Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

Frnknstn time to get old skool (227 comments)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

about a month ago
top

Oculus Suspends Oculus Rift Dev Kit Sales In China

Frnknstn Re:Why not limit them to one per customer? (131 comments)

Your glibly stated solution was that limiting the sales to one per customer would curtail scalping.

You did not offer any details about how personhood would be determined or how the limit would be enforced, so I was had to limit my response to a glib reply. I pointed out that one thing China has is a lot of people, and so on the face of it "one per person" may not be all that effective. You are wecome to elaborate on your plan?

about 2 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

I think we both have very different understandings of how this conversation unfolded. Here's what I saw:

Cyberax: Cooking adds 10-20% to actual caloric content of food. Mainly because it breaks down complex molecules, making them easier to digest.
Leonard: I'd like to know your source, not because I'm doubtful, but because I wish to learn more.
denzacar: [links that are not valid source material]
Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: [sarcastic avoidance]
Frnknstn: [likewise sarcastic response]
denzacar: [... ... looong post ... ...]

How discussions are supposed to work:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: You missed something, [...]
Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

Alternatively:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: Yeah, those are all I found.
Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

about 5 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

... well, no, I do not. Sadly my computer lacks the processing power and storage capacity to host a web search engine on the scale of Google. Luckily, a company called "Google, Inc." run Google on a set of public-facing webservers, so feel free to use those.

See, I can purposefully misunderstand simple requests, too. I asked for a primary or secondary source. The implied question was "As you have more knowledge about this than I do, can you recommend a credible primary or secondary source that is freely available?"

about 5 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

Those are three book reviews of the same book. Do you have a primary or secondary source?

about 5 months ago
top

More Troubles For Authors of Controversial Acid-Bath Stem Cell Articles

Frnknstn Re:No true Scotsman/scientist would ever... (99 comments)

Science that includes some fraudulent data can be science. Bad science, but science nonetheless.

A scientist skipping a intermediate few steps and then filling in some data to match his expectations so that his paper can be published -- that is fraud, and science.

Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science.

about 5 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

NO, you dimbulb

Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works.

Postma claims he can test for the greenhouse effect:

what it comes down to is a difference in the âoeempirical observableâ that either version predicts.

Postma proposes a methodology for the test:

In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.

Postma describes his resulrs:

What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature

BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST.

It doesn't matter if the test was a good test, well designed or logical. It doesn't matter if the results he didn't get are supported by the best fucking theoretical backing imaginable, Postma fails at basic scientific honesty.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

I did read Latour paper, after this discussion had been going on for some time. My response to it was in this comment. There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one.

The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence. His proposed experiment makes no sense, but that doesn't matter because nobody ever actually performs it. He makes outlandish claims without citation. This is the reason why nobody can offer a scientific refutation of the web article: THE WEB ARTICLE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ATTACK.

I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner.

As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:

What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?

In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.

Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"

It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it.

Let me direct you to my earlier words:

Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.

I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.

Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.

With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat."

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."

As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.

THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article

I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:

Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd.

I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:

Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection.

You then responded with:

I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount

which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."

Well done.

Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.

Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets the matter to rest. Regarding the rest of your most recent reply with arguments about Latour's thermodynamics claims, I will again quote what I said earlier:

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts
[...]
I suggest [...] you discuss [Latour's thermodynamics claims] on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.

I am willing to admit that I did find a relationship between Postma's article and Latour's: they are both as absurd as the other. I am willing to bet that this skydragon book you are pimping is just as absurd as both.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"

It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

Correct, but what that "especially" means is "you are technically correct but you should probably pick a more accurate word".

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

edit (again) :(

I have read the article, sir.

sir or madam.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism

I have read the article, sir. That is not what it claims at all. It contains the following clear claims:

  1. There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)
  2. The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection(true)
  3. Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)

At the very end of the article, in the line before the results section, Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article.

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts. That article does not mention any of the following at all:

  • back radiation
  • The second law of thermodynamics
  • thermodynamics
  • Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • any mention of colder bodies heating warmer ones
  • Roy Spencer
  • Anybody called "Latour "

Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end.

As a service to you: You probably still have some questions or confusions about "the greenhouse effect violating the second law of thermodynamics." This isn't correct, for two main reasons:

  1. Thermodynamics applies to complete systems. You could "disprove" any law of thermodynamics you'd like by simply examining incomplete systems and models.
  2. CO2 does not heat the ground, it effectively slows the rate at which the (hot) ground loses heat to (cold) space.

There are many things you can read that explain this more fully. Start with the link below and move on to Google for more evidence, but I suggest that if you have issues with them, you discuss them on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

Look, this really shouldn't devolve into an argument about semantics. Sophistry does often imply intent, and "after the manner of the glass panes in hot-houses" possibly refers to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouses both trap heat, not that they use the exactly the same mechanism to do the trapping.

Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.

Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not?

No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable. In the experiment, the greenhouse temperature is compared to the external temperature, right?

Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount.

That is why we say the experiment on that website has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke.

Uh, yes. That parenthetical statement I made that referenced a cartoon joke, was a joke, an attempt at humour on my part. I am sorry it offended you so. If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.

In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced.

There are two sources provided for the web article's results. You probably meant to link here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)

That report is rife with errors, but that is an entirely separate subject. What matters is that the experiment described in it does not correspond with the website. On the other hand, his other provided source does have an experiment similar to the web article. However, it does not contain the results in the article.

This is (partly) why we say that that page is absurd.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong.

Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect.

There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning, and you are not living in the Matrix.

Secondly, because of this, OF COURSE the greenhouse effect's impact on the temperature in the greenhouse was minimal. The dominant force in that system would be the trapping of the heat that would normally have been lost by convection, i.e. the normal mechanism by which greenhouses stay hot. Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect.

As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

Since postscripts seem to be popular in this thread, I will add one here containing direct quotes from that article.

(I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.)

Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people.

The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, [is an] example of the creation of a simulacrum [...] And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it.

about 8 months ago

Submissions

Frnknstn hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Frnknstn has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>