I fucking love science, or why "global warming" wouldn't produce "superhurricanes"

Wednesday, 06 September, Year 9 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

trinque: relatedly, it's been lulzy listening to all the new houstonians re: "holy shit global warming superhurricanes"
trinque: uh? ever heard of texas folks?
trinque: it tries to kill you.
trinque: if you let it win, you lose.

All movement is the result of the working of some engine somewhere, which is why a girl getting a good booty shake going looks like she's got motorized.

All engines obey thermodynamic laws, and work on the following principle : they take energy from a hot source and transfer it to a cold source while transforming some of it into work (aka movement, but not necessarily).

There are no exceptions to the foregoing ; and if you imagined otherwise that flight of fancy would count as a symptom of your being retarded and nothing more. Do have it looked into, I hear getting a glimpse into how retarded you are is rare and expensive, and shouldn't be squandered.

The proposition that "global warming" translates to an increase in perceived movement, predicated on a very bovine "well heat is energy and if there's more energy to go around some things will get bigger, specifically the biggest things of all" falls down the moment one realises that an increase in hot source temperature wouldn't happen by itself, but only in tandem with a corresponding (in fact : greater) increase in cold source temperature! Global warming wouldn't make more energy available to the existing engines. In fact, in comparative terms it'd make less energy available.

Consider an arbitrary example with imaginary units. If at time t0 the hot source temperature is 9 and the cold source temperature is 2, then 7 degrees would be available for whatever engine to convert into movement. That's almost 80% of the available energy in this system!

If at time t1 "global warming" has increased hot source temperature to 19, and cold source temperature to 13, then 6i degrees would be available for whatever engine to convert into movement, which is about 30% of the available energy in this new system!

An increase in temperature does not produce increases in comparative intensity of motion, but on the contrary! It produces a decrease in the intensity of apparent motion relative to the intensity of Brownian motion. This is another aspect of the ever marching thermic death of the universe : the further away you get from 0 Kelvin the less excitable everything gets, "majesty of nature" y compris, eventually leading you to prefer a whole new world to the farted up old one. Just like irl.

The fact that you had imagined otherwise, and especially the fact that it never occured to you that "global warming" would muchly improve the Gini index of poor little oppressed atoms belabouring under racist legislationii says something about you. Why is it that you see the problems with equality just as long as your stupid ass isn't in the equation and then only ?

Moreover, the fact that you had imagined that energy works like a sort of ersatz fiat currency, acumulating in the ganglia of that decrepit system like so much pus is also very indicative of the broken mind your unfortunate body is cursed with.

Start cleaning up some of the shit between your ears, would you ? "Global warming" ain't gonna do it for you ; nor is reading the Cliffsnotes going to do it for you.

Time to do some actual work, for once in your life. Now git.

———
  1. Yes, cold sources get more of the temperature increase than hot sources in reality ; this has to do with stuff Bolzmann discussed, look it up. []
  2. It's not just here that the ideology of stupidity turns out to argue strictly against sanity. It's everywhere. Why do you think that is ?

    To put the matter in simple terms : yes "all problems can be solved by an indirection layer". But not by you. They can be, yes. But not by you. For one thing, it'd take someone who understands the context is "problems of representation", not problems generally. You do understand there's a difference in principle there, yes ? []

Category: SUA care este
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

4 Responses

  1. >Start cleaning up some of the shit between your ears, would you ?

    It could even be done, if folks weren't so addicted to swallowing shit in the first place because "what alternative would you suggest" (nothing that stings or threatens is allowed, they're gluten and lactose and conscious -intolerant).

    And hey, don't you have to've been IN the hurricane to say anything about it? Y'know, for three personal years of experience & emotionally intelligent strugglempathy?

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 6 September 2017

    Right, once "no beatings" doublespoke as "violence is not the answer" gets in there, any possibility of filtering goes right out the window.

  3. I think you have this backwards, do you have a link to a source for your statement that the cold end of the world would increase in temperature more than the hot end?

    From my understanding of thermodynamic principles, if you increase the total heat energy of a system then it will favor higher differences between the hot spots and the low spots, which gives a larger differential. This is a non-equilibrium system, which certainly makes things more complicated.

    I guess there are two mechanisms which transport all that heat from the equator out to the poles: ocean currents and atmospheric currents. The question comes down to what fraction of that energy is moved by each mechanism. If a large amount of heat is transported by the ocean, then you could see milder weather, as you describe. But currents are also affected by things like salinity and are directed by landforms, so if the warm water is shunted back to the equator without delivering its heat at the poles then you get a more powerful hot spot at the equator driving the atmospheric systems and making hurricanes .

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    4
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 20 November 2017

    The source is basic arithmetic, as discussed in the very article! See that example with 2/7 vs 13/19 ? That's it.

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.