Utopia Talk / Politics / Sam can't dance IX

jergul rank	Wed Oct 18 21:53:24 2017 "Perhaps you should get a BSc. Lol. A M3 of dry air weighs 1.14 kg at 30 degrees. Saturated wet air without expansion (V is constant) increases the mass to 1.17 (we added 30 grams). Now, the pressure can *sort of* be looked at as a ratio of mass (given constant V) 1[atm]*(114/117) + 4[atm]*(3/117) = P[airsaturated]@sealevel. We know have a high pressure system. Volume is of course not constant, so P equalizes somewhat with the ambient environment as V expands. Enter cool air. Water condenses at the speed of which energy is transfered from hot, wet air to cold, dry air. Energy is released as water vapour condenses. As water condenses pressure drops. Giving a tropical depression (clouds form, then it starts raining. If the process can be sustained by positive loops, we then get tropical storms and even tropical hurricanes." This time try to demonstrate you at least are able to read sammy.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 18 23:17:14 2017 "We know have a high pressure system. " Lol
jergul rank	Wed Oct 18 23:36:57 2017 Sammy We now have a high pressure system* Use equations. F(x) = lol does not qualify.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 18 23:40:46 2017 The problem here is mostly that you suspect am quite capable of defending the physics behind what I am saying, so you are left with just trying to exploit language ambiguities in a manner that leaves you uncommited. I say "suspect" where I would have said "know" because it is very unclear how much physics you actually understand.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 00:11:13 2017 "As water condenses pressure drops." Lol. Jergul physics. "Water condenses at the speed of which energy is transfered from hot, wet air to cold, dry air. " Lol more jergul physics.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 00:14:32 2017 Between jergul physics and seb math, the sun is about to purple and baby jesus is gonna ride in on a velociraptor. Shits about to get weird.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 00:28:15 2017 Sammy Things including water in gas form take up more room than things in liquid form under constant pressure. Under constant volume, things in gas form are under higher pressure than things in liquid form. This is basic stuff. "Water condenses at the speed of which energy is transfered from hot, wet air to cold, dry air" Is a simplification and linquistically ambigious. But quite true. Again trying to exploit language ambiguity in a non-commiting way. Put your equations where your mouth is little weather boy.
Nekran rank	Thu Oct 19 00:31:58 2017 We all know Sammy doesn't do anything actually scientific ever since he uttered the legendary phrase and probably my favourite UP-quote of all time "I work in a science-building". It amazes me you guys still have it in you to go back and forth for so many threads after all these years btw.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 00:35:54 2017 This actually feels like doing TA stuff, but instead of attentive undergrads, I have an obnoxious 13 year old. *ponders what is confusing sammy* Uhm, you do know that clouds are water and ice, not vapour (though certainly saturated air might be involved), right?
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 00:36:40 2017 Nekran Everyone has an inner TA wanting to break out screaming and tearing its hair.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 03:58:20 2017 Lol nekran. If only you knew. Muhahahahaha. Actually jergul, in isolation, you would gain more pressure from temperature from phase change (thats the phrase you are looking for, not 'condensation reaction', lol) than you could possibly lose to less gaseous mass. In an atmospheric context, you lose pressure by losing mass from the column, and by that only. There is no mixing involved. Almost everything you say is wrong, and wrong to such a degree, that I am embarrassed on your behalf. Please do not represent UP, and if you are ever kidnapped by aliens, for the love of god please do not represent the human race. And nekran, thoughtless whimpering follower that he is, must agree, and follow.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 08:43:10 2017 Sammy I am actually looking for equations. But we are using words, since you do not seem to know, or understand equations. Condensation does not infer temperature change (heat of condensation gives no temperature change. Its actually called heat of vapouration, but I am trying not to confuse you with energy balance stuff). I am explaining these things to laymen, so am cutting out terminology I have no reason to expect they understand (by they, I mean you). I am sure that "atmospheric context" can be fairly intepreted as "how sammy understands stuff since he once worked in a science building". Mass in an atmospheric context is not lost until condensation passes beyond system boundaries (rain hits the surface). Depressions are formed by condensation. Other conditions are involved in positive loops that can intensify local pressure loss. Use equations to weaken what is becoming a strong theory: you don't understand what the hell you are talking about.
