Vitaly Khvorostyanov and Judith Curry wrote a textbook on the science behind clouds.
In the text, they applied the theory of Bose-Einstein statistics to model the condensation (8.2.3) and freezing (8.3.2) nucleation rates of water vapor. Their theory competes with the classically described mechanism that occurs in the creation of clouds, which is a nucleation of water vapor into water droplets (low clouds such as cumulus) or ice crystals (high altitude clouds such as cirrus). They claimed that their theoretical model will work in situations where the conventional Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics fails.
The question that remains is whether their model has any chance of being right just by first-order considerations. Besides the absurdity of the model, they provided no evidence:
- No citations were referenced
- No experimental evidence was provided
- No sanity checks were evaluated
- Neither a conceptual or numerical graph was produced
The apologists for Curry claim that since the formulation was used no where else in the book, then she is free of being associated with the idea. Yet, in a blog post reply to criticisms, VK wrote : “Thus, if in the future, B-E statistics will appear to be valid for nucleation at low T, the first reference will be this book.”
Science does not allow one to have it both ways. They now own this theory and will have to live it down.
The blog site that Curry runs attracts many a crackpot. I have interacted with these cranks over the last few years and I googled all the exchanges I had with them concerning Bose-Einstein statistics. I can imagine that since Curry condones their behavior, some of their crazy ideas rub off on her. Many of these exchanges involve Rob Ellison aka Captain Kangaroo aka Chief Hydrologist. His misunderstanding and misapplication of Bose-Einstein statistics is almost overwhelming, as if he wants to wallow in his scientific ignorance. What follows is a couple dozen exchanges with Ellison and other cranks, separated by “—“. Links are provided to see the full context:
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 3:23 am |
You are talking about Steffan-Boltzmann – which for a grey body is:
It doesn’t resolve to T^3 if any alternate universe.
Emissivity (e) is important otherwise in terms of the energy budget of the planet.
Bose-Einstein statistics relate to indistinguishable particles that condense at low temperatures. Statistical mechanics deals with regions in thermal equilibrium – particles in the region have the same statistical properties at room temp as these other indistinguishable particles – but don’t condense. That is there are a number of microstates possible and probabilities of particles being in some energy state or other can be calculated – but really we’re interested in the average state.
Spectral sorption is important only in that greenhouse gases are resonant at those frequencies – the region warms and reemits according to SB for a grey body.
You guys have such funny ideas.
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
Your explanation said that energy was reflected from CO2 and smeared across the ‘energy spectrum’ explaining why the Earth didn’t radiate in specific frequencies and this was measured from space. None of that is true.
You used the term Bose-Einstein (bosons) and now introduce Fermi-Dirac (fermions) instead of Maxell-Boltzmann as you should of in the first place. You have so little knowledge of atmospheric physics or anything much else in climate and then embellish it with lies, dissimulation and insults. It is very boring.
WebHubTelescope | August 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
You are the second person now to bring up a philosophical point that really has zero practical implications.
Statistical mechanics incorporates the ideas of probability distributions such as Maxwell-Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac, and Bose-Einstein. Look it up and you will find stochastic is simply an alternate definition of probabilistic (in two fewer syllables)..
Chief Hydrologist | August 14, 2011 at 2:01 am |
So electrons, the velocity of gas molecules and a Bose-Einstein condensate (?) have climate applications?
Stochasticity – probability – whatever – are explanations for things not understood and have little relevance in climate other than as stochastic generation of cloud, rainfall or other parameters. Marginal in other words.
Except for the obnoxiously and eccentrically opinionated.
Claes Johnson | August 24, 2011 at 5:51 am |
I added a pot on my blog asking if there are photons of IR:
WebHubTelescope | August 24, 2011 at 8:22 am |
I am guessing that your blind spot is perhaps of never understanding the concept of statistical physics, and the role of probabilities in ensemble particle systems. That is what your “generic emergent phenomenon” is all about; disorder in the state space is a pretty generic phenomena and it is described by Bose-Einstein statistics effectively.
Claes Johnson | August 24, 2011 at 9:00 am |
Yes, it is true that I do not understand statistical physics, but I am in good company. Can you name a person who claims to really understand? You?
WebHubTelescope | August 24, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
I understand it very well. I had a great instructor in grad school who introduced us to the classic textbook by Reif, “Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics”.
