# 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

30 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. 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. 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.

5. No, I meant a source for how to get the assumption that the cold end rises more than the hot end? I understand your logic once you make that assumption, I just don't see how you got it.

6. 6
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

2 + 11 = 13
7 + 12 = 19.
11 < 12.

Or do you mean the first note ? Cuz you never say, you know, "this is re note i". Anyway, make this experiment yourself : in a calorimetry jar add one steel bearing ball at t = 20C and one steel bearing ball at t = -20C. Then add the largest, prettiest ember you can find in your barbecue brick oven such as I have here at my rancho which is what the locals call a special barbecuing arangement in one's yard. Cover up and let sit for a while then measure the balls' temperature and see. My bet, cuz it wouldn't be science without a bet, would it now, is that the ball-to-ball delta-T will be < 40 degrees.

7. Of course if you let the hot and cold ends sit together, eventually they will equilibrate to equal temperatures. But the world is not in equilibrium. All the heat is being dumped in at the equator. So in your example, you would put the ember by the hot ball and have the cold ball on the other side of a layer of insulation. Which I think would make the hot ball rise in temperature more than the cold ball.

Of course, as the low-latitude temperature rises, it will increase the flux of heat to the high-latitude, so it is not completely insulated, but that flux is exactly the weather systems being described and so as the temperature rises we know that the weather must get more energetic!

The other way to look at it is that as the temperature rises you get more diversity in energy states, and therefore larger temperature gradients which means stronger weather.

I am going to go model some simple systems and see if I can come up with a better explanation.

8. 8
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Looking forward.

9. OK, here is my model (this is very simplistic, but the principle it shows should be applicable):

You have two balls. They start at a temperature of 0, you heat ball 1 with 4 units each time period. Heat can flow from ball 1 to ball 2 at a rate of 0.5 times the difference in temp between the two balls. The balls also each radiate heat at a rate of a radiation factor times their temperature. I set the T1 radiation factor at 0.2 units/time period. They reach a steady state where ball 1 is about 11.67 degrees and ball 2 is about 8.33 degrees.

Now at T2, global warming happens because we add some carbon dioxide to the balls, and now their radiation factor drops to 0.15 units/time period. So they now get to a steady state where ball 1 is about 15.07 degrees and ball 2 is about 11.59 degrees.

So the difference for ball 1 from T1 to T2 is 3.41, and ball 2 only rises 3.26. So therefore, the hot end goes up in temperature more than the cold end.

10. 10
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

And while looking forward, let's do some modelling of our own, we're not idlers after all. So :

The ember in question provides energy to the bearing ball through two main avenues : gravitational and radiative. The radiative part is well computed otherwise and we won't rehash here.

The gravitational part is like so : the scalar part of the Earth's kinetic mommentum is 3 * 10^ 4 m/s * 6 * 10 ^ 24 kg = 1.8 * 10 ^ 30. At one point in Earth's orbit, this mommentum points one way ; at the diametrally opposite portion, this (equal, let's say) mommentum points the other way. Consequently the Sun does (through gravity) enough work to turn p into -p.

Fortunately we know how to calculate this W, it is 2 * p^2 / 2 m, and thereby we're left with 3.2 * 10 ^ 60 / 6 * 10 ^ 24 = 5.4 10 ^ 45 Joules. This work is done by the Sun during the time it takes the Earth to do half a spin, which is to say half 365.25 days which is to say 31557600 seconds, meaning the gravitational energetic contribution of the Sun to the Earth's balance sheet is 3.4 * 10 ^ 38 Watts, or just about 1`000`000`000`000`000`000`000 times MORE than the piddly 200 PetaWatts the radiative portion contributes.

Only a fraction of these 3.4 * 10 ^ 38 W is transformed to heat, which is why the Earth's core stays molten. Its distribution inside the planet is assured by the magma ; and the proof-positive that said magma manages to distribute efficiently is that the Earth stays in one piece. If it were closer (such that the divisor period would be shorter) or if it were larger (such that the pondering impact of the mass would be less) it'd explode, which is why you can't have celestial bodies arbitrarily close to their Sun.

The Earth's crust is a (very reliable) insulant, which allows us to expect that the core phase does all its own convection, without contribution from the liquid or gaseous phase above this crust. Whether any of that heat spills out or not, and what its impact is we shall let aside -- all the (numerous) glaciations to date were the product of volcanic activity, on which basis we can reliably say that "climate change" has absolutely nothing to do with radiative Solar intermeddling, but it's entirely the byproduct of faulty piping in the core gravitational energy redistribution engine.

Now, as far as the above-crust, radiative-only convection is concerned for that tiny fraction of ~nothing% of the total energy involved : given that air pressure at ocean level is ~100 kPa whereas sea pressure at 1km deep is about 100 times that and given that air caloric capacity is about 0.001 per cm^-3 compared to water caloric capacity of ~4 per same, we can therefore broadly conclude that the liquid phase convection carries something to the tune of half a million or thereabouts MORE heat than gaseous phase convection.

In short : most (99.9999999999999999999%) of energy Earth receives is convected in the "solid" phase of the core ; of the remainder 99.999995% or thereabouts is convected via the liquid phase of ocean water. The remainder, a nothing% of a nothing% is convected via air, but : a) Escape phenomenons, such as what heat volcanoes may contribute via lava or what cooling they may contribute via ash ; as well as b) friction phenomena, such as the driving Coriolis wind, etc ; not to mention c) ground-effects and other refraction-like phenomena at the intersection of media are probably much MUCH more effectual in driving weather than anything to do with energy per se, or fluctuations in energy debit per se.

11. More precisely,

K1 = (H1 (1 + Cf/Rf)) / (Rf + 1)

and

K2 = (H1 - K1 * Rf) / Rf

where
K1 = temperature of ball 1
K2 = temperature of ball 2
H1 = heat input of ball 1 (set at 4 in example)
Cf = conductance factor (set at 0.5 in example)
Rf = radiative factor (set at 0.2 at time 1 and 0.5 at time 2 in example)

12. > Consequently the Sun does (through gravity) enough work to turn p into -p

And then again into +p. Net work is 0 joules. Mr. Newton spins like propeller in his grave.

> which is why the Earth's core stays molten

But core of Mars, just as orbiting -- solid! ( AFAIK is not a disputed item, compass does not work on the red planet, unlike ours, it has no 'dynamo' to generate the field. ) Which is how the current state-of-art hypothesis for why molten core on planet3 came about -- radiodecay (vs., say, earlier one where simple pressure does the job. the 'gravity performs net work' explanation having been already chucked in the time of Newton.)

13. 13
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

So you have a force that does no work ? Or is there no force ?

14. Gravity ( and for that matter also the strong and weak forces, if you like ) are perfectly capably of performing no net work. E.g. gravity is exercing a force on my arse, and the chair exerts equal and opposite strongforce on that same arse, at this very moment. Net work is 0.

15. 15
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

So if I half fill a bucket with water, and tie a rope to its handle whereby I start spinning it like an idiot around the house, will the water's center of mass be higher that it'd be were the bucket simply set on the floor in the same position? If so, what lifts the water uphill, the gays ?

If I buy one of those jewish toys which you spin, the kind that has lights and even maybe plays a noise when spun but takes no battery, who powers the circuitry, dead niggers ?

It'd seem that the centripetal force does in fact do ~some~ work, wouldn't it.

16. found typo in my previos post

"Rf = radiative factor (set at 0.2 at time 1 and 0.5 at time 2 in example)" should be "Rf = radiative factor (set at 0.2 at time 1 and 0.15 at time 2 in example)"

17. > what lifts the water ... toys which you spin

The water, you moved against a gravity gradient, and presumably burned some coal, or split a few nuclei, to pay for it. The spinning top had to spin up from rest, and heats the surface under its point, as well as the surrounding air, for which you paid with the joules you had eaten this morning; and will come to a stop soon after, as it performs work on the air and table. However if you were to spin the top in outer space, it could happily spin along for a millenium or two, until hit by debris, as it performs no work while spinning in the vacuum, and hence loses 0 energy.

I had NFI any of this were controversial outside of first grade ? Is physics textbook on your home world different from mine, and word "work" means something else than net energy moved into/out of a system ?

18. 18
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

@PeterL Of what interest are two balls of equal temperature supposed to be ?

@Stanislav Datskovskiy The conception of "outer space" here used is spurious.

The argument isn't at any point that the Earth swallows up THE WHOLE nominal energy calculated, either gravitational or radiative. It reflects some of the Sun's light, and misses some of it, and so on with the other example too.

But the presence of the Earth does put some drag on the spin of the Sun, which is exactly how tidal locking works and also how most of the energy Earth receives is transmitted.

This'd be then exactly what it was intended for it to be : a fine exercise in model inadequacy and modeller inability to account for it. Which, obviously, is my only fucking point in the whole "global warming" antiscientific nondiscussion.

19. Nitpick was strictly re the molten core.

20. 20
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Afaik the currently-accepted explanation re molten core is that a) was originally molten because reasons and b) it stays molten because impurities move inside the high pressure viscous iron center (technically, around the solid part) under the pull of Sun's gravity at a different rate than the iron itself, which generates friction.

21. @PeterL Of what interest are two balls of equal temperature supposed to be ?

They are not equal, they reach different temperatures at the steady state. In my model, you have two balls, a hot one and a cold one. The earth has a hot end (equator) and a cold end (poles), heat comes as sunlight strongest at the equator and flows out to the poles.

22. 22
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

I didn't realise that's what we were modelling.

Yes, item closer to heat source is going to be hotter than same item further.

23. AFAIK "reasons" quite probably consisted of U and Th.
What % of the internal heat is remnant from formation event, and what % from current-day processes, is afaik unknown. But presumably formation event similarly heated, e.g. Mars, which meanwhile solidified.

24. 24
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Seems credible nuclear decay contributed at least some significant portion of it.

Planets in the Solar System are evidently very different, though it's not at all evident why the fuck exactly. But yes, there's a lot poorly understood in astrophysics, and liable to outlive us in that state.

25. "Yes, item closer to heat source is going to be hotter than same item further."

That was not the point of the model. The point is the bit at the end, where when you change the system to increase the overall average temperature it is the hot side that increases more than the cold side, the opposite of what you have in note i.

26. 26
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Problem is I don't manage to parse your model even halfway, so I don't get to the end.

27. "Problem is I don't manage to parse your model even halfway, so I don't get to the end."

Better error message please? What is tripping you up here?

28. 28
Mircea Popescu
Tuesday, 21 November 2017

> You have two balls. They start at a temperature of 0,

No, they don't. We're discussing a hotter and a colder one.

29. >> You have two balls. They start at a temperature of 0,

> No, they don't. We're discussing a hotter and a colder one.

At time T0 the balls are at a temperature of 0. Then you add the heat to the first ball, until at time T1 they have reached a steady state with the temperatures so described. After time T1 we decrease their radiative factor, which causes them to increase in temperature until at time T2 they have again reached a steady state with the second set of temperatures described.

We then check the change of temperature from T1 to T2 for the warm end of our system and the cold end of our system.

30. 30
Mircea Popescu
Wednesday, 22 November 2017

I... guess.

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