Nimatzo rank	Thu Oct 19 11:33:50 2017 That is the thing, this is actually a question that can only be resolved with equations. Perhaps the first of it’s kind on UP, where linguistic ambiguity shouldn’t matter. Get your pens and papers, or maybe there is a website that allows for this. This question has objective and independently verifiable answers, you are not allowed to have your own physics!
Nimatzo rank	Thu Oct 19 11:36:41 2017 Its* dam you!
Seb rank	Thu Oct 19 11:55:54 2017 Nim: I tried that already. There are basically two possible factors. 1. Sam can't use equations, is bluffing and doesn't know what he's talking about. 2. Sam is heavily invested in "being right", which mean others must "be wrong". Equations would either definitively prove things one way or another. He's afraid that either they would prove that actually nothing jergul I or said was wrong and that he's manufacturing spurious conflict; or worse - that he is wrong. After three or four threads now, he's said enough in words that can probably be definitively proven wrong and that he can only defend by exploiting ambiguous language. But in the end, the refusal to engage in reasoning via maths is because Sam knows he can't engage and win at that level. 2.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 15:37:12 2017 Nimi I tried that already. There are basically two possible factors. 1. Sam can't use equations, is bluffing and doesn't know what he's talking about. 2. Sam is heavily invested in "being right", which mean others must "be wrong". Equations would either definitively prove things one way or another. He's afraid that either they would prove that actually nothing jergul I or said was wrong and that he's manufacturing spurious conflict; or worse - that he is wrong. After three or four threads now, he's said enough in words that can probably be definitively proven wrong and that he can only defend by exploiting ambiguous language. But in the end, the refusal to engage in reasoning via maths is because Sam knows he can't engage and win at that level.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 15:37:35 2017 seb or I*
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 16:05:53 2017 "I tried that already. " You coudnt figure out how to manipulate natural logs. Lol. Embarrassing. Lets understand the most basic concepts such as "heat flows from hot to cold only" and we shall move on to equations, seb. Lol you thought heat could flow against the gradient. "Condensation does not infer temperature change (heat of condensation gives no temperature change. " There is no ambiguity with that. There is no way around the absolute wrongness of a statement like that. Idiocy of the highest order, it leaves zero doubt about the qualifications of its writer.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 16:21:36 2017 "Depressions are formed by condensation. " Lol jergul physics
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 16:55:06 2017 lol@sammy english.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 17:09:37 2017 "Condensation does not infer temperature change (heat of condensation gives no temperature change. " -jergul
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 17:54:16 2017 Physics sammy. You should try it some time.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 17:57:59 2017 What is the temperature of boiling water at 1 atm pressure? Why is the temperature not changing no matter how much heat is added to keep the water boiling? Answer: heat of vaporation. Same principle applies to condensation.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 19:21:19 2017 When an atmospheric parcel condenses out some of its water vapor, it is higher temperature and thus higher pressure or volume than it would otherwise be, just like a boiling liquid stays cooler than it would otherwise be because of the ongoing phase change. This release of heat by condensation and to a lesser extent freezing drives an updraft: a hurricane has a warmer temperature inner core that rises, evacuating mass from the surface, decreassing surface pressure. Into this rising column flows surface air, and out of the rising column at the top conservation of mass requires outflow. The hotter the air at the surface, and the colder the air aloft, the faster this process occurs and the stronger the storm. There is no mixing in the core, nor lateral outflow. Hurricanes are surface lows, not highs, and condensation itself certainly does not directly decrease pressure in any parcel of air. There is no 'condensation reaction', little green men, nor ambiguity in any way. At no point in your delusioned ranting of late have you even come close to the processes by which the atmosphere actually works. Nothing about real life hurricane formation is remotely like what you think it is. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 20:59:56 2017 Sammy The only trigger for condensation is air cooler than warm saturated air from which the water condensates. As per heat balance equation. Hot air does not rise because it is hot. It rises because of a pressure differential between it and the air around it. As per the ideal gas law. Condensation directly decreases pressure as per the partial pressure equation. At no point are you touching on the physics by with the atmosphere actually works. Also. English. When I am say I am talking about conditions that create tropical depressions, then I am speaking about conditions that create tropical conditions.
jergul rank	Thu Oct 19 21:00:38 2017 then I am speaking about conditions that create tropical depressions.
Seb rank	Thu Oct 19 21:54:47 2017 Sam: You never really explained why you thought I'd not handled logs properly. You were fine at the time then started asserting it a thread or so later. I don't pay it much mind - your blustering. Equations or gtfo.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 19 23:42:58 2017 "Condensation directly decreases pressure as per the partial pressure equation. " False. You are forgetting the heat added by condensation. Lol, what kind of retard thinks atmospheric lows are created directly by condensation? Seb, you rearranged some bullshit incorrectly, including failing to cancel some nat logs when you derived your own version of the thickness equation. Its not very hard, yet you fucked it up. Lol, do you still think temperature and thickness are highly nonlinearly related?
Seb rank	Fri Oct 20 00:07:36 2017 Sam: No I didn't. T1 and T2 in my equation were not assumed to be constant. They are in the derivation of the hypsometric equation. I actually pointed that out in the derivaron. I.e. you can use the thickness equation to prove no change between two isobars assuming the temperature profile is unchanged between equilibria. But that's the trivial case: your just proving that state A = state A, not the relation between state A and state B. Equations or gtfo.
jergul rank	Fri Oct 20 00:24:03 2017 Sammy Yay! You know see that the heat has to go somewhere. And you also have discovered that pressure is a thing. Vast improvement! That should be simple enough for you to show using equations. Show us how the heat released from warm saturated air condensating gives a pressure increase elsewhere to compensate for the loss of partial pressure.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 20 00:48:52 2017 "Assuming the temperature profile is unchanged " Which is a legitimate assumption. The hypsometric equation is valid seb, as much as you do not want it to be. You are attempting to argue against the weight of science. You might as well argue against gravity. Jergul, lets say you had a m3 of air with 2% by pressure water vapor at 25C. By the molar mass of the various elements, thats 1.4% by mass(water vapor is a little less dense than air). Per unit mass, we know thats worth 40kJ condensated using standard heat of vaporization. Using the specific heat of air, 1000 j per degree per unit mass, so +40C, or about a 15% increase in temp, and thus a 15% increase in pressure*volume, for a 2% decrease in partial pressure from water. Lolpwnt
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 20 00:52:07 2017 You can follow that right? I figure even you dont need me to type out things like 40,000/1,000=40. Right? Lol
jergul rank	Fri Oct 20 02:19:50 2017 sammy Your assumption then is that cold air adjacent to hot wet air had an initial temperature of (25 C - 40 C) = -15 C. Or where you assuming that something at 25 C was warming something else up to above 25 C? Baap. Wrong. Try again. Use equations. It will keep you from fucking up so badly. Either your logic, and/or your numbers and/or your english is bad. I will look at it seriously once you can express yourself seriously.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 20 02:23:57 2017 Or if you insist on equation, being unable read, dPV(temp)/dPV(phase change)=LV/cp/temp*M(water)/M (air). Or about 8 times greater pressure*volume increase due to temp changes given our atmosphereic variables. Pwnt
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 20 02:27:08 2017 (25 C + 40 C) = 75C Fixed it for you. You are confusing your plusses and minuses again. Back to first grade jergul!!
Sam Adams rank	Fri Oct 20 02:28:05 2017 Or 65C duh.
jergul rank	Thu Nov 02 21:57:41 2017 Sammy Or never that either. You do not seem to understand much about heat transfer. How is something at 25C warming something up to 65C? Baap. Wrong. Try again. The max temperature of something heated trends towards 25C. So the initial temperature would need to be 25C minuse 40C = -15C assuming equal mass like you are doing. So your assumption is obviously wrong.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 00:25:24 2017 "How is something at 25C warming something up to 65C?" By the heat that comes from a phase change. Obviously in the real world warming due to phase change alone can never increase the T above the original level, merely offsetting cooling instead. Unlike seb, at least you understood second thermo. The above equation is a ratio of variables intended to show you that phase change is 10x more potent that water mass, regarding potential to change pressure, which you seemed to neglect for some reason in your silly jergul theory of hurricane formation. I dont know where you got the idea that condensation could remove temperature from the air, but it is the opposite of what actually happens.
Seb rank	Fri Nov 03 00:55:13 2017 Sam: If the temperature profile is unchanged that's literally saying that at every altitude, T before = T after. So what you are saying is: if there is no global warming, nothing changes. 1. No shit, Sherlock. 2. No, that's a crap assumption given we are exploring the impact of radiative forcing.
Seb rank	Fri Nov 03 00:59:12 2017 BTW, I pointed out that your crap analysis of the impact of changing a variable required assuming said variable didn't change and was thus deeply flawed. That it's take gazillion threads for you to admit that is only marginally more pathetic than you not noticing the implications of that assumption. Seriously Sam, go to university and study this stuff, stop pretending you did. There are free MOOC courses now.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 00:59:18 2017 "If the temperature profile is unchanged that's literally saying that at every altitude, T before = T after. " No sebdumb, its saying that the impact of global warming is the same at all altitudes. If you add the same global warming bump to all altitudes, the profile is the same.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 01:05:50 2017 "go to university" Been there, done that. I even taught a few undergrads who were dumber than you. Although you should know, denying thickness equals temperature is a new level of stupid i have not yet encountered.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 06:28:50 2017 Sammy ""How is something at 25C warming something up to 65C?" By the heat that comes from a phase change. Obviously in the real world warming due to phase change alone can never increase the T" Just lol. It is also obvious in the theoretical world. I am glad you finally understood the energy in phase change (I have repeatedly used the boiling kettle dry analogy in these discussions). "never increase the T above the original level, merely offsetting cooling instead." And there you have the answer to what happens with the P changing potential of phase change. It does not change pressure, it offsets cooling. All of this is sort of given. Energy can change form but never disappears. Conservation of vis viva. First law of physicsish. How many 100d billion tons of rain does a hurricane like harvey drop sammy? That is the condensation effect you are looking for.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 15:22:55 2017 Yes jergul, you are starting to get it. Condensation adds heat, lifting mass up and out of the hurricane core, decreasing pressure. There is no pressure loss to condensation directly. And hey, you are using the correct words now. You are calling it phase change instead of condensation reaction. You are learning! That shows intelligence and places you way ahead of seb.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 15:58:42 2017 Condensation does not add heat to saturated, warm air. For loss of mass in the hurricane core, see 100ds of billions tons of rain.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 16:13:17 2017 If it is condensing, it is adding heat. The heat added by condensation is an order of magnitude greater than your rain mass loss.
Seb rank	Fri Nov 03 16:30:20 2017 Sam: If the profile is unchanged, then T at any altitude is unchanged. Temperature Profile means T(z). If the change is "the same" at every altitude then the profile will be changed If "the same" means "the same absolute change", then the change will be a constant offset at d/dz will be the same. If "the same" means the same relative increase (say 3%) then the change is that the profile will become steeper. What a fuckibg Idiot. Ok, go back to university and actually pass the course this time.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 17:19:50 2017 Temperature profile means the shape of the line dumbseb. Its starting and ending points can be offset by the same valur without changing shape. The slightest shred of knowledge or independent thinking ability would have allowed you to grasp this. Long ago you used to have knowledge, if not intelligence. Now you have neither. You have become a complete fuzzy studier, and are worth nothing.
