What is Heat Transfer? (And what happened to Academics?)
In this follow-up to the previous video on “What is Heat”, we have a physics lesson on the MODES of heat transfer and why all modes obey the same basic principles, such as heat flowing from hot to cold only.
We also discuss the strange situation academia finds itself in today, with its believing in and active support of total pseudoscience.
Please post any questions/comment you want to direct to Joe Postma at his blog: climateofsophistry.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
We’re told that Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s Energy Budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation would only infinitesimally affect this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
The astronomical cost of shifting to non-carbon based energy sources would literally send humanity back to the Stone Age, with consequent population decline; annihilation of the species, per the Satanic purpose for destroying the globe’s economies. Let’s make this abundantly clear by noting the shocking cost for just one critical component of the United State’s energy needs:
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve is currently at 635.2 million barrels of oil. 635 million barrels of oil equals 1,079,123,092,000 megawatts. 1,079,123,092,000/100 = 10,791,230,920; 10,791,230,920 X $3.6 billion[1] = $3,884,831,310,000,000,000,000,000,000 (octillion).
The United States’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2017 was $19,390,000,000,000 (trillion). Battery storage to replace the strategic petroleum reserve would cost more than 100,000 GDPs!
THERMODYNAMICS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
SOCIOPATHS IDENTIFIED
The identity of the mass murderers that have co-opted the globe’s institutions identify themselves as Marxists, most being unaware that they are, in fact, manipulated by a top level leadership cadre composed of humanity’s arch enemy’s combatants, Satanists.
Troubled by a personal moral breakdown once freed from parental constraints (a libertine), the man the world knows as a racist and callous and domineering psychopath was formerly a devout and lovely young follower of Christ. Then Marx’s personality changed for the worse, seeking not atheism, but revenge against God and His children on Earth:
“Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited,
I know it full well,
My soul, once true
to God, Is chosen for hell.”
…and…
“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face
of the world,
And see the collapse
of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will
not stifle my ardour.
Then will I wander
godlike and victorious
Through the ruins
of the world
And, giving my
words an active force,
I will feel equal
to the Creator.”
Marx wrote those poems AFTER he transferred university from Bonn to Berlin, telling us (1) Marx always remained a theist, feigning atheism; and (2) that we were lied to when told that once Marx entered university that’s when he became an atheist. As for the rank and file Marxists, they’re marionettes, whose strings are pulled by the Marxist leadership class who are actually Satanists; Satanists have been active within our institutions for millennia, as Jesus warned us.
[1] $3.6 billion is the cost for a 100 megawatts battery. In 2006, during peak power in the summer, Washington, DC used approximately 6,888 MW of power: 6,888/100 MW = 68 MW; 68MW X $3.6 billion = $244.8 billion for Washington, DC to switch from petroleum to renewable energy sources. Washington, DC’s annual budget is $12.8 billion.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Thanks for the spam Dean.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Joe is wrong, which can easily be demonstrated to anyone without a physics degree who is familiar with reality.
Temperature is kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) and Joe emphatically asserts that the flow of heat can only go from a hotter object to a cooler object and never from a cooler object to a hotter object.
Our cooler object, A, has a mass of 1 gram and a velocity of 100 m/sec. This gives it a momentum (mv) of 100 gm/sec and kinetic energy 5000 gm^2sec^-2). The hotter object, B, has a mass of 200 grams and a velocity of 10 m/s making its momentum 2000 gm/sec and its kinetic energy being 10000 gm^2sec^-2.
If he two object are traveling in the same direction when there is an elastic collision between them their momentums will add and then be distributed between them according to their mass.mv(A) + mv(B) = 2100 gm/sec.
According to Joe since B has greater kinetic energy (hotter) it will transfer energy to A (cooler) increasing its energy (velocity) People familiar with reality know that when a smaller faster object rear ends a slower larger object it will slow down.This is what the momentum shows. The velocity of A goes from100 m/sec to .5 m/sec and its kinetic energy denies from 5000 gm^2sec^-2 to .125 gm^2sec^-2. It gets colder. The velocity of B goes from10 m/sec to 10.5 m/sec changing its momentum from 2000 gm/sec to 2100 gm/sec and increasing its kinetic energy to 11025 gm^2sec^-2. The colder object makes the hotter object hotter.
In an elastic collision energy will equalize, mass will not. An object with greater energy (velocity) will transfer energy an object witless energy (velocity) regardless of their masses.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
If headed in the same direction slow doesn’t catch up to fast. If opposite directions, slow will be moving at negative speed relative to fast. You can’t add negative to fast to make it faster. This is dumb.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
The faster object with less ke is striking the slower object with greater ke. If you want to see dumb look in a mirror.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
There’s no energy transfer from less ke to greater ke.
All I see is me. Mirrrors can’t measure intelligence, but thinking they do shows a lack of it.
Reply
Alan
| #
What an insulting comment and what nonsense in your post. The speed of a body does not determine its temperature or vice versa. If two bodies collide then the loss of momentum appears as heat, but I wouldn’t want to use this as a means of heat transfer to heat my home. Joseph was of course discussing photons.
Reply
geran
| #
When, and if, “Berb” ever sobers up, he needs to come back and clean up all of his mistakes.
He’s confusing “temperature”, “heat”, “energy”, and “kinetic energy”. His calculations are wrong, and he even has the wrong units for momentum.
He usually gets physics wrong, but this is a complete disaster.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
It must be tough for you to realize that after all the time, effort, ad money you spent on school you are still stupid. If energy, V^2, equalizes in a collision but mass does not, the objects cannot have equal kinetic energy
Go back and redo your math and see if you can get the right answer. (hint: The mass of the smaller object is 1 gram, not 2)
Reply
geran
| #
Well you got your own name right this time, Herb.
But your immature attempts to insult, combined with not making any sense, and not addressing your mistakes, indicate you haven’t sobered up enough yet.
Maybe sleep it off a few days….
Reply
Massimo Polo
| #
Herb, can you show simple, reproducible, experimental evidence that cold can make hot hotter ?
Reply
Berb Rose
| #
Hi Massimo,
The problem with doing an experiment is that a thermometer is used to measure kinetic energy and it is completely inaccurate. A thermometer is calibrated using water yet it misses 86% of the energy necessary to turn 0 C ice into 100 C steam. It is designed to have one section absorb heat and another section radiate heat. It has no way to record or calculate the mean kinetic energy which is asserted to show. It assumes that, as in a liquid, there will be a constant number of molecules (mass) transferring energy to it. This is not the case in a gas where the addition of energy causes an unconfined gas to expand resulting in fewer molecule (less mass) transferring energy. Using a thermometer in a gas is misusing it because the entire thermometer absorbs and radiates energy resulting in it reading the difference between the absorption of one medium (mercury) with the radiation rate of the other medium (glass).
If you want to do an experiment you could do the one described above and have a smaller faster object strike a slower moving object and see if the velocity of the smaller object increases or decreases.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
MassimoPolo
Roy Spencer did just an experiment.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Reply
Massimo Polo
| #
Norman, I read the full thread and Dr.Roy’s experiment doesn’t seem to prove what it advertises. As per the several comments in the thread, convection effects from cold air/gas cooled by ice cubes can well explain the observed temperature variations.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Massimo,
If the heat of an object increases its kinetic energy increases. If there is no increase in the objects mass any increase in ke must be a result of its energy increasing. If there is a collision between two objects can the object with less or equal energy (V^2) transfer energy to the object with more or equal energy? It does not matter what the mass of the slower object is, energy does not flow from lower to greater. I cannot understand how you cannot distinguish between kinetic energy, where mass is a factor, and just plain energy where there is no mass.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
The “experiment” demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both radiative physics and thermodynamics.
The sheld acts as a reflector, so the temperature of course increases. It’s the same principle as thermal insulation in a home. It is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
Some people know not of what they are claiming, It’s called “pseudoscience”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
You did the math (got the wrong answers) that showed an object with greater energy but less kinetic energy can increase the kinetic energy of an object with greater kinetic energy but less energy. Have you reverted back into the comfort of believing what you have been taught rather thinking for yourself?
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Are you drunk again, “Berb”?
When you sober up, see if you can compose a comment that makes sense.
Joseph Olson
| #
wiki/Water_Absorption_Spectrum > has GIF images of four H2O vibration modes and that water vapor has +37,000 absorption specrtal band lines. What is not mentioned are the thousands of absorption lines for liquid water and solid ice and snow.
Climaclownology is Pied Piper, using Chicken Little science to force Jack in the Beanstalk unsustainable energy agenda for plutocrats.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The “experiment” by Roy Spencer does not show further warming of a warm object by a colder one…the “experiment” is contrived to show alleged warming by covering the cold object instead….no no no….an experiment must show adding the colder object results in a higher temp….otherwise, it is just showing the slowing of the cooling of a warm object by a nearby less warm object.
Reply