Does Trapping Running Make Running Run Faster?

Written by Joseph E Postma

Better communication at work: how to stop waffling and get ...

From a comment:

m: “Three up to date alarmist arguments for GHE:

1. Absorption spectrum of CO2 seen from satellites proves heat is “trapped”
2. Increase in “effective radiating level” from more CO2 causes surface to warm
3. IR cameras like FLIR prove back radiation effect

It’s hard to keep up with all the nonsense.”

That’s a good concise summary m. They’re worth going over:

  1. Absorption spectrum of CO2 seen from satellites proves heat is “trapped”

We know that their primary tactic is to misuse the language of thermodynamics, as is done here. Given that heat is a transient phenomenon when energy transfers across the boundary of a cooler surface as compared to the energy source’s surface, then this statement has no discernible meaning. From the 1st Law, dU = H + W, we see that heat (H) is identical with work (W ) since they appear together being added together. The work that heat performs is in the increasing of the agitation, in the acceleration of the thermal vibrations, of the cooler surface. Heat transfer is directly related to the increased movement at the microscopic scale of the cooler object’s molecules, just as we normally think of work as being involved when we move something.

So what would “trapping work” mean? If anything, it could possibly mean stopping the work from being performed? That would be ineffectual, since this is the cessation of anything occurring. Or does it mean to “trap the movement” that the work has done? That would be ineffectual too, since the movement was performed anyway.

But this is precisely the intention of sophistry: to create terms and imply concepts which have no connection to reality and no rational meaning at all. There is no such thing as “trapping heat”, and no way to interpret what it would actually mean. Heat flow is spontaneous and transient and represents the performance of work done at the molecular level – it doesn’t mean anything to say that one can “trap” this; it is like saying that we can “trap running”, or that we can “trap swimming”, or that we can “trap typing”. Heat isn’t a noun, it is a verb, just as work is a verb. This is why in the First Law heat and work appear equated to a delta, i.e. to a CHANGE, the dU, change in internal energy.

If you ever see one of them talking about “trapping heat” again (of course, this is constant), then ask them how to trap “running”? Heat is an action of energy, not energy itself, and energy can only perform this action if it has sufficient potential. This is just like work: energy may be spent trying to move something, but if there is no movement because the energy isn’t powerful enough, then there is no work performed. Of course this is why they try to equate all energy with heat, but this identical to saying that a shoe is the same thing as running. Energy is a noun, an object; heat (and work) is a verb, an action.

As for the absorption spectrum: that represents that either IR energy has been resonantly scattered given that CO2 is already vibrationally activated from inter-molecular collisions, and/or that the CO2 absorbed the energy and was thus “warmed” by it. On the latter point, the absorption spectrum at the CO2 wavelengths would then indicate that heat has in fact been transferred, not “trapped”. There is of course nothing wrong with the warmer surface heating the cooler atmosphere, and, this is NOT their greenhouse effect.

  1. Increase in “effective radiating level” from more CO2 causes surface to warm
  2. IR cameras like FLIR prove back radiation effect

These can go together simply because they contradict each other immediately. Again, as we know, their aim is to create language which has no rational meaning and which is constantly self-contradictory. Most of their goal seems to be just to confuse thinking…which is of course a step along the way to their goals of implementing pseudoscience to then use for political control, etc.

Is their greenhouse effect warming caused by 2 or 3? Which one is it? Those are different mechanisms. Typically their greenhouse effect is first described via 3. However, all that number 3 indicates is that the atmosphere has a temperature. We can remotely detect with FLIR the temperature of an ice-cube. Like an ice-cube, the atmosphere is merely a passive object that has somehow attained a temperature from heating which was previously performed upon it. From what process did the atmosphere attain its temperature? Of course: from the Sun. Remotely detecting that an object has a temperature does not mean that the object is capable of supplying the performance of heat to a warmer object.

The atmospheric gas in the presence of a gravitational field and hard surface at the bottom of itself then sorts itself out so that the average thermal energy state is found somewhere in the middle regions: it is mathematically impossible for the average thermal state of the atmosphere to be found either at the very bottom of the atmosphere or at the very top, even though most of the heating of the atmosphere occurs at the bottom via conduction with the sunlight-heated surface. Because of gravity, because it is a free gas, and because of statistical mechanics (mathematics), the average thermal state of the atmosphere must be found around the average of the atmosphere, i.e., around the middle altitudes (of the troposphere).

This now goes to 2, in that the only way to increase the altitude of the average thermal state of the atmosphere would be to have more atmosphere. This is the reason why Nikolov and Zeller determined their solution that near-surface air temperature was a function only of the solar constant and the mass of the atmosphere.

So as one can see, the alarmists are inventing language and concepts which are indefinable and un-understandable, and which are not consistent with basic mathematical laws, etc. In other words they’re just lying and sophizing, because they can get away with it, because few people in the world have the ability to parse and deconstruct their statements. The wonder is that they have the support of media and some governments and NGO funding which is intent on pushing their language onto the public, which thus indicates an entire and very well thought out campaign at play.

Finally, if one wishes to discuss “trapping”, then we should discuss the trapping of radiant thermal emission which originates from a surface. The ability for a surface to emit is called “emissivity”. Emissivity is a natural property of a surface and cannot be changed remotely. However, if an object does have low emissivity, then indeed its ability to thermally radiate energy is “trapped”, and the object thus raises in temperature to the point at which needs to given an energy supply to it. The entire principle of greenhouse gases is that they are supposed to be good emitters, to radiate energy, and to radiate their energy to space and also back to the surface. However, non-GHG’s have poor emissivity, and do not radiate their energy either to space or back to the surface. Thus if one gas can radiate energy to space, but another cannot, then which gas facilitates losing energy and which gas facilitates trapping energy? Supposed GHG’s must serve to cool since they can emit, whereas non-GHG’s already serve to hold on to and trap thermal energy. Thus, this is just another example of the logical and philosophical and scientific inversions created by flat-Earth greenhouse theory.

I suppose the correct title to be entirely consistent with alarmist pseudoscience would be: “Does trapping running make shoes move faster?”

“Trapping running” is of course “trapping heat”. “Shoes moving faster” is of course “higher temperature”. That is: “Does trapping heat make temperature rise?”

But the title I used is more catchy.

“Does trapping heat make temperature rise?” sounds entirely plausible, doesn’t it!?

“Does trapping running make shoes move faster?” sounds like gobbledygook…which is of course what the previous thing is in thermodynamic terms.

Questions/replies for the attention of the author, Joe Postma, should be posted at climateofsophistry.com


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (54)

  • Avatar

    chris

    |

    Here’s another one that they use, reflectivity. They are claiming that CO2 can reflect the ir light of the Earth back to the Earth. Of course this is against the second law of thermodynamics, entropy.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Chris, even if this “reflection” (back radiation) occurs (and some of it likely does) an object being the source of that IR (the surface) cannot further heat itself !!! .. nothing can heat itself !!!

      And remember this, even if CO2 could perform this magical “reflection” (back radiation) trick, CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.

      CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes !!!

      So, can -112F IR radiation further heat the surface which is already much hotter? … and where, aside from an active volcano, do they believe 1466F or 755F comes from?

      So, just assuming that Joseph is full of crap here (he most certainly is not), and that the flat Earth greenhouse hoaxers are correct, CO2 is still completely incapable of doing what they claim it can do !!!

      There is no such thing as a so-called “greenhouse effect” within our known universe. Such a thing simply violates fundamental physical laws that govern our universe !! .. A “greenhouse effect” is just not possible !!! .. hence the reason why nobody has ever been able to successfully demonstrate this magic despite claiming that this effect exists all around us everywhere all the time !!

      The whole “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” hoax is just that .. it is a HOAX!

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    I think the whole GHG theory is a big misunderstanding.

    To start with – Stefan Boltzmann´s radiation law. When a body is warm, it has an internal electromagnetic radiation field caused by the lattice vibrations. The internal radiation pressure is proportional to T^4, which can be derived from thermodynamics. The internal radiation pressure is the driver for emission. The emission is simply proportional to the pressure.

    How much is emitted is decided by the external radition pressure. Max emission is when the body is surronded by empty space.
    When there is an external field it will effect the emission, since the external field contributes to the outside radiation pressure.. In a closed room there will be a build up of an electromagnetic field in the room. The field will have the same radiation pressure as the walls – why the walls will stop radiating (no gradient).

    When the sun shines on earth, the sunshine will have a radiation pressure. That will reduce earths emission. I think this can explain why the earths radiation losses are lower than calculated from a simple model (where everything radiates T^4 – in reality is should be the difference in radiation pressure that governs the emission).

    regarding CO2 – I would say that it scatters IR in a similiar way that blue light is scattered by O2 and N2. This scattering will send some IR back to earth. That radiation will contribute to the radiation pressure and reduce earths emission (one point to alarmist). However, the CO2 molecules emitting back to earth will be experiencing a push upwards (conservation of momentum) Looking at the theory (340 W/m2 backradiated) – most CO2 should be in outer space after some time. Most likely it will radiate out to space after som time and thereby get a push downwards.

    I think the whole GHG model is unphysical. There is more flaws in it.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      You’re correct Jonas, “the whole GHG model is unphysical”.

      But, there’s no need to give any points to them. “Radiation pressure” refers to physical forces, not temperatures. A surface emits based on its own temperature, not the temperature of the environment.

      • Avatar

        Jonas

        |

        a body emits when the internal radiation pressure is greater than the surrounding radiation pressure.
        Walls in a room does not radiate if the wall temperature is equal to room temp.
        It is not temperature that drives the radiation. It is the pressure, but the pressure is related to the temperature through thermodynamics.
        What I say is that a illuminated surface radiates less than a dark. The radiation pressure from the sun will reduce earths emission losses. The calculation that gives -18c as equilibrium is wrong. The equilibrium temp is much higher

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          A body emits based on its temperature. It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the environment is. This is a LAW of physics, called the “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”.

          The walls would ALWAYS be radiating, as long as they had a temperature.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Points? .. puleeez…

      CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.

      CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes !!!

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Funny how those who argue against backradiation believe in backgravity and its backconduction/backconvection.

      Geothermal denial is the biggest scam in climate science. DWLWR is Geo. Wake up!

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    The notion that averaged global temperature governs the climate is the BIG mistake. Yes global temperature affect some aspects of the weather system and can therefore affect the climate BUT it is NOT the main driver of the climate. Ocean currents and land use changes are can change the climate in more dramatic ways than the parts of a degree per 30years that the global temperature changes. Increasing CO2 changes the weather system and eventually the climate through it’s readily seen green of the planet. This is it’s only observed effect on climate.
    Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

    In a lecture in 2018, he ridiculed the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it was primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he said, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

    “Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees…
    At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago.
    On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.”

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Tom,

      Which is the greater problem: Averaging temperature so the earth-atmosphere-solar system becomes homogeneous and ceases to rotate about its axis and ceases to orbit the sun so there are no seasons or the fact (because wrong scientific ideas can be proven to be absolutely wrong by observations) that is no greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide and similar gases. A third problem is any temperature measurement to a tenth of a degree is meaningless and I am sure you might agree with that. We are dealing with a natural system and not an idealized laboratory system.

      We must begin at the beginning using what Newton taught when he wrote: “And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”

      The key here is: “of our sea”. For while the motions of the celestial bodies, relative to gravity and his explanation of their motion are in a general agreement. However, there are natural tides that are not even semi-diurnal. So we must learn that there are other factors which can greatly perturb the principal cause and identify any perturbing factors as they influence the solar radiation and geothermal energy and how mountains perturb the atmospheric circulation and how land masses perturb the circulation of the oceans and seas. And we need to learn about the influence of the inclined axis of rotation influences more than just the seasonal temperature as these temperature changes influence the circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans. All this without averaging any measured factor for any period greater than an hour.

      My favorite meteorologist, R. C. Sutcliffe lamented that meteorology students at an earlier time had to go departments of geography for there were no departments of meteorology. I have just started reading ‘Physical Elements of Geography’ (1949) by Vernor C. Finch and Glenn T. Trewartha and I conclude that a far greater problem is that now meteorologists may not study the ‘Physical Elements of Geography’ (1949). For these geographers (authors) did not average the earth-atmosphere-solar system.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Newton also said bodies in motion tend to stat in motion unless acted upon by an external force.

        But mainstream theory thinks that molecular bodies in motion cease their own motion by emitting their own force (EM Radiation).

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Zoe,

          The bodies to which Newton referred were the large bodies of classical physics and not the tiny, tiny bodies of the quantum mechanical physics.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            But it’s the motion that generates radiation. So motion causes radiation which then depletes the motion that caused the radiation?

            You saying space acts like viscous mass?

            Interesting, I wonder why I never read that.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            Motion causes radiation or loss of energy. Absorption of radiated energy increases motion. It is an equalizing of energy.
            Read my article in PSI “To Absorb or Radiate” to understand how radiated energy works.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Zoe,

            I should have written: Gravity influences the translational motion of a body but not the internal motions of a body.

            And I now see that that I should commented about your terminology. Radiation is energy and not a force. Gravity does influence the translational motion of atoms and molecules but not the motions of any atomic or molecular parts of the body.

            I will stop here because I am not a theorist and know I getting close the boundary of my understanding of the issue to which you refer.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            “Motion causes radiation or loss of energy.”

            Yes, to another body. That I believe.

            But would motion in free space cause a deceleration in space due to motion itself with no body in sight?

            Your article is not easy to digest, and I just want a simple answer with good reason.

            I do not disagree with what you say there because I don’t have the meta skills to even fully understand it, but intuitively you don’t seem wrong. Yeah, something like that.

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi Zoe,

            When you write “I don’t have the meta skills to even fully understand it.” I have no idea what these ‘meta skills’ might be. My lack of knowledge, not yours.

            So could you inform me? As I consider knowing this might help me communicate better.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Jerry, I was politely saying I can’t even make sense of what he’s saying. He might as well have written it in Japanese. I don’t understand Japanese so he can’t be wrong.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            Radiation is the transfer of energy to the electro/magnetic field surrounding an object. Conduction/convection is the equalization of energy between objects or within an object where there is contact between the objects/molecules.
            An object will radiate energy in all directions so if there are two objet with different energy levels they cannot equalize with each other. The radiated energy received by the cooler object will be radiated in all direction not just back to the warmer object. Equilibrium is achieved when the hotter object has transferred energy to the surrounding fields and equalized with it while the cooler object has absorbed energy from the field and equalized with it.
            Herb

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    “ridiculed [the notion that] a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable”

    Is IQ stupid as well?

    • Avatar

      Alder

      |

      Yes.
      How can a thing be equal to its opposite?
      Charles Binet said, ‘IQ is what IQ tests measure’.
      IQ is a very broad brush indicator of ‘something or things’ or just the ability to score on IQ tests. In life, industry, employment selection and so on it is grossly and wrongly misused. It certainly has no correlation with ‘sense’.

      Actually the match with ‘global average temperature’ is interesting. Consider there is a series of numbers pretending to quantify global average human IQ for every year since 1921. The UN would quickly set up a committee to impose more taxes, more handouts, train more experts and employ more administrators. There would be demos in cities demanding a fairer spread of IQ, etc.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Joe Postma

    You are not using the terms heat and work correctly. In the world of physics they are nouns. They are quantities of energy like gallons of water. The units for both are the joule that is why they are common. The units are not actions.

    You can “trap” heat as easily as you can trap water in a tank. If the water you put in is limited from leaving the tank it is indeed “trapped” in the tank. If the joules emitted by the surface are stopped by GHG and absorbed they would be “trapped” as they do not leave to space. The joules going to space are from the GHG emitters in the atmosphere (exception is the few joules that leave directly from surface to space through the atmospheric window).

    GHE is as logical as filling a tank with a hose. If you change how much energy can leave with a constant input the water level in the tank will go up or down depending upon that change. The surface of the Earth must reach a temperature that emits 390 W/m^2 in order to get 240 W/m^2 out the atmosphere. It is really and easy thing to understand. It is sound physics, good science and basically empirically proven by instruments.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Norman asserts that Joules are like Gallons, and therefore … ta da!

    • Avatar

      Ross Handsaker

      |

      Norman, if the GHG’s are emitting energy to space it does not make sense to say they are trapping heat (surely a loss of energy must have the opposite effect).

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Zoe Phin

        Joules are similar to gallons as they are a quantity of energy, as gallons are a quantity of liquid volume.. The more joules in a substance the more energy it has. They are not verbs, joules are not actions.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          No, Norman, m^3 is not like kg*(m/s)^2

          But sure, using rhetoric, anything is possible.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            They actually are when you deal with the concept of quantity. Gallons are a quantity of water., joules are a quantity of energy, kilograms are a quantity of mass. Your lack of ability in understanding simple ideas is something I do not grasp.

