Remember me
▼ Content

Our Future: The kids are right – we must act on climate change



Page 1 of 212>
Our Future: The kids are right – we must act on climate change11-03-2019 17:13
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1016)
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/
11-03-2019 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
The latest version of the "It's for the children" appeal to emotion fallacy.

I have no reason to listen to kids indoctrinated into the Church of Global Warming.
11-03-2019 22:18
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.
12-03-2019 01:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.
12-03-2019 16:15
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Longview wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5948385/listen-to-the-kids-we-must-act-on-climate/

So what MUST be done to combat climate change?
The urgency makes me suspect!
Consider the real data.
According to HardCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
global average temperatures have increased by
~.88 C from pre industrial levels ( I used the average before 1900,
and a decade average for the current level)
Of that .88 C, .28 C was from before 1950, and acknowledged to be not
human related.
If we go with the accepted level for CO2 forcing,
(5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612C, is from CO2 instantaneous forcing.
.28 +.612= .89 C,
As it stands right now, there is no amplified feedback, which is required
for the predicted catastrophic warming.
I know, What about the latency between perturbation and ECS?
Well, Hansen said he expected that 60% of the equalization process,
would be complete in 37.5 years, so that .28 C of pre 1950 warming
should have seen almost 2 cycles of feedback at 60%.
If ECS were 3 C, from a forcing input of 1.1 C, that means an amplification
factor of 2.72, so CYCLE 1((.28 X 2.72)X.6)=.46C,
and the .46C becomes the input for cycle 2 ((.46 X 2.72) X.6)=.75 C.
As there is only .88 C to work with, something must be lowered in their assumptions.


What real data? Best I can figure, standardized recording didn't start until the 1950s. A few locations, doesn't really represent the entire planet very well. CO2 measurements started in 1958, single location. When I saw 'amplification', as an electronics guy, I'm thinking adding energy to a signal. But, the atmosphere isn't a circuit board. Only half the planet adding energy from the sun, other half doesn't go to sleep, so we can just ignore it. You are talking about very little increases (fractional degrees), yet the margin of error for the data used is huge, and spread over a considerable time span. Might work that way on virtual Earth, in a video game, but hardly possible in the real world.

I agree,but am trying to show the alarmist that even with their own chosen data set the alarmist math does not work.
Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor,
(gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.
You are also correct on the data collection, the various methods of sampling,
produce an error range, almost as large as the observation.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
Giss says this about it.
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
12-03-2019 17:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote: Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor, (gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.

Whether the gain is high or low, the principle is still a violation of the 1st LoT.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 19:31
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor, (gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.

Whether the gain is high or low, the principle is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

The amplified feedbacks themselves do not violate any laws of physics,
but they also cannot be shown to exists in any meaningful way.
The general concept is simple, less snow and ice cover means more
solar energy is absorbed by the ground and surface of the sea.
validating that anything like that is actually happening, not so simple.
I also do not think CO2 absorbing 15 um photons and causing slight energy
increases in the atmosphere is violating any laws.
The 667 cm-2 energy has to go somewhere, and it is unlikely to re emit,
so it will likely pass off the energy through vibration transfers to surrounding
atoms and molecules. This would all take place in the 1st cm above the ground, as the mean free path at normal pressure is in micrometers
12-03-2019 20:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Longview wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor, (gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.

Whether the gain is high or low, the principle is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

The amplified feedbacks themselves do not violate any laws of physics,

What 'feedback'? What is 'amplifying' them? Is someone using a loud stereo?
Longview wrote:
but they also cannot be shown to exists in any meaningful way.

Then why do you even bring them up?
Longview wrote:
The general concept is simple, less snow and ice cover means more
solar energy is absorbed by the ground and surface of the sea.

Did you know that snow and ice tend to reflect visible light, but absorb infrared light? They are water. It is infrared light that heats the Earth. Visible light tends to cause chemical reactions instead of heating anything much.
Longview wrote:
validating that anything like that is actually happening, not so simple.

