Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department
Lasrick writes Physicist Lawrence Krauss blasts Congress for their passage of the 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that cut funding for renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and energy efficiency, and even worse, had amendments that targeted scientists at the Department of Energy: He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than the Australian government's move to cancel their carbon tax, because the action of Congress is far more insidious: "Each (amendment) would, in its own way, specifically prohibit scientists at the Energy Department from doing precisely what Congress should mandate them to do—namely perform the best possible scientific research to illuminate, for policymakers, the likelihood and possible consequences of climate change." Although the bill isn't likely to become law, Krauss is fed up with Congress burying its head in the sand: The fact that those amendments "...could pass a house of Congress, should concern everyone interested in the appropriate support of scientific research as a basis for sound public policy."
I guess those glasses did help.
But it's not in the sand.
You get involved in politics... you take sides... and there are consequences.
NPR for example is under similar threat of being defunded for the same reason. They took sides and when they stopped acting in the interests of all sides they became the enemy of sides they did not support... or the allies of sides they did support... and via the friend of my enemy is my enemy logic which is standard in politics... they became enemies.
Here someone is going to bitch at me like I had any part in any of these consequences.
Don't get mad at me. I didn't do anything one way or the other. All I'm doing is explaining what happened.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The DOE was established to decrease American reliance on foreign energy (oil, etc).They completely failed in their efforts towards taht and every other goal they established. They are only successful at milking the government gravy train of all they can get their hands on.
Our politicians are a bunch of pork-minded, short-sighted luddite political hacks more concerned with their privileges than with doing what's best for the American public?
Color me shocked!
SHOCKED I SAY!
Oh wait, I'm wearing my wrist strap and a neoprene suit.
So I guess I'm not shocked at all!
I propose August 10th as International Politician Assassination Day (IPAD).
Sure, riddling your local political climber may not immediately make the world a better place, but in the long run it will. And in the mean time, it'll be VERY cathartic!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Even if the facts are true the bottom line is money trumps over common sense. They will be long buried before the shit hits the fan.
The summary makes it out that the decision to repeal Australia's carbon taxes was a bad one.
It was a horribly broken system that didn't work.
If you accept that, then this "He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than the Australian government's move to cancel their carbon tax" becomes the same as "He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than a spark of sanity from the Australian Government"
Renewable energy is a load of hot air anyway. It's merely allowed to exist by the oil barons so it can keep nuclear energy busy enough for hydrocarbon barons can slip by and make their fast buck. Those short sighted fools.
Funny, as it actually turned out, energy efficiency research for both electricity and transportation has worked very well, as have wind turbines and solar power. And quite a bit of that comes from DOE research.
Fusion reactor? Well, that's still 30 years away.
Of course the vast majority of DOE money is devoted to the nuclear weapons infrastructure and environmental cleanup from decades of nuclear weapon infrastructure.
For instance, take the FY 2012 budget of Los Alamos National lab.
http://www.lanl.gov/about/facts-figures/budget.php
What fraction would you say is on basic science? I expected 30%. More like 4%.
57% NNSA weapons
9% NNSA nonproliferation
7% NNSA 'safeguards and security'
7% work for national security (most likely intelligence agencies)
8% environmental cleanup
4% undefined 'work for others'
4% DOE Energy and Other Programs
4% DOE Office Of Science
I would settle for nice modular neighborhood-scale TFTR reactors for now. I don't expect to see Mr. Fusion in the years I have left. I don't expect Congress to contribute to either of these either. I might wish they get rid of some unneeded regulations, but I have little hope of this happening either.
Is this the same Lawrence Krauss who polluted the Scientific American for years with his leftist political diatribes? I have no problem with Comgress cutting the political dead wood from the Energy Department or any other department of government. There are enough activists in the bureaucracy.
an ill wind that blows no good
That should be the Departments of Commerce (NOAA), Interior (USGS) & Defense.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I'm also a physicist. I don't think defunding science is a good move at all, but also the prioritization of modeling by Krause is not so good.
If climate change is real and we need to deal with it, resources at DoE need to be prioritized toward renewable energy work and climate change mitigation technologies, not further development of climate models.
By arguing that climate models need continuing funding, he is playing right into deniers' hands. Whether he intends it or not, he is supporting the political position that more work is necessary before a consensus can be reached on whether climate change is real.
Look, more scientific data will not convince politically motivated actors who don't trust you or your data anyway. The people who are going to trust modeling data are already convinced. So why are we asking for this? Yes, there are scientifically interesting questions to answer, but in terms of actually fighting climate change, this is counterproductive. Please stop.
Scientific consensus was reached long ago. The modeling guys did their job! They should take a bow and demand funding for alternative energy technologies and mitigation strategies when political fights break out. There's a role for modeling in mitigation work, but modeling alone can't be the priority in political discussions anymore.
yup thats the word.
The Republicans, who currently hold a majority in the US House, are the ones who voted to strip the science funding.
Saying "Congress" makes it sound bipartisan. It's only the Republicans.
Finally off the government dole. Let private industry develop the technologies. If there really is a market they will exploit it better than our wonderfully efficient government does.
Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?
For not having to breathe sulfuric acid (acid rain)? Or not having your river catch a fire? Yeah, all those damn progressives ruin everything.
Are you confusing the DoE with the EPA? I think you might be.
Nope, I'm not confusing them. DoE provided necessary data on sulfur emissions and monitored the power plants. EPA was the one enforcing regulations, based on DoE data.
I watched Krauss on Q&A and WOW, what a great scientist he is. I thought to myself, this is one of the reasons people look up to America, because they have all these great thinkers that we can learn from.
Unfortunately Australia sometimes takes the lead in being backwards thinking and it's no secret here that many of our accomplished leaders in creating solar energy are now in America. Now it seems American politician are looking to Australia for methods to embed the status quo. This looks a lot like the Australian government scrapping the independent Climate Commission (made up of scientists), but legislating to avoid, what happened here, a relaunched Commission funded by the public as citizens instead of as taxpayers,.
And like a dying animal the status quo tries to kill the future. This is not a generational issue because some of the older generation know what the issues are and trying to make things better to minimize the consequences and costs the younger generations that will experience. However, the people controlling energy and its future, now, will be dead by the time the effects are here, so for them why wouldn't they have all the benefits of cheap power when they will never experience the downside of it.
They struggle for 50's thinking to be relevant in the 21st century, but have compunction imposing it and since the science is so convincing the only thing left to do is muzzle the scientists. It's madness.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The thing about shit that works is that you don't really have to do any science or engineering to it. Because it already works.
Scientists and engineers focus on the shit that doesn't yet work for a reason.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The left loves to repeat Eisenhower's warnings about a "military industrial complex" (from his farewell address) but they always seem to forget the other half of his warning:
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Dwight D Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961
As the President who created NASA, Eisenhower was hardly "anti-science" any more than he was "anti-military"; he was warning of the corrupting influences of power and money. His view was that Science, funded by tax dollars, should INFORM but should not be allowed to push policies and was every bit as likely to be both corrupted by government money and use its power to corrupt politics as the defense industry.
Nobody in America argues against physics or chemistry etc; there is no "war on science". There ARE many people becoming increasingly wary of people who are pushing their beliefs and preferred public policies and who are using their science credentials to assert one of the oldest logical fallacies as support for their politics, the "appeal to authority". The fact that some people oppose political activists who happen to have science degrees does NOT make them "anti-science" any more than opposing a human being's political positions makes one "anti-human".
That his big proof that the earth moved was his explanation of the tides which gets pretty much every fact about tides wrong.(Pretty much his theory predicts one tide a day, it's the same time every day and it's the same height. That's all wrong.) That gave them quite the ammo to attack him with.
prohibit scientists at the Energy Department from doing precisely what Congress should mandate them to do—namely perform the best possible scientific research to illuminate, for policymakers, the likelihood and possible consequences of climate change.
I'm in favor of more research, but we already have several different departments that are researching that. The DoE is a department that has suffered from scope creep, they are in charge of unrelated things like genomics research. I'm in favor of genomics research, but once again, it's not really something you'd expect to see in the DoE.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
scientists need to learn how to turn tricks so they can fund their research. Get government out of sugardaddy mode and especially out of bad science mode such as global climate change, etc...
Science has given them their cell phones, their computers, their cars, everything. It's incredibly important for our modern civilized life. And finding better ways to power things is critical to all that. We can't go anywhere if we never try to improve what we have.
Is the money they get from coal/oil industry lobbyists really so great that they would defund research to keep our dependency on coal and oil necessary?
How do these people live with these terribly greedy decisions they make? Is it like with drug users who just don't care about anyone other than themself?
Fusion reactor? Well, that's still 30 years away.
I was told in the sixties that fusion power would be available in unlimited quaintly in thirty years and we would no longer have meters measuring our electricity use. The obvious reason we still have to pay for power and investing in solar and wind power is the power companies are secretly using fusion power and charging us for fossil fuel. I predict that 30 years they will still be charging us for fossil fuel:)
Embrace the future.
From the last time we had this discussion: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
Why do you think it doesn't take science to do weapons research?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From the last time we had this discussion: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
I was just trying to be funny and make a comment on the popular press always predicting fusion was just 30 years in the future. The chart is quite useful and would like to mod your comment as informative but I cannot comment and moderate at the same time. Thanks for your input.
Embrace the future.
The spending of Los Alamos National Lab is not representative of the spending of DOE as a whole. Different national labs focus on different things.
Pure research has led to quite a lot of "shit that works" alongside shit that went nowhere. If you choke off pure research in favor of things that short sighted politicians think will win them elections, you'll slow progress to a trickle. Most things in life: companies, inventions, experiments, marriages... are destined to fail. You still have to put the work in to get that one in a million success that changes the world.
The only people claiming the carbon tax wasn't working were Coalition politicians (and their apologists), and the companies who didn't want to have to cover the external costs of their businesses. Fact is, it was starting to work quite well, despite the damping effect of Abbott attacking it with all the FUD he could muster.
And now we have economists scratching their heads as to why a conservative government would attack a market-based climate solution while favouring a big direct-action spending program instead:
Roger Jones, a Research Fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, called the repeal "the perfect storm of stupidity".
"It's hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making," he said.
"A complete disregard of the science of climate change and its impacts. Bad economics and mistrust of market forces."
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Let's stop pretending that renewable energy is anything other than a massive malthusian scheme to strangle our civilization. Defunding research into nonsense that's never been able to replace fossil fuels for electricity production is somehow going to have grievous consequences for the climate? Seriously? While Germany, China and the third world continue to build NEW coal fired power plants? While the Chinese throw their bicylces aside for fossil fuel burning cars by the hundreds of thousands every year? "Sound public policy"? These policies are economically devastating to the poor by artificially driving up prices of even basic things like electricity and depriving them of opportunity. If you don't believe me take your electricity bill and multiply it by 5, now imagine how someone with more modest means feels when he or she sees this. There's consequences for going back to the early 1900's, back when cars and electricity were toys for rich people, but you won't find this in the utopian visions of the sustainability movement. It will end like every other utopian experiment, a fiscal and/or humanitarian disaster with the poor paying a huge price. I think it's time for Krauss and the rest of the bourgeoisie elite to get their heads out of the sand and realize that renewable energy and "sustainable transport" are giant leaps backwards. This is class warfare being fed by their narcissistic do gooder fantasies, and I'm glad at least someone is putting a stop to it. Good for you Australia for turning away from this malthusian suicide pact.
Every light carries a shadow
The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.
(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.
Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:
It seems the majority are pretty set in their beliefs no matter how many facts are lacking to back them up.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
"Public" utilities (read political payoffs to politicians) will never allow fusion. Too efficient.
When did NPR "take sides"? They've always been very fair and balanced, sometimes going too far to let both sides get their silly viewpoints hear.
And most certainly, the scientists have never chosen sides. Although some sides seem to think that not choosing it is equivalent to choosing the other side (which is why moderates are the enemies of all).
What fraction would you say is on basic science? I expected 30%. More like 4%
Why? LANL is EXPLICITLY a nuclear weapons design lab. That is it's purpose.
Congress consists of the House of Representatives AND the Senate.
Most people (even the politicians) have a habit of calling the House of Representatives "the Congress", but it's not. It's only half of Congress.
Right now we have different parties controlling the two halves. I kinda like it when they don't get much done. It's better to have no laws passed than bad laws getting passed.
So, when the House passes something nowadays, you can bet that the Senate won't pass it, nor will the President sign it.
These scientist need to understand that the people writing the checks get to make the priorities. If they don't like it, get elected and change it or find someone with money that agrees with them. Being a "Scientist" does not mean you have some moral superiority over others concerning what tax dollars are spent on.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This is not about "Climate Change", it's about "Carbon Tax". Carbon Taxes have been used to stifle innovation and competition, and the players that should be paying the most have been immune to the tax. That's not an issue of a tax as much as issue of corruption. That said, while so many governments are grossly corrupt a "Tax" is not going to be the answer.
As long as people like you believe in a false paradigm blaming religion (or democrat vs. republican), no corrections will be made.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
To the contrary, the USA now produces so much oil that it is poised to become a next oil exporter if restrictions on foreign sales are lifted. In other words, the oil companies will be happy to have the Chinese buying oil so that prices can rise in the good old USA, all this while collecting 77 billion dollars per year in government subsidies (oil depletion allowances). Makes you wonder why with all this oil, oil depletion subsidies haven't been modified to curb the cost of the giveaways. The GOP is always taking about the importance of decreasing the debt, but just cutting off these subsidies would quickly correct that and they don't do it. Then again, the situation is pretty clear when a Senator can for wear diapers when he has his illicit sex can still remain an oil industry darling, a great way for the oil companies to let Congress know who is in charge.
In other words, nothing significant happened, nothing significant was ever going to happen with this bill -- "Oh, my God! The horrors! The horrors!"
If we don't change the way we do thinks, we will be just another layer in the Earth crust. Gaia will survive, like she did many times before homoidiot was breed, bitchez!
On both sides. So it is basically a game of politics. It is a great thing that Congress finally makes some good decision to de-fund those "science" research on climate change. Having seen so many fake data on arguing for and against climate change, this is basically a game only for funding, but is useless for the society.
Yeah, they all want to tax the hardworking and honest people, take their guns, prohibit to free carry and deny that there are UFO's! Defund them! Note taht I'm not saying that because I am an European and we fucking lead in that area. No, no, I am serious, these bad bad liberals are soooo bad, believe me. Vote for your closest Tea Party clow... sorry politician and pray for the second coming of Christmas (or whatever the Christians believe). Meanwhile we will continue making big business selling tech to the rest of the wor,,,, sorry I meant being forbidden to freely carry and to roll the coal in the middle of Amsterdam... Oh, I'm going to cry!!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.
... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.
... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.
... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".
Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)
Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?
I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.
Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?
Charming. Do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?
You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:
"...the fact that the CO2 increase is linear, while at the same time the amount of CO2 released by humans has grown exponentially, is the primary proof that humans are NOT responsible for the change in CO2 concentration..." [Robert Clemenzi]
I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. You even seemed to agree, calling Clemenzi's claim "ridiculous".
Before I waste time debunking the rest of that nonsense you cited, I'm wondering if you're regressing again. Hopefully I don't have to prove we're responsible for the CO2 rise again. If you still consider it "ridiculous" to deny that basic fact, do you see how Clemenzi might not be the best source of science education?
Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?
Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.
Again, thanks for finally being honest. You’re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. You’ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."
Actually, you did respond. Repeatedly. Sure you weren't present?
Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.
I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming, and explained how the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan Boltzmann law and requires a cold upper troposphere. Again, a real skeptic would be checking my calculation that a completely enclosed heated plate would reach an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K).
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
He must have forgotten this nebulous unlinked correction because his blog post is still live and still contains all these badly worded sentences:
"... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ..."
In fact, he did more than suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."
That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than infinity.
Again, if Dr. Latour and the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Hint: the Slayers are wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect.
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
Again, he must have forgotten this nebulous correction which you still haven't linked. I linked to an archive of his blog post that I made yesterday, but here's another archive I just made showing that his blog post is still live today and still contains nonsense like this: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."
He's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.
Again, the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. As I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of [the upwelling long-wave IR], and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).
Andrew Dessler also explains how the greenhouse effect depends on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He even explains that an isothermal atmosphere wouldn't have a greenhouse effect: the Slayers' holy grail! Ironically, the greenhouse effect disappears if the upper troposphere isn't colder than the surface. The cold upper troposphere isn't a problem for the greenhouse effect. It's a fundamental requirement, along with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)
Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.
If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
His actual argument is that "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."
Again, he's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.
Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)
Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.
If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
I'm refuting his whole point:
"... in Spencer's thought experiment, the passive body that is inserted into the system cannot make the source warmer than it already is. That is Latour's whole point. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-13]
The first step to understanding this thought experiment is determining the constant electrical power needed to keep the heated plate at 150F before the cool plate is added. Since you've done your due diligence, what electrical power did your research reveal?
Again, Dr. Latour claimed that mainstream physics, which includes absorption of cold back-radiation, "would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics." You've even repeated his claim:
That's why I've repeatedly told you that:
"Dr. Latour was wrong to claim that mainstream physics predicts the heated plate warms infinitely."
"I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming..."
If you're retracting your claim that absorbing cold back-radiation (i.e. mainstream physics) would violate the first law and "continue warming to infinity" then that's great news!
The key phrase is "however slightly" because that difference can be made arbitrarily small. Since the only objection you've raised is arbitrarily small, does that mean you now see that Dr. Latour is wrong to claim that the heated plate will stay at 150F after the second plate is added, because he wrongly claims that absorbing cold back-radiation would violate the first law?
If not, maybe it would help if we kept checking my calculations step by step. For the simplest case of blackbody plates with arbitrarily similar areas, this equation represents conservation of energy at equilibrium:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Dr. Latour's argument is that "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."
And within the last year you've claimed that:
"... in Spencer's thought experiment, the passive body that is inserted into the system cannot make the source warmer than it already is. That is Latour's whole point. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-13]
Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
All we need to show that the heated plate stays at 150F after it's enclosed? No. The only way the heated plate would stay at 150F after it's enclosed is if the enclosing plate is at the same temperature as the chamber walls (0F).
Again. Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
We've determined equilibrium temperatures in a simple example, so let's solve a more general example.
Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate. But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different. Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.
More importantly, I treated the plates as blackbodies where absorptivity alpha = 1 and emissivity epsilon = 1. This is a reasonable approximation for plates made of carbon nanotube arrays (PDF) which have alpha = ~0.99955. But more conventional plates have alpha and epsilon considerably less than 1.
The next step is to treat the plates as graybodies where absorptivity and emissivity are independent of wavelength, so they appear gray. Kirchoff's Law states that absorptivity = emissivity for graybodies.
MIT calculates heat transfer between graybody plates using an infinite sum of emission, reflection and absorption. Using my variable names, their final expression is:
net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)
(Again, Eq. 2 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)
At equilibrium, net heat flow equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.
Suppose the plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11. In this case, Sage solves Eq. 2 for a constant electric input of 29.6 W/m^2, which is lower than before because aluminum doesn't radiate as well as a blackbody.
Using Eq. 2 and the same reasoning as before, fully enclosing the heated plate warms it to the same equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K). Fully exposing the plate to the cosmic microwave background radiation cools it to 13F (263K), which is lower than before because the CMBR is a blackbody and aluminum chamber walls aren't.
So even for graybody plates, MIT's mainstream physics refutes Dr. Latour's nonsensical claim that the enclosed heated plate remains at 150F. They also use this equation to explain how thermos bottles insulate drinks, and describe the same radiation shields used since at least
Again, the only way the heated plate would stay at 150F after it's enclosed is if the enclosing plate is at the same temperature as the chamber walls (0F).
Again. Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
Don't you mean proportional to T^4-T0^4?
More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
If so, the only way the heated plate would stay at 150F after it's enclosed is if the enclosing plate is at the same temperature as the chamber walls (0F).
Again. Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), the power going in minus the power going out must equal the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, the system isn't changing so its energy is constant. Therefore, at equilibrium power in = power out.
That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.
Again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
Jane's still talking about plate areas, but he's definitely not concerned.
Let's see how a 0.2% larger enclosing plate affects equilibrium temperatures. The heated plate is a sphere with radius 6371 mm and surface area A_h. The enclosing plate is a 1 mm thick concentric shell with an inner radius of 6378 mm, surface area A_c1 on the inside, and A_c2 on the outside. The chamber is also a concentric sphere with inner radius 6386 mm, so there's a 7 mm gap on both sides of the enclosing shell. Again, the plates and walls are oxidized aluminum.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K):
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
Note that 233.8F is warmer than the heated sphere's original 150.0F equilibrium temperature.
We could keep making this thought experiment more realistic, but that wouldn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer. For instance, instead of correcting the temperature manually as I did in Eq. 3, we could use Wikipedia's equation which includes areas. Or we could account for the enclosing shell's finite conductivity, but that would just make the heated plate even hotter.
Again, Dr. Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong.
