrote an article arguing that we are paying the price for the loss of values that we had up to the mid-60s.

      The efforts of Wax and Alexander to be evenhanded didn’t protect them from false accusations of racism and white supremacism from organizations at Penn. It didn’t stop 33 Penn Law faculty members from publishing a letter in the Daily Pennsylvanian condemning Amy Wax.

      https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/amy_wax_and_free_speech_at_penn.html

  8. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    A Modest Experiment in the Classical Style

    Heat is energy in motion flowing from a hot/higher energy source to a cold/lower energy sink. A relatively hot surface transfers energy/heat to its surroundings through several processes, mechanisms or modes: conduction, convection, enhanced convection or advection, latent and radiative processes. The greater the number of these modes and the more effective those modes the lower will be the surface’s operating temperature.

    Emissivity is the ratio of the actual radiative heat emitted by a surface to the S-B BB ideal radiation based on the input to the system. As radiation’s share of the total heat transfer modes/processes decreases so does its emissivity. For instance, if half of the energy is moved by the non-radiative processes emissivity for the radiative process will be 0.5.

    Experimental procedure

    A 125 W electric heating element is operated in open air and its surface temperature recorded.
    A small biscuit fan blows air across the heating element and the temperature recorded.
    A water spray bottle is used to wet the heating element and the temperature recorded.
    The heating element is placed inside a one cubic foot steel box to inhibit convection and temperature recorded.
    A vacuum is pulled on the steel box to remove molecules leaving radiation as the primary heat transfer mode and the element’s surface temperature recorded. (elevation 6,300 feet, Baro P 24 “Hga)

    Conclusion

    This experiment demonstrates conclusively that the emissivity of radiative heat transfer is heavily dependent on the various modes of heat transfer. In a situation where a surface transfers heat into an adjacent media participating through the various modes, emissivity of the radiative heat transfer will reflect its respective share.

    Assuming an S-B BB emissivity of 1.0 for the earth’s surface and an average temperature of 16 C / 289 K to calculate an upwelling LWIR power flux of 396 W/m^2 is simply not supported by physical evidence. In line with the results demonstrated in this experiment and the values on the K-T power flux balance diagram, earth’s surface radiative emissivity is about 0.16, 63/396.

    Without an up/down/”back” radiating loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails. When RGHE theory fails, so does the concept of man-caused climate change.

    • Ed Bo says:

      Nicholas:

      Spare us your ignorant bloviations. Stick to PSI, where the pink unicorn brigade there has neither the knowledge base nor the raw intelligence to call you on your nonsense.

      Your whole analysis is based on false pretenses. You have absolutely no idea what emissivity is.

      • R. Shearer says:

        It seems like he knows what emissivity is, so what are the false pretenses to which you are referring?

      • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

        Perhaps I should elaborate a bit. A response to some PSI questions.

        The emissivity exceeds 1.0 in my vacuum because of experimental uncertainties.

        The measured input power is about 125 W spread over the estimated surface area of the heating element, W/m^2.

        Input W/m^2 plus 1.0 emissivity yields a theoretical BB temperature of about 800 F. Measured 824 F.

        In a vacuum the ONLY source of 125 W leaving the heating element is through radiation, emissivity of 1.0.

        But outside the vacuum other modes carry away energy cooling the heating element and what’s left behind gets handled by radiation.

        The actual left overs handled by radiation divided by the 100% theoretical (125 W) equals emissivity.

        The actual radiation is the S-B calculation at the measured surface temperature.

        This is how a practicing ME does an energy balance:

        Radiative Btu/h + conductive Btu/h + open convective Btu/h + fanned Btu/h + misty Btu/h = 125 W * 3.412 Btu/h / W

        Radiative Btu/h / (Radiative Btu/h + conductive Btu/h + open convective Btu/h + fanned Btu/h + misty Btu/h) = % emissivity

        In a vacuum (conductive Btu/h + open convective Btu/h + fanned Btu/h + misty Btu/h) = 0

        Bottom line is this: because of the participating atmospheric molecules the upwelling 16 C / 289 K / 1.0 emissivity / 396 W/m^2 / net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop is just flat wrong.

        No GHG energy loop = No RGHE = No CAGW!!

      • Ed Bo says:

        Nicholas:

        You say: “Emissivity is the ratio of the actual radiative heat emitted by a surface to the S-B BB ideal radiation based on the input to the system. As radiation’s share of the total heat transfer modes/processes decreases so does its emissivity. ”

        This is just completely wrong! Emissivity at a given wavelength is a function of the material properties ALONE. If this varies over wavelengths, the integrated total emissivity is also a function of the absolute temperature.

        Neither of these quantities has ANYTHING to do with inputs or other modes of heat transfer. You claim to have an ME degree. Did you sleep through all of the lectures on radiative heat transfer? All of the textbooks I have ever seen are very clear on this matter, and they absolutely disagree with you on this.

