Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 10

Page 10 of 26

21-01-2021 02:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: So the question is does atmospheric pressure account for none/some/all of the increase in temperature we find on planets? What increase? Atmospheric pressure is not energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. 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
21-01-2021 02:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: Atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature. Yes it does. You have to be more careful with your wording. Atmospheric pressure has no effect on a planet's (body's) average temperature but no planet's atmosphere is ever of uniform pressure and any local temperature fluctuates with pressure fluctuations ... which immediately either begin to either warm or cool until the next pressure fluctuation. The atmosphere, which is fluid and which has substantial mass, moves thermal energy around for a far more even distribution and this naturally affects every single local temperature. The overall average temperature, however, remains exactly the same. Remember, you can boil water until it freezes solid. Pressure definitely affects temperature per the Ideal Gas law but nothing can either create or destroy energy and the average temperature of the body/closed system remains the same. Xadoman wrote: Venus is hot because it has a lot of internal energy that reaches to the surface. Venus is hot because of its proximity to the sun ... and due to Venus' emissivity, whatever that value might be. Any given local temperature where there is atmosphere is definitely affected by the atmosphere which is far denser than earth's and creates a pressure-cooker/grill-iron effect in conjunction with the solid surface moreso than earth. . Better worded. 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
21-01-2021 14:44
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	That's not right. Every body of gas is inevitably increased in temperature according to its state of compression because the resultant reduction in volume units means each contains more heat energy than would otherwise be so, thus increasing the temperature. In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression at a pressure of 1 ton/sqft, so the increased energy per unit volume due to this raises the temperature significantly above what it would otherwise be. This is then conducted back to the surface under the second law causing temperature rise and increased IR Emission until the ATE is reached at equilibrium. That the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. Internal energy is not involved in any case, just Insolation and the negative work performed by gravity in acheiving the particular state of autocompression involved. This heating of gas bodies by autocompression can reach extreme levels - maybe even billions of degrees if they have sufficient mass - leading to star formation. It is the Kelvin Helmholtz Effect, but because our atmosphere is of comparitively negligible volume the ATE we safely witness is simply because it is a minor example.
21-01-2021 17:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote: That's not right. Pete, it would be helpful if you were to specify what you are claiming is not right. Are you claiming the Ideal Gas law is somehow wrong? Pete Rogers wrote: Every body of gas is inevitably increased in temperature ... ... unless it is decreased in temperature ... or its temperature remains the same. Pete Rogers wrote: In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression ... I have yet to find anyone except tmiddles who somehow disagrees with this understanding in any way. Pete Rogers wrote: This is then conducted back to the surface under the second law Your error lies here. Your understanding is mistaken; you have it backwards. You are claiming that thermal energy is flowing from the atmosphere into the earth's solid surface. It's the other way around. Thermal energy from the earth's solid surface is flowing into the atmosphere via conduction and thermal radiation ... and as Into the Night likes to emphasize, convection is certainly a factor at play in distributing that thermal energy (I just group it under conduction for simplicity). Now what you are saying is not entirely untrue because in redistributing the thermal energy wealth, there is a certain amount of thermal energy flowing from the atmosphere into solid surface and into the hydrosphere on the nighttime side. The atmosphere has the effect of reducing the difference between the daytime and nighttime temperatures with the average planetary temperature remaining the same. This is where you should be thinking 2nd law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: until the ATE is reached at equilibrium. There is no such "ATE" that you have either shown or demonstrated. You have simply asserted it. This "effect" you are claiming remains completely unsupported. Why should any rational adult believe in the existence of this "ATE" you are claiming? Pete Rogers wrote: That the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. Well that's a mouthful that needs to be unpacked. The Ideal Gas law specifies a relationship of certain parameters and therefore predicts how those parameters will change given changes in the other parameters. It cannot predict any future absolute temperature without knowing the current absolute temperature, ... and with respect to Venus, you do not know that absolute temperature. We do not know the temperature on any point of Venus' surface right now to any usable accuracy. Only scientifically illiterate morons like tmiddles believe that Venus' surface is one uniform temperature, at all elevations and on both the daytime and nighttime sides. Pete Rogers wrote: Internal energy is not involved in any case, What is "internal energy"? I'm familiar with other forms of energy but not that one. Pete Rogers wrote: ... just Insolation and the negative work performed by gravity in acheiving the particular state of autocompression involved. Sadly, you have returned to that moronic concept of "negative work." There is no such thing as "negative work" or "antiwork." There is an Antwerp, however and a Negaunee, Michigan. Is that what you mean? . 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
21-01-2021 20:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Pete, First of all IBD is here to waste your time you should know that by now. The Troll formula on here is to lure intelligent debate into degenerating into arguing with the obvious. Pete Rogers wrote:...In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression at a pressure of 1 ton/sqft, so the increased energy per unit volume due to this raises the temperature significantly above what it would otherwise be....the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. Can't this be calculated for Earth too? I don't see how this would happen. My understanding is this: Scenario 1: You have a volume of gas at a temperature, you then compress that gas and the temperature increases. Scenario 2: You have a volume of gas at a given temperature, it remains at the same compression it was before, there is no increase in temperature. Ideal Gas law is: PV=nRT V and/or P, volume/Pressure, must CHANGE in order for T, temperature to change. We don't have a change. As the atmosphere of Earth is "compressed" past tense, there is no "change" so the temperature would not be evevated. Wrong? If you put a oxygen tank under high pressure in a bath tub and a 2nd oxygen tank that is spent, they reach the same temperature internally right? Even though one of them is under high pressure. Pete Rogers wrote:...the negative work performed by gravity... Again I don't see any "work" being done. Nothing is "being compressed" when there is no "change" in conditions. Gravity does no work at all, never does, not for a Cuckoo Clock, a catapult or anything else. "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

21-01-2021 21:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote: Pete, First of all IBD is here to waste your time you should know that by now. Pete, tmiddles' only objective is to disrupt conversations with confusing disinformation. You should know this by now. tmiddles wrote: Can't this be calculated for Earth too? Either. The correct word is "either" as in no, this cannot be calculated for the earth either. tmiddles wrote: As the atmosphere of Earth is "compressed" past tense, there is no "change" so the temperature would not be evevated. Why are you suddenly such a stickler for proper tense now that the subject has changed away from accounting for Greenhouse Effect's additional energy that increases the temperature? . 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
22-01-2021 02:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Pete Rogers wrote: That's not right. Every body of gas is inevitably increased in temperature according to its state of compression because the resultant reduction in volume units means each contains more heat energy than would otherwise be so, thus increasing the temperature. Heat is not energy. There is no additional compression of the global atmosphere. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression No such word. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: at a pressure of 1 ton/sqft, so the increased energy per unit volume due to this raises the temperature significantly above what it would otherwise be. Nope. You are denying the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: This is then conducted back to the surface under the second law The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: causing temperature rise and increased IR Emission until the ATE is reached at equilibrium. There is no sequence. You cannot suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Stefan Boltzmann law for even a moment. Pete Rogers wrote: That the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. Denial of the ideal gas law. The pressure of the Venusian atmosphere isn't changing either. You can't create mass out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: Internal energy is not involved in any case, just Insolation and the negative work performed by gravity in acheiving the particular state of autocompression involved. Buzzword fallacy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. The emissivity of Venus and Earth are unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: This heating of gas bodies by autocompression can reach extreme levels - maybe even billions of degrees if they have sufficient mass - leading to star formation. It is the Kelvin Helmholtz Effect, but because our atmosphere is of comparitively negligible volume the ATE we safely witness is simply because it is a minor example. Not what lights up a Sun. The Sun isn't a ball of fire. You cannot create energy out of nothing. 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
22-01-2021 02:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Pete, First of all IBD is here to waste your time you should know that by now. The Troll formula on here is to lure intelligent debate into degenerating into arguing with the obvious. Trolling. tmiddles wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:...In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression at a pressure of 1 ton/sqft, so the increased energy per unit volume due to this raises the temperature significantly above what it would otherwise be....the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. Can't this be calculated for Earth too? No. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Static pressure does not increase temperature. tmiddles wrote: I don't see how this would happen. My understanding is this: Scenario 1: You have a volume of gas at a temperature, you then compress that gas and the temperature increases. Scenario 2: You have a volume of gas at a given temperature, it remains at the same compression it was before, there is no increase in temperature. Ideal Gas law is: PV=nRT V and/or P, volume/Pressure, must CHANGE in order for T, temperature to change. We don't have a change. You are correct here. tmiddles wrote: As the atmosphere of Earth is "compressed" past tense, there is no "change" so the temperature would not be evevated. Again, you are correct here. tmiddles wrote: If you put a oxygen tank under high pressure in a bath tub and a 2nd oxygen tank that is spent, they reach the same temperature internally right? Even though one of them is under high pressure. Again, you are correct here. tmiddles wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:...the negative work performed by gravity... Again I don't see any "work" being done. Nothing is "being compressed" when there is no "change" in conditions. Gravity does no work at all, never does, not for a Cuckoo Clock, a catapult or anything else. Again, you are correct here. Gravity is not energy. Therefore it is not work either. 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
22-01-2021 14:53
MasterRogg ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Global warming is a long-term increase in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, occurring for more than a century, the main cause of which is human activity.The Earth converts the energy of the visible sunlight falling on it into infrared radiation coming from the Earth into space. Greenhouse gases complicate this process, partially absorbing infrared radiation and keeping the energy going into space in the atmosphere. By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, humanity further increases the absorption of infrared waves in the atmosphere, which leads to an increase in temperature near the Earth's surface. All the information is in Wikipedia.. Edited on 22-01-2021 14:54
22-01-2021 15:03
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Do you know the average temperature of the planet Earth?
22-01-2021 16:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Into the Night wrote:Again, you are correct here. Gravity is not energy. Therefore it is not work either. Correct. Gravity is not work; it is a force, which is one of the components of work/energy. Energy = Work = ForceDistance We know that no gas compresses itself. For a gas to become compressed, work will need to be performed. A cloud of gas in space with no energy applied will drift apart and dissipate. When the gravity of a planet compresses gas into an atmosphere, it becomes exactly like fitting a crossbow. Initial work is performed by the force of gravity over the "distance" of compression just as work is performed to draw back the prod to fit a quarrel. This work/energy then becomes potential energy relative to the contact force of the solid surface or of the lock. Work is definitely performed to compress the gas ... initially ... and it became potential energy. If the earth's gravity were to somehow cease, the atmosphere would springboard off the planet out into space like an airplane cabin decompressing at high altitude or like a crossbow being fired. . 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
23-01-2021 00:46
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am surprised you let MasterRogg go through to the keeper.MasterRogg that is the theory we are on this site querying the validity of the theory.It has been proven to me that a cooler atmosphere can not change the temperature of a warmer surface.The ice is not melting the sea has not risen and the PH of the ocean is not changing.Its been 50 years all this stuff should of happened and it has not so have a good think about it
23-01-2021 03:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	duncan61 wrote: It has been proven to me that a cooler atmosphere can not change the temperature of a warmer surface. Duncan, a cooler atmosphere most certainly changes the temperature of a warmer surface, i.e. it cools it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics stipulates that a cooler atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. duncan61 wrote: The ice is not melting Ice is always melting. Ice is always forming. As long as there is the same quantity of water on the earth's surface and the earth's distance from the sun remains the same, the earth is going to have the same amount of ice. It's distribution, however, is constantly changing. The problem is the Marxist agenda being carried out in the form of providing play-by-play running commentary of all ice that is melting while never mentioning word-one of any of the equivalent amount of ice that is forming. It resembles US election coverage. duncan61 wrote: ... the sea has not risen and the PH of the ocean is not changing. You need to include the word "perceptibly." We don't know if the sea level has risen or lowered but if it has done either, the amount of change is neither measurable nor perceptible. I suspect that the natural geological forces that generated our solidly alkaline ocean are still cranking away, pushing the ocean to be more and more alkaline ... just at an obviously imperceptible rate. . 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
23-01-2021 05:15
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I agree.I should of inserted to the amount that is being claimed. Hudson Bay ice conditions this year appear to be shaping up to be as good or better than last year for polar bears yet specialist researchers and their cheerleaders have still been claiming that bears in this region – Western and Southern Hudson Bay – are doomed because of poor ice conditions. It's no wonder they still haven't published the data they've been collecting on polar bear body condition and cub survival over the last 15 years or so (Crockford 2020). With most field work cancelled for this year, what's their excuse for not getting that done? Compare the above, from the Canadian Ice Service, to the first week in May 2020 below, where the thick ice is much more prominent than last year in the northwest quadrant. A massive polar vortex over eastern North America forecasted for this weekend is likely to thicken up the ice in the south (over James Bay) in short order:
23-01-2021 05:34
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I agree.I should of inserted to the amount that is being claimed. Hudson Bay ice conditions this year appear to be shaping up to be as good or better than last year for polar bears yet specialist researchers and their cheerleaders have still been claiming that bears in this region – Western and Southern Hudson Bay – are doomed because of poor ice conditions. It's no wonder they still haven't published the data they've been collecting on polar bear body condition and cub survival over the last 15 years or so (Crockford 2020). With most field work cancelled for this year, what's their excuse for not getting that done? Compare the above, from the Canadian Ice Service, to the first week in May 2020 below, where the thick ice is much more prominent than last year in the northwest quadrant. A massive polar vortex over eastern North America forecasted for this weekend is likely to thicken up the ice in the south (over James Bay) in short order: You need to eat more salad. Salad is good. Yet you would say it's "green" and you don't like "green". Understood. With the Hudson Bay, it is cold because of the Labrador Current coming from the Arctic. It is why the Gulf of Mexico is warm. It is fed by the Guyana Current coming from the equator. Salad is good. It promotes good health and an appreciation for life. And tomatoes with bacon, cheese and lettuce is also good. Just call it a BLT w/C.

