I have to admit, I am somewhat stunned that Lonny Eachus would run away just at the point where the discussion had finally zeroed in on the essential points. He refused to address them -- because, it's clear, the answers were obvious, and obviously different than his claims. This is a display of raw, naked intellectual dishonesty, the likes of which I have never seen before. And I've seen a lot. A hundred comments, all to evade the essential questions. Wow. DS, I don't know how you do it, how you remain calm with him. I really don't.
David Appell, 2015-04-13: "I have to admit, I am somewhat stunned that Lonny Eachus would run away just at the point where the discussion had finally zeroed in on the essential points. ..."Are you sure you don't have that backwards?Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-27: "This is MY experience with those who don't want to admit that their greenhouse gas theories are wrong: They argue until they start losing, then try misdirection with guff like "scientists can be wrong". Then if you don't stop, they run away."Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-08: "Warmists like to argue until they're stumped, then call names and stalk off. I've seen it 1000 times."Holy psychological projection, Batman!David Appell, 2015-04-13: "... A hundred comments, all to evade the essential questions. Wow. DS, I don't know how you do it, how you remain calm with him. I really don't."Heh. That's what ATTP said after I linked to one of my exchanges at WUWT.If I were to give a more serious answer, it might be that I try to convince myself that Lonny Eachus et al. are just victims of Sky Dragon Slayer brainwashing and a Sauron-class Morton's demon, rather than foul-mouthed pathological liars who have betrayed humanity.
Bryan, you aren't going to get it both ways.I told David from the beginning that I didn't want to argue with you about SCIENCE, because you don't argue fairly. And you don't.You want to use ad-hominem (as you just did above, for about the 1000th time in my experience), you play nasty distorted out-of-context games, etc.I agreed to come here and discuss this problem, very reluctantly, ON THE CONDITION that you don't do that kind of crap.The way you argue makes a difference. Not to the actual science, but to whether anybody really has any motivation to argue with you. YOU wanted this, not me.And I have no desire to argue over what took place in the past. You wanted to argue this now, you argue about it now, not about what was said months to years ago... especially since (as my archive of our discussions clearly shows) you have had a strong tendency to misrepresent those statements.Now: in the beginning, I did make a mistake. But you showed that your equation was indeed used in situations other than thermal equilibrium, so I came back and conceded that if I wanted to be reasonable, I had to accept it.But then you started in: demanding that I "accept" your principles each step of the way. On and on, without relent. That's not the way adults argue about science. The way it works is: you present your arguments, then shut the hell up and let me present mine.Both of you refused to do that. When I protested your methods, David censored me again. Which I intend to show the world at a future time. Because I told you I was going to write this all up, and I am. When I get around to it.Then David continued to argue with me about whether the INTERIOR of the system in question is in THERMAL equilibrium, when clearly it is not, by any definition from any reference I have ever seen.It is RELEVANT to the discussion, and the problem at hand, whether those objects are in local thermal equilibrium. Period.Now, I don't give much of a damn at this point whether YOU now claim otherwise, when clearly further up the page you had agreed with him. As far as I am concerned, the RELEVANT point is that you don't play by the rules of logical debate, and what rules he may have, were not applied equally.I repeat: I went there on certain conditions. Whether David agreed with them or not, they were MY conditions, not his, and they were violated. When I protested, I was censored. When I decided to play the same game you were playing, and asked people to agree on INITIAL CONDITIONS, you didn't get it right. No, those two objects are not in local thermal equilibrium, and your planet example was yet another of your context-shifts, intended to support your argument that they were. Just as your oversimplification of how IR imagers work was a gross oversimplification to the point of being just plain incorrect... yet you were using it (invalidly) to support your argument. When I protested, I was censored again, under the excuse that I wasn't arguing "the science". Well, if that wasn't arguing science I don't know what was.The problem is that you just don't know how to make valid logical arguments in an adult discussion, and because you wanted to play one-sided rules + censorship.End of story. I won't argue with you under these circumstances. And as I have told you many times in the past, I don't intend to argue with YOU again, at any time, because you don't know how. Stop whining, and pick up a book on debate.I don't expect David to post this, because he'll say it isn't about "the science".
Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-14: "But then you started in: demanding that I "accept" your principles each step of the way. On and on, without relent. That's not the way adults argue about science. The way it works is: you present your arguments, then shut the hell up and let me present mine."Actually, I asked if we could agree on the most basic equation, because once again a shared understanding requires building a strong foundation first. It's pointless to argue about more complicated topics if we can't even agree on the basics.In my experience, that's the way adults argue about science. But once again it's astonishing that Lonny Eachus doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about how scientists argue.Does Lonny Eachus even have have an argument showing the enclosed plate doesn't warm, without using his previous nonsensical equation which violates what he calls "kindergarten-level physics", and without once again wrongly claiming that "radiative power out" is held constant rather than electrical (or Jane's cow fart or Lonny's horse fart, etc.) heating power?If so, he can either post it here or here where it won't be "censored".If not, Lonny Eachus should feel free to continue endlessly whining on Twitter.
Lonny wrote:"It is RELEVANT to the discussion, and the problem at hand, whether those objects are in local thermal equilibrium. Period."We've already said, you can call it whatever you want. So that's the end of that issue.Now address the fact that your equation does not, by our own admission, conserve energy."My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out""
"We've already said, you can call it whatever you want. So that's the end of that issue."A bit late, don't you think? I do.From Dr. Stephen O. Nelson:"In physics, we call "thermodynamics" something else. We call it "statistical mechanics." Meaning macroscopic and predictable based on statistics. Before you read further, please just consider this notion: "equilibrium" is *defined* in thermodynamics as a state where there is no net flow. Trying to prove that there is a net flow is just trying to prove non-equilibrium. There's no reason to try and say that there are counterexamples. That's like trying to say that a dog is really a cat. The very word "equilibrium" means that all the flows are equal in all parts of the system, in and out. If you find a counterexample that exists, then by definition the system is NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM. So if you find a counterexample, then you've found a system that is not in thermal equlibrium. Done."There is net flow. You tried to call a dog a cat. After what ELSE had gone before, that was enough for me. And I shall not argue with Bryan anymore. Period. I did warn you about that.You don't get it. I told you I quit. You even tried to berate me for coming back here after I told you I quit, and you continued to ask me questions. Now you're still doing it, and I fully expect you to complain that I *DID* come back here again. You're trying to have it both ways.So get it. I quit. Based on my past experiences with Bryan Killett, and his demonstrated refusal to change his ways, I will not participate. I told you in the beginning, David, that was probably the way we should have gone about this in the first place: not at all.I told you in advance what I would not put up with. You did it anyway.You do understand the end, don't you?
Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-15: "There is net flow. You tried to call a dog a cat. ..."Lonny Eachus already tweeted that quote and said: "In the system I showed there IS net heat transfer. It is not in local thermal equilibrium. The point was important."Once again, notice that the quote you copied isn't restricted to heat flow. That point is important. Conservation of energy applies to all energy which crosses a boundary, even if it crosses that boundary in the form of electricity instead of heat.Conservation of energy means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out of the boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. If nothing inside the boundary is changing, that rate is zero so power in = power out.If power in = power out, physicists say there's "no net flow".So Lonny's link is actually just repeating the same basic concept that I am: if there's no change with time, conservation of energy says that power in = power out. ALL power. Not just heat, because any form of energy has to be included in the energy conservation equation.That's why if nothing is changing with time, electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature:electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat sourceOnce again, what matters is that the objects' temperatures aren't changing with time. It's just a matter of labels if we call this "equilibrium" or "steady-state".But I generously let you choose "steady-state" seven months ago. And yet you're still using this nonsensical excuse to evade solving the very first step of this very simple thought experiment. Why?Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13: "FINAL response. They may be physicists but they don't know logical argument when they see it. These two bozos wanted to set me up. (I *DO* have a reply to their physics problem, by the way.)"Really? Then prove it. Show everyone how the enclosed plate doesn't warm, without using your previous nonsensical equation which violates what you call "kindergarten-level physics", and without once again wrongly claiming that "radiative power out" is held constant rather than electrical (or Jane's cow fart or Lonny's horse fart, etc.) heating power.Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-15: "... You do understand the end, don't you?"Sure, you're running away / stalking off because you're stumped.If you're worried about being "censored" by the other "bozo" just post your physics calculations as a reply to Jane Q. Public here.That way, anyone who reads this page will be able to follow that link and see if Jane/Lonny Eachus was actually able to show that the enclosed plate doesn't warm, or if he just ran away because he wasn't even able to do that on a website where his comments wouldn't be deleted.
Lonny Eachus wrote:"A bit late, don't you think? I do."No -- it was said a long time ago. You pretended othewise to avoid discussing the science, and you're doing it still."You do understand the end, don't you?"Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Lots of nice comments here in my long absence.Convenient place to post old arguments out of context without any fear of being contradicted or shown that they were *old* arguments that I long ago publicly disavowed. Long before this incident ever happened.I will remind Bryan Killett, aka Dumb Scientist, what I've had to remind him of several times since in other media: my initial exchange with Appell was about a misunderstanding of whether Pierrehumbert meant NET flux or just SOME flux, in a passage from his book.However, Appell and Killett jumped on this, and decided to try to school me here on how thermodynamics works, based on an old argument I (as mentioned) had already changed my mind about.However, the discussion HERE never got past the stage of agreeing on initial conditions, because Appell would not even agree that a system that is being actively heated on one end, and actively cooled on the other, is not in thermal equilibrium.Why would I every try to discuss thermodynamics under such circumstances? With someone who won't even agree on something that simple, and even tries to label it a character flaw on my part for insisting on such a simple thing? It sure looked like a waste of time to me.I'm not in the habit of wasting my time just so others can try to character assassinate me, over old invalid arguments, as I see they have indulged in here anyway during my absence. I see that I made the right decision at the time.208! That's impressive.
This conversation has been continued at:http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/09/clarifying-past-discussion-on.html
Post a Comment