×

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

Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (786 comments)

Oops, Jane started cheerleading a few weeks later. Also, "ineffiency" should be inefficiences.

about three weeks ago
top

Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (786 comments)

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. 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]

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]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, many other scientific societies, Prof. Grant Petty, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, Prof. Steve Carson, etc.

Heck, I've also told Jane/Lonny that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers. Even the convicted scam artist who conned Jane and Lonny Eachus knows better than to ask Sky Dragon Slayers to prop up his latest scam.

Riverat said Jane would need to actually witness the experiment to change his mind. Once again, after hundreds of pages of listening to Jane/Lonny cuss and scream and endlessly insist that he's correct, I agree with riverat. But I also doubt that Jane would even be convinced by an experiment performed right in front of him.

Jane, what would you do if you saw first-hand evidence that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature? Would you admit that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is wrong, and try to understand how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source? Or would you just retreat to some other absurd evasion, and keep endlessly arguing that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature?

.. If I were a "real skeptic", I would have researched the real answer to this problem. But wait.. I actually did! Unlike you, who found some equation for "electrical heating power" which applies to a space that is air-filled and subject to conduction and convection, I looked up the actual power equations for a vacuum-filled space with only radiant heat transfer. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

Good grief. Anyone can see that my derivation only includes radiant heat transfer terms, not conduction and convection terms. Jane has either hallucinated conduction and convection terms in my equations describing conservation of energy through vacuum-filled spaces, or Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

.. Spencer's experiment is not "atmospheric radiation". It involves a vacuum. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

Which makes it simpler, but the same radiative principles apply to the atmosphere. Again, that's why Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment.

.. even though I told him in no uncertain terms that we were debating only Spencer's experiment (his agreement can still be seen here on Slashdot), he insists that I am a "Sky Dragon Slayer", simply because I stated that Pierre Latour's radiation physics were correct. (For the record, I have never read the "Sky Dragon" books.) I do assert that there is no solidly demonstrated cause for concern over CO2. This person conflates that position of mine, with my use of textbook physics to refute Spencer, as somehow proving I am a Sky Dragon Slayer. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

My debunking of Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense begins with these two quotes:

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

Anyone who clicked on those links can see that Jane/Lonny Eachus only took a few hours to go from first reading about O'Sullivan's "rebuttal" of the greenhouse effect to advertising John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon" fantasy novel. Just a few days later, Jane also started cheerleading for the Sky Dragon Slayers.

So of course Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't read the Sky Dragon book. Jane/Lonny is so unbelievably gullible that he regurgitated Slayer misinformation without having read the book.

As usual, Jane retreats to an absurd evasion where spreading Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation for years isn't sufficient evidence to note that Jane has been spreading Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation for years. Apparently in Janeland, if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a duck.

Since then, you have consistently, improperly, and dishonestly misrepresented argument as including "global warming" even after repeated statements that I did not make that argument, and in fact you agreed that you understood this before we had our long discussion of Spencer's experiment.. If you cannot represent my position correctly and honestly (and you have repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to do so), then don't try to tell other people what my arguments are. Quotes taken out of context from 5 years ago also count against you, not for you. CEASE misrepresenting my words. You have been warned repeatedly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

As I suspected, Jane thinks his comments expire after 5 years, saving Jane/Lonny Eachus the trouble of retracting his endless flood of misinformation. Naturally, this statute of limitations doesn't apply to actual scientists. It's Jane/Lonny's superpower. Unfortunately for Jane/Lonny, he only went Sky Dragon Slayer in 2012, which was only 3 years ago. So Jane/Lonny's bizarre superpower hasn't kicked in yet.

Less than 5 years ago, Jane/Lonny Eachus even regurgitated John O'Sullivan's absurd Sky Dragon Slayer denial of the fact that we caused the modern rise in atmospheric CO2. Why did Jane even bother asking for evidence that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan fooled Jane by only showing summer fluxes and hiding winter fluxes? Again, what happened to Jane's surprising statement that I made a "good point" about the Humlum et al. 2013 calculus mistake which mistook summer and winter for a long term CO2 rise?

Jane/Lonny Eachus quickly regressed, once again cheerleading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation even after Jane/Lonny seemed to briefly start to understand that O'Sullivan and Humlum had fooled Jane/Lonny regarding summer and winter.

Then Jane/Lonny Eachus hit the irony jackpot by saying this regarding scientists: ".. They've never heard of summer and winter?"

Jane/Lonny Eachus even went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.

Then Jane/Lonny Eachus should ask himself whether endlessly regurgitating all this Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is really worth staining his legacy this badly.

Jane/Lonny Eachus even lectured mainstream physicists at the Sky Dragon Slayer website by regurgitating Slayer nonsense at them. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus is just performing a public comedy routine? For instance:

Yep, the guy's at least 800 milli-Timecubes! The interesting thing to me is that Spencer seems to be missing the point. Direct radiative heating of the Earth's surface by CO2 in the atmosphere is a Lie-to-children in the first place, and people who defend it based on religious faith really make themselves look silly. .. [lgw, 2014-12-07]

Like most physicists, I accept that energy is conserved. I'm defending this fundamental principle not because of "religious faith" but because of Noether's first theorem and the fact that our Universe exhibits time translation symmetry. If lgw seriously thinks defending one of the most fundamental principles in physics makes me look silly and at least 80% Timecube, then that says more about lgw than about me. [khayman80]

.. I suggest you learn what "800 milli-timecubes" means. I doubt you will be pleased. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Only Jane/Lonny Eachus could respond to a comment where I translated 800 milli-Timecubes to percent and linked to an explanation of what it means, then suggest that I learn what it means. Classic Jane. This would all be hilarious, except that Jane/Lonny Eachus seems very serious:

.. What's sad is that people are still saying crap like that AFTER science has proved them wrong. CO2 is NOT heating the planet. End of story. People like McKibben trying to shove "Global Warming" down your throat when IT DOESN'T EXIST is the real sad thing about the human race. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-10]

.. "Global warming" is bullshit, not science. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

Warming shrinking kids - or 'Can we just declare warmism a mental illness w/paranoid ideation & get it over with?' goo.gl/GP8A0v [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-29]

I vote Yea on both: labeling it mental illness AND getting it over with. The sooner the better. I have grown really weary of arguing with religious-fanatic Kool-Aid Drinkers who know nothing about what they're ranting. But what's even worse are those who really should know better, but swallowed it hook, line, and sinker anyway. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-29]

Fascinating. Jane/Lonny Eachus votes for "warmism" to be labeled a mental illness. Could Jane/Lonny list a few examples of people he thinks should be labeled mentally ill, both those who know nothing and those even worse people who really should know better?

.. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]

Climate Alarmism is like a zombie that hasn't realized it's dead yet. Still looking for brains. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-22]

@JunkScience It's worse that that: they've already lost, and they just don't get it yet. They're like zombies. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-18]

IBD: Warming has stopped but eco-radicals' lunacy accelerates - 100% agreement among scientists planet isn't warming. goo.gl/B1ORFR [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-28]

"Mainstream" climate science in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-09]

[Global warming is] a dream of power & glory, for an unscrupulous few. Unscrupulous is an understatement. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-18]

..climate alarmism was political- and $$-driven fraud, not science.. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-26]

I had a "climate change" troll bugging me so I wasn't in a funny-perceiving mood. :o/ [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

.. I've been the victim of very, very serious trolls, joe. And it isn't funny. Character assassination, libel.. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-21]

Quick! Get the world's smallest violin and play a sad song for poor victimized Jane/Lonny Eachus. He needs all his strength to keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation, libelling scientists, trying to assassinate their characters, and successfully weaponizing irony:

I had no idea how disgusting human behavior could be, before I encountered climate alarmists. ["Steve Goddard", 2014-10-19]

Isn't that the truth. I have a pretty good story to tell. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-19]

I won't say @MichaelEMann is "lying" here. I don't want to be sued. Let's just say he's a very creative storyteller. .@MichaelEMann doesn't know the emails were "hacked". Evidence suggests they were leaked from "inside". Second, much WASN'T out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

What an adorable euphemism. Surely nobody can tell that Jane/Lonny Eachus is obliquely accusing Michael Mann of lying. Once again, Jane/Lonny Eachus smears scientists with illegally obtained private emails while proclaiming that revealing public records is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

But never fear! Jane/Lonny Eachus knows the difference between opinion and libel:

Just this, before I block you again. Believe or not, it's friendly advice. Learn the difference between opinion and libel. I feel this bears repeating. LEARN THE DAMNED RULES! Opinion and libel are different things. Learn the difference. It could save your ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-04]

.. you should be careful what you say about people, even online, and regardless of whether you are a journalist. In most cases the libel laws are no different for Joe Shmoe than they are or a syndicated columnist. Generally, opinions are fine.. as long as they're clearly opinion and not stated as fact. Because even "You're an asshole" is commonly accepted as an opinion, that's probably okay.. especially if you make it clear that it's only opinion. But "fraud", and other such claims? Usually over the line, unless you can show that it's true. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-26]

I, for one, and goddamned sick of the LIES being told in the name of "climate change". Not just my opinion, PROVABLE lies. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Ruh-roh. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus is a deep-cover Greenpeace operative on a mission to make climate contrarians seem irrational and scientifically illiterate. If so, well played.

