This is quite a good explanation of wave - particle duality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFPKwu5vugg

and here is more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIsPSDOrRus&list=PLBCjRnfUoza4tQvAjm_XxVEvs8q1tu3pM

enjoy.

If you really wanted to confuse you student you could try wave - particle duallity. I still struggle with it.

There is an excellent video interview where Henrik Sveansmark talks about his work via GWPF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1qg8HceGI&t=11s

I was impressed by his exposition of his work and that of the CLOUD project at Cern. I also commend his objectivity. I have to say I find his theory very convincing.

AK: :-)

When I was in the RAF we used English (Plessey?) Oscilloscopes with green displays and American ones with orange displays. We used to catch out new cadets by explaining that English electrons were green and American's orange. It was surprising how many believed. (They probably went on to believe in wind turbines etc).

Harry.
Haven't you understood, OVO have employed and retrained Maxwell's demon to select green electrons, from those common dirty fossil fuel electrons, for their OVO customers?
OVO the wise (owl) choice.

Am cross-posting a comment I made over at NALOPKT regarding the adverts by OVO claiming that their customers can switch to 100% renewable electricity.
I have just raised a complaint to the ASA for an advert in today's DT (page 8):

OVO's full page advert (page 8) in today's Daily Telegraph leads with a banner headline:

"Renewable is Unstoppable. Switch to 100% Renewable electricity from OVO"

In very small print at the foot of the page the advert there is a conditional clause:

"For every unit of energy you buy, we'll purchase renewable certificates for electricity from various sources."

It is patently obvious that customers of OVO will not be consumers of 100% renewable energy; they will in fact be consuming, as all other consumers do, a mix of energy from various generating means. Consumers also do not any means, as far as is advertised, of being able to confirm that the energy OVO bills them for will be accounted for with renewable certificates'.

It is impossible to be a consumer of 100% renewable electricity as a standard grid-based user. The advert is misleading and inaccurate.

With another cold blast whistling through the UK, a handy guide to Climate Science terminology:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/16/the-climate-dictionary/

an expected result of global warming — “We predicted warming and got a heavy snowfall instead”.

anthropogenic — see “human fingerprint”.

anthropogenic change — “It’s warmer than usual”.

anthropogenic climate change — “Weather we don’t like”.

autocorrelation — “Say what? We don’t have to deal with that”.

Bonferroni correction — see “autocorrelation”

carbon dioxide — “The secret knob that controls the climate”.

cause — “Greenhouse gases”

climate — “It’s warmer than usual”.

climate change — “What ‘global warming’ became after we repeatedly predicted warming and got heavy snowfalls instead”.

climate feedback — see “natural variability”.

confounding factors — “Things that we choose to ignore.”

coupled non-linear chaotic system — ” y = ax + b “

effect — “dangerous anthropogenic global warming”

external forces — see “other factors”

human fingerprint — “We can’t explain what caused it, so it must be from people acting badly”.

hundred-year flood — “Any flood recurring more than one news cycle apart”.

Industrial Revolution — “The time of the climate Eden when the temperature was exactly right”.

IPCC Conference of the Parties — “A recurring party attended by only the wokest of the woke”.

it is well known — “I believe this”.

it’s a boundary value problem — “This depends on future boundaries we can’t predict but we’ll act like we can.”

multiproxy study — “We left out the proxies that don’t agree with our theory”.

natural climate fluctuation — “We don’t know why it goes up and down”.

natural variability — “We have no idea what the cause was”.

naturally occurring dynamics — “Something happened that we can’t explain”.

other factors — “Deus ex machina”.

predicted sea level rise — “Run for the hills! We’ll all be drowned!”

projections — “It’s a forecast but we don’t stand behind it”.

proxies show — “One tree in Yamal had this to say”.

regime change — “Cause and effect just went 180° out of phase for no reason”.

renewable energy — “This solution requires extensive subsidies”.

requires further study — “Give us more taxpayer money”.

social cost of carbon — “Our analyses will completely ignore the benefits of fossil fuels and the greening of the planet”.

the effect of various lag times — “Things that don’t line up can be made to line up”.

weather — “It’s colder than usual”.

well within expectations – “It’s colder than usual”.

Finally, we have the IPCC Likelihood Scale:

Virtually certain – “All my cool scientist friends agree”.

Very likely – “We really hope this is true”.

Likely – “Two climate models out of three agree”.

About as likely as not – “Nobody has a clue”.

Unlikely – “This outcome offends us”.

Very unlikely – “We really don’t want you going down that path”.

Exceptionally unlikely – “Stephen McIntyre said it first so it can’t possibly be true.”

Mar 17, 2018 at 12:40 AM | stewgreen

All the penguins flew south for the summer so it was not the fault of the Climate Scientists, that they tried to follow in icebreaker ships that hit land that was in the wrong place due to Global Warbling miscalculations.

All that Scientific expertise and effort, and they still didn't manage to find a hungry Polar Bear, so they will report that they are extinct, and blame Dr Susan Crockford.