Hottest Year Ever????

[Lagboltz]

Why not just try the honest answer....which is, science is unsure as to whether heat is a form of energy or evidence of energy moving from one place to another....

From this thread I would say that you are the one who doesn't know what heat is. You act as if heat is some absolute invariant entity that has to have a fixed name. Historically, scientists are the ones who give names to phenomena and concepts. There happens to be two concepts: heat as energy and heat as a transfer of energy. Both have been given the same name. I can see why laymen can be confused, but those who know thermodynamics are not confused.

To confuse you further here are more definitions of heat,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heat

1. (General Physics)
a. the energy transferred as a result of a difference in temperature
b. the random kinetic energy of the atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body

2. (Physiology) the sensation caused in the body by heat energy; warmth

3. the state or quality of being hot

4. hot weather: the heat of summer.

5. intensity of feeling; passion: the heat of rage.

6. pressure: the political heat on the government over the economy.

7. the most intense or active part: the heat of the battle.

8. (Zoology) a period or condition of sexual excitement in female mammals that occurs at oestrus

9. (Individual Sports, other than specified) sport
a. a preliminary eliminating contest in a competition
b. a single section of a contest

10. police activity after a crime: the heat is off.

11. US criticism or abuse: he took a lot of heat for that mistake.

12. in the heat of the moment without pausing to think

13. (Zoology) on heat in heat
a. Also: in season (of some female mammals) sexually receptive
b. in a state of sexual excitement

14. the heat the police

15. turn up the heat turn on the heat to increase the intensity of activity, coercion, etc

16. to make or become hot or warm

17. to make or become excited or intense

 

[Lagboltz]

Wien's law is used to tell us what the radiating temperature of any blackbody is. Now again, what is the peak radiating temperature of CO2. Can't you even bring yourself to say it? Does saying it out loud make the whole anthropogenic climate change hoax sound as ridiculous as it is?

I know what Wein's law is, but your phrase “ peak radiating temperature” does not make any sense. If you mean the peak radiating wavelength, that would make more sense. If that's the case you sure have a butchered terminology.

Which part of what is the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is confusing you?

It's confusing you.

The peak absorption and emission spectra of CO2 centers around 15 microns. What temperature does CO2 best absorb and emit at? Come on, you can say it.....it's just a number. Here is a clue....it's a negative number.

Balderdash! Wien's law is accurate only for black bodies. CO2 has a sharp absorption line at 15 microns, and does not follow Planck's black body radiation law by a long shot. CO2 is far, far far from being a black body and applying Wien's law to gaseous CO2 and expecting to get something meaningful is absolutely foolhardy.

 

[palerider]

From this thread I would say that you are the one who doesn't know what heat is. You act as if heat is some absolute invariant entity that has to have a fixed name. Historically, scientists are the ones who give names to phenomena and concepts. There happens to be two concepts: heat as energy and heat as a transfer of energy. Both have been given the same name. I can see why laymen can be confused, but those who know thermodynamics are not confused.

Short memory I see...not unusual among warmers....in fact, it seems to be necessary. It seems that you must have the ability to forget all of the debunking of what you call science in order to keep the faith strong.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat

Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/1-how-does-heat-move.html

Heat is a form of energy, and when it comes into contact with matter (Anything that you can touch physically) it makes the atoms and molecules move.

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~alaporta/FallingCrystal.html

http://physics.info/temperature/

Heat is a form of energy and the unit of energy is the joule [J], therefore heat should be measured in joules..

http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1p.html

Heat is a form of energy, so it has the units of energy. In the SI system, this is Joules.

http://astro.temple.edu/~davatzes/Geothermal/Geothermal/Units_of_Energy_&_Heat.html

Heat is a form of energy and thus is measured in Joules.p/quote]

http://bgaowww.physics.utoledo.edu/teaching/lecturenotes/phys2080/Chapter11.htm

Heat is a form of energy.

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/heat.htm

Definition: Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transfered by particles bouncing into each other.

And I could go on and on from credible sources that state explicitly that heat is, in fact, a form of energy....that being said, I remind you of the second law that says that energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object...heat being energy, it can not move from a cool object to a warm object.

 

[palerider]

I know what Wein's law is, but your phrase “ peak radiating temperature” does not make any sense. If you mean the peak radiating wavelength, that would make more sense. If that's the case you sure have a butchered terminology.