I'm willing to let Hell freeze over if that's what it takes to prove that CO2-based "climate change" is BS. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-06]

Here's the real question: is Jane/Lonny Eachus willing to keep misinforming people about climate change even as we keep rapidly warming the Earth?

When are more people going to pick up on the fact that they have been LIED TO about "Global Warming" for 20 years?
That was a Christmas gift.
Don't worry, be happy. :o)
Especially about global warming. Worry about the people who lie to you about it. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-23]

That's a very good question. Eventually, people are going to pick up on the fact that Jane/Lonny Eachus ignored direct evidence from 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.

People might eventually pick up on Jane/Lonny's long record of baseless accusations and civilization-paralyzing misinformation, then compare that to the record of the NAS, AAAS, etc.

Then they'll ask who was lying and/or opposing the "urgent need" to address climate change.

Jane/Lonny Eachus.. do you really want to be the last person in your neighborhood regurgitating this civilization-paralyzing misinformation once people pick up on the fact that they've been lied to about global warming? Because that seems to be where you're headed. Do you expect a fruit basket?

about three weeks ago
top

Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (786 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!!!!! .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

After Jane emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net", it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the term "net". Sadly, this is typical for Jane/Lonny Eachus and other climate contrarians.

After it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "net" which he keeps screaming in ALL CAPS, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. At this point, a real skeptic would either try to address this disagreement about a fundamental definition, or agree to disagree about the definition and solve the problem like I did without using the disputed word. But not Jane/Lonny Eachus:

.. No NET incoming radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed, therefore no NET radiation is crossing your boundary FROM those cooler bodies. It comes in and goes right back out. .. no NET cooler radiation is absorbed in the first place.. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Instead, Jane kept repeatedly screaming "NET" in ALL CAPS, completely ignoring the fact that his emphatic rejection of its standard physics definition reduces his rant to gibberish. Jane/Lonny Eachus also ignored me after I asked him simple questions about the definition of the word "net", so there doesn't seem to be any way to correct Jane's fundamental misconception.

I try to be tolerant of those who appear to suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, but one can only be so patient. :o) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

Jane/Lonny tries to be tolerant of those he thinks suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but only if "tolerant" includes endless cussing and screaming garnished with ball washing fantasies. If Jane/Lonny wonders what a Dunning-Kruger victim looks like, he need only look in a mirror:

.. I'm really not sorry to say this after your past behavior, but showing you're wrong is just plain dirt simple. And not JUST wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that I can (and will, believe me!) use it as entertainment for certain of my friends. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-02]

.. It feels as though I'm explaining to a high-school student who has never seen a physics problem before. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

I keep finding myself in a position where I feel I should explain, but I am at a loss as to why I should have to, because I am discussing this with someone who is supposed to have been a physics major. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

.. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-01]

.. you fucking moron. .. outright lies .. your dishonest bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-03]

.. I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of your blather. Because your whole argument was PUT to rest weeks ago and your failure to understand that (or at least admit it) is rather like a zombie which hasn't quite realized it is dead yet. I repeat: I have documented this all. I have the reputable and credible (and MAINSTREAM, "ACCEPTED") references which show you to be wrong. For a while I thought explaining this in different ways would show you that you were wrong. But over time, I have come to accept that you simply won't admit it, no matter what. That's too bad, because I had really hoped you would listen to the actual accepted SCIENCE behind this, and further accept that it was right and you were wrong. I no longer hold any such hope. I have myself come to accept that you are either a religious zealot, or a self-interested liar. And I very seriously doubt that you were ever actually a physicist. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-05]

.. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You don't understand what NET means. That is your failure, not mine. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Once again, a real skeptic would at least consider the possibility that professional physicists understand physics better than they do, and that the physicists are trying to point out a genuine fundamental flaw in the skeptic's argument. On the other hand, a Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are lying, or 100% clueless about the definition of basic physics terms. In the most extreme cases, Dunning-Kruger victims with associates degrees in web development might spend hundreds of pages wrongly lecturing professional physicists about the definition of basic physics terms.

