THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...
04-05-2012, 01:07 PM
RE: THE 3 forms of heat loss from an object or surface at earth's surface are...
(04-05-2012 05:42 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: Sorry Derek, this is not a personal attack, I'm just trying to help you to understand the science better and correct the errors in the PDFs you publish. It is just if you are going to make statements in a PDF and publish them on a blog then they need to be correct statements backed by good science. And we need to be discussing good science all the time otherwise us Realists will be opening ourselves for attack by the Warmermongerers. We don't need mistakes and misunderstanding, we need correct statements and good science. Science is not personal, it is impersonal and either right or wrong without regard to the beliefs and feelings of those who hold those beliefs. A scientific paper has to get everything right, down to the last details and be very clear.
Fair comments, and a good basis to go forwards from. My apologies to you Climate Realist as I was too quick to react, rather than consider then reply.
" We don't need mistakes and misunderstanding, we need correct statements and good science. " Agreed completely.
Unfortunately I have no scientific training whatsoever academically speaking, I just try my best, as a layman.
I will reply in due course, your reply has given me much insight to the differences between our expressed opinions, and I want to iron them out also.
If I am wrong, and shown to be wrong then so be it. As you say that is not personnal it is just a better understanding of the truth of the matter.
I can not make sense of this comment that I reacted to this morning, in relation to cold brought down within the climate system principally by rain and snow.
" No, Derek! "Cold" as such does not exist! There are merely differing degrees of warmth. "
Surely sensible heat is absorbed / exchanged / transferred, whatever the appropriate term is relatively. Therefore cold in this sense does exist.
My explanation and example therefore also makes sense explained as I did, and your explanation is misleading, as it seems more appropriate for IR rather than sensible heat.
The other point that I will contest more strongly in the near future is that a fridge works by using latent heat, not that latent heat is only a part of how a fridge works, as you have suggested. That to my understanding is a large misrepresentation in your explanation.
" As for your PDF, some of it is right and some of it is clearly wrong such as this statement:-
"Radiation, conduction and latent heat happen BEFORE convection.
In point of actual FACT conduction and latent heat CAUSE convection"
Part right, part wrong.
As convection occurs in a desert, dry polar regions and the dry air on a mountain top where little or no latent heat transport occurs this is clearly wrong. Yes, conduction from the hot air to the ground provides much of the heat to the air to start convection -agree with you on that- but not necessarily latent heat in a dry area. Sorry Derek, you won't like it but some of your statement is not quite right! "
You are aware that water vapour is lighter than air, so water vapourising does cause convection. It has to.
Conduction causes convection by expanding air, yes, but ALSO latent heat losses just like sensible heat (conduction) losses, also cause convection by making air lighter.
Convection is both of, and created by, conduction AND latent heat losses.
Last week on the Beeb they explained monsoons (THE largest weather event on the planet) without a single mention of latent heat.....
This is an important issue and misdirection, based on the misuse of convection.
As I have recently posted on the latent heat home experiment thread this is really all about heat pipes.
Which are best explained as heat in and heat out (using the convection of latent heat), neccesarily
this has to involve both hot and cold (relatively speaking) of sensible heat, to be understood.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken.
The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)