        Liquid water has an emissivity of about 0.95 at the temperatures were it can be a liquid. At a typical temperature of 288K, it radiates 370 W/m2. This is true whether there are other modes of input or output to/from the surface.

        We know from actual, repeatable measurements that the downwelling IR radiation at the surface is typically over 300 W/m2. Spectral measurements of this radiation show that the great majority of this comes from the radiative bands of gaseous H2O and CO2. It’s real, and the surface absorbs about 95% of this.

        If you get this basic foundational stuff completely wrong, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say on the subject??? (Especially when you keep spamming unrelated threads…)

        • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

          The topic is: man-caused climate change – fact or fiction. Since that covers an extremely broad range of issues, i.e. sea levels, sea ice & caps, polar bears, USCRN data, etc. it’s hard to be off-topic. And as I shall point out later discussing most of them is a waste of time.

          My text book academic thermo and heat transfer were decades ago, but my practical applications included 30 years of power generation, 20 in operating plants, where thermo and heat transfer were daily realities not handwavium in some academic cube farm.

          Here’s another example of text book nonsense for a CLOSED system:

          W/m^2 = P/A = σ * (T1^4 – T2^4)
          How can one surface have two different temperatures? It can’t except in academic handwavium land. T1 = T2 & the parens = 0. Conservation of energy and zero net energy transfer.

          So, let’s create two unique surfaces: A1 & A2 w/ T1 > T2.
          W = Btu/h = Q = σ * (A1 * T1^4 – A2 * T2^4)
          When couched in terms of energy flow, Btu/h, (as a practicing engine would do.) A1 * T1^4 = A2 * T2^4. Once again the parens goes to zero with ZERO net energy flow.

          In an OPEN system, aka reality w/ T1 > T2.
          A1 * T1^4 radiates Btu/h towards A2 where A2 *T2^4 radiates to the cosmos w/ ZERO left behind for “back” radiating.

          Well, at least in a vacuum. As my experiment showed, adding molecules changes the entire picture.

          While interesting and perhaps entertaining the above begs the only issue that matters:

          The 396 W/m^2 / 16 C /289 K / net 333 GHG energy loop is an academic mathematical calculation that sets the theoretical S-B bar for surface emissivity and has NO real physical existence.

          No GHG energy loop = No RGHE theory = No man-caused climate change.

          You’re up!

          • Kris Johanson says:

            Nick… can you simplify this just a bit for the rest of us? I have a couple engineering degrees but do not live in the world of Thermo like you do. You have obviously gone to a lot of work, here; would it be possible to explain it w/o all the abbreviations and short hand? I might be wrong, but I think most people on this forum would appreciate it greatly

          • Kris Johanson says:

            btw… I love what you’re trying to do. If an overpaid TV personality can shine a heat lamp on some CO2 in a bottle and claim CAGW victory and win universal acclaim by the educational bureaucracy, I think people on our side need to do more tinkering along the lines of what you’re doing.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Nicholas:

            Tony’s post had NOTHING to do with climate change, so your comment was rude spamming, even if it had been remotely accurate.

            In both taking and teaching university-level engineering courses, I have noticed that the weaker students simply find an equation that looks right, and plug numbers into it, without having any idea of the proper context for use of the equation. You do this over and over again.

            For example, you say, “The emissivity exceeds 1.0 in my vacuum because of experimental uncertainties.” This due to the fact that you calculated 800F for an ideal blackbody (emissivity = 1.0), but measured a higher temperature of 824F.

            Even assuming you got all the rest of your analysis correct, your conclusion here is exactly wrong, which you would have realized if you understood the basis for the radiative equation. This equation is:

            Q = Emissivity * Sigma * T^4

            where Sigma is the SB constant, and T the absolute temperature. (By the way, why do you take perverse pride in using archaic units like BTU/h and degrees F?)

            So for a given output power flux density (to match the input power), you solve for temperature with:

            T = [Q / (Emissivity * Sigma)] ^ (1/4)

            A cursory inspection of this equation shows that, because Emissivity is in the denominator, a LOWER emissivity results in a HIGHER temperature, exactly the opposite of your conclusion.

            I do also notice that you neglected to account for the radiation from the inside wall of your vacuum chamber, over 400 W/m2 even if just at room temperature, significantly more if hotter. It may not be significant given the very high temperature of your heating element. Space agencies spend millions of dollars on low-temperature “shrouds” using liquid nitrogen or supercooled helium for their vacuum chambers that test spacecraft before launch in order to eliminate this source of power. By your analysis, they are wasting their money…

            Another example of your fundamental confusion as to the basic meaning of equations is your statement: “Here’s another example of text book nonsense for a CLOSED system: W/m^2 = P/A = σ * (T1^4 – T2^4)
            How can one surface have two different temperatures?”

            First of all, this equation is not just for closed systems, it’s for any system with two objects at a moment in time. Object 1 is at T1 and Object 2 is at T2. (This equation as you show it assumes unit emissivity and unit view factor between the objects, but that’s a separate subject.)

            How T1 and T2 change (if at all) is dependent on all of the inputs and outputs to the system. I think what you were TRYING to say is that for a thermodynamically ISOLATED system (which is different from a thermodynamically CLOSED system) containing the two objects, the system will eventually reach equilibrium at a single temperature.

            But in the general case, that equation is an expression of the fact that Object 1 is radiating EMR toward Object 2 with a power density of σ * T1^4 and Object 2 is radiating EMR toward Object 1 with a power density of σ * T2^4. This results in a net heat transfer of σ * (T1^4 – T2^4). This expresses the principle of “radiative exchange”, which is the core principle of radiative heat transfer.

            The rest of your analysis is equally confused, but I have run out of time for now.

          • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

            Ed,

            “(By the way, why do you take perverse pride in using archaic units like BTU/h and degrees F?)”
            The instruments I get at the local electronic second-hand store are in F. Does converting F to C or K compromise the results?

            Because W/m^2 is confusing. Makes one think that Q1 50 W/m^2 and Q2 12.5 W/m^2 are different when in fact because of the relative areas they are exactly the same.

            W = 3.412 Btu / Eng h = 3.6 kJ / SI h

            And isn’t this just a bit of anal nit picking?

            “Q = Emissivity * Sigma * T^4”
            What happened to Area?

            “T = [Q / (Emissivity * Sigma)] ^ (1/4)”
            A cursory inspection shows that with lower emissivity Q goes down.

            If I KNOW the constant temperature, i.e. 288 K, and apply emissivity the power flux goes down from 396 W/m^2 emissivity 1.0 to 63 W/m^2 emissivity 0.16.

            And about this??
            No GHG energy loop = No RGHE theory = No man-caused climate change.
            Must have whiffed that one.

          • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

            Kris,

            GHG is greenhouse gas. RGHE is radiative greenhouse effect.

            I have copied from a response to PSI.

            Just to hammer my premise: the more numerous and/or effective the modes of energy flow, i.e heat, from a system the lower its operating temperature.

            Consider an open basin with a liter of water and a closed liter bottle. Set both out in the sun. The open basin with convection and evaporation will be cooler than the sealed bottle with neither.

            The BBC experiment
            Recall my discussion of bazillions. The bottle with more molecules or greater heat capacity (Fewer dF per Btu) will be cooler.

            Three bottles: 1 w/ partial vacuum, 7.4 psia, 1 w/ 14.7 psia, 1 w/ 22 psia. Allow to equilibrate. Expose to heat source. The bottle w/ fewest molecules, i.e. vacuum will be the hottest.
            Fewer molecules each carry a larger share and temperature rise.

            I doubt the BBC experiment took pains to consider relative molecular numbers and heat capacities.

            Purpose of my heater in sealed chamber and under vacuum experiment is to validate this premise.

            The earth surface/atmosphere moves energy by several modes and the temperature is thereby lower than it would be w/ only radiation.
            And the surface does not radiate as a black body and 289K, 16C and 396 W/m2 is simply wrong.

            For those with the technical background why the CO2 bottleis hotter than the air bottle. LWIR has zip to do with it:

            PV=nRT
            For all intents P&V constant.
            n is number of molecules. If n decreases, T must increase & vice versa.

            Now, what did I say?

            R for air: 0.287, for CO2 0.189

            For 1 kJ into 1kg T increases: 3.48 C for air, 5.29 C for CO2.

            No IR handwavium need apply.

          • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

            Ed,

            “Tony’s post had NOTHING to do with climate change, so your comment was rude spamming, even if it had been remotely accurate.”

            You must be joking. Opening with the Michael Mann reference has CAGW ALL over it!!

        • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

          Ed Bo, et. al.

          I see where the problem might lie.

          I’m taking this down thread for more room.

  9. Robertv says:

    It very possible that universities will become much more dangerous for a sane person than the outside world.

    Professor Jordan Peterson Swarmed by Narcissistic SJW Ideologues after UofT Rally

    https://youtu.be/O-nvNAcvUPE

  10. Latitude says:

    I read the main reason they stopped it…was the lack of cell phone coverage

    • colin smith says:

      However did we manage before such things.
      Included in every outside course:
      Semaphore.
      Morse code.
      1st aid.
      Elbow navigation.
      Ass orienteering.

      Risks mitigated.

    • ossqss says:

      LOL, I read that too Lat!

      The underlying reason may be roaming charges! ;-)

  11. GW Smith says:

    Classic liberalism, safety before life, i.e… death.

  12. Bob Cherba (@rbcherba) says:

    But football, hockey, rugby, gymnastics, hockey, etc., etc. are riskless and OK?

    Next thing, they won’t allow students to walk between classes — especially students who text while walking. Oh yes, bicycles have to be outlawed, too. And driving cars.

    Do they have a rifle team? Or do they allow Army ROTC students to visit a rifle range?