            You are not even close to as intelligent as you think you are. You have great difficulty understanding basic physics and you are stuck on a stupid incorrect idea (many try to correct you but you are not smart enough to understand their logic) that geothermal energy is adding hundreds of watts of energy per meter to the surface. You also can’t understand how IR devices actually measure a quantity of IR energy. You have so many flawed and wrong ideas there is zero chance to ever get you to grasp actual science. You can make up all your own material on your blog. You get a few people to compliment you. That does not help you. You still are very ignorant of most science and you are not able to grasp concepts and basic ideas.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Ross Handsaker

        I am not sure “trapped” is a good term to use. The point would be all but the small quantity of surface emitted radiant energy does get “trapped” by the atmosphere relative to a planet without an atmosphere.

        https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/trapped

        “6. (of gas, water, or energy) prevented from escaping
        The volume of gas trapped on these surfaces can be considerable.”

        The majority of energy emitted by the surface does not escape to space. It is “trapped” absorbed by the atmosphere. It is prevented from exiting the system.

        The trapped energy is just for the surface. The energy the atmosphere emits to space is not trapped.

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          Norman
          The point would be all but the small quantity of surface emitted radiant energy does get “trapped” by the atmosphere relative to a planet without an atmosphere.

          James:
          Norman, with comments like this you establish yourself as an inane ass.

          Kobe Died Because of Hubris (of Meteorology)
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Kobe-Died-Because-of-Hubris-eautj6

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            James McGinn

            Maybe you do not know the definition of “trapped”. I put one fitting definition in my post. Read the definition.

            The energy emitted by the Earth surface does not escape (as in the definition). It is absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to other forms of energy. The IR is gone, changed to random heat of the atmosphere. Without more thought from your comment it does not seem the least bit valuable.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          I have a source of heat (surface of the Earth) surrounded by a hotter object (the thermosphere).Is the heat of the object surround by greater heat trapped (unable to escape)?
          Herb

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      (Norman is one of the trolls that inhabits Spencer’s blog. He has no meaningful technical background, and consequently seldom gets the physics correct. He’s been on self-imposed exile from commenting at PSI, due to getting another of his major beliefs crushed.)

      Norman, as usual, you’re wrong, again. You’re confusing “heat” with “energy”. ”Heat” is the thermodynamic transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. The direction of energy flow is from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. A quick analogy would be shaking a tree full of ripe apples. The “fall of apples” (heat) is from “high potential” tree to “low potential” ground, and the “fall” is measured in the number of apples, but the “fall” is not the same as “apples”. The fall is an action.

      You are desperate to change definitions to fit your false beliefs. You get so tangled up in your pseudoscience that you usually end up arguing with yourself, as you did here:

      ”If the joules emitted by the surface are stopped by GHG and absorbed they would be ‘trapped’ as they do not leave to space.” Then, in your very next sentence, you state, ”The joules going to space are from the GHG emitters in the atmosphere.”

      You seldom make any sense. You believe you can change reality if you pound on your keyboard enough. That’s why you’re such a funny clown.

      Nothing new.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi JD,
        Temperature is kinetic energy. Kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) is a function of mass (m) and energy. Objects radiate energy not mass so an object within lower temperature (1/2 mV^2) can transfer energy by radiation to an object with a higher temperature (because of greater mass) if it has greater energy (V^2)
        Herb

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        JDHuffman

        Maybe you should read a little more physics rather than post, it would seem to help.

        Here is the actual facts that you get wrong:
        https://www.livescience.com/50776-thermodynamics.html

        ” Heat is energy transferred between substances or systems due to a temperature difference between them, according to Energy Education.”

        It is the quantity of energy that is transferred the unit is in joules. You can make all the claims you want. It will not make you smarter. Claiming false and untrue material can only convince gullible unscientific people. You are wrong but far to arrogant to admit it. Maybe others will see your glaring errors. you are not able to do this.

        Heat is a quantity of energy. It is the amount that is transferred like gallons of water.

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Norman, you are moving in the right direction. “Heat” is a transfer of energy, not energy itself. Without the “transfer”, you don’t have “heat”.

          Learning is good.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            No you are still wrong. Read what is stated please and don’t add your own incorrect interpretation! Heat is the quantity of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold one. It is in joules, it is a quantity. If you don’t have transfer you don’t have “heat” is correct but the transfer is NOT heat. Heat is the energy that was transferred and it is a quantity a noun not an action.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            You’re getting it, Norman.

            Of course now you have to admit you had it wrong. And you won’t. But your own words do you in, everytime: “You can ‘trap’ heat as easily as you can trap water in a tank.”

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            You’re finally getting it, Norman.

            Of course now you have to admit you had it wrong. And you won’t. But your own words do you in, everytime: “You can ‘trap’ heat as easily as you can trap water in a tank.”

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            The words you object to: “You can ‘trap’ heat as easily as you can trap water in a tank.”

            It would still be correct. The Earth’s surface is emitting energy to the atmosphere. This would still qualify as “heat”. The atmosphere is absorbing most of this energy “heat” preventing it from escaping into space. Not really wrong. Again I do not like the word “trapping” explaining the GHE. I think it is used just to try and communicate with a general Public that have various degrees of science knowledge but most would understand that term.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Wrong Norman, your statement was irresponsible, incoherent, and incorrect.

            But watching you try to squirm away from your own words is always mucho entertaining.

            As Mike Flynn would say, “Carry on”.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            No actually my statement was not. I rationally explained the context. Your lack of logical processing would be an error in your thought process not mine. I gave you a valid definition of the term “trapping”. I then explained to you how this can logically apply. Your problem is you are a biased in your agenda and anyone who does not blindly accept your statements is a target that you attempt to discredit with illogical conclusions. Try better reason, it might give your posts some validity that they are lacking.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Wrong Norman, your statement was irresponsible, incoherent, and incorrect.

            But maybe if you pound endlessly on your keyboard, you can change reality.

            We’ll be waiting….

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            Are you really going to go back to the old method of “can’t defend what I claim so I will just repeat it until he goes away”

            You do this quite often and it does indicate ignorance with your posting. You don’t have an intelligent or logical defense of your claims so you just mindlessly repeat yourself and your comments. I think it might be a winning tactic to the unsound mental posters. Logical people will see you are an empty vessel. Devoid of logic, reason or knowledge of anything but that never stops people from posting.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, you’re such a joke.

            That’s a good start on your endless pounding on your keyboard, but we know you can do better.

            Make your comment much, much longer, and include some links to things you don’t understand. Maybe throw in a few insults and false accusations for laughs.

            You know the routine. Nothing new.

            Carry on.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            You did the same tactic when you posted on Roy Spencer. Cover the ignorance and hope no one notices. Nothing new. Why don’t you learn some actual physics and sing a new song.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm6z2inQ2q4

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            You got the false accusations in, and a link you can’t understand. But you need to pound on your keyboard much more, 10 times that amount, at least.

            You can do it. Don’t wimp out on us.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            JDHuffman

            Lordy I had forgotten how incredible boring you get to be. Thanks for the reminder. Posting to you is a major Yawn of boring mindless repeat then repeat again a few times for more boring measure. Sorry you are a dullard in more ways than just your total lack of any science knowledge.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, you can do better than that. You used to ramble endlessly, spewing out insults and false accusations.

            Are you slowing down?

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Norman,
      I am in agreement with you. I always considered heat to be the total energy contained in an object. That energy could be in the form of kinetic energy of the entire object, vibrational energy of the components of the object, or energy stored in the bonds (structure) of the object The different types of energy can be converted to other types of energy. When an object with high internal vibration energy strikes another object the vibrational energy can be converted into kinetic energy. When vibrational energy becomes to great, as in O2 absorbing uv energy in the atmosphere, the bond energy holding the molecule together can be converted into kinetic energy of the individual atoms. This is why the upper atmosphere is so “hot” (has a lot of kinetic energy).
      Herb.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Herb, you are confusing “heat” with “enthalpy”. The kinetic energy within an object is related to enthalpy. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi JD,
          It certainly could be a matter of different definitions. I consider heat a manifestation of energy associated with matter. In the space between the sun and Earth there is energy being transferred but until that energy interacts with matter there is no heat.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Oh, it’s definitely a matter of different definitions. I’ve stated the correct definition, but you believe “heat to be the total energy contained in an object.”

            You confuse “heat” with “enthalpy”.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Remember kids, volume is like mass times (meters per second) squared. That’s why SI allows you to convert between them.

    Isn’t rhetoric wonderful?

Comments are closed