User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen

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

RACC

Can you perhaps try and improve rather than just drive-by tagging? I'm often left wondering why the refs don't satisfy you. EG B&A clearly describe a runaway event, albeit a slow once. What's wrong with that? This has happened before, on LTEoGW, and it jsut leads to a quagmire with you repeatedly saying you don't agree with a version but never actually editing it constructively. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No where in the B&A article is the word "runaway" or "run away" used (not irreversible or any other wording to that effect). They are simply talking about a feedback effect, feedback effects are not runaway events. So it is definitively not "clear". The trouble here is the same as it has been every time, you do not relate what the references say, but what you want the references to say. Its the usual WP:SYN and WP:OR mess as usual, and the not very fun part of this - is that you've been pointed out before, that this reference doesn't state this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Andrew deliberately misstates things. The problem seems to be that he just doesn't understand the science, so he builds his own interpretation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Boris knows it. I would like to say that, in addition, he rephrases science in the way that environmental lobbyists would - for example, a positive feedback is not necessarily runaway, but if there are no negative feedbacks and only a strong positive one, it is; environmentalists just state "runaway" for popular appeal and to not sound dry. This is the fundamental issue over the past several months. Awickert (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm racking my brain trying to figure out how the Earth's climate system can have a positive feedback without any negative ones. -Atmoz (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial pulse of CO2 triggers a methane release, which over thousands of years triggers further warming greater than the original forcing. How is that not a runaway event? I try to write for the general reader, who uses familiar terms they read in newspapers and see on TV (NB I still aim to use the terms technically correctly). I think that's how WP should be written - aimed at the educated general reader. I'm not stupid, and just because someone disagrees with me doesn't automatically make me wrong in a scientific argument. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So by your "dumbing down" of definitions to cater to the "general reader" - feedback becomes "runaway"? Interesting - but not really usable as an argument. A feedback is not per definition "runaway" - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea: the problem is in interpretation. I see the PETM, for example, and see a temperature spike, surrounded by some other ones. I think that something caused temperature to go up, and then it went down again because of some other factor. I wouldn't call it "runaway" as I would if, for example, a feedback loop caused exponential temperature growth until Earth was like Venus, and it never restabilized back to standard Earth-like conditions. However, "runaway" is in wide use in the environmental public literature and blog-o-sphere. In these, it basically states that our CO2 emissions will trip something in the Rube Goldberg machine 'o climate and cause enormous wild horrible rapid temperature change that threatens all of us. In any case, I think that we're butting heads because of different science and environmentalist interpretations of these things, as this is a topic that crosses both of those areas. So maybe we should define runaway climate change as popularly defined by environmentalists (because I think it is more widely used by them than by climatologists), and then look at what literature environmentalists cite to support it... not sure if they do that... but something like that could maybe put the brakes on this craziness. Awickert (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

James Hansen

Re: [1]

I agree the addition was unwarranted, but not because it's undue weight. It's already in the article as the last paragraph in the section James Hansen#Global temperature data. Well, maybe it is undue weight to say the exact same thing twice in one article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess i'm a bit tired ;-) But i still find the text itself giving undue weight to a newsbite, if there is anything interesting in it, its Hansen's usufruct comment. As it stands, it gives way too much weight to McIntyre, and the correction. Just as Hansen thinks the media did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say I agree with you, but don't think it's worth fighting over—which would most certainly happen if it was totally removed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Solomon article

Wow. I am perhaps 3/4 of the way through the first Solomon article (economart's reply posted 16 April at 9:29), and I just want to scream! At him, because he's just not getting it, and at you, because at first I see you being phenomenally articulate in explaining Wikipedia's policies and procedures, but in post after post, you aren't hitting the key point that I want to say, namely:

Sir, if we were to opt to abandon WP:RS and WP:V, and instead use your "truth", how would we recognize it?

I mean, Kim, I know that you know this (your posts are truly wonderfully clear and well-reasoned, with only one slip that I saw), but this question is so obvious that I don't see you saying it. After all, I want to say to him, If "truth" is so readily accessible, then why is it never used? Why do people disagree at all? Why fight and have policy disagreements and even wars? If the truth is so clear, the only reason for any dispute would have to be if you assume bad faith on the part—of all of civilization.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I enjoyed debating on the talk page, in the thought that I would find "truth". I didn't even care if I won or lost the argument, I just wanted truth to prevail. Actually, I still want that. But I recognize that that's not how we roll; we have to settle for consensus, and hope that it is grounded in WP:RS.

Anyway, I'm going to go back and finish the Solomon articles, then I have to go back to Bjorn Lomborg and tell you why I disagree with you there. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading your comments on the FP page. Unschool 21:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that in your post of Apr 20 2008, 4:37 PM, you come pretty close to doing what I had wanted you to do before. Good show. Unschool 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, its appreciated. The trouble here is that people in general do not see truth as subjective, as you can also determine from the comments, therefore its rather hard to boil things down to your single sentence, and at the same time try to bring across the point. The trouble is really that people do not weight their sources, they simply go by what their guts tell them, or what rubs them the right way according to their worldview - we all do more or less.... Thanks also for the "clear and well-reasoned", since this is hard to determine, as English isn't my native language, i have to work a bit ;-) btw. what was the "slip" you referred to? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered a post I made earlier today on the talk page of a silly little article that probably doesn't even need to exist; check it out; I imagine you'll understand the sentiment. That's not to say that you and I will see eye to eye most of the time. I just think we both understand the need for Wikipedia's policies. Cheers. Unschool 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving Global warming controversy.

Thank you for your note KimDabelsteinPetersen but for me it is unclear, I think you are suggesting that there should be some kind of limitation on the discussion over what is suitable content for the article. If this is the case there should be some guidance, are you able to indicate what ways you think will be acceptable for improving the article on Global warming controversy? In particular you seem to feel that I am not taking into account the "talk page" guide lines ; however I read this in the "talk page" guide lines where it says "should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles" Well an important aspect of the global warming controversy is the poor science e.g. the alleged heating of the Earth by a cold troposphere. Now this may not mean much to you, but it is common knowledge among those familiar with the Second law of thermodynamics that this does not happen in nature, heat flows only from a hot object to a cold one, if it flowed the other then perpetual motion would be possible. If you do not understand this you are not in a position to comment or even edit contributions of mine. As it is you freely interfere with my contributions. Perhaps it is that I, relative to you, am inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia and thus clumsey in what I do. The speed with which you delete my contributions and lack of explanation from you will not improve my contributions so I ask you to take a more positive attitude and see if we can improve Wikipedia together. Thanking you in anticipation and looking forward to a helpful collaboration. --Damorbel (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS as a gesture of goodwill you could remove this deletion [2], pleeaase!--Damorbel (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We discuss improvements to the articles, via a reliable sources, not by venting our personal original research on what we believe is correct or not. And i'm sorry to tell you (just as everyone else) that your "interpretation" of the 2nd law is nonsense. I will state this once more: The 2nd law is about net flow - not no flow. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen, thanks for you observations. Thermodynamics is a well established science, it describes the flow of energy in mathematical terms, there are many many reliable sources. You must be unfamiliar with this branch of physics or you would never make such a distinction as " net flow - not no flow", I notice you provide no reference for this; there are plenty of original works by Kirchhoff, Clausius, Boltzmann, Planck etc. where you can find out why your assertion is incorrect, for modern literature look here [3]. Your assertion would make me smile but for the fact that I regard Wikipedia as a valuable resource to be treated with respect, your assertion is disrepectful and marks your edits as below the necessary standard for the Global warming controversy in Wikipedia.

That a group of highly motivated people known as the AGW protagonists are very active in writing a vast quantity of literature, quoting each other extensively does nothing to validate their claims, claims that should stand in the face of reasonable criticisms made in the light of thermodynamics.

Nothing that have written so far indicates that you have any knowledge to challenge what I have contributed as being unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, so I hereby ask you nor to delete any more of my contributions and restore those you have made. Thanking you in advance.--Damorbel (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr./Ms./Dr. D. We've spoken before. Now I happen to spend almost none of my time thinking of radiative heat transfer; however, I have a few simple thoughts that I hope Kim won't mind cluttering his talk page (he of course has the right to kick us off :) ).

1. You seem to assert that there can not only be no net radiative heat transfer from a cold body to a warm body, but that there can be no transfer period. By this, do you mean to imply that radiation given off by a 500K body may never reach a 1000K body? I really doubt this.
2. If I'm wrong, and you do accept that a cold body's radiation can be received by a warmer body (though net transfer is always toward the colder), then continue: Imagine a warm body, next to a vacuum. The warm body will radiate into the vacuum, and after some period of time, the temperature will decrease until the rate of heat produced by the body equals the rate lost. Now imagine a warm body, surrounded by a cooler body, surrounded by vacuum. Would it not make sense that, if the cooler body could radiate some heat toward the warm body, that the warm body would then have a higher equilibrium temperature?

Granted, these are off the top of my head, but they represent my fundamental concerns with what you say (as myself, not citing any sources). Awickert (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not clear. It is essential to distinguish between radiation and heat transfer, the presence of a radiation field does not define heat transfer, no more than two bodies in contact defines heat transfer. Heat tranfer is dependent on temperature difference, always from hotter to colder, be it by contact (conduction) or radiation. Two bodies remote from each other and above 0K have both an electromagnetic radiation field, the magnitude of which can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law well known for the T⁴ dependency. If these two bodies have the same temperature then the fields are equal and no heat is tranfered. When they have different temperatures the heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the 4th powers, see here [4].

This is not ground breaking science, it has been around since the 19th century, why it is not more generally known I do not know, even those claiming to know about quantum theory seem not to realise that quantum theory emerged from this 19th century science.

I have copied this to my own talk page, I think Kim will be happier.--Damorbel (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for one more round, and then move to your talk if necessary. So it seems you (perhaps by a convention I don't know about) define heat transfer as net transfer of heat. That makes sense then. If I extrapolate your statement about heat transfer being proportional to the difference of T⁴ between two bodies, I would say that you would seem to agree with my previous statement that a body with a temperature intermediate between a warm body and a vacuum would thereby slow the rate of net heat loss from that warm body. I assume my conjecture of your opinion is wrong, because it goes against your argument. But my conjecture of what you say seems to work with my argument that a cool body between a warm body and a cold body may slow the rate of heat loss from the warm body and thereby cause the warm body to have a higher steady-state temperature. Awickert (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(See my talk page)--Damorbel (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Do you see any difference between heat tranfer and "net heat tranfer"? --Damorbel (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion mediation

Greetings, Kim! GoRight pointed out that you have been participating in the cold fusion mediation. I have responded on the mediation page itself, but in case you missed it (due to the recent flurry of activity), here it is for your convenience:

I held little belief that the list of editors to whom I sent notifications and whose names I included in the introductory section would be "complete". I have stated that all are welcome to suggest additional editors to be added to the "involved participants" list. In retrospect, I should have made it clearer that this included suggesting oneself. GoRight and Kim, if you wish to participate, which you are certainly welcome to do, I ask that you read through the introductory material and sign your name in the participation section. If either of you have issues with the mediation process I have laid out, please list them alongside your name in the participation section (as several other editors have done). GoRight, thank you for pointing this out. With so much discussion being churned out, it is difficult to notice all of the little things at once.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)