Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MonoApe (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 30 July 2009 (→Anthony Watts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Playground: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Sandbox

Inhofe list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe

William list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/William

Created articles: Sami Solanki, Jan Esper

Linux Weight: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight

Your reversions

rv please keep WP:OR on your talk-page. WP is not a FORUM. (as you've been told repeatedly). State it with reliable sources without WP:SYN - and we can talk. using [[W)

Think you need to justify this, Kim.--Damorbel (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been justified repeatedly on your personal talk page, and everywhere else where you've peddled your misunderstanding about the laws of thermodynamics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Justified repeatedly? You say here ] "I will state this once more: The 2nd law is about net flow - not no flow." Since this forms no part of thermodynamics (got a reference?) it is probably a misunderstanding on your part. Be so kind as to give some reference, otherwise it does read rather like a POV or OR, something I think you would be anxious to avoid. The concept of heat flowing in two directions is absurd. The mistake is to confuse radiation propogation with heat flow. This is mistaken for a number of reasons not least of which is that heat flows by a different mechanisms, two more are conduction and convection, but neither involve anything that could be described as net flow.

You claim I do not understand the second law of thermodynamics, do you have a link to an exposition of your understanding? With such an exposition we might get to some agreement. I am satisfied with this one Second law of thermodynamics, perhaps you can tell me where it goes wrong.--Damorbel (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can answer my exposition on your talk first...? Awickert (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to but if you want to maintain there are two kinds of heat transfer (net and some other) we are not only on the different platforms, we are not even in the same universe. Heat is not a vector quantity, radiation is; but, like I pointed out before, radiation is not heat. To expand, heat is basically the energy and momentum contained in the translational motion particles; when heat is exchanged between particles by the exchange of momentum the energy of the particles involved changes also. But heat is not the momentum (vector quantity) of the individual particles because, for a given (stationary) sample this sums to zero. However it is the momentum of the particles that is exchanged with those of another body that determines how heat is going to be exchanged.

When considering momentum exchange one tends to think of particle collisions as in kinetic theory, but it can also be by the EM fields generated by electric charge. At high densities the collision process dominates because collisions are much more likely than radiation exchange; in a (near) vacuum collisions become (very) rare whereas radiation (photons) just go on for ever!

The key point is that momentum and radiation are vector quantities; energy and heat (same thing) are not, thus the concept of "net flow" of heat is a non-starter. What frequently confuses people is the non-equilibrium condition of heat flow, generally described as Diffusion where heat move from a high temperature to a lower by random momentum exchange, this is sometimes (mistakenly) thought of as a vector quantity; it isn't and the idea that heat could diffuse in two directions at once is laughable.--Damorbel (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a Rule 5 violation ongoing here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you ever wish to do so, I broke the argument down into paragraphs for your responding pleasure. Maybe you don't realize this, but really do know what radiation is; thanks for your continued explanations. But I'll play your game and use nice terminology; radiation in both directions, heat in one. And yes, so long as you don't think that two bodies can both emit and absorb and therefore reach thermal equilibrium, and that this is related to their absorption as a function of wavelength, we are indeed in different universes. Awickert (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Kirchhoff total absorption/emission is not a function of wavelength since it occurs at molecular dimensions far smaller than the wavelength of thermal radiation. The spectral characteristics you see in radiating/absorbing gases and other materials are due 1st to the resonance characteristics of the gas molecules and 2nd these resonances modified by thermal collision processes, and 3rd Doppler effects (plus various scattering processes)

You wrote "you don't think that two bodies can both emit and absorb". I subscribe to Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, in the link you will find this statement "At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity." I can go a lot further than this. --Damorbel (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph: wavelength independence fails to explain simple phenomena (some types of radiation passing through different media with different success), and is entirely your reading of Kirchhoff.

Second paragraph: you miss my point: I'm just saying that two bodies radiating at each other will reach a thermal equilibrium.

Third, you may have an issue or two to take up with this skeptic of global warming who addresses the issues you take up.

Fourth, I'm done here, no point in continuing the debate as we will continue to see each others understanding of radiative heat transfer as incorrect. Awickert (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"wavelength independence fails to explain simple phenomena (some types of radiation passing through different media with different success" Wavelength dependent phenomena take place at dimensions more than 1000 times the molecular dimension for absorption and emission, that is why the integration over the wavelength for both is the same.

"and is entirely your reading of Kirchhoff." Not at all

Looked at Roy Spencer's page being a AGW skeptic does not mean his physics is good, he has no analysis that supports his position. By the way, did you notice the date on Spencer's page you linked to? --Damorbel (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm done here" Sorry about that but I cannot understand why you write on this page. Do you know KimDabelstein? Are you defending his deleting my talk contribs.? Nice guy eh? --Damorbel (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

On another tack, You said:

Your comment on Carbon dioxide, is not only outside of what is content related, but it is so full of errors that it is horrible. Venus should not be that warm because it is closer to the Sun (see: Stefan's law), and comment about what fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2 is ignorant (hint: 99% of the atmosphere doesn't absorb infrared, and is thus irrelevant to the greenhouse effect), and finally the anthropogenic part of CO2 in the atmosphere is >35% ((380ppm-280ppm)/280ppm)*100%. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephan's Law assumes equal input...the fact that proximity to the sun affects temperature should be self-evident to even the most closed-minded of zombies. If it did not, then Mercury and Pluto would have the same temperature, since neither of them have an appreciable atmosphere. Thanks for playing, but you lose. Proximity to the sun IS significant, whether you like it or not. Cite an ACCURATE source for your 35%, since the source cited on the CD page is invalid, since you pointed it out, I have called it into question on the talk page there as well. They didn't even do the math IN THEIR OWN ARTICLE correctly (375 minus 315 != 100)

Nice attempt to fudge their numbers, by the way, (changing their 315 to a 280, and their 375 to a 380) however, merely emphasises your own dishonesty. Redwood Elf (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you must like that Aqavit... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Dane - whatever did you expect? Aquavit is in our blood ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

You may wish to comment here. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The boosters are continuing to try to remove a balanced view from the page. See the new RFCs on the Talk page. Thanks for your comments. ► RATEL ◄ 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)

I've rewritten Heaven and Earth (book), about which you had expressed some concerns; see what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop censoring discussion panels

Hi, Kim. It seems You've deleted my thread in discussion on climate change denial. I'd like to believe it was a mistake. Don't do this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you need to read up on WP:TALK. Misplaced Pages is censored in this regard, it is not a soapbox or a debate forum. As for the content, criticism sections are discouraged on wikipedia, since they are prone to becoming coatracks for POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Read "Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets". The fact that someone tagged me doesn't mean you're entitled to delete my thread from a discussion panel. This is rude78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Get an account, you will still be as anonymous as you want, but that way your reputation doesn't rely on such things, but instead on your edit-history. But its not for sockpuppetry that your edit is being removed (in case you didn't notice). You still haven't changed anything - despite being pointed out what is wrong, here, and in several revert summaries. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(since you started talks on 2 talkpages I post on both for those who follow our polemic)

Yes' I've read talk page guidelines and it says "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"...

You keep deleting discussion sipmply because you don't agree with my point and don't want it to stay visible to editors who might provide sources in the future. This is the kind of censorship I've never seen on Misplaced Pages before. If you don't like my agruments point that out in discussion. Instead you prefer to abuse the dicretional term of a soapbox which, again, doesn't entitle you to delete discusions.78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. And as i said before - Misplaced Pages is censored with regards to what you can and cannot discuss on talk-pages, and what is appropriate for articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling my thread "a soapbox" is your discretional opinion. The problem is you usurp the right to decide what can be discussed and what cannot. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The last part of you comment isn't supported by reliable sources, and is thus 100% your own personal opinion, and cannot be/will not be useful for the article. ie. it can't go in, per WP:V. The first part of your comment is content related, and might include a possible useful content related discussion - but the latter part isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand You don't like the examplary arguments I gave for a proposed "Criticism" section. If so, discuss them instead of deleting/hiding them. Possibly this will result in good English-language sources from other editors. BTW editing discussion panels isn't as restricted as editing articles, thus sources aren't always necessary to start a thread.78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a few sources78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Grandscribe

Thanks for the support on my talk page. I suspect this editor knows just what they are doing, given their POV edits to Linux nav template.... something I've happened to notice you fixing... Yworo (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts

Hi,

Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/Anthony_Watts_(blogger) and the 'meteorologist' / 'weather presenter' issue: no objections were made to my final arguments in talk. I believe that edit should stand. Of course, Watts' fans do not want this and are reverting the change. Your thoughts, please?

Also, re. the video incident, would you agree that it's noteworthy and just requires acceptable sources? MonoApe (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)