Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You will have to explain what you're actually asking as that simply makes no sense. That's like saying purples are wrong or heavies are wrong or negatives are wrong. Macroscopic is an adjective. I could find no dictionary listing your noun form. So to what do you refer with "macroscopics"?I don't generally read your posts ... did you even learn why macroscopics are wrong? ...
You will have to explain what you're actually asking as that simply makes no sense. That's like saying purples are wrong or heavies are wrong or negatives are wrong. Macroscopic is an adjective. I could find no dictionary listing your noun form. So to what do you refer with "macroscopics"?
I know what the word macroscopic means and apparently, you do not. Look it up unless you want to argue that atoms, molecules, virus particles and bacteria are macroscopic. What I did not know was what you meant by the term "macroscopics", which English rules would say was a noun formed by the addition of the 's'. However, no dictionary I could find listed such a form and your statement that "macroscopics are wrong" is still completely meaningless.Atoms and larger ... if you knew anything about thermodynamics, you would have known instantly what I was talking about ...
You remain clueless ...
I know what the word macroscopic means and apparently, you do not. Look it up unless you want to argue that atoms, molecules, virus particles and bacteria are macroscopic. What I did not know was what you meant by the term "macroscopics", which English rules would say was a noun formed by the addition of the 's'. However, no dictionary I could find listed such a form and your statement that "macroscopics are wrong" is still completely meaningless.
I'm sorry your Middle School dictionary is written for children and doesn't include college level science words ...
You bought a textbook, didn't you read where this is explained? ... you're certainly lying when you say you took a thermodynamics class ...
Atoms and larger ... if you knew anything about thermodynamics, you would have known instantly what I was talking about ...
You remain clueless ...
I finally found this:Macroscopic means visible to the naked eye.
Now please expalin what you meant by "macroscopics are wrong".
Convection is the transfer of thermal energy by particles moving through a fluid (either a gas or a liquid). Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy of moving particles of matter, and the transfer of thermal energy is called heat.
Still waiting to hear what I was supposed to know. Why are macroscopics wrong"?I finally found this:
Macroscopic forms of energy are those that a whole system possesses with respect to a fixed external reference. In thermodynamics, the macroscopic forms of energy are potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential and kinetic energy are based on external position and velocity references, respectively.
I fully admit I have no recollection of having ever heard this in thermo or heat transfer. But, this doesn't help with your claim that macroscopic includes atoms on up.
And so, why are "macroscopics wrong"
I found that here too. Some interesting insights in there but clearly not a widely shared reference. As good as any though these days, I suppose. Which isn't saying much, lol. The gobbledygook is persistent and pervasive starting with "kinetic energy" which, upon close inspection, sadly just amounts to a distinction without a difference (from "potential energy"), all of which ultimately gets blamed upon poor Aristotle who was actually just doing some thinking out loud about souls and shit. Which is why I prefer discussions centering around what makes sense. Given some agreed upon, well reasoned premise, next.. as opposed to say what Wikipedia (mainstream physics central) might say..I finally found this:
Macroscopic forms of energy are those that a whole system possesses with respect to a fixed external reference. In thermodynamics, the macroscopic forms of energy are potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential and kinetic energy are based on external position and velocity references, respectively.
But what of inertia? Inertia is resistance to change. Why is no formula ever offered for inertia? (No, just inertia, not "moment of inertia") Because there are seemingly countless ways for a "body" to resist change. Its mass can change. Its speed, given it accelerates or decelerates "due to an unbalanced force." Its spin. Its angular "momentum." Etc. Etc. And what then is the opposite of inertia or "loss of inertia"? These are the questions that should be troubling men's and women's souls.A macroscopic body that is stationary (i.e. a reference frame has been chosen to correspond to the body's center of momentum) may have various kinds of internal energy at the molecular or atomic level, which may be regarded as kinetic energy, due to molecular translation, rotation, and vibration, electron translation and spin, and nuclear spin. These all contribute to the body's mass, as provided by the special theory of relativity. When discussing movements of a macroscopic body, the kinetic energy referred to is usually that of the macroscopic movement only. However, all internal energies of all types contribute to a body's mass, inertia, and total energy.
So now you reply to one of my posts? Not the posts that challenge their ridiculous and unwarranted amplification of the GHG effect? Because convection reduces the GHG effect of atmospheric gases. By 56% no less. It doesn't increase the GHG effect of CO2 by 450% as the IPCC models claim.Still waiting to hear what I was supposed to know. Why are macroscopics wrong"?
I found that here too. Some interesting insights in there but clearly not a widely shared reference. As good as any though these days, I suppose. Which isn't saying much, lol. The gobbledygook is persistent and pervasive starting with "kinetic energy" which, upon close inspection, sadly just amounts to a distinction without a difference (from "potential energy"), all of which ultimately gets blamed upon poor Aristotle who was actually just doing some thinking out loud about souls and shit. Which is why I prefer discussions centering around what makes sense. Given some agreed upon, well reasoned premise, next.. as opposed to say what Wikipedia (mainstream physics central) might say..
Speaking of witch, Wikipedia says this pertaining to "macroscopic":
But what of inertia? Inertia is resistance to change. Why is no formula ever offered for inertia? (No, just inertia, not "moment of inertia") Because there are seemingly countless ways for a "body" to resist change. Its mass can change. Its speed, given it accelerates or decelerates "due to an unbalanced force." Its spin. Its angular "momentum." Etc. Etc. And what then is the opposite of inertia or "loss of inertia"? These are the questions that should be troubling men's and women's souls.
I'm curous about the statement "...in meteorology, we..."All that's fine and dandy ... but the subject is energy ... and exactly what thermometers measure ... today's high of 57ºF has nothing to do with inertia ...
"57ºF" is the average temperature of each of the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a five gallon bucket of air ... some molecules will be higher, some molecules will be lower ... it's this "100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules" that makes this "macroscopic" ... i.e. larger than an atom ... the math is succinct, the macroscopic world is smooth ...
When we discuss energy levels and transfer within the atom ... some different rules need to be applied ... the microscopic statements ... many more places energy can be, for example within the nucleus ... color ... spin ... the list goes on ... the math is succinct, the microscopic world is quantized ... fortunately, in meteorology, we stick to the classical macroscopic principles, and only when we start observing these quantum effects do we turn to more modern physics and the field values that are presented ...
Keep in mind, Chick claims to have taken a full year's coursework in Thermodynamics ... in college ... yet she doesn't understand there's two, count them, two working definitions of temperature ... the first measures total average kinetic energy, the other entropy ...
She doesn't understand latent heat ... kinetic energy that doesn't change temperature ... that's not make-believe, this is kitchen counter chemistry ... mix a pint of crushed ice and a pint of liquid water, mix together and put on hot stove burner ... the temperature will remain at 32ºF no matter how high you turn on the burner ... at least until all the ice melts .. then this happens: ...
I never let my stove get that filthy, what a pig, men shouldn't be allowed in the kitchen ...
Thanks, but no. The subject is "Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics." -- I deny neither. You?All that's fine and dandy ... but the subject is energy
Well, that's an interesting distraction, and no. Inertia actually has everything to do with anything we experience spatially, including what we perceive to be "energy." But now I digress and you're not really interested.and exactly what thermometers measure ... today's high of 57ºF has nothing to do with inertia ...
You're understandably confused. You don't need a bucket since, yes, in chemistry, a molecule is defined as"57ºF" is the average temperature of each of the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a five gallon bucket of air ... some molecules will be higher, some molecules will be lower ... it's this "100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules" that makes this "macroscopic" ... i.e. larger than an atom ... the math is succinct, the macroscopic world is smooth ...
But wait, ..a group of two or more atoms that form the smallest identifiable unit into which a pure substance can be divided and still retain the composition and chemical properties of that substance.
Now wadda we do?
Shaddup a you face!In particle physics, however
What a mess... So what's a "particle"? Oh, forget it!The Ancient Greeks had a name for the smallest particle: the ‘atom’, meaning ‘not cuttable’. But ever since Ernest Rutherford famously split the atom in experiments at Cambridge University around a century ago, it’s been clear that the name is a misnomer. He found that atoms contain a central nucleus around 10,000 times smaller than the atom itself.
"The temperature of a material is directly related to the energies of its molcules; as temperature increases, molecular motion increases. The relation of temperature to microscopic energy will be explored in detail in Chapter 20. It is important to understand, however, that temperature can be defined without reference to molecular considerations. Indeed temperature is inherently a macroscopic concept that has no meaning for an individual molecule. Temperature can be related to molecular motion only be considering the average energy of a large number of molecules.""57ºF" is the average temperature of each of the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in a five gallon bucket of air ... some molecules will be higher, some molecules will be lower ... it's this "100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules" that makes this "macroscopic" ... i.e. larger than an atom ... the math is succinct, the macroscopic world is smooth ...
Again, so says the modern physics establishment. But the "macro" establishment rarely agrees upon much of anything. Their individual egos demand immediate, authoritative (textbook) answers rather than careful consideration of competing theories or rather obvious conflicts. I've been offering examples here where one authority's definition clashes horribly with another's. Who to believe? I say much of this remains far from settled. We still need to think for ourselves. There's much we've only begun to understand. With the notable exception of AGW and ACC, of course!It is important to understand, however, that temperature can be defined without reference to molecular considerations. Indeed temperature is inherently a macroscopic concept that has no meaning for an individual molecule. Temperature can be related to molecular motion only be considering the average energy of a large number of molecules.
As Tesla said, baloney regarding the last bit. Space has no properties, but the first statement makes some sense. Vibration is motion. The motion of atoms and molecules increases with temperature, but "absolute zero" appears to exist absolutely nowhere.even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties.
I don't deny that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1C of atmospheric warming. I do deny that that 1C of warming will cause another 3.5C of warming. You?I deny neither. You?
I believe that ECS is approximately 3C and I have very good reason to do so. Your favorite glacial cycles are evidence: the Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place. No science supports your contention of zero net feedback.I don't deny that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1C of atmospheric warming. I do deny that that 1C of warming will cause another 3.5C of warming. You?
If their estimate is 4.5C by 2100 it's 1C of instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and 3.5C of feedbacks from the 1C of instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2. Because that's about the time we can expect the doubling of CO2 to occur. The year 2100. But since they decline to provide their accounting the best I can do is estimate it.I believe that ECS is approximately 3C
I believe that ECS is approximately 3C and I have very good reason to do so. Your favorite glacial cycles are evidence: the Milankovitch forcing on its own is inadequate to produce the warming that took place. No science supports your contention of zero net feedback.
