Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

At this year’s International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM), Artur Avila received the Fields Medal for his fundamental work relating to (among other things) the fundamental thermodynamics, kinetics, and micro-kinetics of ice-crystal growth in clouds (and similar crystallization/liquefaction processes).

Mathematically-minded Climate Etc readers — math-minded climate-science students especially — may enjoy watching Etienne Ghys’ laudation of Artur Avila’s work, for which Tim Gowers provides a lively and humorous background survey

Remark  21st century mathematical physics has advanced far beyond the dated (and now generally deprecated) thermodynamical concepts of Prigogine’s generation.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant

$
0
0

“A short note to what I see as a quite ridiculously irrelevant polemics which has unfortunately squatted practically all 300 posts (even I feel compelled to add a comment) – the B-E statistics.”

Thank God Your Eminence saw fit to come by and clear it up in one swell phoop. Your timing in impeccable. Thanks Tomas!

Walk in the shoes, baby!

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Carrick

$
0
0

Joshua:

Well, well, “Mother, mother, they do it also.”

Said nobody on this blog except you.

willard, why do you have such a hard time criticizing your own?

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

Agree with your comment, although am still struggling to make the math intuitive. Until that happens, I know I don’t really understand it. So admittedly am still a bit unsure. But strongly inclined to trust our hostess, who does.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by ordvic

$
0
0

Dpo post the publication, I’ll be looking for it :-)

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Rud, give them a break. 1300 km seems like a long way, but it’s really only 800 miles.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Joshua

$
0
0

Carrick –

==> “Said nobody on this blog except you.”

==> “You might want to talk to Michael E Mann about that, then. ”

Right.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Steven Mosher


Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by mwgrant

$
0
0

Interesting Mosh…think (or translate.google thinks)…I’ve of something something eerily different but similar in Chinese…monkeys are always moving their houses.

comment on moshism and not beyond….

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by mwgrant

$
0
0

Sorry Mosh, vision giving out for the day or channeling translate.google. … I’ve heard of something eerily different but similar in Chinese —

monkeys are always moving their houses.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by GaryM

$
0
0

I think that Dr. Curry’s comment that Vitaly Khvorostyanov spent four days responding to this is a good example of why progressives use such diversionary tactics.

It takes minutes to post some distractive comment, and hours to respond coherently, particularly on such a technical topic.

It’s normally like Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope tactic against George Foreman. You get your opponent to exhaust himself throwing punches at your arms, while expending no effort and never exposing your head. (I am not a denier! I am not paid by big CO2!)

Except in this case Khvorostyanov appears to have scored a knock out punch to Pee Wee Herman’s jaw with his first swing.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by John

$
0
0

Joshua is at it again derailing a thread with her endless whining about a tiny little detail.

Oh for frack’s sake, give it a rest you whiny girl!!
An extremely detailed and long post and all Jane can bitch about is one little paragraph at the end. Sooo tiresome and predictable. Yuk.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Cloud and temperature can be modeled without a theory of cloud – this is the empirical approach.

It can be modeled with maths that mimic the physical processes -the deterministic approach. This latter is based on theory.

Can we mix the 2? Don’t see why not but why does common sense fly out the window to be supplanted by pontificating on intangibles?.

It needs a reality check – the proposal extension of the classical cloud nucleation model is based on theory. This makes it deterministic, mechanistic, whatever. It is about the reality of physical cloud microphysics. Which seems a fascinating topic on which I am under informed – despite my background in hydrology. On the other hand – it dawned on me pretty quickly that fundamental particles into which the universe divides – bosons and fermions – were not really the point.

Defining phenomenological models as empirical, semi-empirical and deterministic broadens the definition beyond the point where the term retains any meaning at all. I hate it when that happens.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

Don, thanks. Your conversion made my day.


Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$
0
0

After I noted the rather obvious flub, Pekka also asks


I cannot tell, why the formula (8.3.14) grows with temperature except that the full formula (8.3.13) does the same and so does the formula that results from dropping the terms ‘-1′ from the denominator.

Yes, why do they have math that shows the freezing nucleation rate increasing with temperature?

If the free energy term also changes with temperature to compensate for this, are they going to use B-E statistics on that as well? A temperature dependence indicates some form of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics is needed to explain the behavior. You certainly don’t want to be accused of picking and choosing your physics.

Another to file under “not even wrong”.

When is the errata sheet for the book coming out?

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Don Monfort

$
0
0

You are welcome, Rud. I suggest you use that in your book and attribute it to Mosher. I am pretty sure I saw that in a comment of his on 166990 :)

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

John – that’s what you said isn’t it.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Shiv

$
0
0

I pity Mr Khvorostyanov and Ms Curry for the time they spent in addressing uninformed nonsense from WHUT. I have seen many a time he says things that are quite wrong (particularly the ones on modeling) and ignites an unnecessary brouhaha. I get the feeling he gets pleasure watching people scramble to answer his nonsensical misdirections. It is sometimes tempting to answer this crackpot. But, I am reminded of what George Bernard Shaw said:
“I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”.
Even if he had been right, it is most likely a broken clock being right twice a day than his “expertise” with 20+ papers on 3rd rate publications. An average phys post-doc of his apparent age I have come across has to publish way more and probably in decent publications/conferences. I guess in this case the authors had to respond to avoid the Amazon rating.

But that said, I would have thought Ms curry would have familiarized herself and internalized the contributions from Mr Khvorostyanov, even if she isn’t the originator of those ideas in the papers. I understand there are joint papers where you are not really the originator or the expert on some ideas within that paper. You let someone else write those sections. I have done the same. But I am surprised she didn’t have enough grasp on these topics to directly address these issues with WHUT. You cant always rely on the co-authors to come and address the comments every time a crank does something nasty on a retail site.

What a humongous waste of time for everyone involved. I do think this crank enjoys it immensely.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Brian H

$
0
0

“and no any real condensation does not occur, of course”

This clause has such a jumble of negatives and non-English grammar that it is painfully meaningless.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images