Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[FLovell]

I loved my thermodynamics courses which I aced and the many thermodynamics based courses I took as well, and I must disagree with you both. Heat is the transfer OF energy--the transfer OF thermal energy but (heat is not) energy itself. Peter Atkins' textbooks, all of them agree with me and Dr. Atkins is the premiere expert/author within Physical Chemistry (not geological--physical, but the conjunction of physics and chemistry) (now retired or semi-retired, recently) as do dozens of physics, chemistry and chemical engineering textbooks...

First, good for us both, because I too can HONK when I pass cars that sport "HONK if you ACED P-Chem" bumper stickers (way back when, I had just such a bumper sticker on one of my cars).

Second, evidently you did not carefully read what I said in my original posted reply to you, jbmack. Let's review what I originally said (I below add emphasis to the part it appears you did not notice or completely consider):

"...heat IS a form of energy, molecular kinetic (vibrational, rotational and [for liguids and gases, mostly] translational) energy also known as "thermal energy;" it is energy that is non-mechanically exchanged between systems having different temperatures that are in thermal contact (and transferred from the system with a higher temperature to the system with the lower temperature, a transfer of thermal energy that continues until thermal energy equilibrium is reached between the two systems, which occurs when both systems are at the same temperature..."

SO, you may be right to disagree with what I said, but telling me that you disagree because heat is a transfer OF energy does not explain WHY you disagree with what I said since what I originally said the same essential thing, differing only in that what is transfered is energy -- thermal (molecular kinetic) energy.

I am a retired physical (organic) chemist who understands heat to be a form of energy (what form? A thermally transferable rather than mechanically or electro-magnetically transferable form of molecular kinetic energy, see my original statement).

It is fine with me if you gained a different understanding and thus disagree with me, but I'm sticking with my post and interested folks can see what we both have said (as well as check out what Atkins and a WHOLE HOST of others say about heat if they wish to do so, and I always recommend to folks that they do so) and decide for their own selves.

The rest of your reply to me was not really a reply to ME, as I had not replied or commented to you on any of the rest.

Hey, here's an idea: send your and my complete exchange as posted here to Peter Atkins, ask him to comment, then share his reply with us.

-- Frank

[Augustine2004]

jcbmack is correct based on Thermodynamics: An Auto-Instructional Text by Melvin Mark, 1967 (no ISBN; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.) A change in a system's energy may do work or produce heat. "More generally, produces a change in state of the surroundings." An object getting warmer would be an example of a system undergoing a change in state.

"Heat is a path function, not a state function." Some sort of change must occur, else we do not have heat.

Laypersons and mistaken thermodynamics students may speak of the heat content of a system, I suppose, though.

[Augustine2004]

I see now that a problem with FrankLowell's use of "heat" could be that it is defined in a second way. That may result in some confusion.


I consulted the index of the textbook I cited in my last post. "Thermal energy" is not in the index. Nor in Basic Engineering Thermodynamics Zemansky/Van Ness, 1966 (no ISBN, McGraw-Hill)

[FLovell]

I see now that a problem with Frank Lovell's use of "heat" could be that it is defined in a second way. That may result in some confusion.

I consulted the index of the textbook I cited in my last post. "Thermal energy" is not in the index. Nor in Basic Engineering Thermodynamics Zemansky/Van Ness, 1966 (no ISBN, McGraw-Hill)

Respecting "thermal energy," for starters try:[/SIZE]

http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/d...ermal-energy-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy

http://www.ifpaenergyconference.com/Thermal-Energy.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ermal%20energy

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictiona...thermal+energy

...and again, for "heat" (from my original post)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ermo/heat.html

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/heat.htm

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...alP/u18l1d.cfm

http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/ph...mperature.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heat

http://www.physicsforums.com/library...tem&itemid=121

...and MOST DEFINITIVELY, read the entries on the common UNITS OF HEAT in...

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-units-d_664.html

...and notice that "Joule" is one of the common units of heat; then look at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Joule

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joule

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/joule.html

http://science.yourdictionary.com/joule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

[SIZE=3]...to see that "joule" is also a common unit of energy!

So, we measure HEAT in Joules, and we measure ENERGY in joules -- yet somebody wants to argue that HEAT is not in any sense a form of ENERGY???

In any event, I do not see any problem with the following: "Heat is a form of energy -- thermal energy), a system's internal molecular kinetic (vibrational, rotational and [for liquids and gases, mostly] translational) energy, also known as 'thermal energy;' it is energy that is non-mechanically exchanged between systems having different temperatures that are in thermal contact...," as I originally stated in my initial reply to "jcbmack."

But jcbmack evidently has been persuaded by something he read Peter Atkins to say to a somewhat different understanding from mine in which heat is not in any sense energy. "jcbmack" is of course completely entitled to his understanding, but I am sticking with my stated understanding. Energy has many different interchangeable forms (kinetic [rotational, vibrational, translational], potential, chemical, mechanical, electromagnetic, mass [m=E/c²], and heat/thermal); I recommend to interested parties who may be doubtful about this as I have stated it to check out the references I have provided (and some of those I've given will provide additional links and references that can take one as deeply into this subject as one might care to go), as well as also give a thoughtful reading to references any jcbmack has provided or may yet provide, then THINK on it a bit before drawing their own conclusions about whether or not heat is a particular form of energy.

-- Frank

PS: There are many excellent texts on thermodynamics, and many excellent chapters on thermodynamics in many physics and physical chemistry texts; for what it may be worth to anyone, my two personal favorite textbooks on thermodynamics are: THE THEORY OF THERMODYNAMICS by J.R. Waldram (Cambridge University Press1985 -- Waldram is a Brit and a chemist, just like Peter Adkins), and THE SECOND LAW by Henry Bent (Oxford University Press, 1965). Thermodynamics is the closest thing to "settled science" in modern empirical science (though special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of elementary particles are closing in fast on "settledness," in my feeble, fallible present opinion, while dynamic global climate theory is NOT.)

[jcbmack]

Thermodynamics is the only settled science or if you wish near-settled, yes this is so, but heat itself is not a form of energy. This is something my professors also reminded us all the time in our courses. Also, I would appreciate a refrain from any use if wikipedia for physics or chemistry as wikipedia is just awful. Even your hyperphysics link is incomplete, but not bad, but upon closer inspection it too defends my position, albeit it takes some reading and hand/calculator calculations.

Here from: http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/...eat-Temp.html:

I quote:

"I. Energy

This is one of those words which everybody knows, but is hard to define well. Energy is:

the ability (or capacity) of a system to do work or supply (or produce) heat.

Of course, there are words in there which require definitions also, but I'll get to that in a moment. First some other energy-related stuff.

(1) Kinetic energy is the energy associated with motion; the faster an object moves, the more kinetic energy it has. There is an equation which governs this:

K.E. = (1/2) mv2

m means mass and v is velocity. This equation means that the general units on kinetic energy are:

(mass) (distance)2 (time)¯2

Since any mass, time or distance unit could be used, it has been agreed to standardize on specific units for these three quantities and they are the kilogram, second and meter. Inserting them in the above equation gives:

(kg) (m)2 (s)¯2

This unit has been given a name: Joule. This is in honor of James Prescott Joule, who in the mid-1800s did pioneering work on energy. The Joule is the standard metric (or SI) unit for all energy and it will be used on this web site.

By the way, an older energy unit is still around. It is called "calorie" and it gets a bit of a mention on this web site, but not much."

And:

"II. Heat

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition:

heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences.

Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.

There is some circularity to the definitions used:

(a) energy does work or produces heat, but
(b) heat is a transfer of energy."

[Augustine2004]

If a process is not adiabatic, we will have heat because of a change of state in the system we are experimenting with. No change in state means, among other things, no heat.

FrankLovell, suppose a system changes state non-adiabatically so there is a transfer of energy. What term would you apply to the energy transfer?

[FLovell]

Thermodynamics is the only settled science or if you wish near-settled, yes this is so, but heat itself is not a form of energy. This is something my professors also reminded us all the time in our courses. Also, I would appreciate a refrain from any use if wikipedia for physics or chemistry as wikipedia is just awful. Even your hyperphysics link is incomplete, but not bad, but upon closer inspection it too defends my position, albeit it takes some reading and hand/calculator calculations.

Here from: http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/...eat-Temp.html:

I quote:

"I. Energy

This is one of those words which everybody knows, but is hard to define well. Energy is:

the ability (or capacity) of a system to do work or supply (or produce) heat.

Of course, there are words in there which require definitions also, but I'll get to that in a moment. First some other energy-related stuff.

(1) Kinetic energy is the energy associated with motion; the faster an object moves, the more kinetic energy it has. There is an equation which governs this:

K.E. = (1/2) mv2

m means mass and v is velocity. This equation means that the general units on kinetic energy are:

(mass) (distance)2 (time)¯2

Since any mass, time or distance unit could be used, it has been agreed to standardize on specific units for these three quantities and they are the kilogram, second and meter. Inserting them in the above equation gives:

(kg) (m)2 (s)¯2

This unit has been given a name: Joule. This is in honor of James Prescott Joule, who in the mid-1800s did pioneering work on energy. The Joule is the standard metric (or SI) unit for all energy and it will be used on this web site.

By the way, an older energy unit is still around. It is called "calorie" and it gets a bit of a mention on this web site, but not much."

And:

"II. Heat

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition:

heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences.

Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.

There is some circularity to the definitions used:

(a) energy does work or produces heat, but
(b) heat is a transfer of energy."

I don't get the point of this post, jcbmack, most of it is stuff we do not disagree about.

We do NOT DISAGREE that heat is a transfer of energy between systems of different temperatures that are in thermal-exchange contact (READ my initial post and subsequent post slowly, carefully, thoughtfully, if you can and if you will, and you will see that we do NOT DISAGREE that heat is a transfer of energy between systems of different temperatures that are in thermal-exchange contact). Nowhere have I said that heat is a "substance." I AGREE that heat TRANSFER is a process.

What we DO disagree about is whether heat is a form of energy.

You said that "heat is not energy," and you said that because you think Peter Adkins said that heat is not energy, and I said that "heat IS a form of energy" and I supplied a bunch of readily-accessible Internet sources which support my understanding that you evidently have not bothered to check out and think through (if you have, I am puzzled by why you still think heat is not a form of energy OR why you have not told me where all my sources have gone wrong or given me a source that unequivocally announces that heat is NOT in any sense a form of energy).

Look, I am not your professor and you are not my student, NOR VICE-VERSA.

You have had your say (“heat is not energy”) and argued in favor of it, I have had my say (“heat IS a form of energy”) and made my argument for it, our difference of understanding on the matter persists, and so we have an enduring difference of understanding about whether heat is or is not energy, and any interested third parties can read what we have both said on this and can research the issue further on their own (looking into Adkins or any other sources that you and I have suggested) if they wish and then decide for themselves...

...and THAT is THAT!

You are not obligated to embrace my understanding, I am not obligated to try ad nauseam to make you embrace my understanding, I am not your professor and you are not my student, NOR VICE-VERSA, and so I am not going to waste any more of my time (or yours) trying to wrestle this clean to the ground with you, this is not a physics debate forum, we can agree to disagree, and I will sleep like a baby tonight without your agreement on whether heat is a form of energy (and you should be able to do the same).

Have a nice day.

-- Frank

[FLovell]

If a process is not adiabatic, we will have heat because of a change of state in the system we are experimenting with. No change in state means, among other things, no heat.

FrankLovell, suppose a system changes state non-adiabatically so there is a transfer of energy. What term would you apply to the energy transfer?

Aug, WHY the HECK are you ASKING me THAT question???

Usually I get paid to teach or tutor physics, but I did not hang out my shingle here.

Or is this some sort of test? If it is a test, I am not looking for a job!

But OK, just for you, I will answer your question.

I would term a non-adiabatic system change-of-state that involves a transfer of energy a "nonadiabatic transition;" they are generally irreversible. And commonplace.

-- Frank

[jcbmack]

Well, weather and climate are based upon principles of physics. Also, I did read all of your references, and most of them I have read on my own in the past anyways. No, I am not up late because of this thread, or you... I am younger and not retired, so I am busy, however, it baffles how you think heat is energy itself, when most of your own references even state caloric theory is false...

[FLovell]

Well, weather and climate are based upon principles of physics. Also, I did read all of your references, and most of them I have read on my own in the past anyways. No, I am not up late because of this thread, or you... I am younger and not retired, so I am busy, however, it baffles how you think heat is energy itself, when most of your own references even state caloric theory is false...

Ah, jcb, you CRACK me UP!

I have NOT DENIED that "weather and climate are based on principles of physics."

I have NOT INVOKED "caloric theory" and my present understanding of heat as a form of energy position does not rest on "caloric theory."

Therefore, I am baffled by why you keep trying to saddle me with red herring positions I have not taken/expressed instead of simply identifying which of my references make WRONG statements relevant to my understanding that heat is a form of energy and explaining why those statements are wrong, OR at least giving me a credible citation that unequivocally states that heat is not energy that I can examine for merit (or lack thereof).

I baffle you, and you baffle me, and so we have bafflement parity; cool, eh wot?!

If indeed you read my references (especially the ones that make clear that a common unit of heat -- the joule -- is also a common unit of energy) and still maintain that heat is NOT a form of energy, then we are clearly in perpetual disagreement (and mutual bafflement) on the question of whether heat is or is not a form of energy, then very well, further bickering will not resolve our differences in understanding, and I agree to disagree.

Since (again) I am not your professor and you are not my student, NOR VICE-VERSA, so I'll stick with my present understanding (that heat IS a form of energy) and you are UTTERLY free to stick with your different understanding (that heat is NOT a form of energy). I can't think of anything else to say on this issue that I have not already said. The record of our dialogue on this stands available for any interested third parties.

-- Frank

[Augustine2004]

Well, FLovell uses "heat" in two senses (ambiguity), it seems to me. Won't he admit it? Work is like heat: "Work (thermodynamics), the quantity of total energy transferred from one system to another, not counting energy transferred by heat" (Wikipedia). I don't know if any physicist uses two senses of "work" in his professional endeavors. I am being pedantic, I suppose, but I would be careful discussing something with someone who may know thermodynamics.

[jcbmack]

Well, FLovell uses "heat" in two senses (ambiguity), it seems to me. Won't he admit it? Work is like heat: "Work (thermodynamics), the quantity of total energy transferred from one system to another, not counting energy transferred by heat" (Wikipedia). I don't know if any physicist uses two senses of "work" in his professional endeavors. I am being pedantic, I suppose, but I would be careful discussing something with someone who may know thermodynamics.

Not being pedantic... (you got it right) for me, someone who understands thermodynamics intricately it becomes an issue. However, there was egg on my face when I realized AGW was a completely fraudulent claim, so, I mean if we look at older posts of mine here from like 4 years ago, I was throwing the books and links to show AGW was real... I realize I too have made mistakes, but thermodynamics is just too ingrained in me and it is thermodynamics that helped me see AGW is utter nonsense. As far as Flovell, goes, he has made many good contributions to this thread, and heat/work/energy is often mixed up by: astrophysicists, chemists and climate scientists, so I suppose he is in good company and I will try to leave it at that.

[FLovell]

Well, FLovell uses "heat" in two senses (ambiguity), it seems to me. Won't he admit it? Work is like heat: "Work (thermodynamics), the quantity of total energy transferred from one system to another, not counting energy transferred by heat" (Wikipedia). I don't know if any physicist uses two senses of "work" in his professional endeavors. I am being pedantic, I suppose, but I would be careful discussing something with someone who may know thermodynamics.

Yo, Aug, where did I ("FLovell") use "heat" in two senses (ambiguity)??? Quote ME where I did that, please, if you think I have used "heat" in a genuinely illegitimate sense, so I can repent if indeed I misspoke, THANKS!

And if instead you have implicitly saddled me with something someone ELSE said that is wrong, won't you admit that FLovell actually didn't say it?

I have been discussing thermodynamics with folks who know thermodynamics all my adult life. If I have actually made a statement about thermo that is WRONG in this forum, please, tell me what it was -- quote ME, please, won't you do that for me?

-- Frank

[SedRocks]

Have you folks seen Richard Muller's latest essay (NY Times, 28 July)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...ptic.html?_r=1

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent.

[jcbmack]

Yes I have but have you read Watt's et al.,'s new paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/2...-2/#more-68286 ?

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.