smart dude rank	Fri Nov 03 17:33:50 2017 Been kinda reading this series of threads for a while. Seb and Sam are totally convinced that the other is wrong. Both are doing a terrible job of articulating their sides. Sam is a lightweight when it comes to physics generally, but he has real experience in meteorology. Seb is a real physicist but weather isn't his expertise. Combine this with wildly contrary political views and you get this clusterfuck of a discussion.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 18:56:59 2017 Sammy Adding heat to what? The answer is of course transferring heat to whatever cool, dry, upper level air is trying to equalize the pressure deficit by flowing down to the low pressure area. Nature abhors a vacuum. The pressure depression is caused by losing 100ds of billions of tons water. At 0.5 kg per m3 in (g) state. Well, you do the math.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 19:14:57 2017 Lets go back and articulate things correctly then. Is there a statistically significant trend in hurricane strength since 1900? https://en...c_ace_timeseries_1850-2014.jpg
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 19:16:09 2017 "by flowing down to the low pressure area. " Lows are rising air jergul.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 19:42:02 2017 Sammy Looking back, is there a statstically significant trend in hurricane strength since 1980/83? We have already established that there is a significant trend. The question is if the trend is due to interdecennial issues, or if it is due to climate change (preconditions for hurricane creation exist more often and for longer periods of time). The most likely answer is that the post 1980 trend is a combination of those two factors. Air rises due to volume expansion due to heating sammy. Precipitation means the air is losing heat fast at constant temperature and losing volume due to loss of water vapour.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Nov 03 20:47:20 2017 Why did you neglect the earlier record? Why did you possibly think that lows had descending air?
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 23:50:58 2017 Ah, you are back to mentally handicapped socrates modus. Reread what I wrote and ye may find wisdom.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 23:54:29 2017 The answer of course is that phase change acts as a huge protective buffer. cool air is heated towards warm saturated T (but only towards, not to, and certainly not beyond) as water condensates. Low pressure is maintained.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 03 23:59:08 2017 I am also not neglecting earlier records. I have stated many times I think interdecennial cycles are also a factor.
Seb rank	Sat Nov 04 00:18:17 2017 Sam: "shape" isn't a specific term. Does a curve with a constant offset have the same shape? It has the same gradients, but different integral. The age profile of a group of five people aged 5,6,7,8,9 is not the same age profile of five people aged 55,56,57,58,59. Profile means a series of data points. Adding a constant offset to a profile changes the profile. If I'd meant gradient, I'd have said gradient. But this goes back to my earlier point - your use of terminology is so slapdash to the point where your statements have no meaning to anyone but yourself. Equations, or gtfo, head back to university, and complete the course this time. Smart Dude: I literally did a PhD in heat transport in gasses. None of what we are talking about is "weather". My point has been made eloquently and simply in maths; which is appropriate given it is a ultimately a mathematical point. Sam has yet to even try to use an analytical approach to express his point.
Nimatzo rank	Sat Nov 04 00:27:51 2017 I declare seb the winner, by walk over.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 00:49:19 2017 "I literally did a PhD in heat transport in gasses. " And yet you tried to argue the atmosphere will transfer heat from cold to hot. Lol how fucking embarassing for you that you made the most beginner mistake possible yet claim you have a phd in that shit. Rofl!!!! No wonder you switched to fuzzy studies!
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 00:57:07 2017 Now i do understand your point that an exact vertical profile could refer to specific values, but in an atmospheric context it refers mostly to shape... gradients. Now i would excuse your ignorance of the field, or chalk it up to an ambiguous term, if you understood basic temperature gradients. You dont.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 00:59:52 2017 What university gave you a phd seb? I want to make sure i never hire anyone from that university, and treat any research from that school with a sufficiently large amount of skepticism.
jergul rank	Sat Nov 04 01:37:23 2017 The condensation effect works out to losing 100ds of thousands km3 of volume.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 02:52:49 2017 100,000s km3 is equal to the entire volume of air inside a normal sized hurricane. A little bit of condensation sucks ALL the air out now? I didnt realize that all the air would get sucked out. Geee jergul, im so glad you figured that out. Now we can save the entire world from asphyxiation inside hurricanes. I guess i better go back in time and save myself from those hurricanes i punched through. Oh wait? Im still alive? Imagine that. jergul must be entirely wrong i guess. Oh well.
jergul rank	Sat Nov 04 14:16:18 2017 Sammy Time, stupid. Hurricanes have a lifespan measuring in multiple days (weeks if you begin at conception as a tropical depression). You are so dumb.
Seb rank	Sat Nov 04 14:34:52 2017 Sam: No where did I argue the atmosphere would transport heat from cold to hot. Sealing a hole in a bucket with a tap pouring into it will cause the water level to rise. But it doesn't mean water is flowing of the ground back into the bucket. Your inability to understand the system is the problem here. By failing to understand the system, you assume a violation of thermodynamics has to take place. Your assumption is simply wrong. Equations or gtfo, go back to uni, complete your course this time.
Seb rank	Sat Nov 04 14:37:01 2017 Profile doesn't mean gradient. Gradient of the temperature profile is how you express such things. This is not my ignorance, it's yours.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 19:11:20 2017 "Time, stupid. " If you had meant time, you would have said it. Even then, its about an order of magnitude short.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 19:18:56 2017 "No where did I argue the atmosphere would transport heat from cold to hot. " You spent a couple entire threads claiming the atmosphere would transfer heat from cold to hot via backscatter. I stated backscatter was a delaying mechanism only, and that your proposal violated 2nd thermo. You then got into the atomic level to try to explain how heat can indeed go from cold to hot. This is all there, in our archives. How fucking embarassing for you.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Nov 04 19:30:59 2017 Seb Member Thu Sep 14 14:31:32 "Your argument earlier was that backscattering couldn't result in a flow of energy to the ground because the ground is warmer than the sky. That is not true. It absolutely can. " ooops rofl
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 01:01:43 2017 Sam: Do you deny that backscatter is infra red photons, which carry energy, and can be incident on the ground? Heat is a bulk quantity. You are confused.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 01:05:32 2017 Sam, you may have forgotten with the extended outage, but you already conceded this point when I asked the above question and you said "it would lead to an energy flow, but no net flow". I've never used the term heat. You already figured out why. Now you seem to have forgotten again. Do catch up.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 01:09:25 2017 Basically, backscatter increase means a greater upward component of heat transport is needed to offset the greater downward flux in order to sustain the necessary total flow of heat out of the system and into space as before (comparing the two equilibria states before and after the increase in backscatter). There's no heat flow from sky to ground. But there is definitely a power flux onto the surface. It's just there's a greater one from the surface up the sky. You can't understand the system though until you look at the component power flows.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 01:11:35 2017 Your entire argument has been that a power flux from backscatter to the surface is thermodynamically impossible. I've pointed out that only appears to be the case to you because you are ignoring the rest of the system. I even gave you a power balance equation so there's no excuse for you not understanding this, other than illiteracy
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 02:03:16 2017 "Heat is a bulk quantity." Ya, made up of energy. You are trying to transfer these, against the gradient. Utterly impossible. Perhaps you are confusing net flow with the individual levels in the conceptual model, which is a retarded mistake to make. Bottom line, a stronger hurricane requires more net energy, which you are trying to feed it by blatantly violating 2nd thermo. In no intelligent line of thought could that energy ever come from backscatter. Only the suns energy can ever drive storms. Backscatter contributes nothing. It is a delaying mechanism to outbound energy, it does not create more available energy.
jergul rank	Sun Nov 05 05:07:26 2017 Sammy Time is inherent to the timeline of condensation. Or did you think all the rain falls down at once in a massive 100ds of trillion liter splash?
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 17:00:38 2017 Heat is energy. Not all energy is heat. A single photon can be emitted by a cold body and absorbed by a hot one. That's a flow of energy. Lots of photons can do that. That's a flow of energy. Classical thermodynamics arises from looking at the ensemble of interactions in stat mech. Bottom line, there is no violation in thermodynamics here as long as the system as a whole obeys it. Increaded backscatter warms the earth only because the earth is also being driven by an external source. Turn that external source off and it would only slow the rate it cools. Your argument basically says the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics. Take the earth with a pure nitrogen atmosphere. Add CO2. It's surface temperature will rise. The act of raising the surface temp requires work to be done. That would alo increase the free energy available if you think that's somehow physically different (image a great engine that exploits the difference between day and night over a 24 hour period). Why doesn't this violate thermodynamics? Because the sun is driving the system. It's not that the backscatter heats the earth using energy from the sky, rather the increased backscatter slows the rate the earth emits energy. Until the temperature rises to compensate. But the heat required to do that comes from the sun, not from the sky. Your mistake is to assume that within heat flow, you can't have individual component fluxes. Photons don't know when they are emitted that they can't go in the direction of a child surface, and electrons don't know they are part of an ensemble with a higher distribution of energy and thus reject lower energy photons. It's like you missed classical stat mech, let alone qm.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 17:40:08 2017 Yes seb, individual components can transfer energy back and forth without doing effective work but the entire system, the net flows that matter to a hurricane, will never gain net energy from backscatter. Like i said, backscatter is effectively a delaying mechanism only. Agree? "Because the sun is driving the system" Exactly!!! You finally got it! All weather is driven by the sun. With the planets atmosphere remaining in, or very near to, radiative convective equilibrium even in a warming world, and the incident solar energy unchanged, the ability of weather to change is quite minor.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 20:36:25 2017 Sam, I don't know why on earth youb don't understand this. Backscatter doesn't do work. It's the sun that supplies the heat and does work to raise the surface temperature, but it the increased backscatter that leads to the change because it represents a downward energy flux that requires both T and dT to increase before power balance can be established. The only one arguing that it needs to do work for this to happen is you. The only one that had argued that it is a heat flow is you. Both as straw man arguments. I have, I think, convinced you that downward energy fluxes are neither a heat flow, nor do work, in order for them to raise surface temperatures. So I'm not really sure what your point is. "With the planets atmosphere remaining in, or very near to, radiative convective equilibrium" Like I said, your argument boils down to "if we assume that the equilibrium with radiative forcing from increased CO2 is the same as without the increase in CO2 then nothing changes". Every time I point this out, you deny it. But then every so many posts, you say it again. I'm sure I don't need to say again why that's a fucking stupid position. Seriously, go back to uni, complete your course. No one with any qualifications would ever say this stuff.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 21:17:30 2017 "Backscatter doesn't do work." Lets just stop right there. A hurricane is doing work right? So you admit bacscatter does no work... so how do you possibly think it adds more work to hurricanes?
jergul rank	Sun Nov 05 22:11:18 2017 Seb This is actually just a good old ad-hoc defence of a paradigm existing only in Sammy's mind. Sammy The SI unit of work is joules. Backscatter increases energy available for work. You are now regressing to fail at high school physics.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 22:12:55 2017 "Backscatter increases energy available for work." Nope. Try again.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 22:18:07 2017 Sam: There is a bucket with a tap pouring water into it. There is a hole in the bucket. We partially plug the hole. Seb says that because less water is leaving the bucket level in the bucket will rise. Sam then says "woah, woah, we all agree water doesn't flow uphill right? Lets just stop there. So how will plugging the hole lead to the water level to rise? The water level rising must mean that water is flowing upwards, from the ground, into the bucket." Sam is a retard. You cannot look at single components in isolation. But you can't understand the system behavior under changes if you don't look at the components. You ain't cut out for physics Sam - you don't have the right mindset.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 22:22:02 2017 jergul: It's a trap of his own making really. There is no easy way in English to articulate that the causal reason for the increase in available energy to do work is due to backscatter without him immediately saying that must mean backscatter itself is a flow of heat or work. If he would just use the proper, formal language used for describing physical systems this would not be an issue.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 22:30:27 2017 Seb, being the collosal retard that you are, you are confusing temperature with energy again. Surface temperature is not, and never will be, the same as energy available to a hurricane. Lol retard.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 22:33:46 2017 Backscatter doesnt do work... the work provided by the sun isnt changing... so where exactly does the extra work for a stronger hurricane come from? Magic?
jergul rank	Sun Nov 05 22:35:56 2017 Sammy Are you even fooling yourself at this point?
