×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Dish Pulls Fox News, Fox Business Network As Talks Break Down

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (256 comments)

If anyone reading this is curious what a troll looks like, find thia dude's "energy conservation" post in that thread. And i'll write your next comment for you to save you from having to consult your one-line script yet again: "y u ask me kill myslef" [Rujiel, 2014-12-14]

Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?

Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:

.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting.. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

... seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.

".. 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]

As you can tell by clicking those links, all those insulting comments were actually quotes from Jane Q. Public, directed at me. As you can tell, Jane Q. Public has been cussing at me for months, and I never responded in kind. That's why I found it bewildering that he accused me of being "rude and insulting". So I quoted some of Jane's bizarre insults to show that Jane's baseless accusation was textbook psychological projection.

It's still not clear why this caused you to hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.

yesterday
top

11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (328 comments)

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

... You can draw the boundary right around the heat source. Electric power comes in, radiative power goes out. There is no contradiction, and no inconsistency. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

Nonsense. I've repeatedly explained that my boundary is drawn around the heat source, so it's in vacuum and therefore contains radiative terms both for radiation going out and radiation going in.

Choosing to put the boundary somewhere else, like inside the heat source, leads to an energy conservation equation with conduction rather than radiative terms. But even those conduction equations agree that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. They can't contradict each other. Putting the boundary somewhere else might be inconvenient, but it couldn't possibly contradict the fact that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, Jane's wrong. There is literally no choice of boundary which will lead to his absurd equation. Once again, it really sounds like Jane opened a textbook and found "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4" and simply assumed that "radiative power out" is just a fancy way of saying "electrical heating power".

At least, that's the most charitable explanation. Once again, I'm trying to rule out less charitable explanations like the disturbing possibility that Jane isn't honestly confused about basic thermodynamics. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus has simply betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Jane/Lonny Eachus could help convince posterity that he was just honestly confused by thinking carefully about conservation of energy, explaining exactly where his boundary lies, and carefully listing all the power going in and out of that boundary.

Or Jane/Lonny Eachus could help convince posterity that he's betrayed humanity by continuing to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

yesterday
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (189 comments)

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

... You can draw the boundary right around the heat source. Electric power comes in, radiative power goes out. There is no contradiction, and no inconsistency. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

Nonsense. I've repeatedly explained that my boundary is drawn around the heat source, so it's in vacuum and therefore contains radiative terms both for radiation going out and radiation going in.

Choosing to put the boundary somewhere else, like inside the heat source, leads to an energy conservation equation with conduction rather than radiative terms. But even those conduction equations agree that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. They can't contradict each other. Putting the boundary somewhere else might be inconvenient, but it couldn't possibly contradict the fact that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, Jane's wrong. There is literally no choice of boundary which will lead to his absurd equation. Once again, it really sounds like Jane opened a textbook and found "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4" and simply assumed that "radiative power out" is just a fancy way of saying "electrical heating power".

At least, that's the most charitable explanation. Once again, I'm trying to rule out less charitable explanations like the disturbing possibility that Jane isn't honestly confused about basic thermodynamics. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus has simply betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Jane/Lonny Eachus could help convince posterity that he was just honestly confused by thinking carefully about conservation of energy, explaining exactly where his boundary lies, and carefully listing all the power going in and out of that boundary.

Or Jane/Lonny Eachus could help convince posterity that he's betrayed humanity by continuing to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

yesterday
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (189 comments)

Feel free to cite the actual scientific papers predicting global cooling, as opposed to media hype about some speculation at the time. [david_thornley]

... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it. The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."

Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:

"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."

"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."

How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.

So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.

Again, that's probably why the National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of CO2-based warming by 2000 was actually predicting global cooling, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net radiative power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".

That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.

5 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (189 comments)

... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I merely pointed out the established truth that it was taken seriously. And again: the cited announcement by National Academy of Sciences is not "nonsense". It, too, is real. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. But the blog you linked has two "Science News" links which lead here and here. Neither of those links lead to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52. Could you please post the link to Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52?

While Jane looks for that link, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".

That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.

5 days ago
top

Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (461 comments)

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As I suspected, Jane disputes the definition of the word "net". Jane didn't get his nonsensical definition from any of his textbooks, because in physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".

That's what net means. But after it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Notice that this equation is equivalent to the equation Jane just described, but only if Jane uses the physics definition of the word "net". And in order to derive it, I didn't even have to use that word which has Jane hopelessly confused. All I had to use was conservation of energy.

5 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Re:No one gets the oil! (189 comments)

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

  • The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
  • Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
  • Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
  • In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
  • In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
  • The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
  • The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

5 days ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Re:No one gets the oil! (189 comments)

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

  • The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
  • Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
  • Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
  • In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
  • In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
  • The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
  • The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

5 days ago
top

Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

khayman80 Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! (465 comments)

By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

We either disagree about the definition of the word "irrelevant" or the phrase "nobody else".

about a week ago
top

The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (398 comments)

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

about a week ago
top

Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (461 comments)

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

about a week ago
top

Study Explains Why Women Miscarry More Males During Tough Times

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (113 comments)

If anyone reading this is curious what a troll looks like, find thia dude's "energy conservation" post in that thread. And i'll write your next comment for you to save you from having to consult your one-line script yet again: "y u ask me kill myslef" [Rujiel, 2014-12-14]

Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?

Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:

.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting.. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

... seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.

".. 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]

".. what a despicable human being you are .. after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. .. get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being .. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. .. Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. .." [Jane Q. Public]

As you can tell by clicking those links, all those insulting comments were actually quotes from Jane Q. Public, directed at me. As you can tell, Jane Q. Public has been cussing at me for months, and I never responded in kind. That's why I found it bewildering that he accused me of being "rude and insulting". So I quoted some of Jane's bizarre insults to show that Jane's baseless accusation was textbook psychological projection.

It's still not clear why this caused you to hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.

about a week ago
top

The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

khayman80 Re:More cooling, then? (398 comments)

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).

Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.

about a week ago
top

Study Explains Why Women Miscarry More Males During Tough Times

khayman80 Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (113 comments)

Just quote whatever I said that made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times. Start at the beginning of the thread and make sure you're quoting things I actually wrote, rather than quotes from someone else. Then explain why these words I wrote (rather than quotes from someone else) made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.

about a week ago
top

Study Explains Why Women Miscarry More Males During Tough Times

khayman80 Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (113 comments)

... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]

Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]

Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?

Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:

Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]

What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

about a week ago
top

Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

khayman80 Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! (465 comments)

By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong: "'The Greatest Generation' is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."

Members of the "Greatest Generation" were born from 1901 to 1924, but Tom Brokaw was born in 1940.

So Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong. Again. The "Greatest Generation" isn't a self-designation.

about two weeks ago
top

Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

khayman80 Re: "Expected" to release methane (329 comments)

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbers right, and you won't even be lying; it just doesn't paint the whole picture accurately. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, that's not science the way it's practiced by all these large scientific societies. Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science. The AAAS and all those other societies agree that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. You probably won't believe me, but these scientific societies really are devoted to painting the whole picture accurately. Sadly, legions of anonymous internet ninjas accuse scientists of incompetence while regurgitating complete nonsense.

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago when "they" were warning us of the coming ice age. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

  • The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
  • Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
  • Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
  • In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
  • In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
  • The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
  • The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

about two weeks ago
top

Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

khayman80 Re:Only CO2 matters (329 comments)

... if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.

But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.

... Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.

That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.

Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).

But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.

I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Editor Resigns Over Spencer and Braswell Paper

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 3 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?