.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Cycling disinformers: A mini update of denier waffle at WUWT

Sou | 12:20 AM Go to the first of 49 comments. Add a comment
I admit to being bored with the petty deniers and conspiracy theorists at WUWT. What's happening at the political level in the USA and Australia is much more fascinating in a grim way. Still, until I have a bit more time to focus on the blog, you'll have to make do with this mini-update about the goings on in deniersville - from Eric Worrall, Andy May, Willis Eschenbach and Ira Glickstein, PhD.

It's pretty much the blind leading the blind in the sense that there's none so blind...(nothing to do with vision-impairment).


Eric Worrall is still in charge at WUWT. Anthony Watts handed over his blog some time ago and, despite making an occasional brief appearance and promising more, he hasn't delivered yet. Eric is complaining about Pope Francis and young priests learning about climate and nature (archived here). He thinks they should only care about souls and hell and heaven I guess and should forgo any urge to show charity or care for the world upon which the living live. He's also complaining about the sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is to be shown at Sundance, and distributed by Paramount later next year (archived here).



Wondering Willis Eschenbach has made a couple of appearances lately too (here and here). Nothing to write home about. He doesn't like the clean renewables revolution is one of his messages. I guess he's a dirty old coal man who wants to go back to living in the grimy smog-filled past. He also approves of witch hunts against climate scientists for doing responsible research. He's keen to "shoot the messenger", like most of his fellow climate science disinformers who want the world to burn.

Andy May has been working furiously to prove to himself and everyone else that the world is about to cool down (archived here). This time around he wrote about a paper he hasn't read, and in doing so resorts to misquotes and misrepresentations, and Judith Curry of all people, as well as some European deniers: Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, as translated by blogging disinformer, Pierre Gosselin. Andy's trick is to remove the secular trend and claim that all the warming is just a cycle. That trick's been tried before, by John McLean and co., you may recall. When pushed as to what's causing the secular trend (the long term rise in global temperature), Andy figures it's just another cycle.

Cycles on cycles giving rise to temperatures not seen before since civilisation began. Those are some cycles, aren't they!

Andy thinks it's about to cool down and, referring to the already defunct stadium wave, suggests "it will start getting colder around 2020 and it will be noticeable by 2030". How long has he been waiting for that to happen?

The latest is from Ira Glickstein, PhD (archived here), who, like most committed science deniers, still hasn't learnt the first thing about climate, despite writing several blog articles for Anthony Watts over the years.

His main point is that there cannot be different causes of the same effect. He noted that in the past, warming from other causes caused the oceans to release CO2 (which causes more warming, though Ira doesn't acknowledge that bit).  He argues, fallaciously, that this means that increased atmospheric CO2 cannot cause warming now.  He's wrong, of course, as are all greenhouse effect deniers. Just because a flood was caused by a burst water main last year, doesn't mean that a flood this year couldn't have been caused by the torrential rain his town had.

Ira's article, like one of Eric's, was written about An Inconvenient Truth. I'd say that deniers are getting upset that a follow up film is coming out. He decided to misrepresent the film, and wrote a strawman based on flawed arithmetic. Ira wrote:
Gore points out that CO2 levels 50 years in the future will approach 600 ppm, and asks:

If this much on the cold side is a mile of ice over our heads, what would that much on the warmer side be?"

He knows that his audience will assume, incorrectly, that Temperatures will rise in proportion, by about 25⁰C (45⁰F).

Most of the audience of An Inconvenient Truth wouldn't be as dumb as Ira. Ira doesn't even mention the scientific expectation that each doubling of CO2 results in a rise in global surface temperature of between 1.5 ⁰C and 4.5 ⁰C with a best estimate around 3 ⁰C. 600 ppm is a bit more than double the pre-industrial CO2 levels. The temperature now is a bit over 1 ⁰C higher than it was before industrialisation. So the rise would be around another 2 ⁰C eventually, at 600 ppm. I've know idea where Ira got his notion of an additional 25 ⁰C. Pulled it out of his hat, I suppose.

I haven't seen the film so I can't verify what Ira wrote about it above. It strikes me that Ira was conflating CO2 and temperature. Mostly the notion is that an ice age will occur with a drop in surface temperature of 4 ⁰C or 5 ⁰C, and that one can therefore ponder what a rise of 4 ⁰C or 5 ⁰C would do to the world we live in.  It would pose great difficulties from excessive heat just as there would be great difficulties from excessive cold.

If these chaps jumped off a cliff, they'd be saying to each other "we're going to stop falling down soon and fall back up to the top any second now."



Enough of that nonsense. AGU16 beckons and I expect most of you would rather find out the latest in science than read repeats of denier pseudo-science claptrap.


From the HotWhopper archives






49 comments:

Millicent said...

So we have to wait to 2030 now before we notice its getting colder. How disappointing.

On the bright side, its one more cooling prediction to add to the list. The more the merrier.

another fan said...

The ~3° C for doubled CO2 is "equilibrium" climate sensitivity, BEFORE the ice sheets melt. The much more relevant number in a warming world (because ice sheets melt WAY faster than they form) is Earth system sensitivity, which is more like ~6° C.
The paleoclimate data are consistent with ~6° C for doubled CO2 after the ice sheets melt. So the mid Miocene had CO2 ~500 PPM & temps ~5-6° C warmer (not to mention sea level maybe ~50 meters higher). (These numbers obviously have a lot of uncertainty.)
Of course when heat energy is applied to ice, it warms to ~0° C (~32° F), where temperatures stabilise as the heat energy goes into the phase transition from solid to liquid. So the "equilibrium" in temperatures is associated with the utter horror of the ice sheets' melting chaotically & incredibly destructively, with unpredictable bursts in sea level rise.
I REALLY wish we could drop the "equilibrium" from climate sensitivity, because it implies some sort of benign situation, when the reality is very different. Yes, temperatures equilibrate, but sea level is highly unstable.

another fan said...

Oops, the above comment is from PG_Antioch. I thought I was automatically logged in, which occurs in chat, but evidently not.

swimbouy said...

"it will start getting colder around 2020 and it will be noticeable by 2030".
That's basically the same as "it hasn't warming since 2016" isn't it ? Now when did I hear something like that before ...

Sou said...

Andy May was referring to Marcia Wyatt's stadium wave. He got that wrong, too. With Marcia Wyatt's hypothesis (promoted by Judith Curry), the temperature was supposed to stop going up around 2013 and not rise again till 2030 or so. There was nothing about getting colder. On the contrary, the hypothesis was that warming would stop in 2013 and it would warm up from the mid-2030s.

From the press release:

The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author."

and...

"The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic," Wyatt said. "Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal."

Yet this has happened!

A few months later, Judith Curry dropped the end of the "pause" from the 2030s to around 2024.

See here.

Thing is, the 2016 12 months average to October, was almost 0.4 C hotter than the 12 months to October in 2013.

Andy didn't just get the hypothesis wrong, the stadium wave is dead and gone.

Harry Twinotter said...

I was wondering. The post is a bit of an odd Gish Gallop.

Harry Twinotter said...

Bad studies do not die, they just fade away. I like this self-correcting aspect of peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I never gave the "stadium wave" much thought. I am suspicious as it seems to fit in with Dr Curry's climate "uncertainty" and natural cycles ideology. Anything but carbon...

ArlenAtmospherics said...

I rate peoples' work on my own understanding of several sciences I have been exposed to.

I just want to give you a few questions and see if you know the answers.

1) what is the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of a volume of gas, or atmospheric air?

2) have you ever worked or had a hobby in any field related to

a)pressurized gases

b)biological atmospheric chemistry related to aquatic, oceanic, or terrestrial life?

3)Have you ever worked with refractory radiation concepts in practice? In other words are you knowledgable in radiant heat transfer or in the principles of electron radiation, such as wireless radio principles?

4)Have you ever worked in any kind of instrumentation field?

The reason I have asked these questions is because I plan to ask some so called skeptics forums and see what people say to me. I think I understand climate change and radiation green house gas theory well enough, I grew up raising animals and associated terrestrial and aquatic plants, in a pet shop and my father worked with the state Game and Fish departments to foil poachers of wildlife sold as pets internationally.

These people are crazily inventive and highly knowledgeable about the atmospheric chemistry required to sustain life, - and this includes temperature too, since the atmospheric temperature of any environment is critical.

One of the main reasons some types of wildlife are difficult to smuggle has to do with heat trapping, and respiratory diseases are very common in smuggled animals due to environmental conditions.

Growing up from there, I went into the radiation communications field.

This is any form of radiant energy transfer from the electron radiation of wi-fi to infrared light radiation through the air, as with remote controls and in fiber as well.

There's also the radiant light escaping from any equipment using power - and that infrared as heat, is something that's part of my everyday work and scientific training.

So I'm interested in finding out how many others are like me, highly educated and literate in the foundations of several phases of matter, as well as trained and experienced - not just in the fundamentals but the advanced atmospheric chemistry, radiation, and instrumentation principles, applicable to green house effect radiation theory. I see a lot of people claiming they really understand the science of climate.

I'm interested in knowing where the blog owner here has worked in the field of atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric radiation: and how many years of applied atmospheric chemistry you have in school, work, or hobby applications,

and how she fares answering just some basic questions about the subject of atmospherics and atmospheric radiation chemistry.


Marco said...

Uhm, Sou, why did you link to what is happening around Antarctica? Not much relevance to the Arctic, which is what the press release is discussing.

Sou said...

Oops. Wrong tweet. Sorry about that. I was in a rush. I'll post the right one when I get to today's destination and my laptop, in a little while.

Sou said...

Again, sorry for the odd link - Zach Labe (@ZLabe) on Twitter is a terrific source of up to date info on the Arctic, and Antarctica. Here are a couple that relate to the Arctic - for ice extent and for temperature for example.

Since posting that comment, the 2016 Arctic report card has come out, with a lot more detail than a tweet can hope to cover.

Jammy Dodger said...

Fe fi fo fum ...

Bernard J. said...

"...what is the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of a volume of gas, or atmospheric air?

(Yada yada yada...)
"

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

"...poachers of wildlife sold as pets internationally.

These people are crazily inventive and highly knowledgeable about the atmospheric chemistry required to sustain life, - and this includes temperature too, since the atmospheric temperature of any environment is critical.
"

Yeah, I'd rather trust my own experience and my colleagues', as ecologists, than to put any credence in the notions of aluminium foil hat wearers.

"...electron radiation of wi-fi..."

Snork.

"So I'm interested in finding out how many others are like me, highly educated and literate..."

What, for very small values of "highly educated and literate?!"

I haven't laughed so hard for weeks.

What a prat.

Sou said...

WiFi 101 from Australia's own.



Harry Twinotter said...

ArlenAtmospherics.

Please post your contact details so you bona fides can be determined. That is a very long (and somewhat garbled) homework assignment.

Jammy Dodger said...

Hey ArlenAtmospherics

I suggest you contemplate why everyone here instantly saw through your faux erudite posting.

Here is one bit of advice for your next attempt. Deniers always are at pains to emphasise how qualified they are and that they understand the science so well. Real scientists are a lot more aware of how little they understand so are happy to stay within the bounds of what they really do understand. And even in those limits show "scientific reticence". (h/t ATTP). So go and try again under a new anonymous name and see if you can fool us. Another bit of advice - you will have to do a lot better than that. In fact after you have studied enough to be able to pull the wool over our eyes you may actually have some understanding of climate science and it will start dawning on you how misinformed you have been.

By the way I would like to see you answer your own question. What is the law called to "solve" the temperature of a gas? (I am tempted to answer the law of using a thermometer.) But I guess you had something else in mind. I can think of around 12 different names for various gas laws. Not one of them "solves" for temperature alone. So, share your knowledge with us.







ArlenAtmospherics said...

Bernard J: Reference to Dunning-Kruger is ironic since you can't name the law that governs temperature of air,

have no work or training in atmospherics, but are convinced it's impossible to disagree with you and be right.

It's the Ideal Gas Law; the unifying law of gas thermodynamics by which mass/energy conditions are solved for compressible fluids, and the law of thermodynamics used to set regulations and international standards for operation of anything that operates, involving pressure, vacuum, heating, or cooling.

