Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

Not as much as your comment, Very Tall. Please don’t tell Carrick that we’ve criticized one another, he might get the wrong impression.

Since you mention textbooks, I might as well declare that I’m against textbook teaching, unless the textbook has been written by the teacher and that it comes with the course. This goes for any textbook, including Raypierre’s. If we go that route, we might as well go with underpaid, part-time lecturers all the way down. Oh, wait.

This point matters more to me than this round of ClimateBall ™.


Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Hoi Polloi

$
0
0

Paging Mr.Pukite, Mr,Pukite you have a message waiting at the front desk.

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

$
0
0

PhysicistDave,
You apparently don’t understand the nature of “not even wrong” arguments. It was odd for scientists such as these to even broach the idea that the full Bose-Einstein treatment would apply. The logic is that no science has ever revealed that Bose-Einstein statistics would apply to water in any real-world capacity, except maybe as vibrational phonon properties. Yet, phonons exist within the material independent of what spin state it is. Surely as a semiconductor guy you can accept that, right?

And that’s why the idea of associating a water molecule as a boson seemed completely foreign to me. The water molecule as a boson obeying Bose-Einstein statistics never comes up in everyday scientific conversation. Because it doesn’t. I started off by saying I was incredulous, which means “unable to believe something”. All my education in statistical mechanics and my reading of research papers would never lead me to believe that the boson nature would be meaningful in any way. If a physics student had stated that it was important on an exam question, they would have been given an F-grade. Physics education is ruthless in that regard. Feynmann would have been very disappointed that you couldn’t do first-order physics and think like a physicist.

As a sanity check, take a look at their Figure 8.2. The theoretical curve is an exponential that one can extrapolate all the way back to an absolute temperature of zero As a red curve, I plotted the simplest classical nucleation extrapolation, which is the equation: N*exp(-c/(T-Tm)^2/T)

The absolute value of the exponent in the exponential never drops below 3 over the entire range, and that occurs close to absolute zero, which is meaningless for real world situations. It has a minimum value of 50 on the range shown on the curve.

Now the “equivalent” B-E statistic in this situation would be:
1/(exp(50)-1)
makes the B-E factor of -1 in the denominator irrelevant. The value of exp(50) is ~5e21, which is much greater than 1 the last time I checked :)

Curry and co-author made a huge strawman argument out of the B-E premise and they are being called on it. They don’t like it and her minions don’t like it, but that’s the way these things roll.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

The previous comment was in response to Very Tall’s “I bet Willard has enjoyed it.”

By “that route”, I was referring to textbook teaching.

More on that topic:

This is my third year at San Diego State, and up until now there have only been a handful of concepts that I’ve never understood from my academic courses. I don’t understand conic sections from algebra. I definitely don’t understand Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” from world history. But the hardest concept to wrap my head around was why a class syllabus would list a “required textbook” that I’ll hardly ever use?

I want to clarify something first. When I say that I’ll hardly use the textbook, I don’t mean I’m neglecting my student responsibilities and not reading the assigned material. I mean there’s nothing of importance that I can learn from the book that isn’t already covered in lecture. I also mean that the class will only require a few chapters from the textbook.

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/48369/opinion/avoid-the-scam-of-hardly-required-textbooks/

An interesting chart:

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/08/professors-the-cause-of-and-solution-to-the-great-textbook-scam/

Institutions should realize that we have the Internet and that LaTeX is 30 years old.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by rhhardin

$
0
0

I find when attacked that it’s just an opportunity to restate and rephrase your argument.

Maybe it’s different if your argument isn’t easy to defend.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Three Lessons Regarding Cloud Thermodynamics,
Kinetics and Microphysics

———–

Lesson 1:  The Millikan Oil-Drop Lesson

Are oil-drops bosons? Or fermions? Whatever one’s views in this regard, drops with even/odd numbers of electrons necessarily have alternating quantum statistics. Observation:  Oil-drop experiments observe no such boson/fermion alternation in dynamical behavior. Reason: Oil-drops interact strongly with each other and with surrounding air molecules; this environment is sufficiently noisy as to entirely masks quantum statistical effects.

Conclusion  Quantum statistical considerations are largely irrelevant to cloud-drop kinetics and microphysics.

———–

Lesson 2:  Ilya Prigogine’s Unhappy Relegation

Josiah Willard Gibbs’ 19th century physics taught us that entropy relations govern the direction of a reaction (e.g., when do cloud-droplets evaporate? when do they accrete?). Ilya Prigogine led a school of 20th century physics that sought a greater goal: to determine the rate of reactions from entropy considerations. Although Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for this effort, nowadays this thermodynamical program is generally regarded as failed.

Conclusion  Thermodynamical considerations are only marginally relevant to rate-parameters in cloud-drop kinetics and microphysics.

———–

Lesson 3:  Lessons from the 2014 Field Medalists

Where should we seek to obtain a mathematical understanding of rate relations in regard to cloud thermodynamics, kinetics and microphysics? This is a very active area of mathematical research, and the Simon’s Foundation’s Quanta Magazine particularly spotlights the work of Artur Avila (dynamical chaos), Martin Hairer (crystal growth), and Maryam Mirzakhani (dynamical cycles).

Conclusion  Young climate-science researchers are well-advised to broaden their mathematical foundations, with a particular emphasis on atomic-level dynamical simulations, with a practical view to a first-principles computationally predictive understanding of rate coefficients.

———–

Overall Summary  Regrettably there is at present *NO* single textbook that provides a unified presentation of the necessary mathematical elements for quantitatively understanding cloud thermodynamics, kinetics and microphysics … as is *ALWAYS* the case for cutting-edge research!

Best wishes for enjoyable reading and creative research are extended to all Climate Etc readers!

\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 Trenberth’s science communication interview by knr

$
0
0

Bottom i this s to science what has tails I win head you lose , is to ‘fairness ‘
Its normal in science to expect the idea of fallibility in theory’s, one thing that marks this area out is it totally addiction to the idea that its theory’s can never been subject to fallibility. Either because they cover all possible instances or because no matter what reality shows us they are still never wrong . You often see this approach taken in religion and politics where strength of faith in your ideas is more important than the evidenced that supports or refutes them.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Edim


Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Steve Fitzpatrick

$
0
0

WHT,

When it comes to describing things as “not even wrong”, you ought to consider the accuracy of your many alarming projections of declining petroleum production. (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/petroleum/crudetypes/pdf/crudetypes.pdf).

Add to that your estimates of high climate sensitivity… based on a silly curve fit model where you choose to ignore ~40% of the total GHG forcing (even after that gross error has been pointed out to you multiple times)…. and it becomes clear that you have near zero technical credibility. I am sure you sincerely believe you are justified in nit-picking a few pages in a 700 page book, but you most certainly were not justified in writing a critical review of a book you did not even read. You are the very last person on Earth who should be talking about ‘not even wrong’.

When in a deep hole, first stop digging.

Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by John B

$
0
0

Jim D

I don’t care what the IPCC considers basic science. Yes, feedbacks are a given. And that is basic. But there is nothing “basic” about calculating those feedbacks. If you take IPCC’s feedbacks as given since 2000, they have failed forward fifteen years. If you take IPCC’s feedbacks and hindcast 100-150 years they fail. Explain how any rational person can accept the idea that the understanding of feedbacks is basic.
If feedbacks are so simple and straightforward, Economics would have been a done deal a century ago. What happens when the government spends a dollar, what happens when they tax a dollar. I grew up with Keynesian models, Monetarist models, the ideas of Milton Friedman, Rational Expectations and so on. It’s been many moons since I’ve investigated Macroeconomic Theory, it’s probably all changed. My point is Climate as a Theory can be no simpler than Economic Theory and to believe that our understanding of Climate is in a state equivalent to a “Grand Unified Theory” is preposterous.

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

What I know about these issues is not from having done research in any related area. The part of my career I was involved in physics research was in theoretical elementary particle physics, not material physics or “Quantum Theory of Many Particle Systems”.

