Postma’s Confusion About Heat

    1. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      I don’t know either Greg. I think ST says that water vapour can only exist as steam and thus only if T >= 100C. And so the “water vapour” content in the air is actually composed of tiny liquid water droplets, not actual vaporous H2O.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Right. There is no steam in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s physically impossible. The water in moist air is comprised of little droplets/clusters, often too small to be seen. Consequently meteorologist’s claims that moist air is lighter than dry air are about as reliable as Al Gore’s claims about CO2-caused warming.

      Without the belief that moist air contains steam meteorology has no choice but reject the models they depend on to convince the public they know what they are talking about. They will be forced to find new models.

      The boiling point of water is determined by pressure and temperature. There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that proves/demonstrates this. There is zero laboratory evidence indicating the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures and pressures below its boiling point. Zero.

      The fact that meteorologists chose to believe nonsense doesn’t mean that the rest of us are obligated to follow blindly.

      From my own research on the lapse rate question, one requires the latent heat density out of the condensation of vaporous H2O to liquid H2O, not liquid to ice H2O, in order to push the lapse rate down from 9.8 K/km to 6.5 K/km.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Your own research? What, exactly? Additionally, your explanation seems extremely contrived. Where is your data? How might I reproduce/verify your results? (And I know you don’t have any references.)

      The concept of “latent heat” is a nonsense concept. Empirically it’s meaningless (it’s never been measured or even detected). It’s sophistry.

      So in my opinion ST’s stuff isn’t supported by the evidence

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Yet you can’t clearly explain your opinion. You are confused. And when people become confused they tend to start pretending that they understand what they don’t understand. This is the reason so many people believe in AGW. They become confused and start pretending.

      I usually don’t let him post his stuff here. Why here anyway ST?

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      Because in order to verify a scientific breakthrough you need to get through to people that recognize the importance empiricism over consensus. Is that not you?

      Bring people to your own site on the question. Don’t make it part of this site.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      You should be flattered that I am presenting you the opportunity to confirm a scientific breakthrough.

      Interesting too that you recently said that I shouldn’t waste my time anymore on the greenhouse problem…when it is THE ONLY problem that matters right now!

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      You have an engineer’s understanding of thermodynamics. You do the math accurately. But you misinform people when it comes to properly conceptualizing what is actually taking place. And since you are so good at the math people tend to assume that you must also understand it conceptually. And, well, you just don’t (as has been demonstrated vividly recently in this blog.) I don’t know the math that well, but I can conceptualize the phenomena and I know how to avoid the semantic confusion that is so common in scientific discourse. You are out of your element in that respect.

      BTW, who was it back in September of 2013 that informed the various participants in the “back-radiation” discussion about the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have to do with net flow of energy and not just the flow? It wasn’t you, Joe. It was me. (And, frankly, it still seems you don’t get it.)

      The worst thing you can do in science is claim you understand something that you actually do not understand. Because after a while you start believing your own lies. Then you become the thing you are fighting against.

    2. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      DurangoDan says:
      2015/06/04 at 9:15 AM
      ST: The frequency of a photon is induced by the temperature of the emitting body.

      As you surely know, I never stated otherwise.

      Saying that the frequency of photons from the emitting body must be higher than the photons emitted by the receiving body in order to increase the temperature of the receiving body is the same as saying heat flows only from warmer to cooler. That’s all.

      You are sidestepping my question. You stated, “photons must have a higher frequency than the photons emitted by the receiving body in order to heat that receiving body, . . .”.

      That is BS and you know it. Busted again.

      Regarding moist air being buoyant in dry air, Arfur’s explanation fits perfectly well with empirical observation.

      LOL. “Empirical observation?” Arfur’s explanation was solely a reference to consensus. Do you know what empirical means?

      I know that you don’t like the idea of “cold steam”, but unless Arfur’s explanation somehow damages our life experience (as belief in the GHE clearly does) I don’t see why we need your alternative explanation. If you can show a relative benefit in adopting your explanation, let’s hear it.

      Might the pope have made the same dumbass request to Galileo?

      One interesting aspect of water vapor being lighter than air is the measurement of barometric pressure as an indicator of the strength of hurricanes. My explanation of the reduced barometric pressure is that water vapor has displaced the oxygen and nitrogen molecules and since water vapor (MW: 18) is lighter than dry air (MW: 28), the pressure at the bottom of that cyclonic region of moist air is therefore reduced. The lower the pressure, the more water vapor in the air and the higher the potential energy release when the water vapor gives up its latent heat. Beautiful, even though we lost our beach house to Ivan in 2004.


    3. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      2015/06/05 at 7:11 PM
      It would be good if Joe would correct these misunderstandings about the basics of thermal radiation, but perhaps I’ve just missed those posts:

      I don’t think you missed anything, Tom. Joe is a bit confused.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      Arfur Bryant wrote: “The radiation emitted by the cooler object is completely irrelevant to the warm object.”

      That cannot be correct. Since the heat flow from hot to cold is the net of radiation between the two, the heat LOSS RATE of the warmer object is slowed by the radiation from the cooler object. If that were NOT the case, Q’ would not be reduced by a cooler object.

      Of course you are correct. I think Joe had the flu the day his thermodynamics professor discussed this.

      Tom OregonCity says:
      That is precisely why there is an effect by so-called — and here demonized — “backradiation”: it can’t HEAT the surface, but as the heat equations show, it does slow the rate of energy loss from the surface. Not a trivial, dismissive thing.

      The con job that AGW advocates put forth in regards to backradiation is much worse than the honest errors Joe is making here.

    4. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Will Janoschka:
      Why should anyone ever accept that? Such has never been demonstrated! The amount of EMR flux detached from a radiating surface is always limited by any opposing radiance or electromagnetic field strength at that frequency. No EMR flux shall emit in a direction of higher radiance at that frequency! Would you accept that heat flux in a conductor between two temperatures requires flux proportional to each absolute temperature in opposing directions, or is the only flux proportional only to the difference in thermal potential between the two temperatures!

      Will, you have obviously misinterpreted the laws of thermodynamics. These laws deal with net flow. You don’t get that. The laws don’t dictate that the energy doesn’t go both ways or is absorbed only one way. That is something you created.

    5. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Greg House:
      I allow me to humbly suggest this “both ways” mantra to be dropped

      Based on what? You just confirmed you have no experimental evidence that contradicts it. Right?

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    6. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Curt says:
      In radiative heat transfer, we now understand that the heat transfer is a result of energy exchanges between the objects. Objects radiate energy based on their temperature and emissivity, without any regard to what they are radiating toward. (How would they know, anyway?) The hotter object radiates more energy to the colder object than the colder does to the warmer, but the colder object does radiate a non-zero amount of energy to the warmer. The difference between these two is what we call the (net) “radiative heat transfer” from the hotter to the colder object.

      This is correct. This is what I’ve been saying for two years now. Does anybody have a fundamental (non semantic) disagreement about what is stated here? Joe Postma?
      Will? Arfur? Dan? Greg? Don’t be coy, now. Tell us what exactly you find mistaken about this explanation.

      Note that this indicates energy EXCHANGE between the objects. The energy doesn’t go one way, it goes both ways.

    7. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Joe Postma:
      . . . there is no concept in thermodynamics that thermal energy will or even can diffuse from a cool object to a warmer one, just because the cool object contains thermal energy; in fact, this directly contradicts the set of Laws of Thermodynamics.

      Jim McGinn of Solving Tornadoes:
      This is crazy talk, Joe. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to gross flow. The apply to net flow. Do you not know the difference? What you indicate here is, clearly, gross flow, not net flow.

      How is it that you’ve managed to ignore the many people that have tried to straighten you out on this point, Joe?

    8. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      You are confused, Joe.

      There are two very different meanings that are associated with the words heat, heating, and heated. One of these meanings is applicable to the laws of thermodynamics. The other is not applicable. You have transposed them. You have applied the one that is not applicable and you have not applied the one that is applicable. This is the source of your confusion.

      Allow me to help you. First let’s delineate the two different meanings.

      1) To absorb energy and have the molecules of the entity excited as a result

      2) To have the measurable temperature of an entity increased as a result of an influx of energy.

      Only the second of these two has any relevance to the laws of thermodynamics. The first does not.

      Using #1 heating goes both ways, because energy goes both ways.
      Using #2 heating only goes one way, from hotter to cooler.

      You misunderstood something and you’ve been trying to force the square peg of #1 into the round hole of the second law of thermodynamics. Try putting the round peg of #2 into the round hole of the second law and you will find it works much better.

      Don’t waste too much time beating yourself up about this, Joe. You made an honest mistake. Apologize and forget about it. It doesn’t change the fact that global warming is still nonsense. Nor does any of this substantiate concerns that CO2 increases back radiation.

One response to “Postma’s Confusion About Heat”

  1. Tom OregonCity says :

    DurangoDan wrote: “Saying that the frequency of photons from the emitting body must be higher than the photons emitted by the receiving body in order to increase the temperature of the receiving body is the same as saying heat flows only from warmer to cooler. That’s all.”

    Dan, where do you get that? From a slayer, no doubt. It is disconnected from physical reality, and you will not find such a belief presented in any competent Physics textbook.

    Here’s one little tidbit of proof why your belief is completely bogus: the sun emits energy across a broad spectrum. Are you aware that in the areas of significance, there is overlap between the high energy limit of earth’s emission spectrum, and the sun’s low energy limit? Kinda throws a wrench into your thought on the subject. And that’s before I invoke the understanding that all objects emit at all wavelengths, just with varying probabilities of emission, because no object has emissivity of zero.

    Another tidbit? You must account for the energy of those photons you claim are not energetic enough. Where do they go? Before you answer, remember that the physical properties of matter are not altered by incoming energy, except at the extremes (melting, freezing, disassociation, etc.)

    ONE PHOTON is incapable of heating almost ANYTHING. ENOUGH PHOTONS — of any frequency — will heat any object, even the sun.

    It’s not the frequency, which only dictates the energy of that one photon. IT’S THE FLUX — the total energy of all photons absorbed by an object — which ATTEMPTS to heat an object. And if that INCOMING FLUX is larger than the OUTGOING FLUX emitted by that object, that object will be HEATED.

    High frequency, low frequency… it doesn’t matter. If the object can EMIT such a frequency at some temperature, it can absorb it, and if it absorbs it, it is a “credit” into the energy bank of the object. Whether that HEATS the object or not is determined by whether the object is EMITTING more or less energy than it is receiving.

    Why is this complicated? It’s no more difficult than understanding that if you pour water into a leaky bucket, the RATE at which you pour water into that bucket dictates whether the bucket gets fuller or emptier.

    The second law is not a traffic cop. It does not do ANYTHING to photons, or to surfaces. It is, instead, an observation: hot objects produce more outgoing flux than colder ones, so a colder one simply doesn’t PRODUCE enough FLUX to overcome the outgoing flux of the hotter one. And as the heat equations demonstrate, with the T^4 emission strength, that works even if the colder object completely surrounds the hotter one.

    Please revisit your textbooks. Wavelengths aren’t magic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: