Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

khayman80 Re:We've been doing it for a long time (277 comments)

He might have gotten his absurd "4 inches" projection from Jane Q. Public's ridiculous sea level rise lectures:

"The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reported that even if the worst predictions of the CO2-based warming model were correct, the oceans would rise an estimated 4 inches over the next hundred years."

"And yet NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, probably the most capable agency of its kind in the world, has itself released a paper stating that even if the global-warming alarmist's worst-case scenario were to happen, the oceans would rise an average of four inches worldwide over the next hundred years. Who should I believe, do you think?"

yesterday
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

khayman80 Re:We've been doing it for a long time (277 comments)

This -- which is the longest and most comprehensive study to date -- says there is no detectable warming in the deep ocean.

So I don't know who you've been listening to, but my sources say it isn't happening to any noticeable degree.

No, that source concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."

yesterday
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (101 comments)

The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you've never written down the very first energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms. You've only provided this incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation:

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

No. Once again, that's absurd, Jane.

The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-21]

A Dunning-Kruger victim would only consider the possibility that professional physicists are incompetent or dishonest. 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.

Here's how to use the principle of 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

Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

This is all clearly too difficult for Jane, despite the fact that this is the very first equation necessary to solve this problem. Because Jane is so far out of his depth, I suggested that Jane ask a physicist he respects this simple question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

If Jane were a real skeptic, he'd at least ask a physicist he respects this simple question. But Jane refuses. Why?

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

yesterday
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing. Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.

The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.

That's why Jane refuses to ask a physicist he respects this simple question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

"Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again. Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways.. because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements.. I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums. .. it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change"). Hmmmm... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot? .. you "scientifically" show squat.. you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion. I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding. I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish.. or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one. .. Are you allergic to simply telling the truth? .. you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof. .. I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. .. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games. .. you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously. .. you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

"I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. .. Now you've gone so far off base, I can hardly do anything but laugh. This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile. The "mainstream physicists" are the ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass. .. You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong. And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it. .. You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics. There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore. .. I really have no further reason -- absolutely none -- to have to read this utter nonsense. .. Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems. .. this distorted nonsense of yours. If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you. .. NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Holy fuck, you're a dimwit. .. No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner. .. NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING. I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply. Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely. .. You have repeatedly shown, quite clearly to anyone who bothers to read this, that you are willing to deliberately distort and misrepresent the words of others in order to have your way. That's LYING. And it isn't just right here.. you've been doing it for years. As I have documented. .. No, that's just another lie. .. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole. .. Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you. .. I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own. I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

".. None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air. .. That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument? .. This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them. .. you dishonestly distorted the meaning of my words. .. Do you have any other ways you want to try to out-of-context or distort my comments, and claim that I said yet more things that I actually did not? After I had already clearly explained them to you IN context? You do realize the potential consequences of that, do you not? Remember, I'm recording all of this. .. this is just trolling on your part. .. I have demonstrated you to be lying, I wasn't just saying so. This time yet again. Distorting other people's words by taking them out of context in a deliberately misleading way is a form of lying. I've publicly caught you at other forms of it too. I know I've said this before, but no more replies. You're a very good troll, but when all is said and done, all you're really doing here is trolling. You already have answers to the questions you're asking, and you haven't once shown a legitimate error in my calculations. Everything else here is trolling in a hot-air balloon. .. just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense .. That is a form of lying. .. your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic. .. Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

".. I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show. .. you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again .. You're straw-manning again. .. You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before. .. Why are you lying again.. That's stupid. .. That would be STUPID. .. I'm just sick and tired of your incessant lying about what went on before, and attempts to re-hash old arguments that you lost a long time ago. I have nothing further to say to you at this time. .. I said you were "lying" .. lying by implication.. blatant dishonesty .. just another dishonest way to distort the argument. .. Another dishonest distortion .. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie. .. I reserve the right to laugh at you again. .. stop the bullshit .. just more blather .. You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist. .. I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