It's the law that determines how your stove can be manufactured, your car, your jetliner; how your natural gas is metered, how much gas can be put in a pressurized tank, how much a furnace can warm, or an air conditioner cool.
It is the law used to verify the international standard known as the Standard Atmosphere. Regulations/statutes regarding gas pressures and combustion instrumentation, are usually - somewhere down the line, based on the Standard Atmosphere's characteristics.

It's the culmination of many years' observation of - and a unifying of - several of the most important, older limited laws.

It's the law we use to calibrate instruments for atmospheric sensing on the ground, aircraft: and spacecraft for Earth, Venus, or Mars.

I just wanted to see if anyone at this site even knows which law of thermodynamics is used to solve the temperature of air. Or a gas. If you don't know that then the chances are that you also don't know the name of the factors making up it's equation or what they stand for. LoL. What kind of disinformation do you plan to clear up - when you don't know how to find out the temperature of air? When you don't know what law of thermodynamics would be used to do it?

Dunning-Kruger indeed.

You're an ecologist?

My ecology roots go back to 1968-70. I rode along with park rangers examining what was happening to the brown pelicans of the gulf coast. My father's connections with wildlife enforcement allowed me to go along on several forays into the woods and swamps with him and state park rangers who had checklists and test kits.

Since my mother owned a pets/marine fish/tropical plants shop, which dealt in a wide variety of animal and plant species, I worked there after school and on weekends. It was natural for me to be out with ecology professionals examining nesting sites, those of other fish and animals, taking water/soil/pollution samples.

Later my radiation comms work provided wireless telemetry and two-way communications for large Western U.S. state, and national parks. The Grand Canyon is the biggest national park for which I was wireless communications engineer. We drove for miles together hours upon ours in their trucks & mine, into some of the most physically remote, fragile, and pristine locations in the lower 48. They're professional, dedicated, educated, lifetime field ecologists, overseeing the most fragile ecosystems in the country bar none.

They get a significant number of ecological & environmental degrees through the university systems, and many make it their life's work.

Raised in biological & environmental chemistry, ecological systems & species management, I fit in with them hand in glove; and go figure - and we all wound up working together out in THE most beautiful, fragile and pristine ecosystems in the United States,
if not the planet,
outside the arctic.

I hiked for hours with them, installed telemetry relays related to the California Condor project for them; flew with them into remote regions no one else is allowed because they want the Condors to nest there, to install those, and communications relays into areas so remote even standard emergency radio relay systems don't work.


Your claim of access to "experiences and ecologist friends" could mean anything. Whatever you've ever done to actually alter an eco-system for the better, if you have, I commend you for it.

ArlenAtmospherics said...

Regarding usage of the phrase "electron radiation," - radiation comes in many types. In communications, radiation constantly appears in several forms simultaneously.

If you see one, you see the others in varying amounts. When you create one: you create one or more of the others. Every time.

The type I referred to as electron radiation,
is processed exploiting the high number of surface electrons present on metals.
Electrons are primary EM force propagator,
Transmission lines are metal,
Antennas are metal,
Presence of adequate grounding is critical, etc.
High availability of electrons is central to this method of propagation. If all the wire was string, or wood - no cigar.


The next type is light:
infrared for remotes & other sensing, and on
fiber as data stream, as
laser for writing/cutting etc.
Also ambient light, as input/output for various sensing & detection technologies.

Whereas above, propagation is heavily dependent on a ready, tightly controlled supply of electrons, the parameters here are obviously: those governing light propagation.

The last one is thermal radiation. Again this is light but there's always something that comes before the light: the pattern of spread throughout the solid components as the energy's created: conduction and proper handling of thermal energy is an extremely important part of electronic engineering because of the fact that generating or being exposed to too much thermal energy is the definition of how parts are often destroyed when they fail.
Thermal radiation is by far the most common radiation type created, since all equipment whether designated as radiant equipment or not, dissipates radiant heat.

So when my job is to
create,
modulate,
radiate,
or conversely

eliminate,

radiant energy
in several forms simultaneously,

all day (sometimes long days since this equipment is some of the most critical infrastructure in a civilian environment, the communications of all it's life saving/emergency/rescue personnel)
every day
hundreds of discussions lead to a tendency to condense terms, and forget others aren't familiar with why

'electro' for 'electron'

is such an important part of

'electromagnetic'

'electromotive'

'electrical'

'electronic'

sciences' nomenclatures.

'Electro-chemical' and
'electro-mechanical' also
comes to mind.

So it's a matter of laziness on my part assuming you'd make that connection.
I realize why you felt the need to check.

ArlenAtmospherics said...

Harry Twinotter: I'm asking whether you've worked/hobbied in atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric radiation, refractory radiation mitigation, - that's refractory insulation, pressurized gases, maybe aviation, scuba, or instrumentation of some kind where you used equations regularly,
to solve mass/energy conditions
regarding

atmospheric chemistry,
or
atmospheric radiation.

I asked then went into my own story so it muddled it up.

Jammy Dodger: I asked if anyone knew the name of the law of thermodynamics that governs mass/energy relationships for the atmosphere and gases.

You acting like you are guarding a secret base makes you seem socially disturbed.

I told the other guy the name of the law; you'll read it.

The Ideal Gas Law is the unifying culmination of the laws it combines, bridging several of the most important ones: creating an equation directly designed to solve and cross check the fundamental parameters of atmospheric air & gases; particularly temperature.

It's the law of thermodynamics governing atmospheric instrumentation on Earth, Mars, or Venus.

"Law of using a thermometer" is modestly funny.

"Law of thermodynamics whose equation can only solve temperature" sounds sullen that you

can't even name the law

for the temperature of air,

And that not one of you in here, can,

and that educated and obviously, scientifically fluent people compared to yourselves - keep coming by saying "you know this is bad science just like ''Pot is like Heroin,'' right? Pot isn't like heroin the way the government scientists tell you.

And using fire can't really make the sky get hot.

Your "laws of gas thermodynamics are numerous," is an answer I see fairly often.

But that's precisely what I am checking: Do you even know the difference between the laws? Can you even name the one that governs atmospheric temperature? The Ideal Gas Law is in fact, the correct answer.

Not one person who believes in man made climate change,
has ever been able to tell me the answer.

Not one.
I've asked about 15 times in the forums of various blogs, wherever. Hundreds of people coming by reading the articles and comments.

Not one
has ever been able to answer the simplest of questions:
Name the gas law that governs the temperature of air and gases.

Not one.

Kevin O'Neill said...

Arlen writes: "I just wanted to see if anyone at this site even knows which law of thermodynamics is used to solve the temperature of air. "

Sorry, you may want to go back to school. The Ideal Gas Law is not typically used to measure, calculate or determine the temperature of air or any other gas.

Only when pressure, volume and mass of a gas are knowns could we then calculate temperature. But this is mainly theoretical; in real life it's usually volume, mass and/or flow rate that we need to know.

Meanwhile, a simple liquid in glass thermometer, or RTD, or thermocouple can tell us the temperature without any need to know pressure/volume/mass or even have knowledge of the universal gas constant.

So measuring the temperature of air or any other gas requires no knowledge of the Ideal Gas Law. That's only necessary when you want to do equivalent temperatures or set volume or flow to a reference temperature and pressure.

P.S. "radiation comms" ??? My metrology background includes being radiation qualified. While radio waves are electro-magnetic radiation, we typically use the word 'radiation' to indicate nuclear radiation. Did you mean 'radio comms'?

Kevin O'Neill said...

Arlen writes: "Name the gas law that governs the temperature of air and gases."

See above. The Ideal Gas Law does not 'govern' temperature. In fact, temperature is most often an input to the equation - not an output.

It's December. Temperatures outside have dropped below 0°F the past couple of nights. My thermostat does not need to know the pressure, volume or mass of air in the house to before it turns on.

And if it doesn't turn the heat on? Well, the temperature in the house is going to start dropping. It's not going to drop because the volume or mass of air changed. It's not going to drop because of a change in pressure. It's going to drop because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; it's radiating more energy than it's receiving.

The Ideal Gas Law can be used to understand many things. It doesn't 'govern' temperature.

Kevin O'Neill said...

I must admit that I tire of people like Arlen - though he's far from the worst. They latch onto a mistaken misinterpretation of basic science then run around trying to play gotcha!

