Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>
02-08-2019 05:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 06:26
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


Right so if I know the temperature is uniform for a mass, and I know the specific heat capacity, then I can calculate the number of joules of thermal energy in it.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed so since it's not always thermal energy (kinetic movement of molecules) we can just keep it clear when joules of energy are thermal when that's relevant. But to keep it easy we can call all the energy joules. Even the energy from light, chemical bonds, ect. Like calling all the money in the world by it's US dollar value.

Let's just call it all joules to keep it apples to apples. Two joules of radiation from the sun hit a rock, one joule is immediately reflect out into space, the second joule is absorbed by the rock as thermal energy (vibrating the atoms of the rock a bit more).

So to get started:
The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium. The exact same amount of solar radiation energy that reaches the Earth system leaves it every 24 hours. Equal joules in and out. Some is reflected out immediately, remaining light radiation, other joules are converted into thermal energy to move through the Earth system but those joules too must eventually leave as infra-red radiation in the end.

Often confused individuals think that it's possible for the Earth to run some permanent deficit or surplus in joules of energy coming and going but that's simply not possible. A "global warming" scenario in which someone thinks some "tipping point" would result in "Energy being trapped" in some permanent way, is simply not possible.

Right so far?
02-08-2019 07:30
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


REALLY good discussion here guys. Thanks to all who have invested the time. Very informative.....HOWEVER!

You've just shaken my confidence in knowing that warming by CO2 is impossible.
After reading this thread...if I was a warmiezombie...my argument would go like this....

Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year. More mass means it take longer to cool down. Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures. Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

What science applies here to squash this argument?

Thanks!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
02-08-2019 08:41
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere e


I agree this is a valuable discussion and establishing the solid facts which are true whichever side of the issue you come down on. I think we can all agree we want to remove ignorance of the basics from the debate.

You're skipping ahead a bit GasGuzzler

Also I'm not aware of any global warming theories related to making it atmosphere more massive.

1/2 billion tons? If you can press the atmosphere into a liquid it would be 10 m deep worldwide. CO2 is only .04% of that. the mass of the atmosphere is just not changing in any perceptible way.

Also it wouldn't even be 0.5 since its CO2 -O2 for the net add.
44-32=12. We're down to 0.14 Billion Tons

Actually H2O is a product of burning, more O2

Might actually lighten the mass of the atmosphere.

But let's stay on track and move through this step by step

The idea is to focus the debate on the areas where it belongs
Edited on 02-08-2019 09:23
02-08-2019 10:38
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
tmiddles wrote:
Actually H2O is a product of burning, more O2


So yeah let's take Octane just to finish the thought on the mass of the atmosphere not being impacted by burning fossil fuels:

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 ---> 16 CO2 +18 H2O
atomic weights are:
228 + 800 ----> 704 + 324

So we go from 800 down to 704 for a small net loss in the mass of gas and a bit more liquid.
02-08-2019 11:02
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


REALLY good discussion here guys. Thanks to all who have invested the time. Very informative.....HOWEVER!

You've just shaken my confidence in knowing that warming by CO2 is impossible.
After reading this thread...if I was a warmiezombie...my argument would go like this....

Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year. More mass means it take longer to cool down. Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures. Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

What science applies here to squash this argument?

Thanks!


If it's about increasing the mass, why the focus on the 'Greenhouse Effect'? And why so focused on CO2? CO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever, and a whole lot of the plant matter, never gets burned, and put CO2 back. They can sort of sell how much CO2 we potentially could be producing each year, but no way to estimate how much CO2 plants are pulling out every year. The monitoring stations... Best I can tell, their readings don't match up real well. I still strongly believe that messing with CO2 would be disastrous to life on the planet, warming is the least of it. The animal population has grown quite a bit, these past 300 years, and the human animals, has cleared out quite a bit of vegetation, in the name of civilization, and progress. We still get plenty of food from what vegetation that's left, because it's growing better, with more CO2 available.
02-08-2019 18:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


REALLY good discussion here guys. Thanks to all who have invested the time. Very informative.....HOWEVER!

You've just shaken my confidence in knowing that warming by CO2 is impossible.
After reading this thread...if I was a warmiezombie...my argument would go like this....

Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year. More mass means it take longer to cool down. Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures. Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

What science applies here to squash this argument?

Thanks!


* You are not adding mass. Earth has the same mass it did before. All you've done is rearrange it.
* More mass means it takes longer to heat up too.
* You are not adding energy either. You are converting the potential energy in chemical bonds to thermal energy when you burn fuel. That in turn is converted to light.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 19:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


REALLY good discussion here guys. Thanks to all who have invested the time. Very informative.....HOWEVER!

You've just shaken my confidence in knowing that warming by CO2 is impossible.
After reading this thread...if I was a warmiezombie...my argument would go like this....

Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year. More mass means it take longer to cool down. Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures. Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

What science applies here to squash this argument?

Thanks!


* You are not adding mass. Earth has the same mass it did before. All you've done is rearrange it.
* More mass means it takes longer to heat up too.
* You are not adding energy either. You are converting the potential energy in chemical bonds to thermal energy when you burn fuel. That in turn is converted to light.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy.


Sure, rearranging. That makes sense. But have you not rearranged and added mass from below the Earth's surface and into the atmosphere?

Just playing devil's advocate here....


With higher mass, are increased heating and cooling times proportionately equal?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
02-08-2019 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
In discussing the Earth system and the ground you can say that the temperature of the ground changes and that's useful since the mass doesn't change. But if you talk about the energy in the ground and the energy in the first meter of air above it and so on you then start to need a basis for comparison. Or different patches of ground.

That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


REALLY good discussion here guys. Thanks to all who have invested the time. Very informative.....HOWEVER!

You've just shaken my confidence in knowing that warming by CO2 is impossible.
After reading this thread...if I was a warmiezombie...my argument would go like this....

Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year. More mass means it take longer to cool down. Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures. Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

What science applies here to squash this argument?

Thanks!


* You are not adding mass. Earth has the same mass it did before. All you've done is rearrange it.
* More mass means it takes longer to heat up too.
* You are not adding energy either. You are converting the potential energy in chemical bonds to thermal energy when you burn fuel. That in turn is converted to light.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy.


Sure, rearranging. That makes sense. But have you not rearranged and added mass from below the Earth's surface and into the atmosphere?

Just playing devil's advocate here....


With higher mass, are increased heating and cooling times proportionately equal?


I assume you are referring to the carbon atom itself. The oxygen comes from the atmosphere.

That carbon atom might have come from deep underground (oil or coal), or it might have come from vegetation (taken from the air), or it might be from bacteria producing methane (taken from the air).

In any case, the mass of the Earth stays the same.

* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-08-2019 20:56
02-08-2019 21:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
GasGuzzler wrote: Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year.

I'd appreciate you explaining to me how you arrived at this conclusion.

Let's see, the O2 part of the CO2 is already in the atmosphere.

The C part simply does a lot of cycling around ... into the atmosphere ... then into plants ... then into animals ... then into the atmosphere ...

... and let's be clear, your confusion seems to be focused on what we might be adding to about one-fourth (carbon's contribution to CO2's mass) of maybe 0.038% of our atmosphere. You believe that we would be able to perform some sort of test that would yield measurable results within a usable margin of error concerning the addition to atmospheric mass, presuming that we could figure out how to trace all the carbon, yes?

If you eat a plate full of beans and then fart a bunch, technically you are increasing the atmosphere's mass ... until those gases are converted to some other form by some natural process. I don't care that industry encompasses a greater magnitude of scale than a human farting because it's still nowhere near enough to cause any measurable difference for us to verify the veracity of any such claims.


GasGuzzler wrote: More mass means it take longer to cool down.

What? The planet is in thermal equilibrium. It isn't "cooling down." There's no change involved here. What are you talking about?

GasGuzzler wrote: Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures.

Overnight? The planet always has a daytime and a nighttime at the same time, they're just on opposite sides of each other. Why would the nighttime suddenly be warmer. Are you claiming that the planet's average temperature increases?

GasGuzzler wrote: Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

Please explain. I'm all ears.


GasGuzzler wrote:What science applies here to squash this argument?

You are confusing the planet's average temperature (singular) with temperatures (plural) at the bottom of the atmosphere. The planet's average temperature cannot increase, per Stefan-Boltzmann (which is derived from Planck's which has the 2nd law of thermodynamics built-in).

Sure, specific temperatures at specific places, e.g. at the bottom of the atmosphere, can be changed. Turn on the heater in your house and your house becomes warmer. Dump a crapload of atmosphere on a planet and the planet's average temperature remains the same but the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere changes per the Ideal Gas Law. More mass increases atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Ideal Gas Law: Pressure * Volume = kelvins * Molar_Quantity * (a constant: 0.08206 * L-atm/mol-KRT)

You can follow two pertinent relationships here:

1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]

2. Since we are talking about an atmosphere, the volume and atmospheric mass are essentially fixed, you can move up and down in the atmosphere to experience different atmospheric pressures. From the formula, as pressure increases (i.e. as you move downward to the bottom of the atmosphere), the number of kelvins must increase.

None of this has anything to do with why the planet's average temperature does not change. If the atmosphere has more mass then there is more matter absorbing thermal radiation and equally more matter radiating thermal energy away into space ... everything remaining at the same temperature. The existence of additional matter radiating its thermal energy does not prevent any other matter from radiating its thermal energy per Stefan-Boltzmann.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-08-2019 23:23
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
From what I understand, internal combustion engines don't typically burn 100% of the fuel. Maybe it's possible, on an engine, carefully tuned, well maintained (never owned one). I smell fuel at stoplights, and parking lots all the time. School buses are really, strong diesel odor, sometimes a cloud. Now, if the IPCC is getting their CO2 numbers, from the oil and coal pulled out of the ground, but there's significant percentage of fuel exhausted, un-burned. Won't that be kind of sloppy work? Fuel efficiency varies quite a bit between models of vehicles, and usually get worse, as the vehicle accumulates mileage.
03-08-2019 00:27
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
.
Edited on 03-08-2019 00:32
03-08-2019 00:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:the IPCC is getting their CO2 numbers


Intentional or not you're derailing this thread Harvey
03-08-2019 00:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Can we please get back on track? Gasguzzler's question was from left field.

NO ONE is thinking that the atmosphere's mass will change in any way that is of interest and as I demonstrated burning hydrocarbons actually decreases the mass of the atmosphere.

I would argue non-methodical and disorganized side tracking from all sides has been why we haven't been able to really discuss things properly.

So once again:

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


Right so if I know the temperature is uniform for a mass, and I know the specific heat capacity, then I can calculate the number of joules of thermal energy in it.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed so since it's not always thermal energy (kinetic movement of molecules) we can just keep it clear when joules of energy are thermal when that's relevant. But to keep it easy we can call all the energy joules. Even the energy from light, chemical bonds, ect. Like calling all the money in the world by it's US dollar value.

Let's just call it all joules to keep it apples to apples. Two joules of radiation from the sun hit a rock, one joule is immediately reflect out into space, the second joule is absorbed by the rock as thermal energy (vibrating the atoms of the rock a bit more).

So to get started:
The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium. The exact same amount of solar radiation energy that reaches the Earth system leaves it every 24 hours. Equal joules in and out. Some is reflected out immediately, remaining light radiation, other joules are converted into thermal energy to move through the Earth system but those joules too must eventually leave as infra-red radiation in the end.

Often confused individuals think that it's possible for the Earth to run some permanent deficit or surplus in joules of energy coming and going but that's simply not possible. A "global warming" scenario in which someone thinks some "tipping point" would result in "Energy being trapped" in some permanent way, is simply not possible.

Right so far?
03-08-2019 00:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
IBdaMann wrote:


1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]




A Mol is about 22. 4 cubic meters. Could be 22.71 cubic liters. It's a volume. It's sad. I look at 1 post and see that something as basic as a mol isn't understood.
Of course increasing the density of the atmosphere could allow for it's heat content to increase.
03-08-2019 00:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
From what I understand, internal combustion engines don't typically burn 100% of the fuel. Maybe it's possible, on an engine, carefully tuned, well maintained (never owned one). I smell fuel at stoplights, and parking lots all the time. School buses are really, strong diesel odor, sometimes a cloud. Now, if the IPCC is getting their CO2 numbers, from the oil and coal pulled out of the ground, but there's significant percentage of fuel exhausted, un-burned. Won't that be kind of sloppy work? Fuel efficiency varies quite a bit between models of vehicles, and usually get worse, as the vehicle accumulates mileage.


Every engine puts out a little soot and unburned fuel. That's what you smell. Even efficient ones like diesel locomotives and jet engines put out soot and unburned fuel.

From campfires to jets, you can tell what kind of fuel it is (even sometimes identifying the species of wood used on that campfire!).


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 00:52
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]

A Mol is about 22. 4 cubic meters.


Maybe you want to side track the topic James?

We will get nowhere, again, if this continues.
03-08-2019 01:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]




A Mol is about 22. 4 cubic meters. Could be 22.71 cubic liters. It's a volume. It's sad. I look at 1 post and see that something as basic as a mol isn't understood.
Of course increasing the density of the atmosphere could allow for it's heat content to increase.


A mol is a count, like a dozen, not a volume. Instead of a dozen, which is 12, a mol is 6.02214076×10^23. It's usually used to count atoms or molecules.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 03:36
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
.
Edited on 03-08-2019 03:44
03-08-2019 03:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]

A Mol is about 22. 4 cubic meters.


Maybe you want to side track the topic James?

We will get nowhere, again, if this continues.


tmiddles, if you want to get somewhere, I'd suggest learning something first. It'd help if you understood basic math theory which you don't.
03-08-2019 03:43
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles, if you want to get somewhere, I'd suggest learning something first. It'd help if you understood basic math theory which you don't.


If you were paying attention you'd see we are working through this step by step.

As misunderstandings come up, IN ORDER, we can usefully clear them up.

So far so good. Please don't try to kill this discussion.
03-08-2019 03:44
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


Right so if I know the temperature is uniform for a mass, and I know the specific heat capacity, then I can calculate the number of joules of thermal energy in it.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed so since it's not always thermal energy (kinetic movement of molecules) we can just keep it clear when joules of energy are thermal when that's relevant. But to keep it easy we can call all the energy joules. Even the energy from light, chemical bonds, ect. Like calling all the money in the world by it's US dollar value.

Let's just call it all joules to keep it apples to apples. Two joules of radiation from the sun hit a rock, one joule is immediately reflect out into space, the second joule is absorbed by the rock as thermal energy (vibrating the atoms of the rock a bit more).

So to get started:
The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium. The exact same amount of solar radiation energy that reaches the Earth system leaves it every 24 hours. Equal joules in and out. Some is reflected out immediately, remaining light radiation, other joules are converted into thermal energy to move through the Earth system but those joules too must eventually leave as infra-red radiation in the end.

Often confused individuals think that it's possible for the Earth to run some permanent deficit or surplus in joules of energy coming and going but that's simply not possible. A "global warming" scenario in which someone thinks some "tipping point" would result in "Energy being trapped" in some permanent way, is simply not possible.

Right so far?
03-08-2019 03:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Right so if I know the temperature is uniform for a mass, and I know the specific heat capacity, then I can calculate the number of joules of thermal energy in it.

Sure, presuming you use absolute temperature. You would multiply the number of grams of the mass by the number of degrees Kelvin by the specific heat for one gram of the mass.

Your answer would be the amount of joules of thermal energy of the mass.

tmiddles wrote:Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed so since it's not always thermal energy (kinetic movement of molecules) we can just keep it clear when joules of energy are thermal when that's relevant.

Thermal energy can certainly be transformed into kinetic energy but the most common transformation of thermal energy is to electromagnetic energy (thermal radiation) per Stefan-Boltzmann.

tmiddles wrote:But to keep it easy we can call all the energy joules. Even the energy from light, chemical bonds, ect. Like calling all the money in the world by it's US dollar value.

Actually, it's not like assigning market value equivalencies to currencies. But fear not, "joules" is a unit of measure for energy; all energy can be expressed in joules. All work can be expressed in joules.

tmiddles wrote: Two joules of radiation from the sun hit a rock, one joule is immediately reflect out into space, the second joule is absorbed by the rock as thermal energy (vibrating the atoms of the rock a bit more).

You misunderstand what it means for photons to be absorbed. They simply convert to thermal energy. The photons don't somehow bang the molecules and cause them to vibrate from the collision. The photons simply convert to thermal energy which instantaneously begins to pour out of the matter in the form of electromagnetic radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann.

tmiddles wrote: The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium. The exact same amount of solar radiation energy that reaches the Earth system leaves it every 24 hours. Equal joules in and out.

Not just "every 24 hours" but constantly, every moment.

tmiddles wrote: Some is reflected out immediately, remaining light radiation, other joules are converted into thermal energy to move through the Earth system but those joules too must eventually leave as infra-red radiation in the end.

There is no requirement for the energy to be in any specific form, i.e. it is not required for it to leave as infrared electromagnetic. The only requirement is for the same amount of energy out as in.

tmiddles wrote: Often confused individuals think that it's possible for the Earth to run some permanent deficit or surplus in joules of energy coming and going but that's simply not possible.

Correct. The Greenhouse Effect dogma preaches, among other things, that magickal Greenhouse Gases perform holy miracles, or "forcings," that reduce the amount of energy out to less than the amount in ... which is the impossible "heat trapping" of Global Warming.

tmiddles wrote:Right so far?
Aside from my comments above, yes.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 04:02
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:You would multiply the number of grams of the mass by the number of degrees Kelvin ...answer would be the amount of joules of thermal energy of the mass.


OK got that.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy can certainly be transformed into kinetic energy but the most common transformation of thermal energy is to electromagnetic energy (thermal radiation)


As in "light" from infra-red to ultra-violet. I think the only other transformation of energy taking place on earth is in chemical bonds correct? From water changing it's state to plants making sugars. But we can ignore that I think.

For most of what we're talking about it's radiation or thermal.

IBdaMann wrote:all energy can be expressed in joules. All work can be expressed in joules.


Perfect that makes comparisons clear.

IBdaMann wrote:The photons simply convert to thermal energy which instantaneously begins to pour out of the matter in the form of electromagnetic radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann.


OK but the thermal energy from the photon will do one of TWO things right? Transform back into radiation and move, or remain thermal energy for that moment in time, possibly moving via conduction to other matter.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium.

Not just "every 24 hours" but constantly, every moment.


I was forgetting that it's always daytime somewhere : ) Almost asked "what about at night" ha ha.

OK so during a solar eclipse that equilibrium would slip to the earth being briefly deprived of the Sun's input and it would have a net loss of joules, more leaving than coming in?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no requirement for the energy to be in any specific form,


Right that's why I like the universal "joule" vocabulary.

IBdaMann wrote:Greenhouse Effect dogma... magickal Greenhouse Gases .. impossible "heat trapping" of Global Warming.


Right. We even do try to isolate thermal energy (cooler, sweater, ect.) and it's like someone with giant holes in their bucket saying they saved the water. Stopping the entropy of the universe from increasing is a fools errand.

OK great! I want to get ITN's input before moving on.
03-08-2019 04:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That basis is the specific heat capacity of the substance and the mass of the substance.


Right so if I know the temperature is uniform for a mass, and I know the specific heat capacity, then I can calculate the number of joules of thermal energy in it.

Essentially, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed so since it's not always thermal energy (kinetic movement of molecules) we can just keep it clear when joules of energy are thermal when that's relevant. But to keep it easy we can call all the energy joules. Even the energy from light, chemical bonds, ect.

All energy is measured in joules.
tmiddles wrote:
Like calling all the money in the world by it's US dollar value.

Uh. No. Poor comparison. The U.S. dollar is neither a commodity nor a count. Currently, it is tied to no commodity and slides freely against other world currencies that are also not tied to any commodity (except in one country, Iran).

The dollar is not a standard value.

There is an international system of units, or Systeme Internationale, or SI units that are used in science. Joules is one of those units.

tmiddles wrote:
Let's just call it all joules to keep it apples to apples.
Okay.
tmiddles wrote:
Two joules of radiation from the sun hit a rock,
Uh, no. Joules don't hit rocks. Watts do though. For the purposes of this discussion I'll convert as we go.
tmiddles wrote:
one joule is immediately reflect out into space, the second joule is absorbed by the rock as thermal energy (vibrating the atoms of the rock a bit more).
Watts again, but yes.
tmiddles wrote:
So to get started:
The Earth on any given day is basically in equilibrium. The exact same amount of solar radiation energy that reaches the Earth system leaves it every 24 hours. Equal joules in and out. Some is reflected out immediately, remaining light radiation, other joules are converted into thermal energy to move through the Earth system but those joules too must eventually leave as infra-red radiation in the end.
Watts again, but yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Often confused individuals think that it's possible for the Earth to run some permanent deficit or surplus in joules of energy coming and going but that's simply not possible. A "global warming" scenario in which someone thinks some "tipping point" would result in "Energy being trapped" in some permanent way, is simply not possible.

Very true. These arguments usually take one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.
tmiddles wrote:
Right so far?

I would say so, with the corrections I've made.

Again, you are really starting to get it. I offer my congratulations for the progress you've made so far in this area.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 05:06
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Again, you are really starting to get it. I offer my congratulations for the progress you've made so far in this area.


I'm finding this very productive.

So as for "joule" used as the unit when solar radiation either bounces off of or is transformed into thermal energy in a rock. Calling it a watt is that important?

Next step as I see it:

The "Temperature", the "Climate", "Warming" are all very vague words swirling around this whole issue.

We already discussed that a thermometer not only doesn't conclusively measure the temperature of even a small volume of matter it really only "tastes" the temperature of the molecules that happen to touch it's sensor.

Suffices to say "temperature" is the measure of the thermal energy in matter correct?
Also assumption and calculations are always necessary in stating the "temperature" of anything in the real world. From a block of steel in the lab to the air in a room.

When humans say "temperature" and don't clarify they almost always mean the temperature of the air around their body at that time.

Saying "the temperature of Earth" is extremely vague since Earth runs from it's molten core out to the surface of the gas ocean we call an atmosphere and quantifying the joules of thermal energy divided by the grams of matter is rarely what they mean.

Sound about right?
03-08-2019 06:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Calling it a watt is that important?

Yes, it's critical to use watts because it's a different thing entirely.

Energy and Work are essentially the same thing and are both measured in joules.

Energy over time (joules per second), and Work over time (joules per second) are power. Watts is a measure of power. You buy light bulbs that crank out a certain amount of energy per second (watts). You don't buy light bulbs based on the total amount of energy they have to emit.

Some basic physics for you: Let's say your Toyota Camry breaks down at Point A and you get out and push it to Point B which is exactly 100 meters away. You have performed 100 Camry-meters of work.

Now let's say that you took 20 minutes to push it to Point B. Your Power was 5 Camry-meters per minute.

Let's say the next day your Camry again breaks down at Point A but you took a multivitamin and downed a Red Bull, and you take only half as long (10 minutes) to push your Camry to Point B. Your Power is doubled to 10 Camry-meters per minute.

Work = Energy = Joules
Power = Work over Time = Watts.


tmiddles wrote: Saying "the temperature of Earth" is extremely vague since Earth runs from it's molten core out to the surface of the gas ocean we call an atmosphere and quantifying the joules of thermal energy divided by the grams of matter is rarely what they mean.

Nope. A planet's average temperature is a straightforward concept that does not involve anything below the surface. It is the combined average temperature of the surface, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

With respect to the earth, the crust quite effectively eliminates geothermal factors from any substantive contribution.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 07:00
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Calling it a watt is that important?

Yes, it's critical to use watts because it's a different thing entirely.

Energy and Work are essentially the same thing and are both measured in joules.

Energy over time (joules per second), and Work over time (joules per second) are power. Watts is a measure of power. You buy light bulbs that crank out a certain amount of energy per second (watts). You don't buy light bulbs based on the total amount of energy they have to emit.

Some basic physics for you: Let's say your Toyota Camry breaks down at Point A and you get out and push it to Point B which is exactly 100 meters away. You have performed 100 Camry-meters of work.

Now let's say that you took 20 minutes to push it to Point B. Your Power was 5 Camry-meters per minute.

Let's say the next day your Camry again breaks down at Point A but you took a multivitamin and downed a Red Bull, and you take only half as long (10 minutes) to push your Camry to Point B. Your Power is doubled to 10 Camry-meters per minute.

Work = Energy = Joules
Power = Work over Time = Watts.


tmiddles wrote: Saying "the temperature of Earth" is extremely vague since Earth runs from it's molten core out to the surface of the gas ocean we call an atmosphere and quantifying the joules of thermal energy divided by the grams of matter is rarely what they mean.

Nope. A planet's average temperature is a straightforward concept that does not involve anything below the surface. It is the combined average temperature of the surface, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

With respect to the earth, the crust quite effectively eliminates geothermal factors from any substantive contribution.


Work is w = m * d. Any idiot knows that 1 watt = 1 second of joules. And joules can be measured in f = hv. This breaks down joules into cycles per second.
At tmiddles, sorry for stating the basic math. It's common knowledge. But your beastie wrote a book about something. Just not "it". Hope you liked it.
03-08-2019 13:36
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
Work = Energy = Joules
Power = Work over Time = Watts.


So "watt" is the rate of Joules and can still be described using Joules so that works in terms of consistency.

IBdaMann wrote:A planet's average temperature is a straightforward concept that does not involve anything below the surface.


Ok well that makes things easier. So "surface temperature" is discussed a lot I think just because that's where human's imagine themselves. Just as in a weather report "the temperature" means at 2 meters off the ground. But that's a human's perspective temp not the temp of the system.

But this would include as far down as thermal energy coming in traveled right? So if there was a lake 500 ft deep and the temperature rose in the summer for the full depth then the full depth of that lake is part of the system of "the planet's temperature"?

The planets temperature is basically the number of thermal energy joules/mass of the system.

I'm just a little fuzzy on how an ocean, which get's pretty deep and massive, factors in.

Would there be a distinction between the thermal energy joules in the system and the thermal energy joules which are counted in the temperature?

I totally get being able to factor out / cancel out anything below the level of interaction in the system.
03-08-2019 16:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Would there be a distinction between the thermal energy joules in the system and the thermal energy joules which are counted in the temperature?

I totally get being able to factor out / cancel out anything below the level of interaction in the system.

First, I have no idea what the earth's "system" is. Unless you wish to unambiguously define what you believe it is, I probably won't be sharing that belief.

Second, you probably remember it being mentioned that we don't have the means to measure/calculate the earth's average temperature. We can run through an example of what a scientist would have to do to get a valid estimate.

First, the scientist has to determine what he considers, in his opinion, to be an acceptable margin of error. Remember, this is the first thing because it will form the methodology for the measurements. No one wants to waste time and money for useless results. Let's say the scientist determines that he needs +/- 4 degrees Kelvin. He's not looking for that ridiculous mythical 0.1 degree margin of error but he will accept a window of eight full degrees, i.e. +/- 4.

Second, he gathers boatloads of historical temperature data from all over the earth to determine his methodology because he will have to publish that data and his rationale. Why? If he doesn't, the rest of the world summarily throws his results in the trash as "invalid" and he will have wasted his time, money and effort. Let's say that while poring over the data that he comes to the realization that any two points on earth that are one kilometer apart could easily be four degrees apart in temperature. Actually, they could be even more but let's say his data support the conclusion of one kilometer supports 4 degrees variance. This means that the scientist needs to take evenly-spaced, synchronized measurements every square kilometer with perfectly calibrated equipment in order to meet his margin of error. If the sensors are not evenly spaced then additional error margin is induced. If the measurements are not perfectly synchronized then substantial additional error is induced. Obviously if the sensors are not properly calibrated then substantial additional error is induced.

The earth's surface area is over 500,000,000 square kilometers, so the scientist will need a synchronized net of more than 500,000,000 synchronized, evenly-spaced properly calibrated thermometers (whew!) to include covering the ocean's surface... with another complete set one kilometer up in the atmosphere (which brings us to more than a billion synchronized sensors) ... and another set two kilometers up, three kilometers up, etc, etc, and more at ocean depths to account for the drastic changes in ocean water temperature over very short distances.

All this to maintain a +/- 4 degree margin of error. To reduce the total number of thermometers from billions to, say, a manageable tens of millions, you could simply accept a wider margin of error around +/- 60 Kelvin. But if I were to accept that, I might as well avoid all the time, effort and expense and just take a guess. I can guess the earth's average global temperature to within 60 Kelvin.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 16:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Would there be a distinction between the thermal energy joules in the system and the thermal energy joules which are counted in the temperature?

I totally get being able to factor out / cancel out anything below the level of interaction in the system.

First, I have no idea what the earth's "system" is. Unless you wish to unambiguously define what you believe it is, I probably won't be sharing that belief.

Second, you probably remember it being mentioned that we don't have the means to measure/calculate the earth's average temperature. We can run through an example of what a scientist would have to do to get a valid estimate.

First, the scientist has to determine what he considers, in his opinion, to be an acceptable margin of error. Remember, this is the first thing because it will form the methodology for the measurements. No one wants to waste time and money for useless results. Let's say the scientist determines that he needs +/- 4 degrees Kelvin. He's not looking for that ridiculous mythical 0.1 degree margin of error but he will accept a window of eight full degrees, i.e. +/- 4.

Second, he gathers boatloads of historical temperature data from all over the earth to determine his methodology because he will have to publish that data and his rationale. Why? If he doesn't, the rest of the world summarily throws his results in the trash as "invalid" and he will have wasted his time, money and effort. Let's say that while poring over the data that he comes to the realization that any two points on earth that are one kilometer apart could easily be four degrees apart in temperature. Actually, they could be even more but let's say his data support the conclusion of one kilometer supports 4 degrees variance. This means that the scientist needs to take evenly-spaced, synchronized measurements every square kilometer with perfectly calibrated equipment in order to meet his margin of error. If the sensors are not evenly spaced then additional error margin is induced. If the measurements are not perfectly synchronized then substantial additional error is induced. Obviously if the sensors are not properly calibrated then substantial additional error is induced.

The earth's surface area is over 500,000,000 square kilometers, so the scientist will need a synchronized net of more than 500,000,000 synchronized, evenly-spaced properly calibrated thermometers (whew!) to include covering the ocean's surface... with another complete set one kilometer up in the atmosphere (which brings us to more than a billion synchronized sensors) ... and another set two kilometers up, three kilometers up, etc, etc, and more at ocean depths to account for the drastic changes in ocean water temperature over very short distances.

All this to maintain a +/- 4 degree margin of error. To reduce the total number of thermometers from billions to, say, a manageable tens of millions, you could simply accept a wider margin of error around +/- 60 Kelvin. But if I were to accept that, I might as well avoid all the time, effort and expense and just take a guess. I can guess the earth's average global temperature to within 60 Kelvin.



You found yourself a follower. Pretty disgusting actually.
03-08-2019 16:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
James___ wrote: You found yourself a follower. Pretty disgusting actually.

Aren't you due to whine about some service-related injury that was actually caused by surgeon who cured your cancer because nobody cares about you ... or something like that?

I'll listen if you need a shoulder. You can even throw in how any idiot knows that one mole is a volume. We'll have a good time.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, you are really starting to get it. I offer my congratulations for the progress you've made so far in this area.


I'm finding this very productive.

Excellent. Sure beats the use of 'ignore lists', doesn't it?
tmiddles wrote:
So as for "joule" used as the unit when solar radiation either bounces off of or is transformed into thermal energy in a rock. Calling it a watt is that important?

Yes. A watt is joules over time. Heat is in watts. You are describing the heating of a rock.
tmiddles wrote:
Next step as I see it:

The "Temperature", the "Climate", "Warming" are all very vague words swirling around this whole issue.

Temperature has a specific meaning. It is the average kinetic energy of particles in a system (a substance). We have three commonly used scales we use for measurement:
* The Kelvin scale, used for describing degrees above a point where all kinetic energy in a substance becomes zero. This point is an ideal, since at this point, matter and energy itself cease to exist. To extract ALL the energy out of a substance would require an infinite amount of energy.
* The Centigrade scale. This scale is really great for cooking, since it is based on the freezing point of water (0 deg C) and the boiling point of water (100 deg C). Much of chemistry is cooking as well, so it's great scale for chemistry!
* The Fahrenheit scale. This scale is ideally suited to describe weather. How this scale came about is a bit of amusing history.

Danial Fahrenheit was a marketeer that wanted to get into the instrument making business. Like any other thermometer, his needed two reference points. He used water as the zero reference, but he didn't like negative numbers, so he offset that to 32 deg. Why 32? We'll see in a moment.

For the other end, he decided to use his own body temperature as his other reference point of 96. Why 96? The difference between that and 32 is 64. To mark his thermometers all he had to do is divide the scale in half and make a mark. Divide those in half and mark again. Do that for a total of six times. The result is 64 marks (or 2^6) (in base 16, 0x40). This is an important number in computers as well for a reason.

Marking the thing down to zero is simply 32 marks, or 2^5.

Now all he had to do was measure his own body temperature, which he did...badly. This reference point he declared to be 96.

According to his calculations (also done badly), then, the boiling point of water at sea level would be 212 deg F.

Later, after he died, 212 deg F was declared the top reference point, putting the body temperature at the 98.6 deg F we know today.

In other words, the Fahrenheit scale is hackery after hackery. It DOES turn out to be useful nevertheless!

It's a great scale for describing weather. The reason is that weather never gets hot enough to boil water at sea level (thankfully!), and weather is what WE feel by comparing it to our own body temperature.

So the scale became popular. Of course, national pride and that sort of thing inflicts using the Centigrade scale for describing weather in many nations, but this only illustrates the point of all this.

There is no 'best' scale. Each temperature scale has its unique advantages and disadvantages.

tmiddles wrote:
We already discussed that a thermometer not only doesn't conclusively measure the temperature of even a small volume of matter it really only "tastes" the temperature of the molecules that happen to touch it's sensor.

Thermometers are built in many different ways. It IS possible to build a thermometer to accurately measure temperature even at altitude like that. The traditional bulb and mercury or alcohol (the red kind) just doesn't work so well under those conditions.

Thermometers must be in contact with the thing they are measuring, or the emissivity of the thing you are measuring must be known. Unfortunately, the only way to measure emissivity is to first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface!

tmiddles wrote:
Suffices to say "temperature" is the measure of the thermal energy in matter correct?

Not quite. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles in a system, not the total kinetic energy of particles in a system. Thermal energy is the total kinetic of particles in a system.
tmiddles wrote:
Also assumption and calculations are always necessary in stating the "temperature" of anything in the real world. From a block of steel in the lab to the air in a room.

No, just measurement. Be aware, a measurement is an observation, subject to all the problems of phenomenology.
tmiddles wrote:
When humans say "temperature" and don't clarify they almost always mean the temperature of the air around their body at that time.

Generally true. This is why the Fahrenheit scale is so popular.
tmiddles wrote:
Saying "the temperature of Earth" is extremely vague since Earth runs from it's molten core out to the surface of the gas ocean we call an atmosphere and quantifying the joules of thermal energy divided by the grams of matter is rarely what they mean.

But that is what it is. The temperature of the air we happily live out our lives in is only a small part of the thermal energy of Earth. To consider it the thermal energy of Earth is a mistake.

This particular problem was addressed by another scientist, Gustav Kirchoff. While studying electrical circuits, he noted that the energy at any given point in a circuit is a subset of the energy in the whole circuit. He also noted that you could sum these sub nodes into a total that equaled the energy of the whole.

Turns out that all energy behaves this way, including thermal energy.

In other words, to consider a subnode of energy like the atmosphere as the total is a mistake. It is also moving the boundaries of a thermal system to consider them equivalent in any way. In thermodynamics, systems must be closed. That is, the boundaries of that system cannot change. Anything outside that system cannot be considered.

In other words, if you are going to consider the surface of Earth, you should consider a system that includes everything affecting that system. Since rock is a good insulator, we can safely ignore the interior of the Earth for many cases.

Therefore, the system should include the Sun (the greatest influence on surface temperature), and near Earth-Sun space (an equally great influence on surface temperature).

Earth's surface cannot create energy of it's own, so all that energy comes from the Sun.
Earth's surface cannot destroy energy, so all that energy is again lost to space.

All the laws of physics still apply, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
Sound about right?

With the above clarifications and corrections, yes.

It is important to consider that temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy of particles within a system, and thermal energy is the TOTAL kinetic energy of particles within a system.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Calling it a watt is that important?

Yes, it's critical to use watts because it's a different thing entirely.

Energy and Work are essentially the same thing and are both measured in joules.

Energy over time (joules per second), and Work over time (joules per second) are power. Watts is a measure of power. You buy light bulbs that crank out a certain amount of energy per second (watts). You don't buy light bulbs based on the total amount of energy they have to emit.

Some basic physics for you: Let's say your Toyota Camry breaks down at Point A and you get out and push it to Point B which is exactly 100 meters away. You have performed 100 Camry-meters of work.

Now let's say that you took 20 minutes to push it to Point B. Your Power was 5 Camry-meters per minute.

Let's say the next day your Camry again breaks down at Point A but you took a multivitamin and downed a Red Bull, and you take only half as long (10 minutes) to push your Camry to Point B. Your Power is doubled to 10 Camry-meters per minute.

Work = Energy = Joules
Power = Work over Time = Watts.


tmiddles wrote: Saying "the temperature of Earth" is extremely vague since Earth runs from it's molten core out to the surface of the gas ocean we call an atmosphere and quantifying the joules of thermal energy divided by the grams of matter is rarely what they mean.

Nope. A planet's average temperature is a straightforward concept that does not involve anything below the surface. It is the combined average temperature of the surface, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

With respect to the earth, the crust quite effectively eliminates geothermal factors from any substantive contribution.


Work is w = m * d. Any idiot knows that 1 watt = 1 second of joules. And joules can be measured in f = hv. This breaks down joules into cycles per second.
At tmiddles, sorry for stating the basic math. It's common knowledge. But your beastie wrote a book about something. Just not "it". Hope you liked it.

Divisional error fallacy. (e) : (E) is NOT (e) = (E).


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 21:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Work = Energy = Joules
Power = Work over Time = Watts.


So "watt" is the rate of Joules and can still be described using Joules so that works in terms of consistency.

IBdaMann wrote:A planet's average temperature is a straightforward concept that does not involve anything below the surface.


Ok well that makes things easier. So "surface temperature" is discussed a lot I think just because that's where human's imagine themselves. Just as in a weather report "the temperature" means at 2 meters off the ground. But that's a human's perspective temp not the temp of the system.

But this would include as far down as thermal energy coming in traveled right? So if there was a lake 500 ft deep and the temperature rose in the summer for the full depth then the full depth of that lake is part of the system of "the planet's temperature"?

The planets temperature is basically the number of thermal energy joules/mass of the system.

I'm just a little fuzzy on how an ocean, which get's pretty deep and massive, factors in.

Would there be a distinction between the thermal energy joules in the system and the thermal energy joules which are counted in the temperature?

I totally get being able to factor out / cancel out anything below the level of interaction in the system.


Oceans, being so deep, are an interesting tidbit (Okay, a rather LARGE tidbit!
).

When water is heated, not all of the water is heated. Water is a fluid, like air. The water at the surface does indeed absorb infrared light from the Sun and that is indeed converted to thermal energy, that that is at the surface (or very near it).

Like warm air, warm water rises. To the warmed water just stays there, at the top of the ocean.
Heating by conduction does take place, water, however, is a poor conductor of heat. It does have, however, a high specific heat capacity.

So it takes a lot of heat to warm a patch of water by one degree, compared to other substances, but it does not easily conduct that thermal energy into the remaining water.

Most cars use liquid cooling that is based on water. Metals have a high conductivity of thermal energy, so you can surround hot cylinders with a water jacket and use that to heat the water.
But the water also acts as an insulator. It does not in turn easily transfer that energy outside.

So you have to pump it.

This moves fresh cooler water into place around the cylinders, and moves that hot water into a radiator, which has a LOT of surface area for the space it takes up. Here, water can finally shed it's thermal energy by conducting it to the cool air flowing through the radiator fins.

Now you can close the circuit. You have cool water to send into the engine block again to cool the cylinders.

If the pump dies, your car engine will quickly overheat. Air cooled engines exist as well, but they also depend on air moving past the engine, since air is also not a good conductor of heat.

That fan you hear in your computer right now is doing just exactly that for you. Moving air, or pumping air. Some computers are going to liquid cooling, since water is better as a 'conveyor belt' of thermal energy. Of course, these system require a large case to install the radiator assembly (located at the top of the case), and there is the risk of a leak of water into the electrical circuits of your computer, but it will more effectively cool off that processor!

Like your car, that liquid cooling system also has a pump. It can be small and quiet, however. The fan noise and pump noise is much quieter than the high speed turbines you have in computers now.


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2019 04:29
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
First, I have no idea what the earth's "system" is.


The energy system I've been saying it would be easiest to describe in joules wherever possible.

Basically we have the sun, earth and rest of space in the large system. Chemical energy is transformed into radiation on the sun, some of it travels to the earth, there is is either reflected immediately back out in to space or transformed (temporarily) into thermal energy, before eventually radiating out into space from the Earth.

By Earth system I mean the portion of the Earth involved in that system. Which we've already discussed could ignore the molten core of Earth and still be accurate.

IBdaMann wrote:we don't have the means to measure/calculate the earth's average temperature. ...[scientist would have to] gathers boatloads of historical temperature data from all over the earth...The earth's surface area is over 500,000,000 square kilometers,


Yes and that would give just one moment in time if it could be done and I accept it cannot be done as a direct observation to within even a few degrees. However there are other benefits to looking at temperature in different locations and times. As discussed a bit more below the depth to which conduction of thermal energy penetrates could be revealed by taking temperature measurements at different times and comparing the changes relative to one another.

As for consistency on a daily or hourly basis my understanding is that clouds are a hopelessly wild variable with respect to having real precision. I think everyone would agree they move around a bit randomly, they reflect the radiation from the sun right back out into space pretty effectively preventing it from converting to thermal energy at all.

Into the Night wrote:
Excellent. Sure beats the use of 'ignore lists', doesn't it?


Well I do owe you and IBdaMann an apology for dismissing you as being uneducated non-scientists. So I am sorry for that I was clearly wrong.

We can talk a bit more about how to be clear when there is a lot of ignorance if that's your goal. The style of attacking EVERY point you disagree with comes across as being designed to sabotage.

Made up example: If someone says dolphins are a really dangerous fish and you just won't let go of telling them dolphins aren't fish it can seem like you're ducking the real issue of dolphin danger.

I think this approach is working well because we are taking each component one at a time and we're all interested in truth and accuracy so far.

Despite what James might think we are simply clarifying in simple terms what is indisputably true. Laying these things out clearly is a challenge and I think we're doing well.

Into the Night wrote:
* The Kelvin scale, used for describing degrees above a point where all kinetic energy in a substance becomes zero. ...
There is no 'best' scale.


I generally find making comparisons in Kelvin to be easiest.

Into the Night wrote:
It IS possible to build a thermometer to accurately measure temperature...Temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles in a system, not the total kinetic energy of particles in a system. Thermal energy is the total kinetic of particles in a system.


But you have to assume that the kinetic energy is evenly distributed in the volume being measured.

Then to calculate thermal energy you have to assume the mass.

Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the air we happily live out our lives in is only a small part of the thermal energy of Earth. ...Kirchoff. While studying electrical circuits, ...you could sum these sub nodes into a total that equaled the energy of the whole.


Perfect this was my understanding. The "Earth system"'s circuit of thermal energy needs to be looked at as interacting parts because they are interacting. You can have no net change in the total thermal energy while the differences between two parts changes.

A lot of this reminds be of accounting. You can safely ignore something insignificant and remain accurate. There is a "bottom line" and if you play with the numbers and fudge the books it'll never actually change reality.

Into the Night wrote:
When water is heated, not all of the water is heated. ...water, however, is a poor conductor of heat. ... liquid cooling, since water is better as a 'conveyor belt' of thermal energy.


I think I had assumed water was a good thermal conductor just because it's usually a lot colder than me. Makes sense though.

Convection in the atmosphere allows for a "heat conveyor" up that works with gravity and the ocean couldn't do that since it would be asking lighter liquid to sink.

It seems that below the point of active changes in temperature in either water, rock, dirt or ice there would be some effect on the system. That it would act as a buffer to any violent changes. A bit like a thermal ballast.
04-08-2019 07:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Basically we have the sun, earth and rest of space in the large system.

I can buy this specification. Carry on.

tmiddles wrote: By Earth system I mean the portion of the Earth involved in that system.

Just because I know it will come up later, remember that the earth includes its atmosphere and hydrosphere. You will only send yourself down time-wasting rabbit holes the moment you start treating either the hydrosphere or the atmosphere as somehow "separate."

Remember that the fish in the ocean are part of the ocean. The birds in the sky are part of the sky, absorbing solar radiation. You are about to talk about clouds as though they are somehow separate, random things but anything they absorb would otherwise be absorbed by the surface and thus don't affect the earth's average temperature. Atmospheric composition does not change the planet's average temperature.

tmiddles wrote: As discussed a bit more below the depth to which conduction of thermal energy penetrates could be revealed by taking temperature measurements at different times and comparing the changes relative to one another.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

tmiddles wrote: As for consistency on a daily or hourly basis my understanding is that clouds are a hopelessly wild variable with respect to having real precision.

Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.

tmiddles wrote: The style of attacking EVERY point you disagree with comes across as being designed to sabotage.

I'll take that criticism, but I don't make any apologies. You aren't the first person to come to the board with misconceptions and misunderstandings. Into the Night and I are always polite and helpful right out of the starting gate. Inevitably, our helpfulness is met with arrogance and insults. We are promptly called "trolls" simply because we aren't receptive to Global Warming dogma and at that point there is little motivation to continue being polite.

Into the Night happens to be a really nice guy and he continues to be polite and helpful well after I have decided to have fun, as you say, attacking EVERY point; if the topic is science then it's very easy for me to do. In short, yes, I become a jerk and at that point I rarely care.

Science and math are my weaknesses, I'll always discuss them. Logic as well. ... and food.

tmiddles wrote: Despite what James might think we are simply clarifying in simple terms what is indisputably true.

I don't mean to quibble with you but I absolutely need to quibble with you this point.

We already discussed how nothing is absolutely certain. We are not establishing anything as TRUE. Religions are about finding the truth. Science is a collection of models that have not yet been shown to be false.

If you are talking about "truth" or what's "true" then you are discussing beliefs, usually religion.

If you are discussing science then your verbiage is centered around the word FALSE, i.e. science is a collection of falsifiable models that have not yet been shown to be false, until they are, in fact, falsified and discarded. Nothing in science is ever "confirmed." Nothing in science can be declared to be TRUE.

Now math is different. Math is all about proofs, about what is true, and calculating the correct answer. This is why science must be expressed in math, so that it is falsifiable and can predict nature.

Believe me, this is an important point. You can keep from backing yourself into semantic corners by not claiming things to be true, because that is akin to claiming to know things that you don't. Just stick with pointing out that no one has yet shown something to be false.

tmiddles wrote: But you have to assume that the kinetic energy is evenly distributed in the volume being measured.

That assumption is not only completely erroneous, it is utterly unnecessary.

Imagine all the elementary particles whirring around with completely different amounts of kinetic energy. All of them, different, as unevenly distributed as possible. Then imagine that you don't care, because the temperature is just the average. Done. Keep it simple.

tmiddles wrote:A lot of this reminds be of accounting. You can safely ignore something insignificant and remain accurate. There is a "bottom line" and if you play with the numbers and fudge the books it'll never actually change reality.

As for accounting, I never recommend allowing inaccuracies. But I understand your point. I think a better example is to point out how corporations have two sets of books, 1) the set that meets the legal reporting requirements to the government and 2) the set that paints the picture they want the shareholders to see. Neither is the reality of the corporation, just different views.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-08-2019 09:02
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:remember that the earth includes its atmosphere and hydrosphere.


My conception is that the atmosphere is a single ocean of gas. It's able to freely convect and flow and the upper limit is determined by the earths gravity having a tug of war with the hottest bits of gas stretching out into space. It may be the most "unified" and intermixed part of the whole Earth system. Far more than the oceans or the rock and earth.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: As discussed a bit more below the depth to which conduction of thermal energy penetrates could be revealed by taking temperature measurements at different times and comparing the changes relative to one another.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.


I'm saying that the value of measurement can be comparative. I may be pretty clueless about what the temperature of the surface but could take enough measurements to be confident that 30 feet down the temperature is consistent. Interesting HVAC idea:
"The temperature of the Earth down 20 or 30 feet is a relatively constant number year-round, somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees"

IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.


But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it? If you have extra cloud cover that's more white and that's more solar radiation to bounce directly out into space without converting to thermal energy. No?

I mean it would average out as random things like that do I guess. But moment to moment it would mess up a thermometer reading.

Are you saying that it averages out every day?



IBdaMann wrote:
Science and math are my weaknesses, I'll always discuss them. Logic as well. ... and food.


Way more interesting to get to the real discussion and not finish in semantics and misstatements. Granted that it's legitimate to take issue with mistakes.

IBdaMann wrote:
I don't mean to quibble with you but...We are not establishing anything as TRUE.


I got you and it's just a language thing. My philosophical/scientific/theological grounding is in Descartes and we can't even know we're not dreaming.
Of course things like relativity, empty atoms and other non-intuitive discoveries reinforce a need to not overstate what you're sure of.

Whatever you want to call it it is important to be clear about how certain we are of it I would agree.
Edited on 04-08-2019 09:10
04-08-2019 17:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote: Humans emit around a 1/2 a billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, adding more and more mass to the atmosphere every year.

I'd appreciate you explaining to me how you arrived at this conclusion.

Let's see, the O2 part of the CO2 is already in the atmosphere.

The C part simply does a lot of cycling around ... into the atmosphere ... then into plants ... then into animals ... then into the atmosphere ...

... and let's be clear, your confusion seems to be focused on what we might be adding to about one-fourth (carbon's contribution to CO2's mass) of maybe 0.038% of our atmosphere. You believe that we would be able to perform some sort of test that would yield measurable results within a usable margin of error concerning the addition to atmospheric mass, presuming that we could figure out how to trace all the carbon, yes?

If you eat a plate full of beans and then fart a bunch, technically you are increasing the atmosphere's mass ... until those gases are converted to some other form by some natural process. I don't care that industry encompasses a greater magnitude of scale than a human farting because it's still nowhere near enough to cause any measurable difference for us to verify the veracity of any such claims.


GasGuzzler wrote: More mass means it take longer to cool down.

What? The planet is in thermal equilibrium. It isn't "cooling down." There's no change involved here. What are you talking about?

GasGuzzler wrote: Longer to cool means higher overnight low temperatures.

Overnight? The planet always has a daytime and a nighttime at the same time, they're just on opposite sides of each other. Why would the nighttime suddenly be warmer. Are you claiming that the planet's average temperature increases?

GasGuzzler wrote: Higher morning temps to start the daytime heating cycle means higher daytime temps and a rising average temp overall.

Please explain. I'm all ears.


GasGuzzler wrote:What science applies here to squash this argument?

You are confusing the planet's average temperature (singular) with temperatures (plural) at the bottom of the atmosphere. The planet's average temperature cannot increase, per Stefan-Boltzmann (which is derived from Planck's which has the 2nd law of thermodynamics built-in).

Sure, specific temperatures at specific places, e.g. at the bottom of the atmosphere, can be changed. Turn on the heater in your house and your house becomes warmer. Dump a crapload of atmosphere on a planet and the planet's average temperature remains the same but the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere changes per the Ideal Gas Law. More mass increases atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Ideal Gas Law: Pressure * Volume = kelvins * Molar_Quantity * (a constant: 0.08206 * L-atm/mol-KRT)

You can follow two pertinent relationships here:

1. If you increase the molar quantity, there will necessarily be an increase in Pressure * Volume [i.e. adding mass to an atmosphere]

2. Since we are talking about an atmosphere, the volume and atmospheric mass are essentially fixed, you can move up and down in the atmosphere to experience different atmospheric pressures. From the formula, as pressure increases (i.e. as you move downward to the bottom of the atmosphere), the number of kelvins must increase.

None of this has anything to do with why the planet's average temperature does not change. If the atmosphere has more mass then there is more matter absorbing thermal radiation and equally more matter radiating thermal energy away into space ... everything remaining at the same temperature. The existence of additional matter radiating its thermal energy does not prevent any other matter from radiating its thermal energy per Stefan-Boltzmann.


I think you took me wrong! This was not my line of thinking. I had heard this argument made recently and wasn't sure the best way to navigate if it were ever thrown at me.

You and ITN are aces at recognizing and efficiently destroying bullshit. Thought I would ask. Once again I got great answers. Thanks!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
04-08-2019 20:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:remember that the earth includes its atmosphere and hydrosphere.


My conception is that the atmosphere is a single ocean of gas. It's able to freely convect and flow and the upper limit is determined by the earths gravity having a tug of war with the hottest bits of gas stretching out into space. It may be the most "unified" and intermixed part of the whole Earth system. Far more than the oceans or the rock and earth.


But it isn't.

Air is a mixture of gases and vapors. Many of these don't mix really well. Cold air does not mix easily with warm air, for example. That's why we have weather fronts.

A warm front is warmer air advancing over the top of colder air. The interface between them is typified by stratus type clouds and light precipitation, if any (the so-called drizzly rain or light snow). These fronts can also produce freezing rain, a particularly nasty weather, that glues cars to streets and snaps trees and power lines. Rainfall drops through colder air and freezes as it falls. Portland, OR, a city positioned at the mouth of the Columbia River Gorge, is particularly susceptible to freezing rain as warm air from the ocean climbs up and over cold air from eastern Oregon and Washington coming out of the Gorge. Warm fronts are also common in Seattle, giving Seattle the reputation for 'constant rain' that it has.

Cold fronts are colder air advancing into warmer air and plowing the warmer air aloft. This sudden rising of warmer air, which can contain more water vapor than cold air can, causes that water vapor to suddenly condense out and form clouds. These are typically cumulus clouds, often rapidly building, and can easily become quite violent thunderstorms and even have a tornado or two in them. Such fronts are common in the midwest, as warm moist air from the Gulf advances into cold air fed from Canada. Where they meet is where the party starts.

Even a warm bubble of air, a localized bit of air that is heated, does not conduct it's thermal energy to the surrounding air at all well. Instead it rises, as denser cold air replaces it. This too can cause quite violent storm activity. It is how hurricanes form and organize into a storm with a position. This type of storm only forms when the air mass cools with altitude faster than the abiatic rate (the kind you see depicted on temperature profile charts).

Wet air does not mix well with dry air. Warm air does not mix well with cold air. CO2 does not mix well with the rest of the atmosphere. It is much heavier a molecule than most any other in the atmosphere. It tends to stay fairly localized to it's source. This is true of many gases, including ozone, methane, etc.

Ozone forms in one part of the atmosphere and is primarily destroyed in another. It is not uniform in the atmosphere.

No, the atmosphere is not a uniform hunk of gases and vapors by any means.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: As discussed a bit more below the depth to which conduction of thermal energy penetrates could be revealed by taking temperature measurements at different times and comparing the changes relative to one another.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.


I'm saying that the value of measurement can be comparative.

This is known as a base rate fallacy. You cannot make a relative comparison without making at least two absolute measurements.
tmiddles wrote:
I may be pretty clueless about what the temperature of the surface but could take enough measurements to be confident that 30 feet down the temperature is consistent. Interesting HVAC idea:
"The temperature of the Earth down 20 or 30 feet is a relatively constant number year-round, somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees"

Already been done for several buildings. It works. It's a great way to cool a building. It can be easier to heat a building since you are heating something starting at 50-60 deg F rather than starting with 0 deg F. Installing one of these does mean punching some pretty deep holes 20-30 feet down though, That's expensive. You have to dig a well, put the piping in it, then fill in the well around the pipe. If the pipe you so installed corrodes and begins to leak, guess what you get to do? That's right. Dig it all up again.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature.


But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it?

Not really. The overall cloud cover over the whole Earth doesn't change much. The overall snow and ice on Earth doesn't change much. The size of the oceans doesn't change much. The size of dry land doesn't change much.

They DO change a bit from second to second. Emissivity can change dramatically in the space of inches.
tmiddles wrote:
If you have extra cloud cover that's more white and that's more solar radiation to bounce directly out into space without converting to thermal energy. No?

No. You see, clouds are only really reflective in the visible light bands. They are quite 'dark' in other frequency bands, including infrared. Emissivity is over all frequencies combined.
tmiddles wrote:
I mean it would average out as random things like that do I guess. But moment to moment it would mess up a thermometer reading.

No, neither clouds nor snow nor ice nor asphalt nor grass mess a thermometer reading.
tmiddles wrote:
Are you saying that it averages out every day?

Temperatures don't average themselves, even though it is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles in a system.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Science and math are my weaknesses, I'll always discuss them. Logic as well. ... and food.


Way more interesting to get to the real discussion and not finish in semantics and misstatements. Granted that it's legitimate to take issue with mistakes.


If I talk about music, I use the terms of music, like signatures, major, minor, augmented, a few Italian words like presto or adagio, measures, phrases, etc.

If someone starts calling a major a rank in music, they are wrong. Plain and simple.

If I talk about science, I use the terms theory, fasifiability, hypothesis, models, and formalization to mathematics. If someone starts calling a religion a falsifiable theory, they are wrong. Plain and simple. If someone starts calling a theory a proof, they are wrong, plain and simple.

Words mean t hings. You can't just discard them and whine about 'useless semantics'.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't mean to quibble with you but...We are not establishing anything as TRUE.


I got you and it's just a language thing. My philosophical/scientific/theological grounding is in Descartes and we can't even know we're not dreaming.


Descarte was a religious man and a mathematician that understood a certain amount of logic, not a philosopher. His statement, "I think, therefore I am.", is a logical one. Not one of philosophy or science. He was also he creator of the Cartesian coordinate system, which we still use today. Pixar and video games wouldn't be possible without it!

tmiddles wrote:
Of course things like relativity, empty atoms and other non-intuitive discoveries reinforce a need to not overstate what you're sure of.

To be quite frank, science is not sure of ANYTHING. There are no proofs in science.
tmiddles wrote:
Whatever you want to call it it is important to be clear about how certain we are of it I would agree.

Science isn't about certainty. There are no proofs in science. It is not a casino. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Theories can be inspired from anywhere. They may come about by watching an episode of Sponge Bob. They may come about by witnessing a traffic accident. They may come about as a result of poring over a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper or computer screen. They may come about even as you sleep Alfred Nobel would keep a notebook at his bedside and write down theories inspired by his dreams in it.

What makes a theory a theory of science is that it's a falsifiable one. It can be tested to see if the theory is wrong. No theory is ever proven True.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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