Ice, again

[Abraham3]

you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.

I am not confused and it is you that is incorrect. The temperature of ANY quantity of mass is simply a measure of its kinetic energy. Single molecules and atoms have kinetic energy.

"The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules."

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abraham3]

if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.

So what?

the globe is an open system with energy coming in and then leaving. only the equilibriums at different places along the path change as the constituents change.

I think you mean to say that the equilibrium states change as energy flux and mass constituents change.

(please dont say nothing is in equilibrium. overall the stability of the system is amazing fine tuned)

I don't have to, you already did when you said that "equilibriums... change".

I would suggest the blog Science of Doom (considered a warmist blog) for more information.

No thanks.

 

[Abraham3]

the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much).

Why do you think I should be impressed that adding an atmosphere to a planet has thermal effects? The point is obvious. The point is also irrelevant to this discussion.

I still wish you would read the 'pot lid hypothesis' so we could explore the ramifications.

I am having a look at it. But for having been out for several years now, I see very little reaction to it. It will take some time to read.

 

[SwimExpert]

The quote was accurate. I did not remove any intervening material. I did not remove any prefatory material.

You need to learn the difference between a premise and a statement.

 

[SSDD]

The quote was accurate. I did not remove any intervening material. I did not remove any prefatory material.

You need to learn the difference between a premise and a statement.

He has a lot to learn about a lot of things. Probably not going to happen though...to much koolaid.

 

[Abraham3]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine. Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other. Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.

 

[gnarlylove]

The quote was accurate. I did not remove any intervening material. I did not remove any prefatory material.

You need to learn the difference between a premise and a statement.

A premise is a statement. A premise leads to a conclusion. Premises are often grouped two or more statements from which one may induce or deduce a conclusion. Might want to flip through your old logic books.

Whatever your distinction is, it is not a recognized difference either technically in logic or in general vernacular. You are making up demarcations that simply do not exist. What do you think is this key difference is?

 

[SwimExpert]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.

Ah yes. Outright abuse and hostility. The clear sign that a person has completely lost the debate and has absolutely nothing intelligent whatsoever.

Thread over, Abby loses.

 

[gnarlylove]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.

Ah yes. Outright abuse and hostility. The clear sign that a person has completely lost the debate and has absolutely nothing intelligent whatsoever.

Thread over, Abby loses.

As evident when flotsam talks of verbal victory he is displaying the under developed brain in grasping how language and context works. People who have adapted the use of language like him only use it as a MEANS to achieve what he cannot otherwise. Often people who cannot achieve in the real world come to petty message boards and claim such unwarranted victories so they can fall asleep at night.

Pardon me but Abraham has demonstrated far greater intelligence on the relevant science than any blog or spittle SSDD has put on display. Not that you'd even know what intelligence and understanding looks like since your under-evolved brain stunts your abilities to understand even basic concepts. We feel for you, we really do. Life is not fair.

 

[SwimExpert]

People who have adapted the use of language like him only use it as a MEANS to achieve what he cannot otherwise.

Of course. You're absolutely right. That's why global warming causes extreme cold weather in temperate regions, which causes melting ice caps, which causes expanding ice caps, which causes drought, which causes flooding, which causes increased precipitation, which causes disruptions in migratory bird patterns, which causes premature evaporation, which causes Justin Bieber, which causes mass famine and panic.

Temperature data? Adapt it as a means to achieve what you can't otherwise. Logic? Adapt. Borg Queen? Adapt. Brad Pitt? Adapt. Quantum physics? Adapt. That one's easy, it's just probability anyway. Anything can happen!

 

[IanC]

you are confused about the terms 'heat' and 'energy'. a single molecule does not have a temperature. it is only the interaction of a large cohort of molecules that brings meaning to the words heat and temperature.

I am not confused and it is you that is incorrect. The temperature of ANY quantity of mass is simply a measure of its kinetic energy. Single molecules and atoms have kinetic energy.

"The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules."

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?????

your wiki quote is fully in accordance to what I said. macroscopic systems! it is the average kinetic energy of many, many particles that defines temperature. a particle with [x] energy can come from just about any background cohort. likewise, a blackbody photon [y] can come from just about any temperature material (the limitiations are on high end radiation not low end). one single particle cannot collide with itself nor be its own reference frame therefore you cannot assign it a 'temperature'.

 

[IanC]

the size and density of our atmosphere is a very large part of the thermal equilibrium. but it isnt changing (much).

Why do you think I should be impressed that adding an atmosphere to a planet has thermal effects? The point is obvious. The point is also irrelevant to this discussion.

I still wish you would read the 'pot lid hypothesis' so we could explore the ramifications.

I am having a look at it. But for having been out for several years now, I see very little reaction to it. It will take some time to read.

this comment was specifically directed at SSDD, as he is a proponent of N&Z slayer theory. the potlid hypothesis takes the relevent part, virial theorum, and applies it to the atmosphere. the crazy hungarian also uses the theory that nature tries to minimize energy in the atmosphere by realigning kinetic/potential levels. these are fundemental factors that need to be taken into account but they do not dispense with greenhouse radiation theory.

 

[IanC]

if the world had an atmosphere without GHGs the surface would still be warmer than if there was no atmosphere at all.

So what?

the globe is an open system with energy coming in and then leaving. only the equilibriums at different places along the path change as the constituents change.

I think you mean to say that the equilibrium states change as energy flux and mass constituents change.

(please dont say nothing is in equilibrium. overall the stability of the system is amazing fine tuned)

I don't have to, you already did when you said that "equilibriums... change".

I would suggest the blog Science of Doom (considered a warmist blog) for more information.

No thanks.

I will admit to using imprecise terms. I am not a physics lecturer. it is difficult to organize general physics knowledge into a coherent understanding of a specific situation that involves many aspects. too many people here have one thought, one talking point, and try to shoehorn it into every discussion as the answer.

I suggested the 'Science of Doom' blog because it explores a great number of the questions involved with AGW. it is not only informative but also instructive because he refines his thoughts when legitimate criticisms are brought to his attention. he is a warmer in much the same way as I am a liberal. I like the main idea but I wont accept the stupid parts just for the sake of solidarity.

speaking of blogs....they are a neccessity to keep apprised of current affairs in science. most of us cannot reliably critique papers by ourselves but we often can weigh the effectiveness of pro and con arguments. I would rather hear three sides and be stuck on the fence rather than just decide on one authority (or group of authorities) to believe, and then be loyal no matter where the evidence leads.

 

[Abraham3]

"The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules."

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

your wiki quote is fully in accordance to what I said. macroscopic systems! it is the average kinetic energy of many, many particles that defines temperature.

The quote is discussing macroscopic systems. It says the temperature of a macrosocopic system - a body - is proportional to the average kinetic energy of its constituent particles. It sets no lower limit on the number of constituent particles. If you want me to believe your contention, show me such a limitation.

a particle with [x] energy can come from just about any background cohort. likewise, a blackbody photon [y] can come from just about any temperature material (the limitiations are on high end radiation not low end). one single particle cannot collide with itself nor be its own reference frame therefore you cannot assign it a 'temperature'.

You yourself just admitted that a lone particle may have [x] energy. Collisions are NOT mentioned in the definition of temperature; neither are the loss or gain of photons, the existence of background cohorts nor any sort of reference frame. Transmission is not required to hold the characteristic. All matter has some level of kinetic energy and thus a temperature. "All matter" includes individual particles.

 

[SSDD]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine. Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other. Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.

No need to pretend...you already proved that it was relevant to you by leaving out my full thought in an attempt to make some trivial point.

 

[Abraham3]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.

Ah yes. Outright abuse and hostility. The clear sign that a person has completely lost the debate and has absolutely nothing intelligent whatsoever.

Thread over, Abby loses.

Still waiting for that rule that says I can quote one but not the other. Having some difficulty finding it? Oh... wait, you're not even looking? Then perhaps you should have kept your trap shut. Don't make arguments you're unwilling or unable to back up.

ps: It's my thread. You don't get to decide when "it's over".

 

[IanC]

"The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules."

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

your wiki quote is fully in accordance to what I said. macroscopic systems! it is the average kinetic energy of many, many particles that defines temperature.

The quote is discussing macroscopic systems. It says the temperature of a macrosocopic system - a body - is proportional to the average kinetic energy of its constituent particles. It sets no lower limit on the number of constituent particles. If you want me to believe your contention, show me such a limitation.

a particle with [x] energy can come from just about any background cohort. likewise, a blackbody photon [y] can come from just about any temperature material (the limitiations are on high end radiation not low end). one single particle cannot collide with itself nor be its own reference frame therefore you cannot assign it a 'temperature'.

You yourself just admitted that a lone particle may have [x] energy. Collisions are NOT mentioned in the definition of temperature; neither are the loss or gain of photons, the existence of background cohorts nor any sort of reference frame. Transmission is not required to hold the characteristic. All matter has some level of kinetic energy and thus a temperature. "All matter" includes individual particles.

are you just jerking me around? I can't tell whether you are serious or not.

kinetic speeds of molecules in a gas are close to normal, eg a bell curve. if two temperature curves overlap at the 2SD mark, and the speed of a molecule falls on that mark as well, is it temp1 or temp2? the kinetic speed of a molecule has no meaning except as a part of the whole. likewise for blackbody radiation. a 15 micron IR photon from the sun is exactly the same as one from the earth.

this is that whole second law of thermodynamics fiasco again, in a different setting. you and SSDD make a fine pair, believing that single particles or photons have a 'temperature'.

 

[SwimExpert]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine.

Ah yes. Outright abuse and hostility. The clear sign that a person has completely lost the debate and has absolutely nothing intelligent whatsoever.

Thread over, Abby loses.

Still waiting for that rule that says I can quote one but not the other. Having some difficulty finding it? Oh... wait, you're not even looking? Then perhaps you should have kept your trap shut. Don't make arguments you're unwilling or unable to back up.

ps: It's my thread. You don't get to decide when "it's over".

Oooohhhhh! Such anger, such vitriol.

Public messageboard, buddy. Not your thread. Not your thread at all. You've most definitely lost the discussion, however.

 

[Abraham3]

Such nothing.

 

[Abraham3]

You need to shove your nits and their picks right up where the sun don't shine. Why don't you find me a rule that says I can quote one but not the other. Then we can pretend as if your comment actually had some relevance.

No need to pretend...you already proved that it was relevant to you by leaving out my full thought in an attempt to make some trivial point.

Delete your sig and I will admit that my quote did not convey the precise same meaning as your post in its entirety.