Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at Lucia Liljegren’s most interesting site, “Rank Exploits”, she has another fascinating post, as is often the case. I busted out laughing at the post title, which is “HotWhopper Sou Doesn’t Read WUWT”. Given how often the lady in the Batcave over at Hotwhopper writes about Watts Up With That (WUWT) in general, and how much time she wastes trying to bite my ankles, I found this ludicrous. Lucia’s post was in reference to a curious network analysis by Paige Jarreau, which purports to show that Watts Up With That is hardly read by anyone in the field, and that the most-read climate blog is RealClimate. This is Ms. Jarreau’s description of her work:
What would it look like if you asked 600+ science bloggers to list up to three science blogs, other than their own, that they read on a regular basis, and then visually mapped the resulting data?
And here are the Jarreau results:
Figure 1. The section of the Jarreau results covering climate blogs. Lines show links, people who blog at one site and say that they read another site. Size of the names indicates the numbers of people listing that blog among the three that they read most. Click to enlarge.
Now, you can see WUWT in yellow over on the left, almost totally isolated from the other groups of blogs, in tiny type, with only a few links to it. This raises an interesting question, which is—how could Ms. Jarreau’s results be so far from reality? I say “far from reality” because by just about any measure, Watts Up With That is at the center of the climate blogosphere. Whether you look at total page views, “bounce rate”, page views per visitor, daily time on site, Alexa rating, you name the metric, WUWT comes out an order of magnitude ahead of any other climate blog. For example, Alexa rates WUWT as the 20,839th most popular blog worldwide … while RealClimate is an order of magnitude lower down, at 217,939th among all blogs.
Not only that, but WUWT is read by people on both sides of the climate divide, as evidenced by the number of AGW-supporting individuals and sites who comment on the WUWT posts, both at their blogs, on Twitter, and to their co-workers. The AGW supporters may only read it to see what the opposition is up to … but given their steady rate of responses, HotWhopper Sou and others read it regularly. Now to be fair, the results of Ms. Jarreau are preliminary … but still, how did her analysis get it so wrong? I’d say three things contributed to the skewed results. First, people don’t always tell the truth. Ms. HotWhopper is the obvious poster child for this. From the topics of her posts it’s obvious that she spends a whole lot of time reading WUWT … but she didn’t list it. I suspect that for some people, it’s a guilty pleasure, but that if asked, they’d say the equivalent of “I only read Playboy for the articles” …
The second reason for the skewed results is the way that news of the survey was passed around. It doesn’t appear that there was sufficient effort given to ensuring that the questionnaire was widely distributed. A better method might have been to write up a description and invitation to participate in the study, and to ask the various blogs to use it as a guest post. In any case, more thought about how to select participants is definitely indicated. Third, and in my opinion most important, there appears to have been no definition of terms, particularly as to what constitutes a “science site”. A large number of people in Lucias thread said well, HotWhopper Sou didn’t list WUWT because it’s not a science site … and according to them, the evidence for their claim that WUWT is not a science site is that often WUWT publishes studies which later turn out to be incorrect in some way, and sometimes are totally mistaken and wrong. To me, this reflects a profound misunderstanding of what makes a science site. The problem is that there are different kinds of “science sites”.
I’ll use mostly climate science sites as examples, as I’m familiar with them. One kind of science site is just a news aggregation site. The best example of this kind is Climate Depot. It just puts up links to stories about the climate with little commentary. Another kind of science site generally restricts itself to discussions of peer-reviewed science, but gives some commentary on each link. “It’s Not Rocket Science” or the Scientific American blog are examples of this category. Another kind of science site mostly deals with the original work of an individual author. Climate Audit and Isaac Held’s blog are examples of this kind of site. Then we have sites such as Lucia Liljegren’s site, or Judith Curry’s site, which reflect the individual interests of the author but which range widely over a number of subjects. Finally, we have Watts Up With That (WUWT). What makes WUWT unusual is that it is not a site that publicly discusses peer-reviewed science documents. Instead, it is a site for the public peer-review of science documents, including original work done by guest authors such as myself, and also studies which have been peer-reviewed by one of the journals.
This is a very different animal. To start with, just as happens with the secret peer review which is the usual format for the journals, not all of the papers that are reviewed will pass muster. Of course the journals don’t publish anything that doesn’t pass peer-review, they are hidden from view. But for public peer review such as goes on at WUWT, everything is visible, good, bad, and ugly. So when people complain that there are misguided or incorrect scientific claims posted at WUWT … well, doh. That’s an unavoidable part of the public peer-review game. Some of the pieces won’t make the cut. Not only that, but it is an extremely important part of the game. Knowing not only which scientific claims are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong, is perhaps more important than knowing which scientific claims are right. So yes, there is some very sketchy science that sometimes gets published and publicly peer-reviewed at WUWT … and almost invariably, it gets shot full of holes in short order. This makes WUWT more of a scientific site, not less of one. You don’t see that kind of thing happening at say RealClimate (RC) for a simple reason—such comments are invisibly and ruthlessly censored.