Especially when you make wild assumptions.
Longview wrote:
I also do not think CO2 absorbing 15 um photons and causing slight energy
increases in the atmosphere is violating any laws.

It all still radiates to space, dude.
Longview wrote:
The 667 cm-2 energy has to go somewhere, and it is unlikely to re emit,

Anything above absolute zero is emitting light. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Longview wrote:
so it will likely pass off the energy through vibration transfers to surrounding
atoms and molecules.

They emit light too. They are above absolute zero in temperature.
Longview wrote:
This would all take place in the 1st cm above the ground, as the mean free path at normal pressure is in micrometers

Light travels further than 1cm. Perhaps you haven't noticed that large, bright, thing in the sky. We call it the Sun. Perhaps you don't see the Moon either. Perhaps you can't pass the vision test for a driver's license.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2019 20:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote:
The amplified feedbacks themselves do not violate any laws of physics,

If by "amplification" you mean that there is more energy than before the amplification then yes, the 1st LoT has been violated and you either have a miracle on your hands or it didn't really happen.

Longview wrote:
The general concept is simple, less snow and ice cover means more
solar energy is absorbed by the ground and surface of the sea.

So planet earth could never emerge from an ice age, after all, the less and less earth absorption of sunlight would create a catastrophic downward temperature spiral, never to be warm again, yes?

Longview wrote:
I also do not think CO2 absorbing 15 um photons and causing slight energy
increases in the atmosphere is violating any laws.

That's because you don't understand the laws you are violating.

The 1st LoT says that you can't create ANY energy. "Slight energy increases" are a direct violation.

Longview wrote:
The 667 cm-2 energy has to go somewhere, and it is unlikely to re emit,

It doesn't "re-emit." You should remove that word from your vocabulary if you don't want people immediately flagging you as a scientifically illiterate Global Warming dupe.

Electromagnetic energy of one form is absorbed, thus converting it to thermal energy (a different form of energy). The thermal energy then radiates as electromagnetic energy (a different form of energy) per Stefan-Boltzmann in a frequency band and signature defined by Wein's law.

You are welcome to review Stefan-Boltzmann and Wein's law. You are also welcome to be a science denier. The latter is much easier.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 20:54
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
Longview wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor, (gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.

Whether the gain is high or low, the principle is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

The amplified feedbacks themselves do not violate any laws of physics,

What 'feedback'? What is 'amplifying' them? Is someone using a loud stereo?
Longview wrote:
but they also cannot be shown to exists in any meaningful way.

Then why do you even bring them up?
Longview wrote:
The general concept is simple, less snow and ice cover means more
solar energy is absorbed by the ground and surface of the sea.

Did you know that snow and ice tend to reflect visible light, but absorb infrared light? They are water. It is infrared light that heats the Earth. Visible light tends to cause chemical reactions instead of heating anything much.
Longview wrote:
validating that anything like that is actually happening, not so simple.

Especially when you make wild assumptions.
Longview wrote:
I also do not think CO2 absorbing 15 um photons and causing slight energy
increases in the atmosphere is violating any laws.

It all still radiates to space, dude.
Longview wrote:
The 667 cm-2 energy has to go somewhere, and it is unlikely to re emit,

Anything above absolute zero is emitting light. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Longview wrote:
so it will likely pass off the energy through vibration transfers to surrounding
atoms and molecules.

They emit light too. They are above absolute zero in temperature.
Longview wrote:
This would all take place in the 1st cm above the ground, as the mean free path at normal pressure is in micrometers

Light travels further than 1cm. Perhaps you haven't noticed that large, bright, thing in the sky. We call it the Sun. Perhaps you don't see the Moon either. Perhaps you can't pass the vision test for a driver's license.