I put that in quotes, because that’s the name of the book of Fetter and Walecka I know from having given lectures that covered somewhat less than the first half of the book. Preparing and giving those lectures was the activity, where I got closest to issues relevant to this thread – and that was 38 years ago.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Geoff Sherrington

$
0
0

A little later Steven will be at his inscrutable, Moshochistic best.

Comment on Week in review by phatboy

$
0
0

Please explain by which laws of physics does reduced energy flux lead to more extreme weather.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by skiphil

$
0
0

Thanks Rud, most helpful. Many of us appreciate your comments and posts even when we don’t always engage. I am looking forward to reading your book!

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

The webbly is still lurking in the back catalog making odd noises about bosons not forming condensates at room temperature and of equations that don’t behave if you don’t evaluate all of the terms.

i.e. that the nucleation rate is proportional to 1/(e^50 – 1).

The nucleation rate is actually reliant – inter alia – on changes in activation and critical energies.

Which can be evaluated using the expressions found here – http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9275/2012/acp-12-9275-2012.html – but are probably not equal to 50.

Boltzmann – and indeed Bose-Einstein – distributions can be viewed as purely statistical constructs in a process that might be expected to involve velocity and energy distributions. Bose-Einstein has been used – for instance – in ecology, network theory, evolution…

‘A Bose–Einstein condensate is therefore a quantum phenomenon characteristic of boson particles. Nevertheless, a similar type of condensation transition can occur also in off-equilibrium classical systems and in particular, complex networks. In this context, a condensation phenomenon occurs when a distribution of a large number of elements in a large number of element classes becomes degenerate, i.e. instead of having an even distribution of elements in the classes, one class (or a few classes) become occupied by a finite fraction of all the elements of the system.’

Ever seen pure, supercooled water nucleate?

Cool aye?


Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by markx

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by skiphil

$
0
0

angech, I try not to join in with ppl who are personally abusive toward Joshua (FOMT is another matter, heh heh), but I do think that his comments are most tedious and predictable. He should be given little web buttons that say simply “tribalism!!” and “motivated reasoning!!” and let’s not forget “same ol’ same ol'”

With such an arsenal he could make all one or two word comments whenever he cannot resist scratching his itch.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Doc,
Some parts of QM are really surprising and alien to the view of reality we form based on direct observations.

The influence of one additional neutron in the nucleus is strong in the case of superfluid helium. He-3 is really different from He-4 when the temperature is around 2 K or less. That difference is mainly due to the difference between a boson and a fermion.

The same effect applies, in principle, to other sets of identical atoms and molecules as well. H2O is different, when the oxygen atom is O-17, not O-16. The difference between ice crystals formed from these two varieties of H2O is, however, almost solely due to the different masses of the isotopes, while the property of being a boson or being a fermion is likely to be too small to observe.

The difference between fermions and bosons becomes observable when the QM eigenstates of the multiparticle system determined forgetting the fact that the particles are non-identifiable contains to a significant degree a mixture of the states where particles A and B appear in the original order and where their order is switched. For bosons contributions of these two orderings add up, for fermions they must be subtracted from each other. Therefore having two particles in the same state is enhanced for bosons, but forbidden for fermions. Both differ from the case of identifiable particles.

In quantum mechanics tunneling of the particles through a virtually impossible state is allowed. Thus a tunneling phenomenon, where two H2O molecules switch position in ice lattice is allowed in principle. This possibility leads to the difference between bosonic ice and fermionic ice. The frequency of this kind of tunneling event is, however, so extremely small that the influence on the properties of ice is totally negligible.

The only situation that I can imagine, where two or more water molecules can coexist under conditions where they can really interchange their places (or states) is the case of dimers in free space (perhaps also trimers, ..). Dimers in free space can rotate and the allowed rotational states are different for bosonic and fermionic H2O dimers.

Helium is different, because the interaction between two He atoms is so weak that He stays liquid down to temperatures where the quantum nature of the atoms makes a difference. The small mass of He helps also, while being a molecule rather than single atom has an opposite influence for H2O. These are, however, quantitative factors that determine the quantitative outcome, not fundamental.

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by skiphil

$
0
0

(really, “same ol'” need only be said once, not twice)

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Rob Ellison

Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images