And that is why the Jarreau claim that RC is at the center of anything scientific is a joke. Science doesn’t censor scientific comments, and RC does censor scientific comments. You do the math. (Of course, all sites censor comments that violate blog policy, such as those that are vulgar or insulting, or wildly off-topic … but RC censors polite, on-topic, clearly scientific objections to their posts. No bueno.) As a frequent guest author, to me this pointing out of bad science is one of the most important aspects of WUWT—any mistake that I make will be identified in very short order. This has saved me immense amounts of wasted effort following blind trails … but some foolish folks think that my occasionally publishing claims that eventually turn out to be erroneous reduces the scientific value or nature of WUWT.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Identifying errors and falsifying claims is central to science, and the only way to do so is to first publish the claims that later turn out to be wrong. As a result, Anthony has to undertake a continuous delicate balancing act. He doesn’t want to publish things that are obviously pseudo-science, but then he doesn’t want to exclude things that might be right … plus sometimes he wants to publish things that he knows are wrong simply so that their errors can be publicly identified. Does he make mistakes in the choices at times? Of course. It’s a tough job, and it is a job that no one individual could possibly be qualified to do, for a simple reason—nobody is as smart as the collective wisdom of the crowd. There’s no way to guess what errors a thousand readers might find in a piece that you or I might think is flawless. And there’s also no way to identify the odd and curious scientific claim that in a few years might be “settled science”.
So Anthony has to pick and choose, and not every choice is right … so what? Since the public falsification of bad science is essential to scientific progress, I find the idea that WUWT is not a science site because it sometimes posts shaky claims to be very parochial and short-sited. Private secret peer-review has obviously failed. In fact, many of the ridiculously bad “science” claims discussed at WUWT are peer-reviewed studies published in the most prestigious journals … but nobody can get that kind of nonsense past the kind of public peer review which is exemplified by WUWT. There are too many smart, insightful, capable people commenting on the posts for much to slip by …
So yes, WUWT does publish some obviously bad science, including obviously bad peer-reviewed science. But what some people fail to understand is, public falsification is the heart of science … and the only way to do that is to start by publishing and discussing that science, whether it is “good” or “bad”, and whether or not it’s already been peer-reviewed. In any case, those three reasons are why I think that the Jarreau results are so out of touch with reality.
My best to all, my great appreciation to Anthony for his tireless work, and my thanks to Lucia. On my planet her posts are almost always fascinating, as are the comments that they engender. And finally, my thanks to all the readers, lurkers, and commenters for your continued efforts to move the game forwards. w.
PS—The usual request: if you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS THAT YOU THINK ARE WRONG. This allows everyone to be clear about exactly what it is that you are objecting to.
Addendum by Anthony:
I thank Willis for his analysis and for his kind words. It should be noted that as far as I know, I have never been contacted by Jarreau to ask to participate in the survey. Shades of Cook and Lewandowsky’s methodology where you get your desired result by selecting your sample beforehand. (i.e. only ask the people that are in your circle) – Anthony
Of course, as you say, not all of this site is peer review. This blog, more than any other blog, shows the readers everything that is going on, whether it’s data, whether it’s opinion pieces like this one, whether it’s new papers, whether it’s essays on new theories. It is the least censored and the most comprehensive, and the most honest. Since the topics are generally all scientific topics, then so is this blog. This piece right here is an opinion piece, but like most it discusses scientific topics, in this case it discusses the dissemination of scientific information and other science-related activity at online blogs, which makes this piece scientific. As another example, when people discuss whether the models have been successful predicting climate, it’s not necessarily peer review but it’s certainly a discussion and evaluation of the science.
All this climate madness makes me want to go back to the 80’s when all was normal. (sort of)
Coincidentally a song of another Jarreau comes to mind:
Anyone wanna go waltzing in the garden? Anyone wanna go dance up on the roof?
Life was easy back then.
Thanks – but just a tiny niggle: short-sited or short sighted?
A too-short of a list of too many sites that include too many sites that are too short-sighted?
Then there is Alexa, the rankings site that apparently become enamored of the “97%” much like Wikipedia or like the commercial ratings agencies that went to bed with their customers pre 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/15/smells-fishy-alexas-data-blunder-hits-drudge-wuwt-mostly-favors-leftist-news-sites-over-conservative-news-sites/
http://moneyweek.com/the-great-credit-rating-scandal/
If RealClimate is the center of the climate blog universe, boy are we all in trouble. Every once in awhile I decide that due diligence requires that I sample all sides of the debate, so I wander off to RC or (at the admonition of one of my AGW proponent friends) Skeptical Science. I never can manage more than a few minutes on either of these sites.