Then I will ask what temperature is associated with energy radiating at 15 microns... You know precisely what I am asking but even you know that if you say it, your claim that CO2 is causing the earth to warm will look as stupid as it actually is.

Since it has become clear that you can't bring yourself to state what the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is and will shuck and jive, duck and cover, bob and weave and hem and haw forever, I guess I will say it myself. The temperature of energy radiating at 15 microns, the peak absorption line of CO2, is -80C...that is minus 80 degrees C.

CO2 also absorbs and emits at a couple of other wavelengths...2,7 microns which has an absorption and radiating temperature of about 800C, and 4.3 which has an absorption and radiating temperature of about 400C. The surface of the earth might radiate at a temperature of up to 50C or maybe 55 C in extreme conditions so the 2.7 and 4.3 bands will never become excited enough to absorb any energy from the surface...so tell me, how much warming do you think will actually occur from a molecule whose peak radiating temperature is -80C?

 

[Lagboltz]

This is what I quoted:

...definitions of heat,
1. (General Physics)
a. the energy transferred as a result of a difference in temperature
b. the random kinetic energy of the atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body

In short, heat is a form of energy.
This is what you quoted many times:

... heat is a form of energy...
... heat is a form of energy...
... heat is a form of energy...
... heat is a form of energy...

I'm glad for once we agree on something.
I also quoted some joke definitions too.
Heat is “the most intense or active part: the heat of the battle.”
Heat is “a period or condition of sexual excitement in female mammals”
Heat is “the heat the police”
I'm sorry the joke confused you. You apparently didn't see that as a joke because it prompted you to go to the search engine many times to prove my General Physics definition that I had also already posted.

...energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object

Oops. Your memory failed you again. You forgot the definition of the Second-law that I posted that came from eight impeccable sources. Here it is again:

Second law
http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/The-Laws-of-Thermodynamics
“heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cold to a hot object”

The University of Colorado
www.uccs.edu/.../Ch%2015%20The%20Laws%20of%20Thermodynamics. Pdf‎
“Heat energy flows spontaneously from a hot object to a cold object but not vice versa.”

Bluffton University
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/nsc_111/thermo6.html
“Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.”

UC Davis. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...f_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at a lower temperature to a material at a higher temperature."

Boston University
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html
“heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, but will not flow spontaneously the other way”

Book: Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 5th edition, Cengel & Boles
“heat flows spontaneously from a high temperature to a low temperature“

The same goes for dictionaries:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/thermodynamics
“The second law states that heat does not of itself pass from a cooler to a hotter body.”

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/law-of-thermodynamics
“... heat cannot be transferred from a colder to a hotter body ...”

Kindly look at the boldfaced underlined words in the above eight definitions. You disagree with all those universities and institutions when you said
“energy can not move from a cool object to a warm object”
Compare the the underlined boldfaced word in my eight sources to your statement. Do you see the difference? You quoted so many times that “heat is a form of energy” (which is true) that you seem to think “energy is a form of heat” (which is not true).

And you said I had a short memory. That is way too funny.

 

[Lagboltz]

The temperature of energy radiating at 15 microns, the peak absorption line of CO2, is -80C...that is minus 80 degrees C.

CO2 also absorbs and emits at a couple of other wavelengths...2,7 microns which has an absorption and radiating temperature of about 800C, and 4.3 which has an absorption and radiating temperature of about 400C. The surface of the earth might radiate at a temperature of up to 50C or maybe 55 C in extreme conditions so the 2.7 and 4.3 bands will never become excited enough to absorb any energy from the surface...so tell me, how much warming do you think will actually occur from a molecule whose peak radiating temperature is -80C?

I told you before, your phrase, “peak radiating temperature” is physical nonsense. In that phrase, “radiating” is an adjective modifying “temperature”. But temperature does not radiate! Only substances can radiate photons or EM waves. Do you make up this nonsense or do you read it in blogs?

You are saying “4.3 which has an absorption and radiating temperature of about 400C”. No no no! You should say it has a spectral absorption line at 4.3. You are obviously using Wien's displacement law on a non-black body radiator. The peak is the black body peak, not a spectral peak.

I have a blue LED on my monitor it has a radiation line of around 400 nM. If I apply your interpretation of Wien's law to my LED, I find that it's temperature is 12,571 deg F!! That's twice the temperature of the sun's surface! Gosh, why doesn't the LED explode? Yes, that is nonsense, but it is the same level of nonsense as your whole post.

 

[palerider]

This is what I quoted:

In short, heat is a form of energy.
This is what you quoted many times:

I'm glad for once we agree on something.

Geez you have a short memory and you thinking that you don't is way to funny. You are being led around by the nose like the sheep you are....as if I actually agree with you....ha ha...it is to laugh.

http://www.grandinetti.org/thermodynamics

Just like work, Heat is not a form of energy, but rather, is an energy transfer process.

Heat is not a substance but you will often hear or read (erroneously) about it as though it is. "Putting heat into a substance" really means putting energy into a substance by the energy transfer process of heat.

http://www.freestudy.co.uk/nc science for technicians/outcome3t2.pdf

It should be pointed out from the beginning that heat is not a form of energy as the syllabus suggests but it is the name used for energy being transferred by virtue of temperature difference.

http://www.indecs.eu/2005/indecs2005-pp44-58.pdf

Heat is not a form of energy. In this respect it is similar to work. No physicist says that work is a form of energy. Work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. It is calculated as the product of the force and the distance through which the body moves and is expressed in joules, ergs, and foot-pounds. The equivalence of heat work was demonstrated by Joule, namely to produce the same heating effect 1 Joule work or 1 Joule heat is needed. Heat, as the work, is the name for energy transfer from a system to an other.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~mcgreevy/s12/lecture-notes/chapter01.pdf

Heat is NOT a form of energy.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/102/3/309.full.pdf

"Heat is not a form of energy, it is a method of energy flow."

http://lectureexchange.com/wp-conte...hysics-for-Scientist-and-Engineers_Serway.pdf

Pitfall Prevention 8.1
Heat Is Not a Form of Energy. The word heat is one of the most misused words in our popular lan- guage. Heat is a method of transfer- ring energy, not a form of storing energy.

http://www.scionpublishing.com/shop/ProductImages/classicalmechanicssamplematerial.pdf

Heat is not a form of energy per se, but (like work) it is a form of energy trans- fer from one body to another, or from a system to its surroundings.

http://site.douban.com/230298/widget/notes/16055255/note/334291745/

First law of thermodynamics: Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes as heat flows in or out of it. Equivalently, machines that violate the first law (perpetual motion machines) are impossible. Heat is not a form of energy. It is merely the flow of thermal energy from one object to another.

So is heat energy or is heat simply the movement of energy from one place to another?

 

[palerider]

I told you before, your phrase, “peak radiating temperature” is physical nonsense. In that phrase, “radiating” is an adjective modifying “temperature”. But temperature does not radiate! Only substances can radiate photons or EM waves. Do you make up this nonsense or do you read it in blogs?

So you say....of course what you say means little, if anything at all. Here, calculate it for yourself. Let me know if you need to be reminded of the absorption and emission wavelengths of CO2.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien

Face it guy....you believe in a hoax..either because you lack the critical thinking skills to see through it, or because politically it is a means to an end....either way....pathetic.

 

[Lagboltz]

This is what I quoted recently:

...definitions of heat,
1. (General Physics)
a. the energy transferred as a result of a difference in temperature
b. the random kinetic energy of the atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body

In short, heat is a energy transfer. (from defn. a)
This is what you quoted many times:

“Heat is ... an energy transfer process ...”
“[heat is] used for energy being transferred by virtue of temperature difference...”
“Heat ... is the name for energy transfer from a system to an other.”
"Heat is ... is a method of energy flow."
“Heat is a method of transferring energy”
“Heat … is a form of energy transfer“
“[Heat] is merely the flow of thermal energy”

I'm glad we agree again!!

Again here are more definitions of heat”
Heat is “police activity after a crime: the heat is off.”
Heat is “criticism or abuse: he took a lot of heat for that mistake.”
Heat as in “in the heat of the moment without pausing to think”

These little joke definitions are to encourage you to put on your thinking cap and notice that words can have multiple meanings. The meanings come from the context.

So is heat energy or is heat simply the movement of energy from one place to another?

It can be both. Yes both! And it all depends on the context of the word.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you say....of course what you say means little, if anything at all. Here, calculate it for yourself. Let me know if you need to be reminded of the absorption and emission wavelengths of CO2.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien

Face it guy....you believe in a hoax..either because you lack the critical thinking skills to see through it, or because politically it is a means to an end....either way....pathetic.

So you say....of course what you say means little, if anything at all. Here, calculate it for yourself. Let me remind you that the emission wavelength of my blue LED is 400 nM (that means nanometers if you don't know science very well, which you don't.) Hint: you might think my LED is twice the temperature of the sun.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien

Face it guy....you just don't understand physics..either because you lack the critical thinking skills to see through it, or because politically it is a means to an end....either way....pathetic.

 

[palerider]

It can be both. Yes both! And it all depends on the context of the word.

Heat is a form of energy or heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another...which is it? Or are you saying that heat can and can 't move from a cold object to a warmer one.

Typical warmer gobbledygoop....global warming causes more and less snow...more and less rain...more and less drought...I suppose that is because heat can and can't move from cold to warm.

 

[palerider]

So you say....of course what you say means little, if anything at all. Here, calculate it for yourself. Let me remind you that the emission wavelength of my blue LED is 400 nM (that means nanometers if you don't know science very well, which you don't.) Hint: you might think my LED is twice the temperature of the sun.

So you have proven Wien's Displacement Law wrong? Congratulations....Write a paper and collect your nobel prize. Tell them all about your LED and how it proves Wien wrong. I am sure someone might step up and tell you how mistaken you are and how light is a form of heat, but go ahead and write the paper anyway...hell, algore and obama got nobels, if they can get them, anyone can.

You are laughable...you know that? You believe that a gas whose peak emission temperature is -80C is causing warming. You latch on to whatever you think supports your belief whether observation supports the hypothesis or not.

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy palerider. It's always a pleasure seeing your brooding tortured soul come out in writing.

Heat is a form of energy or heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another...which is it? Or are you saying that heat can and can 't move from a cold object to a warmer one.

Typical warmer gobbledygoop....global warming causes more and less snow...more and less rain...more and less drought...I suppose that is because heat can and can't move from cold to warm.

No no no, you got it wrong again. You don't understand that “heat” is a word in the English language. A word can have different meanings in different contexts. If I were to say that your soul is tortured by your heat of rage, would you say, “heat of of rage” is an energy measured in Ergs or Joules and governed by the second-law? No. It should be interpreted as the “intensity of feeling of rage” That wouldn't be measured in Joules, that would be measured by your foul language and endless curses and phrases of vitriol. (which are quite high these days.)

So you have proven Wien's Displacement Law wrong? Congratulations....Write a paper and collect your nobel prize. Tell them all about your LED and how it proves Wien wrong. I am sure someone might step up and tell you how mistaken you are and how light is a form of heat, but go ahead and write the paper anyway...hell, algore and obama got nobels, if they can get them, anyone can.

By Jove! Your sarcasm indicates you finally understand how ignorant your idea of Wien's Displacement Law is. At last you understand that a strong spectral line is not the same as a black body maximum and that the phrase, “peak radiating temperature” is a nonsense phrase not to be seen in any scientific publication. Congratulations!

You are laughable...you know that? You believe that a gas whose peak emission temperature is -80C is causing warming.

Oh rats, you disappoint me. My gosh you have built so many straw-men that it's becoming a fire hazard. My precious penpal, here is a secret: You are the one that believes that, not me.

You think CO2 always has a temperature of -80C. Try this experiment: Get yourself some CO2 gas and put it in a bottle with a thermometer. Heat the contents to 30C (that's a warm 86F) then see if the thermometer reads -80C or 30C.

 

[palerider]

Howdy palerider. It's always a pleasure seeing your brooding tortured soul come out in writing.

So now you know what is happening in people's souls?....does gaia give you insights or do you use a model? Once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I can imagine yours might be tortured due to the ongoing failure of climate science and your beliefs, but I don't presume to know anything about anyone's soul.

No no no, you got it wrong again. You don't understand that “heat” is a word in the English language. A word can have different meanings in different contexts.

Go on telling yourself that. According to science heat is either a form of energy, or heat is not a form of energy but the signature of energy moving from one place to another. Alas, it isn't both so one of the definitions science puts forth is wrong. Which is it?

By Jove! Your sarcasm indicates you finally understand how ignorant your idea of Wien's Displacement Law is. At last you understand that a strong spectral line is not the same as a black body maximum and that the phrase, “peak radiating temperature” is a nonsense phrase not to be seen in any scientific publication. Congratulations!

Shuckin and jivin...dodgin and weavin...duckin and coverin. Got to give you credit. Either black body computations are valid in the context of the atmosphere or they are not. If they are, then Wein's Displacement Law and the peak radiating temperature are valid or black body computations are not in which case, the greenhouse hypothesis is in serious trouble....as indicated by the continuing abject failure of climate models.

You are the one that believes that, not me.

Sorry guy, but you are wrong again. You believe man is altering the global climate in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. It is clearly you who is the believer.

You think CO2 always has a temperature of -80C. Try this experiment:

Of course not, but there are only a couple of wavelengths that excite CO2 and those wavelengths are associated with energy radiating from a radiator at a certain temperature. In the case of CO2, those temperatures eliminate it as the culprit in any climate change except perhaps in the very high atmosphere...where it is known to be a cooling agent.

What you have is faith....faith in failed climate models and now faith in blatant data tampering in an effort to make observations match the projections of models. The AGW crazy train is nearing the end of the tracks...will you still be a first class passenger when it goes over the cliff?

The fact is that there has been no warming for a couple of decades now in spite of ever increasing atmospheric CO2...radiation at the TOA is increasing...the oceans are not heating up....the land is not heating up and climate science is engaged in wholesale data tampering and fraud in an effort to maintain the grant money gravy train. Are you a useful idiot or do you simply view the hoax as a means to an end?[/QUOTE]

 

[Lagboltz]

According to science heat is either a form of energy, or heat is not a form of energy but the signature of energy moving from one place to another. Alas, it isn't both so one of the definitions science puts forth is wrong. Which is it?

According to the dictionary and many science web sites two definitions of heat are used as I quoted before:

...Dictionary definitions of heat,
1. (General Physics)
a. the energy transferred as a result of a difference in temperature

b. the random kinetic energy of the atoms, molecules, or ions in a substance or body.

The proper definition to use depends on the context of it's usage. It should be obvious that both definitions cannot be valid in the same word at the same time. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

It is no different than understanding that your heat of rage is different than the heat of sex? Heaven forbid if you think they are the same.

Shuckin and jivin...dodgin and weavin...duckin and coverin. Got to give you credit. Either black body computations are valid in the context of the atmosphere or they are not. If they are, then Wein's Displacement Law and the peak radiating temperature are valid or black body computations are not in which case, the greenhouse hypothesis is in serious trouble....as indicated by the continuing abject failure of climate models.

Wein's Displacement Law is certainly valid when used with black bodies, but “peak radiating temperature” is a made up phrase that has no meaning in science and no relevance to Wein's Displacement Law. You should refer to your idea as "Palerider's Displacement flaw."

Sorry guy, but you are wrong again. You believe man is altering the global climate in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. It is clearly you who is the believer.

Red herring. I was saying you are wrong in believing that a spectral peak of CO2 at 4.3 should be used as a black body peak in Wien's Displacement Law. That is totally wrong and indicates you don't understand the concept.

Of course not, but there are only a couple of wavelengths that excite CO2 and those wavelengths are associated with energy radiating from a radiator at a certain temperature. In the case of CO2, those temperatures eliminate it as the culprit in any climate change except perhaps in the very high atmosphere...where it is known to be a cooling agent.

The wavelengths you are referring to are not associated with any type of temperature at all. A wavelength does not imply a temperature unless it is the peak wavelength of a black body. If you think CO2 is a black body, then you should go back to a community college and learn something rather than getting your science from blogs or inventing it yourself.

What you have is faith....faith in failed climate models and now faith in blatant data tampering in an effort to make observations match the projections of models. The AGW crazy train is nearing the end of the tracks...will you still be a first class passenger when it goes over the cliff?

I have never said that I have full faith in climate models. My discussion here is that you are trying to use science in ways that are not only wrong, but an absurd farce. You have shown time and again that you have no ability to understand these areas:

Second-law of thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Black body radiation
Wien's Displacement Law
Difference between coherent and incoherent radiation.
Poynting vectors
The list goes on......

Yet you still try putting these science terms in sentences that make no scientific sense, which is absurd for someone who is admittedly anti-science. Again, I really don't care what you think about climate change. But I will challenge you every time you use your bogus interpretations of the laws of physics.