In the New York Times:
For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?
Of course, we can’t have that, now the howling begins. Some context below.
More from the New York Times Virginia Heffernan:
Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?
Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for contemplation, pummeling its enemies in absentia: ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd. Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.
Under cover of intellectual rigor, the science bloggers — or many of the most visible ones, anyway — prosecute agendas so charged with bigotry that it doesn’t take a pun-happy French critic or a rapier-witted Cambridge atheist to call this whole ScienceBlogs enterprise what it is, or has become: class-war claptrap.
This is all about Pepsigate. See Heffernan’s column The Medium
h/t to Tim Lambert of Deltoid, hosted by Scienceblogs who couldn’t bring himself to reference anything else here at WUWT with his collection of supposed gotchas, only the one point where he was sure he could get a dig in:
Heffernan reckons that Whats Up With That presents credible science. This is a blog that argues that Venus is hot, not because of the greenhouse effect, but because of the high pressure in the atmosphere (so hence Jupiter and Saturn are the hottest planets right?) . Look:
If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT
Only if there was no such thing as gravity.
Umm, Tim, can you tell me what gases on Venus remain in a non-solid state at temperatures approaching absolute zero? What happens to solidified gases like dry ice (Frozen Carbon Dioxide) in a (planetary) gravitational field? Here’s an experiment to help you get the answer:
1. Acquire some dry ice
2. Go outside
3. Toss it upwards into the atmosphere
4. Observe
The point that was being made in that article by Goddard is that with no external energy source (the Sun) Venusian atmospheric gases would contract and eventually freeze at near absolute zero and cling to the surface of the planet, thanks to gravity.
PhysLink agrees:
Question
What will happen to the gas at absolute zero temperature (0 K)?
Asked by: Rohit
Answer
First of all, the gas will no longer be a gas at absolute zero, but rather a solid. As the gas is cooled, it will make a phase transition from gas into liquid, and upon further cooling from liquid to solid (ie. freezing). Some gases, such as carbon dioxide, skip the liquid phase altogether and go directly from gas to solid.
…
First off, 0K can never be achieved, since the amount of entropy in a system can never be equal to zero, which is the statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This can be nicely illustrated by your question:
Using the state equation for an ideal gas:
PV = nRT
T, the thermodynamic temperature will be equal to 0, so the product of the molar gas constant R (8.31 J/mol/K) and the amount of moles n, will also be zero.
Therefore the product of PV must be zero also. the pressure of the gas must be zero or volume of the gas must be zero
As an example, look at the Ice Caps of Mars, still well above absolute zero but below the freezing point of Carbon Dioxide:
From Wiki:
The polar caps at both poles consist primarily of water ice. Frozen carbon dioxide accumulates as a thin layer about one metre thick on the north cap in the northern winter only, while the south cap has a permanent dry ice cover about eight metres thick.[62]
As we see in the Physlink description, a planetary wide near absolute zero temperature (if the sun blinked off), all the rest of Mars atmosphere would be bound to the surface as a solid too. The result: no atmosphere and no atmospheric pressure.
UPDATE: As is typical anytime somebody not on the team that gets a voice or mention, those who deal in mudslinging and angry rhetoric swarm in to squash it and convince the writer of the “wrongness” of it all.
Here’s a comment from Virginia Heffernan after she’s had the treatment here. Note the number of angry labels preceding her response.
Virginia Says:
I’m grateful for all the replies. Nice to meet you here, David.
I get the sense that Pepsigate was the last straw – or not the first, anyway – for at least some of the dissenters from ScienceBlogs. Out of curiosity: Did no one quietly resign over PZ Myers’s Mohammad cartoons? Or question whether they wanted to be part of a network to which he’s the main draw?
In my experience, legacy media types, who do kick up furors over stuff like Mohammad cartoons, nonetheless see *debate* over ad-ed breaches as common, especially now because of the confusion what old-media road rules mean in digital times.
With notable exceptions, blogging, as a form, seems to me to have calcified. Many bloggers who started strong 3-5 years ago have gotten stuck in grudge matches. This is even more evident on political blogs than on science blogs. In fact, after being surprised to find the same cycles of invective on ScienceBlogs that appear on political blogs (where they’re well documented), I started to think the problem might be with the form itself. Like many literary and art forms before it (New Yorker poetry, jazz, manifestos) blogs may have had a heyday – when huge numbers of people were inspired to make original contributions – before, seemingly all at once, the moment is gone. Some people keep doing it, and doing it well, but the wave of innovation passes, and the form itself needs new life. (Twitter? Tumblr?)
I have no training in science. My surprise at ScienceBlogs was akin to the surprise a scientist who might feel if he audited a PhD seminar on Wallace Stevens. Why aren’t they talking about “Anecdote of the Jar”?! Why are they talking about how “misogyny intrinsic to the modernist project”? I saw political axe-grinding bring the humanities almost to a standstill in the 1990s. I thought science was supposed to be above that!
One regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there. I linked to it because has a lively voice; it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before. I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist”; I didn’t even know about denialism. I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog, and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological.
All best,
Virginia Heffernan
Rubbish from a journalist who makes up words.
He could at least hit the spell-check button before submission.
Perhaps a couple of fact-checks here and there….
They’re still masticating the subject of Pepsigate??!!
I would have thought that by now the subject would have been thoroughly chewed, swallowed, digested and expelled into the proper receptacle worthy of such pompous self-righteousness. And as for getting a h/t from the NYT — oh well, about what’s to be expected from the lamestream media where it’s better late than never. I don’t expect you’ll see a surge in traffic from the mention. Heck, that article in the NYT will probably get more hits than normal, thanks to your mention of it here!
” Robert of Ottawa says:
July 31, 2010 at 10:23 am
As anyone who has dealt with compressed gasses knows, they diverge from the ideal gas law due to their different compressabilities.”
Right, and that can be “explained” by the fact that molecules do have a volume (that cannot be compressed, at least not according to the Van der Waals model) and they do attract each other (which makes the pressure on the walls smaller).
WAAAAAAAAATTS!
Easing people into reality is probably the more humane thing to do as the NYT is trying.
Many people accept changes in their perception of reality more easily than others. But imagine you are a major celebrity or VIP who has had hard and fast beliefs in a particular ideology and has been trumpeting that belief a long time. Just think of how big a blow to your ego it is when that steadfast belief is confronted by an alternate explanation in opposition to your ideological belief? Your first reaction is to confront the anathema to your ego with the power of your ego. Unfortunately, your ego is not more powerful than the SUN. Eventually you come to that realization and feel the despair of your own shortcomings. It’s not easy.
Psychological affects of changes in mind are uncomfortable to people and we should have some sympathy to those soles, offer comfort, and let them know we still care about them.
NYT is at that crossroads again. Watch for more criticism of CAGW. When Dr. Goddard whose name graces NASAs space studies institution (any relation Steve?) did his rocketry work beginning back in the 20s with the belief that one day we would be able to travel in space, he had an idea of putting a gunpowder/oxygen payload on a rocket to the moon that would give a visible flash to telescopic viewers to record that the moon had been reached (television was already invented in 1926 but it was a curiosity that required another 20 odd yrs to come to fruition – need for networks, etc). NYT in particular ridiculed Goddard’s nutty idea. I would guess that in the climate debate, we are at the post sputnik I-type stage in the evolution of NYT’s thinking on the subject.
Given the source, the quote on jeering at fat people, smokers, and churchgoers is laughable hypocrisy at best. I would be honored to be insulted by the NYT.
Steve Goddard’s statement is correct, but it was incorrect to cite the ideal gas law as the justification for it – unless it was to indicate that the relationship obviously had to break down because it was intuitively obvious that the volume could never go to zero.
Tim Lambert managed to find the only 6 characters that were incorrect, and draw a conclusion that would only follow if they were true. An ideal gas would maintain a constant pressure (the weight of the atmosphere divided by the surface area of the planet) and *zero volume*. Ideal gases can do this because they’re assumed to be point particles and perfectly non-stick.
So Tim managed to treat the only bit that was wrong (the citing of the ideal gas law) as if it was true, and thereby concluded that the bit that was true (atmospheric pressure approaching zero) was wrong. Well done, Tim!
It seems the height of nitpickery to declare an entire website ‘unscientific’ on the basis of such a tiny, and somewhat ambiguous flaw. Science accepts that scientists make mistakes, and seeks to correct them. Science is an exploration of ideas. What matters – and decides whether you are “scientific” or not – is how you respond to it if a possible flaw is pointed out.
The ideal gas law works just fine. When you get below the freezing point the number of gas molecules (N) drops off rapidly so the pressure also drops off rapidly.
PV=NRT
When water freezes and becomes incorporated in the Greeland Ice Sheet, does Lambert still consider it part of the atmosphere? Does he think atmospheric pressure should be measured under two miles of ice?
Doh!
I have no training in science.
I could tell.
Bob asked where the CO2 came from on Venus. The answer is that the Vogons had a huge fleet of SUVs stationed there when the planet was more habitable. They happily and without thought drove them until the CO2 was a huge part of the atmosphere. The planet then heated up due to the greenhouse effect so that it got so hot all the lead/acid batteries in the SUVs exploded. The heat vaporized the sulfuric acid from the batteries making the clouds that now prevent us from seeing the surface of the planet. The Vogons, having been expelled from Venus decided to make a space bypass and are now awaiting approval of their permit to remove planet 3 in the system to unhinder the flow of traffic throughout the galaxy. If you have any complaints, they may be lodged at the local office in the Alpha Centauri system.
The moral of this story is that somehow we must stop Al Gore from releasing too much CO2 or the earth will be doomed. There appears to be direct relationship between the amount of his nonsense and his carbon footprint. If everybody follows his example, earth will be doomed sooner rather than later.
This information has been peer reviewed by my son who is standing right next to me and who will be thrown out of the house if he disagrees.
The NYT. A great paper for the liberal views. Many treehuggers rank it #1. A subscription is over 540 pounds of paper a year. Including trucking it to the reader, it is an environmental disaster. Deforesstation for getting the word out seems to not draw criticism.
My canary and I have many arguments on what goes to the bottom of the cage. It is disgusting what my canary does to the NYT headlines.
I am sure some one will blow a gasket over the NYT offering a courteous comment toward WUWT.
…..has become Fox News…..
She is political and “chip(ed) off one-liners” herself. 😉
Tim Lambert says:
July 31, 2010 at 9:18 am
In any case, absent the sun, temperatures don’t go to absolute zero
Did someone say that it did?
Jim Barker says:
July 31, 2010 at 9:27 am
Its seems as the political thought content increases, the critical thought content approaches zero.
Nice formula. Get your name on it, something like: The Barker Law.
joshua corning says:
“What is the temperature of Jupiter at the altitude at which the pressure is roughly equal to earth’s pressure at ground level?”
You could take the same question and apply to Venus. What is the temperature of Venus atmosphere at the altitude at which the pressure is roughly equal to earths pressure at ground level?
I would think it would be the combination of high pressure, distance from sun and slow rotation rate that leads to those extreme temperatures. I bet venus would be a very different planet if atmospheric pressure and rotational period was more earth like.
I never heard of this “Pepsigate” thing, apparently I skipped over that post. Now I think it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. I do believe in Karma, and this is an awesome example of it, even if those getting what they deserve don’t see it yet.
The “peer reviewed” “science” in nutrition and medicine is in just as bad shape as in climate issues, if not worse. I’d say Pepsico made a brilliant move in deciding to use the current state of “peer reviewed” “science” in order to promote their brands.
In the grand scheme of things, everything is bad for you in excess. I’m disgusted that I can’t get decent KFC anymore since they banned “transfats”, the potato chips and other snack foods I used to enjoy have pretty much all been destroyed and “sanitized” by junk-science compliance. When I microwave a bag of popcorn I always have to add some salt and usually some butter. Soups and other things I get from restaurants and even fast food places are so devoid of salt and fats that I seriously question how ANYONE can eat them.
There are foods that I used to eat as a child in the 60s and 70s that are either no longer available or have morphed into a mere shadow of their former glory. Children today are NOT getting proper, required nutrition during their critical growing phase, since they are being robbed of fats and sugars by well meaning but ignorant people.
Are people healthier? No.
Am I obese? No. The opposite, in fact.
I smoke, I drink, I eat fatty and salty foods, I don’t get a lot of exercise, and yet at 46 I do exceptionally well at all the traditional indicators of health: blood pressure, heart rate, endurance, strength, etc. Stick that in your “peer reviewed” junk-science food war record book.
To answer my own question…..
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-hot-is-venus.html
Kevin Kilty says:
July 31, 2010 at 9:08 am
“Venus is hot not because of a greenhouse effect, per se, but because the atmosphere is optically thick — which amounts to almost the same thing as “pressure is high.” ”
Yes, except that that’s pretty much what the planetary greenhouse effect is. A greenhouse works because the glass is “optically thick” (or thickish) to thermal radiation and convection currents from inside, while being “optically thin” (or less thick) to the sunlight from outside. Vertical convection is limited in the greenhouse by the physical barrier of the glass; in a planetary atmosphere its effectiveness is limited by the lapse rate. Except where there are clouds, the Earth’s atmosphere is not actually thick, but it is thicker for outgoing heat than for incoming sunlight, so the greenhouse effect, though weak, still raises the surface temperature above what it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent to outgoing radiation.
“Each of these planets achieves an equilibrium temperature appropriate to their distance from the sun at a level well up in the atmosphere”
Oddly enough, seen from space, Venus is cold. The effective temperature at which Venus radiates is only ~230K, much lower than that of the Earth, despite the doubled top-of-atmosphere insolation. This is because the high albedo of the continuous cloud cover (~80%), which reflects away most of the sunlight. Without the clouds (but assuming the same optical depths) Venus’s atmosphere and surface would be ~50% hotter (up to ~1100K!) – which should make us realise how crucial clouds are in controlling the climate on Earth.
“Adiabatic heating results in temperatures lower in the atmosphere that are surprisingly high.”
It is not adiabatic heating, as such (that only happens where air masses sink, and is inevitably offset by the corresponding cooling of the equal and opposite rising masses). In the absence of any heat from below, or from sunlight penetrating to the lower levels, the atmosphere would be isothermal and very stably stratified. But even at the surface of Venus, enough sunlight penetrates (from memory ~9W/m2 – fortunately the exact figure isn’t important here) to raise the temperature to ~730K; the surface is cooled by thermal radiation, which however has a greater optical depth than the incoming sunlight (tau >~7.5 versus ~2.7, for assumed 9W/m2 at surface, or delta tau of >5 independent of actual surface flux). This temperature is at roughly the adiabatic limit for this atmosphere, so at least some of the cooling will be by convection (probably most).
“Arguments in natural science are often very complex, or at least they involve cascades of mechanisms, which provides all sorts of opportunities for mischief from “gotcha” sorts of people.”
Very true.
stevengoddard says: July 31, 2010 at 9:01 am
Tamino censored my response to his article, which included these two phase diagrams, showing that pressure approaches zero as temperature approaches zero.
Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger, Steve. I was censored, too, when I explained how adiabatic lapse rates work, which they mention, but apparently that’s just a cool science term they heard in passing. Not worth the trouble of typing a comment if Mr Foster is going to censor anyone more intelligent than he is (and I’ve looked it up).
I was amazed at the ad homs allowed over there, and the ‘Open Mind’ blog title is hilariously Orwell. What a pointless blog.
By the way, PV=nRT works in an oxygen tank or a spare tire, but it doesn’t mean much in an atmosphere bound only by gravity. P and T vary by altitude, and V is not measurable with no upper boundary.
I’ve put in a note for Virginia – if she should chance to read it
Well, Anthony, you predicted it: “now the howling begins.”
Sure enough, the poor lady got rewarded for her decency and civility with a load of venomous vile being hurled her way for daring to speak the unspeakable and mention WUWT in her column, and she commits a public act of contrition by agreeing that WUWT is a denialist site.
I wonder if she will still continue to sneak peeks at WUWT in the future, sort of like a guilty pleasure like sneaking a taste of chocolate when no one’s looking.
Yes Virginia, there is civil disagreement on the web and it’s on display right here. And when a line is crossed it gets snipped. And whether it’s Dr. Svalgaard, Dr. Curry, Dr. Meier, and others, they get treated with respect and consideration here, even if people here may disagree with things they may say or positions they may hold.
Can the same be said of the scienceblogs domain?
And as for all the nasty things said to her about WUWT — how’s that saying go about protesting too much?
Nullius in Verba
You are familiar with the mathematical idea of “approaching a limit?”
[b]Paul Birch[/b],
Given the thick clouds, Venus isn’t so much like a green house as it is a house-house with shingles on the roof. Very little light gets through the clouds, and as far as I know the surface illumination would meet the meteorological standards for any form of daylight here on Earth.
As for adiabatic heating, air is heated as a mass of air descends, so air lower down becomes hotter than it was up above. The air eventually rises and cools, but the cooling takes place as it rises, so this cooling doesn’t lower the air temperatures near the surface. It’s basically a constantly running heat engine with a compressor and an expansion orifice, like an air conditioner, heat pump, or refrigerator. The hot, high pressure side stays perpetually hotter than the cold side, establishing a fixed temperature difference between the two points. Then, somewhere, you connect a point on the circuit to the external environment which then sets the absolute temperatures everywhere else in the circuit.
In the case of Venus, the thick atmosphere and cloud cover keep the surface isolated from efficient, direct, radiated contact with the external environment, so the temperature is set by the upper atmosphere. As long as the adiabatic heat engine runs (strong vertical atmospheric circulation) the temperatures at low altitudes must be hotter than the high altitude temperature. It’s no coincidence that the temperature profile of Venus below the clouds almost exactly matches the adiabatic lapse rate, which would otherwise be rather inexplicable.
” Steve Goddard says:
July 31, 2010 at 11:48 am
The ideal gas law works just fine. When you get below the freezing point the number of gas molecules (N) drops off rapidly so the pressure also drops off rapidly.
PV=NRT”
The standard form is pV=NkT or pV=nRT (N number of molecules, k Boltzmann constant, n number of moles, R gas constant). Since there are 4 variables, one should indicate, which, if any, remain constant. “Freezing point” here is the one of water, I presume (273.15K = 0°C).