– Right now at RC, the five postings on the front page date all the way back to December. Yawn. Very few comments and every one is “corrected” by the blog owner. Statements like “Do the maths yourself…” without any indication of what is to be worked out or references to sources is deeply insulting to both the commentator and the readers. This is nothing but an ego-driven vanity site.
– SkepticalScience loses me at the introductory paragraph: “…Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming….” How insulting is that? If you disagree, you are de facto an idiot. No critical thinking to be found here.
Many others have commented on the value of WUWT and I will just add that I consider a morning spent reading a long commentary thread on WUWT to be among the best educational time investments available, far more valuable than most of the time I have spent in classrooms – although I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to attend classes with Jim Steele…
Any good scientist will be his/her own worst critic. This was brought home to me as an undergraduate. The professor, whose tenure clearly emanated from his publications, rather than his teaching prowess, was giving a particularly stultifying lecture on quark theory. Shaking his head in confusion, another student finally raised his hand, and, putting together several of the relations on the board, showed that the net result would be a +1/3 charge on the neutron. The professor replied, “Well, that just goes to show you that everything I’ve been saying for the last 45 minutes is b@llsh&t.”
Ranking WUWT as an also ran behind RC as a science blog is that +1/3 charge on the neutron. It’s almost pathological. One is reminded of a famous quote from former Vice President Dan Quayle: “To lose one’s mind, or to not have a mind is being terribly wasteful.”
I also find the intelligence displayed in the articles and commentary deeply refreshing, even restorative. It’s one of the only places I experience public discourse that is lively, exceptionally good-humoured, seriously smart and highly informative. All is not yet lost! I have been lurking here for a couple of years, but this post gave me a much better sense of what is going on here, so thanks also for that. My sincere thanks to Anthony and whomever else puts it on.
(I follow the climate change story mainly because I like to see how well or poorly it is argued and as a general indicator of how we are doing as a society given how often the AGW story is flung around. SInce the 70’s I have had little doubt that we simply don’t know enough to evalute the anthro premise one way or another, albeit possibly now we are getting closer, but that still remains to be seen, and in any case depends largely on whether or not we have the collective intelligence to analyse and discuss such issues in a sane fashion – clearly not yet the case. My suspicion is that, apart from serious pollution due to agricultural run-off and/or nuclear toxicity, the main negative input would be changes to flora and fauna due to population increase and bad practices; but exhaust from combustion engines has got to be way down on the list and in any case the CO2 theory is infantile at best and so mainly am astonished at how much traction it gets and also how hard it is seemingly to disprove, leading in turn to general skepticism on my part that the ‘scientific method’ is all that worthy, either in general, or perhaps more likely in terms of issues that are simply too large to contain in a variable-specific laboratory where precise data can be analysed in detail – i.e. climate simply cannot be contained into a test tube.)
Please don’t confuse the methods used in ‘Climate Science’ with the Scientific Method. One think that is quite obvious from reading this site and most other skeptic, lukewarm and climate inquisitive sites is the total disregard for the scientific method shown by the more prominent of the Hockey Team.
Joe: good point. However, not being trained in science, and yet being beholden as a North American / European citizen to it so often in terms of its modern-day influence in human affairs, I have impressions, many of which I trust on an instinctive level even if I lack the training and information to articulate them satisfactorily.
That said, I do read a few (short) papers here and there and have a sense of the structure of those reports – Intro, Summary, Definitions, Process, Conclusions etc. And I think that the scientific method – which is questionable on many different philosophical and metaphysical levels, many of which it seems most scientists have not been exposed to in their education – is misused.
My undertanding generally is that you have to assemble data based on physical facts and demonstrate that any conclusion you draw from what then happens can be verified in the future providing the same variables.
That’s my bugaboo right there: unless you work with a very confined situation with minimal variables, there are so many variables involved in most real-world situations that this method, the scientific method, cannot be applied. You can apply the method to specifying the correct temperature of an egg at which the yolk is soft and the white hard, and can precisely demonstrate one or more methods to get that desired result and do so using the scientific method, but you cannot use that same scientific method to analyse all the variables involved in waking up, going to the bathroom, washing etc., preparing and eating breakfast, dressing and driving to work and come to any meaningful conclusion about it. This is simple stuff in terms of life experience for a human or animal being, but not something that can be evaluated using the scientific method because there are an infinity of variables in each step and therefore essentially nothing can meaningfully be studied using that method, even though there are no end of cultural and personal issues which can be explored every day (cut of pyjamas, style of cleaning teeth, breakfast menu, cooking technique, jokes cracked, which paper to read, etc. etc. etc.).
Similarly, with the climate, the sheer scale of variables is staggering. To think that we can isolate one very small component (CO2) and meaningfully evaluate its part in a process that involves no end of variable inputs, many of which are unknown and unguessed or if not unmeasured or unmeasurable, is both folly and fallacious. And yet seldom if ever have I read anything commenting on this aspect of the whole thing: that the scientific method has no business being used to come up with projections of climate given the infinite number of variables at play.
Let us say you have all the satellite data of temperature and you do not fudge the data somehow (though how you can look at it meaningfully without simplifying it somehow is another question): so what? What can you do with that data meaningfully? You might be able to get cyclical information, but then you need a couple of thousand years worth for it to be helpful – more like 500,000 would be best. We have 30 or 40. And do we have data on all the variables around that satellite data? Electromagnetic, ocean current, wind patterns, earth core radiation, inter-planetary influences, solar influences, galactic influences, water vapour, ozone, forestation, microbial patterns, volcanic activity both on surfface and below the ocean, and various butterfly wings whispering along somewhere in the Amazon etc. etc. etc. And if we include most of that, we have so many variables in the mix that how can the satellite data we are starting with tell us anything using the scientific method? Or put another way: in what meaningful fashion can a materialist scientific method be used to evaluate this cosmic jungle of inter-related and ever-changing data?
The only way we can use the scientific method to meaningfully predict or evaluate climate is by shutting our eyes and ears to most of the variables which we know must be involved given we live in an interdependent universe. But wait: that gets into the metaphysical level which most contemporary scientists want to make verboten. Quantum physics has more or less proven – as philosophers have done since at least 500 BC – that the materialist view of the universe is fallacious. But still, according to most modern materialists, all particles have inherently independent existence, are absent any intelligence/awareness/consciousness quotient, and so basically the universe is comprised of bits and pieces of physical-only dust wherein all relationships and complex structures have evolved, as per the evolution theory currently in vogue, by chance, since anything other than chance would infer an intelligence quotient. In this way, in order to justify it’s extremist position, materialist science has concluded that all processes involving inter-dependencies and complex living organisms, are based on mindless chance. To infer otherwise is taboo amongst modern materialists.
That being the case, how can such a method and view approach conclusions about CO2 and climate? Surely it’s all random, no? Or if not, then presumably mainly cyclical caused by the largest bodies which represent the most stable set of variables in the mix. (But no, they choose one of the lightest, and relatively smallest variables, CO2, on which to project planetary changes in long-term climate! Personally I think the whole thing must have been a swindle from the get-go, and the perpetrators had enough money to know they can find sheep to follow along with any crazy story who then do the leg-work in terms of making it respectable.)
So yes, although an amateur, I question the validity of the scientific method, (as I believe Locke did around the time it was being developed – by a salesman in England if I recall correctly). He said that ultimately it was based on subjectivity, like anything else, and trying to posit some sort of objective peer-reviewed process was futile (shameless, and no doubt only very partially accurate, paraphrase).
I didn’t want to come here to hijack or denigrate or distract from the thread on this blog site which I very much value, but if someone asks, then why not answer? I have great respect for most scientists, believe it or not, because I have no doubt that most of them/you are sincere, intelligent, and want to do good, to improve the world, even many of the AGW crowd (whom I personally believe are dangerously deluded). But we lack a culture able to tackle philosophical issues in a very organised, let alone open, manner, which means that basically we haven’t come very far forward from periods only a few centuries ago in which primitive beliefs and superstitions and taboos ruled the minds of so many. Sorry, this went on far too long! But to conclude: I believe there needs to be much more overview and discussion about the nature and best use of the ‘scientific method’ and that most of the time the word ‘science’ or ‘scientists’ is used, more is being attributed to them, more capability that is, than is empirically, let alone metaphysically, justified.
Thanks, c. John Carter could take lessons from you, esp in curiosity. That meandered but came safely to the sea.
===================
caperash,
That’s why, at least to me, it is total hubris to even think we can model the climate of this pile of air, water and rock, much less correctly predict/estimate the effects of adding another 250ppm or so of plant fertilizer to the atmosphere. ‘Climate Change’ has become nothing more than a belief system, it sure isn’t science or engineering. As such, how can anyone justify keeping well over half the world in poverty just in the hope that they guessed right.
Maybe Paige Jarreau was using a climate computer. The amount of divergence from reality seems about right.
Thanks, Willis. Good article.
You have defined WUWT very well. People interested in climate seem to be the usual commenters here, comments are mostly valuable to read, and Anthony does a very good job of directing the whole thing. Moderators are mostly unsung heroes, so thanks!
Paige Brown Jarreau does not say how she selected the bloggers, or how many of them responded. She does say that the data needed to be cleaned.
This map is mislabeled. It is clearly a map of warmest Troll behavior, and as such might be scientifically ( assuming sociology still qualifies as a science) valuable. /sarc off
Taylor
Another point is that they asked the respondents to voluntarily admit to which sites they read.
Most warmists that I know would never admit to reading a site that doesn’t support their agenda.
