Remember me
▼ Content

Warming acceleration



Page 4 of 4<<<234
11-08-2018 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
itn and GasGuzzler maintain that heat can not be either moved or removed.


Heat IS movement.

If heat is absent from a cooling system, it is not cooling. It is at equilibrium.

Warmth can be moved. That's how a house A/C works, for example. It moves warmth from inside to the house to outside.

Now I'm really going to fry your brain...
Warmth can be removed...by heat


Also....heat will happen regardless of insulation.


..GasGuzzler,
.The technical definition of heat is KE = 3/2kT * volume

Not the definition of heat. Heat is not involved in this equation at all. Redefinition fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Warmth ;
Definition of warmth
1 : the quality or state of being warm in temperature

While this one is correct, dictionaries are not authoritative in the definition of any word. Don't try to use one as a science book.
James___ wrote:
..I know warmth can be changed. That is what happens when heat is removed until the sensation of being warm changes to being cool.

Nah. You're BOTH warm. You're BOTH cold. Warm and cold are simply ways to describe a relative temperature difference between two regions. That is not heat.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2018 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
...I thought I'd show a few technical points since it's 5:30 am and I'm up.
..When a molecule conserves energy then it's KE is "heat content".

KE is not 'heat' or 'heat content'. There is no such thing as 'heat content'.
James___ wrote:
.What is "heat content" ?

No such thing.
James___ wrote:
It's electromagnetic radiation.

Light is heat only if it is absorbed by something and converted into thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
.When "heat content" is not conserved then it is released.

Nonsense statement.
James___ wrote:
It's this release that is considered "flow". In this form it is either background electromagnetic radiation

Light IS heat, if it results in absorption causing an increase in thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
which is also known as "white noise"

Light is not white noise. It is not noise at all.
James___ wrote:
or static.

The word 'static' means 'not moving'. A static anything is not talking about heat at all.
James___ wrote:
It can also be E = hv. In this form

Irrelevant equation used to impress. Buzzword fallacy. I doubt you even know what this equation describes.
James___ wrote:
it's a specific frequency which is still electromagnetic radiation.

Leaping from one unrelated subject to another without any apparent purpose other than to try to impress people.
James___ wrote:
..With a refrigerator, because it is insulated it can be considered as it's own system.

The system is of your own choosing. Insulation is not a required component to choose a thermal system.
James___ wrote:
This allows the work required to "cool" it's volume relative to the flow of heat through it's insulation.

Different system again. You can't call two different systems the same system.
James___ wrote:
..With a propane refrigerator they forgot the hydrogen.

No one forgot the hydrogen. Go read that post again.
James___ wrote:
..Folks, that's a major oversight. Why ? Because it's probably the hydrogen that removes heat from inside the refrigerator.

No, it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
When ammonia encounters hydrogen gas, the chemical reaction between the two absorbs heat.

No, it expands the ammonia back into a gas.
James___ wrote:
That's how the propane fridge produces its cooling action -- by pulling heat from the interior of the refrigerator into the ammonia-hydrogen mix.

You can't pull heat. Heat is just a flow of thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
As it absorbs heat, the ammonia becomes a gas again.

It's already a gas at that point.
James___ wrote:
The ammonia and hydrogen gases then combine with water.

Actually, recombine with water. This drives the hydrogen gas off again.
James___ wrote:
The ammonia and water form a solution again, which releases the hydrogen gas to rise back to the evaporator. The process then starts all over again.

This is only part you got right.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
.This is an example of a cumulative effect. That's because different chemical actions are happening.

Nothing is 'accumulating'. The process uses reversible chemical reactions with ammonia.
James___ wrote:
It's possible that there are chemical interactions in our atmosphere at the moment that are not properly understood.

They are understood, just like the chemistry in a propane 'fridge.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2018 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
..With a propane refrigerator they forgot the hydrogen.

No he didn't! Who's making it up now?? Here's exactly what he said...go back and read. There's a whole lot more.
These refrigerators are rather clever devices that make use of a technique first developed by Dr. Faraday while he was playing around with ammonia. He found that when liquid ammonia combines with hydrogen, an endothermic chemical reaction takes place that also has a side effect of bring the ammonia into vapor.




James wrote:
..I know warmth can be changed. That is what happens when heat is removed until the sensation of being warm changes to being cool.

Nope. If there is no heat, there is no change in temperature.
Again, you associate heat with warm or hot.


..GasGuzzler,
..All you're interested is saying I'm wrong. I said itn didn't mention hydrogen.

It's right in front of your face, dude. You're a liar.
James___ wrote:
He copied and pasted what someone wrote.

I didn't copy and paste anything. Unlike you, I actually understand how these refrigerators work.
James___ wrote:
If he understood the process then he would posted what I did.

Why? What you are posting is wrong.
James___ wrote:
Everyone could clearly see what role hydrogen plays in cooling in a propane system. With what itn copied it was not prominent.
Yes it is, liar.
James___ wrote:
..I'm not sure how to put it to you because you don't understand basic calculus.

Buzzword fallacy. Calculus is not involved here. I doubt you even understand what it is.
James___ wrote:
KE = 3/2kT describes the conserved energy of air molecules, ie. heat content.

WRONG. This is not the definition of heat. This equation doesn't even talk about heat at all.
James___ wrote:
KE = 3/2kT * volume describes heat in it's technical sense and is an accepted definition in the scientific community.

No, it isn't. BTW, science is a 'community'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
In it's most simplistic form "heat" is any state of energy above absolute 0 which is −273.15 °C on the Celsius temperature scale and to −459.67 °F on the Fahrenheit temperature scale.

WRONG. that is the definition of thermal energy, not heat.
James___ wrote:
Please show me where I am wrong.
Your definition of 'heat'.
James___ wrote:
All itn can say is "it's not", etc. ad nauseum.

Argument of the stone. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2018 01:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
Best typo ever!

James___ wrote:
Refrigerators are insulated to reduce the ability of heat to be transferred from the atmosphere to the inside of the refrigerator.

ITN wrote:
The heating unit is also insulted to make it more efficient.

Are you suggesting my wife stand at the fridge every night and cuss it out for an hour to save a couple bucks on electricity?

Edited on 12-08-2018 01:42
12-08-2018 05:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. that is the definition of thermal energy, not heat.

Argument of the stone. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.



..I'll try to explain it to you, okay ?
.273.15 kelvins = 32° F.
.273.15 kelvins = 0° C.

..If a room is heated to 273.15 kelvins, that is the AVERAGE KE of the air molecules in that room. Some air molecules will have less energy while others have more. The volume in the room is considered HEAT. This is because when one air molecule cools it releases electromagnetic energy in E = hv. That energy is absorbed by another molecule that has already cooled. Then that molecule becomes warmer than average.
..It is this transferring, movement or flow which allows for the volume of gases in a room to be considered as heat. A cooler air molecule (N2, O2, etc.) can absorb the electromagnetic emission of an air molecule that collided with another molecule. It is actually these collisions which are responsible for heat.
..I think this is something anyone debating climate change would need to understand. This is because when 2 molecules collide they release energy which is heat. And this is where the composition of our atmosphere can affect it's own temperature. The question is "When the composition of gasses change is it enough to make a difference?". We don't know that yet.
12-08-2018 09:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. that is the definition of thermal energy, not heat.

Argument of the stone. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.



..I'll try to explain it to you, okay ?

You'll try to redefine 'heat' again.
James___ wrote:
.273.15 kelvins = 32° F.
.273.15 kelvins = 0° C.

..If a room is heated to 273.15 kelvins, that is the AVERAGE KE of the air molecules in that room. Some air molecules will have less energy while others have more. The volume in the room is considered HEAT.

The volume of a room is not heat. It is volume.
James___ wrote:
This is because when one air molecule cools it releases electromagnetic energy in E = hv.

No, it doesn't. No molecule 'releases' anything.
James___ wrote:
That energy is absorbed by another molecule that has already cooled. Then that molecule becomes warmer than average.

You are comparing two different systems as one again.
James___ wrote:
..It is this transferring, movement or flow which allows for the volume of gases in a room to be considered as heat.

It is not heat. Volume is not heat.
James___ wrote:
A cooler air molecule (N2, O2, etc.) can absorb the electromagnetic emission of an air molecule that collided with another molecule. It is actually these collisions which are responsible for heat.

Molecular collisions are not heat.
James___ wrote:
..I think this is something anyone debating climate change would need to understand.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords do not need to be debated.
James___ wrote:
This is because when 2 molecules collide they release energy which is heat.

Molecular collisions do not release energy or heat.
James___ wrote:
And this is where the composition of our atmosphere can affect it's own temperature.

You are attempting to build a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. Go study the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
James___ wrote:
The question is "When the composition of gasses change is it enough to make a difference?". We don't know that yet.

It doesn't. We do know.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2018 22:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. that is the definition of thermal energy, not heat.

Argument of the stone. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.



..I'll try to explain it to you, okay ?

You'll try to redefine 'heat' again.
James___ wrote:
.273.15 kelvins = 32° F.
.273.15 kelvins = 0° C.

..If a room is heated to 273.15 kelvins, that is the AVERAGE KE of the air molecules in that room. Some air molecules will have less energy while others have more. The volume in the room is considered HEAT.

The volume of a room is not heat. It is volume.
James___ wrote:
This is because when one air molecule cools it releases electromagnetic energy in E = hv.

No, it doesn't. No molecule 'releases' anything.
James___ wrote:
That energy is absorbed by another molecule that has already cooled. Then that molecule becomes warmer than average.

You are comparing two different systems as one again.
James___ wrote:
..It is this transferring, movement or flow which allows for the volume of gases in a room to be considered as heat.

It is not heat. Volume is not heat.
James___ wrote:
A cooler air molecule (N2, O2, etc.) can absorb the electromagnetic emission of an air molecule that collided with another molecule. It is actually these collisions which are responsible for heat.

Molecular collisions are not heat.
James___ wrote:
..I think this is something anyone debating climate change would need to understand.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords do not need to be debated.
James___ wrote:
This is because when 2 molecules collide they release energy which is heat.

Molecular collisions do not release energy or heat.
James___ wrote:
And this is where the composition of our atmosphere can affect it's own temperature.

You are attempting to build a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. Go study the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
James___ wrote:
The question is "When the composition of gasses change is it enough to make a difference?". We don't know that yet.

It doesn't. We do know.



...Ever the parrot. What did you do, copy and paste your previous reply ? I guess when you're looking at facts that doesn't leave you with much, does it ?
13-08-2018 01:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
..When reading this remember that in a propane refrigerator that without molecules interacting no heat is absorbed or released meaning no heat transfer.
.. Please read conduction
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-2/Convection-Key-terms.html

http://www.scienceclarified.com/knowledge/Convection.html

..With atmospheric gasses, as they rise in our atmosphere they can release heat. When this happens they should flow downward. But what keeps molecules flowing upwards when they've cooled ? It's the electromagnetic radiation emitted by another molecule. This allows for a thermal updraft where the gasses in that up draft keep interacting with each other.
..The up draft itself could be considered a system and this is where we need to consider application. If you read some of the material then you'll understand that the underlying principles in physics can have different applications.
13-08-2018 08:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
..When reading this remember that in a propane refrigerator that without molecules interacting no heat is absorbed or released meaning no heat transfer.
.. Please read conduction
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-2/Convection-Key-terms.html

http://www.scienceclarified.com/knowledge/Convection.html

Random shit strung together to point out...what??
James___ wrote:
..With atmospheric gasses, as they rise in our atmosphere they can release heat.

No, convection IS heat.
James___ wrote:
When this happens they should flow downward.
Did you know there is such a thing as a downdraft?
James___ wrote:
But what keeps molecules flowing upwards when they've cooled ?

Colder air around them.
James___ wrote:
It's the electromagnetic radiation emitted by another molecule.
Nope. Colder air around them.
James___ wrote:
This allows for a thermal updraft where the gasses in that up draft keep interacting with each other.

Updrafts don't power themselves.
James___ wrote:
..The up draft itself could be considered a system and this is where we need to consider application.

Updrafts don't power themselves.
James___ wrote:
If you read some of the material then you'll understand that the underlying principles in physics can have different applications.

You are stringing together unrelated shit to point out...what?


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2018 16:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
..A link to Prof. Guzman;
One of our latest environmental chemistry developments is the creation of integrated unmanned aerial systems for environmental monitoring of trace gases.
https://chem.as.uky.edu/users/migu222

..The last link and quote could be the atmospheric chemistry experiment that I've been on about. It involves trace gases CO2, H2O, HCHO. Dr. Guzman knows it's important for someone like himself to be involved with it because it does involve research that he's been pursuing;
For the previous reasons, our laboratory studies the missing mechanisms of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) production from heterogeneous oxidations and sunlight photolysis
http://www.guzmanlab.com/research/atmospheric-chemistry-1

..And if everything works out okay then I'll receive some credit for asking about CO2 + H2O > HCHO and O2 and if the upper troposphere and the tropopause work differently than the lower troposphere. For me, it's kind of exciting to think he might be doing the actual research on this. And with what he wants to know he'd show why he is Dr. Guzman and I am an amateur scientist.
..I am hopeful on this because I have let him know that I need an ileostomy and if things work out with the experiment then maybe I can get the surgery that I believe I need. And this is where with success Dr. Guzman could say nothing about me but I think he will. I limited myself to HCHO occuring and allowing for O2 which could support the Chapman cycle. If that is added to his research and everything works out then he'll need a larger lab and I'll have my ileostomy.

..ITN,
.I guess I may have to wait to find out what specific research that Dr. Guzman is doing with his integrated unmanned aerial systems. And if success is realized then as myself and Dr. Guzman both know it will be an important discovery for his laboratory.
Edited on 13-08-2018 16:11
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Warming acceleration:

Remember me

▲ 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