Claes Johnson | August 25, 2011 at 6:47 am |
Congratulations! A good instructor can teach anything.
Sam NC | August 24, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
Thank you for the link. I always think photons are within visible spectrums only and do not exist at any other wavelengths. However, people here at Climate Community always refer to IR radiation as always have photons that extend beyond the visible spectrum as in the old school learning. Is there a definition of photons generally accepted by scientists, physicist, engineers, hydrologists …
maxwell | August 24, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
A photon is a discrete package of light energy. Almost like a particle. The amount of energy it contains is related to its frequency. That is, higher frequency, higher energy.
Photons are correct way of understanding optical physical in any energy region of the EM spectrum, not just visible light.
Claes Johnson | August 25, 2011 at 5:23 am |
I have added a new post on the fiction of photons:
omanuel | March 10, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
You are right, Kim. Some powerful source of energy causes sunspots, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections. The historical record shows the same powerful source of energy influences Earth’s climate.
These events, caused by deep-seated magnetic fields, are unexplained by Bilderberg’s standard solar model (SSM). Magnetic fields are likely ejected by Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich material around the solar core or by instabilities in the pulsar core that might appear as an energetic “Gamma-ray burst” if not surrounded by so much insulating material.
Neutron repulsion, the most powerful energy source known , drives the events that sustain our lives. Earth’s climate and Earth’s heat source will not be understood by those that ignore the source of energy: http://tinyurl.com/7qvvg3w
1. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source, ” J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.
Oliver K. Manuel | August 19, 2011 at 11:08 am |
The corona that surrounds the “solar surface” is much hotter (T ~ 10^6 K) than that glowing sphere of waste products (91% H, 9% He) that emits photons (photosphere) and hides the material beneath.
The core of the Sun is nuclear material in a pulsar, not atomic material with kinetic energy that can be measured as temperature. The nuclear material is energized by neutron repulsion (see ref. #2 above) – like violent resentments and anger of the ferocious Hindu Goddess, Kali:
Surrounding the pulsar is atomic material with the same composition as Earth and ordinary meteorites: Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca.
Most of those nuclei have zero or even spin, satisfy Bose-Einstein statistics, and may become a super-fluid super-conductor.
Barry W. Ninham, “Charged Bose gas in astrophysics”, Physics Letters 4 (1963) 278-279.
Sunspots and solar eruptions arise from deep-seated magnetic fields:
a.) The neutron star in the solar core, or the
b.) Super-conducting, iron-rich material around the solar core
“Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198:
AGW is built on the false premise that the Sun is Earth’s steady source of input heat.
Chief Hydrologist | August 30, 2013 at 12:27 am |
‘Rogue waves, also called freak waves, begin with a deep trough followed by a wall of water reaching 25-30 meter high. They occur in deep water where a number of physical factors such as strong winds and fast currents converge, in the presence of different mechanisms that include interference effects and non-linear interactions and modulation resonance. We refer to Heller (2005) and in particular to Akhmediev and Pelinovsky (2010). This special volume reviews the evidence and possible mechanisms for rogue waves occurring in oceans, plasmas, nonlinear optical systems, and Bose-Einstein condensates. These studies suggest that rogue waves are indeed outliers compared with the rest of the fluctuations and result from specific initial conditions and/or particular amplifying mechanisms. Rogues waves are thus candidate dragon kings.’
So there we are – Bose-Einstein resonance modulation.
David Wojick | December 29, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
The 2nd law makes no prediction whatever regarding radiation physics, much less with feedbacks. Radiation physics did not even exist when the 2nd law was formulated. Get real folks.
WebHubTelescope | December 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
The Planck response comes directly from the second law. Photons from a black-body are distributed according to Bose-Einstein statistics, which is maximum entropy for indistinguishable particles. In other words, they fill up the state space of energy levels.
Instead of telling someone to get real, perhaps you want to understand some basic physics.
Everyone understands that quantum effects rule on the scale of the wavelength corresponding to the energy of the particle. At macro scales, statistical mechanics starts to take over and that’s where the state space of particles becomes thoroughly mixed.
For bosons such as photons you have your Bose-Einstein statistics.
For fermions such as electrons you have your Fermi-Dirac statistics.
Either of these can reduce to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics for the appropriate regime, which simplifies much of the math.
A transistor works by slight modifications or perturbations to the carrier densities which follow F-D statistics. This is obviously non-equilibrium as we are placing a voltage across the material, and the electrical carriers will start to move. The charged carriers could be doing all sorts of odd things like scattering and emitting photons, yet we look at the statistics and realize that the forcing function we apply is really all that matters.
Same thing with the Bose statistics that will feed into the derivation of Planck’s response curve for black-body radiation. We can perturb the statistics and understand which way the thermal response will trend.
Chief Hydrologist | November 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
Quantum effects are thoroughtly mixed? Just what could that possibly mean? We have 3 great ideas in 20th century physics. The very small, the very large and the very complex.
Tomas mixed the very small with the very complex – unwise in my opinion. QM has absolutely nothing to do with complex systems theory.
Satistical mechanics doesn’t work with nonequilibrium systems.
‘Non-equilibrium systems are much more complex and they may undergo fluctuations of more extensive quantities. The boundary conditions impose on them particular intensive variables, like temperature gradients or distorted collective motions (shear motions, vortices, etc.), often called thermodynamic forces. If free energies are very useful in equilibrium thermodynamics, it must be stressed that there is no general law defining stationary non-equilibrium properties of the energy as is the second law of thermodynamics for the entropy in equilibrium thermodynamics.’ wikepedia
At the macro scale we have complex systems – that are susceptible only to the ideas of complex systems thoery as Tomas says.
Webby is an idiot whose words and concepts have very little fundamental physical meaning.
Chief Hydrologist | November 29, 2012 at 3:20 am |
Why thank you Peter. I am a little embarassed now at claiming to be as smart as Lisa Simpson. In truth I would rather be more like Bart or Homer – but not to be.
Webby you keep referring to things like Bose-Einstein statistics – things that have no great significance in climate science – but get the basics wrong. Diffusion of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans for instance. Something that is fundamentally unphysical. And you imagine that what you do is climate science. I think it is fundamentally misusing power rules in both epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. The parameters for the power rules – in other words – you pull out of your arse.
You make no admissions of your errors – but just popup again and again like a bop bag with silly and offensive comment. So sad – too bad.
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 2:33 am |
I think you can tell by the content David. Bose-Einstein boson statistics keeps is amusing me lately. The comment I link to above uses a novel concept of statistical mechanics – instead of a far more obvious role for absorption and reemissions of IR photons. I don’t mind people being wrong – after all if being wrong were a hanging offence…well. It is being so emotionally committed to a position that it is defended with copious arm waving and gutter level brawling. They just keep coming back with it relentlessly. Back to the battle of meaningless drivel passing back and forth. I am more than a little bored with it.
WebHubTelescope | April 6, 2012 at 3:58 am |
Have you ever tried to derive Planck’s Law ?????
It is straightforward from first principles, using partition functions and quantum wavelength arguments.
Like PhysicistDave was, I was taught statistical mechanics via F.Reif’s classic text. If there is a better scientific textbook with the same level of accessibility, I have yet to see it.
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 4:04 am |
Bose-Einstein statistics determines the statistical distribution of identical indistinguishable bosons over the energy states in thermal equilibrium. These condense at low temperature to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. A volume of atmosphere in thermal equilibrium has similar energy distributions at room temperature but it is not a BEC. It is irrelevant at any rate as we are interested in the average of the macro state and not the statistics of the micro state.
The other rookie error concerns IR spectral absorption. It means that greenhouse gases are resonant in those frequencies. They absorb photons and reemit by Steffan-Boltzmann (proportional to T^4) for a grey body in nearly the same frequency – Wein’s Displacement Law does apply but it is minor at these temperatures – to move toward equilibrium at TOA.
WebHubTelescope | April 6, 2012 at 9:19 am |
“Bose-Einstein statistics determines the statistical distribution of identical indistinguishable bosons over the energy states in thermal equilibrium. These condense at low temperature to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. A volume of atmosphere in thermal equilibrium has similar energy distributions at room temperature but it is not a BEC. “
Captain Non-sequitor continues with his amazing run of copy&paste gibberish. This one took awhile to devise as it sets up a strawman. The first sentence is plagiarized from any one of several dictionary web sites, such as this Australian kids science site:
The strawman comes in when he switches over to a B-E condensate and then tries to compare that to atmosphere at room temperature. Never mind the fact that B-E condensates occur at temperatures approaching absolute zero, so that a condensate really has no equivalence to room-temperature statistical mechanics. Moreover, and this is the astonishing part, he compares this to a volume of atmosphere. Photons are not like gas molecules, HydroMan. Amospheric gases are not bosons, as gas molecules are distinguishable particles.
This argument is really so badly constructed that I should not even try to engage in trying to clarify what Captain Hydrologist is trying to say. One just gets sucked into a morass of nonsensical sentence fragments.
That is probably his intent and like Bart is saying, it must be some Australian pasttime to take part in fabricating bizarre pseudoscientific worlds.
Girma does this with his graph trendology.
Doug Cotton does this with his radiative physics theory.
StefTheDenier does this with his gas expansion theory.
Fitzhenry does this with his barometric heating of the atmosphere theory.
Newcomer Jinan Cao does this with some theory he just presented on this thread.
Chief does this with his “excess atmospheric CO2 is natural” theory, and his non-sequitor riffing.
Who is winning the crackpot sweepstakes?
What the heck is going on down there?
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
‘In statistical thermodynamics, Bose-Einstein statistics determines the statistical distribution of identical indistinguishable bosons over the energy states in thermal equilibrium[?]. Bose-Einstein (or B-E) statistics are closely related to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics (M-B) and Fermi-Dirac statistics (F-D). While F-D statistics holds for fermions, M-B statistics holds for “classical particles, i.e. identical but distinguishable particules, and represents the classical or high-temperature limit of both F-D and B-E statistics.’ Here is the first paragraph from the Austrlian kids physics site.
You called it Bose-Einstein rather than Maxwell-Boltzman which I correct you on and then you insist that I made the error and then embeelish it with insult to me – see if i give a rats arse – and my country. You are a very ugly American.
Here is what I said – ‘These condense at low temperature to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. A volume of atmosphere in thermal equilibrium has similar energy distributions at room temperature but it is not a BEC. It is irrelevant at any rate as we are interested in the average of the macro state and not the statistics of the micro state.’
I think we know who wins the crackpot award.
WebHubTelescope | April 6, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
You can go on and try to wiggle your way out of the situation. The funniest part is where you conflate the statistics of gas molecules in the atmosphere with photon statistics.
Captain Kangaroo | April 6, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
The volume containing a large number of molecules which is in thermodynamic equilibrium is merely the neccessary condittion for Maxwell-Planck statistics to be true. Why don’t you work on your comprehension skils instead of a nasty little w@nker.
WebHubTelescope | April 7, 2012 at 12:14 am |
“The volume containing a large number of molecules which is in thermodynamic equilibrium is merely the neccessary condittion for Maxwell-Planck statistics to be true. Why don’t you work on your comprehension skils instead of a nasty little w@nker.”
Photons are not molecules. They follow Bose-Einstein statistics strictly, while in the high temperature limit the trend merges with an exponential making it asymptotically approach Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.
BTW, I don’t know what “Maxwell-Planck” statistics are. Making screw-ups like that is very common for beginners who combine plausible terms that they have heard but not intellectualized.
I commend you on your continued mastery in impersonating Professor Irwin Corey.
Captain Kangaroo | April 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
Yeah – I am very tired of the faux chauvinism of these twits. Don’t they know that despite our differences we simply close ranks when an outsider tries it on?
I have suggested – in fact I have demanded it in high dudgeon – that Judith pick up the moderation. It is all very tedious. He drops in with an Australian sh_it for brains comment and expects to have it go unremarked.
This after he invoked Bose-Einstein boson particle statistics for climate. I did this as a joke – bazinga – but never expected that it could ever be serioulsly proposed. He seems to be one of those ‘ugly Americans’ we hear about but never meet. So trivilly wrong on so many counts to boot. Truly bizarre behaviour.
On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set
Captain Kangaroo | March 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
No Bart. What I said was that was ‘Thus climate is entirely stochastic and is as likely as not to end up as something entirely improbable. A duck or a watermelon for instance.’ It was something nonsensical to do with a Bose Einstein condensate. I wish people would pick me up on these things – perhaps suggest that this applies at near absolute zero. Sheesh.
Chief Hydrologist | May 12, 2013 at 12:23 am |
What a load of preening and prattling from the dweeb.