    • arn says:

      Well-the students have been indoctrinated how not to think.
      Therefore they’ll never challenge the stupidity of their massas
      or the horrible double standards they are using.
      That’s exactly that kind of naive educated people one needs when he wants to succeed in telling the AGW lie.

      Many universities these days became the equivalent of horrible mothers who pamper their children to death so that they become helpless and always look out for a helping hand because they never were allowed to develop own skills or initiatives and became soft and depressed
      and waste their live in fear and quiet desperation.

      You do not help people by making them feel helpless and isolate them from live-
      you ruin them that way.
      And by pretending that outside activities may be too dangerous you
      promote helplessness and victimhood.
      And those students who believe this BS are the first to believe AGW and that their supersmart masters will protect them.

  13. exNOAAman says:

    from the story: “Student safety in any activity is our primary focus.”-Lisa Powers
    I thought the primary focus of higher eduction was, well, education.
    If being “safe” is my primary focus, I can probably do it at a small fraction of the price of tuition.

    • arn says:

      There is a reason why universities promote “safe spaces”.
      Someone who goes to study because of safety instead of education will always ask for a big daddy and a big government to help him.

  14. Robert Austin says:

    Back in the 70’s when I went to university, we had an outdoors club. The university had no problem with our rock climbing, winter camping, multi-day hiking and canoe trips and provided funds for equipment purchases. But I guess in those days the objective was to foster independence of thought and action. Today the objective appears to be to produce whining, cry-baby social justice workers.

  15. Psalmon says:

    What a great quote…great wisdom. Thank you.

  16. Brad (not the eurotrash one) says:

    “Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!”
    – Lt. Gen. Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC

  17. Douglas Hoyt says:

    When I was a child, I used to go hiking in the woods far from any trails. Sometimes someone would come along with me. There was no fear in doing that, except maybe one time in the winter I went out on some thin transparent ice on a stream to look at the fish swimming. When the ice started cracking, I got off and headed home. Never mentioned it to anyone.

    There have many times when I have climbed mountains by myself. It seems people are not very self-reliant nowadays.

  18. steve says:

    An outing club that can no longer go outside.
    Probably best to just call that what it essentially is: a cancellation of the club.

  19. Texas sharp-shooter says:

    Somebody quick, a virtual hiking app! Lawyers would say it’s too hard on the thumbs but dammit what’s life without risk.

    • Robertv says:

      I suppose the Pentagon was one of the safest indoor places until a cruise missile hit it.

      • Gator says:

        Pure sick twisted fantasy Robert. Lose this notion before it ruins your credibility permanently.

      • Robertv says:

        ok ok I suppose the Pentagon was one of the safest indoor places until something they will not show us hit it.

        • Gator says:

          Robert, my brother worked at the Pentagon on 911. There are hundreds of eye witnesses and irrefutable evidence. Please tell me you are not a brain dead idiot like the climate alarmists.

          • Robertv says:

            Show me the pictures/videos.

          • Gator says:

            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1-full.jpg

            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

            From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
            104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

            6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

            26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

            39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

            2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a “commuter plane” but didn’t mention the size.

            7 said it was a Boeing 757.

            8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

            2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

            4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

            10 said the plane’s flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

            16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it’s unknown if they saw them hit.

            42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

            2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

            15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

            3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

            3 took photographs of the aftermath.

            Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said “3-4 warnings.”

            And of course,

            0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

            0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

          • Gator says:

            http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54cfc894a4b55_-_911-flight77-debris.jpg

            FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

            http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

  20. Griff says:

    This is entirely down to the USA’s litigation based culture.

    It isn’t that this is dangerous… it is just the University lawyers have pegged the risk of Penn State being sued as high.

    Land of the free? I don’t think so.

    • Robertv says:

      First time we are on the same page.

    • Robertv says:

      Big Government, who ever they are, and freedom can’t occupy the same space.

    • Robertv says:

      Free speech no longer allowed on university.

      https://youtu.be/YWVmDSMl30s

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      This is entirely down to the USA’s litigation based culture.

      Bullshit.

      There is nothing in the American legal system that would have prohibited the filing of such a lawsuit against a university 100 or even 50 years ago. It’s just that the snowflakes would have been laughed out of court and suffer ridicule for the rest of their lives.

      It is not our “litigation culture” that could make such suits successful today. It’s the corruption of American culture by Progressives who oppose the founding ideals of personal liberties and individual responsibility. The Progressives have been steadily eroding our individual rights and transferring power to institutions and the state.

      Ms Griff demonstrates her ignorance again.

  21. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Ed Bo, et. al.

    OK, let’s write the S-B equation like we know what we are doing.

    3.412 Btu/h = W = σ * ε * A * T^4

    Remember, to preserve the equality what is done to one side must be done to the other OR what is done to one side must be undone on the same side.

    Say the emissivity is 0.7. We can’t just stick 0.7 in for ε. Inserting any value other than 1.0 unbalances the equation. But 1.0 can take many forms: 0.9/0.9 or 0.7/0.7 or 0.4/0.4 or 0.2/0.2.

    The more popular form using W/A, W/m^2 or power flux.

    W/A = σ * 0.7/0.7 * T^4

    Now, what to do with the 0.7 in the denominator.

    If we know the power flux as was actually measured in my experiment:
    125 W/ heating element, m^2 = σ * 0.7 * T^4 / 0.7 and T increases.

    But if we know T as in the case of the earth, K-T power flux balance uses 289 K:
    W/A * 0.7 = σ * 0.7 * 289 K^4 and the power flux decreases, i.e from 289 K. 1.0 ε, 396 W/m^2 to 289 K, 0.16 ε, 63 W/m^2.

    But wait, you say, upwelling IR power flux is actually measured.

    Well, no it’s not.

    IR instruments, e.g. pyroheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux, they measure a relative temperature with heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0.

    The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.

    That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling IR with an uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling IR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.

    So the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop of RGHE theory and the K-T diagram are illusions due to misunderstood instruments.

    Here is a reprise of a slide I submitted earlier and/or elsewhere.

  22. Ed Bo says:

    Nicholas:

    YOU are the one who keeps introducing BTU/h as your power unit when EVERYONE ELSE uses Watts in this field. It serves no purpose whatsoever. It’s not a big deal, which is why I made it a parenthetic comment, but since it just muddles the discussion, it is simply annoying.

    And you are simply confusing yourself between the power units of Watts and the power flux density units of Watts/m^2. You should be more rigorous in distinguishing these if you want to avoid confusion.

    When I provided an equation for power flux density, you asked me “What happened to area?”.But I was simply using the same form of the equation that you had just used for the density: W/m2 = P/A. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight.

    You have not even tried to grapple with my points that your definition of emissivity is completely wrong, and that you don’t know how to use it in basic analysis, getting its effect exactly backwards.

    I told you that I spent so much time pointing out your early errors that I ran out of time. So you accuse me of having “whiffed” on your later errors.

    So let’s continue now. In your next paragraph you say:

    So, let’s create two unique surfaces: A1 & A2 w/ T1 > T2.
    W = Btu/h = Q = σ * (A1 * T1^4 – A2 * T2^4)
    When couched in terms of energy flow, Btu/h, (as a practicing engine would do.) A1 * T1^4 = A2 * T2^4. Once again the parens goes to zero with ZERO net energy flow

    Seriously??? You conclude that with two objects of different temperatures, there is NO net radiative energy flow between the objects? Are you completely incapable of performing even the most basic sanity checks on your own work?

    This is now beyond stupid. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about if you can conclude there is no net transfer between objects of different temperatures. You don’t understand the most basic definition of heat transfer. And yet you keep spamming unrelated threads with your drivel!

    And then you dig yourself deeper with your next paragraph:

    In an OPEN system, aka reality w/ T1 > T2.
    A1 * T1^4 radiates Btu/h towards A2 where A2 *T2^4 radiates to the cosmos w/ ZERO left behind for “back” radiating.

    So your Object 2 is so smart that it knows it can radiate one way but not the other! What, pray tell, is the mechanism that it knows which way to radiate?

    It’s pointless to go on when all of your analysis is so divorced from reality.

    • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

      Using W/m^2 muddies the water.

      People think that 50 W/m^2 is greater than 12.5 W/m^2, but when couched in terms of energy, Btu/h, and their relative areas their BTU/h energy flows are IDENTICAL and their difference is zero.

      “So your Object 2 is so smart that it knows it can radiate one way but not the other!”

      Your object 2 is so smart it radiates the same energy in both directions.

      And about this??

      No GHG energy loop = No RGHE theory = No man-caused climate change.

      And no more gorilla dust, ok?

  23. Ed Bo says:

    Nicholas:

    There are several very good reasons for using W/m^2 power flux density in this content.

    First, it is the scientific starting point. The thermal radiative output power flux density of an object is a function ONLY of the material emissivity and its temperature. Any engineering heat transfer textbook has at least one table of emissivities of materials. Surely you remember that!

    Second, the area of the earth is numerically so large (~5 x 10^14 m^2), that total power values (BTW, BTU/h is power, not energy!) are not meaningful to most people. And this type of diagram is simply meant to illustrate concepts to non-specialists.

    Most people have a feel for 400 W/m^2 — 10 40W light bulbs in a square meter. Who has a feel for 3 x 10^17 W? That would be the total earth surface radiative power output, integrated over the surface.

    Third, the areas we are talking about here are virtually the same as each other. The area of an atmospheric layer up to the tropopause is less than 3/10 of 1% greater than (or less than 1.003 times) the area of the earth’s surface. So the added accuracy gotten from accounting for the difference in areas is trivial.

    But let’s look at the example in your diagram, where the surface areas of the sphere and shell are substantially different. First, let’s look at the case where the sphere is alone in a 0K ambient. With a 25W electrical power input and a 0.5 m^2 surface area, it must radiate 25/0.5 = 50 W/m^2 to space, with nothing coming back, for it to be in steady-state conditions. So far, so good.)

    With an Emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a surface temperature of 172.3K. With a lower emissivity, this would yield a higher temperature (not a lower one as you argue).

    Now let’s add the shell, which has twice the radius, and so 4 times the surface area (= 2.0 m^2). For the overall sphere+shell system to be in steady-state conditions, the outer surface of the shell must radiate 25/2.0 = 12.5 W/m^2. Again, so far so good.

    With an Emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a temperature of 121.9K.

    But here is where you go off the rails. The inner surface of the shell, being of the same material, with the same absorptivity/emissivity, and temperature (actually it would be a little higher T), MUST also radiate 12.5(+) W/m^2, for a total of 25W, inward. You have not even tried to postulate any mechanism by which this would not happen.

    Now, since the sphere has only 1/4 of the surface area of the shell, only 1/4 of this power is absorbed by the sphere, for an added 6.25W power input to the sphere. The other 3/4 of the power is just absorbed by other sections of the inner surface of the shell.

    So looking at the sphere itself, for it to be in steady-state conditions with power inputs of 25 + 6.25 = 31.25 W, it must radiate outward 31.25 W. Its surface area is 0.5 m^2, so the density is 62.5 W/m^2 With an emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a temperature of 182.2K, which is higher than the sphere alone in space.

    As a check, let’s look at the energy balance of the shell. It is receiving 31.25 W from the shell. It is outputting 25 W from its outer surface, and 6.25 W from its inner surface. So inputs match outputs, and it is in steady state. (18.75W radiated from the inner surface is just transferred to other parts of the inner surface, so this comes out in the wash.)

    So we have verified that the 1st Law is satisfied for the total system, the sphere alone, and the shell alone. And it only works if the sphere inside the shell has a higher temperature than when it is not surrounded. This is the fundamental principle of the radiative greenhouse effect!

    (By the way, the math is much easier if the shell is virtually the same area as the sphere, as is the case with the earth and its atmosphere.)

    And if you had any technical common sense at all after your claimed decades in the field, it would be completely obvious to you that for the same power input, a system that has any kind of impediment to power output to a cold ambient would have a higher temperature than one without such an impediment.

    • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

      First, it is the scientific starting point. (Says who?) The thermal radiative output power flux density of an object is a function ONLY of the material emissivity and its temperature. (As my experiment clearly shows it is also a function of the other heat moving modes. Actually, the other modes reduce the amount of power flux radiated reducing actual compared to the ideal which is the same result.) Any engineering heat transfer textbook has at least one table of emissivities of materials. Surely you remember that! (Yes, but this a function of the material and not the actual physical process reality.)
      Second, the area of the earth is numerically so large (~5 x 10^14 m^2), that total power values (BTW, BTU/h is power, not energy!) (Tomayto – Tomahto) are not meaningful to most people. And this type of diagram is simply meant to illustrate concepts to non-specialists. (Or misleading handwavium.)
      Most people have a feel for 400 W/m^2 — 10 40W light bulbs in a square meter. (I doubt that!!) Who has a feel for 3 x 10^17 W? That would be the total earth surface radiative power output, integrated over the surface. (Yes, at ToA, but NOT at the ground!!)
      Third, the areas we are talking about here are virtually the same as each other. The area of an atmospheric layer up to the tropopause is less than 3/10 of 1% greater than (or less than 1.003 times) the area of the earth’s surface. So the added accuracy gotten from accounting for the difference in areas is trivial. (No significant molecules above 32 km.)
      But let’s look at the example in your diagram, where the surface areas of the sphere and shell are substantially different. First, let’s look at the case where the sphere is alone in a 0K ambient. With a 25W electrical power input and a 0.5 m^2 surface area, it must radiate 25/0.5 = 50 W/m^2 to space, with nothing coming back, for it to be in steady-state conditions. So far, so good.
      With an Emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a surface temperature of 172.3K. (Depends on the material property as you mentioned early, but ok.) With a lower emissivity, this would yield a higher temperature (not a lower one as you argue). (For a fixed power flux as in my experiment, true. But while we’re supposing let’s suppose the surface temperature is a known fixed constant like the earth’s surface of 289 K, then lower emissivity means lower W/m^2, e.g. 63 instead of 396. Suppose this heating rod was in a water bath at a constant temperature.)
      Now let’s add the shell, which has twice the radius, and so 4 times the surface area (= 2.0 m^2). For the overall sphere+shell system to be in steady-state conditions, the outer surface of the shell must radiate 25/2.0 = 12.5 W/m^2. (Ok, but 12.5 W/m^2 times 2.0 m^2 still = 25 W.) Again, so far so good.
      With an Emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a temperature of 121.9K. (So what?)
      But here is where you go off the rails. The inner surface of the shell, being of the same material, with the same absorptivity/emissivity, and temperature (actually it would be a little higher T), MUST also radiate 12.5(+) W/m^2, for a total of 25W, inward. You have not even tried to postulate any mechanism by which this would not happen. (The surface CANNOT radiate the same amount in both directions simultaneously!!! Conservation of energy!! At best 50% in each direction.)
      Now, since the sphere has only 1/4 of the surface area of the shell, only 1/4 of this power is absorbed by the sphere, (What kind of handwavium is this? It can’t absorb what doesn’t exist!) for an added 6.25W power input to the sphere. (Are you suggesting that the inner cylinder is now spontaneously radiating 25 + 6.25=31.25?? How?? You must be joking? Or clueless.) The other 3/4 of the power is just absorbed by other sections of the inner surface of the shell. (Wow, handwavium^2)
      So looking at the sphere itself, for it to be in steady-state conditions with power inputs of 25 + 6.25 = 31.25 W, it must radiate outward 31.25 W. Its surface area is 0.5 m^2, so the density is 62.5 W/m^2 With an emissivity of 1.0, this would yield a temperature of 182.2K, which is higher than the sphere alone in space. (Yeah, if you believe 2+2=5)
      As a check, let’s look at the energy balance of the shell. It is receiving 31.25 W from the shell. It is outputting 25 W from its outer surface, and 6.25 W from its inner surface. So inputs match outputs, and it is in steady state. (18.75W radiated from the inner surface is just transferred to other parts of the inner surface, so this comes out in the wash.) (Wow, handwavium^4!!!!)
      So we have verified that the 1st Law is satisfied for the total system, the sphere alone, and the shell alone. And it only works if the sphere inside the shell has a higher temperature than when it is not surrounded. (Q=UAdT does exactly the same thing.) This is the fundamental principle of the radiative greenhouse effect! (The earth would be hotter w/o an atmosphere, not colder.)
      (By the way, the math is much easier if the shell is virtually the same area as the sphere, as is the case with the earth and its atmosphere.)
      And if you had any technical common sense at all after your claimed decades in the field, it would be completely obvious to you that for the same power input, a system that has any kind of impediment to power output to a cold ambient would have a higher temperature than one without such an impediment.

      (50W/m^2 has S-B BB T of 172 K. 12.5 W/m^2 has S-B BB of 122 K. Inner cylinder is hotter than outer cylinder – heat flows from hot to cold. So, what’s the problem?)

    • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

      I applied my engineering expertise in power generation for over thirty years, operation and maintenance, design engineering firms, testing, coal fired, natural gas, combined cycle, etc. feedwater heaters, condensers, lube and hydrogen oil coolers, air cooled condenser, fin fan exchangers.

      Nowhere do I recall in specifying, purchasing, repairing, installing, testing any design documents or testing procedures, e.g. ASME PTC’s, that appeared to apply your theory.

      If your bouncy-bouncy “back” radiation was a real thang, heat exchanger manufacturers would be using it.

      I publish the same work on LinkedIn exposing it to a wide range of experience and expertise. Explanations of how I’m incorrect and “back” radiation and RGHE actual work –
      One
      Great
      Big
      Fat
      ZERO!!!!

      Run your “back” radiation explanation past the members of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Heat Exchange Institute, Yuba, et. al. people who actually design, fabricate, install and operate, test real life heat exchange equipment.

      If they don’t say the same thang I do, i.e. you’re full of shit, please let me know.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Nicholas and Ed, I finally had a chance to catch up on this conversation. 22 pages long from my printer…
      Pretty much a let down.
      Nicholas, can you please just use Watts and Watts/m2? Yes, I prefer BTU’s in the context of steam, and HVAC equipment, and what-have-you, but to be taken seriously you need to be reporting things in Watts and Kelvin.
      Also you’re title is excellent, “A modest experiment….”. Can you please be a bit more ‘modest’ in handling constructive criticism

  24. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Ed Bo
    Surface 1 is radiating 25 W over 0.5 m^2 for a flux of 50 W/m^2 and a S-B BB T of 172 K.
    Surface 2 is radiating 25 W over 2.0 m^2 for a flux of 12.5 W/m^2 and a S-B BB T of 122 K.
    For some handwavium reason “back” radiation delivers ¼ or 6.25 W/m^2 back to S1 mathematically increasing its flux to 31.25 W/m^2.
    Is that 6.25 W/m^2 at S2’s 122 K or 6.25 W/m^2 over 2.0 m^2 for 86 K or 6.25 W/m^2 over 0.5 m^2 for the same 122 K?
    So, 172 K 25 W S1 w/ the additional “back” radiation of 6.25 W/m^2 at either 86 K or 122 K now radiates 31.25 W/m^2 over 0.5 m^2 at 182 K, a higher temperature than either S1 or S2.
    Pretty tricky.
    If a take a small bucket of hotter water and a ¼ size bucket of colder water I end up with a 1.25 bucket of colder water not hotter water.
    You are in no effing position to be treating anybody as stupid.

  25. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    “So looking at the sphere (S1) itself, for it to be in steady-state conditions with power inputs of 25 + 6.25 = 31.25 W, it must radiate outward 31.25 W.”
    Wait, 25 W goes in and 31.25 W goes out? Wow, FREE ENERGY!!!!
    “The other 3/4 of the power is just absorbed by other sections of the inner surface of the shell. (Wow, handwavium^2)”
    “18.75W radiated from the inner surface is just transferred to other parts of the inner surface, so this comes out in the wash.” (Wow, handwavium^4!!!!)
    So, the 18.75 W is just hanging out, bouncing around– kind of like down at Home Depot hoping for day labor landscaping or hanging sheetrock.

  26. Ed Bo says:

    Nicholas:

    It has become completely apparent that you have never actually learned any radiative heat transfer. You are completely unfamiliar with the basic concepts, the terminology, and the equations involved.

    I strongly suggest you sit down with a good introductory heat transfer textbook and spend a few months getting to understand the radiative chapters before you post more. You will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

    This textbook, used for ME students at MIT (where I studied) is available free on line:

    http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv211.pdf

    It strongly contradicts your arguments.

    It, along with every other engineering or physics textbook I have ever seen (and I’m not even talking about climate books) introduces radiative heat transfer from the very start with the concept of “radiative exchange” (e.g. page 32 of the cited text, or page 529 for more detail). Note the term “exchange”, as in BACK and FORTH.

    Engineering sources generally do not use the terminology of “back radiation”, but that’s just their semantics — they fully acknowledge its existence, as on the page cited. While it can be convenient to consider the “net” radiative heat transfer as an actual physical “flow”, but it is nothing but a metaphor, as has been understood for almost 200 years now.

    Some people may like to think in terms of a reduced “net” radiative heat flow when the surrounding temperatures are higher, but the physical reality is that the gross radiative power back to the object is increased.

    The Lienhard text, along with every other text I have seen, contradicts your use of the term “emissivity”, agreeing with me that is a function only of material and temperature. (Lienhard uses the equivalent term “emittance”.) Your confusion on the terminology leads you into all sorts of errors.

    Note the table on page 532. It lists for water an emissivity of 0.96. Water covers the There is NOTHING in this text, or any other text, saying that emissivity is modified by any other mechanism.

    If you had ANY experience in radiative heat transfer calculations, you would be familiar with the concept of “view factor” — the fraction of radiation from one object that reaches another. In your sphere and shell example, all of the radiation from the sphere (Object 1) reaches the shell (Object 2), so the view factor F(1-2) is 1.0.

    Now, it is a simple proof (see p.542 of the text) that A1*F(1-2) = A2*F(2-1). So in your example, with A1 = 0.5m^2, A2 = 2.0m^2, and F(1-2) = 1.0, it is a trivial calculation to get F(2-1) = 0.25, meaning that only 1/4 of the radiative power from the shell reaches the sphere.

    I mistakenly assumed that you had at least some familiarity with these types of calculations, so I would not need to go through the derivation like this. But you wrote it off as mere “handwavium”, when it is in fact simple geometry that you do not understand.

    Probably your most egregious error, though, is your geometric treatment of the shell. You keep talking about the (singular) “surface” of the shell (as in your reference to “Surface 2”) in your example. But as any child would realize, the shell has two surfaces, inner and outer. (It’s not a Mobius strip!) And these both must be considered separately.

    Let’s call the inner surface 2A and the outer surface 2B. We are agreed that surface 2B must radiate enough power outward to “space” to balance the incoming electrical power. From that power value, the shell emissivity, and shell area, we can compute the shell temperature. So far so good.

    But what about the inner surface 2A? It has a temperature at least as great, and the same material emissivity as the outer surface. Using completely standard analysis, I compute that it radiates a power flux density (W/m^2) as the outer surface.

    Mind-bogglingly, you maintain that somehow this surface knows not to radiate any power inwards — as best I can tell, your argument is that it would exceed some sort of “quota” for the shell. But you never provide any physical mechanism by which this inhibition could possibly happen.

    You seem to argue that for it to radiate this much POWER from both surfaces would somehow violate conservation of ENERGY, which shows that you have a very fundamental confusion between the concepts of power and energy.

    If you have any real-world experience in heat-transfer design, you will be familiar with the concept of “fins”. The whold point of fins is to increase the surface area of an object to increase the heat transfer power rate for a given temperature difference.

    But here you are arguing that increasing the surface area will have no effect, because the increase in area must be canceled out by reduced power transfer per unit area. Absurd!!!

    Once again, the sheer number of your errors leads me to run out of time in responding to them all. I will end simply by repeating an earlier question you left unanswered: Is it really ridiculous to believe, that for the same power input to an object, adding impediments (such an absorbent shell — solid or gaseous) to power output to a cold ambient will result in a higher temperature for the object?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *