Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 12

Page 12 of 26

25-01-2021 01:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	tmiddles wrote: This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. You still don't know what 'temperature' is. tmiddles wrote: My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. A gas is not a planet surface. Gas does have an emitting 'surface' however. tmiddles wrote: It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. The amount absorbed from the Sun is unknown. Venus absorbs light even at the surface and throughout it's atmosphere. tmiddles wrote: If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, Light has no temperature. Unit failure. tmiddles wrote: into the ideal gas equation, Light is not a gas. Unit failure. tmiddles wrote: it may give you high temp at ground level. Light has no temperature. Unit failure. tmiddles wrote: Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature Light has no temperature. tmiddles wrote: comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. The Sun's surface is colder than Venus?????? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 01:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It is very difficult to measure everywhere at once accurately enough to make predictions and assessments. It is simply not possible. We have nowhere near enough instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical summary. tmiddles wrote: It's also difficult to put a human on the moon, A simple case of making an accurate shot with a rocket, and building a rocket system powerful enough. tmiddles wrote: build an international air travel system, A simple case of flying an airplane with passengers and/or cargo from one country to another. tmiddles wrote: create a vaccine A simple case of trial and error, using samples of the virus you are building the vaccine for. tmiddles wrote: and immunize a population on billions. A simple case of normal distribution systems, which Pfizer owns. The government does not distribute vaccines. tmiddles wrote: Humans do a lot of very difficult things. We have always been obsessed with knowing the weather. There is no such thing as 'global weather'. tmiddles wrote: You ignored my question about the roast and will probably ignore this bit here goes: Measuring average temperature is always going to produce an answer with a margin of error. There is no such thing as 'average temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Buzzword fallacy. Not the definition of 'margin of error'. Denial of statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote: If you don't think it is "possible" to measure the average temperature of something, No such thing. tmiddles wrote: and you are actually doing the work, it means it is not possible to achieve a margin of error as narrow as what is wanted. Denial of statistical mathematics. Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error value. tmiddles wrote: You would still have an answer just with a wider margin of error. Denial of statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote: You, Duncan, as I tmiddles, don't know how to do that work. Other's do. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: You might find someone who has calculated a wider margin than claimed by the government. Random numbers are random numbers. The 'margin of error' claimed by the government isn't a margin of error value. It's a random number. Math errors: Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to publish raw data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. tmiddles wrote: But to say its not possible to have a range for the average annual ground level temperature of Earth at a 95% confidence level is wrong. Temperature is not a range. Math error: scalar used as a boundary. tmiddles wrote: Its simply a way to duck the issue. What issue? Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Note that IBD wouldn't even agree to a +/- 200C margin for Venus because he knew his argument was proven wrong. Four term fallacy. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:. ...The sea claim was all based on a 2.3 mm rise in Hong Kong harbour ... there is not currently a claim sea levels have risen dramatically in the past. Yes there is. Denial of history. They're bogus of course. tmiddles wrote: So the "conspiracy " you seem to belive in already gave up on that. Paradox. which is it, dude? You are being irrational again. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. tmiddles wrote: Again they do not show, with their own government measurements, that sea levels have risen more than slightly. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. Governments claim all kinds of random numbers as 'data'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 01:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	HarveyH55 wrote: Averages, are a math function, not measurement. Most of the time, averages, are pretty meaningless, and don't represent reality very accurately. They can be useful, for some purposes, but most of the time they are misused, usually for deceptive purposes. Averages don't take anything into consideration, a few extreme numbers, can really bias the results. The unusually high or low numbers, might not be all that common, a fluke, a bad measurement, or intentionally thrown in there. Other than a consensus, to ignore computational, and conceptual errors, there is really nothing to support global anything. An average is completely meaningless in statistical summaries without a margin of error value. This value is determined from the possible variance of the data, not the data itself. That variance MUST be declared and justified. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 01:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Indeed Gravity is not energy, but the Negative work of compression is. Whilst the total heat energy within the gas body must be conserved the volume is diminished so the heat energy per M3 is increased by gravity accordingly, sending the temperature up. Compressing atmospheres is what Gravity does, so it is responsible for temperature increase . Since the Earth is moving away from the Sun, this would actually help to decrease the Earth's gravity. This is if the Earth's gravitational field is influenced by the Sun's gravitational field. Earth's mass does not change by moving away from the Sun. Gravity remains the same. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 02:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Indeed Gravity is not energy, but the Negative work of compression is. Whilst the total heat energy within the gas body must be conserved the volume is diminished so the heat energy per M3 is increased by gravity accordingly, sending the temperature up. Compressing atmospheres is what Gravity does, so it is responsible for temperature increase . Since the Earth is moving away from the Sun, this would actually help to decrease the Earth's gravity. This is if the Earth's gravitational field is influenced by the Sun's gravitational field. Earth's mass does not change by moving away from the Sun. Gravity remains the same. Just as moving away from the equator. https://fb.watch/3dPZ1diNGJ/

25-01-2021 03:21
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	We have a lot of topics going in one forum.Tmiddles shows great skill at turning someones questions around to try and prove a point.ITN and IBDM have covered most of it so I will let it go for now.James contributed well with the weather map of U.K. and I just checked with Tamara who talks to her nanna in Portsmouth every second day and it is snowing hard.Happens every 4-5 years apparently.In the short time I have been playing I have noticed its gone off global warming being the big deal and now its Climate Change directly.What will happen to all that cold front that will possibly get as far south as Spain?Human activity does sweet F.A. to the climate and weather.In summer Portsmouth has a balmy mediterranean climate but at the moment it is having a polar climate.Polar bears have been seen queuing up at B and Q.Werewolfs in London.We need to throw a virgin in a volcana right now
25-01-2021 03:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It is very difficult to measure .... ...You ignored my question about the roast and will probably ignore this .. duncan61 wrote: ...Tmiddles shows great skill at turning someones questions around...I will let it go for now.... And you've ignored my response yet again. I'm not offended just bored. Bye Duncan. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
25-01-2021 04:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: We have a lot of topics going in one forum.Tmiddles shows great skill at turning someones questions around to try and prove a point.ITN and IBDM have covered most of it so I will let it go for now.James contributed well with the weather map of U.K. and I just checked with Tamara who talks to her nanna in Portsmouth every second day and it is snowing hard.Happens every 4-5 years apparently.In the short time I have been playing I have noticed its gone off global warming being the big deal and now its Climate Change directly.What will happen to all that cold front that will possibly get as far south as Spain?Human activity does sweet F.A. to the climate and weather.In summer Portsmouth has a balmy mediterranean climate but at the moment it is having a polar climate.Polar bears have been seen queuing up at B and Q.Werewolfs in London.We need to throw a virgin in a volcana right now Some of this gets into astrophysics. The Earth started spinning just a little faster in 2016. It's also moving further away from the Sun. We've probably started into the next ice age cycle. The quicker we warm, the quicker we cool. With that said, it seems that the Earth's thermohaline circulation in the short term (centuries) has the greatest impact on the weather. This is why the velocity of the Gulf Stream would matter. It's effect on the thermohaline circulation might take a century or more to be seen. Think of it as an S curve on a track. People should just watch the entire video. The Gulf Stream is slowing for a reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJe_0kybZvo
25-01-2021 12:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	duncan61 wrote: We have a lot of topics going in one forum.Tmiddles shows great skill at turning someones questions around to try and prove a point.ITN and IBDM have covered most of it so I will let it go for now.James contributed well with the weather map of U.K. and I just checked with Tamara who talks to her nanna in Portsmouth every second day and it is snowing hard.Happens every 4-5 years apparently.In the short time I have been playing I have noticed its gone off global warming being the big deal and now its Climate Change directly.What will happen to all that cold front that will possibly get as far south as Spain?Human activity does sweet F.A. to the climate and weather.In summer Portsmouth has a balmy mediterranean climate but at the moment it is having a polar climate.Polar bears have been seen queuing up at B and Q.Werewolfs in London.We need to throw a virgin in a volcana right now Waste of a good virgin. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 12:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It is very difficult to measure .... ...You ignored my question about the roast and will probably ignore this .. duncan61 wrote: ...Tmiddles shows great skill at turning someones questions around...I will let it go for now.... And you've ignored my response yet again. I'm not offended just bored. Bye Duncan. And you've ignored his comments, and the answers you have already received. RQAA. You also continue to evade and have never answered any of the questions put to you. Happy trails. Good riddance. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 15:06
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather.
25-01-2021 15:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane?
25-01-2021 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. It's just nature's way of natural recycling! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2021 22:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane? Nothin'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2021 02:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane? Nothin'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. A livable environment requires both gas and vapour. These also help to regulate the temperature of an environment. They say that the giant Redwoods in California rely on water vapour. They absorb it out of the air and not so much water from the ground. Still, much of Florida's climate is dependent on water vapour. If you consider that Arizona has a drier climate, it shows. For all you know, most of the rain in Florida is just runoff and amounts to nothing as far as the flora goes. I think this helps to illustrate how vapour can affect a climate. p.s., while both Phoenix, Arizona and Florida have climates better suited to lands closer to the equator, like California, the ocean currents and winds typically come from closer to the equator. And this is what helps them to have their unique climates in the US. Edited on 26-01-2021 02:40

26-01-2021 07:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane? Nothin'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. A livable environment requires both gas and vapour. These also help to regulate the temperature of an environment. Water vapor doesn't regulate anything. It is not a thermostat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2021 12:09
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hey ITN if I win the lotto can I come and visit you brother
26-01-2021 14:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	duncan61 wrote: Hey ITN if I win the lotto can I come and visit you brother You are welcome to. Should the occasion arise, let me know and we can complete the information for meeting in a private mail. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2021 15:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane? Nothin'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. A livable environment requires both gas and vapour. These also help to regulate the temperature of an environment. Water vapor doesn't regulate anything. It is not a thermostat. When water vapour transfers heat from one region to another it is helping to regulate the temperature. In the fall when it becomes humid in Phoenix, where is the moisture in the air coming from? Maybe from the breath of animals? Hmm, and when people exhale with moisture in that discharge of gas (including CO2), heat is removed. Not by sweating but by the moisture and gas content in a person's breath. Attached image: Edited on 26-01-2021 15:36
26-01-2021 16:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	And this could end up being quite serious. After a lot of California burned, and now heavy rains. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/14/atmospheric-river-california-storms-spur-floods-threaten-mudslides/2868164002/ It's possible that when the jet stream "bucks up" near Hawai'i that it creates a "high" which helps to direct moisture from the South Pacific to California. http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=npac_250 And this would probably show where atmospheric temperature is being regulated along the path of so much moisture in the atmosphere. Edited on 26-01-2021 16:12
26-01-2021 16:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14500)	James___ wrote: When water vapour transfers heat from one region to another it is helping to regulate the temperature. Nope. Do not conflate "transfer" which is strictly physics, with "regulate" which involves decisions and control. Water vapor does not get to decide its temperature nor does it get to decide the rate and direction of thermal energy flowing from it. Water vapor is not in control of anything that happens and cannot make decisions regarding the control of any energy flow. Water vapor therefore cannot regulate anything. It can only obey the laws of physics which it cannot change. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2021 19:37
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: When water vapour transfers heat from one region to another it is helping to regulate the temperature. Nope. Do not conflate "transfer" which is strictly physics, with "regulate" which involves decisions and control. Water vapor does not get to decide its temperature nor does it get to decide the rate and direction of thermal energy flowing from it. Water vapor is not in control of anything that happens and cannot make decisions regarding the control of any energy flow. Water vapor therefore cannot regulate anything. It can only obey the laws of physics which it cannot change. . And yet when water vapour transfers heat, it is regulating the temperature. The warmer it becomes over a body of water, the more water that will become vapour. This is why places like Jacksonville, Florida also report the "humiture". This accounts for the extra energy in the atmosphere because of the concentration or amount of water vapour. Another example is either a hurricane. Hurricanes require a water surface temperature of ~84º F./28.9º C.
26-01-2021 20:13
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	tmiddles wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Indeed Gravity is not energy, but the Negative work of compression is. Whilst the total heat energy within the gas body must be conserved the volume is diminished so the heat energy per M3 is increased by gravity ... . tmiddlesw wroteThat implies a change from an uncompressed "before" to a compressed "after". Atmospheric pressure on Earth is relatively constant. No change means no work. No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. If gravity were weaker the atmosphere would be bigger so the thermal energy per unit volume would be less and the temperature lower, (I will deal with your belief that temperature is determined by thermal energy per unit mass, not volume, further down if you will bear with me) but it could never be below S-B. Therefore the strength of gravity determines the degree of temperature enhancement according to the degree of negative work and the consequent particular extent of the reduction in the gas volume, but there must be temperature enhancement in any gas body under significant pressure come what may. It is the same for every significant atmosphere anywhere in the Universe. I think you missed my earlier post Pete: Pete Rogers wrote: keepit wrote: Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing? It seems to me that he does not accept the entries. According to the physics dictionaries, and Fluid Dynamics, the compression of an adiabatic Gas body causes enhancement of its temperature. He is arguing against that. Pete you can ponder endlessly as to how it is that ITN/IBD defy common sense. It's really not that fascinating at the end of the day. They are simply trying to waste your time. Gravity is not compressing anything. What does "compressing" mean? "flatten by pressure; squeeze or press." There is a before and an after in that concept. Work is done. The atmosphere has a pressure but no work was done on it by gravity. Gravity being the continuous force that maintains the atmosphere in a state of reduced volume by having acheived the negative work of reducing its radius which extent of reduction precisely signifies the degree to which the atmosphere has been compressed. tmiddles wrote"causes enhancement of its temperature." you are describing a change from a before to an after state. There is no before and after here. No. I am describing a system in an equilibrium state. Once the force of gravity has reduced the volume of the atmosphere to its equilibrium level the compressed medium will now share its heat energy - which must be conserved and none lost - between fewer volume units than would otherwise be the case ipso facto the degree of temperature enhancent is thus arrived at, being in direct proportion to the lost volume. tmiddles wroteWould you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No I would say that the contents of the scuba tank are compressed because they were pumped into it under high pressure through a valve and the thermal energy generated by that increases the temperature, but this dissipates into its surroundings according to the 2nd Law so the system returns to uniform ambient levels. The atmosphere, however, lacks any surroundings into which heat can be conducted since beyond the edge is only vacuum - the perfect insulator. Accordingly the atmosphere is adiabatic. The only way the "scuba tank" of the atmosphere can lose heat is by conduction back to the surface under the 2nd Law since the atmosphere has no tank structure to accept heat transfer and radiate it out either so only the Earth's surface can perform this function. I don't see that you responded to my post did I miss it? tmiddles wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises. tmiddles wroteSo this concept is not correct as you've described it. The degree to which a gas is pre-compressed will have not influence on the temperature it will reach via conduction (let's just use conduction here to keep it simple). If I have two sealed gas cylinders that are at room temperature and I place them both into a bath tub full of water that is 50C. Both cylinders will in time reach 50C as well. If one gas cylinder contains gas at twice the pressure of the other, it has no influence at all on their both being just 50C in equilibrium with the water they are in. Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done. NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all. The negative work has compressed the atmosphere which is then held in that equilibrium state of reduced volume. As thermal energy enters this volume today it is forced to occupy a smaller one than it would have had the pressure been less. Had the pressure been less the atmosphere would be bigger, having less thermal energy per unit volume than is the actual case meaning it would be at a lower temperature, but it would still have to be at S-B at least, so there will be the ATE appropriate for our particular strength of gravity. It's a continuous energy flow system through a compressed medium converting conserved thermal energy into higher levels per unit volume causing the ATE at equilibrium. Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower So the "thermal energy" (let's use that instead of heat energy) determines temperature. Let's say the amount of thermal energy and the mass are constant: PV=nRT P, pressure, and V, volume can change, but n, the mass, R, ideal gas constant, cannot change. So what happens if pressure drops as volume increases? Lets put numbers in: PV=nRT PV=nRT P=10 V=10 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T So now let's cut the pressure in half and double the volume P=5 V=20 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume. I think you're visualizing the difficulty of the spread out molecules to conduct their thermal energy to a thermometer. I don't understand that and it seems weird to me too. An explanation would be appreciated. My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high. I'm not really following what you mean by "negative work". Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K. tmiddles wroteAgain this doesn't sound right as with the gas canister example up top of the post. My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, into the ideal gas equation, it may give you high temp at ground level. Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. I don't think this helps. If you will excuse the levity it would be a poor refrigeration engineer who argued that the expansion of a gas body did not cool it, since it does and we know so empirically what is more. Temperature is thermal energy per unit volume to the extent that if you compress a body to half its originl size you will double its temperature. In the world you are imagining you would not go "ouch" when pumping your bike tyre up. Here is a very good summary of all this by Dr Robert Holmes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD*[url=https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/co2-emission-from-fossil-fuels--d6-e2774-s40.php#post_43679] or ITN
26-01-2021 21:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14500)	James___ wrote: And yet when water vapour transfers heat, it is regulating the temperature. Dig your literacy out of the garage and re-read my post. You are conflating "transfer" with "regulate." There is only uncontrolled, unregulated transfer of energy occurring. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2021 21:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14500)	Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere The next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics. You have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause. Let me know how many converts you get. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2021 22:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. This is technical in and of itself. Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. Attached image: Edited on 26-01-2021 22:24
27-01-2021 00:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: Was the question about what happens to roast beef once it comes out the oven.It gets vegetables and gravy and gets warmed up again inside me.Then it gets pooped into cold water and sent to live with the rest of the poops in poop heaven the mighty Sewer land.I am sure it does not affect the weather. What if you generate methane? Nothin'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. A livable environment requires both gas and vapour. These also help to regulate the temperature of an environment. Water vapor doesn't regulate anything. It is not a thermostat. When water vapour transfers heat from one region to another it is helping to regulate the temperature. Heat is not transferred. Heat is not regulation. James___ wrote: In the fall when it becomes humid in Phoenix, where is the moisture in the air coming from? Maybe from the breath of animals? Moisture is not temperature. James___ wrote: Hmm, and when people exhale with moisture in that discharge of gas (including CO2), heat is removed. Not by sweating but by the moisture and gas content in a person's breath. Heat is not removable. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2021 00:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: When water vapour transfers heat from one region to another it is helping to regulate the temperature. Nope. Do not conflate "transfer" which is strictly physics, with "regulate" which involves decisions and control. Water vapor does not get to decide its temperature nor does it get to decide the rate and direction of thermal energy flowing from it. Water vapor is not in control of anything that happens and cannot make decisions regarding the control of any energy flow. Water vapor therefore cannot regulate anything. It can only obey the laws of physics which it cannot change. . And yet when water vapour transfers heat, Heat is not transferable. James___ wrote: it is regulating the temperature. Heat does not regulate anything. James___ wrote: The warmer it becomes over a body of water, the more water that will become vapour. Water vapor is not temperature. James___ wrote: This is why places like Jacksonville, Florida also report the "humiture". TV weatherman are often idiots. James___ wrote: This accounts for the extra energy in the atmosphere because of the concentration or amount of water vapour. Water vapor is not energy. James___ wrote: Another example is either a hurricane. Hurricanes require a water surface temperature of ~84º F./28.9º C. Hurricanes can occur at any water temperature. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2021 00:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. This is technical in and of itself. James___ wrote: Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. Thermals do not move heat. Thermals ARE heat. James___ wrote: An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. Gravity does not cause a lateral force. It does not cause a repulsive force. It only causes an attractive force. See Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction. James___ wrote: This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. Gravity is not kinetic energy. James___ wrote: This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. Nope. The simple density of air at different temperatures causes thermals. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2021 01:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. This is technical in and of itself. James___ wrote: Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. Thermals do not move heat. Thermals ARE heat. James___ wrote: An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. Gravity does not cause a lateral force. It does not cause a repulsive force. It only causes an attractive force. See Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction. James___ wrote: This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. Gravity is not kinetic energy. James___ wrote: This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. Nope. The simple density of air at different temperatures causes thermals. I'm glad that I'm learning the easy stuff like how to verify this math problem. It'll actually help me more with woodworking than with climate science, but gravity is a heavy subject. I'll give you a hint. cot^2(x) + 1 is also csc^2(x). That simplifies it. It's like "as spune ca da" in Romanian. Attached image: Edited on 27-01-2021 01:05

27-01-2021 04:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. This is technical in and of itself. James___ wrote: Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. Thermals do not move heat. Thermals ARE heat. James___ wrote: An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. Gravity does not cause a lateral force. It does not cause a repulsive force. It only causes an attractive force. See Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction. James___ wrote: This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. Gravity is not kinetic energy. James___ wrote: This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. Nope. The simple density of air at different temperatures causes thermals. I'm glad that I'm learning the easy stuff like how to verify this math problem. It'll actually help me more with woodworking than with climate science, but gravity is a heavy subject. I'll give you a hint. cot^2(x) + 1 is also csc^2(x). That simplifies it. It's like "as spune ca da" in Romanian. You need this for woodworking??? Keep your hands away from the saw blade, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2021 05:54
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere, however, lacks any surroundings into which heat can be conducted since beyond the edge is only vacuum - the perfect insulator. Accordingly the atmosphere is adiabatic. The only way the "scuba tank" of the atmosphere can lose heat is by conduction back to the surface under the 2nd Law since the atmosphere has no tank structure to accept heat transfer and radiate it out either so only the Earth's surface can perform this function.
27-01-2021 06:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. This is technical in and of itself. James___ wrote: Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. Thermals do not move heat. Thermals ARE heat. James___ wrote: An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. Gravity does not cause a lateral force. It does not cause a repulsive force. It only causes an attractive force. See Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction. James___ wrote: This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. Gravity is not kinetic energy. James___ wrote: This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. Nope. The simple density of air at different temperatures causes thermals. I'm glad that I'm learning the easy stuff like how to verify this math problem. It'll actually help me more with woodworking than with climate science, but gravity is a heavy subject. I'll give you a hint. cot^2(x) + 1 is also csc^2(x). That simplifies it. It's like "as spune ca da" in Romanian. You need this for woodworking??? Keep your hands away from the saw blade, dude. For something like that, I'd probably be using hand tools. It'd be a unique design for a windmill. Something to play around with. For stuff like atmospheric chemistry, most of the math has already been done. That'd only be a matter of modifying someone's formula. It'd be like giving Newton's formula some type of exponential effect outside of the inverse square law.
27-01-2021 14:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: [ I don't think this helps. If you will excuse the levity it would be a poor refrigeration engineer who argued that the expansion of a gas body did not cool it, since it does and we know so empirically what is more. Temperature is thermal energy per unit volume to the extent that if you compress a body to half its originl size you will double its temperature. In the world you are imagining you would not go "ouch" when pumping your bike tyre up. Here is a very good summary of all this by Dr Robert Holmes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII When considering this, we could use the ideal gas law to see how pressure and volume relate to the number of particles in a given volume. These guys know that I'm more interested in the ozone layer because that helps to regulate the incoming solar radiation. At the same time changing the composition of atmospheric gasses can influence the atmosphere's density. With density, the material that creates a barrier for a greenhouse changes the amplitude/wavelengths of incoming solar IR. This is where refraction on the Death's surface and a denser atmosphere could decrease the amount of natural radiance the atmosphere has.
27-01-2021 15:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21775)	James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: [ I don't think this helps. If you will excuse the levity it would be a poor refrigeration engineer who argued that the expansion of a gas body did not cool it, since it does and we know so empirically what is more. Temperature is thermal energy per unit volume to the extent that if you compress a body to half its originl size you will double its temperature. In the world you are imagining you would not go "ouch" when pumping your bike tyre up. Here is a very good summary of all this by Dr Robert Holmes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII Temperature is not thermal energy per unit volume. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics again. James___ wrote: When considering this, we could use the ideal gas law to see how pressure and volume relate to the number of particles in a given volume. Nope. You are denying the ideal gas law. In a closed container, it is the same number of particles, regardless of volume. James___ wrote: These guys know that I'm more interested in the ozone layer because that helps to regulate the incoming solar radiation. Ozone doesn't regulate anything. James___ wrote: At the same time changing the composition of atmospheric gasses can influence the atmosphere's density. Nope. the only way to increase the density of the atmosphere is to cool it, or to add to its mass. James___ wrote: With density, the material that creates a barrier for a greenhouse changes the amplitude/wavelengths of incoming solar IR. This is where refraction on the Death's surface and a denser atmosphere could decrease the amount of natural radiance the atmosphere has. Word salad. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2021 16:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Did the Pete Rogers quote/reply from my phone. The [/quote] is missing so it reads funny. Hopefully everyone realizes that when reading that post.
27-01-2021 16:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14500)	James___ wrote: Did the Pete Rogers quote/reply from my phone. The [/ quote] is missing so it reads funny. Hopefully everyone realizes that when reading that post. Sorry, it's too late. It's etched in stone. . Attached image: Edited on 27-01-2021 16:45
27-01-2021 17:12
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	Nice chainsaw ice artwork. To bad it's all going melt due to the gravitational recompresional negative working conductional heat content transfer phase.
27-01-2021 19:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Did the Pete Rogers quote/reply from my phone. The [/ quote] is missing so it reads funny. Hopefully everyone realizes that when reading that post. Sorry, it's too late. It's etched in stone. . Stone cold and not ice cold? Edited on 27-01-2021 19:41
27-01-2021 20:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14500)	GasGuzzler wrote:Nice chainsaw ice artwork. To bad it's all going melt ... Back in the Al Gore "imminent iceless Arctic" era, drinks make with Arctic ice were called "Al-Gore-itas" (or just "algoritas") and were consumed "while we still can." We still can. GasGuzzler wrote: ... due to the gravitational recompresional negative working conductional heat content transfer phase. What I find totally absurd about Pete Rogers' gibberish is that he began on this site stating with certainty that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect because it violates physics. ... but then he goes on to insist that Greenhouse Effect is totally real because he is calling it something else entirely, i.e. Atmospheric Thermal Effect. Instead of CO2 generating the energy out of nothing (because that would violate physics), gravity is what generates the energy out of nothing ... called "negative work" ... because it's a flow ... while being compression ... matter of volume ... I hope I'm not the only one who can appreciate the mental aesthetics of his cognitive impressionist style. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Page 12 of 26

Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals	1	03-02-2017 20:30