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 22:40:56 2017 Jergul... please tell me how a "condensation reaction" causes magical low pressure with sinking air again.
jergul rank	Sun Nov 05 22:49:45 2017 It has been explained to you sufficiently. In many different ways.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 05 22:50:46 2017 Sam: Sam thinks it does not require work to raise an objects temperature. Your argument is that *if* increased backscatter led to greater temperature gradients, that would lead in the greater ability to do work - and (leap of logic) that would mean backscatter had done work on the surface. Well, if that were true, backscatter could not lead to greater surface temperatures either because raising the surface temperature also requires work to be done. This is the entire basis of the greenhouse effect. Your argument is flawed because you are not looking at the whole system. There is no thermodynamic reason that increased backscatter couldn't lead to increased temperature gradients. Indeed, if you look at the earth-space temperature gradient, it would obviously increase under global warming. " the work provided by the sun isnt changing" The power flux from the sun isn't changing, but the ammount of work it does on the planet as a whole is. This is where I started to try and get you to think about black vs reflective bodies. At that point you started saying this was magical thinking and the planet "choosing" how much work to get out. Ignoring the fact that the planet isn't chosing anything. We are altering it's spectral properties and - duh - yeah, that affects the amount of work you can get out of the same power spectrum incident. Like I said, physics isn't your strong point.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Nov 05 23:06:18 2017 "to raise an objects temperature." Hey retard, we are talking about hurricanes. Why do you keep switching the topic to surface temperature? No one denies the surface temperature is changing. You are confused. This is a thread about hurricanes. Think. Focus. "The power flux from the sun isn't changing, but the ammount of work it does on the planet as a whole is. " Lol. What a retard. The sun does more work with the same energy? What an idiot. Lol phd seb.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Nov 06 01:09:58 2017 Ttt so everyone sees what a retard phd seb is. "Phd in physics", thinks that solar energy turned into temperature on earth does a variable amount of work.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 01:21:52 2017 Hurricanes are not directly driven by the sun. They are a function of a temperature gradients in a local vicinity - essentially a micro phenomenon from a global perspective. The question is whether vertical temperature gradients, on average, will be greater as a result of global warming - in which case you would expect more frequent and powerful hurricanes as the pre-conditions for more powerful hurricanes will be more prevalent. The hurricane itself isn't necessary or relevant here. "The sun does more work with the same energy?" Hence, if I have a near perfect mirror in space, in thermal balance with the sun, and I paint the surface facing the sun black, does it's temperature go up? Yup. Does that mean work was done? Yup. Did the paint do work? No. Oh My GOD the SUN DID MORE WORK! Sufficiently advanced technology (in this case, black paint) is indistinguishable from magic to those who. "thinks that solar energy turned into temperature on earth does a variable amount of work." Not variable amount of work, but of course, if you change the emissivity of the planet by dicking around with the chemistry of it's outermost layers. Only an absolute ignoramous would think that changing emissivity would have no impact on the power spectra.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 01:22:09 2017 This is high school physics Sam.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 01:23:22 2017 *to those who are too primitive to understand.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Nov 06 02:19:20 2017 "Hurricanes are not directly driven by the sun. " Phd seb, the energy that sustains hurricane trends over time comes directly from the sun. You do realize that any hurricane uses up some of the ocean heat? If that heat is not replenished - by the sun - no future hurricane. "Not variable amount of work" Lol dumbass. All energy from the sun that is absorbed by the earth does work immediately. There is no room for ambiguity, variability, or anything that does not result in work being done. That is indeed the very definition of absorption. Lol "phd in physics" doesnt understand absorbed radiation. "changing emissivity" Phd seb doesnt understand and ir and visible emissivity are not the same. Lol.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 02:23:35 2017 Sam: So, you think hurricanes are directly driven by solar radiation? Guess they stop at night then.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 02:25:20 2017 "All energy from the sun that is absorbed by the earth does work immediately." "That is absorbed". Think about that for a bit.
Seb rank	Mon Nov 06 02:26:43 2017 Emissivity is a function of wavelength. You'll have seen me refer a few times to power spectrum. It probably went over your head. Best not to think about it Sam. Go back to school.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Nov 06 02:30:19 2017 Lol. Phd seb doesnt understand the most basic physics. Doesnt understand absorption.
	show deleted posts