The sun emits over a range of frequencies – and some of that is reflected or absorbed leading to the this approximation of radiation at sea level – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Most of this heats the oceans and land leading to warming and emissions at a different frequency – the distribution remains the same but the peak moves to the right on the graph – right into the region of absorption bands shown. The only quantum effect of relevance is that photons have an energy associated with frequency (E=hv) and that there are therefore a number of discrete energy states that a molecule of carbon dioxide can have. Bose-Einstein statistics define the energy states that particles can have at a temperature.
WebHubTelescope | November 4, 2011 at 3:24 am |
WebHub – I am sorry to be the one to tell you, but you are utterly clueless and have no idea what you are talking about. I am embarrassed on your behalf.
The Boltzmann constant is, in rough terms, the amount of energy per degree of freedom in a particle’s structure. It is not a uniform constant of proportionality between heat capacity and temperature for any and all substances. At all. That is why we have tables of heat capacities.
I can see arguing is no good, because you are so smug in your ignorance. Good luck with that.
The guy Bartemis has forgotten about the Ideal Gas Law,
PV = nRT = NkT where R is the gas constant, is equal to the product of Boltzmann’s constant and Avogadro’s constant, N/n (number of particles per mole). That connects the micro to the macro.
I also made a remark on how k is part of Bose-Einstein statistics, which last I looked also has ideal properties, since photons are indistinguishable. This also ties the micro to the macro as we solve for the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Captain Kangaroo | March 14, 2012 at 5:05 am |
So you have come to play. I am just a lonesome cowboy (lonesome is just part of the iconic nature of being a cowboy) with a blue horse called Shibboleth – but I am happy to oblige. You are of course bonkers enough for the rest of us combined – given your devotion to the Kalihari Bushmen and other carbon challenged indigenes. I take it you have finished formulating your scheme for infinite taxes on carbon that is not otherwise incorporated into apparel and have come to give us the benefit of your superior wisdom. There seems a lot of that going on and you are going to have some competition.
Let me give you a heads up. Some half understood factoid in the midst of much hand waving is simply not going to cut it. They are a hard crowd to please around here. I have paid my dues on the trail with Shibboleth running from cougars when they jump out of trees. So I know that being fast on your feet is critical. When we are chased by cougars Shibboleth and I sometimes attain relativistic speeds of 30mph and travel in space and time. So when they come back with something pedestrian and relevant – hit them with quantum foam or Bose-Einstein condensate.
‘Consider a collection of N noninteracting particles, which can each be in one of two quantum states, (0) and (1). If the two states are equal in energy, each different configuration is equally likely.
If we can tell which particle is which, there are 2 to the nth different configurations, since each particle can be in (0) or (1) independently. In almost all of the configurations, about half the particles are in (0) and the other half in (1). The balance is a statistical effect: the number of configurations is largest when the particles are divided equally.
If the particles are indistinguishable, however, there are only N+1 different configurations. If there are K particles in state (1), there are N – K particles in state (0). Whether any particular particle is in state (0) or in state (1) cannot be determined, so each value of K determines a unique quantum state for the whole system. If all these states are equally likely, there is no statistical spreading out; it is just as likely for all the particles to sit in (0) as for the particles to be split half and half.’
Thus climate is entirely stochastic and is as likely as not to end up as something entirely improbable. A duck or a watermelon for instance. At least this seems to be Webby’s theory. You’ll like Webby. He is a younger version of you who has learnt how to count on both his fingers and toes.
kuhnkat | October 31, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
whether cavity radiation is applicable to the question or not is something you can explain when you answer the question.
Or do I accept that I am right and you are running away form yet ANOTHER example of how you will not accept the same Physics that you claim to believe in??
Does the roughness of the earth irradiating itself, like the internal surface of the tubular radiation shield, cause a similar effect on itself as does the GHG’s radiation?? Does this then REDUCE the amount of warming attributed to GHG’s?
We can set aside the fact that it would distort the results of SB calculations for the moment. Besides, Trenberth uses an emissivity of 1 for his silly work which causes an error larger than his missing .9w/m2!!
WebHubTelescope | October 31, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
Kumkwat, Have you taken a class in statistical mechanics or statistical physics? I personally find it impossible to carry on a conversation on this type of topic, if say the person had no idea what Bose-Einstein statistics is all about.
kuhnkat | November 1, 2011 at 12:32 am |
don’t worry about it. I have no intention of trying to converse with anyone when I know so little on the subject!!! it would be ludicrous. You may have seen a couple of my sorry posts a while back which I won’t repeat.
Phil. | November 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
Really, turned over a new leaf?
kuhnkat | November 1, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
No more than you and your data?? 8>)
Phil. | November 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
whether cavity radiation is applicable to the question or not is something you can explain when you answer the question.
I have already above, why don’t you adopt your normal tactic of reading about it on Wikipedia, like you did with SB. Try to understand what you read this time.
Or do I accept that I am right and you are running away form yet ANOTHER example of how you will not accept the same Physics that you claim to believe in??
I don ‘t know what you’re referring to here but you’re wrong as usual.
Does the roughness of the earth irradiating itself, like the internal surface of the tubular radiation shield, cause a similar effect on itself as does the GHG’s radiation??
Yes, locally of course, have you not walked past a wall, which has been exposed to the afternoon sun, after sunset and felt the warmth radiating from it?
Does this then REDUCE the amount of warming attributed to GHG’s?
No when we’re talking about the GWE we’re talking about the view from space. The Earth isn’t rough from that perspective, the radius is ~3960 miles compared with the largest mountain ~5 miles, 2/3rds of the surface is water, not much roughness there, ~ppm?
We can set aside the fact that it would distort the results of SB calculations for the moment.
It wouldn’t, you have mistaken the conditions for which a particular derivation of SB applies, for the limitations of the law itself (essentially the difficulty of calculating the effective area of a body with concavities).
Besides, Trenberth uses an emissivity of 1 for his silly work which causes an error larger than his missing .9w/m2!!
Really, what value do you think he should have used for the Earth between 5 and 30 ?m? Or should I look it up on Wikipedia and cut out the middle man?
3 thoughts on “Crackpots Etc”
Webby! Greetings. Say hi in email. I won’t bite.
Is it just me, or does the usual response from the denial community consist of flowery pointless language without references?
I’m an engineer, and we usually get to the point quickly, and in point form. I find it disturbing that people will actually think scientists talk like they do, and not like, say, Anders or you. (You did, have a loud mad man cackle at Judy’s though. Not professional, but then, neither are they.)
Bob Armstrong is another artist in flowery obfuscation.
Science of Doom threw down the glove and demanded they show some math. The result? Flowery bullshit.
One more time. Read the following that is available at the 2 comments link there.
Possible application and testing of Bose-Einstein statistics is just briefly outlined on half a page as a possible generalization of Boltzmann’s statistics at sufficiently low temperatures when critical energy of a germ formation Fcr may become comparable to (kT) (page 299 in Chapter 8). This regime may occur not at very low temperatures close to zero Kelvin, as Pukite erroneously assumes, but at intermediate temperatures due to low surface tension or other parameters of CNT decreasing with temperature. But Bose-Einstein statistics was NEVER applied for any calculations in this book. Thus, the statement in Pukite’s review that “The authors apply Bose-Einstein statistics to the formation of both liquid and ice nucleation” is completely wrong falsification of what has done in this book. Boltzmann’s statistics is applied in ALL calculations in this book, not B-E statistics.
Let me repeat this part:
But Bose-Einstein statistics was NEVER applied for any calculations in this book.
WHT or aTTP have yet to cite a single example of either Curry or Khvorostyanov mis-applying B-E stats. Anywhere or at anytime. No book, no report, no paper. Nothing. Never have, never will, never can.
And neither have suggested that the specification given by Curry and Khvorostyanov are incorrect relative to the conditions for which application of B-E stats is valid. Never have, never will, never can.
WHT continues to insist that B-E stats has been applied by Curry and/or Khvorostyanov in this book (or some other publications), and aTTP seems to agree with WHT. In fact , now WHT says that he and aTTP can shows us the very pages on which this has been documented.
I say, What are the page numbers.
Not to mention that neither WHT or aTTP have yet to object to the characterization by Curry or Khvorostyanov relative to the conditions under which B-E stats can be applied.
If the page numbers are not forthcoming, we must include that all this time WHT has presented a less-than-complete summary of the situation. And now, apparently, WHT has indicated that aTTP can also point to documentation in which Curry and/or Khvorostyanov have mis-applied B-E stats. Not to mention the continued use of a less-than-professional characterization of Dr. Curry.
Dan Hughes is a crackpot who relentlessly comments at sites such as http://RealClimate.org under the name Dan H with arguments that people get tired of refuting.
I have the page numbers noted and will just add that if I have not read the book, how can I have details on what is in those sections and how they have misapplied Bose-Einstein statistics?