Jane's insistence that "a non-zero difference is all we need" between the heated plate's initial temperature of 150F and the enclosing plate's final temperature of ~150F was interesting. In this thought experiment, the enclosing plate was initially cooler than 100F.
Jane continues to focus on the difference between the heated plate's initial temperature of 150F and the enclosing plate's final temperature of ~150F, while the enclosing plate's initial temperature was below 100F. For all the thought experiments we've discussed, the heated plate at time "t" has always been warmer than the enclosing plate at the same time.
As long as it's warmer than the chamber walls, the exact final equilibrium temperature of the enclosing plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.
These open source Sage worksheets show my work for these thought experiments. Clicking "Try Sage Online" would let you upload my third worksheet, and hitting shift-enter a few times would recalculate all its answers. But in case you don't want to do that, here's a formatted copy of that worksheet and its answers:
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER = 29.3986743761843
6379^2/6371^2.n()
ANSWER = 1.00251295644620
338.706*1.00251295644620^(-.25).n()
ANSWER = 338.493545219805
#Completely surrounded by 2nd plate
soln2 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=338.493545219805,electricity=29.3986743761843,sigma=5.670373e-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),T_h)
soln2[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER = 385.286813818721*I
This could also be done on a calculator, which is why I explained how to derive the equations using the principle that at equilibium, power in = power out.
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F. Accounting for aluminum's finite conductivity would mean its inner temperature would be higher than its outer temperature. If you'd like, we could see how an aluminum plate warms the inner plate higher than the 233.8F it would be at with a superconducting plate. Just let me know, and I'll do the calculations.
But I don't think that would be helpful yet, because I didn't realize we have a fundamental disagreement:
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out.
That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I've repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.
Once again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
For the moment, I'll assume we can. If no
Instead of saying "an aluminum plate warms the inner plate" perhaps I should've said "an aluminum plate warms the enclosed heated plate." Maybe this will help distinguish between the inner surface of the enclosing plate and the enclosed heated plate. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and corrected it at Dumb Scientist.
Clicking "Try Sage Online" doesn't require downloading or installing Sage on your computer. But more importantly:
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out.
That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I've repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.
Once again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?
For the moment, I'll assume we can. If not, please explain why you don't agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out.
I'm sorry that I didn't realize earlier that we have such a fundamental disagreement. I should've been building a common understanding of equilibrium and conservation of energy rather than solving increasingly complicated thought experiments. So let's take this step by step and see if we can agree on anything.
Let's start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)
Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.
If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?
Earlier I made an offhand remark that enclosing the heated plate is like suddenly warming the chamber walls. This simpler scenario might be more helpful. Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant? If you claim it would remain at 150F, think carefully about energy conservation at equilibrium. When the walls were at 0F, the plate was in equilibrium because power in = power out. But now the net power radiating out is much smaller, which means power in > power out. So what happens to the heated plate?
Does Jane listen to physicists about physics?
Does Jane think PhD physicists are credible regarding physics?
Does Lonny Eachus ask physicists about the physics?
Does Jane consult physicists about the physics?
Does Jane actually take the physicists' word for it?
I've explained that in equilibrium, power in = power out.
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.
Maybe Jane doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?
All those professional physics societies agree that our CO2 emissions are causing warming, which Dr. Latour and the Slayers deny. Jane's claimed that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.
rgbatduke is Prof. Brown, a physicist who'd refuted Dr. Latour's analysis directly to Jane, but as usual Jane just doubled down. On a Slayer blog post about Prof. Brown, Lonny Eachus even repeated Jane's arguments to physicist Joel Shore, who refuted Lonny.
Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?
Of course it is. The heated plate reaches equilibrium at 150F with the chamber walls at 0F, then the chamber walls are warmed to 149F and the heated plate warms from a cooler state to a warmer equilibrium. This is a simple way to see that Slayer claims like these are wrong:
Hopefully he just made elementary mistakes, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.
Does Jane think physicists who work for NASA are credible regarding physics?
So why did Jane repeatedly mention working for NASA? How could working for NASA give someone credibility if Jane doesn't find NASA credible?
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Slashdot is public, neutral ground. More importantly, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
I'm asking you because you're claiming I made at least one mistake, without having the courage to actually say what it is. I'm also asking because this simple thought experiment disproves your ridiculous Slayer claims:
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.
But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?