Apparently Jane/Lonny's purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

.. You are counting the radiation from the cooler body twice. Or, conversely, neglecting to account for its (NET) failure to be absorbed by the warmer body, and therefore exiting your sphere without being absorbed. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.

In contrast, anyone can see that my derivation only counts radiation from the cooler body once.

I've repeatedly failed to explain that graybody equations have to reduce to blackbody equations where all incoming radiation is absorbed, not reflected.

.. Either way, you don't get to do that. It's bad math, and it's a violation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Good grief. For months, I've repeatedly explained that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy. I've repeatedly asked Jane to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. Jane/Lonny Eachus adamantly refuses to take the very first step in applying the first law of thermodynamics to this problem, but as usual he's willing to endlessly insist that he's right.

Also for months, I've tried to explain to Jane/Lonny Eachus that his Sky Dragon Slayer "second law" argument is nonsense. Once again, the second law would only be violated if more power is radiated from cold to hot than vice-versa. Anyone can look at my derivation and verify that radiative power in from the chamber walls < radiative power out from the heat source, as long as T_c < T_h. Since this is always true, the second law is satisfied. And yet Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps wrongly insisting that my equation (which represents mainstream physics) somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics. It's hard to keep pretending that Jane/Lonny is just honestly confused about such basic physics. It seems like that level of confusion would make it difficult for Jane/Lonny to tie his own shoelaces or type English sentences.

.. I do not deny that there may be a greenhouse effect of some sort, but if there is, it doesn't work via the simple back-radiation mechanism that is usually given as the explanation. That explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

That's the Sky Dragon Slayer chant. Slayers don't deny physics which haven't been discovered. How charitable of them! Slayers like Jane/Lonny Eachus just deny conservation of energy, both as applied to the greenhouse effect and to a simple vacuum chamber thought experiment. No matter how many times Slayers are told that the second law of thermodynamics isn't violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa, that fact never seems to penetrate their skulls. More disturbingly, Slayers might be perfectly aware of how ridiculous their mistake is, but they just want to confuse other people.

.. 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". .. [khayman80, 2014-12-29]

The equation for radiative power output of a gray body in vacuum is as I stated long ago. .. the equation for the radiative power output of a warmer body in the presence of cooler bodies does not depend on those cooler bodies. There is not even a variable for it in the equation. I repeat for the hundredth time: the radiative power output is related ONLY on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation sigma*epsilon(T^4). Nothing else is required. The equation is the same in the presence of cooler bodies as it is in the presence of no other bodies at all. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

That's exactly what I suspected. Jane/Lonny Eachus still doesn't understand the difference between "radiative power out" and "electrical heating power", and doesn't even try to justify equating them.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate that I agree radiative power out is a function of emissivity and temperature only. Once again, I'm just saying that "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power".

.. The equation for radiative power output of a gray body in vacuum is as I stated long ago. .. The proper equation for radiative power out DOES NOT INCLUDE that cooler incoming radiation.. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Once again, radiative power out is different than electrical heating power. For instance, electrical heating power goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F, but radiative power out stays constant because it only requires the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

But Jane and other Slayers seem to have confused two fundamental concepts, otherwise Jane wouldn't insist that this difference is a "red herring". Or maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus really does understand this simple difference, and just wants to confuse other people.

.. Any textbook on radiative energy transfer will tell you this. As I have said before, I have 3 of them here which all disagree with you, and I haven't even bothered to check the 4th. I already knew the answer before checking the first 3. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Once again, Jane has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4". Since I've repeatedly agreed with that statement, those textbooks don't disagree with me.

Once again, Jane/Lonny Eachus just has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out = (epsilon * sigma)*T^4*area". I bet Jane $100 that his textbooks don't claim that electrical heating power = radiative power out. That's Jane's incorrect Slayer assumption. Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.

.. You are wrong. You were proved wrong long ago. GO AWAY and stop bothering me with your nonsense. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

.. you lost that argument a long time ago. I am not going to re-argue it with you. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Jane's already proclaimed that I'd "lost" years before I even debunked his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. Unilaterally proclaiming victory years before hearing someone's argument probably isn't a great way of convincing posterity that Jane/Lonny Eachus is a real skeptic who's merely confused about basic physics. But it might convince posterity that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

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.

Utter nonsense. They are perfectly applicable in the kind of THOUGHT EXPERIMENT we were discussing, which is the ONLY context relevant to this discussion. Your own equations were proof of this.. nowhere did you factor in conversion inefficiences. NOT ONCE. Stop being a goddamned hypocrite, and go away. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Again, I didn't factor in conversion inefficiencies because they're not applicable. Power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. I've already explained this to you the last time you brought up efficiency. It just doesn't matter. Assume whatever ineffiency you want. It doesn't matter. Power in still equals power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, regardless of efficiencies. Do you see that caveat anywhere in these examples? example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

It's especially ironic that Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses me of being a "goddamned hypocrite", but nowhere did Jane factor in conversion inefficiences. NOT ONCE.

He also knows that the Venus argument is a prime example of circular reasoning: greenhouse gas theory says that is the reason Venus is hot, therefore Venus proves greenhouse gas theory on Earth. It's a ludicrous argument. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? This isn't circular reasoning, it's a real-world example which any true skeptic should ponder before dismissing mainstream physics in favor of Sky Dragon Slayer brainwashing. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Sadly, neither Jane nor any of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn't a greenhouse gas?

about three weeks ago
top

NSA Says They Have VPNs In a 'Vulcan Death Grip'

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (234 comments)

And your response now to my calling you out for posting spam... is to spam a different topic with unrelated garbage? Are you even sentient? Or are you just so scared of being called out that you hope if you try to harass me, I'll go away? [Rujiel, 2015-01-02]

You didn't call me out for posting spam. You repeatedly told me to kill myself. There's a difference. Once again:

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

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]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

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

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

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]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at other people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining that our CO2 emissions are melting ice sheets. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s and 26m34s) how NASA measures these ice sheets from space.

Rujiel, now that you've seen my face, do you still hate me so much that you still think I should kill myself? Or would you like to retract those odious statements?

about a month ago
top

NSA Says They Have VPNs In a 'Vulcan Death Grip'

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (234 comments)

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

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]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

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

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

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]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at other people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining that our CO2 emissions are melting ice sheets. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s and 26m34s) how NASA measures these ice sheets from space.

Rujiel, now that you've seen my face, do you still hate me so much that you still think I should kill myself? Or would you like to retract those odious statements?

about a month ago
top

New Proposed Path for Manned Trips to Mars: Let Mars' Gravity Capture Spacecraft

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (105 comments)

Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics, you should first make sure you understand more fundamental concepts like "conservation of energy".

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. The resulting equations 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.

about a month ago
top

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

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (275 comments)

Look, all this isn't remotely believable. You clearly compounded that account's massive spamming attempts by needlessly quoting obscenely huge chunks of his nonsense. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Needlessly? How else should I debunk his baseless claim that I was "rude and insulting" when Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually just projecting his own obscene insults onto me? And if you have a better approach in mind, why not just suggest that better approach rather than repeatedly suggest that I kill myself?

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]

He's a paid shill and so are you--no amount of verbose whining on your part could hide the role of spamming you were playing in that thread. [Rujiel, 2014-12-28]

Once again, Rujiel accuses me of being a paid oil shill. But once again, why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread? I've been debunking misinformation about climate from Jane/Lonny Eachus and many others for 5 years now. Again, why would the oil industry pay me to do that?

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

Really? Among other things, I've contributed open source software to estimate mass changes on the surface of the Earth using GRACE satellite data. Here's my dissertation which explains the methods. Does that count for anything, or should I kill myself?

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]

I really don't understand why people like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Rujiel are filled with so much hatred. However, sociology research suggests that people are less likely to hurl abuse at people after seeing their faces. So here I am at JPL's open house explaining how our CO2 emissions are causing ice sheets to melt. And here's a clip from the Weather Channel where I explained (at 19m36s and 26m34s) how NASA measures these ice sheets from space.

Rujiel, now that you've seen my face, do you still hate me so much that you still think I should kill myself? Or would you like to retract those odious statements?

about a month ago
top

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

khayman80 Re: Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (275 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.

about a month ago
top

11 Trillion Gallons of Water Needed To End California Drought

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (330 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.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (191 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.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (191 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.

about a month and a half ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (191 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.

about a month and a half 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.

about a month and a half ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Re:No one gets the oil! (191 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"?

about a month and a half ago
top

Denmark Makes Claim To North Pole, Based On Undersea Geography

khayman80 Re:No one gets the oil! (191 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.”

about a month and a half 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 month and a half 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  |  about 4 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?