".. If you ignore extrasolar energetic particles you're just being stupid. .. Based on other arguments with khayman80, to be honest I would not trust him to build a bridge over a creek, much less a spaceship. That's just the truth. .. Stop being a grandstanding asshole. I don't have to keep repeating my answers every time you demand them. That's called ASSHOLE behavior, asshole. You have already seen my calculations and my answers to all these questions. By bringing them up and demanding them AGAIN in a different forum, you are advertising your own dishonesty. It didn't work. Don't worry, as I promised this will all be published when I find the time. .. pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. I don't appreciate this constant harassment over something that has been explained to you clearly many times over. If you truly still don't understand it, that is sad but it is also not my problem. A textbook might help. .. Stop trying to be insulting. I'm not the one who got it wrong. .. you insufferable ass. .. Your constant blathering .. Stop pretending ignorance about things I already explained to you clearly several times. I can only conclude that you're doing this in order to harass. .. I repeat: look it the hell up. I have not just one but 4 textbooks here, plus Wikipedia, plus the testimony of experts in the field of heat transfer. They ALL disagree with you. It's that simple. .. are you finally willing to admit you have been proved wrong? .. Your BS "explanations" are not informative to readers who actually want to be educated. .. your methodology contradicts itself. 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. .. You're just re-hashing old arguments that I've already shot down. Why are you doing that, if your purpose is not dishonest? .. YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. .. you're wrong. If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. Instead, you're arguing ineffectively with some person on Slashdot, about something every textbook on the subject, as well as other sources, say your are wrong about. .. When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron? .. You're trying to give me some crackpot story .. You're just wrong .. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics. .. You're trying to play some kind of trick .. EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

".. you were "hanging yourself", as the saying goes. Hoist by your own petard. .. You are busted. .. I'll be here watching and laughing all the way. .. It doesn't matter how you try to squirm and twist this. You have been owned. End of story. .. I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal. .. Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics. Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost. Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning. To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts. I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much. .. Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off? .. It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter. You're owned, man. .. PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody.. You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this? You're just going to look that much more foolish later. .. YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose. .. Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself. .. no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules. .. I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again. I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. No more bullshit. .. I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting. .. Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be? .. You are giving physicists a bad name, and I repeat that I am going to show this to all the world to see. .. This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it. .. I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong. And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too. So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include your exact words. .. You DO know what a minus sign is, yes? .. You made assumptions that are, to be blunt, bullshit nonsense. .. Do you think we're all idiots? .. knock off the bullshit, because I see right through it, and so will the others I show this to. .. Yet again, you have contradicted yourself. You're a great bullshitter but I've caught you out and you've already been proved wrong. All this trying to twist out from under the obvious any way you can only confirms that you were bullshitting all along. Be a man and admit the truth, because people ARE going to see this. Why do you want to look more foolish than you do already? .. Complete bullshit again. .. It is a simple equation that is well-known to physicists. You claim to be a physicist, so why don't you know it? .. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. Because everybody's going to know it anyway. .. This is just another straw-man argument. Which you are very good at, by the way. Not good enough to sucker me in, though. .. your assertion is only "obvious" if you're not a heat transfer engineer or a physicist, you pretender. Heat transfer is not a science of the obvious. Intuition (and, as pointed out before, "thermodynamic thinking") can easily lead you astray. .. Knock off the BS. Time to admit you were wrong. .. I've already proved you wrong, mathematically, logically, and thermodynamically. The fact that your "global warming" religion will not let you accept the reality of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is not my problem. But you have sure as hell tried hard to make it everyone else's problem. .. You're either incompetent or a liar. As I said before: I don't know for sure which, but I strongly suspect the latter. It's a done deal. You have been proved wrong. You have been owned. Your ranting means nothing. I only replied on the off-chance that you really were ignorant and could be educated. But it seems that you are determined to promote your ignorance (or more likely: ignorant act and propaganda) to everyone else. So be it. No more replies. You haven't earned any; you don't deserve any. .. NOW what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull? Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did. Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before? .. I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time? I have concluded that is all you are trying to do. .. If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance. I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it. Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit. .. NONSENSE. .. What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. .. If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree. I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion. .. NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. .. You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit. .. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws? Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now. .. What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. .. YOU are the one who is getting them confused, not me. .. Look it the hell up. .. Apparently you don't understand the concept of NET, even though you have derided me for supposedly "ignoring" it. .. This is textbook stuff, and you just aren't getting it straight. Are you sure you're a physicist? .. Why don't you look it up in a textbook and discover that for yourself? .. I repeat: if you truly don't understand this, due to your "greenhouse gas religion" or something, that's just too bad. I'm using textbook physics for situations like this. You are not. You are espousing magical net power transfer from cold to hot, rather than actual physics. .. That's complete bullshit. Doesn't happen. Knock off the fantasy physics and pick up a textbook. .. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done. .. There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct. I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats. Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right. There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those. Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye. .." [Jane Q. Public]