Kind of peculiar that Curry got banished to the uncool kids’ treehouse.
Ah Willis, there you go again!
Your Your superbly honed and fine tuned wit once again strike the unaware! Is this whole article really to get us discussing the fine details of a picture while the subliminal message goes undetected? A bigger picture you ask? – a brief look at the opening graphic will reveal WUWT to be out in left field… left field? How strange, especially when I thought the self perception here was that of big oil right-wing fanatics! Was Willis really all about trying to correct the impression that we have of ourselves? Or are the climate folk trying to re-invent themselves as a right-wing-centrist alliance against the nefarious left? Talk about a climate shift!
Bob, thanks for the reply.
So how shallow does Argo come? And what is the source of the ocean surface temperature?
ARGO measures ocean water temps, from 2000+ meters to surface. They sink, then float back up, measuring temps and salinity (and probably pressure).
Some might find this pertinent: https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/a-qualitative-assessment-of-the-climate-blogosphere-january-2015/
The number of scientific disciplines that cross over into climate science is extraordinarily large. WUWT attracts experts from just about every one of the overlapping disciplines. That the clique of alarmist climate scientists cannot see the advantages of having such widespread and comprehensive review bespeaks of one thing – hubris.
At 6:12 PM on 17 January, aGrimm had observed:
Would that “hubris” were really the “one thing” which is demonstrated by the self-anointed climatology “consensus” dismissal of critical review from scientifically educated, trained, and experienced observers in disciplines either related to meteorology or wholly outside the purview thereof.
It’s not so much their arrogance but their FEAR that’s exposed thereby.
Those of us with knowledge of scientific method (especially those of us with experience as investigators obliged to employ sound methodology and report our findings honestly before voicing our conclusions and recommendations for action) never object to critical review, even from people arguably “unqualified” to criticize.
The way I figure it, my job is to examine objective reality, winkle out the facts, articulate their existence, and put forward a supported explanation – a model – of how and why those facts came to exist. If I can’t make that explanation intelligible to a person who’s got ZERO education in the sciences, and satisfy him at the “plain goddam common sense” level with that explanation’s validity, then I haven’t done my job.
The climate catastrophe “consensus” Know that they haven’t got a hope in hell of doing that IF anybody – within or without the sciences – starts picking at their bafflegab, and this terrifies them.
The honest scientist’s job is to explain things, ” to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825).
The job of the “alarmist climate scientists” (as they have repeatedly confirmed in their intramural communications) is to project a “message” bereft of support in objective reality, and to veil that mendacity in a miasma of Cargo Cult pseudoscience.
Well spake. I especially like the Jefferson quote.
=========
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” – Einstein.
I think that the point of the nastiness is not to stop people from taking WUWT seriously. Its to stop people fishing in the big school of dodginess. Sou’s blog name gives it away.
Well this quote from Willis sums it up for me: “I’d say three things contributed to the skewed results. First, people don’t always tell the truth…”. No kidding
This is a perfect analogy for climate science: we don’t like real world data, so we just make it up.
And, oh yea, we have our own taxonomy for what constitutes a real science site, and HotWhopper made the cut.
Does she know anyone who voted for NIxon?
It would seem Paige Jarreau’s map is (roughly) to the climate blogosphere as the IPCC is to legitimate climate science. A bit of fantasy.
gymnosperm January 17, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Since neither Robert nor I said anything about “adiabatic warming”, I fear you’ve misunderstood our very different proofs that gravity by itself cannot cause a temperature gradient in a thermally isolated column of air. A re-reading of both of our posts might help. Yes, there are “foehn winds” … but that’s not what the proofs are about.
Mine is A Matter Of Some Gravity
Robert’s is Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates
And yes, I know that Joe Born believes that Robert Brown’s proof is wrong. Anyone who agrees with Joe is invited to read the comments to Dr. Brown’s post, wherein the errors in Joe’s claims are pointed out to him, over and over, point by point … without effect. Joe says that he depends on a paper by Velasco for his claims, but as DeWitt Payne pointed out in that thread, VELASCO SAID THE SAME THING DR. BROWN SAID, viz (emphasis and note mine):
Despite Velasco’s unambiguously clear statement that the idea that temperature decreases with height is WRONG, Joe starts tapdancing to try to prove that it doesn’t say what it obviously says, and he hasn’t stopped tapdancing right up to this post.
I would also note that Joe has not claimed that my proof is wrong, despite the fact that my proof comes to the exact same conclusion as Robert Brown’s proof.
Best regards, and please do re-read the proofs.
w.
I will probably read it, one day. Just a quick look at Robert Brown’s and there is a problem. Ideal gas molecules move independently of each other until they collide. If dT/dz=0, then as P->0 a molecule will have the same thermal energy as it rises or falls meaning creation or destruction of energy.
Robert B, I gotta say, you criticizing a paper that you yourself admit that you haven’t read is … well … I fear I find myself speechless. If you wanted to find a way to get your vote cancelled before you got out of the starting gate you couldn’t have picked a better method.
Read the whole dang paper of Robert’s before you uncap your electronic pen. It’s an elegant proof, the math is immaterial, the description of the thought experiment is all you really need. And then come back tell us whether you think a thermal current will flow in the silver wire. It’s a simple question, yes or no will do. Then we’ll have something to discuss. Until then, I’m just gonna point and laugh.
Carp about a paper you haven’t even read … really?
w.
Looking at it two dimensionally with molecules moving just vertically, pairs of colliding molecules gain on average m(gt)^2 kinetic energy between collisions (COM drops 1/2gt^2) where m is the mass of one molecule and t is the average time between collisions. For there to be an equilibrium, the molecule moving up needs to have m(gt)^2 more kinetic energy than the one falling, on average. That gives you the difference in thermal energy for a distance Δz which is the average distance between collisions, and Δz=2ts where s is the average speed of a molecule.
I’m figuring this out as I type so I’m not going to take it any further except to say that working out how z and t depend on P in a three dimensional version will probably lead to isothermal when P->∞ and the adiabatic lapse rate when P->0.
I’ll leave that to the practicing physicist. I have to spray herbicide on a few acres tomorrow.
Its a simple thought experiment, Will. If it were just one molecule there would be a temperature difference.
This study is exactly like measuring temperature with wind gauge (see what I mean?)
If you want to know if a blog is popular, and hence, important and influential in the blogosphere world, just look at hits count, unique visitors metrics and so on. And WUWT is far above RC. I don’t see what could be more straightforward than that.
Here, author prefers to ask a biased sample of people (representative of what ? who?) and just proves that people like to read opinions similar to their own. What a surprise.
‘No one reads WUWT anymore, it’s too crowded’
I quote that comment because it has nothing whatsoever to do with science but it’s still a worthwhile contribution just the same because It combines humor and a clever turn to an old Yogi Berra quote.
Commenters here don’t take themselves so seroiusly that a bit of humor or self-deprecation can’t accompany their sometimes good ideas.
For example, the other day someone complained that their ‘stupid’ comment was stuck in moderation.
[The moderators here can proudly assert that no stupid comments are ever permanently stuck in the moderation queue. They may show up in the moderation queue, they might start in the moderation queue, but they don’t stay there. 8<) .mod]
Appended to the post of Rick (4:51 AM, 18 January) was:
Oh?
And for registered participants in this forum who’ve been placed on “Permanent Double-Secret Probation” so that their every post is automatically stuck in moderation hell for half a day or so, regardless of content?
[The first statement is still true. .mod]
“Registered participants in this forum”? Which forum are you talking about? Does WUWT have “registered participants” I don’t know about? What am I missing here?
w.
Appraised (apparently for the first time ever) of the fact that conditions are – er, different – for
…at 1:27 PM on 18 January we have Mr. Eschenbach asking:
Much, obviously.
In order to post comments on WUWT threads, one must be registered with WordPress.com, and thus identifiable as an unique entrant to the forum, this ostensibly to mitigate sock-puppetry.
Don’t always work with regard to handling the trolls, but it wonderfully impairs the prompt appearance of comments made by honest men who are simply very good with napalm when flamebait present themselves.
“if I didn’t consider the “brand” manifest in my online nom-de-pogrom to be a hard-wrought value I wouldn’t stick to it as a manifest of my intentions to deal openly ”
Except that you didn’t stick to your brand, at least, not the name by which you were known in your previous, Sicilian life as “Rich Matarese”. As to style, yes, I appreciate that you have kept your style unchanged these many years.
I have learned a lot about what you do not like. I have learned almost nothing of what you like or respect. Perhaps a few words in that direction would balance your presentation.
You enjoy some similarity to the Pompous Git, a well-read, largely self-instructed intellectual of the Asperger syndrome variety.
Tucci78 January 18, 2015 at 1:53 pm says:
“In order to post comments on WUWT threads, one must be registered with WordPress.com, and thus identifiable as an unique entrant to the forum, this ostensibly to mitigate sock-puppetry.
Don’t always work with regard to handling the trolls, but it wonderfully impairs the prompt appearance of comments made by honest men who are simply very good with napalm when flamebait present themselves.”
Ah, I see the problem. You object to having to provide a valid internet address in order to comment, and you describe that as “having to register with WordPress” … however, it has nothing to do with WordPress, and it’s not “registration”, it’s just a requirement that you have a valid email address. Don’t like it? You try running a website without that elementary precaution, and you’ll quickly learn why almost every blog on the planet has that simple requirement.
And despite your complaints about some mysterious “Permanent Double-Secret Probation”, here you are, free to complain about Permanent Double-Secret Probation … I’m not sure you see the irony in that, but I’m sure I’m not the only one that does.
If your comments are getting extra scrutiny, perhaps it’s because WUWT tries to discourage flaming, and you describe yourself as “very good with napalm”, and you describe the comments of others as “flamebait”.
So it may be that the mods want to make sure you’re not either making a fool of yourself or harming the blog’s reputation or both, before letting your comments through. And given your self-description, I’d say that if I ran the zoo, I’d want to put a very close eye on your comments before letting them through. Letting children play with napalm is generally a bad idea, particularly when they describe their acquaintances as “flamebait”.
However, that’s just me, and I wouldn’t know if you get extra scrutiny or not. I’m a guest author, not a moderator, I know nothing of what they do … and I’ve had my own comments snipped by the mods, and for good reason. The mods have a tough job, and if they ding me, I just assume that I deserved it and I modify my behavior accordingly.
w.
At 4:05 PM on 18 January, confronted with the fact that
…Mr. Eschenbach jumps Gadarene to the erroneous conclusion that:
Bullpuckey. I have no objection to unique identifiers in fora such as this one. While I value a disconnect between free speech and “True Name” exposure (after all, didn’t Dr. Locke publish Two Treatises anonymously, knowing full well that even the monarchy installed by way of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 would interpret his rebuttal of Filmer as lèse-majesté?) owing to the proven proclivity of “Liberal” fascisti to undertake direct attacks against the persons, property, professions and families of dissenters, if I didn’t consider the “brand” manifest in my online nom-de-pogrom to be a hard-wrought value I wouldn’t stick to it as a manifest of my intentions to deal openly and honestly with every subject about which I write.
That which is objectionable is the employment of such unique identification mechanisms to punish such refusal either to sockpuppet or to suffer fools and fraudsters politely with “Permanent Double-Secret Probation” (Jeez, Mr. Eschenbach, you mean you’ve never seen Animal House [1978] a single time in all your life?). It’s not only execrable in se but bureaucratic in modo, and I’m not sure as to which is the more to be condemned.
Admitting that:
Mr. Eschenbach conjectures about why someone eloquent in invective might prick the priss among the pretentiously fastidious in the moderati, who manifestly seek the seeming of a mock “civility” where such cordiality is neither intended nor useful nor compatible with either moral or intellectual integrity.
I ain’t polite to the arrogantly ignorant writing in support of kleptocratic lying authoritarians, who are themselves the open enemies of individual human rights, social comity, and good civil order. If such matters don’t getcher juices flowing and bring out the flamethrower in you, you’re an organ donor in immediate need of harvesting.
Tucci78 blurted some stuff, a few bits of which warrant a response:
“you mean you’ve never seen Animal House [1978] a single time in all your life?”
I have never seen Animal House. IMDB says it is about a frat house; I have no interest in frat houses.
“It’s not only execrable in se but bureaucratic in modo, and I’m not sure as to which is the more to be condemned.”
Are you requesting assistance in knowing what to condemn? Often it is better to leave that sort of thing to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
“Mr. Eschenbach conjectures about why someone eloquent in invective might prick the priss among the pretentiously fastidious in the moderati”
Uh, say what???
But please do not merely repeat it with more of the same. Try “I don’t like you”.
“I ain’t polite to the arrogantly ignorant writing in support of kleptocratic lying authoritarians”
No doubt. How’s that working for ya?
Egads, Tucci, you desperately need an editor. Your rambling, disjointed pile of pseudo-intellectual warbling about Dr. Locke and the “rebuttal of Filmer” and “the “brand” manifest in [your] online nom-de-pogrom” makes no sense at all. You obviously are a very, very angry man, but I can’t determine what it is you are angry about … and your insulting, abrasive manner of writing leaves me totally uninterested in finding out whether you have anything to offer.
Next, for a man who claims that he is being subjected to “Permanent Double-Secret Probation”, you sure do seem to get your ongoing lunacy published, and it took all of an hour and a half … and if this latest comment of yours is any example, I’d most definitely hold every one of your comments for a close examination.
Next, you ask:
Well … no, I’ve never seen it. Perhaps such movies appeal to you. Me, I’ve spent my life exploring the world, not exploring movies about the world. Crazy, huh?
Finally, you say:
That is one of the most unpleasant things I’ve heard in a while, that people who don’t believe what you believe should be killed for their organs. That is vile and disgusting, and is not humor in any form.
However, I can understand your frustration—you’re upset about something, but nobody can make any sense of what that something might be. Must be aggravating that nobody pays attention to you, but dang, claiming that people who don’t think like you think should be killed … you are one sick puppy, dude.
If you actually want to get traction, my suggestions are that you dial the aggro down by an order of magnitude or two, give up on the obscure allusions, and let go of the paranoia. For a start, clearly you are not being censored, so stop claiming you are. It just makes you look delusional.
Then figure out just what it is that is important to you, and tell us about it as clearly and simply as you can. Never mind the cutesy alliteration, leave out the accusations that your readers are “arrogantly ignorant”, ignore whatever the “rebuttal of Filmer” might be when it’s at home, and just STATE YOUR FREAKIN’ CASE. Nobody cares about your paranoia, nobody’s impressed by your education, and nobody likes to be called nasty names. Just tell us what’s on your mind, and you might be surprised at the difference in your reception.
Now, you’re free to ignore my suggestions … but if you continue with your current line of most unpleasant attacks, I just can’t see you getting anything but roundly ignored.
Best regards to you, and please do think about your presentation, it’s most unpleasant to read,
w.
At 1:53 AM on 19 January, Mr. Eschenbach positively glories in his ignorance of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689), the first of which was “The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown.”
The second element in Two Treatises, of course, was “an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government,” from which the U.S. Declaration of Independence was in considerable part cribbed.
[Wiki-bloody-pedia link is provided as a “lowest common denominator” source of information.]
Locke composed these treatises while hiding from the government of James II in the Netherlands, practicing medicine under the name of “Dr. van der Linden,” and he published the book anonymously following his return to England once the Stuart monarchy had been overthrown. Because the replacement monarchy of William & Mary was still dependent upon the divine right of kings for its claims to legitimacy, Locke’s rebuttal of Filmer’s contentions was still an unarguable act of lèse-majesté and therefore actionable under prevailing English law.
Y’see how that works? Thus has anonymity with regard to political speech – and what of the great preposterously bogus “Man-Made Climate Change” fraud isn’t political? – a long and honorable role in the anglophone world’s history and moral philosophy.
As for Mr. Eschenbach‘s boast of never having seen the comic movie Animal House (1978) (and thus his tone-deafness with regard to the expression “double secret probation” so current and widespread in American appreciation as to have achieved the status of cliché), when has being nyekulturny become a mark of virtue?
Beyond that, there’s the wonderful obstipation in Mr. Eschenbach‘s insistence upon interpreting the “organ donor in immediate need of harvesting” remark (i.e., “if this doesn’t get your dander up, you’re dead already, and somebody else can make better use of your unpaired solid viscera than you’re doing”) as if it were an aggressively expressed wish for Mr. Eschenbach personally to cease breathing.
Gad, talk about paranoid ideation.
Gotta remember to avoid subtlety in addressing Mr. Eschenbach.
Or the presumption of literacy.
Tucci78 says “Y’see how that works?”
No, but I see how you work, and I’ve seen similar many times over the years. The good news is that you are mildly amusing.
“Thus has anonymity with regard to political speech”
It is unlikely your anonymity is anything other than trivial. I could identify you in a few posts if I had an interest in doing so. You want to be known — as you say, it is your “brand”. But as with many young people seeking fame you go all “Walter Mitty” on the internet.
“Eschenbach‘s boast of never having seen the comic movie Animal House”.
I boast of not seeing (gotta go to IMDB and pick something at random…) “The Search for General Tso”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3576038/?ref_=hm_woa_t4
Okay, I lied. I did become interested in you. I’m not sure about the identification but close enough. People choose handles of what they admire, not of what they are, but it is a really good place to start. There’s almost no visible difference to others between a narcissist and an Aspie but a world of difference nevertheless exists.
Tucci78 says “you mean you’ve never seen Animal House [1978] a single time in all your life?”
W.E. says “Well … no, I’ve never seen it.”
Same here. I’m not even sure what it is. Looking it up on IMDB shows that it came out when I was in Alaska.
Michael 2 January 19, 2015 at 8:55 am Edit
Michael, it gets way better. Tucci78 now claims that anyone who hasn’t seen Animal House is “nyekulturny” … which is an attempt at a Russian word meaning “uncultured”, a word that English-speaking snobs use to show how much more sophisticated and cultured they are than the target of their scorn.
Setting aside Tucci’s ludicrous idea that having watched a John Belushi film is some kind of infallible mark of being a man of refinement and culture, he can’t even spell “nekulturny” right … which kinda defeats his whole claim about how uncultured you and I are compared to his refulgent splendor.
I gotta say, however, that watching him self-destruct via auto-inflation is kinda humorous, even if it is uncultured to say so, and he offers so much to learn … I’d never realized, for example, that you are “ignorant” if you don’t know off the top of your head that “[Dr. van der Linden’s] rebuttal of Filmer’s contentions was still an unarguable act of lèse-majesté.
I mean, every “kulturny” man knows what Filmer’s contentions were, right?
w.
Re: Having viewed Animal House as being a mark of culture…
In my profession, being cultured is knowing the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.
It is one of the great British contributions to literature.
” There are too many smart, insightful, capable people commenting on the posts for much to slip by …”
That’s why I read this blog, and I often spend much more time reading the comments than on the original articles.