The 2nd law which is a fundamental law of physics says that in a closed system the entropy will increase to its maximum state, but nothing about a rate.

It is incorrect to confuse the two, and treat MEP as a fundamental law of physics.

The paper pointed out that the interpretations of the remote sensing data are all over the map, and that the remote sensing data of the surface temperature has way more variation in the temperature trend that it measures, than the ground based records.

Dust ups with McCittrick are common.

What a joke - David, have you actually done any real science experiments (as opposed to college/school) before?

I think I should go easy on the insults if I were you.

You also did not indicate the angle between the sun and your black body, or the relevant areas that I asked about - 75 C applies only if the Sun impinges at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the axis of your cylindrical black body - and it also is under an assumption of 1000 W/m^2 solar input - I’m surprised you haven’t tried to get numbers for any of these things.

What possible relevance could this have with respect to the comparison as long as the angle of incidence is the same for both?

Your conclusion about radiative equilibrium is also false:

The facing surfaces of the jar and the blackbody are in radiative equilibrium, and therefore at the same temperature as the black body.

- they probably are at the same temperature, but because they are in contact through a convective medium, the intervening air.

Zeroth law Arthur

>if two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

If that law wasn’t a valid one all our contact thermometry would have no firm basis. - think about it.

I find it unlikely that your jars are strong infrared absorbers - you haven’t provided much evidence for that, and some glass can transmit infrared with almost no attenuation (fiber optics).

At the price they charge for IR grade SiO2 glass I don’t think so.

If “gusts of wind increase convectional cooling, [and reduced...] measured temperatures up to 10C” then you have *not* met the conditions of preventing heat transfer by anything but radiative means, which was the condition of my assessment.

The fact that you saw peak temperatures higher than what you are reporting here means that you did not achieve a radiative steady state, and you are not reporting temperatures that reflect true clear-sky solar input. There is no way this system could achieve a transient peak higher than the steady-state level, so you need to report the peak temperatures even if they weren’t maintained. In fact, last time you reported entire graphs of the temperature curve; what happened to those graphs this time?

You also did not indicate the angle between the sun and your black body, or the relevant areas that I asked about - 75 C applies only if the Sun impinges at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the axis of your cylindrical black body - and it also is under an assumption of 1000 W/m^2 solar input - I’m surprised you haven’t tried to get numbers for any of these things.

Your conclusion about radiative equilibrium is also false:

The facing surfaces of the jar and the blackbody are in radiative equilibrium, and therefore at the same temperature as the black body.

- they probably are at the same temperature, but because they are in contact through a convective medium, the intervening air.

I find it unlikely that your jars are strong infrared absorbers - you haven’t provided much evidence for that, and some glass can transmit infrared with almost no attenuation (fiber optics). If they aren’t infrared absorbers to any great extent, the radiative exchange with the black body will be irrelevant to their temperature or the black body’s. If they *are* strong infrared absorbers, then they will have a “black body” radiation temperature that is lower than the central absorber simply because their total radiating area is much larger (this is also the situation when you surround the absorber with water); either way the temperature won’t be radiatively matched with the central body.

But I do note you seem to have given up the explicit claim that ambient temperature represents “OLR” - even though you’re still talking about quite irrelevant “ratios” in the discussion.

Let’s see the actual peak temperatures, graphs if possible, and results for different geometries, and maybe we can have an honest discussion about the science…

Fraud and corruption are the causes of world poverty
Greenspan’s fraud of US, by running the economy on debth
Another Fraud is the climatists’ dogma

MEP is a theory about the time rate of entropy production.

You’re learning.

One has to be extremely cautious in taking difficult concepts like entropy into real life settings and assuming that this or that applies. Rates have been mentioned already as a complication, equilibria are another, bounds are another, complex mixtures are another, human intervention and irrational behaviour also.

Agreed that “Maximum Entropy Principle” or MEP rolls easily off the tongue and that its essence can be expressed in simple maths in known systems. BUT, that does not mean it can be applied with gay abandon (as we used to say in unpolluted times) to any situation that seems a convenient candidate. I have seen entropy used in quite inappropriate explanations by people without mathematical backgrounds, even in explaining why some money trading systems work in certain ways.

Please, let’s be careful definitionally.

MEP is a theory about the time rate of entropy production. And it is just a theory. Ozawa et al point out that evidence is accumulating. Maybe so, but we aren’t there yet.