I bring up the feedbacks, because without them the entire concept of catastrophic AGW falls apart.
Yes everything above absolute zero can emit something, but only if the
energy hangs around long enough for spontaneous emission.
With CO2, excited to 667 cm-1, spontaneous would take between
10 and 50 milliseconds, but the time it would take to collide with another atom
or molecule is less than .5 microseconds, the odds are about 20,000:1,
that it will collide with something else before emission.
Eventually the energy will all head to space, but along the way, it can
possibly increase the average energy level of the atmosphere it progresses through.
In a CO2 laser, we add up to 70 % Helium to the gas mixture to
prevent a population inversion at the 667 cm-1 level, If we did not
the laser would be limited in power, because of a restriction on the
number of molecules available at ground state to excite up to the
2326 cm-1 level.
In the atmosphere there is not enough helium to help with this,
but H20 has some dipole moments that line up with the smaller steps to ground state.
12-03-2019 21:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Longview wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Longview wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: Yes the catastrophic warming predictions require a high amplification factor, (gain, to you and I), without it, no significant warming, and CO2 is a non issue.

Whether the gain is high or low, the principle is still a violation of the 1st LoT.

The amplified feedbacks themselves do not violate any laws of physics,

What 'feedback'? What is 'amplifying' them? Is someone using a loud stereo?
Longview wrote:
but they also cannot be shown to exists in any meaningful way.

Then why do you even bring them up?
Longview wrote:
The general concept is simple, less snow and ice cover means more
solar energy is absorbed by the ground and surface of the sea.

Did you know that snow and ice tend to reflect visible light, but absorb infrared light? They are water. It is infrared light that heats the Earth. Visible light tends to cause chemical reactions instead of heating anything much.
Longview wrote:
validating that anything like that is actually happening, not so simple.

Especially when you make wild assumptions.
Longview wrote:
I also do not think CO2 absorbing 15 um photons and causing slight energy
increases in the atmosphere is violating any laws.

It all still radiates to space, dude.
Longview wrote:
The 667 cm-2 energy has to go somewhere, and it is unlikely to re emit,

Anything above absolute zero is emitting light. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Longview wrote:
so it will likely pass off the energy through vibration transfers to surrounding
atoms and molecules.

They emit light too. They are above absolute zero in temperature.
Longview wrote:
This would all take place in the 1st cm above the ground, as the mean free path at normal pressure is in micrometers

Light travels further than 1cm. Perhaps you haven't noticed that large, bright, thing in the sky. We call it the Sun. Perhaps you don't see the Moon either. Perhaps you can't pass the vision test for a driver's license.

I bring up the feedbacks, because without them the entire concept of catastrophic AGW falls apart.
Yes everything above absolute zero can emit something, but only if the
energy hangs around long enough for spontaneous emission.

Is the substance above absolute zero? It's emitting! No time delay necessary! See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Longview wrote:
With CO2, excited to 667 cm-1, spontaneous would take between
10 and 50 milliseconds, but the time it would take to collide with another atom
or molecule is less than .5 microseconds, the odds are about 20,000:1,
that it will collide with something else before emission.

Irrelevant. CO2 is emitting all the time, dude, even when it's absorbing light.
Longview wrote:
Eventually the energy will all head to space, but along the way, it can
possibly increase the average energy level of the atmosphere it progresses through.

Not one iota. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Longview wrote:
In a CO2 laser, we add up to 70 % Helium to the gas mixture to
prevent a population inversion at the 667 cm-1 level, If we did not
the laser would be limited in power, because of a restriction on the
number of molecules available at ground state to excite up to the
2326 cm-1 level.

Irrelevant. Lasers don't fire because of blackbody radiance. They fire because of resonance. Fluorescent lights work that way too. So do LED's. That's why you can put your hand on a 60w (equivalent) LED light bulb, even after it's been on for hours, and not burn your hand.
Longview wrote:
In the atmosphere there is not enough helium to help with this,
but H20 has some dipole moments that line up with the smaller steps to ground state.

Did you know that molecular resonance is not the only way to produce light?

All you really have to do is find a way to shake a charged particle...electron, proton, ion, it really doesn't matter.

A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

A coal in a fire is glowing a bright red. What is the temperature of the coal? Say, about the 1350 deg F? Most campfires burn at around 2000 deg F, so this makes sense.

Is the interior of the worm's body twice as hot as a campfire?

What happens when you throw the worm IN the campfire? Does it cool off?

It is the difference between playing a violin and burning it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-03-2019 21:52
13-03-2019 02:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Into the Night wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

A coal in a fire is glowing a bright red. What is the temperature of the coal? Say, about the 1350 deg F? Most campfires burn at around 2000 deg F, so this makes sense.

Is the interior of the worm's body twice as hot as a campfire?

What happens when you throw the worm IN the campfire? Does it cool off?



Bravo! I enjoyed reading this. You might not realize this but you just created what mathematicians call a "proof by contradiction." The original name used by philosophers for the concept was called "reductio ad absurdum"

The way you construct such a proof is by attacking what you know to be a false assumption. You presume for the sake of argument that the assumption is true and show how it leads to a contradiction (in math) or to something absurd (in science).

In this case the problem was a violation of the basic premise of cause and effect. In formal logic the implication A -> B (A implies B) is drawn from observing nature and the principle of cause and effect. If I know that A -> B and I observe A then I know that I will have B. This is the underlying principle of science which is a collection of falsifiable models that say if you have A then predict B.

But every now and then you come across someone who tries to tell you that he has B therefore he must have had A and he points to the science. But it doesn't work that way and leads to absurd hypotheticals.

If it rains then the implication is that your driveway will be wet. You notice that it is raining so you correctly predict that your driveway will be wet. The next week you come home and you find your driveway is wet and you erroneously conclude that it rained. It turns out that your gardener hosed it down.

We know that certain temperatures can generate certain light frequencies but if we have those same light frequencies we cannot validly claim that we had those temperatures; something else might have generated those light frequencies as well.

We must always be cognizant of this lest we allow any speculation about the past to be erroneously considered to be science, e.g. Big Bang, Evolution, etc...

Well done!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-03-2019 03:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

A coal in a fire is glowing a bright red. What is the temperature of the coal? Say, about the 1350 deg F? Most campfires burn at around 2000 deg F, so this makes sense.

Is the interior of the worm's body twice as hot as a campfire?

What happens when you throw the worm IN the campfire? Does it cool off?



Bravo! I enjoyed reading this. You might not realize this but you just created what mathematicians call a "proof by contradiction." The original name used by philosophers for the concept was called "reductio ad absurdum"

The way you construct such a proof is by attacking what you know to be a false assumption. You presume for the sake of argument that the assumption is true and show how it leads to a contradiction (in math) or to something absurd (in science).

In this case the problem was a violation of the basic premise of cause and effect. In formal logic the implication A -> B (A implies
is drawn from observing nature and the principle of cause and effect. If I know that A -> B and I observe A then I know that I will have B. This is the underlying principle of science which is a collection of falsifiable models that say if you have A then predict B.

But every now and then you come across someone who tries to tell you that he has B therefore he must have had A and he points to the science. But it doesn't work that way and leads to absurd hypotheticals.

If it rains then the implication is that your driveway will be wet. You notice that it is raining so you correctly predict that your driveway will be wet. The next week you come home and you find your driveway is wet and you erroneously conclude that it rained. It turns out that your gardener hosed it down.

We know that certain temperatures can generate certain light frequencies but if we have those same light frequencies we cannot validly claim that we had those temperatures; something else might have generated those light frequencies as well.

We must always be cognizant of this lest we allow any speculation about the past to be erroneously considered to be science, e.g. Big Bang, Evolution, etc...

Well done!

*humble bow*

Glad you enjoyed it!


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2019 15:43
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.
13-03-2019 15:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote:
You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.

Nope. It certainly represents a change in the FORM of energy to one of electromagnetic energy with a green wavelength ... but no, worms can't violate the 1st LoT by creating additional energy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-03-2019 18:35
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote:
You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.

Nope. It certainly represents a change in the FORM of energy to one of electromagnetic energy with a green wavelength ... but no, worms can't violate the 1st LoT by creating additional energy.

The worm is not creating energy, it got the energy from some where, l
likely what it eats, and then the cells set up the chemical release of energy
equal to that 2.2960eV.
13-03-2019 19:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote:
The worm is not creating energy,

Yep, that's what I said.


Longview wrote: it got the energy from some where, l
likely what it eats, and then the cells set up the chemical release of energy
equal to that 2.2960eV.

Yep, the energy of one form converted to an equivalent amount of energy in a different form. That's what I said.

I'm glad we agree.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-03-2019 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.


You DO realize, don't you, that this has nothing to do with your original argument?


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2019 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote:
You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.

Nope. It certainly represents a change in the FORM of energy to one of electromagnetic energy with a green wavelength ... but no, worms can't violate the 1st LoT by creating additional energy.


After all, it's only a worm. Maybe this is an indication that some people aren't as smart as a worm.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2019 21:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Into the Night wrote:After all, it's only a worm. Maybe this is an indication that some people aren't as smart as a worm.

Are you thinking that maybe we need a worm scale?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 00:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:After all, it's only a worm. Maybe this is an indication that some people aren't as smart as a worm.

Are you thinking that maybe we need a worm scale?


An interesting line of thought! Maybe a Worm Quotient?

Of course, some worms are smarter than others. Maybe that's not a good scale to use after all.



The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 03:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Into the Night wrote: An interesting line of thought! Maybe a Worm Quotient?

That's It! I'm going to use it. You're a genius! ...which means you have a high WQ I guess.

Into the Night wrote:
Of course, some worms are smarter than others. Maybe that's not a good scale to use after all.

Nope. I am definitely using it. The worm quotient. It just SOUNDS applicable to so many.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 14:09
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Into the Night wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.


You DO realize, don't you, that this has nothing to do with your original argument?

It is not my fault someone introduced a bioluminescent worm into a discussion
about weather a 15 um photon can raise the energy level in a volume of gas.
14-03-2019 15:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.
tinMann (itn and ibda (da ba dee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz01LcOCwy8), if the thermohaline slows because of tectonic plate rebound, what happens to all of the heat content that has been stored in deep oceans waters as conserved energy? https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/disrupting-deep-ocean-warming-reaches-abyss
Maybe the flow of water slows when the sea floor below it is slowly rising? This could upset Newton's 1st Law of Motion https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html and Conservation of Energy https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/conservation-of-energy/.
Conservation of Energy merely states that if water as a function of velocity (v) can have a higher heat content relative to p = mv then as v decreases then p (momentum) which is KE = 1/2mv^2 then https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/temperature-change-and-heat-capacity/.
what people need to be mindful of is that as v and p decrease then any release of heat content would also reduce m even if ever so slightly.
Basically it could be said that the majority of heat in global warming is the rising of tectonic plates which resist the flow of the thermohaline circulation. While the flat earthers in here would argue that if the Eurasian and North American plates are rising that a corresponding drop in other tectonic plates must be happening.
The geographic location that appears to be the geographic center of the last ice also happens to have the Earth's thinnest crust. And if this is accurate based on what science allows for then man's influence on global temperature could be less than 1%. If that's true then much energy and work is being wasted.
Why I LOVE AMERICANS

Edited on 14-03-2019 15:48
14-03-2019 16:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote: It is not my fault someone introduced a bioluminescent worm into a discussion about weather a 15 um photon can raise the energy level in a volume of gas.

Let's strive for clarity then. Can a 530nm wavelength (green) photon do something to increase the amount of energy in a closed system?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 16:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
James___ wrote:
Conservation of Energy merely states that if water as a function of velocity (v) can have a higher heat content relative to p = mv then as v decreases then p (momentum) which is KE = 1/2mv^2 then https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/temperature-change-and-heat-capacity/.
what people need to be mindful of is that as v and p decrease then any release of heat content would also reduce m even if ever so slightly.


I'm going to call BS here. Water? ... as a function of Velocity?

I was eagerly awaiting your explanation of how the Law of Conservation of Energy "merely states" this but you never got around to it.

Could I possibly get you to start over by clearly stating your point first, followed by whatever explanation you wish to use for support?

James___ wrote: Basically it could be said that the majority of heat in global warming is the rising of tectonic plates which resist the flow of the thermohaline circulation.


I thought I had heard them all.

I think this is brilliant. You are inching closer to a falsifiable definition of Global Warming. So, is Global Warming the overall total effect of thermohaline friction? Am I close? Is this why Global Warming is at the bottom of the ocean? If so, how was Global Warming previously in the lower stratosphere, you know, before relocating?

Btw, do you believe the ocean level is rising?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 19:26
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: It is not my fault someone introduced a bioluminescent worm into a discussion about weather a 15 um photon can raise the energy level in a volume of gas.

Let's strive for clarity then. Can a 530nm wavelength (green) photon do something to increase the amount of energy in a closed system?

Not a closed system, but if I add a bunch of 530nm photons to a closed
system the energy level will increase. (quite quickly)
This what a microwave oven does, it add ~10 cm photons
to a somewhat closed system, the molecules it interacts with,
show an increase in energy, I.E. the stuff gets hot.
( I say somewhat closed, because the box is only secured for the operational wavelength, not visible wavelengths.)
14-03-2019 19:30
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.
14-03-2019 19:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Longview wrote: Not a closed system, but if I add a bunch of 530nm photons to a closed
system the energy level will increase. (quite quickly)

(*sigh*) You don't have any grasp of thermodynamics. If you aren't going to take notes on what I tell you, you'll never get anywhere.

Btw ... You can't add any photons to a closed system. It's a closed system.

Btw ... The sun+earth+space in this case is a closed system. So, answer the question.

Btw ... Science has a term for a somewhat closed system: an open system.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Longview wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Longview wrote: It is not my fault someone introduced a bioluminescent worm into a discussion about weather a 15 um photon can raise the energy level in a volume of gas.

Let's strive for clarity then. Can a 530nm wavelength (green) photon do something to increase the amount of energy in a closed system?

Not a closed system, but if I add a bunch of 530nm photons to a closed
system the energy level will increase. (quite quickly)
You are trying to compare an open system with a closed one. Where are the 530nm photons coming from? What are the boundaries of your system?
Longview wrote:
This what a microwave oven does, it add ~10 cm photons
to a somewhat closed system, the molecules it interacts with,
show an increase in energy, I.E. the stuff gets hot.

Only by consuming power sent by a power company, or from a generator consuming fuel. A microwave oven can't create all those photons by itself without power.
Longview wrote:
( I say somewhat closed, because the box is only secured for the operational wavelength, not visible wavelengths.)

'Somewhat' closed??? No, dude. The only photons a microwave oven that isn't plugged into anything are those simply because the thing is above absolute zero in temperature.

You seem to be trying to compare to different closed systems as if they were the same system, when they are not, and comparing an open system with a closed one. That's a false equivalence fallacy, and it comes about because you are moving goalposts around and calling it the same playing field.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-03-2019 20:03
14-03-2019 20:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Conservation of Energy merely states that if water as a function of velocity (v) can have a higher heat content relative to p = mv then as v decreases then p (momentum) which is KE = 1/2mv^2 then https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/temperature-change-and-heat-capacity/.
what people need to be mindful of is that as v and p decrease then any release of heat content would also reduce m even if ever so slightly.


I'm going to call BS here. Water? ... as a function of Velocity?

I was eagerly awaiting your explanation of how the Law of Conservation of Energy "merely states" this but you never got around to it.

Could I possibly get you to start over by clearly stating your point first, followed by whatever explanation you wish to use for support?

James___ wrote: Basically it could be said that the majority of heat in global warming is the rising of tectonic plates which resist the flow of the thermohaline circulation.


I thought I had heard them all.

I think this is brilliant. You are inching closer to a falsifiable definition of Global Warming. So, is Global Warming the overall total effect of thermohaline friction? Am I close? Is this why Global Warming is at the bottom of the ocean? If so, how was Global Warming previously in the lower stratosphere, you know, before relocating?

Btw, do you believe the ocean level is rising?


Your own words. Read your own post to me. You said then said you didn't say it. Anything to be right?
I think this is brilliant. You are inching closer to a falsifiable definition of Global Warming
14-03-2019 20:31
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.
14-03-2019 21:16
Longview
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.
14-03-2019 22:16
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.



I think you might've just helped me to make a point that I've been trying to make/have considered, etc. In the scenario you described, why does the water freeze? Is it possibly conserving energy because it's less excited?
The experiment you mentioned might help to illustrate things. The temperature of the water is based on how excited the water is. Even with a vacuum, that would cause an opposing behavior in water. Instead of water expanding, it would do what it could to resist that, right? And the opposite of a gas is a solid.
If nothing else you helped me to feel better about everything.
14-03-2019 22:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
James___ wrote:
Your own words. Read your own post to me. You said then said you didn't say it. Anything to be right?
I think this is brilliant. You are inching closer to a falsifiable definition of Global Warming

What language is this?

You couldn't answer ANY of my questions?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 22:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
James___ wrote:
Longview wrote:
A bioluminescent worm can produce a green light. Is the interior of the worm's body 5000 deg K (8540 deg F)?

You do understand that if the bioluminescent worm in emitting
green photons, that it is not reflective of an actual temperature,
but of a change in energy levels.
If your worm is emitting green light,
something in the worm is making an energy level change
of 18518 cm-1, or 2.2960eV, however you choose to look at it.



When you read what itn and ibdamann have been posting, it's possible that ibda is being sarcastic and itn thinks he is being complimented. It could just as easily be read that way where ibda is actually laughing at itn while itn is feeling flattered by ibda.
Of course in here they might just be trying to make thinks difficult for you. They need to go after someone sometimes and sometimes it is more about that because cause and effect would need to be considered.
Since I will point out a basic over sight they might have made, I have a question for you, okay?

Since 18518 cm-1 seems to a wavelenght and 2.2960eV is another way of saying joules, if 292,000/18518cm-1 * 2.2960eV = Joules/s? That is what appears to be suggested by the values that you gave.

I am not sure where you are going but eV can be compared to joules, but it takes a lot of them, 1eV is like 1.6 X10^-19 joules.


Kind of off topic here but since atmospheric temperatures are related to the number of collisions that atmospheric gases have, can the same hold true for water? Basically slower moving water would be more excited because of friction than faster moving water.
Linear/angular momentum of a molecule would come into play here.

Water is complicated, A cup of water at say 27 C contains molecules across the entire liquid temperature span, and likely beyond.
I used to do this trick for the students at the university, where I
use a vacuum to boil a small volume of water into ice.
The vacuum pulls out all of the molecules which are above the
PVT point, at some point the the numbers all cross the triple point,
and the water goes from boiling to ice in the blink of an eye.


The boiling point of any liquid is reduced in a vacuum, not just water.

I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 22:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Into the Night wrote:
The boiling point of any liquid is reduced in a vacuum, not just water.

Doesn't it come across as a little strange to refer to it as a vacuum when it has water?


Into the Night wrote:
I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?


