Warming acceleration

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

James___ wrote:
Warmth ;
Definition of warmth
1 : the quality or state of being warm in temperature

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.

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".

James___ wrote:
.What is "heat content" ?

James___ wrote:
It's electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:
.When "heat content" is not conserved then it is released.

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

James___ wrote:
which is also known as "white noise"

James___ wrote:
or static.

James___ wrote:
It can also be E = hv. In this form

James___ wrote:
it's a specific frequency which is still electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:
..With a refrigerator, because it is insulated it can be considered as it's own system.

James___ wrote:
This allows the work required to "cool" it's volume relative to the flow of heat through it's insulation.

James___ wrote:
..With a propane refrigerator they forgot the hydrogen.

James___ wrote:
..Folks, that's a major oversight. Why ? Because it's probably the hydrogen that removes heat from inside the refrigerator.

James___ wrote:
When ammonia encounters hydrogen gas, the chemical reaction between the two absorbs heat.

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.

James___ wrote:
As it absorbs heat, the ammonia becomes a gas again.

James___ wrote:
The ammonia and hydrogen gases then combine with water.

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.

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

James___ wrote:
It's possible that there are chemical interactions in our atmosphere at the moment that are not properly understood.

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.

James___ wrote:
He copied and pasted what someone wrote.

James___ wrote:
If he understood the process then he would posted what I did.

James___ wrote:
Everyone could clearly see what role hydrogen plays in cooling in a propane system. With what itn copied it was not prominent.

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.

James___ wrote:
KE = 3/2kT * volume describes heat in it's technical sense and is an accepted definition in the scientific community.

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.

James___ wrote:
Please show me where I am wrong.

James___ wrote:
All itn can say is "it's not", etc. ad nauseum.

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.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. that is the definition of thermal energy, not heat.

Argument of the stone. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

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 ?

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.

James___ wrote:
This is because when one air molecule cools it releases electromagnetic energy in E = hv.

James___ wrote:
That energy is absorbed by another molecule that has already cooled. Then that molecule becomes warmer than average.

James___ wrote:
..It is this transferring, movement or flow which allows for the volume of gases in a room to be considered as 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.

James___ wrote:
..I think this is something anyone debating climate change would need to understand.

James___ wrote:
This is because when 2 molecules collide they release energy which is heat.

James___ wrote:
And this is where the composition of our atmosphere can affect it's own temperature.

James___ wrote:
The question is "When the composition of gasses change is it enough to make a difference?". We don't know that yet.

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.

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

James___ wrote:
..With atmospheric gasses, as they rise in our atmosphere they can release heat.

James___ wrote:
When this happens they should flow downward.

James___ wrote:
But what keeps molecules flowing upwards when they've cooled ?

James___ wrote:
It's the electromagnetic radiation emitted by another molecule.

James___ wrote:
This allows for a thermal updraft where the gasses in that up draft keep interacting with each other.

James___ wrote:
..The up draft itself could be considered a system and this is where we need to consider application.

James___ wrote:
If you read some of the material then you'll understand that the underlying principles in physics can have different applications.

GreenMan wrote:
And this just in:

https://thinkprogress.org/california-wildfires-fire-tornado-14e2fb92d7bd/ said:
Across the Western United States, the wildfire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, according to research from Climate Central, and the average number of large fires burning each year has more than tripled.

The evidence is getting hard to dispute, especially when it's pouring in from all side of us.

From the same article:

California isn't alone. Deadly wildfires are currently raging around the country and the world. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon are also grappling with their own deadly blaze, while much of the wider United States faces a record-shattering heat wave. Across the ocean, Europe is facing its own crisis — nearly 80 people have died in Greece due to wildfires. To the north, Sweden is battling fires in the Arctic Circle that are burning so brightly they can be seen from space at night.

It's not really that surprising that land in the Arctic Circle is burning, since most of the regional warming has been in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The real problem is that it's not going to get any better. This thing we face is just going to continue getting worse and worse. And it is now picking up steam.

Did you know that Ostridges dont really stick their head in a hole when danger is present?

So, uh, why are we?

Into the Night wrote:

muc82 wrote:
It is nice to see so much data in the post.

@James
I also think that the energy that we produce (producing more and more with the years) is making an significant factor to heat up the earth. With all the actions we do in our civilisation we are only warming the environment - also with air condition you produce more heat as you are able to cool the air.
I also think that the population number is an factor. If you place 10 people in a single room you don't need heating in winter for that room. I think the same is on the earth. Yes, it is not an significant factor, but...

@Into the night
I am interrested in your opinion. What are the reasons for rise of the temperatures in last decades according your point of view?

We don't know if the global temperature is rising, falling, or just staying the same. It is likely just generally staying the same, since the output of the Sun hasn't changed significantly.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough instruments to do it.

sealover wrote:
Sounds like we don't know ANYTHING

This is pretty much the ENTIRE Parrot Boy "argument".

Nobody really knows anything.

I guess you have to post that more than 17,000 times to NOT be a TROLL.