B1042-1 Moron Science: Kepler Ten-Bee

    The recent discovery of a rocky planet (designated Kepler 10b) outside our solar system has excited some astrophysicists.  It’s always been their contention that a universe filled to the gizzards with stars must include some with orbiting planets.  Billions and billions of stars, they say, means millions and millions of planets.  Fair enough.  But understand that I’ve just made a logical inference here: it would stand to reason that billions and billions of stars must produce many millions of planets.  The evidence found, however, is otherwise: Stars are found in the billions.  But we have discovered just a handful of planets beyond our own, none of which is particularly suited to the forms of life as we know it.  The ratio: billions of stars to, what, five or six planets?

    Then, of course, those millions and millions of planets - that haven’t been discovered to exist yet - must include a finite number of ‘Goldilocks’ planets with intelligent life that we might be able to recognize as such.  Again, no evidence exists to make such a statement.  But logically - reasonably - such a huge number of planets must include some that bear some faint resemblance to earth.  Why they would produce ‘intelligent life,’ as some assert, remains an unexplained phenomenon.

    As humans we are inclined to make preposterous statements like this: “To date, it appears that we are the only ‘intelligent life’ in the universe based on the non-response we get from space aliens.”  If space aliens exist out there, they are being very quiet and reticent about their existence.  But the fact that no one answers the phone probably means that no one’s home.  And until we have evidence otherwise, we cannot make wild statements about probabilities of life- much less ‘intelligent life’ - existing out there.

B5014-4 Moron Science: How Low Can You Go?

THE LANDSCAPE: One of my favorite places to visit on my walks with the dog is the lowest spot on High Street next to the moraine wash-out channel.  In the summer, it’s always ten degrees (F.) cooler there than anywhere else.  So, it’s actually a very refreshing place to visit on a warm and muggy day. 
      It looks very much like an old river bed: flat bottomed, with steep banks on either side that are covered in old-growth trees.  All the brush and small trees have been removed from the wash-out channel as if someone had seriously considered building a house there.  They would have been quite unwise to do so, however.  It is, after all, a wash-out channel that could suddenly come alive with flood waters during the next major rainfall.  As some have discovered when they built homes on alluvial fans in the American Southwest, there is a sound reason why such landforms look the way they do: they were formed by the action of flood water.  The little low spot on High Street is no different.  It’s attractive and beautiful and cool on a hot summer’s day.  But it’s a sleeping giant just waiting for the next deluge.

THE DRAINAGE WINDS:  Nonetheless, it is a place of magical refreshment.  I often pause and face “upstream” whenever I pass by that low spot on High Street.  The very slight breeze flowing down that channel is cool and filled with a rich, earthy, loamy heaviness.  When it reaches the street, the air ponds in a layer five or six feet deep.  One can feel the cool air enveloping himself as he walks through it.  And it is always difficult to resume my walk with the dog after being caressed by that refreshing air.
      It is, of course, what the physical geographers call a “drainage wind.”  Usually they refer to a much more profound wind in, say, the Dinaric Alps, where a flow of cold, dense air from a higher elevation to a lower elevation occurs under the influence of gravity in the winter months.  Such winds are also called katabatic winds, and other examples include the bora and mitral winds.  It may be a stretch to call those lazy breezes at the low point on High Street “drainage winds.”  But the underlying principle is precisely the same: dense air always seeks the lowest spot in the landscape.
 
DEATH BY FORKTRUCK:  Some years ago I read about an industrial accident that killed several men.  They were workers in a facility that bottled and stored industrial gases.  Often such gases are used by welders as metal-cutting gases (propane, acetylene, etc.) or as MIG-welding shielding gases (argon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.).  The facility where the accident occurred had a large building for administrative offices.  On a dock outside the offices were several very large storage tanks of refrigerated nitrogen and carbon dioxide.  Normally those gases are stored in a liquid form at very low temperatures.  And it is the customary practice, as I understand it, to pass that liquid through an evaporation radiator and then to compress the gas to the appropriate pressure when filling smaller tanks.  The filled tanks or bottles are then stored in an open yard for later sales.  This particular facility had a storage yard that was five or six feet lower than the dock, and the yard was completely surrounded by a sheet-metal wall.  Think of a shoe box lid turned upside down and you'll have a fair approximation of what the storage yard looked like.
      One fine day, a careless fork truck driver inadvertently backed into the carbon dioxide storage tank and damaged the discharge valve on the tank.  Liquid carbon dioxide spewed from the tank without the fork truck driver noticing it, and the liquid cascaded over the dock wall into the “shoe box” storage yard below.  Once the cold liquid hit the warmer surfaces of the storage yard, it evaporated quickly and filled the yard with carbon dioxide gas.  The sheet-metal walls of the yard contained the gases.  Unfortunately, two men were working in the storage yard and they were quickly overcome by the carbon dioxide gas and were asphyxiated.  This was not an entirely unheard of sort of accident.  Such things happen five or six time a year.  It is common enough that industrial safety people often teach and advise of its insidious dangers.

CYCLING IN THE DESERT:  Each year during Le Tour de France cyclists ride several "mountain stages," where they encounter very high elevations. The alert observer will often notice a rather barren terrain at the very summit of such mountains: hardly anything seems to grow there. And for good reason: there isn't enough carbon dioxide up there to sustain an abundant plant life.
      Now, of course, there are those who will say that the Alpine climate itself does not favor plant life and that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with.  That's a fair point as far as it goes - were it only true. But what many seem to forget is the fact that the Alpine setting is also a carbon dioxide desert.  Carbon dioxide would struggle mightily to hold its position on the side of such steep hills.  Instead, it rolls down hill, seeking the lowest spot in the terrain.

HEAVY STUFF:  But why should that be so? Carbon dioxide is heavier or denser (1.997 weight of one liter at N. T. P.) than the other common components in the atmosphere - nitrogen (1.25 weight of one liter at N. T. P.) and oxygen (1.429 weight of one liter at N. T. P.). For the sake of argument, I will not discuss the minor components of Earth's atmosphere (argon, neon, radon, and other rare gases) since they do not affect the calculations being discussed here. Therefore, in still air conditions, carbon dioxide will sink down to the lowest level it can find and will remain there simply because it is more dense than the other components in the air column.
      Although some might be loathe to admit it, the gases in the atmosphere are exquisitely proportioned for plant life on earth, not only in composition as physical substances, but also in the physical characteristics of the gases themselves that facilitate efficient usage. At some very intuitive level, almost everyone understands that: if carbon dioxide is a necessary component for plant life, then it's quite important that that component be right next to the plants and not brushing up against some supposed "greenhouse" ceiling at the top of the atmospheric column. It would be quite foolish for God to design plants that require carbon dioxide for life, and then to put the carbon dioxide where it is inaccessible to the plants. That's pretty basic stuff, guys.

GREENHOUSE GASES:  But haven't we all been told that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? That's what many seem to say. But actually, it's not going to be up there against a greenhouse ceiling as you have been told. Those folks lied to you because they make their living pretending that a problem exists where none exists.  The "greenhouse" they speak about is merely a metaphor and not a physical structure existing "out there." So, there's no place for the carbon dioxide to collect "against." More importantly carbon dioxide is denser than other air components, so we're unlikely to find it up there "against the ceiling" in the first place. Or if it does make it up there through the updraft of volcanic eruptions or smokestacks, it will not stay up there. It cannot because physically it's too dense to ride at the top of the atmospheric column.  How many lead fishing sinkers do you see at 33,000 feet when you are flying to Chicago?  Yeah, I thought so.
       On a related note, some years ago there was a great deal of alarm about acid rain. The thinking then was that smoke from public utility generation plants contained excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide, and that substance combined with water and fell as "acid rain" on the lakes in New England.  It sounded so logical.  The response was to install sulfur dioxide scrubbing units on the smokestacks - at a great expense - in order to lessen the amount of sulfur dioxide getting into the air. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and subsequent experience seemed, oddly, to confirm that hunch. What no one wishes to speak about, however, were the concurrent volcanic eruptions that actually caused the acid rain.  Acid rain did not come from public utilities as such.  Remember, acid rain suddenly became a problem after years and years of electrical power generation by coal-burning plants.  That should have told people something.  Rather, it came from the massive amounts of sulfur dioxide emitted by the volcanoes.  And once the volcanic eruptions ceased, the acid rain problem also ceased.
      Today, the catalytic converters on our automobiles spew an acetic mist that combines with moisture in the air to accomplish the very same thing. But all of us feel considerably better knowing that catalytic converters are removing that awful sulfur dioxide from our internal combustion engine exhausts. Again, as with carbon dioxide, the density of sulfur dioxide (2.264 times heavier than air) should drive it right into the ground. So we drive around in an ever-increasing soup of hydrochloric acid and wonder why the marbles in our cemeteries are being eaten away by "acid rain" in places where there is no rain, e.g., Los Angeles.

JUST ONE QUESTION...:  But I digress.  And I leave you with a very simple question: how dumb would it be for carbon dioxide to mix with other gases in the air and to drift upward away from plant life and to collect against the "greenhouse" ceiling? If that were so, the human race would have died of starvation long ago and you and I would not be sitting here right now having this discussion. When they speak to you about greenhouse gases, smile at them as if they didn't have any sense at all.  Then ask them how much the university pays them to write such nonsense.

EXTRA CREDIT: If the "greenhouse" is merely a metaphor, then global warming takes on a brand, new dimension. How is it possible for a metaphor to "cause" global warming?  Hmm?  You may use your book to find the answer, boys and girls.

B5014-2 Moron Science: Internet Science Writers

Some random comments about people who write popular science articles for the internet:

Sophomoric: They are, if one may generalize, a people who tend to have a sophomoric and starry-eyed understanding of science and what science can do in the lives of people.  One gets the impression when reading one of their articles that one is speaking with a 12-year-old nerdy sort of boy explaining the intricacies of atomic particle accelerators.  A single, pertinent question will often stop their narrative cold - as if they hadn’t thought it through.

Uncritical:  The writing often comes across as a Mechanics Illustrated, Gee Whiz, Who’d a Thunk It sort of writing, lacking in elegance and grace, and without the requisite skepticism that would prompt other writers to look more critically at the subject matter. At times, popular science writers fulfill the role of cheerleaders; other times, they function as ordinary mystics. Always, they come across as unthinking, uncritical, and undiscerning writers - clownish, really, if I may say so.

Shibbolethic: Certain words seemed to appear with monotonous regularity in their writing, especially words such as, “peer review.”  The writers often give the impression, that by using such words, they have “nailed” those who might raise objections to their silly writings. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. “Peer review” simply means that like-minded people have looked at a document.  Period.  Peer review does not mean that knowledgeable people have expressed independent opinions about an article.  Rather, it means that like-minded people have looked at a document and nodded their heads in unison. Peer review’s nearest analogue would be something more akin to American Legion members holding both, 1) pro-military views, and 2) saluting the American flag on Memorial Day. In both cases, it would answer the simple question, “So, what else would you expect?”
            To state that a particular piece of scientific work “has been peer-reviewed” is not to make an argument for the efficacy or merits of an actual scientific work.  “Peer review,” to be sure, is not a magical incantation, although it is often used as such.  Rather, it is a description of misplaced enthusiasm for a particular scientific project. Most tellingly, it is an assertion of one’s complicity in current scientific beliefs.  In itself, it is harmless and simply reflects the boot- polishing mindset of the modern, popular science writer.  “Peer review” is an abbreviation for the longer, more complex argument that seems to say, “We just know better, so don’t argue with us.” Its effect is to tell us to close our mouths and not to question what is being said.  “Peer review” is a science writer’s way of telling others to shut up because, hey, this is...Science.

Useless: Ultimately, the modern science writers’ articles are useless.  And that is because they hardly ever express scientific facts and principles.  Instead they present wild fantasies that cannot be verified. There is always some Big Bang that travels through an evanescent Wormhole and gets lost in a Black Hole in some outlying Nebula so remote in history as to be incomprehensible. We are expected to sit there and nod our heads up and down slowly as though we understand what is being said and as though we agree with the nonsense being spouted.  The popular science writer’s audience is filled from sea to shining sea with naïf dolts who possess an extensive science jargon and - this is the important part - an empty empirical platter.

Magical Thinking: There is a catechism among science writers which seems to teach that even the smallest instance of water on the planet is proof in itself that life once existed there. How happy they are to report that a piece of ice the size of a man’s fist was found on some remote planet that has no hospitable atmosphere and gravity strong enough to sink a man to his armpits in the barren soil.  And, of course, they postulate that an abundant zoology exists there without any evidence other than that dirty chunk of ice the size of a man’s fist.
            There is such an insistence upon supposing that life exists among the billions and billions planetary systems beyond our own. Logic and reason alone suggest as much. And to doubt that postulate itself is to doubt the very foundations of science.  But all they can show us for evidence is that dirty chunk of ice the size of a man’s fist. Then, they pretend that we are really weird because we don’t believe their asseverations. Show me life (as we know it) on that planet with a 900̊F surface temperature and an atmosphere mostly composed of ammonia gas - and I’ll eat my hat.

Subjunctive Mood: Have you ever noticed how often modern science writers use such words as “could,” or “might,” or “may,” or “possibly,” or “maybe,” or “probably” whenever they write about planets hundreds of light-years away from our own. Granted, they do not flaunt the subjunctive mood when they talk about their big-as-life neighbor next door. That’s because anyone can knock on his door and take a good look at him.  But when they consider something that is so far away that nothing can be verified, then they lapse into thinking that is wondrously sprinkled with coudas, wouldas, and shouldas: “Life could have arisen from that expanse of sand and rock so far away because we have found a chunk of dirty ice the size of a man’s fist nestled in the penumbra near the pole, and that probably means that there is life on that planet.” Indeed. But how could we ever disprove such ineluctable logic?
            The subjunctive mood seems to work best when its object can’t be examined close up. The part of the universe that is so remote and so far away - both in terms of distance and time - is often found to be dotted with subjunctive descriptors as numerous as the pimples on a teenage boy’s face. Happily, all of those remote and distant planets and objects are beyond practical observation and examination. Science, which normally cries out for empirical examination and experimentation, simply cannot be performed on something so remote and so far away. The so-called Big Bang Theory is the most pertinent example I can imagine that is wholly beyond the possibility of examination and experimentation.  It is, to be sure, a theory that falls completely outside the realm of science.  And yet, it is treated as a serious scientific theory and is taught regularly in the science classroom.  Have these people got any idea what science really is?

B5014-1 Moron Science: Life on Pandora

“The new science fiction blockbuster [motion picture] ‘Avatar’ [December 2009] is set on habitable and inhabited moon Pandora, which orbits the fictional gas giant Polyphemus in the real Alpha Centauri system.

“Although life-bearing moons like Pandora or the Star Wars forest moon of Endor are staples of science fiction, astronomers have yet to discover any moons [exomoons] beyond our solar system. However, they could be science fact, and researchers might soon not only be able to spot them, but also scan their atmospheres for key signs of life as we know it, such as oxygen and water.

“‘If Pandora existed, we potentially could detect it and study it atmosphere in the next decade,’ said astrophysicist Lisa Kaltenegger of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass” (Choi, 28 December 2009).

UNDISCOVERED MOONS: Science fiction notwithstanding, “astronomers have yet to discover any moons beyond our solar system.” The question one might ask is this: given that scientists have no evidence whatsoever for such exomoons, why is there such unbridled optimism about future discoveries? Imagine, if you will, trying to be convinced by a horse racing gambler who said he had never ever won a nickel at the track, but that tomorrow he would clean up. Would you believe him? Hardly. Why would you place any confidence in an astrophysicist who made a similar promise? Show me the money first.

POTENTIAL NUMBERS: Even though such exomoons have yet to be discovered, the author claims that “they could be science fact...” Yes. But exactly how? Science is an empirical enterprise, depending on observation (among other things). The unseen - and undiscovered - does not fall within the purview of science. Instead, some astrophysicists appear to speculate on the existence of those exomoons based upon the huge numbers of celestial objects that can be seen. It is almost as if to say, that the sheer numbers planets...require the existence of those exomoons. Perhaps. Yet, to conclude that is beyond the practical scope of science. Science deals with reality; not subjunctive and metaphysical probabilities.

THE UNSEEN IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER: Not only are we treated to this vast wash of limitless potentiality, but the author also seems to think that “researchers might soon not only be able to spot [exomoons], but scan their atmospheres for key signs of life...” Happy day, indeed! Something we’ve never seen will soon be discovered. We all admire this heady, third-grader, bubbly optimism. Such optimism makes us long for the days when Christopher Columbus tried to convince his crew that India was just over the horizon - just before they slapped him into leg-irons and put him in the brig.

INDESTRUCTIBLE CONDITIONALS: Ms. Lisa Kaltenegger tells us, “If Pandora existed, we potentially could detect it and study its atmosphere in the next decade.” Really? We have no evidence that a Pandora-like moon exists. If it did exist, we could detect it (potentially), given the proper instrumentation with which to see it. Unexplained at this point in her argument, however, is Ms. Kaltenegger’s contention that the atmosphere of an undiscovered planet could be studied “in the next decade.” Why the next decade? We should understand that Ms. Kaltenegger’s conditional depends upon the existence of Pandora, which at this stage of space exploration is an unproven assumption. However, Ms. Kaltenegger’s statement would be true even if Pandora’s existence were a sheer impossibility: “If (Something-Or-Other; or A Heavenly Body Composed of Blueberries) existed, then we could see it.” Well, yeah. If my brother-in-law was Einstein, I could see him, too. But that wouldn’t prove anything.

You might want to rethink some of this, Lisa.

Choi, Charles Q. “Moons Like Avatar’s Pandora Could Be Found.” Online posting. 28 December 2009.