23-01-2021 10:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Do you know the average temperature of the planet Earth? Do you know the average temperature of anything? Seriously. Anything at all. ?
23-01-2021 11:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: Do you know the average temperature of the planet Earth? Do you know the average temperature of anything? Seriously. Anything at all. I think we can all see how dishonest you are for intentionally omitting all mention of error margin. @Duncan, tell tgoebbles that you know the temperature every time you take one to within your accepted margin of error ... Then ask him why he would ever presume otherwise. . 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
23-01-2021 14:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote: Do you know the average temperature of the planet Earth? Do you know the average temperature of anything? Seriously. Anything at all. Its a rhetorical question.The theory is something we do not know the temperature of is warmer than something else we do not know the temperature of.The whole warming planet theory is falling in a big hole and I will live long enough to see the end of it.I Like the way you put it back on me.Some websites claim its around 14.4.C some say its as high as 15.7.C can anyone claim what it is with any certainty then say its changing. duncan61
23-01-2021 15:24
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:Again, you are correct here. Gravity is not energy. Therefore it is not work either. IBdaMann wroteCorrect. Gravity is not work; it is a force, which is one of the components of work/energy. Energy = Work = ForceDistance That is correct as far as it goes, but there is something missing - if you will pardon the expression - in that the atmosphere, being a body of gas and therefore compressible, is reduced in size according to its own weight acting upon it. The process is called autocompression. The weight at the Earth's surface produces a compressive force of 1 ton per sqft - being our atmospheric pressure. The mass of the atmosphere is not changed by this autocompression so neither is the heat content, but the heat content per cuft is quite another matter because there are less cuft. To illustrate; just suppose a gas autocompresses to half its original volume due to gravity acting upon it, pulling it all towards the centre, the heat content per unit volume would then double and so would the temperature and no external compressive force is involved or need be. IBdaMannwroteWe know that no gas compresses itself. All bodies of gas autocompress due to their own weight and the maximum autocompression occurs at the closest point to centre of gravity, which is where the temperature enhancement is therefore greatest. IBdaMann wrote* For a gas to become compressed, work will need to be performed. That is not correct. Every single gas body - like any other form of matter - has mass and therefore Gravity thus giving it weight causing autocompression; moreso towards the centre of gravity than at any other point because the column of gas is tallest there so the autocompression greatest. This is negative work from the point of view of the gas body whose expansion would be positive work. Here is an academic statement explaining this. "When you compress a material, you are storing a potential energy in that material. Work is negative because the potential energy you're storing in the material is positive. Otherwise, you wouldn't have conservation of energy. KEinitial + PEinitial + Work(other) = KEfinal + PEfinal [Conservation of mechanical energy]" Excuse me for observing to such effect, but you appear to have overlooked the fact that our very own atmospheric pressure is itself simply due to gravity acting on it producing its weight, not any external energy. IBdaMann wroteA cloud of gas in space with no energy applied will drift apart and dissipate. When the gravity of a planet compresses gas into an atmosphere, it becomes exactly like fitting a crossbow. Initial work is performed by the force of gravity over the "distance" of compression just as work is performed to draw back the prod to fit a quarrel. This work/energy then becomes potential energy relative to the contact force of the solid surface or of the lock. Here is the crux of the matter. Every cloud of gas has some mass and therefore gravity and therefore weight so; provided there are no stronger external forces acting upon it to do so: it will not dissipate and it will be warmer in the centre getting cooler as you move away towards the edge. Things get very interesting when it comes to large gas bodies where the mass though initially widely spread is nevertheless immense, so its gravity very considerable. The autocompression of the body becomes more extreme in relation to how large the body is that with no other force at work besides its own gravity the temperature is rocketed to millions if not billions of degrees without any external energy becoming involved and it is at these extreme levels that we get Star Formation. This is known as the Kelvin Helmholtz Effect. I hope you can appreciate therefore that it is simply because our atmosphere is negligible on this scale that; even given the assistance of Gravity from the solid/liquid Earth in addition to its own small amount: this effect is minor, producing no more than our modest ATE - Galactically speaking. IBdaMann wroteWork is definitely performed to compress the gas ... initially ... and it became potential energy. Gravity is responsible for the compression - which is negative work IBdaMann wroteIf the earth's gravity were to somehow cease, the atmosphere would springboard off the planet out into space like an airplane cabin decompressing at high altitude or like a crossbow being fired. If Earth's Gravity ceases that's true and both Earth and Atmosphere would be attracted by the gravity of other celestial bodies
23-01-2021 15:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote:... the atmosphere, being a body of gas and therefore compressible, is reduced in size according to its own weight acting upon it. Your term autocompression is erroneous. Don't use it. It will only lead you astray and leave you confused. The atmosphere's weight is the force of gravity acting on its mass. Gravity is doing the acting on the atmosphere's matter in one direction and the solid and liquid surface's contact force is providing the equal force in the opposite direction. These are the forces compressing the atmosphere on a planet. You are guilty of inventing forces that do not exist and then of introducing them into your model. In your scenario, gravity and the solid surface's contact force are the forces driving the compression of the atmosphere, not the atmosphere deciding on its own to compress outside of other forces. Pete Rogers wrote: The process is called autocompression. Nope. There is no such thing. Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the heat content per cuft is quite another matter By heat content do you mean thermal energy? I hope so, otherwise you need to unambiguously define what you mean. In other news ... big deal. You are still referring to the initial moments of the atmosphere's formation. The thermal energy of that fleeting disequilibrium radiated away long ago and now the planet is in equilibrium with the atmosphere compressed as it is. . 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 Edited on 23-01-2021 16:08
23-01-2021 17:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote:Do you know the average temperature of anything? Its a rhetorical question..... you put it back on me.. You have said you can't figure out the temperature of a room you are in Duncan. And: gfm7175 wrote: I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... So if you are claiming Nasa can't figure out the temperature of Earth at ground level, yet you belive it cannot be known (because no temperature can be known) then it's a dishonest question. duncan61 wrote:Some websites claim its around 14.4.C some say its as high as 15.7 Not sure where you are getting that info. The analysis of AGW focuses on the change in temp with a margin of error claimed to be +/- 0.05C. GISS results...uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, "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 Edited on 23-01-2021 17:22
23-01-2021 17:50
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:... the atmosphere, being a body of gas and therefore compressible, is reduced in size according to its own weight acting upon it. IBdaMannwroteYour term autocompression is erroneous. Don't use it. It will only lead you astray and leave you confused. The atmosphere's weight is the force of gravity acting on its mass. The term is correct and perfectly adequate as it is simply employed semantically to distinguish the process whereby gas bodies are compressed due to force of their own weight acting upon them - without the need for external energy sources - from the very compression caused by the action of external energy sources. IBdaMann wroteGravity is doing the acting on the atmosphere's matter in one direction and the solid and liquid surface's contact force is providing the equal force in the opposite direction. These are the forces compressing the atmosphere on a planet. Yes, thank you, that is correct and a perfect description of autocompression there being no external energy sources involved in compressing the atmosphere of a planet IBdaMannwroteYou are guilty of inventing forces that do not exist and then of introducing them into your model. In your scenario, gravity and the solid surface's contact force are the forces driving the compression of the atmosphere, not the atmosphere deciding on its own to compress outside of other forces. The only force I used was gravity and I don't believe I am guilty of inventing that. In my scenario the much larger planetary gravity is added to the small amount due to the mass of the atmosphere itself. There is no deciding. Gravity is and as it is it does is all. Pete Rogers wrote: The process is called autocompression. IBdaMann wroteNope. There is no such thing. Please see my earlier comment Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the heat content per cuft is quite another matter IBdaMann wroteBy heat content do you mean thermal energy? I hope so, otherwise you need to unambiguously define what you mean. Of course. IBdaMann wroteIn other news ... big deal. You are still referring to the initial moments of the atmosphere's formation. The thermal energy of that fleeting disequilibrium radiated away long ago and now the planet is in equilibrium with the atmosphere compressed as it is. No, that is a crux misunderstanding. I am describing the components of a continuous energy flow process ending up with the ATE we currently experience. Continuous net insolation heats the planetary surface and transfers energy into the atmosphere at the base, but due to the volume lost to compression (autocompression according to my definition of it) the energy continuously occupies a lesser volume than it otherwise would causing thermal enhancement so that - being now at the higher temperature it transfers back to the surface causing increased IR emission until equilibrium is reached at the ATE level.
23-01-2021 18:48
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	tmiddles wrote: Pete, First of all IBD is here to waste your time you should know that by now. The Troll formula on here is to lure intelligent debate into degenerating into arguing with the obvious. [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:...In the case of the Earth the volume reduction at the surface is accomplished by Gravitational Autocompression at a pressure of 1 ton/sqft, so the increased energy per unit volume due to this raises the temperature significantly above what it would otherwise be....the Venutian atmosphere is nearly 100 times the weight of ours pecisely predicts its 737K surface temperature according to the Gas Law. TMiddles wroteCan't this be calculated for Earth too? I don't see how this would happen. My understanding is this: Scenario 1: You have a volume of gas at a temperature, you then compress that gas and the temperature increases. Scenario 2: You have a volume of gas at a given temperature, it remains at the same compression it was before, there is no increase in temperature. Ideal Gas law is: PV=nRT V and/or P, volume/Pressure, must CHANGE in order for T, temperature to change. We don't have a change. As the atmosphere of Earth is "compressed" past tense, there is no "change" so the temperature would not be evevated. Wrong? This is the information I am basing my comment on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jdPQ9aGbY Let me know if this is sufficient clarification for your question. It would help IBdaMann also; at the very least to the extent that the reason for using the term "autocompression" is made clearer than I can manage to convey. It is employed of the atmosphere by mining engineers. tmiddles wroteIf you put a oxygen tank under high pressure in a bath tub and a 2nd oxygen tank that is spent, they reach the same temperature internally right? Even though one of them is under high pressure. That's because both tanks have surroundings into which heat will be lost to bring them to ambient levels. The atmosphere is adiabatic, though, meaning that heat cannot be conducted beyond its limits because unlike the tanks it has no surroundings to transfer anything into, there is just vacuum. The only way the atmosphere can lose heat; therefore: is by transferring it back to the planetary surface causing warming followed by an increase in IR emission until a new equilibrium temperature is reached at the ATE level. This is the result of a continuous process. Whilst not the greatest allegory otherwise, suppose we compare the application of gravity to the narrowing of a river. Once it is narrowed the speed of the water will rise and remain permanently at the new rate. Once gravity applies to reduce the volume of the atmosphere by a given amount the heat energy will always be concentrated to the same higher level per M3. Pete Rogers wrote:...the negative work performed by gravity... tmiddles wroteAgain I don't see any "work" being done. Nothing is "being compressed" when there is no "change" in conditions. Gravity does no work at all, never does, not for a Cuckoo Clock, a catapult or anything else. The force of gravity applies continuously so the atmosphere is in a continual state of reduced volume. This means that the heat energy that enters must occupy a smaller space than would otherwise be the case so the heat energy per unit volume is greater than if the atmosphere was not under such high pressure, thus compression causes this temperature increase that transfers back to the surface. "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
23-01-2021 19:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMannwroteWe know that no gas compresses itself. All bodies of gas autocompress due to their own weight and the maximum autocompression occurs at the closest point to centre of gravity, which is where the temperature enhancement is therefore greatest. No matter autocompresses. There is no such thing. There are forces of nature which act on matter and you don't get to invent forces that do not exist without developing the science for it. You are describing the initial temperature increase of compressing a gas under the Ideal Gas law. The gas subsequently cools. You are trying to create a mystical magical force, i.e. ATE, that somehow prevents the gas from cooling after its initial compression. Your ATE becomes a heat source, creating energy out of nothing, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. The bottom line is that there is no ATE maintaining any planet's artificially increased average temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote For a gas to become compressed, work will need to be performed. That is not correct. It is absolutely correct. No gas compresses itself. ... or perhaps you would like to show me to be mistaken. Explain to me a way I can compress a gas without performing any work. You are free to incorporate gravity all you wish, but you need to explain how any compression due to gravity achieved its potential energy without any work being performed. Pete Rogers wrote: This is negative work You are inventing negative energy here. According to existing science, there is no such thing. There is only energy, not any anti-energy or negative energy. You are certainly welcome to develop new groundbreaking negative energy science which might very well garner you a Nobel Prize in physics if you aren't a conservative ... but you absolutely need to develop the science first. Pete Rogers wrote: Here is an academic statement explaining this. "When you compress a material, you are storing a potential energy in that material. I totally buy this ... and it has nothing to do with the new science you need to develop. Pete Rogers wrote:Work is negative because the potential energy you're storing in the material is positive. This statement will remain total gibberish until you develop the science to which this will apply. Pete Rogers wrote: Otherwise, you wouldn't have conservation of energy. Your ATE's magical creation of energy violates the law of conservation of energy, i.e. the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Here is the crux of the matter. Every cloud of gas has some mass and therefore gravity and therefore weight You just equated absolute values of mass with relative values of weight. That's an error. All arguments based on this error are dismissed. I have a certain fixed amount of mass no matter where I am in the universe (and what my velocity happens to be at the given moment). However, I have countless weights relative to the countless other bodies in the universe. You screwed the pooch the moment you conflated those concepts. Pete Rogers wrote: Things get very interesting when it comes to large gas bodies ... which the earth is not. Pete Rogers wrote:where the mass though initially widely spread is nevertheless immense, so its gravity very considerable. Yes, this is how stars form. It's how Jupiter and Uranus formed, for example. [caveot: this is my belief; I did not personally witness the forming of any celestial bodies] Pete Rogers wrote:This is known as the Kelvin Helmholtz Effect. I hope you can appreciate therefore that it is simply because our atmosphere is negligible on this scale that; No, no and no. The Kelvin-Hemholz effect is simply a shear that occurs within a fluid at the point/line/plane of differing velocities. This does not occur within the solid earth (crust) as it rotates because it is solid but in the mantle and the core the molten fluid is rotating at differing velocities and experiencing "shear" at points the differing velocities come into contact. The sun has a fluid core that is teeming with differing velocities and hence shearing fields and hence Kelvin-Hemholz effect. Our atmosphere has lots of wind. Hence, our atmosphere has substantial Kelvin-Hemholz effect. Often we can observe/visualize this effect in clouds. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteWork is definitely performed to compress the gas ... initially ... and it became potential energy. Gravity is responsible for the compression - which is negative work Gravity and the planet's contact force together are responsible for the compression. You are on tap to provide your new science that defines this strange concept of negative work. . 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
23-01-2021 20:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMannwroteYour term autocompression is erroneous. Don't use it. It will only lead you astray and leave you confused. The atmosphere's weight is the force of gravity acting on its mass. The term is correct and perfectly adequate as it is simply employed semantically to distinguish the process whereby gas bodies are compressed due to force of their own weight acting upon them Nope. It is erroneous because you are employing the term as a magical force (a "cause") that miraculously creates energy out of nothing (the "effect") which you call the ATE. Everyone should expect you to use terminology as you see fit and you should expect everyone to simply dismiss your arguments if you are using your "autocompression," "negative work" and "atmospheric thermal effect." I can assure you that I have already dismissed your arguments; they violate the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, your ATE is isomorphic to Greenhouse Effect, you just claim that gravity somehow magially creates energy out of nothing instead of CO2 magically creating the energy that increases the planet's temperature. Pete Rogers wrote:The only force I used was gravity Yes, and gravity cannot create energy out of nothing any more than CO2 can. Pete Rogers wrote: Gravity is and as it is it does is all. I'm still trying to figure this out. Pete Rogers wrote: I am describing the components of a continuous energy flow process I'm glad we agree on what you are saying. Gravity cannot create any such continuous energy flow process. Pete Rogers wrote:... ending up with the ATE we currently experience. We don't experience any ATE. You are claiming that your ATE is the "experienced" effect as opposed to the standard warmizombie wording of it being the "observed" effect. Unfortunately fictitious effects are only imagined/deluded, not actually observed/experienced. . 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
23-01-2021 20:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote: The force of gravity applies continuously so the atmosphere is in a continual state of reduced volume. Irrelevant. When the atmosphere originally compressed and it's temperature increased above the planet's equilibrium temperature, the planet began radiating at a higher power per Stefan-Boltzmann, rapidly cooling and returning to the planet's original equilibrium temperature, now with a denser atmosphere. The planet does not somehow maintain any increased temperature higher than its previous equilibrium temperature, so it is erroneous to invent some "effect" that purports to accomplish non-existant increased temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: This means that the heat energy ... Again, I presume you mean "thermal energy" but just don't know enough to actually use the correct terms. 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
23-01-2021 21:11
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote:Do you know the average temperature of anything? Its a rhetorical question..... you put it back on me.. You have said you can't figure out the temperature of a room you are in Duncan. And: gfm7175 wrote: I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... So if you are claiming Nasa can't figure out the temperature of Earth at ground level, yet you belive it cannot be known (because no temperature can be known) then it's a dishonest question. duncan61 wrote:Some websites claim its around 14.4.C some say its as high as 15.7 Not sure where you are getting that info. The analysis of AGW focuses on the change in temp with a margin of error claimed to be +/- 0.05C. GISS results...uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, "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 I have never heard of a dishonest question before.What is the global average temperature? duncan61
23-01-2021 22:01
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMannwroteWe know that no gas compresses itself. All bodies of gas autocompress due to their own weight and the maximum autocompression occurs at the closest point to centre of gravity, which is where the temperature enhancement is therefore greatest. IBdaMann wroteNo matter autocompresses. There is no such thing. There are forces of nature which act on matter and you don't get to invent forces that do not exist without developing the science for it. All gases Autocompress; without exception: and nothing else does except some liquids, but only ever so slightly. Gas alone is truly elastic. IBdaMan wroteYou are describing the initial temperature increase of compressing a gas under the Ideal Gas law. The gas subsequently cools. Its a flow system in the first place; so the heat transfer is continuous like the compressive enhancement and the increased IR levels to maintain the equilibrium temp at ATE level: and in any case the atmosphere is adiabatic so it can only cool by conduction back to the Earth, so the stability of ATE levels must remain - unless you believe the Earth cools in the same way you are suggesting the atmosphere must. IBdaMann wroteYou are trying to create a mystical magical force, i.e. ATE, that somehow prevents the gas from cooling after its initial compression. Your ATE becomes a heat source, creating energy out of nothing, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. The bottom line is that there is no ATE maintaining any planet's artificially increased average temperature. The only force involved is Gravity which reduces the volume of the atmosphere increasing the thermal energy per unit volume - because there are less of them than otherwise - do keep up. Energy is created from the Negative work of Compression, that's the heat source and it's not nothing as you suppose. You are violating the Law of Conservation of energy by trying to eliminate the effect of compression on heat, or so it seems. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote For a gas to become compressed, work will need to be performed. That is not correct. IBdaMann wroteIt is absolutely correct. No gas compresses itself. You already said that without gravity the atmosphere would fly away - unless it was ITTN - in which case gravity compresses it. IBdaMann wrote... or perhaps you would like to show me to be mistaken. Explain to me a way I can compress a gas without performing any work. You are free to incorporate gravity all you wish, but you need to explain how any compression due to gravity achieved its potential energy without any work being performed. Sure, with pleasure, its all about the direction. When a gas body expands and cools work is accomplished from its point of view - so to speak - but when it is compressed and heats (positive energy) that is by Negative work, otherwise you can't account for it, because as you correctly said "You can't create energy fom nothing" so this is the something. Pete Rogers wrote: This is negative work IBdeMann wroteYou are inventing negative energy here. According to existing science, there is no such thing. There is only energy, not any anti-energy or negative energy. You are certainly welcome to develop new groundbreaking negative energy science which might very well garner you a Nobel Prize in physics if you aren't a conservative ... but you absolutely need to develop the science first. Please see the preceding point. Expansion/Cooling is positive work from the point of view of the gas and Compression/Heating is negative work. The rest of what you say (about anti-energy/negative energy) has no relevance here. Pete Rogers wrote: Here is an academic statement explaining this. "When you compress a material, you are storing a potential energy in that material. I totally buy this ... and it has nothing to do with the new science you need to develop . Pete Rogers wrote:Work is negative because the potential energy you're storing in the material is positive. IBdaMann wrote]This statement will remain total gibberish until you develop the science to which this will apply. That is just the second part of the same Academic Statement the first part of which you justm said you "totally buy". it is no creation of mine, but the established science. Pete Rogers wrote: Otherwise, you wouldn't have conservation of energy. IBda Mann wroteYour ATE's magical creation of energy violates the law of conservation of energy, i.e. the 1st law of thermodynamics. That is incorrect the 1st Law would be violated if the energy didn't come from the Negative Work accomplished by gravity compressing the Atmosphere; ipso facto it does. Pete Rogers wrote: Here is the crux of the matter. Every cloud of gas has some mass and therefore gravity and therefore weight IBdaMann wroteYou just equated absolute values of mass with relative values of weight. That's an error. All arguments based on this error are dismissed. It is not an error because of course I didn't equate them - who would? I am pointing out that gravity gives weight to the mass of the gas and that it is that weight which compresses it. IBdaMann wroteI have a certain fixed amount of mass no matter where I am in the universe (and what my velocity happens to be at the given moment). However, I have countless weights relative to the countless other bodies in the universe. You screwed the pooch the moment you conflated those concepts. See the preceding comment then you will see that this is the thing that is gibberish Pete Rogers wrote: Things get very interesting when it comes to large gas bodies IBdaMann wrote... which the earth is not. Absolutely not, but it's the atmosphere alone that is being compared as a relatively small gas body. The earth just provides most of the Gravitational force that compresses it causing the ATE as a minor example of Kelvin Helmholtz Pete Rogers wrote:where the mass though initially widely spread is nevertheless immense, so its gravity very considerable. IBdaMann wroteYes, this is how stars form. It's how Jupiter and Uranus formed, for example. So you do believe Kelvin-Helmhotz is star ceation - what is that other stuff further down denying the truth of it about in that case? [caveot: this is my belief; I did not personally witness the forming of any celestial bodies] Pete Rogers wrote:This is known as the Kelvin Helmholtz Effect. I hope you can appreciate therefore that it is simply because our atmosphere is negligible on this scale that; IBdaMann wroteNo, no and no. The Kelvin-Hemholz effect is simply a shear that occurs within a fluid at the point/line/plane of differing velocities. This does not occur within the solid earth (crust) as it rotates because it is solid but in the mantle and the core the molten fluid is rotating at differing velocities and experiencing "shear" at points the differing velocities come into contact. The sun has a fluid core that is teeming with differing velocities and hence shearing fields and hence Kelvin-Hemholz effect. No, no ,no! not that effect. Its the one Astronomers call the Kelvin Helmholtz Contraction which is how Stars form, have another look. It was mentioned on the link from the MiningEngineer/Astronomer sent in reply to tmiddles In any case ypou just conceded this point earlier though please note that Jupiter etc. are not stars. IBdaMann wroteOur atmosphere has lots of wind. Hence, our atmosphere has substantial Kelvin-Hemholz effect. Often we can observe/visualize this effect in clouds. This has nothing to do with the Kelvin Helmhotz Contraction effect, which explains the ATE. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteWork is definitely performed to compress the gas ... initially ... and it became potential energy. Gravity is responsible for the compression - which is negative work IBdaMannwroteGravity and the planet's contact force together are responsible for the compression. You are on tap to provide your new science that defines this strange concept of negative work. That's exactly what I'm saying: that gravity compressing the atmosphere causes the ATE. If you think "Negative Work" is a new concept and that I am somehow involved in inventing it then you are way off beam, it's decades old if not more. I already provided you with the text from the text book giving the definition and reasons for the use of the term.
23-01-2021 22:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	duncan61 wrote:I have never heard of a dishonest question before.What is the global average temperature? Duncan, tgoebbles is dishonest. He will ask ambiguous goalpost-shifting questions all day and will refuse to answer straightforward questions that get to the heart of his arguments. You would be fully in your right to heed your urge to ignore him. These are some other clarification questions he flatly refuses to answer despite having based arguments on these premises: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] You'll notice that I stupidly address/answer his questions thoroughly while he remains intellectually dishonest. I should ignore him more than I do. . 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
23-01-2021 23:14
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	I am a bit late to this party and trying to get caught up. I'm a tad confused. Is Pete claiming...in a nutshell...that gravity is compressing gas, thereby heating said gas?....BUT, then claiming increased temperature remains constant because gravity/compression remain constant?

23-01-2021 23:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Pete Rogers wrote:All gases Autocompress; without exception: No matter compresses itself; without exception. Pete Rogers wrote: Its a flow system in the first place; No matter is a flow. Matter is matter. Pete Rogers wrote:... and in any case the atmosphere is adiabatic so it can only cool by conduction back to the Earth, Irrelevant, no and no. The atmosphere is warmed by the surface, not the other way around. The (daytime) atmosphere is warmed by the surface via thermal radiation and conduction (which includes convection). Pete Rogers wrote: ... so the stability of ATE levels There is no ATE that you have demonstrated, much less any ATE "levels." Pete Rogers wrote: When a gas body expands and cools work is accomplished from its point of view - so to speak If you are claiming work is accomplished, i.e. Work = Force * Distance then ... 1) what is the Force 2) what is the Distance Pete Rogers wrote: - but when it is compressed and heats (positive energy) that is by Negative work, Dismissed. There is no such thing. Pete Rogers wrote:Please see the preceding point. Please read my dismissal of your point and my accompanying rationale. Pete Rogers wrote: The rest of what you say (about anti-energy/negative energy) has no relevance here. You just tipped your king. Pete Rogers wrote:That is just the second part of the same Academic Statement the first part of which you justm said you "totally buy". it is no creation of mine, but the established science. You have presented no science and no, violations of physics do not constitute "established science." Pete Rogers wrote:That is incorrect the 1st Law would be violated if the energy didn't come from the Negative Work accomplished by gravity compressing the Atmosphere; ipso facto it does. There is no "would." Your ATE does, in fact, violate the laws of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote:It is not an error because of course I didn't equate them - who would? I am pointing out that gravity gives weight to the mass of the gas and that it is that weight which compresses it. Nope. Weight alone will only cause it to fall. You need an opposing contact force (the surface) to compress. No matter how many times I point this out to you, you insist on omitting the contact force. Pete Rogers wrote:See the preceding comment then you will see that this is the thing that is gibberish See my dismissal of your point and my accompanying rationale. Pete Rogers wrote: So you do believe Kelvin-Helmhotz is star creation - Perhaps I should have been clearer. Gravity causes sufficiently large gas clouds to form planets and stars whereby the gas itself provides its own contact force. We were talking about gravity and gas. Pete Rogers wrote: No, no ,no! not that effect. Its the one Astronomers call the Kelvin Helmholtz Contraction which is how Stars form, have another look. I am very familiar with Kelvin-Helmholtz and it's a shear effect in fluids where there are differing velocities. Look it up. Astronomers, for the most part (numerically), acknowledge the formation of stars and gas planets through a process of gravity pulling sufficiently large gas clouds together. However there are some Christian astronomers who operate off a different model, one of God having created the stars and gas planets as they are in their present form. I was simply stating my belief in the gravity process without declaring that any other beliefs are necessarily wrong or unscientific. Pete Rogers wrote: please note that Jupiter etc. are not stars. Please note that Jupiter etc ... are large balls of hydrogen gas, exactly as are stars, that are pulled together by gravity, exactly as are stars. ... or they were created by the Christian God in their present form, exactly as were stars. Pete Rogers wrote: This has nothing to do with the Kelvin Helmhotz Contraction effect, It is exactly the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect. I recommend you learn about it so you don't confuse it for gravity as you seemingly do. Pete Rogers wrote: ... which explains the ATE. Again, you have explained no science that supports your ATE which presently violates the laws of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying: that gravity compressing the atmosphere causes the ATE. I have already covered this exhaustively. Yes, you are claiming that gravity, and not CO2, is the cause of the Greenhouse Effect which you are instead naming the Atmospheric Thermal Effect, which is entirely fictitious and violates the laws of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: If you think "Negative Work" is a new concept and that I am somehow involved in inventing it then you are way off beam, Actually I am watching you use this fabricated fiction right before my very eyes. I'm reading your posts in which you preach the concept. You have not presented any science that supports your apparent violation of thermodynamics. Let me know when something changes. . 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
23-01-2021 23:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	GasGuzzler wrote: I am a bit late to this party and trying to get caught up. I'm a tad confused. Is Pete claiming...in a nutshell...that gravity is compressing gas, thereby heating said gas?....BUT, then claiming increased temperature remains constant because gravity/compression remain constant? Yes. You are very astute. You have correctly assessed the situation. The planet never cools from any initial increase in pressure because ... well, ... because it's a flow process ... and ... negative work ... established science ... Pete, feel free to jump in if I have omitted anything. . 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
23-01-2021 23:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:What is the global average temperature? 14 C. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php#mean Why do you ask? In asking the question: "is it getting warmer" the importance is on the change and not the total: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201407 So any discussion of AGW talks about the change, not the total. Don't like that? Well I hope you manage anyway. In talking about what we would expect of Earth without an atmosphere and other questions the total is interesting. I'm not sure what the right margin of error would be on the 14C total, that is an interesting question. As you can see above the NOAA claims a +/-0.13C for July 2014(the anomoly). Also why won't you answer my question: What is something you, Duncan, believe the average temperature can be determined for? A bowl of soup maybe? It's a dishonest question to ask for an answer when you believe, fundamentally, it's not possible to every answer that type of question. So for you asking: "What is the temperature of _____?" is dishonest if you believe temperature cannot be known. The honest question would be "How can temperature be know?" or "Isn't it true temperature is unknowable because ____?" "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 Edited on 23-01-2021 23:59
24-01-2021 00:12
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: I am a bit late to this party and trying to get caught up. I'm a tad confused. Is Pete claiming...in a nutshell...that gravity is compressing gas, thereby heating said gas?....BUT, then claiming increased temperature remains constant because gravity/compression remain constant? Yes. You are very astute. You have correctly assessed the situation. The planet never cools from any initial increase in pressure because ... well, ... because it's a flow process ... and ... negative work ... established science ... Pete, feel free to jump in if I have omitted anything. . My initial thought would be, hell no the compressed gas cannot remain at the elevated temperature level. If I run the compressor in my garage, the air temp will rise in the compressor. After it cycles off and sits, the air is still compressed, but the temp will arrive at equilibrium with it's surrounding via conduction. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 24-01-2021 00:57
24-01-2021 01:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	MasterRogg wrote: Global warming is a long-term increase in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, Circular definition. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. You can't define any word or phrase with an undefined word or phrase. Define 'global warming'. MasterRogg wrote: occurring for more than a century, Why this time frame? Why not millenia? Why not each year? Why not each hour? Why not each second? What makes a moment 100 years ago and now significant? What makes any other two moment NOT significant? MasterRogg wrote: the main cause of which is human activity. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentatlism). MasterRogg wrote: The Earth converts the energy of the visible sunlight falling on it into infrared radiation Earth does not change the frequency of light. MasterRogg wrote: coming from the Earth into space. Absorbing visible light does not convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical energy, such as photosynthesis or how eyesight works. MasterRogg wrote: Greenhouse gases complicate this process, Define 'greenhouse gas'. Buzzword fallacy. MasterRogg wrote: partially absorbing infrared radiation and keeping the energy going into space Nope. You can't trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MasterRogg wrote: in the atmosphere. So the upper atmosphere is made colder as a consequence? Nope. You cannot reduce entropy in any system. You are also ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. MasterRogg wrote: By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, humanity further increases the absorption of infrared waves in the atmosphere, which leads to an increase in temperature near the Earth's surface. Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. MasterRogg wrote: All the information is in Wikipedia.. Wikipedia summarily dismissed on sight. You cannot use it as a reference here. They do not define 'global warming' either. Define 'global warming'. 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 Edited on 24-01-2021 01:14
24-01-2021 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: Do you know the average temperature of the planet Earth? Do you know the average temperature of anything? Seriously. Anything at all. ? Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as 'average 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
24-01-2021 01:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote:Do you know the average temperature of anything? Its a rhetorical question..... you put it back on me.. You have said you can't figure out the temperature of a room you are in Duncan. And: gfm7175 wrote: I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... So if you are claiming Nasa can't figure out the temperature of Earth at ground level, yet you belive it cannot be known (because no temperature can be known) then it's a dishonest question. duncan61 wrote:Some websites claim its around 14.4.C some say its as high as 15.7 Not sure where you are getting that info. The analysis of AGW focuses on the change in temp with a margin of error claimed to be +/- 0.05C. GISS results...uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, Math error: Failure to declare and justify variance. Random number used as margin of error value. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. 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
24-01-2021 01:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:... the atmosphere, being a body of gas and therefore compressible, is reduced in size according to its own weight acting upon it. IBdaMannwroteYour term autocompression is erroneous. Don't use it. It will only lead you astray and leave you confused. The atmosphere's weight is the force of gravity acting on its mass. The term is correct and perfectly adequate as it is simply employed semantically to distinguish the process whereby gas bodies are compressed due to force of their own weight acting upon them - without the need for external energy sources - from the very compression caused by the action of external energy sources. IBdaMann wroteGravity is doing the acting on the atmosphere's matter in one direction and the solid and liquid surface's contact force is providing the equal force in the opposite direction. These are the forces compressing the atmosphere on a planet. Yes, thank you, that is correct and a perfect description of autocompression there being no external energy sources involved in compressing the atmosphere of a planet IBdaMannwroteYou are guilty of inventing forces that do not exist and then of introducing them into your model. In your scenario, gravity and the solid surface's contact force are the forces driving the compression of the atmosphere, not the atmosphere deciding on its own to compress outside of other forces. The only force I used was gravity and I don't believe I am guilty of inventing that. In my scenario the much larger planetary gravity is added to the small amount due to the mass of the atmosphere itself. There is no deciding. Gravity is and as it is it does is all. Pete Rogers wrote: The process is called autocompression. IBdaMann wroteNope. There is no such thing. Please see my earlier comment Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the heat content per cuft is quite another matter IBdaMann wroteBy heat content do you mean thermal energy? I hope so, otherwise you need to unambiguously define what you mean. Of course. IBdaMann wroteIn other news ... big deal. You are still referring to the initial moments of the atmosphere's formation. The thermal energy of that fleeting disequilibrium radiated away long ago and now the planet is in equilibrium with the atmosphere compressed as it is. No, that is a crux misunderstanding. I am describing the components of a continuous energy flow process ending up with the ATE we currently experience. Continuous net insolation heats the planetary surface and transfers energy into the atmosphere at the base, but due to the volume lost to compression (autocompression according to my definition of it) the energy continuously occupies a lesser volume than it otherwise would causing thermal enhancement so that - being now at the higher temperature it transfers back to the surface causing increased IR emission until equilibrium is reached at the ATE level. Gravity is not energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of statistical mathematics. Buzzword fallacies. 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
24-01-2021 01:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMannwroteWe know that no gas compresses itself. All bodies of gas autocompress due to their own weight and the maximum autocompression occurs at the closest point to centre of gravity, which is where the temperature enhancement is therefore greatest. IBdaMann wroteNo matter autocompresses. There is no such thing. There are forces of nature which act on matter and you don't get to invent forces that do not exist without developing the science for it. All gases Autocompress; without exception: and nothing else does except some liquids, but only ever so slightly. Gas alone is truly elastic. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'autocompression'. 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
24-01-2021 01:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	GasGuzzler wrote: I am a bit late to this party and trying to get caught up. I'm a tad confused. Is Pete claiming...in a nutshell...that gravity is compressing gas, thereby heating said gas?....BUT, then claiming increased temperature remains constant because gravity/compression remain constant? You're caught up. Pete violates the ideal gas law, then turns around and hides behind it. 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

Page 10 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