tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5385484815254733072..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Slicin' and Dicin' with Dyson and BrysonMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73773492698839536782009-03-31T08:35:00.000-07:002009-03-31T08:35:00.000-07:00Arthur: many thanks, a very useful example, in whi...Arthur: many thanks, a very useful example, in which one person clearly has:<BR/><BR/>a) A truly towering scientific reputation for numerous contributions.<BR/><BR/>b) Both (1) and (2), in two orthogonal areas.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29022346819072556132009-03-31T07:36:00.000-07:002009-03-31T07:36:00.000-07:00John - I don't know any history of Paulings views ...John - I don't know any history of Paulings views on this before 1984, when the first clearly quasicrystalline materials were discovered by Schectman et al - Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 1951 (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v53/i20/p1951_1) . But from that point until, as far as I am aware, his death 10 years later, Pauling insisted that these were regular metallic crystals that x-ray diffraction was misleadingly showing extra symmetries in due to "twinning".<BR/><BR/>For example, here's a Pauling paper from 1989, claiming he had examined the x-ray diffraction data in detail and that one such quasicrystal was actually cubic with 1024 atoms in the unit cell: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/i3/p1964_1<BR/><BR/>So yes, this fits your type (1) example more than (2), I think.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06216730408962280205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22274806551416205892009-03-31T03:46:00.000-07:002009-03-31T03:46:00.000-07:00Thingsbreak, that was some very sad reading of hop...Thingsbreak, that was some very sad reading of hopeless stupidity (climate models didn't predict the Amazon drought producing net CO2 so I'm not worried about global warming - what the hell???), but then I noticed it was Conway, and Sean Carroll actually had immediately posted a comment finely illustrating the problems in Conway's thought models.<BR/>I thought Cosmic Variance was Sean Carroll's blog? Why does he enable such dissemination of stupid stuff by other people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60698349556000513742009-03-30T15:23:00.000-07:002009-03-30T15:23:00.000-07:00Arthur: re PaulingCan you say more about the *timi...Arthur: re Pauling<BR/><BR/>Can you say more about the *timing* of Pauling's bel8iefs?<BR/><BR/>I'm trying to put together a decent taxonomy and transition diagram of the various reasons for anti-science beliefs, of which those of the (relatively few) scientists involved are among the more complex to figure out.<BR/><BR/>So, for instance:<BR/>a) Do you know when Pauling decided these things didn't exist?<BR/><BR/>(I.e., did he decide this in "The Nature of the Chemical Bond" days, and then never changed?<BR/><BR/>or did the topic arise later, and he decided it on what he remembered, adn then didn't change?<BR/><BR/>b) And then, how long after the existence was clear was he still persisting?<BR/><BR/>Note: there appear to be 2 different behaviors;<BR/><BR/>1) The scientist who takes a position that some effect doesn't exist, in a turf they should know something about; the evidence builds up, and they never change.<BR/><BR/>2) Scientist "gone emeritus", off into some different turf.<BR/><BR/>For instance, both Bryson & Pauling (quasi-crystals) would seem to fit 1), along with, for example, Sir Ronald Fisher's disbelief in cigarette statistics.<BR/><BR/>2) Is more like Pauling's vitamin C.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46470785809707108492009-03-30T10:51:00.000-07:002009-03-30T10:51:00.000-07:00On Linus Pauling - even aside from Vitamin C he wa...On Linus Pauling - even aside from Vitamin C he was off-kilter in his later years. I happened to work for a while on interesting substances known as "quasicrystals" - materials with definite symmetries but that could not have regular crystalline periodicity (five-fold or three-dimensional icosahedral symmetry, for instance). Pauling, based on his long-ago expertise in crystallography, was absolutely determined that such things could not exist, and lectured year after year that the experiments were making this mistake or that, that it was all nonsense. He never relented on this point, as far as I'm aware, even after quite pure and beautiful materials of the sort had been found.<BR/><BR/>Yes, some of this stuff is definitely reminiscent of those oversimplified views of scientific progress...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06216730408962280205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50811895061153150652009-03-30T09:47:00.000-07:002009-03-30T09:47:00.000-07:00Is anyone else a little depressed by the lack of w...Is anyone else a little depressed by the lack of weight given to the consensus view by those who should know better, and even more disturbing the apparently widespread belief that concern over climate change is somehow GCM-dependent?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/29/freeman-thinking/" REL="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/29/freeman-thinking/</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86499474130251686142009-03-30T06:57:00.000-07:002009-03-30T06:57:00.000-07:00When talking about the suposed ice age scare, anot...When talking about the suposed ice age scare, another proponent of it was George Kukla, and he still thinks we are headed for a new ice age.Thomas Palmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12135033271970754087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25595338238846857142009-03-29T21:49:00.000-07:002009-03-29T21:49:00.000-07:00I sometimes feel bad having to diss Dyson, among o...I sometimes feel bad having to diss Dyson, among other things, he formalized, after Feynman, the representations of quantum physics I studied in physics classes.<BR/><BR/>But then again:<BR/><BR/>Linus Pauling was a commanding figure in chemistry, biochemistry, physics of chemistry, etc. to put Freeman Dyson entirely to shame by comparison, but that didn't entitle him to a free pass on Vitamin C, and he didn't get one.<BR/><BR/>It's how science works. Dyson would have, of course, welcomed and genuflected to, say, Richard Leakey or Lynne Margulis coming in and telling him how quantum physics worked.<BR/><BR/>Not.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74560974157710639182009-03-29T19:10:00.000-07:002009-03-29T19:10:00.000-07:00Thank you, John.A second Google Scholar search for...Thank you, John.<BR/><BR/>A second Google Scholar search for the meteorologist Savage yields a few 10 - 30 year old articles on instrumentation. <BR/><BR/>I await something more substantive--though he does have a colorful web page complete with Al sporting a Pinocchio nose.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80844740444511170552009-03-29T18:52:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:52:00.000-07:00You are right to point out that Bryson and Dyson h...You are right to point out that Bryson and Dyson have more in common than rhyming names. I live in Madison, where some time before his death Bryson received an very lengthy and very indulgent front-page (!) profile in the local rag. (Which has since gone more or less belly up, retreating to the web.) As with this week's NYT Dyson piece, all the ink was spent on the lovable old contrarian personality, with hardly any mention of the compelling reasons why there are no comparably distinguished younger practitioners in the field sharing good ol' Gramps's complaints about the young whippersnappers who have it all wrong.<BR/><BR/>The newspaper was good enough to publish my complaining letter, which mentioned the importance of actual recent publications in leading journals. If I recall, there was also a letter from graduate students, asking us not to pay any attention to old folks who can't be relied on any more. (I paraphrase: they were polite.) So there has not been a complete absence of local challenges to Bryson.<BR/><BR/>Is there really something to the idea that the last dinosaurs who pooh-pooh the new consensus are dying off, or does the press mislead us by singling them out? Dyson was brilliant, and prominent, and outspoken 40 years ago. Where are today's brilliant young contrarian thinkers? John Christy is a pretty pale contestant for that prize. Pielke Jr is mostly whiny, and isn't an actual physical scientist. Lindzen is around retirement age, and isn't looking too brilliant lately. Fred Singer would like to be brilliant (and for all I know would like to be young) but in real life turns out to be both old and a laughingstock.<BR/><BR/>It's all so close to the classic (probably oversimplified) view of scientific progress by waiting for the old school to check out of the hotel, leaving the field open for the triumphant new paradigm, that it's a little spooky.<BR/><BR/>Ric MerrittRichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677573041684027902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46561814059142084072009-03-29T18:04:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:04:00.000-07:00Now here is a EE PhD from UCLA that might be worth...Now here is a EE PhD from UCLA that might be worth listening to:<BR/><BR/>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sealevel_rignot_bio.html<BR/><BR/>Dr. Rignot was recently quoted by our friend Revkin on Dot Earth (not always my favorite source for insight).<BR/><BR/>http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair/Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-20890670558373527882009-03-29T18:02:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:02:00.000-07:00According to y this, he is a retired meteorologist...According to <A HREF="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/10/minuscule-changes-temperatures-do-not-justify-mass/" REL="nofollow">y this</A>, he is a retired meteorologist who livies in Franktown (between Denver & Colorado Springs).<BR/><BR/>And he posted <A HREF="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/10/03/what-does-palin-believe-causes-climate-change/" REL="nofollow">at CS Monitor</A>, in which he says:<BR/><BR/>"I recommend to all some open-minded reading on the icecap.us and wattsupwiththat websites. Icecap is authored by Joe d’Alesseo, a respected member of the AMS; Anthony Watts is a recent Ph. D. grad from Colorado State. We all have a lot to lose if ignorant (I’m being kind) politicians like McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin (?) decide to “do something about it.” Nothing can be done - the cycles are natural - and the cost would be enormous."<BR/><BR/>of course, for some reason the pine beetles expected to kill the mature lodgepole pines in Colorado, and that are mostly suppressed by low temperatures, haven't gotten the message yet from Colorado folks who think it's getting colder, or that it doesn't matter if it gets warmer.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-37654140068734779342009-03-29T15:51:00.000-07:002009-03-29T15:51:00.000-07:00I am intrigued when a strong assertion is made by ...I am intrigued when a strong assertion is made by someone apparently knowledgeable that is at odds with the understanding of the vast majority of atmospheric scientists. Mr. Savage asserts that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, far less absorbing than H20. These assertions are common in the skeptic community but seldom articulated by anyone who has actually studied atmospheric radiative transfer. <BR/><BR/>I did a quick Google Scholar search for some peer reviewed contributions by Mr. Savage to atmospheric science. Alas, all I could find were a handful of 15-20 year old articles on microwave propagation and laser technology. At the time of these articles Mr. Savage was associated with the EE Dept. of UCLA.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps he has published something more recent and germane to the topic about which he speaks with such certainty?<BR/><BR/>Paul MiddentsPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18472054472833013892009-03-29T15:16:00.000-07:002009-03-29T15:16:00.000-07:00Tell it to the Venusians. Oh, wait, they've all bo...Tell it to the Venusians. Oh, wait, they've all boiled off, haven't they? Darn.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you are just wrong, even in your very brief contribution. You are wrong on the "very minor" part and on the 96% natural part and on the "crock" part. <BR/><BR/>I concede the 400 ppm and the logarithmic part. Not sure why those matter to you. Logarithmic is quite enough to make Venus hotter than Mercury.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40805233482321445402009-03-29T14:45:00.000-07:002009-03-29T14:45:00.000-07:00Oh dear. Sorry to see a UW grad quoting Oreskes, b...Oh dear. Sorry to see a UW grad quoting Oreskes, but I suppose it's of a piece with the other nonsense. <BR/><BR/>We agree, Bryson was a nice guy. I remember his pointing grandly out the window toward the NW and saying "the glacier stopped right out there 20,000 years ago." Darn right. I lived on top of Springfield Hill (highest point in Dane County) and the Summer I tried to dig postholes, I found out it's a terminal moraine - a huge pile of rocks, covered with a thin layer of dirt. <BR/>Yes, the building was a pain. I always assumed the satellite guys (SSEC) wanted the highest possible platform for antennas. I wonder if anyone has suggested putting in hybrid technology (a la Prius) to capture energy from elevators coming down?<BR/>Re: radiative transfer. My major prof was Jim Weinman, and that was my topic. You're wrong, of course. CO2 is a VERY minor greenhouse gas, less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, 96% natural, and far less absorbing than H2O. Don't forget the logarithmic law of absorption either. Anthro-warming (AGW) is a crock. <BR/>Contentious? Sure. Dull? Hope not, but it's your site. Mine is at www.colo-earthfriends.org. You'll find Bryson prominently quoted. :-)<BR/>Dick Savage, UW-M, 1976. Nice talking to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com