Audio Recording: This is Why They Won’t Debate Me

This is the audio of a debate I had with a climate alarmist flat-Earth radiative greenhouse effect believer. Just listen and have fun…it gets good.

To post comments and questions for Joe Postma, please do so at his website: 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.

Comments (108)

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    This is great, how anyone can believe a colder object can make a warmer object hotter amazes me. That would mean if I put a cup of iced water next to a cup of hot tea, the iced water would make the tea get hotter. As I understand it, heat-flow goes in one direction; from hot to cold.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan

      |

      Joseph Postma does excellent work in this area. I have spoken to professional electrical engineers about this and they believe that radiation from a cold body to a hot body transfers energy and therefore causes heating, just like the discussion in this video. They will not accept the laws of thermodynamics.

      It is not just basic laws that people do not understand. There is an obsession with energy budget and energy balance whihc have no meaning. It is the law of conservation of energy that applies and energy can be gained or lost by a system so energy in does not equal energy out. Joe explains how this also results in another huge error. They start with the effective radiative temperature of the earth of -18C and assume that the sun’s incoming energy can only heat the earth to the same temperature. It shows the dire state of eduction today when these ideas dominate a majority.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Alan:
        they believe that radiation from a cold body to a hot body transfers energy and therefore causes heating, just like the discussion in this video.

        James:
        They are correct. It is only you ideologically motivated morons who state otherwise.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Tom O

      |

      Not to “support” any position other than what seems to be reasonable, all objects above absolute zero radiate “heat.” Obviously, the closer to zero, the less there is available. As such, in your example, yes, the cup of ice water is radiating “heat.”

      All objects are also capable of receiving this “heat” from other objects. There is no reason to believe otherwise. If the object’s temperature can be raised, then it obviously can receive “heat.”

      It is, then, a truth that a colder object can radiate “heat” and a warmer object can “receive” that “heat”. It doesn’t mean that the warmer object gets warmer since it is radiating “heat” itself, but it has the capacity to receive “heat” at the same time. In total, the “heat” will flow from warm to cold, but that doesn’t mean that a cold object can’t radiate its own “heat.”

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Roger Higgs

        |

        Lord give me strength.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          J Cuttance

          |

          Lol

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Tom,
        Objects radiate or absorb energy from the surrounding energy field and equalize with that field, not with each other If there is a N2 molecule which absorbs uv energy and a CO2 molecule which emits IR radiation there is no way the N2 can absorb the radiated energy emitted by the CO2 and yet they will equalize. They will both lose energy to or gain energy from the surrounding field equalizing with it.
        Both molecules vibrate by flexing at their bonds. This movement of atoms with their electric fields creates electromagnetic waves. If the amplitude of the electromagnetic wave is greater than the amplitude of the fields corresponding wavelength the molecule will transfer energy to the field. If the amplitude of the wavelength in the field is greater than the amplitude of the flexing of the molecule, the molecule will absorb energy from the field. Equilibrium is when the amplitude of the wave in the field equals the amplitude of the bond flexing.
        Herb

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        I find that very hard to accept.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        richard

        |

        I have always found an electrical method is needed to take the heat out of an object- the fridge.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Andy Rowlands

          |

          Haha yes Richard!

          Reply

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        A very common error. Anything above absolute zero produces a thermal signature mistakenly referred to as a heat signature.

        For that energy to become “HEAT” a temperature change must be produced from hot to cold.
        Read any standard thermodynamics manual and it will tell you the same thing. “HEAT” is a transient phenomenon in the truest thermodynamics sense, and cannot be contained in a system.

        Mistaking thermal energy as thermal heat is very common.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Andy,
      Radiated energy flows from higher energy to lower energy, but heat is kinetic energy and when collisions are the primary means of energy transfer (as in the troposphere) cooler objects can transfer kinetic energy (heat) to objects with more kinetic energy (hotter).
      A 200 gram object is moving at 10 m/sec making its ke (1/2 mv^2) 1 X 10^2 (g m^2)/sec^2. A 1 gram object following it with a velocity of 100 m/sec will have half it ke (.5 X 10^4 (g m^2)/sec^2)). When the 1 gram object collides with the 200 gram object it will add velocity/energy to the 200 gram object as it loses energy/velocity. Objects transfer energy, not mass. In the troposphere where you have high velocity gas molecules colliding with more massive objects (a drop of water) the gas molecule with less kinetic energy can still transfer energy to the droplet with greater kinetic energy.
      Herb

      Reply

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      AR: how anyone can believe a colder object can make a warmer object hotter

      JMcG:
      Strawman alert. Andy, be careful not to be putting words in people’s mouths. Nobody ever stated that the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. They just made the highly reasonable and completely noncontroversial assertion that the atmosphere heats the surface.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        I wasn’t aware I was.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          That puts you in the same company as the alarmists and Postma.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Andy Rowlands

            |

            Oh does it now.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        “Nobody ever stated that the atmosphere makes the surface warmer.”

        “highly reasonable and completely noncontroversial assertion that the atmosphere heats the surface.”

        Troll McGinn seems to lack self-awareness.
        “making warmer” and “heats” are synonymous.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Zoe:
          Troll McGinn seems to lack self-awareness.
          “making warmer” and “heats” are synonymous.

          James:
          The point, moron, is that you ideogically motivated pretenders don’t have an empirical point. You have a semantic point. You idiots think that other people are subject to comply with your verbal conventions. And your collective stubborness has brought all you you pretenders to the conclusion other people believe cold can increase the temperature of warmer–EVEN THOUGH NOBODY EVER STATED SUCH!!!

          You are all morons.

          James McGinn / Genius

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Here is the troll claiming I’m the one making a semantic argument, not him. What a troll.

      • Avatar

        Chris

        |

        James, the statement that the atmosphere heats the surface is the same as saying that the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. No it isn’t reasonable. And it is amazing that there are people who can be convinced that a colder object can warm a hotter one.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          James, the statement that the atmosphere heats the surface is the same as saying that the atmosphere makes the surface warmer.

          No it isn’t, moron. The fact that you choose to fictionalize an equivalence between these two phrases doesn’t mean everybody else is obligated to agree.

          No it isn’t reasonable. And it is amazing that there are people who can be convinced that a colder object can warm a hotter one.

          So, if you misinterpret what other people say you can then pretend that you are smarter than them. Is that your point, moron?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            What physical process “makes” the “surface warmer” ?

          • Avatar

            Chris

            |

            Look who’s talking, a complete idiot who thinks that colder objects warm hotter ones. Why don’t you go back to high school and take an English class. That might too high a grade level for you. Make sure that your drool cup is on tight so that you don’t ruin your books.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Folks,

            This comment is an attempt to answer the question that Zoe just asked.

            By which comment II am going to prove again ‘how stupid I am’ by writing this comment in the midst of the debate that is going on.

            First, my comment to anyone who expects me to listen to a 40+ minute audio recording. Joe, I refuse to listen to your debate. For I know I can read a transcript of your debate in much less than 40+ minutes. And as I read I can immediately go back to reread the words that were spoken. I have a poor memory.

            So, I am stupid because I have not ideas of what was spoken in your debate, all I know are the comments which are being made were at PSI. Which general comments I have read repeatedly here at PSI.

            My comment at this time is to review what I haven’t read during these debates Which is what goes up must come down. A few times I have read the words ‘updrafts’ and ‘downdrafts’. And I have read the common observation that the atmosphere of the updraft is being adiabatically cooled (temperature decreases) as it is rising away from the earth’s surface. But I cannot remember reading, here at PSI, that the atmosphere of the downdraft is being adiabatically warmed (temperature increases) as it falls toward the earth’s surface. So that when this warmed falling atmosphere reaches the earth’s surface it might possibly warm a colder earth surface as every knows should happen.

            There, I have written what I cannot remember reading here at PSI.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Zoe: What physical process “makes” the “surface warmer”?

            James: Warmer than what? If you don’t specify your question is unintelligible. Don’t be a Postma. Provide details and don’t implore your audience to only accept your own interpretation of the different semantics.

            James McGinn / Genius
            What is Water’s Role in Storms?
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/What-is-Waters-Role-in-Storms-egaa7o

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Chris: Look who’s talking, a complete idiot who thinks that colder objects warm hotter ones. Why don’t you go back to high school and take an English class. That might too high a grade level for you. Make sure that your drool cup is on tight so that you don’t ruin your books.

            You’ve allowed Postma’s semantics to confuse you. It is common knowledge that colder objects heat warmer objects. For example, when you put on a sweater on a cold day to get warm the sweater is colder than you. Surely, you are not so deluded that you deny this. Do you?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “Putting on a sweater” is not an example of violating the 2nd Law. A sweater acts as insulation, reducing the heat transfer from one’s body to the atmosphere, along with reducting convection.

            “Cold warming hot” is an abbreviated form of “A cold body cannot warm a hotter body, without external energy being added.” So sitting next to a sweater, outside on a cold night, and expecting the cold sweater to warm you, would be an example of not understanding thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Geran: A sweater acts as insulation, reducing the heat transfer from one’s body to the atmosphere, along with reducing convection.

            James:
            Everybody knows this, moron. We were discussing the intricacies thereof. Specifically, we were discussing how insulation works. The colder insulate is reradiating energy back to the source. Colder heats warmer.

            If you want to employ thermodynamics then I suggest you use the language of thermodynamics and stop inserting your own semantic revisions of this terminology, it is confusing you and making you look stupid to people like myself who are experts in thermodynamics.

            James McGinn / Genius
            The Public Believes Plainly Dumb Things About the Atmosphere
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Public-Believes-Plainly-Dumb-Things-About-the-Atmosphere-eacv0k

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You still don’t get it, so obvious by your statement: “Colder heats warmer”.

            You don’t know anything about thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            So, Geran, do you now recognize that energy is (constantly) moving both from hotter objects to cooler objects and from cooler objects to hotter objects?

            James McGinn / Genius

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            So, James, do you now recognize that energy is (constantly) moving from cooler objects to hotter objects, but that does not imply cold can warm hot. “Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from hot to cold. Energy transfer by itself is not “heat”. You’re still trying to bake a turkey with ice cubes.

          • Avatar

            Chris

            |

            James the more you talk the dumber you become. The colder sweater doesn’t warm me. The air between my body and the atmosphere is slowed and heated by my body. My body produces heart through chemical reactions. Who are you trying to convince with your nonsense, yourself?

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Let me ask a question. If a heavier object moving in one direction is struck by a slightly faster smaller object moving in the same direction will the larger object slow down as its greater kinetic energy is transferred to the smaller object with less kinetic energy?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Herb:
        Let me ask a question. If a heavier object moving in one direction is struck by a slightly faster smaller object moving in the same direction will the larger object slow down as its greater kinetic energy is transferred to the smaller object with less kinetic energy?

        James:
        Perfect analogy. Of course they all know the answer to this question. But they won’t answer. Just like the worst of the alarmist, the right wing ideologues here in PSI are completely lacking in self awareness.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          The Left has a nasty habit of calling correct views “right wing ideology”, and their left wing ideology “truth”.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug Harrison

    |

    I would like to state my great admiration for Joseph Postma’s sheer persistent determination to defeat these idiots with real science and I wish him every success in his endeavours. However to quote Mark Twain (I think) “It is much easier to fool a man than it is to convince him that he has been fooled”. There’s been an awful lot of fooling going on these last few decades and most of it seems to be coming from the UN.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    I know what the alarmist problem is. He thinks that the Earth can heat the atmosphere up to a temp greater than its surface. If that were possible then he would be right. But no object can heat another object beyond its own temp. Therefore, if the atmosphere does heat the Earth it would be because it acquired heat from a different source. These people are always confused by the basics.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Chris

      |

      Let me clarify, an object cannot heat another object by thermal transfer to a temp beyond its own temp. But were not talking adiabatic heat when referring to the atmosphere.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    My response on the blog was this —
    For the stupid notion of ‘backradiation’ to work it would have to work across the entire electromagnetic spectrum — would it not? In radio, in optics, and through to x-rays and beyond — but it doesn’t. Why? Because it is a fantasy, a virtual reality fiction!
    The coatings on a simple fluorescent bulb acts very much as CO2 is said to work, in that it take a high frequency (UV in this case) and translates it down to visible light. Now if ‘backradiation’ worked as said then you would only have to initially power the the fluorescent bulb and after that ‘backradiation’ would keep it illuminated without further power. But it doesn’t.
    In electronics there are many methods of translating frequencies (up as well as down) but never is so called ‘backradiation’ even mentioned. The Yttrium aluminum garnet, YAG, has no internal or external ‘backradiation’, masers and lasers — even IR lasers — do not have to account for it.
    As Monty Python skit said “This is a dead parrot!” and so is ‘backradiation’.
    Now if you say it only affects the IR spectrum please supply (with reference) precisely what frequencies perform this prestidigitation, and explain why only those frequencies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    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

  • Avatar

    T.C. Clark

    |

    There are 2 cooler boxes made of frozen CO2….both boxes contain a cup of water at 50 degrees C and the second box also contains a cup of water at 10 degrees C. What is the rate of cooling of the 2 cups of 50 C? Will the 2 50 C cups cool at the same rate?….or will the 10 C cup slow the rate of cooling of the 50 C cup in the second box?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Yes indeed T.C. Clark, once all the mysticism and nonsense is ripped from the imaginary, or computer simulated and visualized ideas of how the climate works, all that is left is the physical reality, a reality these unreconstructed AGW believers can not see, can not see beyond.
      What is real —
      The sun controls the Earth’s temperature.
      The oceans control the atmospheric COS levels.
      Humans are a part of nature, not an alien device against nature.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    This was fun. But definitions are important and useful in these discussion. The definition of energy in these contexts is:

    “In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.”

    So energy is always heat, or work, and the atmosphere cannot transfer energy to the surface because both the heat flow and the work(gravity) comes from the surface. This means that the radiation from the atmosphere is not energy from a surface perspective.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    Very good explanation of the microstates and why radiation from cold can´t heat a warm body even if it´s absorbed. Usually when I explain that, it goes straight over heads. It´s so simple and straightforward but not many people in these discussions understand it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Lifesthermal,
      Correct.Radiated energy from a cooler object can’t heat a warmer object. Kinetic energy from a cooler can heat a warmer object by convection because kinetic energy is a function of both mass and energy. A less massive object with greater energy can transfer energy to a more massive object with less energy.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    In a microwave oven microwaves will, be converted to kinetic energy by the water molecules in the food. The air in the oven will not absorb microwaves and remains cool. If the food in the oven is not moved exposing different parts of the food to the microwaves the microwaves will overcook one section and leave other sections raw.
    In a microwave oven with a browning unit there is an infrared heating element that heats the air in the oven and the surface of the food just as in a conventional oven. Does the IR add heat to the food?
    The surface of the Earth is heated by the absorption of visible light. The N2 and O2 in the atmosphere are heated by the absorption of uv light. Does the kinetic energy of the gases heat the surface of the Earth? If you use the universal gas law (P is gravity and constant) it will show that the kinetic energy (t) increases with increasing altitude (density deceases) showing the sun is heating the atmosphere, not the surface of the Earth. Look at the composition of the atmosphere. The reactivity (energy) of oxygen compounds increases with increasing altitude (O2 < O3 < N2O < O).
    The problem is the concept of the photon and that radiated energy can be treated like kinetic energy. It all stems from the misinterpretation of the photoelectric effect and the idea that radiated energy (light) must provide enough energy to dislodge an electron from an atom. In crystals and metals electrons are already dislodged from atoms and held in place by electric forces. All that is necessary to cause electrons to flow is a distortion of those electric forces either by a changing electromagnetic force (light) or in the case of the piezo electric effect, mechanical pressure.
    The belief that the gas molecules in the atmosphere have less kinetic energy than the surface molecules is the result of the thermometer measuring the kinetic energy striking it and with fewer molecules in a gas there is less mass and less kinetic energy being measured.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      T.C. Clark

      |

      “The surface of the earth is heated by the absorption of visible light”? The surface of the earth receives both IR and UV and visible light. You said IR hits the food in the microwave so yes, it heats the food to some degree. The diameter of the earth is almost 8,000 miles and the bulk of the atmosphere is less than 8 miles thick…it is like wrapping a basketball with some clear plastic wrap…the atmosphere mass pales in comparison to the earth’s mass.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi T. C.,
        The crust of the Earth heated by the sun is also paper thin. The atmosphere absorbs 95% of the uv coming from the sun and 100 % ox the x-rays. You are correct that the mass of the atmosphere pales to the mass of the Earth but this means the energy is distributed to fewer molecules resulting in each molecule of the atmosphere having more kinetic energy than those of the surface. If you use the universal gas law to calculate the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere (P being from gravity is constant making the atmosphere act as an unconfined gas.) you will see that the kinetic energy (t) of gas molecules increases with altitude causing the density to decrease.
        Herb

        Reply

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Joseph is right, but for the wrong reasons.

    “Heat” does NOT transfer from cold to hot, by itself. It doesn’t matter if it’s conductive or radiative. “Heat” does NOT transfer from cold to hot, by itself. Joseph gets that correct.

    The atmosphere does NOT warm the surface, except for localized weather events. But averaged over the entire surface, 24-7, the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface. Joseph gets that correct.

    Where Joseph gets it wrong is believing that “radiative heat equation” is valid. The equation results in a mathematical difference between fluxes. The result of the calulation has units of “Watts/m^2”, which is not the units of heat, which is “Joules”. A mathematical difference between fluxes has no physical meaning since different fluxes do not interact in a predictable way.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Geran,
      I thought I’d try out my new comedy routine and give you a laugh.
      A object is moving in one direction. A smaller object with less mass and kinetic energy but greater velocity collides with the back of the object. Everybody knows (except me) that the larger object will slow as it transfers kinetic energy to the smaller object and the velocity of the smaller object will increase from added energy. I think the larger object will increase in velocity/kinetic energy and the smaller object will slow losing kinetic energy. Ridiculous right.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Your scenario needs to specify if the two masses stay together after collision. If so, and there are no losses, then it’s a simple “conservation of momentum” problem. m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)Vnew

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Geran,
          I’m speaking of when the two objects remain separate and do not merge into a single unit.
          Herb

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Assuming the two objects separate and the collision was elastic, then the larger mass losses speed, as the smaller mass gains speed. If I understand your scenario.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            No Geran, they both continue in the same direction with the vector representing the larger object becoming longer while the vector representing the smaller object becoming shorter.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            So this must be where the humor starts?

            What’s the vector? Velocity? Momentum?

            You seem unable to present a scenario that is understandable. That’s why you get so confused. That’s funny, but it’s not “new” humor. That’s just your usual humor.

            Put some real numbers in and properly describe what you’re talking about. Let’s see if you can get your own problem correct.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            I have pondered what you and Herb wrote.

            You ask: “What’s the vector? Velocity? Momentum?”

            It doesn’t matter whether the vector is velocity or momentum, In this case Herb is correct. Herb is paradox; sometimes he is correct and something he is so off base that it is funny when he is correct.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Yes Jerry, when I’m trying to get Herb to explain what he’s talking about, you get confused and believe I am somehow wrong.

            Thanks for helping Herb with his comedy show.

            If you want to do more humor, you can take the challenge I left for Herb. “Put some real numbers in and properly describe what you’re talking about.”

            But, we both know you won’t do that….

            Have a great day.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            If you look at the 10th comment for this article you will see where I put in numbers. If Jerry understood, the problem isn’t with my description its with your refusal to comprehend.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, you never mentioned your previous comment, even when I expressed doubt if I were understanding the problem.

            Also, the starting KE of the 200g mass is 10000 g-m^2/sec^2, not 100 g-m^2/sec^2.

            And, you didn’t calculate the final speeds!

            So do as I challenged and calculate the final speeds of the two masses. That may help you to understand.

            Between you and Jerry, it is great comedy! Thanks.
            .

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            You have a problem which too many people, who seem to enjoy criticizing other people, have. This problem is you seem unable to admit you were wrong when you are wrong..

            Have a good day< Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Jerry, above you were given a chance to participate constructively and responsibly:

            “Put some real numbers in and properly describe what you’re talking about.”

            But, I guess personal attacks are all you have to offer.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            I had not commented about your effort to challenge Herb to put some numbers on his vectors. Previously I had quoted information of which I considered PSI readers should be aware. Which information now gives me a reason to repeat.

            There are ‘cognitive’ scientists who study how students learn science and mathematics knowledge. In the journal ‘Science’ an short article by Lauren B. Resnick, a cognitive scientist, reported some general results of their studies (4/29/1983, pp 477-478)

            “Several studies show that successful problem solving requires a substantial amount of qualitative reasoning. Good problem-solvers do not rush in to apply a formula or an equation. Instead they try to understand the problem situation: they consider alternative representations and relations among the variables.”

            This I see is what Herb was doing and there was (is) no need for him, or me, to divert attention from this important ‘general understanding’ that he attempted to qualitatively explain.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Well, it’s been long enough. If Herb or Jerry had any answers, they would have produced them by now. They both love to comment so much. But working physics problems…..crickets….

            So here are the answers they were unable to provide:

            small mass… 1g @ 100 m/s
            large mass… 200g @ 10 m/s

            After elastic collision:
            small mass… -79.1 m/s
            large mass… 10.9 m/s

            Easy-peasy, after I helped Herb with the setup.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Geran,

            Again I proved how stupid I am. When Herb proposed his artificial thought experiment, I should have demanded he quantified the speed and masses of his two bodies. For I had read that the publisher of Galileo’s classic book had written a preface to the reader in which he quoted a common saying of that early time. Which, as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914) was “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”

            I should have remembered this and seen that Herb had not accurately defined his problem. Which I did not have opportunity to read about until your last comment.

            Now, given this difference of speeds of the two bodies I would have qualitatively reasoned the more massive body was standing still when it was rear ended by less massive body moving at 90m/sec.

            And I should have remember the science I practice always requires observations. But this isn’t the first mistake I’ve made. And from my experiences I know it will not be my last.

            However, after I take a second look at your claimed result and consider my qualitative reasoning, I must ask to see the mathematical calculations you made to reach the quantitative results.you reported.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            I do not need to quantify the obvious observation that when a moving object is struck from behind by an object with greater velocity its velocity will increase not decrease.
            If you need to quantify something quantify Jerry’s question of how stupid is he when changes from the correct position to a wrong position citing the publisher of Galileo’s book as justification.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Right Herb, you no longer need to “quantify” the solution to your scenario since I did it for you.

            But, now I see what your point was. You’re trying to claim “cold” can warm “hot”, since a fast molecule can make a slow, heavier molecule move faster (have more KE). But that’s not an example of increasing temperature because the average KE remains the same.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            I’m not denying conservation of energy I’m trying to point out that kinetic energy and energy are not the same. If you look at your initial comment you clearly state that a “cold” object cannot add “heat” to a warmer object by radiation or convection.
            When it comes to the interaction between the gas molecules in the atmosphere and the matter on the surface of the Earth, even though the gas molecules have less kinetic energy, they have greater velocity and are able to transfer energy to the matter even when they are the same temperature.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You’re still barking up the wrong tree, Herb.

            Transfer of energy does not mean an automatic temperature increase. It could even mean a temperature decrease, or no change at all.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            If temperature measures the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) of an object how can an increase in energy not lead to an increase in kinetic energy?
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            If you increase the average KE of a system, that will increase the temperature. But transfer of KE within a system will not raise system temperature.

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    OK, I got it — unifying lie (AGW) attracts the like-minded and they cooperate while we, the “truth-seekers” are in quarrel while being “right” — can someone explain this? E.g. “the logician” or anyone not involved in this nonsense??? Joseph included!
    JaKo

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      When the world NEEDS saving, no lies should be excluded. I think all animals agree. It’s only the conscious and conscientious that are concerned with the exact truth and its details.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    The equatorial area is very hot when the sun is overhead, as you head towards the poles the sun’s glancing rays travel through more atmosphere warming the atmosphere, the land, and oceans less. The pole in the solar shadow can be the very cold. (see https://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-equator-to-pole-temperature-difference/ for more) So, at the basic level, the reason we have both weather and climate is because the SUN’s heating effect sets-up a temperature differential between the warm equatorial and the much cooler polar regions. This solar effect powers the air and moisture movement that is our weather.
    The BIG problem is if you average the solar warming across the total area of the planet, as the AGW (Flat Earth) supposition does, effectively you are removing the equatorial to the polar differential, and will have to invent new novel weather mechanisms, an unreal novel weather mechanisms.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Simple questions …
      1) “Is there a temperature differential between the equator and the poles?”
      The answer obviously is “yes”.
      2) Does not the (strangely) idealized AGW averaging of solar energy over the Earth remove this temperature differential?”
      The answer obviously is “yes”.

      Thus given such a large differential from equator to poles, any tiny amount of CO2 warming (if any) is lost in the chaotic movements and energy exchanges that naturally happens across the planet. Therefore AGW supposition is an unreal effect, it does not represent what actually happens with either the weather or climate on this planet.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi TomO,

      I respect your comments but you just wrote: “The pole in the solar shadow can be the very cold.”

      First, what is your definition of very cold? At follow.mosaic-epedition.org the air temperature (Celsius to a 10th of a degree as well as the temperature of the water is reported daily during the polar winter season at latitudes greater than 85 degrees N on a podcast. In addition there is a continuous plot of these air temperatures.which makes it easy to see their variation during the winter season. So I see that the minimum air temperature was never less than neg 38C and that the maximum temperature was never greater than neg 9C between the fall equinox and the spring equinox of the past winter.

      Yes, neg 38C is cold but on two mornings, separated by 2 weeks one especially cold winter, I experienced neg 40C minimum temperatures at Hibbing MN (47.4 deg N). And one of these mornings the sun was brightly shining through a cloudless sky when at 10am my car’s fan belt came apart. So that winter neg 20C was a somewhat normal minimum temperature which could be generalize to have been a normal minimum temperature less than 4deg latitude from the North Pole.

      What you may not have considered is that the water temperature was consistently a neg 1.7 or 1.8C during the entire winter season. So when the common leads (cracks in the ice floes) occurred the minimum temperature difference between the water surface and the ice surface inches away was nearly 22C. Of course, the water surface quickly began freezing but for a while its ice surface was being warmed by the warm neg 1.8C water just below it instead of the several meter thick ice sheet which had ‘naturally’ cracked open. I would enjoy reading someone’s explanation of the mechanism of the isolated leads formation.

      Easier to explanation are the pressure ridges which form and have a much greater lifetime than the leads. And I can imagine at the base of some of these ridges of thick sheets of ice are open ocean water from where evaporated water molecules can diffuse through the cracks in the ridges into the neg 22C, or sometimes colder, atmosphere at the surfacesof the ice floes.

      And also reported in the podcast are the wind speeds. And there was never reported a 0m/sec (calm) condition. What was experienced near the pole were weather systems not unlike those which occur at lower latitudes during the winter where the sun rises and sets daily.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      As a follow on to the above —
      This averaging of solar energy input may or may not be true. However what it does not reveal is anything about the progress of the climate!
      It appears to me like some mathematical idiot savant has looked at a colorful and complex fractal image and averaged it to some mud gray. Sure you now can say what the average hue and brightness of the image is but it reveals nothing about the underlying complexity. It tells you nought about the chaotic nature or the range of hues and brightness of the original image. Average this image of a 3D fractal https://comps.canstockphoto.com/3d-fractal-of-future-city-development-picture_csp52636610.jpg then tell me how much more information can be gained by doing it.
      And like fractals our climate has a rhythms of cycles and repeating themes but may well be far more complex.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi TomO,

        I did not know there were ‘facials’ until I encountered Michael Clarke. And I believe he has become convinced they are nonsense. For they are clearly the product of ‘consensus science’. And when you look toward complexity you are turning your back on Einstein who maintained that nature is simple once you understand it.

        One only has to watch a stream flowing over a rocky bottom to see that nature is chaotic (impossible to explain in detail. But the water keeps flowing downhill and that is simple to explain. But one must consider this thing which we term inertia, of which we cannot explain its cause anymore than we can explain the cause of gravity. But Newton wrote it was enough to observe what gravity did as he explained the paths followed by planets as they orbited the sun and explained the semidiurnal motions of some easily observed ocean tides. And ‘some’ is a key word because we know these observed tides cannot be precisely predicted to be absolutely cyclilic for the motion of the oceans are chaotic (without a predictable pattern).

        This is just some things you might ponder.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Jerry,
          FRACTALS are simple equations (X= (X + c)^n that produce very complex and intricate patterns from basic building units through a feed back system. These patterns are observed in nature which leads to the idea that there is an underlying order beneath all the complexity and chaos. Newton’s gravity gave a description that applied to the simple action of something falling to the complexity of galaxies. The purpose of science is to try to discover fundamental causes that explain seemingly unrelated events. Copernicus instead, of accepting the observation that some stars behaved differently looked at it from a different perspective to find a basic order.
          Have a good day,
          Herb

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Herb and TomO,

          Herb, thank you for pointing out my big error of not seeing the R. And I now see that I did not correctly spell the word (factual) about which I was referring. And I can only hope the have spelled the word to which I was referring as nonsense.

          As I begin composing this comment it is because you wrongly considered that you had written the word—factual. My definition of this word is: something which is repeatedly stated by some that is nonsense. Then you wrote the word climate as if it is not related to the word: weather. Climate is the long term average of yearly weather. And if you haven’t noticed, the weather of one year, at a given location, can be quite different from the weather the year before and the year after. So to begin to understand ‘climate’ we must first begin to understand (explain) how the weather of one year can be so different from one year to the next.

          The second sentence which my favorite meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe, wrote in his Introduction (‘Weather and Climate’) was: “It is then not unreasonable to suppose, it could hardly be otherwise, that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth, were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historic sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science. It was, and is, a difficult science to reduce to its basic principles and so to present as a deductive structure.”

          What I see is that Sutcliffe, in this quoted first sentence reduced weather to its basic principles: wind, rain, warmth. He seemed to overlook seasons.

          In the chemistry texts I chose for my students, their authors quickly directed a student’s attention to two words: homogeneous and heterogeneous. And if one is not familiar with these two words’ definitions, that is a fundamental problem.

          But I do not believe it was a fundamental problem to those ‘primitive’ prehistoric humans who lived and survived in ‘harsh’ climates in which few modern meteorologists would want to test if they could survive with their modern meteorological knowledge based upon their complex deductive reasoning.

          For most all ‘natural systems’ are easily seen heterogeneous system and most of we humans have the fundamental senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing and most of us have a brain which is capable of great feats. That is if we use these senses to input data to our brain and learn.

          Learn that the atmosphere is not homogenous. Learn that the earth’s surface is not homogenous. Learn that the wind is not a constant (homogenous). Learn that temperature (warmth) is not a constant (homogenous). Learn that rain is not a constant (homogeneous). Learn that solar radiation is not a constant (homogeneous).

          And if one does not see the point of this comment, accept that this is your problem, not mine. For do you see that despite my errors, that what I have written about factualsthe also applies to fractals relative to the study of weather and climate.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            Climate is determined by the energy the sun delivers to the Earth. Weather is the distribution of the energy around the globe. Weather does not produce climate but is produced and a manifestation of climate.
            Have a good day,
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            Zoe should like these questions. Please answer each of them.

            Was the Sun the principal source of energy which formed the mountain ranges which are found along the west side of the American continents? Is the Sun the principal source of energy which moves continents? Is the sun the principal source of energy which kept the temperature of the Arctic Ocean beneath the ice floes, while the air temperature above the ice floes was even colder, a constant negative 1.7 to 1.8 C within about 4 degrees latitude of the North Pole between the Fall Equinox and the Spring Equinox? Might there be another significant source of energy in addition to the energy of the Sun which has and continues to directly influence weather?

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            I have repeatedly ask you to give the source of the energy at the top of the stratosphere that cause the temperature to rise from the troposphere and mesosphere. You have decided that you can ignore that question and demand I answer your questions.Does the term FU ring a bell? Ask someone else.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            I consider that answer well known. It is because a step in the ozone cylce requires that there be an improbable three-body collision where the third body (likely a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen) where is necessary to carry away energy (kinetic energy) so the reforming of the ozone molecule doesn’t immediately dissociate back to an oxygen atom and an oxygen molecule before the ozone molecule formed in the three-collision can absorb another uv-photon and the cycle in which the third body gains kinetic energy, this increasing the temperature of the air.

            Now, do not debate (question) this accepted explanation before you directly answer my three simple questions.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            Your answer is absolute nonsense. Ozone forms throughout the stratosphere and is a result of a collision between a free oxygen atom and a oxygen molecule. It is uv that provides the energy that splits an oxygen molecule and creates the free oxygen atom.
            The answer to all your questions is no the sun is not the source of the energy it is geothermal energy. Since geothermal is generally confined below the surface of the crust it is not a significant contributor to weather or climate which is a surface phenomena. If you dig down enough there is no seasons or weather just a constant temperature. Do you think the geothermal energy radiate decreases in the winter and increases in the summer? Do you think the heat being radiated from the interior preferential radiates to equatorial areas? Geothermal can have short term effects on the weather just like a forest fire but it is not significant.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            You just proved why I had not answered your question before. And any reader who might be reading our comments now knows what you have just done and commonly do to people who might have more experience than you as a scientist. Which you are not..

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            In order to convert 3 O2 into 2 O3 you need to add energy. The bond lengths of O3 are ,longer than those of O2 and when O3 loses energy by radiation it goes from 2 O3 back to 3 O2. 1st lOT.
            Your contention that when three molecules collide instead of energy equalizing somehow energy is produced causing the atmosphere to heat up is not science. Your explanation violates the 1st LOT. You maintain that the energy heating the gas molecules in the stratosphere comes from the gas molecules in the stratosphere.
            Herb

  • Avatar

    Tom Anderson

    |

    I think both Joe Postma and his debate partner could learn from a 230-year-old experiment (1790-1800) by Swiss scientist Marc-Auguste Pictet, which addresses the confusion about energy alleged to flow from a cold object.
    Pictet placed concave facing polished metal mirrors about 16 feet apart to minimize conduction/convection. He initially placed a flask of boiling water at mirror A’s focus (C) and a thermometer at mirror B’s focus (D). Air temperature around the thermometer directly controlled it and the mirrors screened off room radiation behind them. Pictet removed a screen between the two mirrors, some of the hot flask’s radiation from C struck D’s mirror. Two reflections of hot radiation that had not reached the thermometer bulb before the mirrors were in place now struck the thermometer, raising the temperature.
    Pictet next placed a flask of melting snow in focus C. On removing the shield that screened the cold in focus C, the thermometer in focus D dropped below room temperature and stayed there for as long as the cold source was not screened.
    The thermodynamically wrong explanation for this is an apparent reflection of cold from ice in focus C onto the thermometer at focus D of the mirror 16 feet away. Dr. Claes Johnson commented that in Pictet’s time the result was met with surprise by suggesting that ice transferred cold to the thermometer by.an exchange of, in current terms, something like “cold quanta,.”. The thermodynamically consistent explanation is that while the concave mirrors kept out radiative energy from behind the mirrors, the thermometer reached the room’s equilibrium with the level. On removing the screen between the two mirrors, energy now flowed from the thermometer bulb in focus B toward the colder flask 16 feet away and the loss of that energy toward focus A lowered its temperature.Which is how the thermometer bulb could sense it.
    PS, Joe, while radiation is bi-directional, energy flow is only from higher to lower radiative energy flow is only higher to lower. Consider hot old vacuum-tube radios picking up cold-wave broadcasts of Jack Benny. Finally, energy flowing from cold to hot implies a thoroughly impossible reduction of entropy.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Tom Anderson

      |

      I don’t know if anyone is reading this post any more, but it is worth remembering that the above explanation confirms that radiant energy exists within an electromagnetic field. In that context energy always flows to reach equilibrium, as is clearest in the classic black body. There, a lower energy surface will absorb higher energy until it reached equilibrium with the overall (higher) energy. It is reflected in a reduction of energy in the higher-energy surface, and is not unlike my old Philco table radio jamming to Benny Goodman.
      And what the catastrophist crowd somehow also fails to see is that the energy flow from a warm surface varies inversely with the absorbing surface’s temperature (energy level), strongly to a cold surface and mildly to a lukewarm one. You could consider it all tied together. So while radiation exists everywhere within the EMF, the rules are the same whether the cool surface is a glass greenhouse roof or (in reality) a gas of molecules.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Tom,

      Can you explain how (why) Petit between 1790 and 1800 actually designed and constructed an apparatus with which he could do observable quantitative experiments while now in 2020 Joe Postma wastes his time debating?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Geran: A sweater acts as insulation, reducing the heat transfer from one’s body to the atmosphere, along with reducing convection.

    James:
    Everybody knows this, moron. We were discussing the intricacies thereof. Specifically, we were discussing how insulation works. The colder insulate is reradiating energy back to the source. Colder heats warmer.

    If you want to employ thermodynamics then I suggest you use the language of thermodynamics and stop inserting your own semantic revisions of this terminology, it is confusing you and making you look stupid to people like myself who are experts in thermodynamics.

    James McGinn / Genius
    The Public Believes Plainly Dumb Things About the Atmosphere
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Public-Believes-Plainly-Dumb-Things-About-the-Atmosphere-eacv0k

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      You don’t know how to place your comments.

      You know even less about thermodynamics.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      CD Marshall

      |

      I agree lets use proper thermodynamics. I know you guys have a long repute of bantering but us newbies need proper terminology.

      “The colder insulate is reradiating energy back to the source. Colder heats warmer. ” Everyone should know that’s spectral lines not as a radiating body.

      Energy transfer does not automatically equate a temperature increase. I’m not aware of insulation in nuclear facilities increasing the original output above the original input per viam insulation.

      Cold does not heat ‘warmer’ for insulation is not a radiating body but this is just semantics assuredly? You are relevantly stating energy is returning to its source, that energy isn’t increasing its source at least without work.

      True anything can warm anything cooler than itself including ice. A cold object with enough energy can cool a hotter object and vice versa.

      Again proper thermodynamics as I’m sure you all know the 2nd LOT all too well, Delta S=Q/T. Useful work must be derived from energy that flows from a higher level to a lower level.
      We all know (I think?) radiation is quantized into photons whose energy is proportional to frequency: E=hv and that is radiating from a source to insulation and back to the source I’m just not seeing that as cold warming hot in the true thermodynamics sense.

      Refection is just that, a re-direction of a ‘source of energy’ and if the insulation is warming up and re-radiating that energy, it is not hotter than the original source of energy.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi CD,
        I will repeat discussions I have had with others on why I disagree with some of your statements.
        If Planck’s law is correct and energy is an inverse function of wavelength then as an objects radiates energy the wavelengths emitted must grow longer as energy is lost. Since the rate of energy loss changes as equilibrium is approached the change in wavelength must also slow. This would make light an analog phenomena not digital ((quantified).
        The energy of a wave is in its amplitude not its frequency. When you play music louder the notes (wavelengths) don’t change with the increasing energy. It is the energy that a wave transfers to another object that increases when more waves striking it (frequency).
        The 2nd LOT applies to radiated energy not to kinetic energy. An object in motion will have its velocity/kinetic energy increased when an object with greater velocity, traveling the same direction, strikes its rear, regardless of the mass/kinetic energy of the striking object.
        In the case of gas molecules striking water, the gas has 1/1000 the mass of the water so it will continue to transfer energy to the water until the velocity of the gas molecules is 1/32 (1000^-2) the velocity of the water molecules
        Herb

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          “The 2nd LOT applies to radiated energy not to kinetic energy.” WRONG!

          2nd Law applies all the time, to every process.

          That’s why it’s a “law”.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            CD Marshall

            |

            Geran,
            Less diplomatic but I agree.

            Textbook KE = 1/2 mv^2

            “Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion. The total mechanical energy of an object is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy.The total energy of an isolated system is subject to the conservation of energy principle.”

            2nd LOT W is required to increase temperature and KE can be applied to work. Useful work must be derived from energy that flows from a higher level to a lower level. Work is still not enough to increase temperature, you need T(hot)-T(cold).

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            This discussion began because of the contention that because the surface of the Earth is warmer (more kinetic energy) it is heating the atmosphere (adding energy to it). When I say the 2nd LOT doesn’t apply to kinetic energy it means that just because the Earth has greater KE does not mean the molecules have more energy and are transferring energy to the gas molecules. When the gas molecules in the atmosphere have greater energy (v^2) they will transfer energy to the surface molecules losing kinetic energy. I thought you agreed that an object with less KE can transfer energy to an object with more KE.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, the surface cools by transferring energy to the atmosphere. That’s the global end result.

            You’re chasing your tail trying to claim otherwise.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            No, Geran. The Earth cools by transferring energy through the atmosphere (not to)) into space. As long as the gas molecules have greater energy (velocity) than the molecules on the Earth’s surface they will not absorb energy from those molecules (2nd lLOT).
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, I can recognize desperation when I see it.

            You tried to make my statement wrong by changing “surface” to “Earth”. Then you started chasing your tail again.

            Learn some physics. Then you won’t have to use the desperate techniques of other phonies.

          • Avatar

            CD Marshall

            |

            Herb the only place in the atmosphere where it is warmer than the surface is in the upper atmosphere where molecular collision from KE is far less. (Nothing most of you don’t already know).

            Thus by observation and calculation you could conclude the surface is hotter and has more KE and as you increase in altitude the temps decrease as well as molecular collision due to less molecules per parcel of air.

            Even KE has to have a source and that source creates the work. Thus the work is not greater at the end of the source than at the beginning.

            The Thermosphere has a lot of thermal energy but not much KE between molecular collisions thus limited transference between molecules. When these molecules are heated (or super heated even), scattering of thermal energy happens more than absorption. As you know that’s how we are protected from solar storms.

            Now back to your original comment…

            “I thought you agreed that an object with less KE can transfer energy to an object with more KE.”

            Even if the object is smaller in mass it has more KE than the other object it strikes if it is going faster, thus it is transference of higher energy to lower energy, in the frame of thermodynamics and physics.

            It that object were a photon, regardless of energy, it would be scattered by the heated molecule no matter.

            Sometimes size doesn’t equal greater. One average solar photon can equal around 30 terrestrial photons, more in this case under the COE law, means less as you know it’s nature’s way of keeping higher energy particles from overloading a system.

            Cosmic housekeeping.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi CD,
            The nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not absorb the visible spectrum or IR so this energy coming from the is transferring energy to the Earth and water.
            Because the LOT says that all objects absorb radiated energy, the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere must be absorbing shorter wavelengths (x-ray and uv). The atmosphere absorb over 90% of the uv before it can reach the Earth’s surface. The way this energy is lost by the gas molecules is by the conversion of uv into kinetic energy which radiates energy in the upper atmosphere but transfers energy by convection in the lower atmosphere. It is this absorbed energy that creates the ionosphere, causes oxygen molecules to split into oxygen atoms in the upper thermosphere, creates the N2O molecules lower in the atmosphere and in the stratosphere creates O3 molecules
            The atmosphere is being heated by a different wavelength than the Earth’s surface. The reason for it becoming cooler when there is less sun spot activity is because x-rays and uv are emitted by solar flares while visible light and IR (which do not change with sunspot activity) come from the surface of the sun and continue to heat the Earth’s surface.
            If you use the universal gas law (P is from gravity and can be treated as a constant making the atmosphere an unconfined gas.) to determine the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere it shows that the “heat” (t) of the molecules increases with altitude (inverse of density as the gases expand with added ke) showing that the energy heating the atmosphere is coming from the sun in the form of uv.
            The sun is providing two sources of heat to heat the Earth: uv and x-rays heat the atmosphere, visible light and IR heats the land and water.
            In the troposphere, where the primary means of transferring energy is through collusion, this will produce an exchange of energy between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Since the exchange is between one gas molecule in the atmosphere with one molecule on the surface, as long as the velocity of the gas molecule is greater than the vibrational energy of the matter molecule energy (v^2) will flow from the atmosphere to the Earth.
            If you turn the energy off on a boiling pot of water the evaporation cools the water quickly causing its temperature to drop. At night when there is no visible light adding energy to water evaporation continues but the temperature of the water does not quickly drop, because the atmosphere is still transferring heat to it. Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights because the greater number of molecules in the clouds continue to radiate heat to the Earth not because heat from the surface is being reflected by the water.
            Herb
            .

        • Avatar

          CD Marshall

          |

          Herb just a note N2 and O2 have been shown to be Ramen active at temps between 250K and 300K, specifically.

          Unfortunately I haven’t found anything concrete on the subject.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            CD Marshall

            |

            Raman got to watch the spelling!

          • Avatar

            Herb Rosr

            |

            Hi CD,
            Thanks for the information.I didn’t know that.
            It is the odd behavior that makes science interesting. It poses the questions that leads to further understanding. When I ask people what is the source of energy at the top of the stratosphere that cause the temperature to increase from the the mesosphere and troposphere they never answer. They choose to ignore oddities rather than explore.
            When there is a polarity or spectrum change there must be a change in the transmission of light. I would speculate that in this particular case that because the O2 and N2 have double and triple bond, respectively, that these bonds are strained. When their energy changes the length of the bonds change along with the shape of the molecules, resulting in different electric and magnetic fields. This causes an alteration in the transmission of light, just as the Stark and Zeeman effect cause changes in the spectrum of light emitted by atoms.
            I would interpret it as more confirmation for the rejection of the concept of a photon and supportive (along with red/blue shift, and the bending of light around the sun) of light being a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields radiated from objects, the speed of which changes with the strength of these fields. There is a simpler/better explanation for the photoelectric effect than the creation of the photon.
            Herb

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Hi Herb and thank you for your responses,

    I guess I needed to narrow the parameters of this conversation. So let’s stick to EM energy and the confines of planet Earth.

    So that includes a photon interacting with electric charges and gravitational forces, and naturally would not be infinite within this confined system. Your average photon within the confines of the planet has a residency less than a second.

    Under the 2nd LOT KE is considered work, so KE increasing temperature falls under proper thermodynamics and photons can be considered to have PE if electric/gravitational forces so that can change the photon’s kinetic energy.

    So under better guideline let’s start over 🙂 Sorry for being so vague bad habit.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    The reason no one debates Joseph Postma is because he is emotionally unstable and cannot tolerate anything the proves he is wrong. How do you reason with a human with such an unstable emotional structure. Certainly not with science and facts.

    https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/29/the-most-disturbing/

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via