Why I deny manmade climate change.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jo, the radiation, that comes from the sun, is energy that generates heat in the matter with which it comes into contact.  At  least, as I understand it.

In the vast reaches of space heat is not transfered by either conduction or by convection in any appreciable amount.

 

 

[CoAspen]

Ya, space be very cold.

 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In the vast reaches of space heat is not transfered by either conduction or by convection in any appreciable amount.

Correct; the only way heat (energy) is transmitted in a vacuum is through radiation.

David - while the atmosphere indeed converts much UV and higher frequency radiation into heat (infra red energy), radiation from the sun contains a significant amount of energy in the infrared spectrum.  That's why it's hotter when you are in the sun than it is when you are in the shade.

[joeb]

On 4/6/2016 at 8:05 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Joeb, actually a heat pump can transfer heat from a colder source to a warmer object.  As an expert in heat pumps, you should know that.  In any case, you have advised me to check Wikipedia on this subject.  I have done so and here is what it says, which is exactly what I have said:

 

 

 

NOTE:  Heat pumps move thermal energy opposite from spontaneous heat flow.  They move heat from a colder source to a warmer source.

I stand by exactly what I said.

 

 

Quote

 

Quote

The direction of heat transfer is from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature, and is governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

As the above quote is from the same wikipedia page you quoted, don't you think it's ironic that you somehow "missed" that in your quote?  Argue against that law all you desire.  You'll never be correct.

A heat pump works by making use of that law.  It has two coils.  A low temp-low pressure coil/heat exchanger and a high temp/high pressure coil/heat exchanger.  It uses what is called a reversing valve to reverse operation between heating and cooling.  During the heating process the outdoor coil operates at 15 to 30 degrees farenheit below outdoor ambient temperature, depending on the age and efficiency of the unit, and as a result the heat in the outdoor air flows into the cooler refrigerant causing it to boil away as it absorbs the heat.  The compressor then adds the heat of compression to the temperature of the gaseous refrigerant and pumps it into the indoor coil in a high pressure superheated state.  As the indoor air handler moves air over the coil the hot gas gives up its heat into the cooler air flowing over it and condenses back down to a liquid that then flows back to the outdoor coil through a metering device to repeat the same cycle over and over again.  The heat transferred always flows from hot to cold.  It never changes.   The fact that you want to claim a mechanical transfer of heat using an electrical motor and a mechanical pump is a natural heat flow only shows your desperation to show I'm wrong, or your ignorance of how this works.   The actual transfer of heat is always from hot to cold. 

You're arguing with an expert in the field.  I can engineer AC, heat pump, and refrigeration systems, and have done so, as well as reverse enginner/troubleshoot and repair them, so I know how they work.  I know them inside and out.  I know the principles they operate under.

AC and all refrigeration systems work according to the same principle.  They just don't have reversing valves.  They move heat from inside the conditioned space and get rid of it either into air or water.  All transfer between the two spaces is done mechanically.  Mechanical movement of the medium holding the heat is not natural heat flow.  All attempts to portray it as such are foolish. 

[joeb]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:23 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Joeb said:

 

 

My understanding is that the sun sends radiation across space to the Earth.  That radiation generates heat.

My comment/question was not related to the sun heating the Earth.  I asked it was said that heat was transmitted across space. 

 

 

 

Of course it is.  It's transferred by radiation of the energy produced by the sun.  You're asking some ridiculous questions.  Your further statement implying that I said heat was tramsferred to the earth from the sun by conduction or convection is simply out to lunch.  I simply said in my first post that heat can be transferred in three ways.  To deliberately confuse that only shows your dislike of anything I have to say.   Dishonesty doesn't make you look very good....

[Green Cochoa]

46 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

(the NASA scientist stumbled, not because photons are not well understood, but because it is difficulty to explain what is elegantly contained in the mathematics of quantum theory into clumsy English words. The photon does not 'suddenly appear'. The particle was always both wave and particle. Or rather, it was always a photon: both 'wave' and 'particle' are only metaphors that help us explain its behaviour)

Well, call me the next Einstein, but I believe that light is a state of matter.  Scientists just haven't figured it out yet.  The warmer something gets, the more opportunity for light to emerge from it.  Light comes from heat.  Switch off a regular incandescent bulb and anyone can see that the tungsten filament still gives off some light even though the electricity has stopped (it may require a high-speed video camera played back slow to confirm this for some people, as the eye typically requires 1/10 of a second to respond, and the light discontinues very quickly).  This is because the heat is still dissipating.  Whereas at absolute zero, matter ceases to have movement, I believe light is at "absolute heat," moving as fast as matter can naturally travel.  This means that, however-so-many states of matter as scientists may eventually discover, I would expect that light will be the final one.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, I am always glad to be corrected, although I prefer not to be name-called in the process.

You may be the expert, and I do not argue with your description of how a heat pump works.  I have been enlightened, and I thank you for that.

However, even as you described, a heat pump does remove heat from a colder outside and transfer it into a warmer interior, even if there is an intermediate process which is as you described.  That may be common parlance that is used commonly by those who sell heat pumps and is demonstrated by that same useage in the Wikipedia article that you provided to me.

As the expert I would assume that you knew all of that and that I was simply using the same verbage as is commonly used by those who work in the field and is seen in literature such as Wikipedia.

On that basis, I may be wrong, but I was clearly within the boundaries of what is done in the field.   A\nd, I suppose you knew that.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb said:

 

Quote

To deliberately confuse that only shows your dislike of anything I have to say.   Dishonesty doesn't make you look very good....

 

Joeb, you have certainly made a  lot of assumptions;

1)  I do not dislike everything that you might post.  As a matter of fact, I have not read enough of your posts it know whether or not I would dislike everything that you post.

2) To delibertly confuse the issue:  Sorry.  In good faith I was confused as to what you said and so I asked you an honest question.  I expected that you would clarify rather than engage in name-calling.  IOW, I expected good discussion with clear science.

3) Dishonesty:  You sure seem to ascribe motives, at least to me.   You probably do not know me well enough to know my motives. 

4) If you engage in name-calling to the extent that you have done with me, it must be hard to have an honest discussion with you.

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Well, call me the next Einstein, but I believe that light is a state of matter.  Scientists just haven't figured it out yet.  The warmer something gets, the more opportunity for light to emerge from it.  Light comes from heat.  Switch off a regular incandescent bulb and anyone can see that the tungsten filament still gives off some light even though the electricity has stopped

In the relativistic sense that light and energy are interchangeable (E=Mc²); but photons are more of a packet of energy than a state of matter.  They have absolutely no mass - that's why they can travel at the speed of light.  Production of light requires energy; but energy comes in more forms that heat.  For example, an LED generates light from the quantum movement of electrons through a doped silicon semiconductor, in which electrons drop from one Quantum state (energy level) to another - emitting a photon of a specific frequency in the process.  This is strictly a quantum mechanical process - not a thermal process.

[Green Cochoa]

9 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In the relativistic sense that light and energy are interchangeable (E=Mc²); but photons are more of a packet of energy than a state of matter.  They have absolutely no mass - that's why they can travel at the speed of light.  Production of light requires energy; but energy comes in more forms that heat.  For example, an LED generates light from the quantum movement of electrons through a doped silicon semiconductor, in which electrons drop from one Quantum state (energy level) to another - emitting a photon of a specific frequency in the process.  This is strictly a quantum mechanical process - not a thermal process.

If light had no mass, why is its trajectory bent by a gravitational field?  Basically, the "light has no mass" assumption is based on the fact that its mass is immeasurably small.  We don't have instrumentation sensitive enough to assess it.  If the mass were much larger than it is, getting hit by photons traveling at the speed of light would be a rather uncomfortable experience indeed.

From the hubblesite.org website:

Quote

Newton thought that only objects with mass could produce a gravitational force on each other. According to Newton’s theory, the force of gravity should not affect light. Einstein discovered that the situation is a bit more complicated than that. 

First he discovered that gravity is produced by a curved space-time. Then Einstein theorized that the mass of an object actually curves space-time. Mass is linked to space in a way that physicists today still do not completely understand. However, we know that the stronger the gravitational field of an object, the more the space around the object is warped. In other words, straight lines are no longer straight if exposed to a strong gravitational field; instead, they are curved. 

Since light ordinarily travels on a straight-line path, light follows a curved path if it passes through a strong gravitational field. This is what is meant by "curved space," and this is why light becomes trapped in a black hole. In 1919, a team led by Sir Arthur Eddington proved Einstein’s theory when they observed the bending of starlight when it traveled close to the Sun. This was the first successful prediction of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. 

In other words, scientists admittedly are working here with mere theories.  They do not know how this all works, and they admit it.  But it all makes sense to me, although I, like them, would have no way of measuring the actual mass of a photon of light.  Basically, just as with electrons, looking at objects this small challenges scientists in very practical ways.  We are limited by our equipment and technical ability.  With the electron, scientists claim that the more they know about its velocity, the less they know about its position, and vice versa.  This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  You can read more about it here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/.  Essentially, all modern so-called quantum physics is based on this "uncertainty."  But whereas man may be "uncertain," I rest assured that God is not.  God knows everything at the same time.  Man is simply too limited by practical aspects.  We don't have any way to measure certain things that are really beyond our scope, so we develop, as did Einstein, mathematical formulae attempting to convey great knowledge and wisdom to "explain" certain things that we call "relative" and "uncertain."  The very vocabulary used by physicists tells us that we simply do not know.

[Bravus]

The uncertainty is *not* due to instrumental error or imprecision, it seems to be a fundamental feature of reality. 

God knows that. 

[Green Cochoa]

45 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

The uncertainty is *not* due to instrumental error or imprecision, it seems to be a fundamental feature of reality. 

God knows that. 

You make a very bold assertion, especially given what God's own Word says of the so-called wisdom of man: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.  And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.  Therefore let no man glory in men." (1 Corinthians 3:19-21)

God knows how little man knows.

[JoeMo]

Green and David - Nice posts!  It's clear that you both know your stuff.  The Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle is indeed a fundamental law of nature. However, that doesn't mean that it is a fundamental law of supernatural nature.

I think that arguably the second (?) law of Thermodynamics (entropy) also comes into play here - that left on its own - the universe would slowly decay into an isothermal dead zone.

I know this is off-topic, but I'm currently reading  Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" for the 3rd time.  The thought struck me that - using the special theory of relativity and the formulae for relativistic time, "Heavenly" time may be much different than "earthly" time.  Just for fun, let's assume (or pretend) that heaven is a real physical place (a planet?) 1,000 light-years from earth.  If Jesus could average a speed of "flying" 99.9% of the speed of light to "heaven", he could fly to heaven, spend 5 or 6 years in heaven, and "fly back to earth.  The earth would have aged over 2,000 years; but Jesus would have only "aged" about 15 years.