Atmospheric Heat Entropy

James___ wrote:
...If everyone doesn't know it by now I believe that our atmosphere stores heat.

James___ wrote:
This would be because ideal gasses are effected by the laws of conservation of momentum.
..What has been over looked is if less oxygen in the atmosphere increases the amount of kinetic energy necessary to allow for heat to be released back out into space.

James___ wrote:
Everyone knows that on a clear night when it is 15°F or -10° C. that with snow covering the ground it can become much colder.

James___ wrote:
..This is because the white wavelength hv 390 to 700, white is not considered a color as it is considered to be composed of all colors.
Basically, something is "white" if it stimulates these cells equally.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...
..And yet white light escapes our atmosphere the easiest.

James___ wrote:
And with O2 (oxygen), it's % as a gas in our atmosphere continues to decrease.

James___ wrote:
As far as I know, no scientist has considered our atmosphere as a gaseous prism.

James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.
...deleted Holy Link...

James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.

Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.

GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN,
I get it. If I put on a coat or a blanket I am reducing heat and therefore staying warmer.
You have said a couple times lately you cannot slow Heat. Please explain how slowing heat and reducing heat are two different things.
Thanks.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I also get that you can't trap heat. Makes sense. I do remember you saying you can only slow the outward progression. That makes sense too, but seems a bit at odds with your current statements.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.

Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.

How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I also get that you can't trap heat. Makes sense. I do remember you saying you can only slow the outward progression. That makes sense too, but seems a bit at odds with your current statements.

It doesn't slow heat. That is not possible. What you are slowing is the loss of thermal energy by reducing heat.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

..ITN,
.You should call yourself "The Thread Killer". For all you post in here you seem to have no point of view and have falsified science more than once.

James___ wrote:
And now what ? Are you trying to legitimize yourself so you can go back to fallacy inversion or the appeal to the stone fallacy ? I think that's about it.

James___ wrote:
.Anymore I think this is your forum.

James___ wrote:
The simple reason is because litesong accepts that climate change is happening.

James___ wrote:
And yet you haven't learned anything about our environment or why there is a debate over climate change.

James___ wrote:
.Instead you stick with arguments that are based on semantics and are quite circular in nature. An example is if you a person does not like oranges then they do not like fruit because an orange is a fruit.

James___ wrote:
.Also scientists do accept that an electron can be a wave. That is something that you reject.

James___ wrote:
I think this is because of an electron's dual nature.

James___ wrote:
You can't consider that but can only consider one thing and that is your own opinion.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

Specific heat capacity is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a substance per unit of mass. The specific heat capacity of a material is a physical property. It is also an example of an extensive property since its value is proportional to the size of the system being examined.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

James___ wrote:
Thread Killer,
You're psychology got old a long time ago. That's no way to consider science.
What litesong posted has more to do with climate debate than what you posted and now you're not letting litesong post. You like Wake that much ? ROFLMAO !!!

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Thread Killer,
You're psychology got old a long time ago. That's no way to consider science.
What litesong posted has more to do with climate debate than what you posted and now you're not letting litesong post. You like Wake that much ? ROFLMAO !!!

I didn't ban litebeer. Branner did.

James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor

James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

A capacitor doesn't store heat. It stores an electrostatic charge as potential energy.

James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor

Nope. A car battery is a battery. It is not a capacitor. Batteries do store an electrostatic charge like a capacitor does, but a battery stores it in chemical form rather than using the electrostatic field like a capacitor does.

James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

True, by conversion to potential energy. But batteries don't store heat either.

James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

Current through a conductor produces heat. All conductors are also resistors. The battery is not putting heat through the screwdriver. It is putting a high current through the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

Typically the battery won't explode. It can get hot though, because putting converting chemical energy to current is an exothermic reaction, but usually the battery survives. The idiot that put the screwdriver across its terminals usually gets damaged though. What usually happens is a lot of sparks (the connection isn't perfect) and the electrolyte can boil (in a vented battery, not usually a problem).

One source of an 'explosion' (it's not really an explosion) when doing this to a battery is the hydrogen gas given off by the electrolyte in large quantities in the presence of sparks (from the screwdriver). The battery itself doesn't explode, but the hydrogen gas conflagrates, further damaging the idiot with the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

A battery does not store heat.

James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

A charge is not a current of electricity. It is voltage. A moving charge is current.
A current through a conductor meets resistance (all conductors are also resistors).
voltage (pressure) * current (flow) = power (work). That power can be heat.

I suggest you at least study up on basic electricity, dude.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...

Go study electricity. Go study what voltage, current, and power are. Go learn about capacitors, inductors, and resistors.

Having done that, you might find battery technology rather an interesting subject.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

A capacitor doesn't store heat. It stores an electrostatic charge as potential energy.

James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor

Nope. A car battery is a battery. It is not a capacitor. Batteries do store an electrostatic charge like a capacitor does, but a battery stores it in chemical form rather than using the electrostatic field like a capacitor does.

James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

True, by conversion to potential energy. But batteries don't store heat either.

James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

Current through a conductor produces heat. All conductors are also resistors. The battery is not putting heat through the screwdriver. It is putting a high current through the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

Typically the battery won't explode. It can get hot though, because putting converting chemical energy to current is an exothermic reaction, but usually the battery survives. The idiot that put the screwdriver across its terminals usually gets damaged though. What usually happens is a lot of sparks (the connection isn't perfect) and the electrolyte can boil (in a vented battery, not usually a problem).

One source of an 'explosion' (it's not really an explosion) when doing this to a battery is the hydrogen gas given off by the electrolyte in large quantities in the presence of sparks (from the screwdriver). The battery itself doesn't explode, but the hydrogen gas conflagrates, further damaging the idiot with the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

A battery does not store heat.

James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

A charge is not a current of electricity. It is voltage. A moving charge is current.
A current through a conductor meets resistance (all conductors are also resistors).
voltage (pressure) * current (flow) = power (work). That power can be heat.

I suggest you at least study up on basic electricity, dude.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...

Go study electricity. Go study what voltage, current, and power are. Go learn about capacitors, inductors, and resistors.

Having done that, you might find battery technology rather an interesting subject.

James___ wrote:
Isn't it funny how ITN can go on and on and on about definitions ?

James___ wrote:
Anyone can look up definitions.

James___ wrote:
All textbooks have them.

James___ wrote:
Even wikipedia, etc. Doesn't show anything to post a definition.

James___ wrote:
ITN, that's what still learning got on me about. I consider more than what I can read in a book.

James___ wrote:
Have studied physics.

James___ wrote:
it shows that you haven't.

James___ wrote:
Not my problem.

James___ wrote:
Yet you're smart because you stick with definitions.

James___ wrote:
Definitions you probably looked up online.

James___ wrote:
I've kind of noticed that about you ITN, you can't discuss how something works but only how it's defined.

James___ wrote:
In one physics forum a student would get mad at me for saying hz instead of nm.

James___ wrote:
Yet no 2 frequencies share the same wavelength.

James___ wrote:
He could only consider one aspect of wave energy at a time.

James___ wrote:
I dunno ITN, am kind of tired of debating nothing.

James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor. A car battery is a capacitor as it can absorb and release energy. And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative. The battery will get quite hot before exploding. Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is. A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity. And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ? I doubt it. everything has to fit into his logic or way of thinking and he does need to be right. Kind of why he can't learn. It's not about being right but is about understanding something. He doesn't seem to understand anything. Kind of like Wake. And this is why trying to discuss anything in here is pointless unless it's Jewish history and culture.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor. A car battery is a capacitor as it can absorb and release energy. And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative. The battery will get quite hot before exploding. Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is. A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity. And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ? I doubt it. everything has to fit into his logic or way of thinking and he does need to be right. Kind of why he can't learn. It's not about being right but is about understanding something. He doesn't seem to understand anything. Kind of like Wake. And this is why trying to discuss anything in here is pointless unless it's Jewish history and culture.

Heat can't be stored in a capacitor. A battery doesn't store heat but converts chemical reactions to electricity. (or visa versa) Since these chemical reactions are not perfectly steady they are a source of "battery noise". For very low voltage high power applications it requires delicate design to keep this noise from causing problems.

A light bulb can produce light in a number of ways: It can produce a high temperature due to electron flow in a wire with a high resistance. Being in a vacuum prevents the wire from oxidizing and "burning up". This appears to be the light bulb type you were speaking of. These bulbs are of poor efficiency and break down too rapidly since the heating of the filament causes an expansion and bending mechanical action which eventually fatigues the area held steady by the support beams - and it breaks. This is called "burning out" but is not.

Wake wrote:
A screwdriver placed across contacts of a car battery effectively demonstrates the same thing - a high enough current source can overheat a conductor. If the screwdriver is thin enough it will grow too hot to hold without the battery exploding from too rapid a chemical reaction. This rapid chemical reaction can break down the chemical components causing combustible materials to form and the heat detonate them. Or they can cause a sealed case to have heat expansion building up mechanical pressure until the casing fails and depending on the forces anything from simply failing to a violent explosion.

Wake wrote:
You CAN store electric energy in a capacitor but they are a very inefficient storage device (they leak too rapidly across the dielectric material). Instead are used more as current fluctuation mediators.

Wake wrote:
These are called "filters" though capacitor size and the alternating current frequency can cause these filters to look nothing like the classical filter.

Wake wrote:
You can store heat in an insulated container

Wake wrote:
- you might be familiar with a "water heater". Because a water heater has metal input and output connections it is not a perfect heat storage device.

Wake wrote:
Thermos bottles are better but they too are imperfect.

Wake wrote:
There are no perfect insulators and hence heat storage is always imperfect.

Wake wrote:
Don't argue with nightmare. When you make silly claims he believes he has won some prize by pointing them out.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

Into the Night wrote:

Really?? Then why the long post???

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Really?? Then why the long post???

ITN,
..I think when you claimed to have a Jewish wife and your friend Wake claimed to be Jewish,

James___ wrote:
kind of shows how much this forum is about discussing climate change or even science.

James___ wrote:
..And on a bit more personal level ITN, banning litesong because ? Is she your wife or other family member ? I think she is yet you trash her to impress Wake.

James___ wrote:
So typically American.

James___ wrote:
..I do have other ways in which I can make better use of my time.

James___ wrote:
..@All,
.To understand some of the basic principles involved with gases, heat, etc. how a light bulb works shows how electrons can be converted into both photons and heat.

James___ wrote:
But can't discuss here.

James___ wrote:
Darwin shows his ugly head in the forms of ITN and Wake.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.

So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.

So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?

No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

Tim the plumber wrote:

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

You're not really trying to discuss something with the guy that said a college textbook on statistical math is wrong because he disagrees with it are you?

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

You're not really trying to discuss something with the guy that said a college textbook on statistical math is wrong because he disagrees with it are you?

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.

So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?

No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

You are starting to get it. This is the most correct thing you've said so far.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

What if it never goes off?

Tim the plumber wrote:

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Only if it goes off.

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

That is just one number. What about the potential energy due to the height of the explosive above the ground if you drop it?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.

You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.

You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?

The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.

So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?

No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

You are starting to get it. This is the most correct thing you've said so far.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

What if it never goes off?

Tim the plumber wrote:

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Only if it goes off.

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

That is just one number. What about the potential energy due to the height of the explosive above the ground if you drop it?

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

See above.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.

Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.

How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.

Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.

How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.

You'll have to explain this James, the absorption and emission lines of a gas are the same.

Wake wrote:
Now you CAN conduct heat from one gas to another and then if that gas gains enough energy it can conduct at its emission frequency.

Wake wrote:
But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.

ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.

James___ wrote:
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong.

James___ wrote:
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say.
I have my own thoughts.

James___ wrote:
A book can only take a person so far.

James___ wrote:
He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.

ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong. Well over 99.9% of the energy in the earth's atmosphere comes from the Sun. This is what the earth radiates. But all you have are definitions and no understanding.
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say. I have my own thoughts. A book can only take a person so far. He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.