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

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (195 comments)

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. ... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]

It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.

I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)

Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.

The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy around the heated plate at equilibrium? You'd quickly see that adding a passive enclosing plate reduces the net heat flow out, which warms the heated plate.

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your telepathy isn't working correctly. I don't think you're being stupid. I just think you either haven't thought deeply enough about the equation describing conservation of energy at equilibrium, or that you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

That's why I wanted to stress that admitting mistakes isn't the end of the world. I just admitted a mistake in my most recent calculation, and I'm okay. In fact, one way to convince posterity that you're honestly confused rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation would be to show that you have the courage to stop being wrong.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

6 hours ago
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (195 comments)

... Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

... Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you. You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

You won't point out mistakes because you can't.

Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.) I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]

You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.

Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion). Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong. [Jane Q. Public]

You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.

... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago. No more replies. I am through. Again. [Jane Q. Public]

Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

I have done nothing of the sort. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]

This is one reason why "conversations" with you are so stressful and unproductive. As usual, you're either lying or suffering from premature dementia. Of course you claimed the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures (power in = power out) is irrelevant. Of course you've wrongly insisted that enclosing a heated plate doesn't warm it.

Which is it? Have you betrayed humanity by lying and deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation, or are you suffering from premature dementia? Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

yesterday
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (195 comments)

Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.

I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.

The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.

As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

yesterday
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (195 comments)

Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

yesterday
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (195 comments)

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:

... I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:

I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.

The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?

Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.

The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)

For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.

Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.

Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?

"If you don't think that's relevant, then you don't know what's relevant." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

Once again, a blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

yesterday
top

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

khayman80 Has Jane/Lonny Eachus betrayed humanity? (195 comments)

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increasing CO2 in the oceans, isotope ratios, etc.

And yet Lonny Eachus keeps spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation by linking to these ridiculous claims, even after acknowledging they're ridiculous. Jane/Lonny has either betrayed humanity, or he has the memory and scientific literacy of a goldfish.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

2 days ago
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Dr. Oliver K. Manuel is a PSI member who was arrested for "multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his own children."

But back to the main point. He used this to distract from the fact that he can't refute a scientific argument that he has been calling garbage and worse for more than 2 years now. He has attempted, and failed, and now he says he isn't going to bother because the PEOPLE with whom he disagrees are not up to his social standards (and even that, a false claim), rather than arguing the science as a scientist should. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

I already argued the science ad nauseum, but I'd rather not argue with pedophiles and child rapists because they aren't up to my social standards. Since Dr. Manuel regularly comments at PSI Slayer websites that are run by John O'Sullivan, I'd rather not comment at those websites.

Calling this mere "ad hominem" would be doing khayman80 a favor he doesn't deserve. Khayman80: you seem to have zero understanding of what is proper (or even legal) in a scientific discussion. And to use these FALSE charges against someone who isn't even involved in the scientific argument just shows the depths to which you will sink just to (as far as I can tell) misdirect from your failings and salve your own ego. THIS is how desperate you've become to try to save yourself from being publicly proven wrong. But it won't work. You've been wrong for at least two years, you're still wrong, and you don't even have the courage to face the guy who proved you wrong. I have zero respect for people who have repeatedly shown themselves willing to stoop to character assassination, deliberately fallacious arguments, and libel rather than behave like respectable scientists and just argue the facts. How hypocritcal. How abjectly pathetic. How disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Once again, you're using "ad hominem" incorrectly. I'm not saying that the PSI Slayers are wrong because some of them are pedophiles and child rapists. I already explained why the Slayers are wrong. I'm just saying that I don't want to talk with pedophiles and child rapists. Outside of Jane's PSI Slayer bizarro world, this probably isn't a controversial position.

It's adorable that you keep insisting someone proved me wrong, but it would be more believable if you could finally answer this simple question:

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas ... do it to his face ... you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see. ... If you think you really can refute Latour, then go do it ... If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this ... his little group also does have physicists in it ... Why don't you present your argument to Latour? ... Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead? But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves. Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends ... why aren't you asking the author of the whole thing, rather than me? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.

But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

I'm asking you because you're claiming I made at least one mistake, without having the courage to actually say what it is. I'm also asking because this simple thought experiment disproves your ridiculous Slayer claims:

... Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Second Law. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas ... do it to his face ... you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see. ... If you think you really can refute Latour, then go do it ... If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this ... his little group also does have physicists in it ... Why don't you present your argument to Latour? ... Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead? But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves. Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends ... [Jane Q. Public]

Slashdot is public, neutral ground. More importantly, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.

about two weeks ago
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Re:no problem (342 comments)

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... I did not say Obama was born in a foreign land. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

... I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. ... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document. ... that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Obama's "Birth Certificate" lists race as African. In 1961, it would have said "Negro". The word "African" was not used to describe race. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

"[the real question is] not the sanity of the "birthers", but why the President did not produce his birth certificate long ago." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

No, the real question is the sanity of the birthers. But my favorite is Jane/Lonny Eachus's 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory.

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

... I hereby correct my comments to say his career has involved heat-transfer work AND he has worked for NASA. (Not that I expect you to honor that correction... as you have so conveniently left out other corrections I have made over the years.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

... Jesus, man. This guy designed heat transfer control systems [and worked for NASA]. Do you really think he's going to make that kind of mistake? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-11]

Hopefully he just made elementary mistakes, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.

... Latour is a control engineer for chemical processes and he has designed heat-transfer systems [and worked for NASA]. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-22]

Latour designs heat-transfer control systems for a living. He did it [and worked for NASA], among other notables. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-24]

... There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

Does Jane think physicists who work for NASA are credible regarding physics?

... [Dr. Latour's career has involved heat-transfer work AND he has worked for NASA.] I daresay he is more of an expert on the subject than "Khayman80". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

... I do not find climate.nasa.gov credible. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

So why did Jane repeatedly mention working for NASA? How could working for NASA give someone credibility if Jane doesn't find NASA credible?

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

A large body of scientists who are PHYSICISTS agree with me. A large body of scientists who are CLIMATE RESEARCHERS disagree. ... which group should I listen to? The ones whose SPECIALTY it is, or the tyros? Go learn a little humility yourself. Like for example learning to admit when you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.

Maybe Jane doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... None of your citations even mention Latour, much less try to refute him. You are just making your usual straw-man arguments again. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

All those professional physics societies agree that our CO2 emissions are causing warming, which Dr. Latour and the Slayers deny. Jane's claimed that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.

... To the best of my knowledge -- and I have been following the issue -- not one physicist has even attempted to refute LaTour's analysis, while a number of physicists have backed him up. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

rgbatduke is Prof. Brown, a physicist who'd refuted Dr. Latour's analysis directly to Jane, but as usual Jane just doubled down. On a Slayer blog post about Prof. Brown, Lonny Eachus even repeated Jane's arguments to physicist Joel Shore, who refuted Lonny.

Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... As for your heating the walls, the argument all along has been about something that is warmed from a cooler state to equilibrium. Whether your point about heating the walls is correct or not isn't part of it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Of course it is. The heated plate reaches equilibrium at 150F with the chamber walls at 0F, then the chamber walls are warmed to 149F and the heated plate warms from a cooler state to a warmer equilibrium. This is a simple way to see that Slayer claims like these are wrong:

... Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Second Law. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

I've explained that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

... you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Note that the italicized words at the end of my comment are Jane's words, not mine:

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

I've explained that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

.. physicists are now saying "Climate scientists should start listening to physicists about physics." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

Does Jane listen to physicists about physics?

.. A cooler object cannot increase the temperature of a warmer object via thermal radiation. It just doesn't happen. Ask any physicist. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-17]

.. An article by Spencer linked to elsewhere in this discussion (look for "Yes, Virginia") describes this concept of back-radiation, which is central to many of the AGW models. The article that I linked to above is by a Ph.D. physicist, refuting the first article. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-18]

Does Jane think PhD physicists are credible regarding physics?

And yet the "climate scientists" themselves have not been asking the statisticians about the math or physicists about the physics. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-20]

Does Lonny Eachus ask physicists about the physics?

.. climate scientists themselves have not been consulting .. physicists about the physics! [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-02]

Does Jane consult physicists about the physics?

.. How many of the CO2 models rely on the concept of "back radiation" to explain the radiative forcings? There's a bit of a problem with that: "back radiation" is physically impossible. Again see that link to the article by Latour (a physicist) who shows very clearly exactly why that is so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-10]

So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Does Jane actually take the physicists' word for it?

.. now it's physicists saying that they've got the physics wrong. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

.. They have been accused of getting the physics of their models wrong by professional, well-respected physicists. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

After Namarrgon notes that Dr. Latour is actually a chemical process engineer, Jane admits his mistake:

By the way: Latour is a process engineer with particular expertise in thermodynamic control systems. If I were in a room in which you challenged him over thermodynamics, I'd probably want to go outside to avoid the bloodbath. Good luck with that whole argument. To say it's weak is just.. well.. weak. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-20]

A large body of scientists who are PHYSICISTS agree with me. A large body of scientists who are CLIMATE RESEARCHERS disagree. .. which group should I listen to? The ones whose SPECIALTY it is, or the tyros? Go learn a little humility yourself. Like for example learning to admit when you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.

Maybe Jane doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

.. To the best of my knowledge -- and I have been following the issue -- not one physicist has even attempted to refute LaTour's analysis, while a number of physicists have backed him up. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

rgbatduke is Prof. Brown, a physicist who'd refuted Dr. Latour's analysis directly to Jane, but as usual Jane just doubled down. On a Slayer blog post about Prof. Brown, Lonny Eachus even repeated Jane's arguments to physicist Joel Shore, who refuted Lonny.

Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

.. I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

Does Jane really think physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics?

.. First, they mention the theory of AGW "radiative" forcing, which as I stated earlier is probably myth, according to physicists and experts in radiative heat transfer. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-23]

Funny.. it's physicists and recognized experts in radiative heat transfer who are disagreeing with the concept. Since the concept involves physics and radiative heat transfer, I am rather inclined to believe them over "climate scientists". [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-24]

.. Jesus, man. This guy designed heat transfer control systems for NASA. Do you really think he's going to make that kind of mistake? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-11]

Hopefully he just made elementary mistakes, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.

.. Further, why do you imply that climate scientists are experts on thermodynamics? That's an area of physics, not climatology, and I know some physicists who very much disagree with today's mainstream "climate science". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]

.. I repeatedly linked you and others in the past to PHYSICISTS who say otherwise. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-21]

.. Latour is a control engineer for chemical processes and he has designed heat-transfer systems for NASA. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-22]

Latour designs heat-transfer control systems for a living. He did it for NASA, among other notables. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-24]

.. There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

Does Jane think physicists who work for NASA are credible regarding physics?

.. Even if you did not take his word for it, his career building control systems precisely for the purpose of managing heat transfer would strongly suggest that this is hardly something he is likely to neglect. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

.. Dr. Latour did heat-transfer work for NASA, and has made a career of building control systems for chemical processes involving heat. I daresay he is more of an expert on the subject than "Khayman80". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

Did heat-transfer work for NASA, or managed NASA's Apollo Docking Simulator development? Doesn't seem to matter, as long as he did it for NASA. If having worked for NASA gives Dr. Latour credibility, shouldn't Jane find climate.nasa.gov credible?

Jane's repeatedly implied that working for NASA gives one credibility, that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.

.. why can a layman so easily poke holes in your "physics" arguments? I'm not a physicist, and haven't claimed to be one. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

If Jane thinks he's poking holes, maybe he's the Black Knight. Jane has claimed to "take the physicists' word for it," but I'm skeptical.

".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead .. he is either lying .. dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty .. Pathetic. .. you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. .. cowardice .. odious person .. you look like a fool .. utterly and disgustingly transparent .. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. .. You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. .. Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. .. spewing bullshit .. You're making yourself look like a fool. .. Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. .. a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. .. Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. .. if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) .. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. .. stream of BS.. idiot .. Your assumptions are pure shit. .. I'm done babysitting you.." [Jane Q. Public]

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

Clicking "Try Sage Online" doesn't require downloading or installing Sage on your computer. But more importantly:

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out.

That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I've repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.

Once again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

For the moment, I'll assume we can. If not, please explain why you don't agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize earlier that we have such a fundamental disagreement. I should've been building a common understanding of equilibrium and conservation of energy rather than solving increasingly complicated thought experiments. So let's take this step by step and see if we can agree on anything.

Let's start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

Earlier I made an offhand remark that enclosing the heated plate is like suddenly warming the chamber walls. This simpler scenario might be more helpful. Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant? If you claim it would remain at 150F, think carefully about energy conservation at equilibrium. When the walls were at 0F, the plate was in equilibrium because power in = power out. But now the net power radiating out is much smaller, which means power in > power out. So what happens to the heated plate?

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

Instead of saying "an aluminum plate warms the inner plate" perhaps I should've said "an aluminum plate warms the enclosed heated plate." Maybe this will help distinguish between the inner surface of the enclosing plate and the enclosed heated plate. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and corrected it at Dumb Scientist.

about three weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (342 comments)

Nice link. Do you really expect me to read that .sws file? How about something human-readable? [Jane Q. Public]

These open source Sage worksheets show my work for these thought experiments. Clicking "Try Sage Online" would let you upload my third worksheet, and hitting shift-enter a few times would recalculate all its answers. But in case you don't want to do that, here's a formatted copy of that worksheet and its answers:

#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()

ANSWER = 29.3986743761843

6379^2/6371^2.n()

ANSWER = 1.00251295644620

338.706*1.00251295644620^(-.25).n()

ANSWER = 338.493545219805

#Completely surrounded by 2nd plate
soln2 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=338.493545219805,electricity=29.3986743761843,sigma=5.670373e-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),T_h)
soln2[0].rhs().n()

ANSWER = 385.286813818721*I

This could also be done on a calculator, which is why I explained how to derive the equations using the principle that at equilibium, power in = power out.

... its outer temperature is 149.6F ... pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F ... [Dumb Scientist]

So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other? What a magical world you must live in. [Jane Q. Public]

No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F. Accounting for aluminum's finite conductivity would mean its inner temperature would be higher than its outer temperature. If you'd like, we could see how an aluminum plate warms the inner plate higher than the 233.8F it would be at with a superconducting plate. Just let me know, and I'll do the calculations.

But I don't think that would be helpful yet, because I didn't realize we have a fundamental disagreement:

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out.

That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I've repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.

Once again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

For the moment, I'll assume we can. If not, please explain why you don't agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize earlier that we have such a fundamental disagreement. I should've been building a common understanding of equilibrium and conservation of energy rather than solving increasingly complicated thought experiments. So let's take this step by step and see if we can agree on anything.

Let's start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

about three weeks ago

Submissions

top

Editor Resigns Over Spencer and Braswell Paper

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 2 years ago

khayman80 writes "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, writes:

... as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. ... why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chiefto make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

"

Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Falsifiability is the basis of science

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective. [ShakaUVM]

That's quite a euphemism for repeatedly accusing scientists of failing to construct and test falsifiable theories, or accusing them of dishonestly claiming more knowledge than there is.

Because

Now, I'd grown accustomed to 'spiritual'Â claims, and had decided to ignore them because they weren't falsifiable . ... I would like to see falsifiable evidence that they exist, rather than mere supposition. [emphasis added in all quotes] [Dumb Scientist]

science

My sense of duty to science stops here, unfortunately, so I can't falsify this hypothesis. [Dumb Scientist]

is

scientific theories have to make unique, falsifiable predictions. ... A metatheory has to be specific enough that it can be falsified entirely, though, otherwise it's not scientific. ... The Big Bang metatheory could be proven wrong by ... in the strictest sense his theory was falsified in the 1940s ... Evolution can also be falsified ... [Dumb Scientist]

primarily

... But don't include experimental data or unfalsifiable assumptions about parallel universes in order to account for fine-tuning of any physical constants ... [Dumb Scientist]

DEFINED

... presumably high-speed photography could falsify Chris's explanation. On the other hand, it's harder to falsify my hypothesis because ... [Dumb Scientist]

by

I agree that models which don't make falsifiable predictions are worthless. I've just never seen that happen in peer reviewed journals. [Dumb Scientist]

falsifiability,

It's definitely falsifiable science, too. [Dumb Scientist]

you

My third piece of evidence is the concept of falsifiability. You see, a scientific hypothesis needs more than naturalism to be valid. It also needs to be falsifiable in the sense that an experiment (either real or gedanken) can be performed that will either support the theory or disprove it. Evolution, for example, is falsifiable in many different ways. ... any scientific theory proposes a naturalistic explanation for some feature of the world, and makes falsifiable predictions ... Because 'Intelligent Design'Â is not naturalistic and makes no falsifiable predictions, it not only isn't right, it isn't even wrong. ... it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable. ... supernatural explanations are ... not falsifiable ... [Dumb Scientist]

should

But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design. ... Evolution is falsifiable science, while intelligent design is a religious belief. [Dumb Scientist]

probably

... evolution is only compatible with the evidence 'all life uses the same DNA,'Â which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead. [Dumb Scientist]

just

It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. ... evolution is falsifiable science. ... I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. ... It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism ... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? ... Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could - in principle - falsify creationism/ID. [Dumb Scientist]

admit

The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science. ... that's my central point: creationism/ID isn't science because it's not falsifiable. Every time I mention this, you provide an example that could falsify evolution and claim that it's (somehow) a way to falsify creationism. [Dumb Scientist]

that

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution. ... it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. ... they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. [Dumb Scientist]

your

While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more 'why'Â questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of 'why'Â questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. [Dumb Scientist]

nonsensical

In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that's very different from being 'proven true.'Â [Dumb Scientist]

and

I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science. [Dumb Scientist]

insulting

You say that as though my life's work isn't developing and falsifying hypotheses. ... [Dumb Scientist]

comments

But, as I've stressed, creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases. ... Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable. [Dumb Scientist]

on

Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. ... [Dumb Scientist]

error

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't. [Dumb Scientist]

bars

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from. [Dumb Scientist]

were

Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science. ... It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. [Dumb Scientist]

"libel".

And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition. [Dumb Scientist]

... It's nice to see that we both agree on the core matter. ... [ShakaUVM]

No, the "core matter" here is that you're repeatedly and baselessly libelling an entire subfield of physicists, which I most certainly do not agree with, in any sense of the word.

Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It's like telling a plumber "Oh, come on... you don't really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink." Presumably, people wouldn't insult him by suggesting that he's fundamentally incompetent at his life's work. Maybe that's because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators? [Dumb Scientist]

... the point of my original post above was to talk about the very paradox of verification and falsification in regards to climate science... which I think it seems you agree with. They are very problematic. [ShakaUVM]

This is the second time you've claimed that I agree with your bizarre misconceptions. Please stop. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. As I've already discussed, some physics topics can seem very problematic if you spend your time (for instance) running a small business. That's why professional physicists spend that time doing physics and getting structured feedback from other physicists. As it turns out, experience and peer-review can help one tackle subjects which armchair quarterbacks might consider "very problematic." If that weren't true, then physicists probably would agree with you... but only if they could manage to stop muttering "f*ckin' magnets, how do they work?"

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>