"I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal. .. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right? .. That's just plain WRONG. .. I made no such claim, you liar. .. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong. .. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. .. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. .. I simply showed YOU to be wrong. .. I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already. You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn. Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost. .. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong. .. As usual, you distort reality. .. you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS .. this is all straw-man bullshit. .. "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit. .. For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me. .. What garbage. .. It's a ridiculously weak argument.. in fact it's not really an argument at all. .. downright hilarious .. YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. .. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working. .. a concept that (apparently, if we assume you're being honest, which I doubt) you have had supreme difficulty getting through your head. So just knock off the straw-man crap. You're very good at it, but I'm better at seeing it than you are at dishing it out. .. And the ad-hominem too. You can claim all you want that your personal attacks have nothing to do with your arguments, but you have many times proved otherwise. Just knock off the bullshit. It isn't getting you anywhere. .. Also, STOP sock-puppet modding down my comments. THAT'S AGAINST SLASHDOT'S RULES and it's just plain an asshole thing to do. .. if you read it, and understood it, and were honest, you'd know that is complete bullshit. .. that's the only reason I respond to you: to show others your bullshit. Funny how you don't seem to bother to read the TEXTBOOKS on how these things actually work, and instead just toss in your own theories. And.. that's how you came up with the WRONG answer, which doesn't even check out using your own equations. .. That isn't even misunderstanding, it's just a lie. You HAVE TO understand this by now. You could not NOT understand it, unless you are 100% clueless about what the term NET means. .. You are simply lying. Again. .. A high-schooler can easily understand this. It's simple subtraction. .. This is textbook stuff, and you're getting it wrong. Period. I don't give the slightest damn whether your precious professors agree or disagree. My argument was with YOU. .. you fucking moron. .. It's a combination of your historical tendency to straw-man argue, and outright lies about what I wrote. This is the only kind of reply you're going to get from me, as long as you keep up your dishonest bullshit. .. I don't need to "agree" with you about anything. I've already demonstrated how TEXTBOOK PHYSICS proved you wrong. That doesn't require any kind of "agreement". I'm just wondering when you're going to stop the dishonesty and admit you were wrong. The whole world is going to see it soon anyway, so you might as well "come clean", as they say. .. You're just lying again. What is wrong with you? I ask this question very seriously. You were very clearly shown to be wrong, using textbook physics methodology, yet you continue this bullshit. Why? I'd really like to know. (And it was indeed textbook physics. I have 3 different textbooks here.. wait, make that 4.. which all disagree with you.) You replied not by admitting you were wrong, but by lying about what I wrote and refusing to accept the clear demonstration that your own brand of "physics" as you applied it to this problem is a blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You leave me no choice but to conclude that either you are one of the "True Believers", and no facts will sway you, or that you're simply being dishonest. I quite literally have no other options. .. I spelled it out quite clearly when we had our "argument" (which you lost). You do realize this is all going to be published, right? I warned you not just once or twice, but many times now. Every time you pull this kind of BS will be just another instance of widespread public knowledge of your dishonesty. .. I am not going to get drawn into an argument that you have already lost. I repeat that the equation you show is for HEAT TRANSFER, not "radiative power out". You are just plain wrong about that and any heat transfer textbook will you so. Every reply you have given the past couple of weeks has demonstrably been a lie, in one form or another: presenting principles which you know to be not representative of the real situation (e.g., heat transfer in place of the proper "radiated power" equation), or claims that I stated something that I provably did not. One might be characterized as fraud, and the other as libel. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? Just asking. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

So you still haven't managed to write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? If you did, you'd quickly realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting..

Jane, you've been spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation for years. In the process, you've repeatedly, baselessly and libelously accused me and my colleagues of incompetence, dishonesty and fraud. I'll stop debunking your misinformation when you stop spreading it, and not one second before.

Since writing down a simple energy conservation equation is apparently too difficult for Jane, I suggested asking Prof. Brian Cox this question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

And 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. .. a clusterfuck pretending to be physics .. simply bad math .. you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off .. either you're not competent to analyze this, or (probably more likely), you are attempting yet again to misdirect from the real science .. weasel out of it .. you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit. Every goddamned time. .. you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation". And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so. .. you refuse to lose like a man .. you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. .. you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years. .. It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren. .. bullshit .. weaseling .. all your misdirection .. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch. I am fucking well done here. .. Same shit different day. .. you won't do it because you know you're wrong. .. you're wrong by default .. Why don't you just shut up and do it? Why have you been so mightily struggling, like a fish on a hook, to avoid it? .. BS excuse .. Same shit different day. .. I consider that to be an admission of defeat. .. bullshit excuse .. I guess you do admit defeat. .. your analysis is completely full of shit. .. absolute fantasy .. 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. .. a pretty major concession that I don't think you deserve. .. Bullshit. .. you're still falling off your tricycle .. simple damned algebra .. You're just clownishly hand-waving again.. START OVER AND DO IT RIGHT .. you're full of bull, and you have been all along. Either you are incapable of doing this properly, or you're just bullshitting everybody for reasons of your own. .. Hahahahaha! .. just more bullshit .. no more bullshit .. of course you still won't, because you're not capable. .. if you don't want me to keep calling you (and showing you to others to be) nothing more than a clown. .. I want to show other people just how much a clown you actually are. .. shut up .. you want to try to mischaracterize everything I say.. you were just messing with me. .. fantasy .. It feels as though I'm explaining to a high-school student who has never seen a physics problem before. .. supposed to have been a physics major. .. Stop being obtuse. .. SIMPLE MULTIPLICATION .. No matter how you try to bullshit your way around this, it is still WRONG. .. provably bullshit .. I'm just plain tired of your bull. .. Jesus, I'm glad you weren't one of my physics profs. .. That's your goddamned problem, and you don't get to complain about it. I'm really looking forward to showing this latest exchange to my friends. .. There is no way to weasel out of this, man. You're trying to output more power than you're putting in. This isn't even 11th-grade physics. Let's try it at something more like your level: You have 200 beans equally distributed among 10 squares. If you now take those beans, and divide them equally among 25 squares of the same size, how many beans do you now have per square? Show your work. .. THERE'S NOTHING "CUTE" ABOUT IT! IT'S AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF YOUR ERROR! This is not "approximation", it's fucking logical error! JESUS CHRIST, man, you can't talk your way around this. .. You can violate thermodynamics all you want, and it doesn't prove a damned thing. .. STOP THE BULLSHIT. .. If you continue to just bullshit your way around, as I have stated I will declare you in default and damned few reasonable people would disagree. .. NO. See my comment above. One more bullshit comment like this, and as I said, I will just call you a clown and few reasonable people will disagree. .. you are deliberately trying to make things difficult. .. It is dirt simple to show you are wrong. .. you're throwing a fit .. Are you drunk? .. Get the hell on with it.. I am very, very close to calling you full of shit and posting this where everyone can see it. .. YOU are the one who is trolling.. You simply wanted to waste more of my time. .. You're finally proving that you were full of bull all along. .. You're just plain wrong. .. you are quite clearly throwing a fit.. How could I possibly be "wrong"? .. I called bullshit.. prepare to be publicly declared a charlatan. .. plenty of reason to call you both wrong and a liar. .. I am going to declare you a fraud and a failure. .. I'm still going to declare you a failure.. he's just a trolling, malicious, lying son of a bitch.. he has berated me, publicly derided and taunted me, and (in my strong opinion) libeled me.. 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. .. "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. mere incompetence and arrogant belief in your own abilities and contempt for others? Or was it because you were protecting your political ideology, or global warming religion, or maybe JPL grant money? I really don't know, and I really don't care, but now I can show the world very clearly, using your own words, that you were wrong the whole time. I would thank you for that but you don't deserve thanks. .. I am not going to judge here whether he was honestly mistaken or he was just a malicious bullshitter, but in all honesty it's hard to imagine someone who calls himself a physicist unintentionally getting it so badly wrong so many ways. Unless his "global warming" religion would simply not allow him mentally to accept the right answer. .. I could go on, but this was my BRIEF analysis of khayman80's folly. As I sincerely promised him, I will be writing up a more complete discussion of his errors later on "the interwebz". Spencer and khayman80 were wrong. Latour was right, and I was correct to stick to my guns and say so, despite all of khayman80's public bullying and insults and braying like an ass. .. another aspect of khayman80's folly. .. khayman80, otherwise known as Bryan Killett, you're either a liar of a fool. As I said before, I don't know which, but I've proved that it MUST be one of the two. .. khayman80's nasty remarks .. schooling a physicist on why his physics is awful.. You can't even fucking add 2 + 2. .. you complete bozo. .. you're a complete loon. .. I'm not wrong, in any basic way. .. Face it. You've been spouting the wrong answer for 2 years, and using it to justify calling OTHER PEOPLE names, and bullying them online, and other nasty antisocial behavior. But even if I made a small mistake somewhere (I did NOT make a large one), you're still busted. .." [Jane Q. Public]

2 days ago
top

The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

khayman80 Re:Heh... (101 comments)

That's a silly question. Conspiracy theorists already think research they don't like is propaganda.

To a crackpot, there's no difference. They might be vaguely aware of NASA's multimillion dollar climate satellites, but they'll just say this is equivalent to the Heartland Institute's propaganda. After all, remember all those expensive scientific expeditions the Heartland Institute funds to place sensors in remote polar regions? Remember the fleet of thousands of robotic probes the Heartland Institute operates to monitor the oceans? Remember the time that the Heartland Institute lost millions of dollars because their Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in a launch failure?

Yeah, me neither. But don't even try convincing a contrarian that research is different from propaganda. You'd have better luck educating your coffee table.

2 days ago
top

New Atomic Clock Reaches the Boundaries of Timekeeping

khayman80 Re:Old saying (249 comments)

Your math doesn't mean squat because it's based on invalid assumptions, as I explained earlier. There is more information available to your GPS receiver than you are accounting for. But since you seem so resistant to the very IDEA that you could be wrong, I'll just leave you to your preconceptions. It isn't really worth an hour of my time to draw a decent diagram.

An hour? Just write down the three trilateration equations from three satellites that are supposedly sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock. That would only take a few seconds.

At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.

(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:

(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2

(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.

If Jane could write down equations showing that three satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation even if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, Jane would've done that years ago. Jane can't, because 3 equations aren't sufficient to solve for 4 unknowns.

But I want to repeat: we've hashed this all out here on Slashdot before, and several of us found detailed references. I do know how it works.

Translation: Jane's gone on a similar rant before, except that last time Jane didn't blame the need for 4 satellites on positioning errors and relativistic effects. Last time, Jane asked: "why do the military only require 3 satellite locks? Eh? Answer me that, you fucking genius. ... you are a moron. ..."

The military would only require 3 satellite locks if their GPS receivers had atomic clocks, which would be ridiculously expensive, bulky, and way too fragile for military use.

about two weeks ago
top

New Atomic Clock Reaches the Boundaries of Timekeeping

khayman80 Re:Old saying (249 comments)

Holy crap. Still with this, really? Do you need me to draw you a DIAGRAM of how the geometry works? Then maybe it will sink in.

Equations would work better, as I've explained:

You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position. I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.

No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.

At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.

(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:

(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2

(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.

But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:

(x - x4)^2 + (y - y4)^2 + (z - z4)^2 = (c*(t - t4))^2

That's why GPS receivers without atomic clocks require 4 satellite locks.

about two weeks ago
top

New Atomic Clock Reaches the Boundaries of Timekeeping

khayman80 Re: Old saying (249 comments)

You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position. I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.

No. Even without satellite positioning errors or relativistic effects, GPS receivers without atomic clocks still need 4 satellite signals to solve for location and elevation. Here's why.

At time t, your GPS receiver is at unknown coordinates x, y, z when it receives a signal with timestamp t1 from a satellite at precisely known coordinates x1, y1, z1.

(x - x1)^2 + (y - y1)^2 + (z - z1)^2 = (c*(t - t1))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, this equation only has 3 unknowns. In that case, an additional two equations representing signals from two other satellites would be sufficient to find your basic location and elevation:

(x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2 = (c*(t - t2))^2

(x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2 = (c*(t - t3))^2

If you know time "t" because your GPS receiver has an atomic clock, these 3 equations with 3 unknowns can be solved for your position x, y, z.

But if your GPS receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, you don't know time "t" to anywhere near the required precision. So you actually have 4 unknowns, which means you need another equation:

(x - x4)^2 + (y - y4)^2 + (z - z4)^2 = (c*(t - t4))^2

That's why GPS receivers without atomic clocks require 4 satellite locks.

about two weeks ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (92 comments)

... Yes, it is a simple yes or no question. But it doesn't sufficiently describe the problem. For just one example, you haven't mentioned that the walls are being actively cooled. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]

That's because it doesn't matter whether the walls are actively cooled. Their temperature affects electrical heating power regardless.

... You aren't explaining that the input power to the heater is fixed. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]

It doesn't matter if electrical heating power is constant. Even if the source temperature is held constant rather than electrical heating power, the electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

... You haven't mentioned the geometry or the dimensions of the objects we discussed... on and on and on. The fact that your proposed tweet is a simple yes-or-no question is irrelevant. It's not the same question. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]

The dimensions and geometry also don't matter. Regardless of size or shape, electrical heating power still depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. And that's exactly what Jane denies:

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

Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he tried to do this just once, he'd realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.

... And you consistently neglect the fact that it was MY solution to the problem that was quite literally represented the textbook, "mainstream" physics. Not the "khayman80" theory about how it should work. I repeat: why don't you pick up a textbook and find out for yourself? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-27]

Again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.

Jane, if you're so sure that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature... why not just ask Prof. Cox if it does?

It's pretty clear that you're just scared he'll say "yes", which would mean that your entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

about three weeks ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (92 comments)

If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

Hahaha. You slay me. (Pun intended.) First, you asked me to make him a BET, but you're not willing to do it yourself? Second, you honestly expect a tweet to describe the actual conditions of the experiment? It took us something like 2 days to even agree on that, with hundreds of lines of messages back and forth.

I do not take such things very seriously. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.

It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:

... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

This is a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem. Jane, this is a simple yes/no question:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

Jane, my answer is "yes". What's yours? What answer do you think mainstream physicists would give to this simple yes/no question?

about a month ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (92 comments)

... 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]

No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.

This is a very fundamental physics principle.

In contrast, Jane found a "radiant power out" equation, and wrongly assumed that "electrical heating power = radiant power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

If Jane tried to write down that energy conservation equation just once, he'd realize that "radiant power out" isn't equal to "electrical heating power".

... maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature? I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... I already know the answer to the problem, and that answer is supported by multiple textooks and experts in the field. So please explain to me what possible motivation I might have to bother, much less bet, Prof. Cox about it? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I didn't suggest that you bet Prof. Cox. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.

Jane's only possible motivation to bother would be if Jane has a single shred of skepticism and curiosity, and if Jane has any respect for Prof. Cox.

The reason I suggested Jane ask Prof. Cox is because Jane simply dismisses any physicist who disagrees with him. I've repeatedly failed to convince Jane that he might want to write down an energy conservation equation to determine "electrical heating power". But Jane might listen if a physicist he respects tells him that electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.

... If I had been "afraid" of what you would find, I would not have encouraged you to do so. I just have zero reason to do it myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:

@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

Jane, it's okay if you don't want to bet money. But I'll only ask Prof. Cox that question if you promise not to start calling him a dumbshit dumbass fucking moron idiot if he says yes. That hasn't been very educational.

I'll ask Prof. Cox that question, but only if Jane promises that if Prof. Cox says "yes", Jane will at least try to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms to determine "electrical heating power".

Deal?

about a month ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (92 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]

Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms 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]

... The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

If Jane is so sure that his Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is correct, why can't he write down a simple energy conservation equation around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? Ironically, this is the very first equation needed to understand Spencer's experiment. And Jane can't even get the first equation right. Prof. Cox is right: this isn't even degree-level physics.

Jane, if you tried just once to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms, you'd realize all this Slayer nonsense is wrong.

... maybe Jane/Lonny could just ask Prof. Cox if the required electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature? I bet Jane/Lonny Eachus $100 that Prof. Cox answers "yes" to the previous question. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus chicken?

... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-]

In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.

If Jane/Lonny Eachus were a real skeptic, he'd at least consider the possibility that Jane's "radiant power output" equation doesn't describe "electrical heating power". Jane's textbooks don't say to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power".

That's why Jane is too chicken to ask Prof. Cox if electrical heating power depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature. Because Jane's afraid that Prof. Cox will say yes. If not, why did Prof. Cox say all these things?

Remember, Jane's noted that CO2 warming models rely on the concept of "back radiation". So if Jane and the Slayers are right about Spencer's experiment, then why does Prof. Cox agree that increasing CO2 warms Earth's surface?

And Prof. Cox isn't alone, not by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, Grant Petty is a professor of atmospheric science and wrote A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. He wrote a letter:

"To all Slayers: ... The models aren’t perfect; no one says that they are. But they’re a damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but cocky “proofs” published in blogs by the self-taught, and the blanket unfounded assertions (“there is no two-way exchange of radiation because we say there isn’t”) that somehow passes for science in this group.

In each of your cases, I predict that one of two things is going to happen down the road: (1) the gaps and contradictions in your own collective understanding of physical and climate science will become so evident that you can no longer ignore them, and you just might even feel a little shame at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of experts among those who aren’t equipped to tell science from pseuodoscience; or (2) you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is. ..."

about a month 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?