How hot is it?

How hot is it?

Some years ago, I was perusing a book my then-preschooler had picked up at a thrift store. This ‘science for kids’ book was likely written by someone with a stronger background in kids’ books than science. The text was easy enough to read and understand, but the facts and concepts were lacking.

Though years have passed and I have forgotten much of what was in the book, one thing still stands out in my memory. The author, trying to convey the intense heat of the planet Venus, made the statement that Venus was over 800 degrees Fahrenheit (which is true)-twice as hot as an oven and over six times as hot as the highest temperature on Earth (which is not true). Here’s why:

People think of temperature in terms of hot and cold, but in reality heat is a quantifiable metric, while cold is not. You can have any amount of heat and still be able to add heat; the coldest condition is the complete lack of heat known as absolute zero-if cold was ‘something’, you could still add more ‘cold’ at that point. This is where the problem comes in.

Fahrenheit is not an absolute scale. There are temperatures below 0F, so the zero is a point within the range of possible temperatures (not at the beginning). So, if it is 40 degrees in Maine and 80 in Florida, it is not twice as hot (or cold) in one place than the other. The problem is easier to see if you consider the case where it is -10 in Duluth and 30 in Sioux Falls; how do they compare? Is it -3 times as warm in Sioux Falls? The only way to express a ratio of temperature is to use an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine.

In any absolute scale, the 0 point is absolute zero. From there, it does not matter how large your increments are, they still maintain the same relative ratios. For instance, if you compared the two main absolute scales, Kelvin (using the increments from Celsius and subtracting 273.15) and Rankine (using the increments from Fahrenheit and subtracting 459.67), you would see that 100K=180R and 200K=360R. So, double the heat in one absolute scale and you double the heat in any other (note that 100K or 100C is the difference between water freezing and boiling, as is 180R and 180F). If we do the same with Fahrenheit and Celsius, we see that 100C=212F and 200C=392F; Celsius doubled, but Fahrenheit did not. Using smaller numbers would exaggerate this effect, while using larger ones would make the difference between 0C/F and absolute zero less significant; 10C=50F, 20C=68F, doubling C increases F by 36 percent; 1000C=1832F, 2000C=3632F, doubling C increases F by 98.3 percent-nearly the same.

So why does this matter? For the most part, I am just being difficult. But also, it really doesn’t make sense, especially when dealing with negative temperatures. And though I understand that science needs to be watered down to reach its audience, I hate the thought of starting kids of with a wrong concept of how things work.

In the end, though, it really matters when doing calculations. Where corrections are done in an experiment based on differences in heat, the ratios have to be based on an absolute scale. If heat accelerates a reaction in a linear manner, doubling of heat needs to mean double the quantity of heat and not just a number on a thermometer if the data is to be reliable.

Ideology and Pragmatism

As I get older (note the intentional non-use of ‘mature’), my body slows while my mind accelerates. I find I spend ever more time contemplating the time when I rule the world. If you didn’t know, it is a very demanding task and I am no longer sure I am up to it.

Take for instance the following scenario:

Imagine that you are an extreme believer in progressive taxation (this may be difficult for some, but remember this is just hypothetical). No matter how much the rich pay in taxes, they still have more than they need, while even with no taxation, there are those at the bottom who work hard and still have trouble keeping the lights on. You think that those who benefit the most from our society and economy have the greatest responsibility to give back to it.

Now suppose that studies have been done, economists have analyzed the data and the results are incontrovertible: eliminating taxes on large carat diamonds, luxury cars and private jets actually stimulates the economy to the extent that total tax revenue is higher than it was with the taxes and at the same time, more of the lower and middle classes will be hired into good paying jobs with benefits. Is it worth allowing the tax burden to become less progressive if it results in a net benefit for all?

There is evidence for economic growth through a reduction in taxes on investment and business, but there is also strong evidence for economic stimulus through tax cuts for, or payments to, those in the lower income brackets. The difference is in the specific structure of tax cuts or payments and the specific conditions of the economy. How ridiculous is a discussion of capital gains tax cuts at a time when there are no capital gains? But before we discuss which path is the ideal for the current circumstances, we need to decide how important the ideal is (perhaps for moral or cultural reasons) and how important bottom line results are. If we can all agree on this (or even agree to disagree to some degree), perhaps at that point we can discuss the merits of each side rather than each side just arguing a position they settled on years ago and have not considered since.

How about if you are dead set against the redistribution of wealth? This would include direct payments, as well as government benefits for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich or middle class. As far as you are concerned, each citizen should be responsible for himself and the strongest will survive and thrive.

Now, what if the numbers showed that a college education resulted in higher lifetime income and productivity? Let’s say that the increase in income is so great that it results in additional tax revenue exceeding the total cost of the education. In addition, the resultant increase in income also means an increase in economic activity that creates more jobs. What would you choose as the ideal role of government in the funding of education? Would you stick to your guns on the ideal of personal responsibility and leave educational funding up to the individual? Maybe you think we should take a middle road (much like we do today) by providing loans that allow each individual to get an education, but having them pay back the costs out of their greater earnings. Or on the other end of the spectrum, does logic and pragmatism prevail over ideals? Knowing that the greatest number of people would get a college degree and the greatest increase in long term economic growth would come from full government funding of higher education, do we sacrifice the belief in personal responsibility for the greater good?

The facts in this case are that a college education not only makes a marked difference in income, but that during slow economic times, the unemployment rate has an inverse relationship with education. It is also a fact that outside of loans, grants and scholarships, higher education is still heavily subsidized and a pure market solution would drop us so far below the rest of the industrialized world that we would be competing with developing nations over low skilled, dollar a day type jobs. There is also the likelihood that a free college education for everyone would result in a diminished return on investment. However, the debate always seems to center on fairness or opportunity and usually fails to address the net effect of any policy on the society and economy as a whole.

We can continue this line of questioning with the health care debate. Is our real concern the redistribution of wealth through subsidies? Is it government control over health care? Is it the threat to availability or quality? What are our major motivations or objections with regard to our position on health care reform? Like taxation, this is not a simple issue and there are data and anecdotal evidence to back up either side. There are also practical trade offs between the positions. But whatever our take, if we are to move forward in a positive manner, we need to honestly express our concerns and decide how much of our position is based on ideals and how much we will compromise these ideals to reach our end goal. Once there, we need to be open to the facts and how they frame the issue as a whole.

The same kinds of idealism vs pragmatism dichotomies can be played out with funding for the arts, first time homebuyer subsidies, alternative energy, etc, but the concept is the same. Anyone can find data to back up any position on any issue. There are statistics and misrepresented facts that can harden positions on both sides until there is no compromise, only winners and losers. In some instances, we end up with losers and losers in order to avoid all possible doomsday scenarios that have propagated into the argument. Why? Because we have created a zero sum game of politics and no one wants to be vulnerable by stepping out and doing the right thing.

None of this argues against ideals, I just argue for a better consideration of ideals. Do we want less disparity between classes or a better life for those at the bottom? Energy independence or cheap energy? More security or more convenience? Often these questions get lost in the rhetoric. Too often we fear the honest questions because they get to the heart of what we really want instead of what we claim to want. Sometimes they reveal the complexity of something that we really want to be simple.