We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Slarti,
“Is there anything geekier than that?”
rofl
I’m going to have to say “no”.
I think we’ve just been geek outed!
Although I’m thinking neither of us was fooling anyone. 😀
Buddha,
Very cool to know the history of your slide rule (and a noble history it is). Mine came from the widow of a parishioner of my parent’s church along with a bunch of old math books. I just hope I have it with me if I’m ever stranded on a desert island. I’d hate to have to reproduce the log tables by hand. It’s just plastic, but it does have a leather belt holster. (Is there anything geekier than that?)
Slarti,
I have a 50’s model metal slide rule. It was originally used to design many of the bridges in rural Western Kansas and was a gift from a family member. Has a nice leather case and everything. Although I haven’t used it in many years other than as a conversation piece, it’s nice to know if the EMPs eat all our electronics, I’ll still be able to to calculations without resorting to long hand. 😀
Slartibartfast,
Arrogance is the downfall of many a scientist.
Was this energy directed at a 1″ x 1 ” area, or was the area of impact 500 sq. miles? You don’t say.
Do you think the same amount of energy spread out over 500 sq. miles would produce the same molten steel?
According to your theory, if I used a crane to put every piece of the WTC on the ground, the crane would either burst into flames from doing so, or the pieces on the ground would melt steel simply because they had the potential for doing so at some point in time.
This is not an isolated system. By treating it as one, you completely forget about any work performed. You fail to account for how the floors were broke loose. You don’t account for any of the energy used to trun the concrete into rubble.
If you use energy to break the floors loose, you can’t also include it as kinetic energy. If you use energy to turn the cement into rubble, you can’t include it as kinetic energy involved with the impact.
In an open system, energy expended must be considered lost energy.
After my last post, I thought that I should clarify exactly what my position is vis-a-vis conspiracies theories of 9/11. From my last post, you can see that I believe that enough heat to liquify over 500 metric tons of iron (assuming the iron is at room temperature) was generated in the collapse of each tower. Furthermore, it should be clear exactly were I got that number from. 😉 Given the magnitude of the forces involved, I believe that enough heat was generated in the collapse (along with fires [which can be documented] and exothermic reactions [I’ve suggested 3Fe_s + 4H20_g -> Fe3O4_s + 4H2_g and 2H2 + O2 -> 2H20] in the pile of rubble) to account for the observed heat at ground zero. I also believe that suggesting that the observed effects required the addition of energy in the form of explosives is laughable given the the amount of explosives that would have been required to produce more energy that was ‘naturally’ present. (For comparison, look at the TNT equivalents that I gave in my analysis. If you think that modern explosives are more powerful, consider that C4 is 1.34 times as explosive as TNT – you’re not going to get a lot out of that argument.) I believe that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was a direct result of the impact of the 2 Boeing 767 jetliners and that the collapse of WTC7 was a direct result of damage sustained in the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. I believe that any evidence of of explosives in the collapse is either not credible or better explained by ‘natural’ causes. I believe that conspiracy theories involving the government crashing planes into buildings, while highly unlikely, are not impossible. I believe that the reliability of eye-wittness accounts and the accuracy of media reports were both substantially lower than would normally be expected (and Bob, as a lawyer, you should know how reliable eye-wittness accounts are in general). The investigation and cleanup of ground zero were run by FEMA, an organization with no prior investigatory experience. Additionally, in light of their response to hurricane Katrina and the general incompetence of the Bush administration, I believe incompetence is a better explanation of the actions people involved in the investigation than conspiracy is. I hope this helps.
p.s. to Buddha: Kudos on the ability to use a slide rule, do you have one? (I do.)
Bob,
I’ve been using that periodic table you lined to for reference for some time now. I know what you mean about the slide rule generation (and this is coming from someone who can use a slide rule). There are several interactive periodic tables out on the net, but that is one of the better ones. There are also some interesting open source chemistry programs that have similar functions.
Man do I love a good toy.
P.S. I may have a way to get my hands on that CBC documentary. I’ll keep you posted. I’d like to see that. The CBC does some solid reporting.
Slartibartfast: “The laws of physics operate independent of scale.”
I don’t object to your use of scale, I object to your comparison of events.
Slartibartfast: “Since our system in this case is the WTC rubble and the Earth, the center of momentum frame of reference is essentially just the center of the Earth frame of reference, thus the reduction of total kinetic energy is equal to the total kinetic energy before the collision i.e. all of the kinetic energy of the falling rubble has been transformed into another kind of energy (since energy is neither created nor destroyed).
(WTC numbers from various sources – I stand by the calculations and will correct the numbers as needed.)
So how much kinetic energy was in the rubble the instant before impact?”