For instance, has he ever considered that the Ideal Gas Law refers to 'ideal' gases? What is an 'ideal' gas? Well, guess what, outside of laboratories you're not going to find many ideal gases.

As wiki says: "The ideal gas model tends to fail at lower temperatures or higher pressures, when intermolecular forces and molecular size become important. It also fails for most heavy gases, such as many refrigerants, and for gases with strong intermolecular forces, notably water vapor."

Gee, I wonder if scientists know this? I wonder if Arlen does.

It used to be amusing, but now I just tire of watching dipshits on parade.

Jammy Dodger said...

So, ArlenAtmospherics makes the decision to double up on his Dunning Kruger qualifications.

Sou said...

@ArlenAtmospherics - a word of caution - at risk of coming across as condescending (still, it's worth pointing out IMO). Many readers of HW not only studied science all the way through high school, they have a bachelor degree in science, and many have a higher degree (Masters or Doctorate) in science. And many are career research scientists, and/or teach science in climate-related areas and/or environmental sciences. Even some world-renowned research scientists, at the top of their particular scientific field, occasionally find time from their research to read this blog (and comment).

A different approach may work better. For example, instead of taking an adversarial stance setting yourself up as an expert teaching the ignorant, you could play the part of the earnest pupil, even if you think you know the answer. Readers here can be very helpful if you approach them the right way. You could learn a lot from them about science.

In this case, it wasn't just the stance you adopted, there was so much wrong with your original questions, that no-one would be inclined to bother to answer them as posed. (Also, they were distinctly off-topic, I'll put that aside for now.)

Since you say that on occasion you rub shoulders with people who work in scientific research, this tip might come in handy in general, not just here at HotWhopper.

Bernard J. said...

"... you can't name the law that governs temperature of air, have no work or training in atmospherics, but are convinced it's impossible to disagree with you and be right."

Hilarity ensued again, because you have no evidence on which to base those claims. I'll concede that I was completely unspired by first-year physical chemistry at university, but not sufficiently so that I can't point out another example of your DKE...

"It's the Ideal Gas Law... I just wanted to see if anyone at this site even knows which law of thermodynamics is used to solve the temperature of air. Or a gas."

You see poorly, it seems. The ideal gas law is not a 'Law of Thermodynamics.' Of the actual laws of thermodynamics, the Zeroth Law is closest to what you're on about, but it's not used in the way that you meant. And you know what, I do actualy know about the ideal gas law, because I do remember a lot of my first and second year physical chem, and because I've used it in my own work, and because I was once a dive master, and because I've been actively watching the climate science disinformation campaign of the delialati for over a decade.

Oh, and your fractured grammar is pointing to more of the DKE

"My ecology roots go back to 1968-70. I rode along with park rangers examining what was happening to the brown pelicans of the gulf coast.

So you're not an ecologist, or have ever done real, actual ecological research, or taught ecology to universtiy students?

"Your claim of access to "experiences and ecologist friends" could mean anything. Whatever you've ever done to actually alter an eco-system for the better, if you have, I commend you for it.

Yes, it could mean anything. And it does mean that I've worked for two levels of government and for three universities in a diverity of ecological research and even remediation projects, but that's by-the-by. You see, you're the one who romped in here saying:

"...I'm interested in finding out how many others are like me, highly educated and literate in the foundations of several phases of matter, as well as trained and experienced - not just in the fundamentals but the advanced atmospheric chemistry, radiation, and instrumentation principles, applicable to green house effect radiation theory."

whilst giving every indication that you're mountaining a CV mole-hill. You're "highly educated... in the foundations of several phases of matter", huh? Which several of the five major types would that be? More to the point though, what does all of your resume-waving have to do with "radiation greenhouse gas theory" or "atmospheric radiation chemistry"?

Are you disputing the work of the physicists, atmospheric chemists and climatologists who have determined the human cause for the current global warming?

As others have indicated you're jargon-bombing left, right and centre, often in ham-fisted inappropriate context, but you're completely decoupled from making any actual, scientific point.

Bernard J. said...

By the way, ArlenAtmospherics, if you want to discuss "radiation greenhouse gas theory" or "atmospheric radiation chemistry" you should hop over to chew the carrots with Eli at the Rabbet Run - the Professor seems to be your target audience. Shall I advise him of your pending arrival?

Magma said...

@Jammy Dodger: one can never have too many of those.


"Yes, they're all fools, gentlemen... but the question remains, 'What KIND of fools are they?'"

Sou said...

"I'll concede that I was completely unspired by first-year physical chemistry at university".

I quite liked phys chem, but walked out of the 1st year phys chem exam feeling a tad dejected (as did everyone else). The paper was hard. Results came out and, to my surprise and delight, I topped the class :)

Sou said...

BTW - that was a while ago. I've probably forgotten 90% plus of the detail. I usually recall the basics when I read about it, and can understand what I read, so the learning wasn't wasted. Plus I loved learning about science then, and still do :D

Sou said...

I've just fished this out of the spam bin, which is why it's only just posted. Sorry about that. You can blame Google as well as me for not checking sooner.

Bernard J. said...

"I quite liked phys chem..."

I suspect that my antipathy had a lot to do with the quality of the content delivery... ;-)

I had one lecturer for Real Analysis whose technique involved reciting his notes as he chalked them up, in an almost inaudible monotone. He was always dressed in beige and brown, and would probably have disappeared against a background of bookshelves the way that a polar bear disappears against a background of snow. I don't actually remember much at all of the subject these days, except the fascination I once has when I realised that I'd just copied a whole foolscap page of formulæ with not a single number present. This was mathematics?!

To my everlasting shame there was a chemistry subject in my undergrad degree for which I never once attended a lecture, and another in my DipEd - in both cases I now have no idea what the subjects were. I passed each with flying colours though, so hopefully I still have some understanding of the content!

Sou said...

Ha ha - I can relate to that. Most lecturers I remember as being quite good, but there were some notable exceptions. One of those notable exceptions was in fact a leading light from a research perspective but hopeless at lecturing (and hopeless at updating his teaching material).

I recall almost skipping an exam, then deciding to cram overnight, and got a distinction. Of course that wasn't a science topic, where it wouldn't work. It was Marketing (MBA), where all that was necessary (apparently) was to be able to string buzz words together in a way that sounded plausible. I crammed the buzz words rather than the subject itself :D

MWS said...

"I had one lecturer for Real Analysis whose technique involved reciting his notes as he chalked them up, in an almost inaudible monotone. He was always dressed in beige and brown, and would probably have disappeared against a background of bookshelves the way that a polar bear disappears against a background of snow."

I had a second-year Chemistry Lecturer who published his lecture notes, but his lecturing style involved reciting these notes in a monotone. I quickly realised that I could read faster than he could speak, so I didn't attend any more of his lectures. Apparently my reaction was very common, so in the following year he didn't publish his notes, but still read them monotonously. We handed down our notes to the following year ...

Millicent said...

"Not one person who believes in man made climate change,
has ever been able to tell me the answer. "

Not one person belonging to any of the most prestigious scientific organisations on this planet would know the answer. You must be a genius or an idiot.

Marco said...

"Can you even name the one that governs atmospheric temperature? The Ideal Gas Law is in fact, the correct answer."

No it isn't. Apart from the very well known limitations of the ideal gas law, the temperature of the atmosphere is NOT set by "P", "V, "n" and "R", even if the ideal gas law *would* apply to a gas with the same composition as that of the atmosphere (hint: water behaves in a way that makes it impossible to use the ideal gas law throughout the earth's atmosphere).

That you mention Venus makes me suggest you are what we call a "Dragon Slayer", someone who thinks it's all about pressure. But also a "Dragon Slayer" who knows even less than those who have written the book, because even they will know that the pressure on Venus is much too high to even consider using the ideal gas law.

Oh, and if you think you are on to something, I have a little problem for you to solve:
explain this plot of sea level pressures:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Mslp-jja-djf.png, in particular why the sea level pressure around the equator is always lower than in the subtropics and the temperate zone.

Tadaaa said...

the certainty of delusion

Bernard J. said...

"The next type is light:
infrared for remotes & other sensing...
"

Erm, infrared is not light: the clue is in the 'infra' prefix.

Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, as is light, and as are ultraviolet, radio, and gamma radiations.

"The last one is thermal radiation. Again this is light..."

You have your ducks and birds arse-about. Some light is thermal radiation, but not all thermal radiation is light. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation, but not all electromagnetic radiation is thermal radiation. And not all light is thermal radiation.

You remind me of my university days, when one of our friends who finished study at high school proudly told us that she had a job as a computer programmer. Turned out that she was a secretary using a word processor (back when such was more usually a machine and not a program on a Macintosh), and no amount of protestation by my computer engineering friends could dissuade her that she was not a computer programmer.

Sou said...

You're a kind person, BJ - to have read the comment, and to have made an effort to interpret it, and to have responded :)

Bernard J. said...

And on "electron radiation"...

'Electron' is not equivalent to 'electro', nor to 'electromagnetic'. Further, the wavelengths used in wifi (radio waves) are non-ionising radiation, so they are not going to cause any appreciable emission of free electrons. If you're referring to actual electron radiation you're referring to beta radiation - high energy electrons which are produced by radioactive decay, with the concommitent production of antineutrinos.

Of course, you might be referring to electron beams, or cathode rays, but they're not exactly a dire consequence of the use of wifi...

Anonymous said...

A Dragon Slayer? Very sharp of you to pick up on that Marco. You have obviously developed a sixth sense to detect the hidden agenda. Dragon Slayers are the most stubborn of people to try and "discuss" anything with. I do not bother at all now.

Once I tried to understand a Dragon Slayer. He kept referring me to his website of long, long screeds of his "theories" all in gobbledegook pseudoscience. I tried to pin him down to something tangible and after about 50 exchanges I summarised the "discussion" so far, dropping off the padding.

I kid you not - the discussion, summarised and concise, looked like this:

=========================================================

Here is the summary of our dialogue so far:

Slayer: There are 2500 molecules for each molecule of CO2. For an increase of 1C the CO2 molecule would have to be heated to 2500C.

Me: Why would the CO2 molecule have to be heated to 2500C?

Slayer: Because er, 2500, you dishonest green rent grant seeker.

Me: What? Why?

Slayer: Your smears and lack of empirical data and science are obvious. You are a dishonest liar. I win!!!!!!!!!!?

=========================================================

Yup, he thought it was about winning something. I have added the "er" under dramatic licence. It fitted the "discussion". All else verbatim.

AnonA

Harry Twinotter said...

AnonA,

has it occurred to you they were intending to waste your time? I see Richard Tol do that on blogs, he has people trying to "refute" him for days. There is an account AndyG55 on Jo Nova's blog who is guaranteed to bomb posts with at least 5 comments.

It's all a game to them.

Anonymous said...

@Harry Twinotter

Yes, of course it occurred to me that they are wasting my time and that is why I do not bother with them. I do not think that is their prime intention though. I do not really understand their motivation which is why I have tried to engage occasionally.

Oh, and I saw your handle in the same comments. I guess they managed to waste your time too! :)

AnonA

Millicent said...

I'm of the opinion that they see it as a crusade. Which is yet another of their delusions.

Or, given their advancing years, a rather unpleasant version of Don Quixote

Bernard J. said...

Speaking of Joanne Codling, I note that David Appell is giving her a hard time...

Tadaaa said...

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."

Nick Naylor - Thank you for Smoking

Magma said...

@ Harry Twinotter

I came to the same conclusion. You may have seen a couple of comments of mine at ATTP:

(Tol’s time expended)/(Σ Tol responders’ time expended) << 1

and eventually just DNFTT(ol)
(which was moderated out a couple of times, fair enough)

Harry Twinotter said...

"Speaking of Joanne Codling, I note that David Appell is giving her a hard time..."

Yes, Jo Nova plays an interesting game with her libel. She removed the original libel from the Philjourdan account and then reinstated it! (it is now removed again). This is the same Jo Nova who removed a joke I made about Mark Steyn being on the ABC Q&A show because she was worried about "libel".

Bernard J. said...

ArlenAtmospherics seems to have evaorated like atenous mist...

Jammy Dodger said...

Presumably this is the 16th forum he has asked the question and not got an answer to his high and exacting standards. Perhaps eventually it will dawn on him that his question is meaningless.

Highly educated and vintage DK.