Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,

Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade.

Who is they?

Maybe 0.2.

Which is it?

This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

Who made those? I've seen hundreds and they're all different.

The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

Where? Link?

The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

I've seen some good US data that says quite differently, others data is flat, and then other data shows a rise, depending on location.

Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

How do we influence the gulf stream? Wasn't it you showing ocean floor volcanoes? I take some interest in that.

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote:
1) Lower atmosphere stays hotter due to greenhouse effect.
2) Lower atmosphere does not stay hotter.

Which is it, dude?


Oh...and while we're at it: Feel free to clear any of your OTHER paradoxes you have made so far.

1) Surface does not emit.
2) Surface does emit.

1) Thermal resistance is storage (inertia is energy).
2) Thermal resistance is why we can change temperature.

1) Lower air does not heat upper air or space.
2) Lower air DOES heat upper air and space.

1) Agreed with O2 and N2 absorb and emit infrared light.
2) We are not talking about O2 and N2, just substances that absorb and
emit infrared light.

1) Climate change has occurred in the last 60 years.
2) Records are not long enough to observe climate change since the
industrial revolution.

1) The only place to observe the Earth is from space.
2) The S-B law for Earth does not have to be observed from space.

1) Water vapor warms the Earth.
2) Water vapor cools the Earth by blocking the Sun.

1) only urban temperatures are used.
2) There are no cities in Alaska to provide heat islands.

1) No one told me what to believe in.
2) My religion originated with someone initially telling me.

1) There is no way to measure absolute temperature.
2) We can measure absolute temperature with thermometers around the
world.

1) I don't force my views on others.
2) People like you should all eat a plate of shit and die.

1) Give me a quote of <whatever>
2) You simply copy and paste.

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get.
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get.

1) same radiation goes into space
2) less radiation goes into space

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

OUCH!!!

You do that all off of memory? Or do you take notes? Impressive case either way.

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,
Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade. Maybe 0.2. This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

James_ wrote:
The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

James_ wrote:
The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

James_ wrote:
Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

Yes, the lower atmosphere is on average getting warmer.
You have yet to show why the 2nd Lot and the S-B Law are violated by that.
Your constantly repeated outbursts regarding such do not constitute any kind of validation.
1) You can't warm the earth with a cooler gas - 2nd Lot
But you can slow down the transfer of thermal energy from the earth by raising the temperature of the air, per the 2nd Lot. That causes more thermal energy to warm deeper dirt, raising the overall temperature of the planet.
2) Something about violating the S-B Law.
You have never really explained why the S-B Law is violated. You just lump it in with the 2nd Lot, as if by doing so you are attempting to overwhelm people with facts, which are irrelevant. The S-B Law merely expresses how to determine the amount of electromagnetic energy emitted from an object at a certain temperature. That has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature of the earth, whether it is rising or falling, or if it can rise or fall. That is unless you have some kind of data from when electromagnetic radiation was measured, and it is not what it should be. Of course, you don't, because then you would know the temperature of the earth, and you are too thick skulled to know the temperature of the earth.

Nope, I'm not in a paradox. I'm just working through the process of exposing yet another fly by night Climate Change Denier for what he is worth.

What I can determine about you is that you are very educated. You are as much a conservative Republican as you are educated though, which puts a blinder on your eyes to reality. So you can't be open to the possibility that the human race is in trouble due to Global Warming. That goes against the grain of your religion [the Republican Party's objectives], so instead of using your talents to solve the problem, you are using your talents to deny the problem. It's sad that you are so emotional.

The lower atmosphere is not getting warmer - in fact for the last 20 years it has been getting colder on the average.

Wake wrote:
The world is being systematically lied to and data that we know to be faulty is being used as if it were true

Wake wrote:
while satellite data is ignored.

Wake wrote:
We are being told that sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace when in fact nothing has changed except their new method of measuring it which is completely uncalled for.

Wake wrote:
You can believe whatever you like but that doesn't make it so.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,

Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade.

Who is they?

Maybe 0.2.

Which is it?

This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

Who made those? I've seen hundreds and they're all different.

The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

Where? Link?

The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

I've seen some good US data that says quite differently, others data is flat, and then other data shows a rise, depending on location.

Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

How do we influence the gulf stream? Wasn't it you showing ocean floor volcanoes? I take some interest in that.

Many times I have provided links showing that there has been NO measurable warming.

Wake wrote:
Somehow greenman and james ignore those for their own reasons.

Wake wrote:

...deleted Holy Links...

During the time that Dr. Spencer shows data NASA said that the MGT rose by 0.6 degrees C. The average rise in the Spencer data is ZERO.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,

Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade.

Who is they?

Maybe 0.2.

Which is it?

This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

Who made those? I've seen hundreds and they're all different.

The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

Where? Link?

The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

I've seen some good US data that says quite differently, others data is flat, and then other data shows a rise, depending on location.

Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

How do we influence the gulf stream? Wasn't it you showing ocean floor volcanoes? I take some interest in that.

With the warming per decade, there is >> Since 1970, global surface temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.17°C (around 0.3° Fahrenheit) per decade <<
...deleted Holy Link...
This graph is typical, notice from 1910 - 1945 and then 1978 to present, both time frames have a rise of about 0.5° C. ...deleted redundancy...

GreenMan wrote: James, I think you are right about this. And you point out something that I have been trying to get at. I recall Parrot Killer [not too good at it though, because Wake is still alive and doing well] saying something about the emissivity changing, but I wasn't quite sure what he was bitching about, because it wasn't me saying it. He was just twisting something around that I was saying, to make it look like that. But anyway, I don't think the emissivity has to change at all, to accommodate the Global Warming Theory. It stays the same because it is just a number that represents the proportionality between radiation and temperature. It does vary from object to object, due to the amount of radiant energy the object is transforming into thermal energy.

James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler,
With the Gulf Stream, any hot water from rivers. Poewr plants can raise river temperatures by up to 6° F. In Illinois their river can go over 100° F. during the summer if it's hot enough outside.

James_ wrote:
Slow moving water is also warmer.

James_ wrote:
And it's possible that the glaciers on Iceland and Greenland that melt because of warmer air flowing north can allow for the sea floor to rise as well as allow for more hydrothermal vents.

James_ wrote:
And warm water rising from the ocean floor might slow the Gulf Stream

James_ wrote:
which would cause it to retain more heat.

James_ wrote:
And there are plenty of under water volcanoes as well. https://www.iceagenow.info/underwater-volcanoes-melting-arctic-ice-says-geologist/

James_ wrote:
I think you'll like this link to NOAA and the IPCC which (about half way down the page) states that;

James_ wrote:
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing

James_ wrote:
and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2).

James_ wrote:
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.

James_ wrote:
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
...deleted Holy Link...

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: James, I think you are right about this. And you point out something that I have been trying to get at. I recall Parrot Killer [not too good at it though, because Wake is still alive and doing well] saying something about the emissivity changing, but I wasn't quite sure what he was bitching about, because it wasn't me saying it. He was just twisting something around that I was saying, to make it look like that. But anyway, I don't think the emissivity has to change at all, to accommodate the Global Warming Theory. It stays the same because it is just a number that represents the proportionality between radiation and temperature. It does vary from object to object, due to the amount of radiant energy the object is transforming into thermal energy.

Why are you paying any attention to nightmare to begin with? That's simply a losing proposition since it appears that he is a lunatic. You don't let lunatics drag you down.

You are correct that emissivity doesn't have to change. All it takes is a tiny change in the sun's emissions which occurs all the time.

There is no "proportionality between radiation and temperature". Power in equals power out. That's 1:1 so you don't call it a proportion.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel.

It applies to all substances. Not just steel.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel.

It applies to all substances. Not just steel.

OK so I'm actually asking Into the Night a question. Fair enough if you don't want to answer since I've been ignoring you so far. But you are the star of this topic.

So here it is:
Does Stefan-Boltzmann apply to solid, liquid and gas?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel.

It applies to all substances. Not just steel.

OK so I'm actually asking Into the Night a question. Fair enough if you don't want to answer since I've been ignoring you so far. But you are the star of this topic.

So here it is:
Does Stefan-Boltzmann apply to solid, liquid and gas?

Into the Night wrote: All real bodies are 'gray' bodies, some value between 0 (perfectly reflective) and 100% (perfectly black).

Into the Night wrote:Blackbody radiance is not the only way to produce light. It is, however, the only way to produce light that is related to the temperature of an object.

Into the Night wrote: It is the way Earth cools by radiating into space.

Into the Night wrote: Conductive heating and convective heating are still important in terms of surface temperature, even though they can't heat space (yes, the space around Earth has mass in it. It's not empty).

Into the Night wrote: Another way to heat the atmosphere from the surface is by radiance (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzann law). This is how CO2 in the air can also be heated. Again, the surface is cooled, since it takes energy to radiate in the first place.

Into the Night wrote: Convection is also important. This is simply heating by moving the mass itself. All liquids (gases are considered liquids for this purpose), have convective heating.

Into the Night wrote: Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules.

Into the Night wrote:
All mass. It does not matter what state it's in.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...

Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: All real bodies are 'gray' bodies, some value between 0 (perfectly reflective) and 100% (perfectly black).

Just a minor wording quibble. In science, all real bodies are black bodies. There is no such thing as a "grey" body. All bodies are black bodies and the completely theoretical body of emissivity = 1.0 is an "ideal" black body.

IBdaMann wrote:
Obviously you get to express your ideas in any way you see fit, and you would not be the first to confuse the term "black body" (any body with thermal activity) to mean "ideal black body" and to thus conclude that emissivity must therefore refer to the color of the body, i.e. emissivity of 1.0 = "black" and emissivity of 0.0 = "white" therefore everything in between must be "gray" ...

IBdaMann wrote:
... but it's not. All bodies with thermal activity are "black" bodies and the theoretical body of emissivity = 0 is "white" because it has no thermal activity.

... but again, it's just a wording quibble. The content of what you are expressing is fine.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Blackbody radiance is not the only way to produce light. It is, however, the only way to produce light that is related to the temperature of an object.

Yes. Thermal radiation is the only light that is based on temperature, re: Planck's Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

Into the Night wrote: It is the way Earth cools by radiating into space.

Yup. ... and the reason it can heat up from the sun, re: Kirchoff's law. You're hitting all the big ones.

Into the Night wrote: Conductive heating and convective heating are still important in terms of surface temperature, even though they can't heat space (yes, the space around Earth has mass in it. It's not empty).

If you are discussing the surface, i.e. the ground, the bottom of the atmosphere, etc... then it's really only conduction at play. The convection only affects the rest of the atmosphere above the surface. Sure, the convection causes cooler air to descend to the surface ... whereby conduction heats it at the surface.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Another way to heat the atmosphere from the surface is by radiance (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzann law). This is how CO2 in the air can also be heated. Again, the surface is cooled, since it takes energy to radiate in the first place.

... and you can mention at this point that once you know that the surface is heating the atmosphere, you can then dismiss all arguments of IR absorption by CO2 and "re-radiation downward to warm the surface" as egregiously violating the esteemed 2nd law of thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Convection is also important. This is simply heating by moving the mass itself. All liquids (gases are considered liquids for this purpose), have convective heating.

I think you mean "fluids." All fluids experience convection because they are not bodies. Of course air is a fluid.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules.

Nope. Temperature is the average amount of thermal energy per mass.

Molecular kinetics is the result of temperature, it is not temperature itself. Yes, molecular motion is all we have to measure temperature, but that is because we do not have the ability to open up molecules and see how much thermal energy they each have.

I'm not saying that we can't use the thermometers we've always used to measure temperature ... but it actually is an example of a proxy measurement. It happens to be a very good one ... but the point is that the motion is not the temperature itself.

Imagine this: I have a stationary rock that is 28 degrees Celsius, through and through. I then sling-shot it toward a wall, increasing the average speed of all the molecules by 200 km/hour. How much has the rock's temperature increased? Answer: none. It has not acquired any additional thermal energy. Kinetic energy, yes ... thermal energy, no.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
All mass. It does not matter what state it's in.

And earlier:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You are including the atmosphere in with the word earth. Earth is this thing we walk on. Atmosphere is that stuff we fly through, when we are in a hurry and someone else is paying for our travel.
...deleted redundant portion...

Yes. I am including the atmosphere as part of Earth. It is part of the body of Earth. You cannot separate it from the surface of the Earth.

Greenman's confusion seems to dominate the discussions here. There is a preoccupation with the very surface of the dirt/rock/water of earth where our shoes touch and the gases begin.

tmiddles wrote:
So we can agree that we are talking about an Earth that includes everything from the upper atmosphere down to the molten core.

tmiddles wrote:
The area most of life is concerned with is the lower atmosphere just above the surface. Temperature is usually measured at 2M/6Ft above the ground as it's given for human applications.

tmiddles wrote:
We are not concerned ONLY with the temperature of the surface, ground level of Earth, and it's just a small part of the system.

tmiddles wrote:
Repeatedly, I know to your frustration, it's been claimed that the air heats the surface (something that could only happen briefly at sunset) which is really irrelevant to what we're discussing.

tmiddles wrote:
Sound about right?

Into the Night wrote:
It is also important to remember that flywheels do not store energy. It simply takes more energy to get them going, and they have more energy to give back as they slow down.

Into the Night wrote:The ideal 'white' body does not have to be absolute zero.

Into the Night wrote:
No. Descending air is heated as it descends because of the increasing pressure.

Into the Night wrote:Quite right. Thank you for the correction. I was tending to use the 'bouncing molecule' model there.

IBdaMann wrote: As the temperature increases, the probability values themselves expand outward, explaining how matter expands with increased temperature,

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is also important to remember that flywheels do not store energy. It simply takes more energy to get them going, and they have more energy to give back as they slow down.

OK all of that made complete sense and I'm following you.

There are several interesting things there but plenty of time to get to them later.

Let me present this to see if it jives with your understanding.

For the sake of a clarity let's divide the matter which is EARTH into five layers:
A- Upper atmosphere from 10 feet up to the void of space
B- Lower atmosphere from the ground up to 10 feet
C- The ground down one inch
D- The ground from one inch down to one foot
E- Below one foot.

All five layers are one Earth, they cannot be considered independently, but I can present my understanding by talking about them as interacting parts of a whole.

tmiddles wrote:
Also for the sake of a clear description let's consider only radiation/light from the sun, from infra-red to ultra-violet, impacting the ground as our only energy source. Let's ignore layer 5 and it's geothermal contribution as nothing more than a stabilizer for the system.

tmiddles wrote:
Also let's only consider conduction/convection between the layers of EARTH and radiation off the EARTH entirely. Let's ignore radiation between the layers.

tmiddles wrote:
So here is the journey of energy:
1. Energy which already existed is release from the sun in a fusion reaction sending radiation from infra-red to ultra violet to earth (entropy increases)

tmiddles wrote:
2. The radiation strikes the surface, layer C, converting to thermal energy in vibrating the molecules of dirt. As the surface has more thermal energy than the layer of air above or the layer of dirt below, "heat" the movement of thermal energy from hotter to colder, results in conduction of thermal energy and it's movement from the surface down into the dirt as well as up into the air.

tmiddles wrote:
3a. Layer D, just below the surface has a rising temperature as thermal energy moves down into it from the always hotter surface layer C.

tmiddles wrote:
3b. Layer B, the air just above the surface, has thermal energy move up into it as gas molecules make contact with the hotter surface.

tmiddles wrote:
4. Convection of warm air allows the warm air from layer B near the ground to move relatively quickly up into the upper atmosphere layer A. While the temperature of an individual molecule of gas increase (moves more) what we call the temperature (the amount of thermal energy within a unit of space?) drops as the pressure/density of gas drops.

tmiddles wrote:
5. All of the matter, but primarily the surface layer C, and the upper atmosphere layer A, release the the thermal energy back out into space in the form of infra-red radiation. (entropy increasing the whole time)

tmiddles wrote:
At night the input of energy is gone, and the surface of the earth cools. Thermal energy from layer D, which originally moved downward from the surface, now moves up into the surface layer C because the lower atmosphere is now so much colder. However the surface layer C still has more thermal energy and is warmer.

tmiddles wrote:
All of the thermal energy that enters the system Earth in 24 hours has a corresponding and equal amount of energy leaving Earth as infra-red radiation (if you looked at the Earths dark side with infra red goggles you'd see it glowing).

tmiddles wrote:
There is thermal energy that's present, we don't go down to 0 at night, because of the flywheel way in which the matter has a "lag time" in the thermal energy passing through it.

tmiddles wrote:
For a very stripped down model sound correct?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The ideal 'white' body does not have to be absolute zero.

Yes it absolutely must be absolute zero. It cannot absorb any thermal radiation and therefore has zero thermal energy. Per Kirchoff's law, even if it were to somehow have thermal energy it would not be able to emit any of it. A white body is incapable of thermal activity. It has no thermal energy. It is absolute zero.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No. Descending air is heated as it descends because of the increasing pressure.

I'm sorry but the surface is solid and does not experience convection. All convection is in the rising air. Rising air heats other air via convection and the surface can only heat air via conduction.

I suppose you could say that the surface increases atmospheric temperature indirectly via convection, with the rising air being the direct cause of convective heating. Sure, I'll buy that.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:Quite right. Thank you for the correction. I was tending to use the 'bouncing molecule' model there.

The interesting thing about a molecule having more thermal energy from having absorbed some photons is what that actually means. We had a discussion previously about how people tend to envision atoms as little balls flying around, bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, and when the temperature increases, they bounce around "faster."

The reality is that each atom/molecule is a fluctuating probability field, with higher probabilities clustered more densely around a particular point with probabilities decreasing as you extend outward from that point. As the temperature increases, the probability values themselves expand outward, explaining how matter expands with increased temperature, highlighting how different materials expand differently because their probability spaces change differently with increases in temperature.

When the volume of a gas is reduced, the probabilities become more evenly distributed throughout the probability space, representing an increase in pressure because of increased probability overlap with other atoms/molecules.

So when two atoms collide, what you have is not two balls bouncing off each other but rather two probability fields affecting each other in ways that are not necessarily straightforward. If you think about it for a while you will yearn for the simple "bouncing ball" model ...

tmiddles wrote:So my understanding is that the individual molecules of gas have more thermal energy higher in the atmosphere than lower in it.

tmiddles wrote: [incorrect part deleted]... are less dense, so there is less thermal energy per volume of space higher up even though the gas is hotter?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: As the temperature increases, the probability values themselves expand outward, explaining how matter expands with increased temperature,

So my understanding is that the individual molecules of gas have more thermal energy higher in the atmosphere than lower in it. Because of this they expand, take up more space and are less dense, so there is less thermal energy per volume of space higher up even though the gas is hotter?

Into the Night wrote:
Actually primarily surface layer C. The upper atmosphere is quite thin....
You will see the same thing in the daytime as well. Earth is always radiating. ...
Not a lag time. Flywheels don't store energy. They just have more energy to give up. Same with the surface for this discussion....You are making great progress to understanding this.

IBdaMann wrote:there is negligible thermal energy yet the individual molecules are of very high temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
No. They do not gain thermal energy by expanding. They are simply expanding because of the thermal energy.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Actually primarily surface layer C. The upper atmosphere is quite thin....
You will see the same thing in the daytime as well. Earth is always radiating. ...
Not a lag time. Flywheels don't store energy. They just have more energy to give up. Same with the surface for this discussion....You are making great progress to understanding this.

So yes it makes sense that the surface would radiate more as it has the most thermal energy in it and it has more matter. Though if the entire atmosphere was condensed into a liquid it would be 10 meters deep so it could be very comparable in radiating as there is a lot of it all with a clear shot to send radiation into space. The radiation passes right through almost all of the air so the air doesn't get in it's own way where the dirt does. I guess it's a question of how much conduction with air, a poor heat conductor, can occur at the surface.

Now how can the "Flywheel", hang time, storage, be properly described. Would it be fair to say that in the system of the earth, if you take a first in last out perspective on thermal energy, that the flywheel effect of the ocean and the system as a whole is basically the thermal energy currently within the system, the thermal energy "in residence" which though it's on it's way out hasn't left yet. In my example above it started at the surface and moved through both dirt and gas before finally radiating back out into space. A stasis/equilibrium exists so this amount just fluctuates within a fairly arrow range. The same stabilization a flywheel provides in a mechanism.

I understand all of this much more after being on the forum a bit and having to look everything up. We are finding common points of understand to make a discussion possible which is great.

Into the Night wrote:
Anything with thermal energy has a similar kind of 'inertia'

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:there is negligible thermal energy yet the individual molecules are of very high temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
No. They do not gain thermal energy by expanding. They are simply expanding because of the thermal energy.

Got it. Basically I figured if they did "cool" they would sink back down into the atmosphere to be replaced at the top by "hotter" gases.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm just seeing there is a bit of disconnect between the everyday notion of "temperature", it's hot or cold to my hand, and the thermal energy in a molecule. A lot of thermal energy could be moving through some very "hot" molecule at the top of the atmosphere but a thermometer would tell you it's freezing.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Anything with thermal energy has a similar kind of 'inertia'

Since I know you object to calling the energy that has "built up" in this way "stored" what would you say? What's a good way of saying that the thermal energy is present in some quantity?

tmiddles wrote:
The temperature at night or in the shade would be from this quantity of accumulated thermal energy.

tmiddles wrote:
If we are talking about temperature it seems it comes down to the input of energy from the sun (or the degree to which the suns energy has the ability to be transmitted to a particular place at a particular time) and this latent/accumulated thermal energy moving though the system.

Into the Night wrote:
Thermometers don't have a body temperature to maintain, so it will show the actual temperature there, not what it feels like to you.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature shows how much thermal energy you have.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Thermometers don't have a body temperature to maintain, so it will show the actual temperature there, not what it feels like to you.

You're talking about wind chill right?


So I just looked I had no clue. I didn't know it got so hot up really high. I just knew about the cold part (someone freezing hiding in jet plane landing gear)

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature shows how much thermal energy you have.

A piece o tin foil and a 100lb slab of steel can both be 200C but the slab of steel has more thermal energy.

How would you describe that? The flywheel aspect of available thermal energy

Like the difference between specific heat and just heat

Like a Btu is the amount of heat necessary to raise 1 lb. of water through 1 degree Fahrenheit. A calorie is the amount of thermal energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.

That's not the same as giving the temperature in degrees of something.

Into the Night wrote:
The slab of steel has more mass than the tin foil. There is more mass to heat.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The slab of steel has more mass than the tin foil. There is more mass to heat.

Well I don't mind "stored thermal energy" or "pent up thermal energy" but how would you like to describe the amount of thermal energy, originally from solar radiation, that is in the Earth system? Temperature doesn't work because it also just means the thermal energy at a particular point. Tin foil and the slab of steel can have the same temperature.

We could just say the BTUs of thermal energy. Or how about:
"The calories of earth" : )

Into the Night wrote:
No mass, no temperature.

tmiddles wrote:A lot of thermal energy could be moving through some very "hot" molecule at the top of the atmosphere but a thermometer would tell you it's freezing.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No mass, no temperature.

Two objects can have the same temperature and different quantities of thermal energy?

Temperature describes the intensity not the amount.

tmiddles wrote:
It's like voltage doesn't describe the amount of electrical energy.

tmiddles wrote:
You need to know the Amps and then watts.

tmiddles wrote:
So what language works for you?

"As a form of energy, heat has the unit joule (J) in the International System of Units (SI). However, in many applied fields in engineering the British thermal unit (BTU) and the calorie are often used. The standard unit for the rate of heat transferred is the watt (W), defined as one joule per second."

tmiddles wrote:
Thermal potential energy?

IBdaMann wrote:So if extremely few, but very hot, molecules strike the bulb of a thermometer, they will only be able to generate extremely little kinetic energy in the mercury ...It should be called a "kinetometer" but it's not.

Into the Night wrote:One ampere is one coulomb of charge going past a point in a circuit per second. A coulomb is a specific amount of energy (charge).
Watts is a measure of work, or energy. One watt is one joule per second,
A joule is the capacity to do work.