Instant before impact?? WTF are you talking about? A structure at rest on planet earth which thence collapses is not said to have ‘IMPACTED’ the earth. It’s already ON EARTH and the collapse is a decay of its previous higher ordered structure. Without getting into the Ship of Theseus puzzle, suffice to say that parts of the building impacting the earth does not mean the building impacted earth.
The meteor example necessitates a velocity so fucking high that the rear of the meteor, upon IMPACT, is traveling so fucking fast that it compresses against the front of the meteor–i.e. one source of heat from impact.
In what way shape or form does the collapse of a steel building contain that type of event??!!
SHOW ME.
Again,
“The Unofficial Story
Aired Fri 27, 2009
Eight years after 9/11, why are doubts growing about the official record of that day?
On September 11, 2001 the world watched in shock and disbelief as planes flew in to New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, and Americans realized they were under attack. But by whom? What really happened? In The Unofficial Story, the fifth estate’s Bob McKeown introduces us to people who believe the real force behind the attacks was not Osama Bin Laden, but the U.S. government itself.
Emerging from the dust and debris that day was a movement, known these days as 9/11 Truth or “truthers” – people who believe that 9/11 was part of a vast conspiracy and cover-up by a criminal faction within the U.S. government. As the fifth estate reports, public opinion polls now show that the majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of those attacks and somehow allowed them to happen and that one-third of Canadians share the same belief.
In The Unofficial Story, Bob McKeown explores why these questions and theories are growing in popularity.
You’ll meet some of the leading proponents of “truther” theories: Richard Gage, an American architect, explains how the WTC twin towers and the lesser known ‘Tower #7’ could only have crumbled as they did due to explosive charges placed inside the buildings. Others, including Canadian professor Kee Dewdney, insist that the story of the brave fight by the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 must have been a hoax. But, you’ll also hear from others who dispel “truther” theories and try to understand why, from JFK’s assassination to the moon landing to 9/11, a culture of conspiracy springs up around certain historic events.
Despite the difference of opinion between those who blame the hijackers and those who blame their own government, the real importance of the fight over 9/11 truth is that it may have less to do with the past than the future.”
They won’t even let us view it in the U.S.
You can try. Go here http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/
Click on the play button.
Bob (and everyone else, too),
The laws of physics operate independent of scale. Unless we are dealing with processes in the realms of quantum mechanics and/or relativity – which is to say really big (massive), really small (sub-atomic), or really fast (near the speed of light) – physics are governed by classic Newtonian mechanics. Nothing that we’re dealing with here moves into these realms – even an impactor 10 km in diameter striking at escape velocity is neither big nor fast in this sense). The same principles apply if you’re talking about a toy rocket powered by compressed air and water (one of my favorite childhood toys), a jetliner, or a Saturn V rocket. All of these behave according to Newton’s law of motion. Similarly, the same physics are in play whenever a moving mass strikes an immovable object (an object which wont be appreciably moved by the collision). The same physics are in operation when an impactor hits the earth at escape velocity, a bullet strikes a metal plate at 1 km/s, or a pile of rubble slams into the ground at 54 m/s. The details differ, but the physics are the same regardless of scale.
(All of the dimensions and estimates come from Wikipedia unless otherwise noted.)
Let us consider an impactor striking the earth. (I have to apologize, as I spoke incorrectly in earlier posts, an object is an asteroid or a comet or whatever when it is moving through space, a meteor when moving through the atmosphere, and a meteorite after it hits the earth – I’m just sticking to impactor from now on…) To provide a focus, I’ll discuss the impactor which created Chicxulub crater in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This impactor is estimated to have been at least 10 km in diameter and struck the earth 65 million years ago. Scientists like this rock for whacking the dinosaurs. An estimated 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy were released on impact, the equivalent of 100 million megatons of TNT. This caused a massive explosion and instantly liquified enough solid rock to form a crater 180 km in diameter. Could frictional heating as the impactor passed through the atmosphere and oxygen reactions after impact have played a role in these effects? If so, then crater formation would be different on the moon. The craters on the moon tell us that even in the absence of atmospheric friction and oxygen reactions, impacts are sufficient to liquify solid rock. The Chicxulub impactor was able to convert enough kinetic energy into thermal energy to instantly liquify (I really like that word) over 25,000 square kilometers of solid rock. The impact of the falling rubble on the earth is much smaller in scale but operates on exactly the same principles.
Now let’s take a look at the physics involved. These types of collisions are referred to as inelastic collisions. This essentially means that there was no ‘bounce’ – the particles stuck together after the impact. In such a collision, wikipedia says:
“The reduction of total kinetic energy is equal to the total kinetic energy before the collision in a center of momentum frame with respect to the system of two particles, because in such a frame the kinetic energy after the collision is zero. In this frame most of the kinetic energy before the collision is that of the particle with the smaller mass.”
What does this mean? Since our system in this case is the WTC rubble and the Earth, the center of momentum frame of reference is essentially just the center of the Earth frame of reference, thus the reduction of total kinetic energy is equal to the total kinetic energy before the collision i.e. all of the kinetic energy of the falling rubble has been transformed into another kind of energy (since energy is neither created nor destroyed).
(WTC numbers from various sources – I stand by the calculations and will correct the numbers as needed.)
So how much kinetic energy was in the rubble the instant before impact? The gravitational potential energy of one of the twin towers is estimated at 500 billion joules. If the towers had fallen at free fall speed, all of this gravitational energy would have been converted into kinetic energy. Assuming that the towers fell in 6.6 seconds and free fall took 6 seconds gives us a free fall speed of 60 m/s and a terminal velocity of 54 m/s for the rubble. Using the fact that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (KE = 1/2 m v^2), we calculate that the rubble retained 82.6% of the original gravitational potential energy as kinetic energy the moment before impact. This implies that 400 billion joules of kinetic energy were transformed into other types of energy at the moment of impact.
We have already seen above that kinetic energy may be transformed into thermal energy by impact, but what other forms of energy were produced? The collapse registered on seismic monitors and there was a big kaboom, so we need to consider both the seismic and sonic energy produced by the impact.
The collapse of one of the towers registered as a magnitude of 2.1 on the Richter scale. For comparison, the energy released in a seismic event of magnitude 2.0 is roughly 4.2 billion joules (the equivalent of a metric ton of TNT or a late WWII conventional bomb). By the relevant calculation we compute that the seismic event caused by the collapse of one of the WTC towers required roughly 5.9 billion joules.
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what the decibel level of the WTC collapse was, but it requires one megawatt of power to produce a 180dB sound. This is the sound of a rocket engine or the sound of the 1883 Krakatoa eruption as heard from 100 miles away. Given that 1 million joules per second produces this volume of sound, the sonic energy produced by the collapse is negligible in this calculation.
This leaves us with over 490 billion joules of heat generated by the collapse of one of the towers or the equivalent of about 120 metric tons of TNT. Using the heat of fusion and specific heat of iron from the article Robert linked to, this is enough energy to melt over 500 metric tons of iron at room temperature.
Based on this analysis, I conclude that there was sufficient heat generated by the collapse of the WTC to account for the observations at ground zero. The difference between you and me Bob, is that you may know the terms, but I understand the concepts and, more importantly, can do the calculations. If I sometimes seem curt and dismissive of you, it is because it’s annoying to have someone call you a liar when you know what you’re talking about.
If you care to disagree with any of this analysis, bring it on! I’ll provide any details of my calculations if asked.
Robert,
I read the paper and you were correct about 272,000 joule thing, but I still don’t think the paper’s conclusion is credible (especially since the author commits a logical fallacy in their conclusion). For an explanation of why, see my next post. I used the numbers on specific heat and heat of fusion from the paper you posted.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/12/canadian-cbc-covers-911-commission.html
“Most of the 9/11 Commissioners no longer believe their own accuracy any more either, now that new evidence and facts have developed.”
Slartibartfast: “It’s not a false analogy,”
If you offered evidence of your ‘potential energy in the building being so enormous as to rip apart the building upon conversion to kinetic energy AND still having so much surplus potential energy, i.e from which the Ke must come from, left over as to melt the very steel with which it was built; fine. But showing me what happens when a speeding bullet hits a metal plate tells me nothing about a building alleged to have collapsed at free fall speed.
Slartibartfast: “Do you ever consider that you might be wrong?
All the time Socrates. Why do you think I tend to ground all my arguments on certainties; certainties like Q=mcΔT?
Slartibartfast: “A question about your anomaly: What, exactly, do you contend was the origin of hot spot?”
What I reject is the implicit assumption that Q=mcΔT, the law of thermal equilibrium, etc., were in abeyance on 9/11/01 and nearly six months thereafter.
‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’ – the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies
Further, since ‘we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so’, I merely contend that Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of the existence of another entity so as to arrive at the truth in this matter. Anything less is simply incomplete and unacceptable at best.
Slartibartfast: “In my opinion, you’re reaching and your goal is far from your grasp.”
I assure you I’ve hit my target. While you’re out looking for meteors and speeding bullet analogies; I’m looking at a pile of rubble and repeating the question “show me how it happened in the classic Karl Popper form.”
Slartibartfast,
“Byron is absolutely right, the energy required to melt room temperature steel (or anything) is equal to the amount of energy required to heat the steel to (say) 800 degrees plus the energy required to melt steel at 800 degrees.”
Steel doesn’t melt at 800 degrees (F or C). The statement is that it requires 478,400 joules to heat an 800 degree C kilogram of steel to 1536 degrees C. And it requires an additional 272,000 joules just to convert it from a solid to a liquid.
The author is giving you another gift. She is letting you start with 800 degree C steel, even though the likely starting point is probably closer to 250 degree C.
You said to Bob. “even though no building has ever been brought down with thermite before.”
The “first time” assertion is kind of funny when you consider your claim that though no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, and the type of uniform failure required to have the WTCs collapse like they did had never happened before, but on this occasion it didn’t just happen once, it happened three times. PFM
Slarti, since you are claiming that the GPE of WTC 7 was enough to create molten steel, what is the minimum required GPE to do so?
Bob,
You said:
“Slartibartfast,
Why so eager to do all that work on the fallacy of a false analogy?
1. It’s bad enough that you don’t see a problem with the rate of fall of the building.
2. It’s even worse that you’re completely ignoring the anomaly known as WTC 7; i.e. that building with the more than 1,300 degree hot spot on the thermograph five days after 9/11.
By anomaly I mean an event that shatters your previous theory about all those joules pent up in the two towers being responsible for the heat energy. WTC 7 falls outside of your explanation; thus refuting it.”
It’s not a false analogy, nor is it work – I’m a scientist, doing this sort of thing is fun for me (yes, I’m a very sick puppy ;-)). And it’s not a waste of time to try and educate people about science. Do you ever consider that you might be wrong? (And before you ask, I constantly consider the possibility that I’m wrong, it’s (in my opinion, at least) a necessary form of introspection for a scientist.
A question about your anomaly: What, exactly, do you contend was the origin of hot spot? Thermite reacting for 5 days? If so, is there any evidence that a thermite reaction can proceed so slowly or last so long? You’re citing a couple of observations, claiming that they are inconsistent with the IFT, and asserting that CD with thermite best satisfies all of the observations, even though no building has ever been brought down with thermite before. In my opinion, you’re reaching and your goal is far from your grasp.
Robert,
Byron is absolutely right, the energy required to melt room temperature steel (or anything) is equal to the amount of energy required to heat the steel to (say) 800 degrees plus the energy required to melt steel at 800 degrees. This is basic energy conservation and a failure to understand it certainly reflects poorly on the scientific credibility of the author (even if he is just explaining it badly it calls his work into doubt – good scientific writing goes to great lengths to make sure that the ideas are communicated clearly to the intended audience (having been spending much time lately in the editing process, I am hyperaware of this – no scientist that I know (or at least that I work with) would let their name be associated with something so poorly written).
Slartibartfast,
Why so eager to do all that work on the fallacy of a false analogy?
1. It’s bad enough that you don’t see a problem with the rate of fall of the building.
2. It’s even worse that you’re completely ignoring the anomaly known as WTC 7; i.e. that building with the more than 1,300 degree hot spot on the thermograph five days after 9/11.
By anomaly I mean an event that shatters your previous theory about all those joules pent up in the two towers being responsible for the heat energy. WTC 7 falls outside of your explanation; thus refuting it.
Can you imagine taking college chem with something like this at your disposal?
http://www.ptable.com/
Now I think I know what the slide rule generation felt like.
Byron,
You’re on fire today! (I’m still laughing about the moon landing comment.) Or maybe you just got so hot by slamming into the ground at high speed. 😉 You are exactly on point with the depleted uranium shells – on impact their kinetic energy becomes heat and melts through a tank’s armor.
Bob,
I’m going to take some time and lay out my argument for you (and everyone else). I would also like to ‘do the math’ and figure out the kinetic energy of a bullet and what the delta T (change in temperature) would be if all of that energy were converted to heat. You suggested that a high powered bullet had an average speed of 0.95 km/sec. To do the calculation I want to I also need the weight and composition (or I could just assume that lead is the major component) If you can provide estimates of these quantities, I’ll work out the numbers to give our discussion more focus.
Byron,
You going to have to do better than “That guy is wrong”. I understand that in your line of work you would have no need to ever consider the energy required to change the physical state of a material, but that doesn’t grant you permission to ignore the energy required to make it happen.
212 degree steam contains much more energy than 212 degree water. It requires 2260 kJ/kg to convert water to steam. That has nothing to do with heating the water to 212 degrees, or superheating the steam afterwards.
Byron,
Thought you (& Gyges) might enjoy this.
http://i.imgur.com/dRMby.png