climate change

djpbarry · 25-06-2013 5:29pm

Lbeard wrote: »

I never said [latex]T=mv[/latex] anywhere.

You said that particle momentum is temperature, didn't you?

Lbeard · 25-06-2013 6:19pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You said that particle momentum is temperature, didn't you?

Yes I did. Because the statement is 100% correct. You're the one with the wonky formula.

Trust me Dj.

djpbarry · 25-06-2013 6:32pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Yes I did. Because the statement is 100% correct.

It clearly isn't.

Seems to me someone's being a bit fluffy and hand-wavy here.

citrus burst · 27-06-2013 1:17am

Lbeard wrote: »

If you do not know the relationship between particle momentum and temperature you do not know your arse from your elbow.

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum. And that is it. If you do not know this, you really know nothing.

Temperature is a measure of the degree of randomness in its most fundamental sense. Solids are cold ie not random, gases are hot ie random, liquids are in between (not strictly true). It is a bulk phenomenon, to speak of the temperature of a single atom or molecule or electron doesn't really make sense.

Things like the rotation, vibration and velocity of a molecule will increase the overall temperature of something.

Also, if we were to go by your idea of temperature, solids wouldn't have a temperature.

Lbeard · 27-06-2013 11:40am

citrus burst wrote: »

Temperature is a measure of the degree of randomness in its most fundamental sense.

The randomness of what? The randomness of randomness?

Solids are cold ie not random, gases are hot ie random, liquids are in between (not strictly true).

I'm scratching my head.

It is a bulk phenomenon, to speak of the temperature of a single atom or molecule or electron doesn't really make sense.

You mean it doesn't really make sense to you.

Things like the rotation, vibration and velocity of a molecule will increase the overall temperature of something.

I'm not going to say you're right or wrong. You seem to think temperature is "randomness"........But the randomness of what? Is a shuffled deck of cards hotter than an ordered one?

Also, if we were to go by your idea of temperature, solids wouldn't have a temperature.

Listen. You do not know or understand my idea of temperature, which is the scientific understanding of temperature. I'm not sure you even know what your idea of temperature is.

And don't get huffy with me because you don't understand what you're talking about.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-06-2013 12:15pm

Lbeard wrote: »

And don't get huffy with me because you don't understand what you're talking about.

MOD

You got that one for being huffy.

/MOD

Todays word is entropy.

djpbarry · 27-06-2013 1:36pm

Lbeard wrote: »

The randomness of what? The randomness of randomness?

I'm scratching my head.

You mean it doesn't really make sense to you.

I'm not going to say you're right or wrong. You seem to think temperature is "randomness"........But the randomness of what? Is a shuffled deck of cards hotter than an ordered one?

Listen. You do not know or understand my idea of temperature, which is the scientific understanding of temperature. I'm not sure you even know what your idea of temperature is.

And don't get huffy with me because you don't understand what you're talking about.

Still waiting for you to point to the flaws in Arhenius' work.

citrus burst · 27-06-2013 3:32pm

Lbeard wrote: »

The randomness of what? The randomness of randomness?

The randomness of a material, I guess disorder is a better word. The overall disorder of a material increases as you increase the temperature.

In general, solids are really ordered materials, with well defined points. As you increase the temperature, the order decreases, and the location of each atom becomes less well defined, mainly through vibrations. Eventually the temperature increases so much that the atoms loss all around and are allowed move essentially freely through the material, we call this the melting point.

Increase the temperature more and you loss more order and eventually you get a gas.

Lbeard wrote: »

You mean it doesn't really make sense to you.

The kinetic theory of gases? Makes sense to me. Its a classical model to deal with the interactions of billard balls, that only takes into account the average translational velocity. As such its not really a sufficient model to explain atmospheric conditions which are dominated by rotations (microwave) and vibrations (infrared) of molecules

What doesn't make sense is the temperature of one atom.

Lbeard wrote: »

I'm not going to say you're right or wrong. You seem to think temperature is "randomness"........But the randomness of what? Is a shuffled deck of cards hotter than an ordered one?

A shuffled deck is just as random as a none shuffled deck. A better analogy would be a deck in its box (solid), the cards able to move freely around a on a table (liquid) or the cards flying freely through the room (gas)

Lbeard wrote: »

Listen. You do not know or understand my idea of temperature, which is the scientific understanding of temperature. I'm not sure you even know what your idea of temperature is.

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really understand temperature, not many people do. I do however understand the kinetic theory of gases. That you think you understand what temperature is, leads me to believe that you don't know what temperature is.

Lbeard · 27-06-2013 3:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Still waiting for you to point to the flaws in Arhenius' work.

No, Dj. I've already been warned for upsetting people. If you want to see what's wrong with Arhenius' work look it up yourself.

djpbarry · 27-06-2013 3:46pm

Lbeard wrote: »

No, Dj. I've already been warned for upsetting people. If you want to see what's wrong with Arhenius' work look it up yourself.

I'm going to take that as a tacit admission that you don't understand his work sufficiently to critique it.

Lbeard · 27-06-2013 4:15pm

citrus burst wrote: »

The kinetic theory of gases? Makes sense to me. Its a classical model to deal with the interactions of billard balls, that only takes into account the average translational velocity. As such its not really a sufficient model to explain atmospheric conditions which are dominated by rotations (microwave) and vibrations (infrared) of molecules

No. The classical theory will account for all energy in a gas. Rotational, vibrational, whatever you like. If you hold a mercury thermometer in the air (just to avoid getting nit picking - at night when there is no wind) it will sample the momentum of the particles and it will give you an accurate average of the energy in the air. There isn't anyway for the energy to hide from the thermometer.

What doesn't make sense is the temperature of one atom.

The kinetic energy of a single atom can be referred to as its' temperature. In the thermo-sphere, where you have fast atoms whizzing around but not many of them, they're considered to be hot. When you measure temperature of say container of gas, the thermometer all though it doesn't look like it's adding up, and then dividing, it is calculating the average momentum of each atom.

A shuffled deck is just as random as a none shuffled deck. A better analogy would be a deck in its box (solid), the cards able to move freely around a on a table (liquid) or the cards flying freely through the room (gas)

But something has to make the cards move - they can't move by themselves.

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really understand temperature, not many people do. I do however understand the kinetic theory of gases. That you think you understand what temperature is, leads me to believe that you don't know what temperature is.

Listen I've been warned about upsetting people. But you're making it very hard for me not to upset you. You're saying you don't know much about temperature, and for that reason, you assume you know more about it than I do.

Temperature is one thing that is very well understood in science. There is no hidden magic in it. It's very well understood how solids turn to liquids, how liquids turn to gases and back again. For temperature, kinetic theory suffices - photons can be considered to be particles with momentum. The quantum aspect is something that can be largely ignored, there are specific cases where it is important but *cough - this bit is not intended for you Citrus, you wouldn't understand it either - cough* but it is also important to understand the quantum aspect lest you misunderstand a measurement and think energy has gone somewhere it hasn't. Svante Arehenius didn't have the benefit of quantum theory.

fits · 27-06-2013 4:16pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm going to take that as a tacit admission that you don't understand his work sufficiently to critique it.

no proper scientist would be upset by a reasonable and logical discussion. Good scientific thought involves making up ones mind based on quality evidence and argument and not the reverse (looking for arguments that back up what one has already decided).

djpbarry · 27-06-2013 4:36pm

Lbeard wrote: »

No. The classical theory will account for all energy in a gas. Rotational, vibrational, whatever you like. If you hold a mercury thermometer in the air (just to avoid getting nit picking - at night when there is no wind) it will sample the momentum of the particles and it will give you an accurate average of the energy in the air. There isn't anyway for the energy to hide from the thermometer.

Eh, latent heat?

Lbeard · 27-06-2013 5:58pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, latent heat?

Yes, Dj.....latent heat.......What about it?

Don't think it's one of the last great unsolved puzzles of science, because it isn't.

Think, DJ, what is latent heat?...........That's not a question I want the answer to, as I know the answer......It's a rhetorical question. ......I'm not being a smart arse. It would be worth your while to think these things over. The whole thing joins up really neatly.

We know where the heat goes for everything. We know precisely what is happening, as far as heat goes. We know precisely how water can turn to ice, or water can turn to vapour, and form clouds. We know why you feel cold when water is evaporating off your skin. We know how you get sunburn, frostbite, and we know how a greenhouse works. At least the royal "we", which is me.

There are many reasons misunderstandings occur over heat and light. Like people thinking red light is warmer than white light, because the light heater in a pub beer garden is red......That's not the reason........The reason is if you put the same power through a light emitting white light, everyone would get just as hot, but they would be blinded by the intensity of the light.

There are also other bits of physics people who should know better, get arseways and repeat, with no one blinking. I'm not going to get started as we'll be going around the houses again, but you'd be surprised.

fits · 27-06-2013 6:45pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Yes, Dj.....latent heat.......What about it?

Don't think it's one of the last great unsolved puzzles of science, because it isn't.

heater in a pub beer garden is red......That's not the reason........The reason is if you put the same power through a light emitting white light, everyone would get just as hot, but they would be blinded by the intensity of the light.

.

::D
What about infra red lamps then?

djpbarry · 27-06-2013 6:58pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Yes, Dj.....latent heat.......What about it?

It's not going to register on a thermometer, is it?

Lbeard wrote: »

We know how you get sunburn, frostbite, and we know how a greenhouse works. At least the royal "we", which is me.

A few short posts ago, you demonstrated that you didn't even know what a greenhouse gas is.

Lbeard · 27-06-2013 9:08pm

fits wrote: »

::D
What about infra red lamps then?

I've been warned about being mean and rude.......So I won't be.

But I would like to thank you for proving my point.

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 2:25pm

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not going to register on a thermometer, is it?

Ah DJ me auld flower. You're taking me around be the houses now.

A few short posts ago, you demonstrated that you didn't even know what a greenhouse gas is.

No Dj, you demonstrated you did not know what you were talking about. Another popular misconception and misunderstanding in science is mistaking "greenhouse gases" as being distinct from other atmospheric gases. This is not true. All atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases". I'm not sure who started the "greenhouse gases" nonsense. Someone who didn't understand the Greenhouse effect. It's nearly as silly as thinking there's a difference between an organic potato, and one that isn't (whatever that would mean).

Maybe there's a semi-legitimate excuse for using the term with the public - the public being differently intelligent. But when a "scientist" uses the term "greenhouse gases" in a scientific paper....In my opinion it's not excusable.

djpbarry · 28-06-2013 2:49pm

Lbeard wrote: »

All atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases".

No, they’re not. Nitrogen and oxygen, for example, absorb virtually no infra-red radiation and are therefore not considered greenhouse gases.

Lbeard wrote: »

I'm not sure who started the "greenhouse gases" nonsense. Someone who didn't understand the Greenhouse effect. It's nearly as silly as thinking there's a difference between an organic potato, and one that isn't (whatever that would mean).

Not as silly as thinking that different atmospheric gases don’t have different physical properties.

Lbeard wrote: »

Maybe there's a semi-legitimate excuse for using the term with the public - the public being differently intelligent. But when a "scientist" uses the term "greenhouse gases" in a scientific paper....In my opinion it's not excusable.

Well, a quick search turns up over 3,700 research articles on the Nature website mentioning the term “greenhouse gas” – you best get on to them and set them straight.

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 4:03pm

djpbarry wrote: »

No, they’re not. Nitrogen and oxygen, for example, absorb virtually no infra-red radiation and are therefore not considered greenhouse gases.

DJ, I'm not getting into how you have piled misconception on top of misconception. Did you believe red pub heaters (or let's call them "infra red" beer garden heaters) had used "infra red" because it's magically warmer than white light. I've heard the pub heater misconception mixed up with climate change arguments before.

And of course you are wrong. Someone creates the term "greenhouse gases" and others, or the same person, retroactively justifies it. This leads to further misconceptions - the extreme being fluffy headed flower children believing all green house gases are man made. Or even that natural CO2 is fine (because it's organic and natural - like organic and natural yogurt) and man made CO2 is nasty because it's unnatural.

Idiots like Gwyneth Paltrow making claims that supermarket soap is bad because it's full of chemicals. She only uses organic soap that doesn't have any chemicals in it. And anyone who attacks her over it is being mean

because she's nice. And she is nice because she is stupid, because stupid people are nice because they never make you feel stupid.

Man made CO2 is nasty - it's full of chemicals.

Not as silly as thinking that different atmospheric gases don’t have different physical properties.

I never said anything of the sort.

Well, a quick search turns up over 3,700 research articles on the Nature website mentioning the term “greenhouse gas” – you best get on to them and set them straight.

So what. I mean really, so what. There could be millions, it still doesn't make a difference. I've seen scientific papers that cite a UN report on climate change as a scientific basis for ludicrous claims. And when you read the UN report, you realise it hasn't been written by a scientist - it's some natural yogurt eating krank - no citations to show where their extraordinary assumptions are coming from - simply pulled out of their bottoms.

A well known climate campaigner had a new book out a while back. And it was so bad, I wanted to vomit reading it. It was just rubbish nonsensical claim after nonsensical claim. But it's this halo effect - this guy cares about nature he must be a good guy, everything he says must be true, that people don't really question what these guys are at. Their assertions are often completely from their imaginations. I would be shocked - but not overly surprised if these books did find their way into paper citations.

I do know where some of the other climate change misconceptions came from. Kranks making silly assumptions, and disregarding the laws of physics. The other whatevers blindly citing the krank science - citations on a paper look so sciencey don't they.

DJ, there's no way I could convince you either way. The creationists even have their own science books and science museums these days. There's no talking to them.

djpbarry · 28-06-2013 4:23pm

Lbeard wrote: »

I never said anything of the sort.

So explain to us why nitrogen and oxygen can be considered greenhouse gases.

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 5:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So explain to us why nitrogen and oxygen can be considered greenhouse gases.

Because they are atmospheric gases.

And if you don't understand what I mean, you simply do not understand how the Greenhouse Effect works. Simple as that.

I'm not getting any further into this. People who make the distinction - don't realise, that usually in the same breath they are contradicting themselves. Without even batting an eyelid.

These "climate discussions" always disintegrate into rubbish. But they're interesting in seeing how people perceive science - or even how they perceive reality. If on an emotional level it feels true, then it must be true. An organic potato is better than an ordinary potato, because they want it to be....It fits in with their silly ideas of what is natural, thus good, and what is unnatural, thus bad.

Whether they believe reality is driven by their feelings I don't know. They probably do. People do shoot the messenger - believing it can make the bad news go away. Or like a person because they say something they want to hear.

djpbarry · 28-06-2013 5:34pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Because they are atmospheric gases.

That's not an explanation. Just because a gas is in the atmosphere, it does not mean it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Lbeard wrote: »

And if you don't understand what I mean, you simply do not understand how the Greenhouse Effect works.

If anyone on this thread has demonstrated a lack of understanding, it is most definitely you.

Tell you what, why don't you do us all a favour and explain the greenhouse effect to us. I'm particularly interested to hear about the contributions of nitrogen and oxygen.

Lbeard wrote: »

These "climate discussions" always disintegrate into rubbish. But they're interesting in seeing how people perceive science - or even how they perceive reality. If on an emotional level it feels true, then it must be true.

Oh, the irony.

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 5:44pm

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not an explanation. Just because a gas is in the atmosphere, it does not mean it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Oh yes it does.

If anyone on this thread has demonstrated a lack of understanding, it is most definitely you.

Know I have demonstrated a lack of people skills. If I had people skills I would agree with you, just to make you happy. I get in trouble all the time for disagreeing with people, and then they get upset when they realise they're wrong. This makes them angry - but they're not angry at themselves for not knowing what they were on about - they're angry at me for making them feel bad about themselves. Instead of kicking themselves in the ass - they find some way to kick me. Usually, it'll be through back biting, or making up stories about me, or just suckily saying I'm not a nice guy

. I'm probably not a nice guy. so maybe they have a point.

If you want to get on in life. Just agree with everyone - make them feel good about themselves.

Tell you what, why don't you do us all a favour and explain the greenhouse effect to us.

Gravity traps the atmospheric gases around the earth. The sun heats up the gases. And that is the Green House effect.

I'm particularly interested to hear about the contributions of nitrogen and oxygen.

Because they're atmospheric gases.

djpbarry · 28-06-2013 7:18pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Gravity traps the atmospheric gases around the earth. The sun heats up the gases. And that is the Green House effect.

Interesting theory. So, presumably, you're going to tell us that an actual greenhouse works in the same way?

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 8:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Interesting theory.

Yes...That is the theory. It is uncontroversial and consistent. The misunderstandings of the Green House effect are not.

So, presumably, you're going to tell us that an actual greenhouse works in the same way?

Presumably, Dj, you're trying to drive me up the wall. I explained in one single sentence how it works. And you're trying to ridicule me for things I've never said or suggested.

Okay, for everyone's benefit, not just DJ, because I'll probably never get through to him. Why it is so berkishly stupid, if you should know better, and you don't, you should kick yourself in the arse, and not my arse for breaking the bad news, if you thought "greenhouse" gases were distinct from other atmospheric gases.

Watch. I meant what I said when the clowns who make the distinction contradict themselves in the same breath.

Typically, they'll say something like "Greenhouse gases are causing a rise in average temperatures....blah blah....we're all going to die". There are variations on the theme, but I am speaking of those who specifically make a distinction between "Greenhouse" gases and other atmospheric gases.

If "Greenhouse" gases are causing a rise in temperature, then what is this temperature of? it's the temperature of the atmosphere. And what is the atmosphere made of? It's made of atmospheric gases.........Because every atmospheric gas is a "greenhouse" gas. This distinction is essentially deeply misleading and moronic. It's a basic error - but when they continue to try and justify the distinction they pile misconception on top of misconception. But the basic error is such a glaring misconception, it is a puzzle why they get away with saying it.

Something happens when these people speak, that people who really should know better suspend their critical thinking skills. They often give the 911 truthers a run for their money on loopiness - but people just credulously lap it up. Many statements they make are pure Gwyneth Paltrow.

djpbarry · 28-06-2013 10:58pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Presumably, Dj, you're trying to drive me up the wall. I explained in one single sentence how it works. And you're trying to ridicule me for things I've never said or suggested.

No, I made a simple analogy. If the greenhouse effect is what you say it is, then why do people bother with greenhouses?

Lbeard · 28-06-2013 11:23pm

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I made a simple analogy.

Simple indeed. I only wish whoever had the idea of dumbing down the concept hadn't dumbed it down so much as they have.... to the point it's become as dumb as it has.

If the greenhouse effect is what you say it is, then why do people bother with greenhouses?

Because it traps heat in a localised space - that of a greenhouse. So, the "gas" (the air) doesn't reach thermal equilibrium with the "gas" outside the greenhouse (the air in your back garden).

DJ, what you're saying, is honestly, like saying "well, why do people have glass in their windows and double glazing?". If you didn't have glass windows in your house DJ, then the inside of your house would be at thermal equilibrium with your back garden. It would be cold as your back garden......You know DJ, it gets cold outside, and you shut your windows.......Have you ever thought why you do that?

DJ, you're making me look like a bully.

citrus burst · 29-06-2013 1:53am

Lbeard wrote: »

No. The classical theory will account for all energy in a gas. Rotational, vibrational

No it won't, it only takes into account three degrees of freedom x,y,z as it treats particles as billard balls. It does not take into account vibrational or rotational degrees of freedom. CO2 for example has at least 3 additional degrees of freedom, 2 vibrational and 1 rotational.

Lbeard wrote: »

The kinetic energy of a single atom can be referred to as its' temperature. In the thermo-sphere, where you have fast atoms whizzing around but not many of them, they're considered to be hot. When you measure temperature of say container of gas, the thermometer all though it doesn't look like it's adding up, and then dividing, it is calculating the average momentum of each atom.

The kinetic energy of a single atom is just that, it is not its temperature. If this was the case, the temperature would vary significantly at any given moment. We'd have mad things going on.

Lbeard wrote: »

Listen I've been warned about upsetting people. But you're making it very hard for me not to upset you. You're saying you don't know much about temperature, and for that reason, you assume you know more about it than I do.

Temperature is complex enough, I think.

Lbeard wrote: »

Temperature is one thing that is very well understood in science. There is no hidden magic in it. It's very well understood how solids turn to liquids, how liquids turn to gases and back again. For temperature, kinetic theory suffices - photons can be considered to be particles with momentum. The quantum aspect is something that can be largely ignored, there are specific cases where it is important but *cough - this bit is not intended for you Citrus, you wouldn't understand it either - cough* but it is also important to understand the quantum aspect lest you misunderstand a measurement and think energy has gone somewhere it hasn't. Svante Arehenius didn't have the benefit of quantum theory.

What is temperature then?

citrus burst · 29-06-2013 1:55am

Not all atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. O, O2, N and N2 for example are not greenhouse gases. H20, CO2, N20 and CH4 are greenhouse gases.

climate change

Comments