Utopia Talk / Politics / Beginner physics continued

Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 22:17:08 Seb, you were given a very specific instruction. There were 3 words. In, out, and net. Net in=net out, assuming no temperature change. Please tell me this is not actually confusing to you? If it is, we can stop now and I can go spend my time more productively with intelligent people. Jergul, focus. Heat capacity is not part of delta T. There are only 2 parts of delta T. T on one side and T on the other. There is no room for ambiguity, sebs cellestial hot dogs, little green men, confusion, or heat capacity. If we increase T on one side by x, and T on the other side by x, then the resulting change in delta T is?
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 03:20:32 Sammy Focus. The Venn diagramme has two circles. One for delta T as a precondition. The second ocean temperatures as a precondition. The two in combination sometimes give hurricanes. Represented by the overlap. Also, maths. You should try it. Delta T = (dx/dz)*s[km] "C[water] = 4185.5 J/(kg⋅K) A common minimum threshold for hurricane creation is 26 degrees C to a depth of 60 m over an area of minimum 200 km2. This being the actual energy source for the work a hurricane performs" Beginners physics indeed.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 09:03:47 You are not using the term net correctly. The term "net" normally means that component which remains after deductions. E.g. net income is your income after taxes and deductions. What is it that is deducted from gross emissions to leave net emissions, in your mind? You still haven't answered my questions. Clearly you *do not know* what would happen to the temperature of a black body in power ballance with the sun if a perfect reflector was placed behind it. If you can't answer basic questions like that, clearly this thread title is appropriate.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 09:17:17 "You are not using the term net correctly. " I am applying it individually to in and out. That is valid. "What is it that is deducted from gross emissions to leave net emissions, in your mind?" We will get to the components, and your blackbody idea soon. First, if temp is unchanged, in equals out. Right? "for delta T as a precondition. The second ocean temperatures as a precondition." Why are you including surface T, but not upper level T?
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 12:50:56 Sam: So when you say net in and net out, what component are you netting off in and out? Please express it as an equation. Your ability to express these concepts in plain English is not good. I asked my question first in the last thread. We will come to yours when you answer mine. Not least when you express your question in a way that is meaningfully formulated, which this one isn't.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 13:21:24 Net energy. Duh. Energy in = energy out. Is this step that hard for you?
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 14:33:18 "Why are you including surface T, but not upper level T?" Upper level T is derived from surface T. Trivial once you define "upper level". Delta T = (dx/dz)*s[km] Maths. Yay. Try it and see.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 16:33:07 "Upper level T is derived from surface T" Ok, correct. But by the same token i could say that surface T is derived from upper T, and then by your previous example claim that hurricane frequency is decreasing because upper level cold frequency is decreasing. When in reality, all that matters is dT/dz staying constant... and the result being no change in hurricane frequency.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 17:57:45 Sammy The lapse rate dt/dz allows for determining the temperature at any altitude for as long as you know the T at any specific altitude s so as long as s is greater than 0. "all that matters is dT/dz staying constant... and the result being no change in hurricane frequency." Given that the lapse rate (dt/dz) is always constant, then there would never be any change or variation in hurricane frequency. It would be completely binary: Hurricanes would either exist always, or never. In reality, water temperature matters. A common hurricane formation and positive loop threshold is a minimum of 26 C to a depth of 60 m over an area of at least 200 km2. The altitude s[km] would be 0 to -0.06.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 18:41:27 "Given that the lapse rate (dt/dz) is always constant, then there would never be any change or variation in hurricane frequency." Exactly. Now you are getting it. Now to understand why hurricanes only form occasionally and in a few places, its because global distribution of lapse rates are not completely uniform. Where warm upper ocean currents pile up, is where you have max energy convergence... the most sustained convectively unstable lapse rates... and therefore occaisional hurricanes. Those global energy flows dont change much with changing T. Whatever the equilbrium temperature is, the sun is shining at the same strength and in the same places (so long as we stay away from the ice regimes, which would actually be totally fucking catostrophic). So the planetwide flow of energy is pretty difficult to change.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 19:00:53 Sammy Lulz, I have always gotten it. I argued against the constant lapse rate, then decided wth, I'll accept the assumption and see where it leads us. Turns out it lead us to you finally admitting the lapse rate is not a universal constant. So we are back to Delta T being one circle in the VENN diagramme and ocean water temperatures being a 2nd circle in a VENN diagramme. Where they overlap. we have hurricanes (there are other factors, so toss in a few more circles. A shear circle for example). You need both a delta T and ocean conditions to destabilize delta T for hurricanes to form and be sustained. Two circles.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 19:15:48 You did switch from ocean T to ocean "conditions", which is a step in the right direction. Now when you realize those conditions are energy flows converging, you will be complete with your training, and ready to fight vader.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 19:18:45 Because we are using words instead of equations. Inaccuracies follow. By conditions, I mean ocean T down to 60m over 26 C covering an area of at least 200km2. Feel free to call that a converging energy flow if you like. The whole point is that the mass of water contains a shitload of energy.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 19:21:02 "This however does matter: C[water] = 4185.5 J/(kg⋅K)" I trust you can see the relationship between energy, mass and temperature (hint: j/kg*K).
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 12 19:37:29 "By conditions, I mean ocean T down to 60m over 26 C covering an area of at least 200km2. " And what you mean is wrong. In a warmer world, the "minimum" temperature will no longer be 26. It will be something warmer. Not ready are you. More training you require.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 13 00:36:53 Sam, thats an answer to an unspecified question. What is it that is removed from energy in and energy out to obtain the two respective net values? Cut to the chase and define the variables you are asking a me to calculate. Until you can actually formulate your question in a meaningful and unambiguous way, I suggest you answer mine. It out to be trivial. With regards to your question, in power balance it is certainly true total power into a surface is equal to total power out. But you've asked me to look at the difference between three two values after something unspecified has been removed from each (possibly different things in each case). Only if those two unspecified things you have implied need to be deducted first have the same value do net power in and net power out. So there are a number of ambiguities here: 1. You have chosen to use energy, which is a stock, not a flow. This could be ignored (we take a fixed time interval as given) were it not for other ambiguities 2. Your use of the term net. Net implied some kind of deduction. At the surface Net_power_flow=power_in - power_put = 0. Charitably, I thought that might be what you were trying to get at but on questioning you were clear the net operation was applied to each of "energy in" and "energy out" individually and independently. Do you stand by that? 3. You have used the figure 200w. 200 (approx) watts is the radiation incident on the surface, but that includes both direct sunlight that hasn't been absorbed and scattered, but also includes backscatter. Earlier you asserted this value would be constant if backscatter increases, which isn't correct. So I could understand perhaps net_power_in to mean "power incident on surface after backscatter has been taken into account". But this raises further issues: 1. How do you determine if a long wave photon hitting the surface came direct from the sun, was scattered by the atmosphere, was emitted from an excited atom that had been excited by a photon that came direct from the sun, or was emitted by an atom excited by a photon that came from the ground? Empirically, this can't be measured. 2. The power spectrum could be calculated by radiative transfer codes by treating the ground as an isothermal sink, and using the temperature solution of a dynamic run as a fixed given. However, net_power_in will no longer equal net_power_out, so you can't mean that or your previous post means you've answered your own question incorrectly. 3. So maybe you maybe net_power_out requires reduction from the power spectrum a proportion equal to the delta between power_in and net_power_in. This seems to be both circular and unphysical in that it means that outside of power balance it would be impossible to calculate or measure, and in power balance again it would not be measurable. You could not tell if a given quanta of energy from the ground was attributable to energy direct from the sun, indirect from the sun via scattering, or from the surface scattered back. Further, that would explicitly remove backscattering from the equation when it is the impact of increased backscattering that's in question. I think you really need to define the quantities you are talking about better.
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 04:09:37 Sammy I think we have long since reached a point where you are learning more than I am in this discussion. I have not claimed, nor is it relevant, that the threshold criteria for ocean water is static. I have merely claimed there is such criteria and that the criteria form a circle on the VENN diagramme, if not immediately intuitively obvious. But lets look at what you are saying: I used to know saturation tables by heart (silly me). Saturation is a non-linear function of temperature. Reversing the saturation perspective is interesting, but the following assumption is flawed: A hurricane can run out of cold, dry air before it runs out of hot, moist air. Access to cold dry air is infinite for as long as driving conditions (wet, moist air) exist. A warmer environment simply means that hurricanes will last longer and gain strength longer (it extends the duration of positive feedback loops) To consider if hurricanes form more slowly in a warmer environment, then you would want to compare increases in saturation levels to increases in evaporation rates. More slowly does not however equate less frequently.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 13 11:10:22 Seb we will get to all that. Start with an object in thermal equilibrium. Energy in is balanced by energy out. "A hurricane can run out of cold, dry air before it runs out of hot, moist air. " Of course it can. Both are equally relevent. Hurricanes weaken all the time due to deterioration of upper level conditions. They also weaken moving into shitty surface conditions, especially land. This is common knowledge.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Oct 13 11:50:28 IT'S ALL JUST POINTLESS WORDS!!!! WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THEM WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE THAT VACCINES SAVE LIVES!!!!
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 12:09:05 A hurricane cannot run out of cold, dry air before it runs out of hot, moist air* But sure, upper level conditions can at times deteriorate before bottom level conditions do. It does not however follow that upper level conditions deteriorate as a direct function of lapse rate. Which is what you are claiming. Cthulhu You should actually not believe the words. Trust only the equations.
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 12:20:05 *Shit happens* to upper level conditions is a independent variable. *Shit happens* to water conditions is an independent variable. VENN Diagramme. Delta T is one circle that shit can happen to. Ocean temperature is another circle that shit can happen to. The two circles are preconditions. The overlap is the condition. A hurricane! Yay!
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 12:27:02 Delta T = x + s[km](dt/dx)
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 12:28:24 x = random shit. Expressed in T[impact delta dt/dx]
Seb Member	Fri Oct 13 12:41:30 Sam: What you are describing is power balance, not thermal equilibrium. If the earth-atmospherr system were in thermal equilibrium, temperature would be uniform and homogenous. Perhaps you are right - we are not ready to consider the basic scenario I outlined if you don't grasp such basic concepts.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 13 15:11:34 It's clear Sam is only interested in dodging addressing substantive discussion. Posing ill constructed and possibly deliberately ambiguous questions such that any answer provided can be asserted to be wrong in an attempt to avoid exposing his own lack of competence. If that were not the case, he would simply have responded to the simple thought experiment posed a thread ago. It is now clear that Sam likely is no more successful at beginning a weather scientist than he was a pilot.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 13 15:28:51 Seb, we have tried discussing the specifics for half a dozen threads, and you are hopelessly confused, making nearly a dozen childish mistakes, and not even able to learn from them. And here you are, unable to discuss even the simplest conponents of heat transfer without a bunch of inane and often nonsensical comments. Baby steps seb. Crawl before you can walk. The block is in equilibrium with itself and with its surroundings. We are not talking about a planet, because you are not yet ready for such a step. Hell, given your insistance on 1350w, you very recently didnt think a planet was round. And here i was making fun of you by calling you a flat earther, and then you were actually dumb enough to make the earth flat in one of your equations!!! Rofl!!!
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 13 15:31:23 You are counting surface T as part of your delta T, and then counting it again as its own seperate thing. Why do you count surface T extra jergul?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Oct 13 15:38:40 "It does not however follow that upper level conditions deteriorate as a direct function of lapse rate." Of course it does. All weakening hurricanes have warming cloud tops. Thats actually one of the most steadfast laws in the entire field. A hurricanes cloud top temperature verse strength is a pretty exact correlation. Show me a hurricanes infrared picture, and we can tell you how strong it is, usually to within a few mb or knots.
Dukhat Member	Fri Oct 13 15:42:45 Why even argue with Sam? He has already come to a conclusion before seeing all the facts. It's the very opposite of what a scientific mind should be. I just like to laugh at how stupid he is.
jergul large member	Fri Oct 13 17:35:16 Delta T = (dt/dx)*s[km] is only valid for s greater than 0 sammy. For obvious reasons. So, no, I am not counting surface T twice. (dt/dx) is invalid under hurricane conditions. There is no lapse rate constant due to vertical air movement. Maths.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 14 03:58:59 Sam: You have not once attempted to manipulate an equation to make a point. You've just occasionally slapped one down and argued it proves your point just by existing, and then I've shown you it doesn't, you retreat into word salad. You can't even pose a simple scenario without hopelessly confusing it by introducing spurious terms and then refusing to specify the definition. Where you have clearly become confused, I have offered simple scenarios you haven't even engaged with. Either you can't, or won't, engage in any substance. " Hell, given your insistance on 1350w, you very recently didnt think a planet was round." No, you completely miss the point. I explained several times why your desire to understand the full thermodynamics requires using that figure (hint, what happens to energy absorbed in the atmosphere on the way to the surface and where would that be accounted, and you want a figure that's constant between scenarios). Btw, never used 1400 in an equation, I said that if you wanted to know the source of the work, start looking at the 1400w per streaming into the planet. You know scattering increases entropy right?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 14 03:59:56 Sam, a thought occurs. Do you consider the atmosphere part of the planet? Or only the surface?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 14 04:00:45 In any case, you've not explained yet what is removed from power in and power out to leave the respective "net" figures.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 14 04:38:31 I love how Sam thinks the earth is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Sun (6k K), space (3K).Earth (16 K). Hmm. Yeah. Thermal equilibrium.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 14 04:53:06 To summarize sam’s claim. The earth is warming but the consequences are not so bad (or none) since increase in energy and heat are off set by _almost_ linear changes in other parts of the system. Is that a fair summary?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 14 10:44:44 Who know's Nim, often his statements lack meaning.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 14 11:27:24 I just wonder who else in climate science makes these claims, where are the equations? Where is the model? What predictions have it made?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Oct 14 15:28:53 Between energy flows not changing much, and the slow rate of a change of temperature, the threat is near 0. There are a wide array of observations that support this. I will get back when there is more time
Dukhat Member	Sat Oct 14 17:05:18 The climate-change denial organizations funded by the Koch brothers make similar claims. Sam is an evangelical for them.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 11:42:22 Cuckhat in a science thread rofl. Nimatzo, there is a clear trend of increasing temperature, and increasing absolute humidity such that relative humidity remains constant. This is driving a slight reduction in global snow and ice mass, and a very slight rise in sea levels. This is currently a small and not particularly noteworthy trend, although there is no end in sight. The energy imbalance driving those changes is quite small and often returns to previous flow rates after a new equilibrium temperature is reached. Combining those two we expect to see no change in "storm" parameters, and indeed that is the case(mostly). There is no noticable trend in the frequency or strength of strong hurricanes or tornadoes, in precip rates, or in the frequency of strong surface winds or low clowds, in any of the observations. The raw data can be found here, though the format is not the easiest for quick reference type stuff: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/isd https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon-data Some quicker reference data that shows the lack of change: No change in big tornadoes: http://www.../violent_tornadoes_by_year.gif Hurricanes: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2015/annual/NAT_ace_2015.png Precip: http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/California-precipitation-1-year-calendar-year-to-2014-400x240.png http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/sahel/sahelprecip19012016.png Plenty of these available, limitting for the sake of brevity. Flooding: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image24.png Curiosly, others found and i have confirmed, using the above weather balloon data, a bit of an unexpected nonlinearity: a bit of an increase in turbulence at jet stream levels along the north atlantic tracks between the US and EU. There are some other, studies, often of questionable statistical significance and of limitted scope that try to weasel out some trends. The news takes these nonsense reports and makes em worse with hype. Throw in a few clowns that confuse tempetature with energy, like seb, and thoughtless followers, like cuckhat, and you turn a noisy dataset with no trend into "vote for my guy or the world will end tomorrow" hype.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 16 13:47:14 "Throw in a few clowns that confuse tempetature with energy, like seb" Are you kidding me? You are the one that keeps saying "energy is temperature". I've repeatedly picked you up on it. Do you want dates and times?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 13:50:05 Seb sees an increase in temperature, confuses that with energy available to create storms, and then doesnt want to remember it. Lol. Dunce.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 13:56:57 Or shall we get into the dozen or so dumbass thoughts you came up with to try to defend your originally retarded idea, like heat flows from cold to hot, warm gasses dont expand, the thickness equation isnt real, and planets are not round. Rofl. We could keep going...
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 14:25:32 Sammy Metadata analysis shows a clear increase in hurricane frequencies and strength through most if not all of your lifetime. The link has already been provided in earlier threads. Cold, upper layer air is infinite. Other factors can disrupt cold-hot air interaction. The other factors are in part a function of ocean temperature.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 15:14:24 "Cold, upper layer air is infinite." No. Dumb to the extreme.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 16:27:59 True within any reasonable understanding of the English language. So, sammy. What do you actually do for a living? We can cross out English professor and Weather analysist. So I am curious.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 17:17:22 You would have a fit of jealousy if only you knew. Muhahahahaha. Anyway, cold air above storms is certainly not infinite. Not sure how such a thoughtless idea entered your mind.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 17:46:31 Sammy That I seriously doubt. Which reminds me. I should change my tag to Sheik Abul Jergul in solidarity with my Kuwaiti brothers. What word could I be missing? Ah "approximately" Cold air is not the issue. Disruption cuts the cold air flow, not it sudden inavailability. Cold air above storms availability is approximately infinitely available. Disruption is generally driven by lack of warm, saturated air. But there can be other factors (wind shear for example).
Seb Member	Mon Oct 16 17:54:14 Sam: Oh god now you're mixing up energy and work. Ffs
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 17:57:52 Seb Where? I missed it.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 16 17:58:45 "like heat flows from cold to hot," No, nobody ever claimed that. Heat is a bulk quantity - backscatter isn't a heat flow. Hot gasses expand, but not linearly in this case (as proven via ideal gas law). The hypsometric equation is real, but requires certain assumptions violated in your use of it. The planet is round but you chose plane geometry not spherical - which in any case on these scales is an acceptable approximation.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 18:22:09 Seb I have actually just been thinking of work from a Newtonian perspective for the purposes of this discussion. Is there some nuance I am not considering?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 18:24:31 " Oh god now you're mixing up energy and work." Lol no. "No, nobody ever claimed that. " You tried to do that for about 3 threads. Lol. Although you do realize backscatter does no work. "Hot gasses expand, but not linearly in this case" Yes linearly. The thickness equation is law. Thickness=temperature. Lol flat earther seb strikes again. "The planet is round but you chose plane geometry not spherical" So you admit 1350w was a bad idea? You do seem to be learning and correcting many of your mistakes seb. There is hope for you yet. "Cold air above storms availability is approximately infinitely available. " Completely wrong. Cold air above storms is decreasing at aproximately the same rate as surface temperature is increasing. It could not be otherwise.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 18:31:43 So vacuum is occuring above the storm is your theory? As above the storm would be defined as airsystem not part of the storm. Also, you are fucking up English again. What you are trying to say is that dt/dx dictates that cold air T increases as much as warm air T increases at any given altitude. Which could and must be otherwise under hurricane conditions as the very nature of a hurricane (laterally windy) dictates that dt/dx no longer applies. Geeze.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 18:33:17 vertical* Ops.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 16 19:03:26 Hurricanes live in an environment where there is 0 dT/dx. Lol jergul fail.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 16 19:17:47 Not what I said Fail@math boy.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 04:01:08 Sam: No. You erroneously claimed backscatter has to do work if it is to increase temperature and temperature gradients. I have argued for three threads that this is a fundamental error on your part. The only reason you assume backscatter has to do work if it increase results in increased temperature and temperature gradients is because you are neglecting the incident radiation and failing to consider the sun-earth-space system as a whole. Arguing that increase in backscatter in the context of the system as a whole can drive temperature to increase and its gradient to increase is not the same thing as arguing backscatter can do work. You are requiring me to accept your error as a precept in my argument. Which is dishonest at best, or - more likely - a sign you don't understand your own argument. Now I've set out a simplified model scenario which demonstrates beyond doubt that re-radiated backscatter in an analogous system can indeed drive increases in temperature and gradient. You should engage with it and understand the flaw in your argument.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 04:06:11 Jergul: I don't follow you. What's the issue? Yup, Sam's claim that dT/dz is a fixed constant under all conditions is bonkers. Substitution of the only mathematically acceptable form into basic equations show negation (no viable solutions). He's openly admitted wet lapse rate (practically the definition of dT/dz) is T dependent. He just dismissed it as small, having done no examination of its effect in relation to the changes we are looking at. Sam literally believes the only significant effects are on the order 10% or higher. Bonkers.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 07:05:17 Seb Sammy presented something I found interesting; access to ambient upper layer air as a limiting factor on hurricane creation and sustainment. A continual supply of cool air is required in the same way as a continual supply of warm water is needed. I quickly realized that cool air is simply not a limiting factor given its endless supply. But kudos to him for thinking out of the box. Though incorrectly as it turned out.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 12:52:33 "You erroneously claimed backscatter has to do work if it is to increase temperature and temperature gradients." So wait, you think the atmosphere can maintain its gradients without doing work? Those gradients are there because of constant convection. Motion. That requires work. Rofl, seb back to being a small child thinking up a perpetual motion machine? Such basic and stupid mistakes. "Substitution of the only mathematically acceptable form into basic equations show negation (no viable solutions)." Yes seb, and vaccines cause autism. Lol retard. Also, small changes are aproximately linear seb. This is a useful aproximation valid most of the time, and certainly in this case. "I quickly realized that cool air is simply not a limiting factor given its endless supply." Im glad you realized that jergul. You should write a paper. The thing i want to be infinite is infinite, i have no evidence at all but you should listen to me!!! Also, how do i look up a weather buoy? Lol.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 13:01:30 Sam: "So wait, you think the atmosphere can maintain its gradients without doing work?" Sam, no. Read my post. Try and focus. Adding refractory lining to a blast furnace increases its temperature. Increasing the temperature means work has been done. That does not mean that the refractory material did the work. Refractory material can't do work. Figure it fucking out you moron.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 13:02:32 It's like you literally can't keep more than two elements in your mind at the same time
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 13:07:19 Sam thinks vaccines cause autism now. Figures.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 13:22:10 Seb the retard is confusing temperature and temperature gradients again. In a discussion about gradients, he brings up temperature, like the retard he is. Lol. Antivaxxer and flat earth logic. Basic mistakes and dumbassery.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 13:25:57 Sam: "temperature gradients are thus" Seb: "actually temperature is this" Lol dumbass
Dukhat Member	Tue Oct 17 13:46:12 Seb and Jergul owned Sam a while back. But you kept responding to Sam, making him think he had a case. What's the point? If he wants to be stupid, there's nothing you can do about it. He already had a conclusion in mind before he even asked the question.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:00:36 Cuckhat in a science thread lol.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:02:23 Although with jergul and sebs dumbassery, i guess this is becoming more of a dumbass thread, in which case you are more than welcome.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 14:25:12 Sammy The supply of upper cool air is given by dt/dx outside of the vertical air disruption in the hurricane. It is in endless supply due to how global air circulation works.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:37:44 Ahhhh, the peasant fishermans theory on how cold air is infinite because thats how "glibal circulation works". This aught to be hilarious.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 14:40:06 Sam thinks raising temperature of a fixed mass doesn't require work. Only increasing gradient. Lol.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:44:15 The work being done by a hurricane is not the same as work being done to raise tempetatures. We are talking about hurricanes seb. You dumbass. Focus and stop being a dumbass.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:49:51 Sam: hurricanes are work being done Seb: actually fish can expend energy when they try to avoid peasant fisherman Way to stay on subject with a clear coherant line of thought.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 14:51:56 Sammy Dumbass. Cold upper layer air drawn across system boundary into the hurricane system is replaced by adjacent cold upper layer air that in turn is constantly replenished by the mechanisms inherent to why dt/dx is a thing. What do you think happens when cold air is drawn into a hurricane? It creates a vaccuum above the hurricane?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 14:54:17 Everything you just said said is wrong. Warm air is being drawn into a huuricane. The cold air is the outflow. Lol peasants.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 15:11:30 Sammy Wrong. Pfft@tradesmen degrees. If you indeed even have a degree. warm, saturated air drives the hurricane through a condensation reaction with cold air. Condensation = drop in pressure which is equalized by local expansion drawing in both colder and hotter air. A cascade effect will eventually see air drawn in from outside hurricane system boundaries at all levels. Air leaves the hurricane system boundary laterally in a state of chaos (see: Hurricanes are fucking windy). Mass balance replenishment is not exactly rocket science.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 15:12:55 What I am also getting is that you do not really understand system boundaries.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 15:15:10 "through a condensation reaction with cold air. " Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I knew this was gonna be good, and our resident fisherman did not disappoint.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 15:17:11 "Air leaves the hurricane system boundary laterally " Lol "Condensation = drop in pressure" Lol "A cascade effect will eventually see air drawn in from outside hurricane system boundaries at all levels. " Blahahahaha. This is good shit.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 15:21:16 Either you are trolling and being funny... or... lol.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 17 16:29:21 I think I will be charitable and say your issue here is with not understanding English. Though it is more probably you neither understand english, nor physics. Heat of condensation: 2.27 MJ/kg This is the energy that drives hurricanes. It is released when warm, moist air mixes with cool, dry air. warm most air contains 30 grams of water per cubic meter when fully saturated. Confirm that you understand this before the lesson continues.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 17:04:38 Sam thinks the laws of thermodynamics are context dependent now. Hurricane's have their own special thermodynamic laws different from other things.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 17 17:07:35 Anyway, we're not talking about hurricanes. We are talking about a system that may or may not have hurricanes in it. "Is there a cat in this box" - "this box is certainly big enough to fit a cat" - "stfu about boxes, we're talking about cats".
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 18:44:58 "when warm, moist air mixes with cool, dry air. " Lol no. I will give you credit, the rest of your latest post was surprisingly correct jergul (in stark contrast with seb-like 100% errors in the one before)... but that mixing part... Lol. Meanwhile seb still cant figure out the difference between surface temperature and temperature gradient. Lol what an idiot.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 17 18:50:23 Seb physics. Really hammering on point 5 lately. 1) Forgot second thermo 2) Forgot the ideal gas law 3) After the existence of the ideal gas law was pointed out, claimed nonlinearity 4) forgot how to convert natural logs and e^ 5) confused a value with the rate of change of that value 6) Thought adiabatic lapse rates were strongly pressure dependent 7) Ignored the thickness equation 8) used a very wrong value for bottom of atmosphere flux. 9) lied about climate stats 10) thinks a planet can randomly choose to "do more work" with its sunlight.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 18 02:30:02 Sam: Just listing things that clearly aren't true doesn't work. All you've managed to do in four threads is convince anyone with a physics and engineering background that you don't have one at all.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 18 02:31:23 Almost all of the points you raise actually apply to you. And we have the links to prove it.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 18 03:18:22 Sammy You are the one insisting on using words instead of equations. "Mixing" is a valid way of depicting that energy transfer takes place. We are now going to have to talk about Pressure, I'm afraid. I know P does not exist in your thermo-dynamic universe, so this might be difficult for you. water vapour takes up a lot of space. The space is temperature dependent. a m3 per kg vapour is an acceptable approximation. This means that moist air either takes up more volume than dry air, or is under more pressure than dry air, or a combination of both (correct answer: combination of both). This is a factor in addition to hot air taking up more volume than cold air, or being under more pressure than cold air, or a combination of both (correct answer a combination of both). To calculate such things, a partial pressure equation is used. The the partial pressure P[part] for vapour in saturated warm air is quite high (4 atmospheres). Confirm that you understand the lesson so far sammy.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 09:21:49 "Mixing" is a valid way of depicting that energy transfer takes place. " This is the mind of jergul. "The the partial pressure P[part] for vapour in saturated warm air is quite high (4 atmospheres). " Ahaha jergul, the temperature would have to be well above boiling for that. Lol dumb. Perhaps you should go back to talking about "condensation reactions" Lol Meanwhile seb cant understand the most basic of physics. Whether you have forgotten due to serious brain trauma or are merely so cucked that you intentionally ignore science in favor of leftist talking points is unclear. So seb, have you been in any serious car accidents in the last decade?
jergul large member	Wed Oct 18 10:31:09 Sammy 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.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 10:50:37 So thats how a condensation "reaction" causes a tropical cyclone (high pressure?) to form. Lol. The mind of jergul. I didnt realize tropical storms started as high pressure. This is truly groundbreaking work jergul. The scientific community will be eternally greatful to you for discovering the high pressure hurricane.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 18 10:54:54 Sammy Depends on if you think saturated air is a pre-condition for tropical depressions or not sammy. Your ground breaking contribution that rain storms do not actually require water is noted.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 11:10:25 How did your mind possibly go from inventing high pressure hurricanes to rain not being water? Wtf the are you talking about? Take your pills.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 18 12:04:02 Sam: You are in no position to talk about basic physics when you are unable to answer simple questions or do basic mathematical derivations; and in fact are not even able to parse basic technical terminology correctly or express your own ideas in consistent, correct technical language. You are clearly lying about your degree of technical attainment.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 12:22:15 Sebs like "stop trying to confuse me with overly complex ideas like 'warm gas expands'"!!!!!
Seb Member	Wed Oct 18 13:31:10 By how much, etc. etc. Look at your dismal post on work above. Your inability to understand how a system with only three components operates. Your inability to clearly distinguish between temperature, energy and work. "Temperature = energy flow" as you put it. An essentially meaningless statement (a perfectly insulated object would not have a temperature? An adiabatic system would have no temperature? A closed system would have no temperature? No. No. No.). Your confusion between an object being in thermodynamic equilibrium vs it being in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings. Inability to understand that an object power balance with two effective isotherms is not in thermal equilibrium with them. Your inability to understand how simple heat engines work. I could go on but it's simpler to refer you to your own list. The issue isn't that your ideas are complex, it is that they are vague and simplistic and that your argument becomes ambiguous. The very first thing you learn in an undergrad degree is to express ideas specifically and unambiguously through a formal mathematical language. You cannot. Ergo - you likely do not have the skills or qualifications you have asserted. Tl;dr Express as an equation or gtfo basically.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 18 13:36:06 Sammy You are the only one talking about high pressure hurricanes and waterless rainstorms.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 14:04:53 Jergul you literally just said high pressure system in your previous post. You cant even remember the nonsense you spew. Seb, keep in mind i dont have to make up anything for your list.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 18 14:05:23 Seb phtsics. Embarassing. 1) Forgot second thermo 2) Forgot the ideal gas law 3) After the existence of the ideal gas law was pointed out, claimed nonlinearity 4) forgot how to convert natural logs and e^ 5) confused a value with the rate of change of that value 6) Thought adiabatic lapse rates were strongly pressure dependent 7) Ignored the thickness equation 8) used a very wrong value for bottom of atmosphere flux. 9) lied about climate stats 10) thinks a planet can randomly choose to "do more work" with its sunlight.
	show deleted posts