Does it explain why oxygen doesn't boil in a vacuum?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The boiling point of any liquid is reduced in a vacuum, not just water.

Doesn't it come across as a little strange to refer to it as a vacuum when it has water?

Heh. A bit! But that's what is done, nevertheless. A 'vacuum' is any container at less than ambient pressure. No one ever said it was a perfect vacuum. That's not even possible in a container since the container itself begins to evaporate into the vacuum.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?


Does it explain why oxygen doesn't boil in a vacuum?


If liquid oxygen is in a vacuum chamber, it will boil at a lower point than liquid oxygen at 1 atmosphere. The boiling point of oxygen (and of anything else) is always specified with a pressure for this reason (or is at least assumed to be 1 atmosphere).

Given the same volume container, and a reduction of pressure, the temperature is going to drop. Everything else is a constant.

The boiling point also drops. This is directly proportional to the moles of a liquid in a given volume (the molatity).

Water in a vacuum jar that is boiling may appear to be hot visually, but it is actually quite cold. Eventually, you reach the limit of your vacuum pump and pressure stops dropping. The remaining water will instantly freeze, if it hasn't already. Boiling is simply replaced by sublimation. Eventually, the ice will disappear into water vapor as well, invisible, filling the available space.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-03-2019 23:47
15-03-2019 00:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3537)
Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?


Does it explain why oxygen doesn't boil in a vacuum?


If liquid oxygen is in a vacuum chamber, it will boil at a lower point than liquid oxygen at 1 atmosphere. The boiling point of oxygen (and of anything else) is always specified with a pressure for this reason (or is at least assumed to be 1 atmosphere).

Given the same volume container, and a reduction of pressure, the temperature is going to drop. Everything else is a constant.

The boiling point also drops. This is directly proportional to the moles of a liquid in a given volume (the molatity).

Water in a vacuum jar that is boiling may appear to be hot visually, but it is actually quite cold. Eventually, you reach the limit of your vacuum pump and pressure stops dropping. The remaining water will instantly freeze, if it hasn't already. Boiling is simply replaced by sublimation. Eventually, the ice will disappear into water vapor as well, invisible, filling the available space.


I feel bad now. I was being silly (you can't have a vacuum if it's oxygen which can't boil if it's a gas) but you nonetheless took the time to give me a thorough explanation.

Note to self: put a little more effort into being silly.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 00:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I guess PV=nRT kind of eludes you, doesn't it?


Does it explain why oxygen doesn't boil in a vacuum?


If liquid oxygen is in a vacuum chamber, it will boil at a lower point than liquid oxygen at 1 atmosphere. The boiling point of oxygen (and of anything else) is always specified with a pressure for this reason (or is at least assumed to be 1 atmosphere).

Given the same volume container, and a reduction of pressure, the temperature is going to drop. Everything else is a constant.

The boiling point also drops. This is directly proportional to the moles of a liquid in a given volume (the molatity).

Water in a vacuum jar that is boiling may appear to be hot visually, but it is actually quite cold. Eventually, you reach the limit of your vacuum pump and pressure stops dropping. The remaining water will instantly freeze, if it hasn't already. Boiling is simply replaced by sublimation. Eventually, the ice will disappear into water vapor as well, invisible, filling the available space.


I feel bad now. I was being silly (you can't have a vacuum if it's oxygen which can't boil if it's a gas) but you nonetheless took the time to give me a thorough explanation.

Note to self: put a little more effort into being silly.


Noted.


I knew you already knew this. I took the time for the benefit of clarifying your counter argument being presented to Longview.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-03-2019 00:18
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Our Future: The kids are right – we must act on climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CNN: Wind farms of the future may be underwater202-05-2019 02:51
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Climate change is a security threat. We must act now027-03-2019 15:52
Uncertain projections help to reveal the truth about future climate change719-03-2019 16:10
Thousands of scientists are backing the kids striking for climate change417-03-2019 19:03
Articles
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact