Remember me
▼ Content

Work and Heat



Page 1 of 3123>
Work and Heat18-06-2018 14:32
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
...When energy is used for work, it is released into the atmosphere.
Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating.

[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html [/url]
...Energy usage mirrors warming; https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/


..And this is where itn (aka Branner IMO) will use buzzwords and circular arguments.
Attached image:


Edited on 18-06-2018 14:37
18-06-2018 17:20
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.
Attached image:


Edited on 18-06-2018 17:23
18-06-2018 18:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


This still leaves the little problem of the NASA temperature release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

And the actual satellite data from 1979 to present:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

As you can see, there is no comparison. Dr. Spencer who was the NASA weather satellite lead scientist shows that in fact since 1979 until present there has been no more variation than from 1930 until about 1980.

NASA using extremely questionable ground stations after they installed the satellite system (they actually offered temperature histories in locations where they don't even HAVE any temperature monitoring stations) is showing a 0.9 degree C change whereas Dr. Spencer's satellite monitoring the entire Earth show nothing on the average.

Will longer trends show an upward gradient? The models say so but not one single model has been anywhere near their predictions. So even if the trend is upwards it is going to be a great deal less than the least predicted trend.

This will get Nightmare to make his stupid claims that you can't measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. For someone that works in an airplane hanger we can all be extremely impressed with his scientific knowledge.
18-06-2018 19:46
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


This still leaves the little problem of the NASA temperature release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

And the actual satellite data from 1979 to present:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

As you can see, there is no comparison. Dr. Spencer who was the NASA weather satellite lead scientist shows that in fact since 1979 until present there has been no more variation than from 1930 until about 1980.

NASA using extremely questionable ground stations after they installed the satellite system (they actually offered temperature histories in locations where they don't even HAVE any temperature monitoring stations) is showing a 0.9 degree C change whereas Dr. Spencer's satellite monitoring the entire Earth show nothing on the average.

Will longer trends show an upward gradient? The models say so but not one single model has been anywhere near their predictions. So even if the trend is upwards it is going to be a great deal less than the least predicted trend.

This will get Nightmare to make his stupid claims that you can't measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. For someone that works in an airplane hanger we can all be extremely impressed with his scientific knowledge.



..Wake,
..You got your dates wrong. The link is to research done by a Dr. Jason Box of Ohio State University. https://phys.org/news/2007-12-current-greenland-ice-mimicks-1920s-1940s.html

..The warming actually started in 1910 and lasted until about 1945. In 1978 warming started again. I think this is pretty much accepted.
..I'll give you a reason for the first warming period; https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-contribute-to-the-sinking-of-the-titanic/

..I tend to think that as the energy used increased after 1950 that it was only a matter of time before it's effects started showing. When machines perform work using energy, that energy is released as heat as a result of entropy into our atmosphere. The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.
18-06-2018 20:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
...When energy is used for work, it is released into the atmosphere.
Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating.

[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html [/url]
...Energy usage mirrors warming; https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/


..And this is where itn (aka Branner IMO) will use buzzwords and circular arguments.


Nope. When energy is used for work, it is released into the work, such as raising a weight.

Potential energy does not have a temperature.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


Manufactured data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 20:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


This still leaves the little problem of the NASA temperature release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

And the actual satellite data from 1979 to present:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

As you can see, there is no comparison. Dr. Spencer who was the NASA weather satellite lead scientist shows that in fact since 1979 until present there has been no more variation than from 1930 until about 1980.

Comparing one set of manufactured data with another is completely pointless.
Wake wrote:
NASA using extremely questionable ground stations after they installed the satellite system (they actually offered temperature histories in locations where they don't even HAVE any temperature monitoring stations) is showing a 0.9 degree C change whereas Dr. Spencer's satellite monitoring the entire Earth show nothing on the average.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Will longer trends show an upward gradient? The models say so but not one single model has been anywhere near their predictions. So even if the trend is upwards it is going to be a great deal less than the least predicted trend.
You can't have a 'trend' without data.
Wake wrote:
This will get Nightmare to make his stupid claims that you can't measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite.

You can't. That fact that you consider this stupid only shows that you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Wake wrote:
For someone that works in an airplane hanger we can all be extremely impressed with his scientific knowledge.

Bulverism. The location of my hobby is irrelevant.

It is YOU that is denying science here, specifically the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It is YOU that is denying mathematics here, specifically statistical mathematics. You have already shown you know nothing of the prerequisites for statistical math, which is probability math and random number math.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 20:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


This still leaves the little problem of the NASA temperature release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

And the actual satellite data from 1979 to present:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

As you can see, there is no comparison. Dr. Spencer who was the NASA weather satellite lead scientist shows that in fact since 1979 until present there has been no more variation than from 1930 until about 1980.

NASA using extremely questionable ground stations after they installed the satellite system (they actually offered temperature histories in locations where they don't even HAVE any temperature monitoring stations) is showing a 0.9 degree C change whereas Dr. Spencer's satellite monitoring the entire Earth show nothing on the average.

Will longer trends show an upward gradient? The models say so but not one single model has been anywhere near their predictions. So even if the trend is upwards it is going to be a great deal less than the least predicted trend.

This will get Nightmare to make his stupid claims that you can't measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. For someone that works in an airplane hanger we can all be extremely impressed with his scientific knowledge.



..Wake,
..You got your dates wrong. The link is to research done by a Dr. Jason Box of Ohio State University. https://phys.org/news/2007-12-current-greenland-ice-mimicks-1920s-1940s.html

..The warming actually started in 1910 and lasted until about 1945. In 1978 warming started again. I think this is pretty much accepted.
..I'll give you a reason for the first warming period; https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-contribute-to-the-sinking-of-the-titanic/

..I tend to think that as the energy used increased after 1950 that it was only a matter of time before it's effects started showing. When machines perform work using energy, that energy is released as heat as a result of entropy into our atmosphere. The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.


I just showed you a link to Dr. Spencer who has a chart of the mean global temperature since 1979. Why are you talking about anything different?

Other experts say that the warming started around the end of the Civil War. And just four years ago they claimed it started in 1880. Then 1890. And now you proposing 1910.

While the actual measurements are somewhat crude they are well within 1% accuracy: The daily use of energy by man over the entire planet is equal to the amount of energy received by just 35,000 sq meters of the Earth's surface. The total energy generated by man is 0.000175 that received from the Sun. Now please explain to me exactly how it is that you think that man is somehow generating enough energy to have ANY effect? Man's usage of power is less than a fart in a tornado.
Edited on 18-06-2018 21:00
18-06-2018 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
..What NOAA says about global warming temperatures.

https://binged.it/2lkJAmN


Legal Requirement,

..Any resemblance is purely coincidental and is the creation of the author's own imagination.


This still leaves the little problem of the NASA temperature release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

And the actual satellite data from 1979 to present:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

As you can see, there is no comparison. Dr. Spencer who was the NASA weather satellite lead scientist shows that in fact since 1979 until present there has been no more variation than from 1930 until about 1980.

NASA using extremely questionable ground stations after they installed the satellite system (they actually offered temperature histories in locations where they don't even HAVE any temperature monitoring stations) is showing a 0.9 degree C change whereas Dr. Spencer's satellite monitoring the entire Earth show nothing on the average.

Will longer trends show an upward gradient? The models say so but not one single model has been anywhere near their predictions. So even if the trend is upwards it is going to be a great deal less than the least predicted trend.

This will get Nightmare to make his stupid claims that you can't measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. For someone that works in an airplane hanger we can all be extremely impressed with his scientific knowledge.



..Wake,
..You got your dates wrong. The link is to research done by a Dr. Jason Box of Ohio State University. https://phys.org/news/2007-12-current-greenland-ice-mimicks-1920s-1940s.html

..The warming actually started in 1910 and lasted until about 1945. In 1978 warming started again. I think this is pretty much accepted.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
..I'll give you a reason for the first warming period; https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-contribute-to-the-sinking-of-the-titanic/

A couple of idiots at NASA being stupid again. The Moon's perigee lines up with the sun every 8.5 years, not 1400!
James___ wrote:
..I tend to think that as the energy used increased after 1950 that it was only a matter of time before it's effects started showing.

...such as??
James___ wrote:
When machines perform work using energy, that energy is released as heat

No, that energy is release as WORK.
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Heat is not caused by entropy.
James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

No, they don't.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 14:37
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yeranswrs shine no ligth on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.
19-06-2018 15:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.
19-06-2018 17:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?

A difference between two regions of thermal energy and some form of coupling between them.

Heat always flows from hot to cold.
James___ wrote:
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

The laws of thermodynamics define what heat is and gives it its direction.
James___ wrote:
..You say you're a teacher itn yet yeranswrs shine no ligth on the subject.

I have already stated this, multiple times.
James___ wrote:
Oh I get it, into darkness.

Where you insist on going. My moniker is a warning.
James___ wrote:
You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life.
That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.

Trolls don't present arguments. I do. You just insist on discarding them. Trolls don't present any theories of science. I do. You just insist on denying them.

I think you had better go look up what an 'internet troll' is before you start throwing this buzzword insult around so carelessly.

I have already discussed what 'heat' is at length and why it is what it is. I've already discussed what science is at length and much of why it is what it is. I have already discussed the laws of thermodynamics at length and why they define heat the way they do. I've already discussed Planck's laws at length and how they relate to each other. I have already discussed statistical mathemematics at length and why simple averages don't mean anything. I have discussed the various fallacies you continue to make at length and what they mean and why they are error in logic.

You are making an argument of the stone. You are making a bulverism fallacy. You are making an insult fallacy. You insist on discarding the laws of thermodynamics and Planck's laws. So does Wake. So does monckton.

These are YOUR problems. Many of the posts you make are nothing but fallacies and contain no argument. THAT is the action of an internet troll.

You are making an inversion fallacy as well, just like Wake does. Monckton doesn't even do this. He spends most of his time posting Holy Links to youtube videos, never making any argument of his own.

All three of you are moving into the night of darkness and illiteracy. All three of you are doing it because of your religion. This is what the Church of Global Warming has brought upon you.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 17:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher.

See what happens when you don't pay attention Wake? Yes...I also teach.
Wake wrote:
I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer

I never said I was an operating engineer. I design and build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace for a living. That also happens to involve being a scientist from time to time.
Wake wrote:
and that his wife was a teacher.
Never said this. I have no idea where you got this from.
Wake wrote:
He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

Of course I do. It's my hobby.
Wake wrote:
But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German.

There is no Hebrew in Yiddish.
Wake wrote:
After the war it became progressively more Hebrew

There was never any Hebrew in Yiddish.
Wake wrote:
until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

It does and is spoken regularly by many Jewish people.
Wake wrote:
His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

You just can't seem to get it through your head that people can be many different things. You also don't seem to get it through your head that claims of credentials or job experience mean nothing on forums.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 20:18
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
James___ wrote:

...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?


Into the Night wrote:
A difference between two regions of thermal energy and some form of coupling between them.


..Your answer is wrong. Try again.
19-06-2018 20:28
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.



..I'm just bored. J'etude en l'ecole por cinq ans en Francais. May start trying to actually learn it. One thing itn misses badly on is application. That's when something has meaning because then it serves a purpose or a function.
..He didn't even know the most basic definition of heat. He missed rather badly on it. It's like he doesn't understand this about heat and work;
[url]The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work.[/url] Heat is the result of work.
. I think itn is here for one of 2 reasons. He needs attention or he's just a hater.
19-06-2018 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.



..I'm just bored. J'etude en l'ecole por cinq ans en Francais. May start trying to actually learn it.

Go for it.
James___ wrote:
One thing itn misses badly on is application. That's when something has meaning because then it serves a purpose or a function.

What 'application' are you talking about??
James___ wrote:
..He didn't even know the most basic definition of heat.

He missed rather badly on it.
[/quote]
Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another.
James___ wrote:
It's like he doesn't understand this about heat and work;

Heat and work are unrelated. Work is force causing a displacement over time. The energy causing that force need not even be thermal energy. It can be any kind of energy.
James___ wrote:
[url]The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work.[/url]

While true, work is not heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is the result of work.

Not necessarily. Work is the result of work. Heat may or may not result from that work.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 22:26
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.



..I'm just bored. J'etude en l'ecole por cinq ans en Francais. May start trying to actually learn it.

Go for it.
James___ wrote:
One thing itn misses badly on is application. That's when something has meaning because then it serves a purpose or a function.

What 'application' are you talking about??
James___ wrote:
..He didn't even know the most basic definition of heat.

He missed rather badly on it.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another.
James___ wrote:
It's like he doesn't understand this about heat and work;

Heat and work are unrelated. Work is force causing a displacement over time. The energy causing that force need not even be thermal energy. It can be any kind of energy.
James___ wrote:
[url]The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work.[/url]

While true, work is not heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is the result of work.

Not necessarily. Work is the result of work. Heat may or may not result from that work.[/quote]


...itn,
..All you have are circular arguments. You can't consider application. To you it's all a bunch of definitions with no realization. Psychology and logic do not allow for engineering. Your arguments for the most part are random statements that have little or no meaning. And explaining anything to you is a waste of time because you want attention for knowing something when you haven't spent any time learning it. So you can talk about what work is but since you haven't done any work you really don't know what it is.
.All you do is look up definitions and when you say something you are usually IMO quoting an unnamed source so you can act like it's something that you do know. You can't get past the basics. I think you're just an **** and nothing more.
Edited on 19-06-2018 22:35
19-06-2018 22:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.



..I'm just bored. J'etude en l'ecole por cinq ans en Francais. May start trying to actually learn it.

Go for it.
James___ wrote:
One thing itn misses badly on is application. That's when something has meaning because then it serves a purpose or a function.

What 'application' are you talking about??
James___ wrote:
..He didn't even know the most basic definition of heat.

He missed rather badly on it.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another.
James___ wrote:
It's like he doesn't understand this about heat and work;

Heat and work are unrelated. Work is force causing a displacement over time. The energy causing that force need not even be thermal energy. It can be any kind of energy.
James___ wrote:
[url]The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work.[/url]

While true, work is not heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is the result of work.

Not necessarily. Work is the result of work. Heat may or may not result from that work.



...itn,
..All you have are circular arguments. You can't consider application. To you it's all a bunch of definitions with no realization. Psychology and logic do not allow for engineering. Your arguments for the most part are random statements that have little or no meaning. And explaining anything to you is a waste of time because you want attention for knowing something when you haven't spent any time learning it. So you can talk about what work is but since you haven't done any work you really don't know what it is.[/quote]

I wouldn't say work and heat are unrelated. All work releases heat. Though in the cases I suppose you're speaking of the increase in heat from moving something, say like lifting a book and moving it, would be so slight as to be indetectable.

Having just returned from a 56 mile ride with almost 4,000 feet of climbing I can tell you I warmed up a great deal.
19-06-2018 23:43
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat. That is logic. He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs. He made a claim while refusing to validate it. Waste of time.
20-06-2018 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat. That is logic. He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs. He made a claim while refusing to validate it. Waste of time.


The way he posts, breaking up his statements, has the effect of people skipping over any point he thinks he's making. Then since people don't respond he gets the idea that they agree.

He has said, on at least one occasion, that heat is the movement of energy. But he doesn't understand that properly. A single molecule containing any energy above absolute zero moves about - imagine it vibrating. So when a text says that heat is motion it doesn't mean that the it is the transference of energy, but the energy causing the atom or molecule etc. to oscillate is heat.

I have been lucky to have a long and storied career in science and technology. This seems to drive nightmare crazy. I have designed and program products starting with a chemical analysis robot that identified HIV all the way to designing and programming the communications boards for the original three pod space station which was expanded later into the International Space Station. I have done virtually everything in between - the radio link that the utility companies use to read your meters, poison gas detectors for the military, cancer detection and treatment probes, etc. Funny thing is that if I had stayed working for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system as a technician I would have a great deal more comfortable retirement. If I had remained an avionics repair technician for the airlines likewise. Between engineering jobs I took a job with a sailing partner installing telephone systems in San Francisco skyscrapers. If I had stayed with that I would own his company by now and would have expanded it into a large company. I believe that he dropped dead one day. This was a relatively easy job that required a little knowledge and a great deal of attention to detail. But I preferred to work to my intellectual limits and continued to take engineering jobs. I was up in Seattle to see Microsoft but it rained almost the whole time and I would never be able to ride my bike so I'll just stay here and take another engineering job that comes up after some hiring director realizes that knowledge trumps a degree any day of the week.
20-06-2018 01:59
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
...wake,
.sadly you and itn B.S. so much it isn't funny. With my other project a guy told me he would ruin my life if I didn't give him my work. He said that is what defines Americans, why work for something when you can just exploit someone instead ?
.I think your post is saying I can't know anything in defense of your girlfriend itn. So I spend my time learning. It's funny because if CO2 isn't warming our planet then you are right and now you're unhappy because our planet would be warming because work produces heat. The only exception is in super conductivity.
..And then this would mean what can we do about climate change ? That would mean work. And that is not debate is it ? And that would be a bigger problem, wouldn't it ?
Edited on 20-06-2018 01:59
20-06-2018 04:04
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
James___ wrote:
...When energy is used for work, it is released into the atmosphere.
Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating.

[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html [/url]
...Energy usage mirrors warming; https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/


..And this is where itn (aka Branner IMO) will use buzzwords and circular arguments.



...@All,
..This graph which is in the first post is the amount of energy being consumed and it's source. This means that the energy being generated is being used at a rate now over 500 exajoules per year or Energy consumption is still increasing rapidly, with an approximate 550 exajoules (523 Quadrillion BTUs) consumed at the primary energy level in 2010.
..A BTU[url] https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=SK216DF&PC=SK216&q=btu[/url]
British thermal unit
The British thermal unit (BTU or Btu) is a traditional unit of work equal to about 1055 joules. It is the amount of work needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit

.and a quadrillion is 15 zeros following the one in 1 quadrillion so
523,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs of energy being consumed.
Attached image:


Edited on 20-06-2018 04:05
20-06-2018 14:27
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
And to have an idea of how many joules = 1 watt:
https://socratic.org/questions/calculate-the-energy-in-joules-of-a-photon-of-green-light-having-a-wavelength-of#

..a wavelength 562 nm can be calculated to be 1 joule. Then we could know how many 1 joules photons are in 1 second of energy which is 1 watt. Then we would have a rough estimate about how many watts can be realized from 550 exajoules.
..That would let us have an idea of about how many watts per second of energy is being released into the atmosphere.
..After all, we are talking about 550 examples divided by 1 year.
20-06-2018 18:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
as a result of entropy into our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not caused by entropy.

James___ wrote:
The Laws of Thermodynamics also support this opinion.

Into the Night wrote:No, they don't.



...Okay teacher, what causes heat ?
Also how the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support that opinion ?

..You say you're a teacher itn yet yer answers shine no light on the subject. Oh I get it, into darkness. You're just a troll looking for victims because you don't have a life. That's actually your problem. All it does is make you out to be a loser and nothing more.


I had him on ignore so I never saw where he claimed that he was a teacher. I did see, way back when, when he claimed to be an operating engineer and that his wife was a teacher. He claimed on several occasions to work in an aircraft hanger.

But then a Jewish teacher would know that Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German. After the war it became progressively more Hebrew until now I do not believe it exists any longer.

His progressively growing worse and worse by the posting no longer bothers me since he has made himself a simpleton. I suggest that you stop getting upset. He would argue that you never had a mother.



..I'm just bored. J'etude en l'ecole por cinq ans en Francais. May start trying to actually learn it.

Go for it.
James___ wrote:
One thing itn misses badly on is application. That's when something has meaning because then it serves a purpose or a function.

What 'application' are you talking about??
James___ wrote:
..He didn't even know the most basic definition of heat.

He missed rather badly on it.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another.
James___ wrote:
It's like he doesn't understand this about heat and work;

Heat and work are unrelated. Work is force causing a displacement over time. The energy causing that force need not even be thermal energy. It can be any kind of energy.
James___ wrote:
[url]The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work.[/url]

While true, work is not heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is the result of work.

Not necessarily. Work is the result of work. Heat may or may not result from that work.



...itn,
..All you have are circular arguments. You can't consider application. To you it's all a bunch of definitions with no realization. Psychology and logic do not allow for engineering. Your arguments for the most part are random statements that have little or no meaning. And explaining anything to you is a waste of time because you want attention for knowing something when you haven't spent any time learning it. So you can talk about what work is but since you haven't done any work you really don't know what it is.


I wouldn't say work and heat are unrelated. All work releases heat. Though in the cases I suppose you're speaking of the increase in heat from moving something, say like lifting a book and moving it, would be so slight as to be indetectable.

Having just returned from a 56 mile ride with almost 4,000 feet of climbing I can tell you I warmed up a great deal.[/quote]

Did you know you can get a car to move without using any heat at all, Wake?


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 18:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat.

Not the null hypothesis. Quite the opposite, actually. All one needs to blow up your theory is to find a single example of getting something to move without using heat directly to do it.
James___ wrote:
That is logic.

You still don't know what logic is, do you?
James___ wrote:
He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs.

Entropy is not heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does define which way heat flows though, even though entropy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
He made a claim while refusing to validate it.

It's easy to validate. Shoot an air gun.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 18:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat. That is logic. He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs. He made a claim while refusing to validate it. Waste of time.


The way he posts, breaking up his statements, has the effect of people skipping over any point he thinks he's making.

If you can't keep track of context, that's YOUR problem.
Wake wrote:
Then since people don't respond he gets the idea that they agree.

Where the f**k did you get that idea???
Wake wrote:
He has said, on at least one occasion, that heat is the movement of energy.

WRONG. It is the movement of thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
But he doesn't understand that properly.

Yes, I do. YOU can't keep track of context.
Wake wrote:
A single molecule containing any energy above absolute zero moves about - imagine it vibrating. So when a text says that heat is motion it doesn't mean that the it is the transference of energy, but the energy causing the atom or molecule etc. to oscillate is heat.

No, it isn't. That is thermal energy, not heat.
Wake wrote:
I have been lucky to have a long and storied career in science and technology.
This seems to drive nightmare crazy.
I have designed and program products starting with a chemical analysis robot that identified HIV all the way to designing and programming the communications boards for the original three pod space station which was expanded later into the International Space Station.
I have done virtually everything in between - the radio link that the utility companies use to read your meters, poison gas detectors for the military, cancer detection and treatment probes, etc. Funny thing is that if I had stayed working for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system as a technician I would have a great deal more comfortable retirement. If I had remained an avionics repair technician for the airlines likewise. Between engineering jobs I took a job with a sailing partner installing telephone systems in San Francisco skyscrapers. If I had stayed with that I would own his company by now and would have expanded it into a large company. I believe that he dropped dead one day. This was a relatively easy job that required a little knowledge and a great deal of attention to detail. But I preferred to work to my intellectual limits and continued to take engineering jobs. I was up in Seattle to see Microsoft but it rained almost the whole time and I would never be able to ride my bike so I'll just stay here and take another engineering job that comes up after some hiring director realizes that knowledge trumps a degree any day of the week.

I don't believe you. You don't know what science even is.

I can see why you don't have a job.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 18:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.sadly you and itn B.S. so much it isn't funny. With my other project a guy told me he would ruin my life if I didn't give him my work. He said that is what defines Americans, why work for something when you can just exploit someone instead ?
.I think your post is saying I can't know anything in defense of your girlfriend itn. So I spend my time learning. It's funny because if CO2 isn't warming our planet then you are right and now you're unhappy because our planet would be warming because work produces heat. The only exception is in super conductivity.
..And then this would mean what can we do about climate change ? That would mean work. And that is not debate is it ? And that would be a bigger problem, wouldn't it ?


Work is not heat. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 18:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat.

Not the null hypothesis. Quite the opposite, actually. All one needs to blow up your theory is to find a single example of getting something to move without using heat directly to do it.
James___ wrote:
That is logic.

You still don't know what logic is, do you?
James___ wrote:
He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs.

Entropy is not heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does define which way heat flows though, even though entropy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
He made a claim while refusing to validate it.

It's easy to validate. Shoot an air gun.


No you cannot cause motion or acceleration without work and that generates heat. The acceleration downhill of a body requires work from the use of gravity. That causes a potential energy which must be overcome by extracting that energy via work.

To shoot an air gun you use compressed air. The compressing of that air created work/heat. The releasing of that potential energy released heat cooling the air used.

Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Darn, there's that pesky thermodynamic term again.
20-06-2018 18:18
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat. That is logic. He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs. He made a claim while refusing to validate it. Waste of time.


The way he posts, breaking up his statements, has the effect of people skipping over any point he thinks he's making.

If you can't keep track of context, that's YOUR problem.
Wake wrote:
Then since people don't respond he gets the idea that they agree.

Where the f**k did you get that idea???
Wake wrote:
He has said, on at least one occasion, that heat is the movement of energy.

WRONG. It is the movement of thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
But he doesn't understand that properly.

Yes, I do. YOU can't keep track of context.
Wake wrote:
A single molecule containing any energy above absolute zero moves about - imagine it vibrating. So when a text says that heat is motion it doesn't mean that the it is the transference of energy, but the energy causing the atom or molecule etc. to oscillate is heat.

No, it isn't. That is thermal energy, not heat.
Wake wrote:
I have been lucky to have a long and storied career in science and technology.
This seems to drive nightmare crazy.
I have designed and program products starting with a chemical analysis robot that identified HIV all the way to designing and programming the communications boards for the original three pod space station which was expanded later into the International Space Station.
I have done virtually everything in between - the radio link that the utility companies use to read your meters, poison gas detectors for the military, cancer detection and treatment probes, etc. Funny thing is that if I had stayed working for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system as a technician I would have a great deal more comfortable retirement. If I had remained an avionics repair technician for the airlines likewise. Between engineering jobs I took a job with a sailing partner installing telephone systems in San Francisco skyscrapers. If I had stayed with that I would own his company by now and would have expanded it into a large company. I believe that he dropped dead one day. This was a relatively easy job that required a little knowledge and a great deal of attention to detail. But I preferred to work to my intellectual limits and continued to take engineering jobs. I was up in Seattle to see Microsoft but it rained almost the whole time and I would never be able to ride my bike so I'll just stay here and take another engineering job that comes up after some hiring director realizes that knowledge trumps a degree any day of the week.

I don't believe you. You don't know what science even is.

I can see why you don't have a job.


And yet another posting of yours that demonstrates exactly what I stated about your ignorance.
20-06-2018 18:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat.

Not the null hypothesis. Quite the opposite, actually. All one needs to blow up your theory is to find a single example of getting something to move without using heat directly to do it.
James___ wrote:
That is logic.

You still don't know what logic is, do you?
James___ wrote:
He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs.

Entropy is not heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does define which way heat flows though, even though entropy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
He made a claim while refusing to validate it.

It's easy to validate. Shoot an air gun.


No you cannot cause motion or acceleration without work and that generates heat. The acceleration downhill of a body requires work from the use of gravity. That causes a potential energy which must be overcome by extracting that energy via work.

Rolling a car downhill doesn't cause potential energy Wake! LOL
Wake wrote:
To shoot an air gun you use compressed air. The compressing of that air created work/heat. The releasing of that potential energy released heat cooling the air used.

Guess what Wake, the air in the gun is the same temperature as the air outside the gun before it's fired! Where's the heat, Wake?
Wake wrote:
Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Not the definition of entropy, Wake. Entropy is simply the randomness of a system. It does not have to do necessarily with thermal energy at all.
Wake wrote:
Darn, there's that pesky thermodynamic term again.

Darn, there's Wake demonstrating he doesn't know some pretty basic theories of science yet again!


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 19:12
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat.

Not the null hypothesis. Quite the opposite, actually. All one needs to blow up your theory is to find a single example of getting something to move without using heat directly to do it.
James___ wrote:
That is logic.

You still don't know what logic is, do you?
James___ wrote:
He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs.

Entropy is not heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does define which way heat flows though, even though entropy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
He made a claim while refusing to validate it.

It's easy to validate. Shoot an air gun.


No you cannot cause motion or acceleration without work and that generates heat. The acceleration downhill of a body requires work from the use of gravity. That causes a potential energy which must be overcome by extracting that energy via work.

Rolling a car downhill doesn't cause potential energy Wake! LOL
Wake wrote:
To shoot an air gun you use compressed air. The compressing of that air created work/heat. The releasing of that potential energy released heat cooling the air used.

Guess what Wake, the air in the gun is the same temperature as the air outside the gun before it's fired! Where's the heat, Wake?
Wake wrote:
Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Not the definition of entropy, Wake. Entropy is simply the randomness of a system. It does not have to do necessarily with thermal energy at all.
Wake wrote:
Darn, there's that pesky thermodynamic term again.

Darn, there's Wake demonstrating he doesn't know some pretty basic theories of science yet again!


Why do you show a complete and total ignorance of science and physics and think that you aren't? You believe that you can perform work without generating heat.
20-06-2018 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...wake,
.he didn't give one example of work being performed that doesn't generate heat. The null hypothesis is that work generates heat.

Not the null hypothesis. Quite the opposite, actually. All one needs to blow up your theory is to find a single example of getting something to move without using heat directly to do it.
James___ wrote:
That is logic.

You still don't know what logic is, do you?
James___ wrote:
He claims work is performed in which no entropy of that system occurs.

Entropy is not heat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does define which way heat flows though, even though entropy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
He made a claim while refusing to validate it.

It's easy to validate. Shoot an air gun.


No you cannot cause motion or acceleration without work and that generates heat. The acceleration downhill of a body requires work from the use of gravity. That causes a potential energy which must be overcome by extracting that energy via work.

Rolling a car downhill doesn't cause potential energy Wake! LOL
Wake wrote:
To shoot an air gun you use compressed air. The compressing of that air created work/heat. The releasing of that potential energy released heat cooling the air used.

Guess what Wake, the air in the gun is the same temperature as the air outside the gun before it's fired! Where's the heat, Wake?
Wake wrote:
Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Not the definition of entropy, Wake. Entropy is simply the randomness of a system. It does not have to do necessarily with thermal energy at all.
Wake wrote:
Darn, there's that pesky thermodynamic term again.

Darn, there's Wake demonstrating he doesn't know some pretty basic theories of science yet again!


Why do you show a complete and total ignorance of science and physics and think that you aren't? You believe that you can perform work without generating heat.


Yup. You can perform work without generating heat.

You do have to expend energy, but that doesn't have to be thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2018 21:54
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.
20-06-2018 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2018 03:00
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.
21-06-2018 08:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.

Post 321. It's still being quoted.


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2018 12:55
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.

Post 321. It's still being quoted.



..What is post 321 ? You've yet to show that when energy is consumed in the way of urbanization and industrialization that it doesn't produce heat. ie., that when energy is used to perform meaningful work that no heat is generated. You continue to show nothing that can be verified. Science requires verification.


..@All,
.Would need to go over the math about another 10 times to verify accuracy but a rough estimate is 10 w/m^2.
What does that mean ? That's up to you and as itn is so fond of saying, Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

..The surface radiation emission, 396 W·m–2, is the energy flux calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a black body at a temperature of 288 K, the observed average surface temperature of the Earth.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html

both expressions of watts per square meter are acceptable.
Edited on 21-06-2018 13:06
21-06-2018 18:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.

Post 321. It's still being quoted.



..What is post 321 ?

The post YOU wrote. Not my fault if you can't figure out to use the forum.
James___ wrote:
You've yet to show that when energy is consumed in the way of urbanization and industrialization that it doesn't produce heat.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
ie., that when energy is used to perform meaningful work that no heat is generated.

I have, but it's Irrelevant anyway. You are fixated on more heat coming from Earth.

Guess what? The more heat, the colder Earth gets. This comes down again to your basic misunderstanding of what heat is.
James___ wrote:
You continue to show nothing that can be verified. Science requires verification.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. They are their own verification.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
.Would need to go over the math about another 10 times to verify accuracy but a rough estimate is 10 w/m^2.

You can't store or trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
What does that mean ?

Your fixation on this equation? Nothing.
James___ wrote:
That's up to you and as itn is so fond of saying, Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

No, nothing.
James___ wrote:
..The surface radiation emission, 396 W·m–2, is the energy flux calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a black body at a temperature of 288 K, the observed average surface temperature of the Earth.
...deleted Holy Link...

WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-06-2018 18:53
22-06-2018 01:52
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.

Post 321. It's still being quoted.



..What is post 321 ?

The post YOU wrote. Not my fault if you can't figure out to use the forum.
James___ wrote:
You've yet to show that when energy is consumed in the way of urbanization and industrialization that it doesn't produce heat.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
ie., that when energy is used to perform meaningful work that no heat is generated.

I have, but it's Irrelevant anyway. You are fixated on more heat coming from Earth.

Guess what? The more heat, the colder Earth gets. This comes down again to your basic misunderstanding of what heat is.
James___ wrote:
You continue to show nothing that can be verified. Science requires verification.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. They are their own verification.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
.Would need to go over the math about another 10 times to verify accuracy but a rough estimate is 10 w/m^2.

You can't store or trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
What does that mean ?

Your fixation on this equation? Nothing.
James___ wrote:
That's up to you and as itn is so fond of saying, Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

No, nothing.
James___ wrote:
..The surface radiation emission, 396 W·m–2, is the energy flux calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a black body at a temperature of 288 K, the observed average surface temperature of the Earth.
...deleted Holy Link...

WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.



..What is it that you have against people ?
22-06-2018 07:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..I'm going to take the time to do the math. There is a reason for this. The earth's surface is about 510 million km^2. If we divide 550 exajoules by that we get about 1,000,000,000 joules of energy km^2. Then if we divide that by 1,000 we get 1,000,000 joules/m^2.
..How much heat is that ? I don't know but would be why doing the math would matter. We would know how many watts/m^2 is being released into our atmosphere.


You seem to think that it just stays stuck in the atmosphere.

It doesn't.



..Can you show where I said something gets stuck in the atmosphere ? I'd like to see the post.
Again, why
In My Opinion you are a hater. All you want to do is harass people and nothing more.

Post 321. It's still being quoted.



..What is post 321 ?

The post YOU wrote. Not my fault if you can't figure out to use the forum.
James___ wrote:
You've yet to show that when energy is consumed in the way of urbanization and industrialization that it doesn't produce heat.

Irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
ie., that when energy is used to perform meaningful work that no heat is generated.

I have, but it's Irrelevant anyway. You are fixated on more heat coming from Earth.

Guess what? The more heat, the colder Earth gets. This comes down again to your basic misunderstanding of what heat is.
James___ wrote:
You continue to show nothing that can be verified. Science requires verification.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. They are their own verification.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
.Would need to go over the math about another 10 times to verify accuracy but a rough estimate is 10 w/m^2.

You can't store or trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
James___ wrote:
What does that mean ?

Your fixation on this equation? Nothing.
James___ wrote:
That's up to you and as itn is so fond of saying, Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

No, nothing.
James___ wrote:
..The surface radiation emission, 396 W·m–2, is the energy flux calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a black body at a temperature of 288 K, the observed average surface temperature of the Earth.
...deleted Holy Link...

WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.



..What is it that you have against people ?


Nothing.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Work and Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is there an equation available for black body irradiated heat loss vs. font?023-06-2018 08:01
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
Heat324-05-2018 20:48
Radio Ecoshock: The Heat Goes On324-05-2018 18:10
Atmospheric Heat Entropy6726-03-2018 20:46
▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact