John Carter – “the scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue” have gut feelings. Even they know they don’t have proof that meets the traditional standards of science.
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by kim
I have read John Carter ’til my eyes bleed(no, I have no fever), and I haven’t figured out what he means by ‘supreme bias’, despite his telling me numerous times.
=================
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Freedomfan, it did get challenged in the comment section of the recent blog post where Judith presented the L&C paper. Others and I offered criticism in other threads as well. There is no need to rehash the same arguments in every thread.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
‘Yeek! By your own acknowledgement, for any given molecule, total energy TE = KE + PE, where ‘TE’ is conserved throughout the free fall trajectory. Since when the molecule comes back at any level L with the very same potential energy that it had on the way up at that level, and since TE is conserved, KE, (and hence also scalar velocity,) must *also* be the same.’
TE = KE + PE
Is a consequence of the 1st law. FOMBS argues that KE was independent of height – and you are arguing it is independent because what goes up must come down.
Trivial nonsense masquerading as something of any interest.
You also keep missing the point by a mile. The issue isn’t about the KE of a given molecule, or a given set of molecules.
On the surface of the airless Moon sits a box of ordinary Earth-air at standard temperature and pressure. Upon the box’s top surface is a pinhole leak, from which the molecules fly upward and (eventually) fall back (without interacting with one another during flight).
Naw – it’s a stupid idea about molecules on the moon. Which P-N insists somehow makes sense if there are a lot of them. It doesn’t regardless of the velocities of different molecules. It is straight up laws of motion.
TE = m.g.z + 1/2(m.V^2)
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison, you still are missing the point by a mile. Neither Fan, nor me, nor James Clerk Maxwell ever argued “that KE was independent of height” for individual molecules. It’s an arguments about velocity distributions of different sets of molecules. This seems a very difficult argument for you to comprehend. Maxwell certainly thought that the KE distribution, and hence the kinetic temperature, is independent of height when the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium. And he thought long and hard about the problem and never was clearly *shown* to be wrong from what I gather from recent searches. (That’s not an argument from authority as much as a plea for you not to dismiss the argument carelessly as a trivial blunder from a random Climate Etc. poster).
Are you yourself arguing that the the average KE of the molecules diminishes with height such that avg_KE(z) + PE(z) is a conserved quantity that does not vary with z? That is, the average kinetic energy of molecules at height z, plus its potential energy at that level, is a conserved quantity?
Maybe you can just state, mathematically, what you think is the incidence of the conservation law TE = KE + PE for the vertical gradient of temperature of a gas in equilibrium in a gravity field of strength g. Can you calculate it at all?
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison,
Also, do you stand by your claim that “[...] nor is the velocity necessarily the same at the height on the way up as the way down. This is true only at the midpoint of a vertical trajectory.” ?
For convenience you may simply check the appropriate box:
[ ] Oops, sorry. I goofed there.
[ ] Yes. I stand by my claim.
[ ] I may or may not have goofed but I’ll just duck the question and try not to think about it any more because their is no way in Hell that I’ll ever acknowledge a mistake.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by steven
Bart, I’m going to have a lot of fun watching people on your side disown C & W once the AMO is negative, the ice recovers, and C & W show the most cooling of the data sets. Good to know in advance you will be sticking with it thick or thin.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by ceresco kid
Gates- Differentiate what is going on now with all the indicators leading up to the top of the MWP. Can’t do it? I thought so. You need to work on how this is unprecedented. So far just a lot of arm waving. No substance and no data.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Steven, that would only be fair since warmists already have had their fun seeing skeptics squirm and disown thee efforts of Judy’s own BEST team to produce a land surface record that incorporates many more stations, and implements better algorithms, in order to correct alleged warmist biases in the CRU record, only to discover that the CRU warming trend was biased low.
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
‘OK. I looked that up. Thanks for the reference. Maxwell argued that there is *no* gradient when the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium withing an adiabatic enclosure. Loschmidt argued that there ought to be a small gradient (not of any practical relevance to the tropospheric lapse rate that is dominated by out of thermodynamic equilibria convective and/or radiative processes.)’
It is called an insulated container. Adiabatic is pretentious claptrap. P-N reminds me so much of Feynman.
“There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset.”
‘Also you own argument seems identical to Doug C.’s and bear no resemblance to Loschmidt’s own.’
He is suddenly an expert in something he didn’t know about 10 minutes ago?
‘In an isolated system the temperature of the walls depend on the speed of the impinging molecules. The average of their speed is lower at the top than at the bottom as each molecule gets accelerated on its way downwards and decelerated upwards. Through this energy is transported from the upper to the lower wall until equilibrium is reached.’ http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/temperaturedifference.phtml
Graeff (2006) provided the first experimental result we know of – http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/temperaturedifference.phtml
Frønsdal 2014 provides a fascinating discussion in which the experiment described by Clive Best is proposed.
Some features of hydro- and thermodynamics, as applied to atmospheres and to stellar structures, are puzzling: 1. The suggestion, first made by Laplace, that our atmosphere has an adiabatic temperature distribution, is confirmed for the lower layers, but the reason why it should be so is difficult to understand. 2. The standard treatment of relativistic thermodynamics does not favor a systematic treatment of mixtures, such as the mixture of a perfect gas with radiation. 3. The concept of mass in applications of general relativity to stellar structures is less than completely satisfactory. 4. Arguments in which a concept of energy plays a role, in the context of hydro-thermodynamical systems
and gravitation, are not always convincing. It is proposed that a formulation of thermodynamics
as an action principle may be a suitable approach to adopt for a new investigation of these matters. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4990.pdf
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Michael
Rob,
What is it,
“It is easy to make a decision at a distance on a balance of risks.”
or
“Lots of kids get immunized. You want a medal?” ?
Make up your mind.
Though you are close to the mark with the first one.
On the balance of real risks it’s quite an easy decision. Tiny risks with vaccination and significant risks without.
What’s similar in comparison to AGW delayers is the moving the burden of risk onto others – with vaccines, relying on most other parents to get their children vaccinated to reduce the risk to your chil dand with AGW, letting futue generations deal with the fall-out of our activities.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
‘Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS
‘Rob Ellison, you still are missing the point by a mile. Neither Fan, nor me, nor James Clerk Maxwell ever argued “that KE was independent of height” for individual molecules. It’s an arguments about velocity distributions of different sets of molecules. This seems a very difficult argument for you to comprehend.’
Velocity distributions consists of molecules at different velocities. Velocities of groups of molecules on the moon ‘flying freely’ are not independent of height.
‘That’s (TE = KE + PE) quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either. ‘
So – the velocity of the molecule is independent of height because they pass back through a point (KE + PE) on the way down?
We start with a scenario that is obviously wrong and get deluged with quite spurious dissimulation. Does he believe the cr@p he spouts?
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
‘But despite their misguided beliefs, they have some reason on their side that ought to be acknowledged, even if only to better guide public health programs.
The first is that there are some risks associated with immunisation. Maybe not the risks identified by the anti-vaccinators, but risks nonetheless. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the public health agenda asks individuals to sacrifice their rights to the greater good. Is this just?
Perhaps it helps to make this personal. If you or your child suffered the rare adverse reaction to a vaccine, is it fair that you bear this burden for the greater good?
Public health practitioners have to act pragmatically but promotion efforts are likely better guided by a realistic view of the intended audience. And such practical matters shouldn’t prevent scientists, philosophers and academics continuing to debate these important issues.’ http://theconversation.com/preaching-to-the-unconverted-immunisation-risks-and-public-health-11007
And it is not a matter of ignoring the rare risks in a system that has dynamical mechanisms at its core – but of designing practical, pragmatic and workable solutions for humanity and the environment.
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Observation A No amount of common-sense thermodynamic arguments will convince denialists (D C and Rob Ellison, for example) that their nonstandard thermodynamic cognition is just plain wrong.
And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more abusive the thermodynamic contrarians become.
Why is this? Not even Kim knows!
————-
Observation B No amount of common-sense economic arguments will convince denialist-politicians (Rand Paul for example) that their market-fundamentalist cognition is just plain wrong.
And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more angry the market-fundamentalists become.
Why is this? The world wonders!
————-
Observation C No amount of integrative scientific arguments will convince pure-statistics “scientists” (Judith Curry, for example>?) that their pure-statistics climate-change cognition is just plain wrong.
And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more irritable the pure statisticians become.
Why is this? It’s a puzzle!
![\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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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 Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
What is it,
“It is easy to make a decision at a distance on a balance of risks.”
or
“Lots of kids get immunized. You want a medal?” ?
Make up your mind.
What it is is arrogant and stupid to ignore the feelings of parents – however poorly informed you think they are. Of course vaccinations make sense from a public health perspective – but that’s at an emotional distance. The choice is not mine to make – I have no skin in the game.
Do you really not see the difference between me making an on balance decision and that of a parent making a decision about their world?
I don’t want to go into the philosophical dimensions – you are obviously incapable of the empathy required. It is a failing of pissant progressives generally.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison wrote: “It is called an insulated container. Adiabatic is pretentious claptrap. P-N reminds me so much of Feynman. “There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — [...]”
OK. This after we both used the term “adiabatic” to mean “no matter or heat flow through the system’s boundary” one bazillion times each in the previous discussion. I guess this content free reply was your backhanded way to check the third box, and also avoid committing yourself to anything precise about the implications of your own view regarding the vertical temperature gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by steven
Pierre-Normand, see, you know exactly how much fun I’ll be having.
↧
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Stephen Segrest
rls — Your comment would require a “conspiracy theory” which in today’s world of open public access to things like Utility integrated resource planning and especially “Request for Proposals” would be puzzlesome. It would require System Planning engineers being told to “manipulate” their models (and then be able to hide it in any public forum) so that solar wins. I personally never experienced anything like this.
Now some assumptions used in engineering economics models would be “subjective” and totally at the discretion of management that could favor solar. An example of this is what EPA regs to use on things like future mercury and low level ozone emissions.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an EPA reg on low level ozone (developed under the George W. Bush Administration no less) that Industry had appealed in the Courts for about 6 years:
Now, I could buy-in to the subjective assumption of what future EPA ppb will be (that would clearly effect engineering economics models) — but this wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theory”.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
No – it is called insulated because that is the key property of the isolated column. It is a matter of the simplest terminology as opposed to high sounding claptrap that is in fact incomplete.
Oh yeah – the kinetic energy is independent of the height because it goes up and then goes down. Incorrect and trivial.
↧
Comment on Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed by Rob Ellison
Oh – yeah. My view of thermal stratification under gravity is that it may or may not happen. The physical mechanism seems reasonable enough.
Maxwell relied on the second law – because otherwise we could build a difference engine that would be a perpetual motion machine. It would actually be a very small difference engine powered by gravity. Whatever gravity is.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
