Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 11

Page 11 of 26

24-01-2021 01:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:What is the global average temperature? 14 C. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php#mean Argument from randU fallacy. Quoting a random number is not a global temperature. There is no such thing as 'average temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of statistical mathematics. False authority fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Why do you ask? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: 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. Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: 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). Argument from randU. Math errors: Use of random number as margin of error, failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to use raw data. Failure to select by randN. tmiddles wrote: 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? Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. tmiddles wrote: 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. No question is a lie. Are you still beating your wife? tmiddles wrote: 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 ____?" RQAA. This question has already been answered multiple times by multiple people. Stop asking the same question over and over. 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 01:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: 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. Bingo. A full tank of CO2, at 3000psi, is the same temperature as room temperature. If you let it out, the gas at the nozzle is cooled to well below freezing due to the pressure drop it undergoes. The same thing happens when you use the air you have compressed. If you paint with it, for example, the air as it leaves the tank cools in the same way (not as far). Any humidity in the air that was in the tank condenses out and appears as water droplets in your paint. That's why we use driers, filters, and water traps on air compressors used for painting. You can actually feel this. If air is flowing for some time through an air hose, the hose will be quite cool to the touch (cooler than the surrounding environment). The pressure in that hose is lower than the pressure in the tank. 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 02:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: 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. Bingo. A full tank of CO2, at 3000psi, is the same temperature as room temperature. If you let it out, the gas at the nozzle is cooled to well below freezing due to the pressure drop it undergoes. The same thing happens when you use the air you have compressed. If you paint with it, for example, the air as it leaves the tank cools in the same way (not as far). Any humidity in the air that was in the tank condenses out and appears as water droplets in your paint. That's why we use driers, filters, and water traps on air compressors used for painting. You can actually feel this. If air is flowing for some time through an air hose, the hose will be quite cool to the touch (cooler than the surrounding environment). The pressure in that hose is lower than the pressure in the tank. That's because when a gas is pressurized, it seeks an equilibrium with it's environment. And a tank can allow for heat to pass through it. The reason the gas is cool when it comes out of the nozzle is because it's absorbing heat. This allows it to seek an equilibrium with the gasses outside of the tank. Those gasses have more kinetic energy.
24-01-2021 02:44
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: 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 NASA was founded on 1 October 1958, United States.The charts go back to 1901.who measured the global average sea temperature in 1901. duncan61
24-01-2021 02:52
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Introduction What is a range of uncertainty? Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. Because of this, NCEI provides values that describe the range of this uncertainty, or simply "range", of each month's, season's or year's global temperature anomaly. These values are provided as plus/minus values. For example, a month's temperature anomaly may be reported as "0.54°C above the 20th Century average, plus or minus 0.08°C." This may be written in shorthand as "+0.54°C +/- 0.08°C." Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval". I am reading make it up.

24-01-2021 03:00
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming
24-01-2021 03:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:I am reading make it up. Duncan, humanity does not have the means to measure the earth's average temperature to any usable margin of error. You are entirely correct that anyone can assign a temperature value to the earth but your confidence level will be extremely low that the value you have received is even within 40°C either way. The bottom line is that a statistically valid datset that would render a global average temperature to within +/- 20°C would require .... ... are you ready for this? 1) hundreds of millions of ... (account for geographical temperature variance) 2) evenly spaced ... (eliminate location bias) 3) synchronized ... (eliminate time bias) 4) ... and calibrated thermometers (reduce equipment/measurement error) 5) at ground level, and at one mile elevation, and at two miles elevation, and at three miles elevation ... all the way up to about twenty-five miles (or more depending on your chosen margin of error) ... 6) at sea level, and at one mile depth, and at two miles depth, and at three miles depth ... all the way down to about five miles. Marxists like tgoebbles will tell you that the earth's average global temperature is "what we know" and that valid datasets are simply not required. Marxists will point to the literally thousands of city-clustered and unsynchronized temperature readings that are available to you (if you will gather them all) as to why you shouldn't question the claim that somehow NASA's job became one of gathering weather data (they just manage projects to put things into orbit) and one of telling us the earth's average temperature with perfect precision. . 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
24-01-2021 04:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...who measured the global average sea temperature in 1901. If you'd like to find out basic information look it up. The thermometer has been around since 1714. Duncan: Is it possible to determine the temperature of anything in your view? If you're not going to answer that let me know and I'll stop asking. duncan61 wrote:I am reading make it up. Are they making it up because it's never possible to know the average temperature of anything? How can you say something is defective if you don't have an example of something done right?
24-01-2021 05:00
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am reading make it up. you shouldn't question the claim that somehow NASA's job became one of gathering weather data (they just manage projects to put things into orbit) and one of telling us the earth's average temperature with perfect precision. . NASA's job is not to put satellites in orbit. Famous quote... "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department" says Werner Von Braun https://youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro
24-01-2021 05:18
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Of course you can take a temperature measurement of something.The whole planet in one go is just a bit more complicated than roast beef fresh out the oven.I suspect you are deliberatly trying to steer away from the topic. I am sure there is a word for that I just do not know what it is yet.This is what the debate forum is all about and the good bit is the planet is in better condition now than it was in the 70s.I was here in Australia then and it stunk.If it is warmer and the ice is still forming and the ocean is still teeming with life and we are managing the animals of the planet its all good.Regards Duncan
24-01-2021 06:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html
24-01-2021 06:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. The fact that 80% of Chad's labor force is employed in agriculture might suggest 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
24-01-2021 07:53
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...who measured the global average sea temperature in 1901. If you'd like to find out basic information look it up. The thermometer has been around since 1714. Duncan: Is it possible to determine the temperature of anything in your view? If you're not going to answer that let me know and I'll stop asking. duncan61 wrote:I am reading make it up. Are they making it up because it's never possible to know the average temperature of anything? How can you say something is defective if you don't have an example of something done right? It can not be done and if you read between the lines of their own publications they often point to the fact they are making a lot of assumptions.I have no examples of something that can not be done.There is no example of how to do it right because it can not be done.Where did you get 14.C from?Its 1.C in Oslo and 29.C where I am so the average must be 14.C duncan61
24-01-2021 07:54
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Tomorrow might be 36.C where I am and Oslo 5.C thats a big jump
24-01-2021 07:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html Its called Yahoo.com and we are supposed to believe it as rational adults. duncan61

24-01-2021 11:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Of course you can take a temperature measurement of something.The whole planet in one go is just a bit more complicated than roast beef ... Why do you feel the need to reword my question Duncan? I didnt ask if it's possible to take a temperature measurement but if it's possible to know the average temperature of something. Let's go with roast beef from the time it leave the oven until it is served for dinner? Is it possible to know the average temperature for roast beef for just one hour? What if we have several thermoters stuck in it the whole time as it cools? You do recognize its temperature will be changing and won't be completely uniform right? Is it impossible then? duncan61 wrote: It [measuring the global temperature] can not be done... If you already know that then you're done. But before you go please share with me how you know that.
24-01-2021 13:21
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I wrote a long winded post and was not logged in and lost it so the short version is It is very difficult to measure everywhere at once accurately enough to make predictions and assessments.If you read between the lines on all the government publications it is admitted that they are not conclusive about the method of collecting the data.There is a lot of pressure to show something but showing a cooling is not going to work.Too many embarassed people however eventually time will show it was all alarmism.The sea claim was all based on a 2.3 mm rise in Hong Kong harbour that had no reason so it was fed in to the computer as it was going to happen every year everywhere for ever.It was a probably a Pacific Rim Kaiju for all we know.Polar bears are going great.Again the ice form up was late 3 days and melted 3 days earlier 10 or so years ago so it was fed in the computer that it was going to get 3 days later for ever till in 2030 it would never freeze at all and the bears would die.It froze over earlier this year than in 1980 please explain?
24-01-2021 13:43
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Consider this Tmiddles.CO2 is most likely to stay at around 400ppm and the whole world is doing just fine right now weather wise food production wise temperature wise oceans are literally teeming with life.The coral bleaching events seem to have stopped.Hurricane/Tornado activity seems to be stable or diminishing to tropical storms we have had a pleasant summer this year with only 3 days over 40.C and they were only just over and not consecutively.Is it possible we are making as much extra CO2 as we can its a big atmosphere after all.We are moving in to a renewable age with solar and wind power regardless.
24-01-2021 16:22
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html It's still fire season in California, and will be for another couple months. Although, last few years, seems to never end. Arson seems to be sort of a hobby, in California... They have wildfire burning right now, it's just not headline news, unless a whole town is about to burn, or someone famous, mansion is about to burn.
24-01-2021 16:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html Its called Yahoo.com and we are supposed to believe it as rational adults. Not the only place I've read bout it. As for Oslo and London, there is this. What caused the Norwegian Jet Stream to shift? Maybe a hole in the ozone layer above the arctic? Most likely the cause. But can we trust the British weather people? https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1387812/Heavy-snow-forecast-met-office-weather-warning-long-range-arctic-heavy-snow-maps
24-01-2021 16:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html It's still fire season in California, and will be for another couple months. Although, last few years, seems to never end. Arson seems to be sort of a hobby, in California... They have wildfire burning right now, it's just not headline news, unless a whole town is about to burn, or someone famous, mansion is about to burn. A part of the problem in California is probably because of how depleted their water tables are. I mean people water plants, right? Yet if the plant is in dried out soil, the soil doesn't absorb the water. It will sit on top of it. All that means is the more water they pump out of the ground the drier the soil will get and the less rain it will absorb. This is where resource management could help but that's getting into sustainable environmental practices.
24-01-2021 16:40
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	duncan61 wrote: Consider this Tmiddles.CO2 is most likely to stay at around 400ppm and the whole world is doing just fine right now weather wise food production wise temperature wise oceans are literally teeming with life.The coral bleaching events seem to have stopped.Hurricane/Tornado activity seems to be stable or diminishing to tropical storms we have had a pleasant summer this year with only 3 days over 40.C and they were only just over and not consecutively.Is it possible we are making as much extra CO2 as we can its a big atmosphere after all.We are moving in to a renewable age with solar and wind power regardless. Renewable are trendy, but not sustainable. Solar panels and windmills, require a lot of environmental destruction, to install. They will be requiring heavy maintenance, and replacement, often. They will take up a lot of land, which needs to be kept cleared, and access roads to each, for regular maintenance. It's been costly, for the proof-of-concept' projects. but it'll be devastating to the environment, and the economy.
24-01-2021 17:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote: coral bleaching events seem to have stopped. No corals have ever been bleached. There is no bleach in the ocean. Coral whitening events continue, probably every day, somewhere. All that occurs is corals jettison the zooxanthellae (the algae that give it color) in response to stress. Humans deal with stress in different ways and we survive ... and then things go back to normal, just as corals deal with stress by jettisoning their zooxanthellae and they survive just fine ... until the zooxanthellae return and everything returns to normal. There is no bleach involved nor any caustic chemicals. It is not appropriate to use the word "bleaching" if all that occurred was a whitening. . 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
24-01-2021 20:55
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	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? That's correct. Solar radiation passes through the transparent troposphere with no effect and strikes the planetary surface causing it to warm. Heat energy then transfers from the incompressible surface into the compressed medium of the atmosphere at its base. Please note if its pressure were less the atmosphere would be bigger and the heat energy per unit volume would be less accordingly and therefore the temperature lower, but it is not - so it's higher. So there is pressure-based thermal enhancement in proportion to the degree of the pressure. This enhancement of temperature causes heat energy to transfer back to the surface thus warming it further and raising the IR emission level to acheive the revised equilibrium temperature that we experience. It is a flow system whereby incoming heat energy is continually enhanced by its passage through the compressed medium of the Atmosphere maintaining the ATE
24-01-2021 21:08
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: 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. 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 .
24-01-2021 21:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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 ... . That implies a change from an uncompressed "before" to a compressed "after". Atmospheric pressure on Earth is relatively constant. No change means no work. 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. "causes enhancement of its temperature." you are describing a change from a before to an after state. There is no before and after here. Would you say a scuba divers tank was compressing the gas inside it? No 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. So 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. 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. Again 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. "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
24-01-2021 21:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...It is very difficult to measure everywhere at once accurately enough to make predictions and assessments. It's also difficult to put a human on the moon, build an international air travel system, create a vaccine and immunize a population on billions. Humans do a lot of very difficult things. We have always been obsessed with knowing the weather. 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. If you don't think it is "possible" to measure the average temperature of something, 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. You would still have an answer just with a wider margin of error. You, Duncan, as I tmiddles, don't know how to do that work. Other's do. You might find someone who has calculated a wider margin than claimed by the government. 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. Its simply a way to duck the issue. Note that IBD wouldn't even agree to a +/- 200C margin for Venus because he knew his argument was proven wrong. 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. So the "conspiracy " you seem to belive in already gave up on that. Again they do not show, with their own government measurements, that sea levels have risen more than slightly. "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
24-01-2021 21:48
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	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.
24-01-2021 22:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...It is very difficult to measure everywhere at once accurately enough to make predictions and assessments. It's also difficult to put a human on the moon, build an international air travel system, create a vaccine and immunize a population on billions. You are intentionally conflating things for which humanity has the means to accomplish with things for which humanity does not have the means to accomplish. You are seizing Duncan's mistake of writing "very difficult" instead of "not possible" as an opportunity to confuse and to disrupt the conversation. tgoebbles wrote: You ignored my question about the roast and will probably ignore this bit here goes: You deserve to be ignored and you know this well. In fact, anyone interested in having a productive conversation will ignore you outright. Stupid people like me will respond to you because we can't seem to stop wasting our own time. tgoebbles wrote: Measuring average temperature is always going to produce an answer with a margin of error. ... and dishonest people like you will ALWAYS omit discussion of the required margin of error because to engage in such discussion can only lead to your WACKY religion being revealed for the predatory, manipulative scam that it is. tgoebbles wrote: If you don't think it is "possible" to measure the average temperature of something, 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. You would still have an answer just with a wider margin of error. So you acknowledge that what is needed first is a target margin of error, but yet you flat out refuse to ever establish one while nonetheless proceeding to pretend to discuss "valid" temperature values. You have never been honest on this site. My operating assumption is that you cannot be honest on any site. tgoebbles wrote: You, Duncan, as I tmiddles, don't know how to do that work. Once again, you feel the need to speak for others and to assign to others what they do and do not know. You are probably the only one who doesn't realize how absurd your behavior is. tgoebbles wrote: You might find someone who has calculated a wider margin than claimed by the government. Try learning the difference between calculating a margin of error and establishing a target margin of error ... and when you should be discussing which one. I don't think you have yet gotten this right. tgoebbles 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. Complete and utter gibberish. Duncan can only get dumber by not ignoring your posts completely. How are you expecting Duncan to respond to this statement? It doesn't mean anything other than you haven't the vaguest idea what the ffffk you are talking about. tgoebbles wrote: Note that IBD wouldn't even agree to a +/- 200C margin for Venus because he knew his argument was proven wrong. Just for my edification, exactly what position are you assigning to me? If we were to momentarily abandon the realm of your Jabberwocky gibberish, you are still on tap to establish your target margin of error for Venus' average planetary temperature. Once you do that we can move on to analyzing your dataset that supports your established margin of error. For months we have had to put that discussion on hold but as long as you have brought it up again, I presume you now have established the long-awaited tgoebbles margin of error for Venus' planetary temperature. What is it? tgoebbles wrote: Again they do not show, with their own government measurements, that sea levels have risen more than slightly. They have not shown that sea levels have risen more than zero and have not shown that sea levels have not lowered. Nor have you. One of these days you will get beyond the starting gate wrt Venus. . Attached image:
24-01-2021 22:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote: Averages, are a math function, not measurement. Bingo. Bonus point awarded. HarveyH55 wrote: Most of the time, averages, are pretty meaningless, and don't represent reality very accurately. Precisely. There are exactly zero families with 4.22 members. There is no average coin flip. . Attached image:

24-01-2021 23:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	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.
24-01-2021 23:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Averages, are a math function, not measurement. Bingo. Bonus point awarded. HarveyH55 wrote: Most of the time, averages, are pretty meaningless, and don't represent reality very accurately. Precisely. There are exactly zero families with 4.22 members. There is no average coin flip. . Averages are a math function of measurements. This is why f(x) = Asin(B/2 +/- C) +/- D. For any value of x or (x), the equation = the y value. I've always thought that was pretty much straight forward. Of course a batting average is a function of math. Over the course of a season, it allows people to know who is good at getting hits year after year. With pitchers, there's era, whip, etc. These averages allow players to be evaluated. In football, ypc might show you have a good running back or a good offensive line. Could you tell the difference between a good O-line and a good rb? The Jaguars dropped Fournette who was the #5 pick when he was drafted and then an undrafted rookie (James Robinson) was top 5 in yards from scrimmage. What averages do you like? Edited on 24-01-2021 23:20
25-01-2021 00:15
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	How come the average IQ of Norwegians, is expressed in double-digits? Since you are barely half Norwegian, does that number get divided in half? Averages have absolutely nothing to do with measurement. You can calculate the average of data set, entirely randomly generated. You could roll dice 10 times, and average the results. Doesn't mean you will roll a 3.46 on any of your next 10 rolls of the same dice. You can take the average of 10 dice rolls as many times as you like, but you will rarely get the same number, unless you use Kentucky loaded dice. I took enough mathemagic classes in my younger years, to understand the uses, and limitations. Like any tool, math can be misused, or used poorly.
25-01-2021 00:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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 NASA was founded on 1 October 1958, United States.The charts go back to 1901.who measured the global average sea temperature in 1901. Space Force 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 01:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...who measured the global average sea temperature in 1901. If you'd like to find out basic information look it up. The thermometer has been around since 1714. Duncan: Is it possible to determine the temperature of anything in your view? If you're not going to answer that let me know and I'll stop asking. duncan61 wrote:I am reading make it up. Are they making it up because it's never possible to know the average temperature of anything? How can you say something is defective if you don't have an example of something done right? RQAA. 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 01:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html All that suggests is the incompetence of the SOTC government. 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 01:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: Of course you can take a temperature measurement of something.The whole planet in one go is just a bit more complicated than roast beef ... Why do you feel the need to reword my question Duncan? I didnt ask if it's possible to take a temperature measurement but if it's possible to know the average temperature of something. Let's go with roast beef from the time it leave the oven until it is served for dinner? Is it possible to know the average temperature for roast beef for just one hour? What if we have several thermoters stuck in it the whole time as it cools? You do recognize its temperature will be changing and won't be completely uniform right? Is it impossible then? duncan61 wrote: It [measuring the global temperature] can not be done... If you already know that then you're done. But before you go please share with me how you know that. RQAA. Answer the questions put to you. 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 01:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: It was 1.C in Oslo Norway last week and 1.C in Portsmouth.U.K.good luck selling global warming The amount of land burned in California during the last fire season might suggest otherwise. https://www.yahoo.com/news/atmospheric-river-means-massive-snow-214528114.html It's still fire season in California, and will be for another couple months. Although, last few years, seems to never end. Arson seems to be sort of a hobby, in California... They have wildfire burning right now, it's just not headline news, unless a whole town is about to burn, or someone famous, mansion is about to burn. A part of the problem in California is probably because of how depleted their water tables are. I mean people water plants, right? Yet if the plant is in dried out soil, the soil doesn't absorb the water. It will sit on top of it. All that means is the more water they pump out of the ground the drier the soil will get and the less rain it will absorb. This is where resource management could help but that's getting into sustainable environmental practices. Nope. Just the incompetence of the SOTC government. 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 01:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Pete Rogers 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? That's correct. Solar radiation passes through the transparent troposphere with no effect Nope. Solar radiation causes things like blue scattering (why our skies are blue), causes rainbows and glories, warms the atmosphere a bit, drives our weather (which is largely in the troposphere), and even forms a little ozone out of oxygen (though most of that takes place in the tropopause). Pete Rogers wrote: and strikes the planetary surface causing it to warm. Heat energy Heat is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: then transfers from the incompressible surface into the compressed medium of the atmosphere at its base. Please note if its pressure were less the atmosphere would be bigger WRONG. More mass means higher surface pressure, not lower. Pete Rogers wrote: and the heat energy per unit volume would be less accordingly Heat is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: and therefore the temperature lower, Heat has no temperature. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: but it is not - so it's higher. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: So there is pressure-based thermal enhancement in proportion to the degree of the pressure. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: This enhancement of temperature The temperature of Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: causes heat energy to transfer back to the surface thus warming it further You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: and raising the IR emission level to acheive the revised equilibrium temperature that we experience. There is no sequence. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: It is a flow system whereby incoming heat energy is continually enhanced by its passage through the compressed medium of the Atmosphere maintaining the ATE Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy from a buzzword. 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 01:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: 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. Indeed Gravity is not energy, but the Negative work of compression is. There is no such thing as 'negative work of compression'. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Whilst the total heat energy Heat is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: within the gas body must be conserved Thermal energy in a gas need not be conserved. Gasses warm up and cool down. Thermal energy can be converted into other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic energy, mechanical energy, chemical energy, etc. None of these have a temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: the volume is diminished so the heat energy per M3 is increased by gravity accordingly, Heat is not energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: sending the temperature up. Compressing atmospheres is what Gravity does, so it is responsible for temperature increase . Gravity is not energy. Heat is not energy. The temperature of Earth is unknown. 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 11 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