Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 13 of 25<<<1112131415>>>
27-01-2021 20:50
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere


IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

OK, if that's your game, how's this. It's an extract from a textbook used to educate students at MIT.

It is called "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" and this is from Thermodynamics Chapter 3 and it reads as follows

"In defining work, we focus on the effects that the system has on its surroundings. Thus we define work as being positive when the system does work on the surroundings (energy leaves the system as with expansion). If work is done on the system (energy added to the system as with compression), the work is negative."

If you think that "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" is a theological tract teaching "WACKY" religious ideas I think we can see your problem and easily conclude that reading your stuff is a waste of time.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

Indeed I have been informed of this repeatedly, but the problem is that the person doing the informing has been you; so you will appreciate from the immediately preceding comments that paying it any attention would be foolish - so I don't. You even give it as your considered opinion that I am the one responsible for the idea of negative work, how stupid is that? I already said gravity compresses the atmosphere, so what's new? Incidentally gas bodies that are not atmospheres are also compressed - by their own gravity - without the need for solid surfaces.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Nobody is looking for converts just people who know how what to read and how to discriminate between that which is knowledge and that which is dumb opinion. I simply look for people who understand and follow the principles of epistemology, which indubitably doesn't include you.
27-01-2021 21:01
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.
Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.


So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?
27-01-2021 23:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2482)
Swan wrote:
So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth?

Are you saying that it does? The atmosphere is already a part of Earth; it is not an external source of energy.
28-01-2021 01:19
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere


IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

OK, if that's your game, how's this. It's an extract from a textbook used to educate students at MIT.

It is called "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" and this is from Thermodynamics Chapter 3 and it reads as follows

"In defining work, we focus on the effects that the system has on its surroundings. Thus we define work as being positive when the system does work on the surroundings (energy leaves the system as with expansion). If work is done on the system (energy added to the system as with compression), the work is negative."

If you think that "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" is a theological tract teaching "WACKY" religious ideas I think we can see your problem and easily conclude that reading your stuff is a waste of time.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

Indeed I have been informed of this repeatedly, but the problem is that the person doing the informing has been you; so you will appreciate from the immediately preceding comments that paying it any attention would be foolish - so I don't. You even give it as your considered opinion that I am the one responsible for the idea of negative work, how stupid is that? I already said gravity compresses the atmosphere, so what's new? Incidentally gas bodies that are not atmospheres are also compressed - by their own gravity - without the need for solid surfaces.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Nobody is looking for converts just people who know how what to read and how to discriminate between that which is knowledge and that which is dumb opinion. I simply look for people who understand and follow the principles of epistemology, which indubitably doesn't include you.



In "here", you'll learn to be more focused. Their main goal is to disorient and confuse. In reality, there is no negative or positive work in a system. There is merely work.
Myself, I would say that water vapor in our atmosphere is in a negative state because it's boiling point is 100º C yet will become vapor above 0º C. This is because momentum is being transferred to it from other more excited molecules. In this instance, momentum will dictate thermodynamics.
They have discussed that compressed air reaches an equilibrium with the shop it is in. It does. It's tank will radiate heat according to what black body radiation allows for. And when the compressed air leaves the nozzle it is cold. It is. It's absorbing heat as it expands so it can reach an equilibrium with its environment.
28-01-2021 17:42
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?


28-01-2021 19:24
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE
28-01-2021 23:44
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Hmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?


29-01-2021 00:15
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space
29-01-2021 00:59
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space


My point is why doesn't the air pressure equalize with its surroundings?


29-01-2021 01:19
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space


My point is why doesn't the air pressure equalize with its surroundings?


I explained that, the answer is that there is no air pressure to equalize at the edge of space. On top of that air is composed of elements that have weight that is held in place by gravity. Yes even Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon have weight.
29-01-2021 01:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work has compressed the atmosphere


IBdaMann wroteThe next time you wonder why your argument, in its entirety, is summarily dismissed, look no further than your inclusion of WACKY religious terms that don't exist in physics.

OK, if that's your game, how's this. It's an extract from a textbook used to educate students at MIT.

It is called "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" and this is from Thermodynamics Chapter 3 and it reads as follows

"In defining work, we focus on the effects that the system has on its surroundings. Thus we define work as being positive when the system does work on the surroundings (energy leaves the system as with expansion). If work is done on the system (energy added to the system as with compression), the work is negative."

If you think that "UNIFIED ENGINEERING" is a theological tract teaching "WACKY" religious ideas I think we can see your problem and easily conclude that reading your stuff is a waste of time.

IBdaNMann wroteYou have been informed repeatedly that the atmosphere is compressed by gravity and surface contact force, yet you insist that some mystical religious force of your own invention is the cause.

Indeed I have been informed of this repeatedly, but the problem is that the person doing the informing has been you; so you will appreciate from the immediately preceding comments that paying it any attention would be foolish - so I don't. You even give it as your considered opinion that I am the one responsible for the idea of negative work, how stupid is that? I already said gravity compresses the atmosphere, so what's new? Incidentally gas bodies that are not atmospheres are also compressed - by their own gravity - without the need for solid surfaces.

IBdaMannwrote Let me know how many converts you get.

Nobody is looking for converts just people who know how what to read and how to discriminate between that which is knowledge and that which is dumb opinion. I simply look for people who understand and follow the principles of epistemology, which indubitably doesn't include you.

Science is not a textbook, magazine, paper, or brochure.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

False authority fallacy.


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
29-01-2021 01:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.
Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.


So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


Even space rocks have an atmosphere.


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
29-01-2021 01:50
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.
Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.


So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


Even space rocks have an atmosphere.


What does the atmosphere of space rocks in outer space consist of?
29-01-2021 01:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?


The same thing that keeps Earth in orbit around the Sun and the Moon in orbit around the Earth. Gravity.


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
29-01-2021 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Gravity is not energy. There is no such thing as ATE. Buzzword fallacy.


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
29-01-2021 01:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?


If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Because air at the upper atmospheric limits has basically no pressure at all so there is no pressure pushing the air into space. Also the vacuum of space does not exert any sucking force on the atmosphere at all as you believe

Neat to know is that most released Hydrogen is so light that it actually escapes into space


My point is why doesn't the air pressure equalize with its surroundings?

It does. Air is a fluid. It will take on the shape of its container.


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
29-01-2021 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10053)
Spongy Iris wrote:Hmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

I'll answer that for you.

"curvature of space-time" = gravity. Einstein expressed gravity as a curvature of space-time as defined in his theory of General Relativity.

Basically, mass causes space-time to curve which causes mass to accelerate towards it, i.e. gravitational attraction between two bodies.

Example: Imagine the space-time continuum is a soft mattress. You place a small ball on the mattress and it causes a small depression in the mattress. You then lay down in the center of the mattress causing a large depression in the mattress and the ball accelerates towards you. The surface of the mattress is the space-time that is curved by mass and Einstein's Relativity is comprised simply of the calculus/analytic geometry of those types of equations ... and they magically calculate gravity. Voila!

... and gravity holds the atmosphere onto the planet, or as Einstein would say were he alive, that the planet curves space-time and causes the atmosphere to accelerate towards it.

.


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
29-01-2021 16:05
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.
29-01-2021 16:09
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Pete Rogers wrote:

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.



This is actually wrong. When I get bored, I'll send an email to a local meteorologist. The original experiment this is based on can be reproduced.
But am doubtful many people know what that is.
29-01-2021 20:38
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Hmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

I'll answer that for you.

"curvature of space-time" = gravity. Einstein expressed gravity as a curvature of space-time as defined in his theory of General Relativity.

Basically, mass causes space-time to curve which causes mass to accelerate towards it, i.e. gravitational attraction between two bodies.

Example: Imagine the space-time continuum is a soft mattress. You place a small ball on the mattress and it causes a small depression in the mattress. You then lay down in the center of the mattress causing a large depression in the mattress and the ball accelerates towards you. The surface of the mattress is the space-time that is curved by mass and Einstein's Relativity is comprised simply of the calculus/analytic geometry of those types of equations ... and they magically calculate gravity. Voila!

... and gravity holds the atmosphere onto the planet, or as Einstein would say were he alive, that the planet curves space-time and causes the atmosphere to accelerate towards it.

.


So space and time is like a mattress?


29-01-2021 20:41
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


29-01-2021 20:47
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this
29-01-2021 20:49
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this


How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?


29-01-2021 21:07
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this


How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?



Maybe it's a flow of energy that is not heat? I have yet to read where scientists understand what gravity is. They however are aware that it is an effect that can be quantified.
If you consider that magnetism is the result of polarization, what if gravity is a similar effect? That the "gravitational field" that we are in is a form of polarized energy. Since it has a velocity of 9.81 m/s, this is 1/30,559,883.588175331 the speed of light. Or 1/30.6 millionth the speed of light.
This could actually give us a frequency and mass to consider. That shows a relative effect that it has on matter within the Earth's gravitational field. And on a positive note, I found out that my calculator also has i on it. That represents imaginary numbers. And in math, they do serve a function/purpose. Isn't Math fun?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6dMFF_yts
The video kind of reminds me of this forum.
29-01-2021 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10053)
Spongy Iris wrote:So space and time is like a mattress?

Yes, space-time is like a mattress, if similes may be employed.




.


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
29-01-2021 21:37
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:So space and time is like a mattress?

Yes, space-time is like a mattress, if similes may be employed.




.



Don't you wish.
29-01-2021 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10053)
Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.


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
29-01-2021 22:14
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.



To be scientific about your post, what is "attraction" based on? A poorly grounded electrical line will create an attractive force. This electrocutes people. When I was a kid, a father at a swimming pool with his kids was electrocuted in this manor.
Was he pulled or pushed towards the faulty ground? Maybe he moved within the field? It's potential ended his life. How do we quantify how a field interacts with mass?
With Einstein, his father's company made electrical generators, with me, am aware that electrical fields like gravity can influence their environment. Kind of why I don't care for mind games.
29-01-2021 22:54
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.


A different explanation is there are streams of unseen force impacting all material objects from all directions.

According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging forces, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of forces on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together.

No net directional force

The theory posits that gravity force pushes in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force.

Two bodies "attract" each other

With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the force that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by less force than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by less force from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces. Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies.


29-01-2021 23:10
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Spongy Iris wrote:

Two bodies "attract" each other




Gravity is an attractive force. All matter has gravity. As Einstein said, everything is relative.
29-01-2021 23:12
Jessica
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1
29-01-2021 23:52
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1


To allow for a clickable link, highlight it and then click on url below the dialogue box.
There is actually one innovation that will improve the current situation. Electricity like the Gulf Stream is a current. It's all relevant. Just ask Einstein.
29-01-2021 23:56
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2482)
Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1

No. I am not interested in your spam scam.
29-01-2021 23:58
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Jessica wrote:
A simple way to change the course of this world is by investing in green technology.
I saw this fund me page and its worth looking at it.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zhhq4-green-technology?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1


p.s., because you "seem" to be female,;
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute — and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity."

You should read my recent posts before responding. I happen to like Einstein and am aware of the history that he lived in. At the same time, this suggests that he was a guy typical of any other male.
If you are Ismail, sadly you're a fraud. D@mn sad. You're from Holland and appear to be a fraud.
Edited on 30-01-2021 00:04
30-01-2021 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.

Denial of the ideal gas law. It has already been explained to you. 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
Edited on 30-01-2021 00:06
30-01-2021 00:07
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(571)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this


How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?


Gravity does not push from above it always pulls toward the center of mass. If you are traveling away from the center of mass it pulls you back toward the center as a resisting force, if you are traveling toward the center of mass it still pulls you to the center of mass as an attractive force.

Yawn
30-01-2021 00:27
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(760)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?

If space is a vacuum, and it is infinitely more vast than earth, why doesn't all of our air get sucked out into space as if it is almost nothing?

Gravity of course! Large interstellar gas bodies don't even succumb. In fact their own Gravity can be so strong as to Thermally enhance a body by the billions? of degrees required for Star formation. It is the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction, of which our own Atmosphere's example is so small as to result in nothing more than the ATE


Spongy Iris wroteHmmm... Can you please help me understand what "curvature of space-time" means and how it forces air to stay close to the ground?

Sure, Gravity is what gives weight to mass. In the case of the Atmosphere that weight is 14.6 lb on each sq inch at the base, or 1 ton per sq ft. Gravity pulls the atmosphere inwards towards the centre compressing and therefore warming it. Always has always will - unless you know different; in which case, please explain.


So gravity is the earth pulling on us? Hmm... I don't feel any suction from the ground...


Yes gravity is pulling on you, when you ride a bike up a steep hill it is tougher than going downhill, this is because of the pull of gravity.

Not sure how an adult could not know this


How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?


Gravity does not push from above it always pulls toward the center of mass. If you are traveling away from the center of mass it pulls you back toward the center as a resisting force, if you are traveling toward the center of mass it still pulls you to the center of mass as an attractive force.

Yawn


Do you know this, or would you like to clarify it is your belief?


30-01-2021 00:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16189)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.



To be scientific about your post, what is "attraction" based on? A poorly grounded electrical line will create an attractive force. This electrocutes people. When I was a kid, a father at a swimming pool with his kids was electrocuted in this manor.
Was he pulled or pushed towards the faulty ground? Maybe he moved within the field? It's potential ended his life. How do we quantify how a field interacts with mass?
With Einstein, his father's company made electrical generators, with me, am aware that electrical fields like gravity can influence their environment. Kind of why I don't care for mind games.


A poorly grounded electrical system (or one with no ground at all!) is not an attractive force. It is just some AC voltage above ground. Birds happily sit on wires with 7.2kv on them, and even as high as 800kv. They're fine. They are not electrocuted because they are not touching the ground or any other wire at the same time.

Ground rods driven deep into the ground, as required at any service entrance (except auxillary entrances, where they are not allowed), is not a perfect conductor, since the Earth itself is not a perfect conductor. There is always some voltage on the neutral wire in a biphase or single phase service.

Most power poles today distribute 3 phase primaries, each 7.2kv above ground. At each house, a transformer converts this locally to biphase or single phase service. The grounding rod establishes the 'neutral' potential at each service. That neutral line is effectively the center tap of the output winding on that transformer for biphase service, or one end of the winding (doesn't matter which) on single phase service.

Power poles that distribute biphase or single phase over distance have a grounding rod at the transformer on the power pole feeding these secondary lines. Another one is required at each service entrance, however, to minimize voltage drop on the neutral line in such systems.

To see which system you have, go to the nearest power poll and look a the highest wires. If there are three, that is 3 phase distribution. If you have two, that is biphase distribution (typically used for larger neighborhoods as local distribution). If you have one, that is single phase distribution (typically used on individual streets stemming from a nearby 3 phase system).

Single phase and biphase distribution typically only serves a dozen houses or so.

Many neighborhoods have underground power distribution (those big green boxes are the transformers). Primary lines are brought underground on cables specially made to handle the 7.2kv AND burial. These are usually at least three feet deep (minimum varies in places, but is never less than 2 feet deep). These conduits have a tape laid over them, about a foot down or so, colored red and have HIGH VOLTAGE written on them. They are there to warn some guy with a backhoe or shovel that he is digging into the power line.

Gas lines use a similar tape, but colored yellow, and labelled GAS LINE.

There are, of course, a few exceptions, but this is the code requirement today.

Call 811 before digging. It could save your life and thousands of dollars worth of damage.

In contrast, the 'professional cable installation' idiots at places like Comcast will bury their line less than an inch below the surface, or even just leave it lying on the ground or draped through the bushes. Pretty lame idiots.


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
30-01-2021 00:51
James___
★★★★★
(5166)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: How do you know gravity is not pushing on you from above?

It's not a matter of "knowing"... it's a question of belief. Why would anyone believe that gravity pushes from above when no one has ever been able to demonstrate " pushing from above" and thus show the existing science model of gravitational attraction to be false?


.



To be scientific about your post, what is "attraction" based on? A poorly grounded electrical line will create an attractive force. This electrocutes people. When I was a kid, a father at a swimming pool with his kids was electrocuted in this manor.
Was he pulled or pushed towards the faulty ground? Maybe he moved within the field? It's potential ended his life. How do we quantify how a field interacts with mass?
With Einstein, his father's company made electrical generators, with me, am aware that electrical fields like gravity can influence their environment. Kind of why I don't care for mind games.


A poorly grounded electrical system (or one with no ground at all!) is not an attractive force. It is just some AC voltage above ground. Birds happily sit on wires with 7.2kv on them, and even as high as 800kv. They're fine. They are not electrocuted because they are not touching the ground or any other wire at the same time.




In the Navy, they teach this. During a GQ (General Quarters) for training purposes, they once had someone grab something to simulate being electrocuted.
Some said I could have broken the guy's arm when I used both of mine to break his grip. The instructor said yes, I could have broken his arm. And if he was being electrocuted I would have saved both of us.
No one being electrocuted is saved by someone grabbing a hold of them. Just as with CO2, they become another victim. If someone is lying on a floor, if it's because of CO2, then a breathing apparatus is needed to save them. Just basic garbage. You can't save someone from dying if you die.
If you don't live, neither do they.
30-01-2021 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10053)
Spongy Iris wrote: A different explanation is there are streams of unseen force impacting all material objects from all directions.

According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging forces, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of forces on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together.

This model is immediately rejected by science under Occam's Razor. This model does not add any understanding to, or build upon, the existing model of gravity. It is just more complicated, therefore it is discarded.

Spongy Iris wrote: No net directional force

The theory posits that gravity force pushes in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force.

This doesn't make sense. Why would there be only an inward pressure? Doesn't "throughout the universe" include all isolated bodies? According to this model, all bodies should have an equivalent amount of outward directed pressure as well.

In the end, this model fails to explain the gravitational attraction of two bodies.

Spongy Iris wrote:Two bodies "attract" each other

With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the force that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by less force than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by less force from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces. Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies.

This model suffers from the same fatal flaw as the previous "No net directional force."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 13 of 25<<<1112131415>>>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact