Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 14

Page 14 of 26

30-01-2021 02:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: 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. Electricity is not a current. Electricity has current, but it is not a current. 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
30-01-2021 20:56
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Swan wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Swan wrote 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. Our ATE is just a minor example is all, due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. 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). Swan wrote 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it per se, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume. For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy. The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Swan Wrote There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Swan wroteThey aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Swan wrote Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Swan wrote A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction Law in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above. 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. Swan wrote 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Swan wrote 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. Of course it's already compressed! That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Swan wrote A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Swan wrote There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Swan wrote But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Swan wrote The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Swan wrote This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Swan wrote 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. 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. Swan wrote 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. Albedo is just the proportion of the insolation reflected back. There is no constant involved, not least because of the inability of any scientist to account for the contribution from cloud cover effect accurately. Swan wrote The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. I have no need to quarrel with that. Swan wrote 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. There was a lot of meddling and distortion with thermometer data; presumably for political reasons: but Satellite measurements seems to offer something a bit better. Swan wrote Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, Every adiabatic gas body in the Universe is in a state of thermal enhancement as the result of the particularity of local gravity. It is the automatic effect of the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. This is so extreme in large gas bodies that their TE reaches those billions? of degrees necessary for Star formation. It is because of the relatively tiny size of our Atmosphere that we only get a modest increase - the inescapable 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. Swan wrote 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. I agree 100% that any atmosphere the moon may have can safely be ignored. It is not necessary to use thermometers to measure the average temperature of the moon, otherwise I accept everything you say here and would add that the average moon temperature would be roughly the same as the Earth's if it had no atmosphere. Swan wrote 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. The slow rotation of the Moon in relation to the Sun means it is vastly cooler on the dark side with zero energy for half a lunar month and vastly warmer on the bright side with full energy for the other half of the lunar month, but the average between the two would be around the same as an Earth lacking an atmosphere. As it is the Earth conducts thermal energy into the atmosphere at its base where the extent of volume lost to compression causes the temperature to rise to an exactly proportional extent. There will be exchanges from atmosphere to surface as that is the only way the atmosphere can lose it's heat - being otherwise bereft of surroundings into which heat can be conducted. Swan wrote 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. The average temperature is estimated and all estimates seem to be fairly close to each other. It is a bit difficult for me to see why this can't be done except by direct measurement as you suggest. Swan wrote 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. I agree with a lot of this. Radiation passes through the Troposphere with little or no effect, being transparent to all but a few "greenhouse" frequencies and turns into thermal energy upon striking the solid/liquid surface and warming it whereupon it is transferred into the atmosphere by conduction at the base. The state of compression at that point determines greater thermal content per cubic foot than if it was not at such high pressure and this causes TE which transfers back to the surface, warming it further so increasing the emission of IR until equilibrium is re-established at what is then the ATE level. Swan wrote 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). That first part is true, except I think I am correct in saying that the transparent gases of the troposphere cannot act as sources of radiation; precisely because of their transparency: which simply passes through them in both directions - from Sun to Earth, and from Earth to Space. Whilst convection, advection etc. may be dramatic for us, for the atmosphere it is simple heat exchange with a zero sum. Rising heat is exactly matched by falling coolness, if I may be forgiven for putting it that way. it is the same thing with advection. Heat transfer into the Troposphere is almost entirely due to conduction at the contact surface and as it continues up it enters a continually reducing state of compression. Swan wrote 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. This continuingly reducing pressure the higher you go means that the state of compression lessens, so the thermal energy per cubic ft is less and the air cooler as a result. The pressure at the Summit of Everest is 4.7 lb/sqin, being about a third of that we experience at sea level and the average temperature is -28C because the relatively uncompressed atmosphere at that level means far less thermal energy per cuft, which is why closest sea level temperatures (Kolcata) are so much higher - around 25C I think - meaning that the atmospheric volume lost to compression at the summit - the thinness of the air - accounts for this difference. Swan wrlote In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less. The thermal energy acquired by conduction to the Stratosphere is low, I agree, but unlike the Troposphere it is not transparent to high energy radiation which it absorbs with the appropriate heating effect. The pressure being below 10kPa means the Stratosphere cannot maintain a thermal gradient due to compression either. If the atmosphere were at a lower pressure the lost volume of it would be less so the incoming thermal energy would be distributed between far more cubic feet than are currently available, so it would be cooler. Accordingly the atmosphere is thermally enhanced. This phenomenon is true of all significant gas bodies and occurs in line with the strength of local gravity. The reason the temperature falls as altitude is gained is that the weight of air above reduces so the extent of compression is less. Pressure at the Summit of Everest is less than a third tof that at sea level making it very cold. This phenomenon of the ATE only applies to atmospheres under a pressure of 10kPa (around 1.4 lb/sq ft) because below this it cannot sustain a temperature gradient - meaning that the rules do not apply. Areas like the stratosphere fall into this category. Swan wrote Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate. It is thermal energy per unit volume Swan wrote 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. These are all zero sum factors and make nothing but transitory differences balanced precisely elsewhere - simultaneous give and take makes the sum of zero - nothing is added to the system. Swan 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? I am saying that the negative work done by gravity in compressing the atmosphere causes the thermal energy to be concentrated in a more confined space inevitably increasing the temperature - the ATE
30-01-2021 21:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote: Proof is not difficult to discover ... It's impossible to learn since you are on tap to provide such and you aren't meeting your requirements. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support it. You don't get to tell people to do your work for you. If you won't support your argument then it is summarily discarded. Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction Nope. You are inventing religious dogma. All bodies, gas or otherwise, are subject to gravity. The Kelvin-Helmholtz effect is a shearing effect in fluids wherever velocities differ. If you are going to assign a spiritual essence to the force of gravity in the same way that Christians apply a spiritual essence to humans through the concept of the human soul or the way warmizombies apply a spiritual essence to the earth through the concept of the global Climate, then you can expect your religion to be understood as the faith-based dogma that it is. Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. The Ideal Gas law is not one of the laws of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, This is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. Nope. The initial temperature increase in the hydrogen cloud that became our sun radiated away long ago. The sun's temperature is a result of the nuclear fusion occurring therein. The hydrogen contains potential energy which is constantly being converted to thermal energy which is converted to thermal radiation. There is no Greenhouse Effect or ATE occurring on the sun. Again, it's all nuclear fusion. 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). Let's unpack this gibberish. 1. You begin by denying Greenhouse Effect and then affirm your belief in it under a different name citing a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. 2. There are more than two points of view on this subject and you don't speak for all of them. In fact, you don't speak for any of them except for yours ... which is totally WACKY and runs counter to physics. 3. The atmosphere does not increase the average global temperature. It merely serves to reduce the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. Daytime temperatures on earth are nowhere near as hot as daytime temperatures on the moon (or on the side of the international space station facing the sun) and nighttime temperatures on earth are nowhere near as cold as nighttime temperatures on the moon. Pete Rogers wrote: I am saying that the negative work done by gravity... This concept of "negative work" is utter gibberish that you refuse to unambiguously define. Until you provide an unambiguous definition, I will presume that by "negative work" you mean this: Dismissed. . 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
31-01-2021 03:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Note: Extensively corrected malformed posts. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Into the Night wrote: 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. Proofs are not discovered. They are formulated. Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. ALL states of matter are elastic. Think about a rubber band. Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. Denial of the Conservation of Energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. There isn't. You are just denying science again. Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, Buzzword fallacy. ATE is a buzzword. Meaningless. Pete Rogers wrote: due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Buzzword fallacy. There is not such thing as 'autocompression'. Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. Not what lights up a star. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: 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). Into the Night wrote: 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it per se, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume. For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy. Pete Rogers wrote: The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no such restriction or model. Pete Rogers wrote: so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, It is perfectly valid to model a planet as a disc as far as exposure to light is concerned. Pete Rogers wrote: so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. Light is not thermal energy. Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Into the Night wrote: There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. Nope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Not the cause of the tropopause. See the Chapman cycle. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Into the Night wrote: They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Sorry dude. You can't just throw out theories of science. You have to falsify them first. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Into the Night wrote: Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. The Kelvin-Heimholtz equation does not describe anything about increasing temperatures. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Into the Night wrote: A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction Law in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: 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. Into the Night wrote: 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'ambient temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermdynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, Misuse of word. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. There is no sequence. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Into the Night wrote: 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. Of course it's already compressed! Then you just denied your own argument. Paradox. You are being irrational. Pete Rogers wrote: That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Argument from randU fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Into the Night wrote: There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Absorption is not reflection or deflection. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Into the Night wrote: But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, CO2 does absorb infrared light. Now you are saying is doesn't?????? Paradox. You are being irrational again. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Into the Night wrote: The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Argument from randU. You are quoting random numbers. False authority fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not data. Science is not a university, government agency, academy, degree, license, consensus, voting bloc, paper, book, magazine, data, religion, or buzzword. Science is not even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Into the Night wrote: This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Never burned myself on a bike tire. Static compression is not dynamics compression. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. False equivalence fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Pete Rogers wrote: Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, Buzzword fallacy. Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Gravity is not light. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Into the Night wrote: 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Albedo doesn't send anything anywhere. Neither does emissivity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. ...deleted remaining nonsense... There is no such thing as 'negative work'. Static compress requires no work. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your post was badly malformed. I went through and extensively corrected this portion and discarded the rest. Please pay attention to your quoting. 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
31-01-2021 16:45
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Jessica Wrote[quote]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[/quote Hi Jessica. If Global Warming was Anthropogenic you would have a good, important point, but it is not since gravity is responsible for the ATE. What we witness is a minor example of a universal phenomenon called Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction by which every adiabatic gas body is thermally enhanced- including our atmosphere: not the "Greenhouse Effect". Please see the opening post of this thread to assess the logic of this argument. If found to be true; and you should discover that it has no flaws: its means that CO2, let alone our 3% of it, plays no role in warming the planet so you would be giving money to people who make their way in the world by spooking the unsuspecting well-intended mainstream then making them feel virtuous for joining what they are told is a chance to save humanity. Pure 24 carat Politics which we fall for every time despite ourselves. The technique is old, in fact it's a game a game called "Flocks and Shepherds" and has been going on since the dawn of history. The flock member; who does not honestly understand how to examine and evaluate the doctrine: simply decides the Shepherd; whose dramatic story is powerful and contagious; is heroically showing them the way to safety. So without much exercise of our grey matter we become morally promoted to part of the team trying to rescue a Planet. The feel good outcome means that if and when more circumspect people come later to tell you it's wrong it's already too late, because they can only be understood as being wicked vandals throwing stones at virtue - the mind is closed and that's a tragedy because open-minded willingness to re-examine a belief on the basis of evidence and the use of reason in doing so are our only means of escape from ideological subjection by the propaganda of the powerful. By all means believe what you wish, but, I beg of you, only do so provided that you can authenticate that belief, otherwise you will be the unwitting creature of anothers psychological design in that regard. Religions are a very good example of how the process works

31-01-2021 17:01
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. James wroteThis is technical in and of itself. Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. It's not that. Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot - because there are so many more of them - so the temperature would be lower, but must be at or above the "No atmosphere" Earth temperature. Accordingly Gravity creates ATE in accordance with its strength. There's no need for all this other stuff - it's not relevant to this point.
31-01-2021 18:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. James wroteThis is technical in and of itself. Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. It's not that. Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot - because there are so many more of them - so the temperature would be lower, but must be at or above the "No atmosphere" Earth temperature. Accordingly Gravity creates ATE in accordance with its strength. There's no need for all this other stuff - it's not relevant to this point. I actually have a science experiment that I've been pursuing. If successful then it would suggest that there is more work occurring in our atmosphere than is currently believed. There are 2 different aspects of climate change that interest me. One is the natural cycle of warming and cooling that is known to happen. The other is how ozone depletion and the presence of ODSs affect our atmosphere. We had (in here) discussed some about no atmosphere vs atmosphere. The Moon's surface can be hotter than it is here on Earth. That's its surface and not the atmosphere. Also the Earth has the Van Allen radiation belts as well as the ozone layer to reduce the amount of solar radiation that enters its atmosphere. And I have tried discussing with these guys about both the tropopause and the mesopause. The tropopause is also referred to as "the barrier". Atmospheric gasses in the troposphere normally do not go up into it. An example is a storm cloud will stop at it. Attached image:
31-01-2021 19:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote: Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot ... but when the earth cools, i.e. lowers in temperature, the atmosphere contracts, compressing in volume. So you claim that a reduction in the atmosphere's temperature results in an increase in the atmosphere's temperature. You make a great point. Brilliant! Genius! I was blind to have not seen it before. . 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
31-01-2021 19:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	James___ wrote: There are 2 different aspects of climate change that interest me. One is the natural cycle of warming and cooling that is known to happen. The other is how ozone depletion and the presence of ODSs affect our atmosphere. Is the surprise ending that Thor depletes ozone as he rides the Norwegian Jet Stream to enlarge the ozone hole and make more room for Yggdrasil which is by now getting too big for the existing ozone hole? . 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
31-01-2021 19:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot ... but when the earth cools, i.e. lowers in temperature, the atmosphere contracts, compressing in volume. So you claim that a reduction in the atmosphere's temperature results in an increase in the atmosphere's temperature. You make a great point. Brilliant! Genius! I was blind to have not seen it before. . Son, I think he was actually referring to this. Attached image: Edited on 31-01-2021 19:26
31-01-2021 19:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	James___ wrote: Son, I think he was actually referring to this. Nope. Pete Rogers was exceedingly clear in his insistence that compression of the atmosphere causes Greenhouse Effect, which he calls Atmospheric Thermal Effect, ... which is an increase in the atmosphere's temperature. A decrease in the atmosphere's temperature, causes the atmosphere to contract and thus to compress ... which Pete Rogers insists is an increase in the atmosphere's temperature. Let's bask in the glow of this genius for a moment. A decrease in temperature is an increase in temperature. Why has no one seen this obvious mechanism of nature until now? I guess Einstein wasn't really all that smart after all. . . 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
31-01-2021 23:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: Jessica Wrote[quote]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[/quote Hi Jessica. If Global Warming was Anthropogenic you would have a good, important point, but it is not since gravity is responsible for the ATE. What we witness is a minor example of a universal phenomenon called Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction by which every adiabatic gas body is thermally enhanced- including our atmosphere: not the "Greenhouse Effect". Please see the opening post of this thread to assess the logic of this argument. If found to be true; and you should discover that it has no flaws: its means that CO2, let alone our 3% of it, plays no role in warming the planet so you would be giving money to people who make their way in the world by spooking the unsuspecting well-intended mainstream then making them feel virtuous for joining what they are told is a chance to save humanity. Pure 24 carat Politics which we fall for every time despite ourselves. The technique is old, in fact it's a game a game called "Flocks and Shepherds" and has been going on since the dawn of history. The flock member; who does not honestly understand how to examine and evaluate the doctrine: simply decides the Shepherd; whose dramatic story is powerful and contagious; is heroically showing them the way to safety. So without much exercise of our grey matter we become morally promoted to part of the team trying to rescue a Planet. The feel good outcome means that if and when more circumspect people come later to tell you it's wrong it's already too late, because they can only be understood as being wicked vandals throwing stones at virtue - the mind is closed and that's a tragedy because open-minded willingness to re-examine a belief on the basis of evidence and the use of reason in doing so are our only means of escape from ideological subjection by the propaganda of the powerful. By all means believe what you wish, but, I beg of you, only do so provided that you can authenticate that belief, otherwise you will be the unwitting creature of anothers psychological design in that regard. Religions are a very good example of how the process works Buzzword fallacies. Denial of the ideal gas law, Stefan-Boltzmann law, the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the Heimholtz law. 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
31-01-2021 23:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. James wroteThis is technical in and of itself. Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. It's not that. Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot - because there are so many more of them - so the temperature would be lower, but must be at or above the "No atmosphere" Earth temperature. Accordingly Gravity creates ATE in accordance with its strength. There's no need for all this other stuff - it's not relevant to this point. Denial of Newton's law of Gravitation, the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law. Buzzword fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-01-2021 23:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: No process of change is described, because the state of compression remains constant meaning the work has been done and the forces of contraction and expansion are continually held in equilibrium due to that. James wroteThis is technical in and of itself. Also, your statement is incorrect. Thermals demonstrate that "heat" is always moving within the system described. An example is this image, this shows a lateral force associated with gravity. This means that gasses closer to the Earth's surface will have more kinetic energy. This is what allows for thermals where excited gasses are displaced by gasses in a lower state, ie., having less KE. It's not that. Consider please. If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger so less thermal energy per cubic foot - because there are so many more of them - so the temperature would be lower, but must be at or above the "No atmosphere" Earth temperature. Accordingly Gravity creates ATE in accordance with its strength. There's no need for all this other stuff - it's not relevant to this point. I actually have a science experiment that I've been pursuing. If successful then it would suggest that there is more work occurring in our atmosphere than is currently believed. There are 2 different aspects of climate change that interest me. One is the natural cycle of warming and cooling that is known to happen. The other is how ozone depletion and the presence of ODSs affect our atmosphere. We had (in here) discussed some about no atmosphere vs atmosphere. The Moon's surface can be hotter than it is here on Earth. That's its surface and not the atmosphere. Also the Earth has the Van Allen radiation belts as well as the ozone layer to reduce the amount of solar radiation that enters its atmosphere. And I have tried discussing with these guys about both the tropopause and the mesopause. The tropopause is also referred to as "the barrier". Atmospheric gasses in the troposphere normally do not go up into it. An example is a storm cloud will stop at it. Buzzword fallacy. The usual vague 'experiment' and buzzwords. 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
01-02-2021 19:48
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Note: Extensively corrected malformed posts. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Into the Night wrote: 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. [Into the Night wroteProofs are not discovered. They are formulated. So what? Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. Into the Night wroteALL states of matter are elastic. Think about a rubber band. I'm not sure there is a great elastic band content to the world of solid matter. Try putting a solid or a liquid in a cylinder and compressing it with a piston and you would see the point I think. In fact the term "Hydraulics" arises from the fact that water is extremely resistant to compression despite huge industrial forces being applied (force is not energy remember) - wakey wakey! You know how easy it is with gas from your bike pump at the very least. Pretty squashable stuff under a bit of force - oh and the squashing heats it up eh so just to remind you it heats up even though force is not energy, so what are you going to do about such disobedience in the real world? Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. Into the Night wroteDenial of the Conservation of Energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Of course not. If you compress a gas body to half its size it will double in temperature according to the Law of Conservation of Energy. The conserved energy means twice the amount per cubic foot if you have half the number of cubic feet. I really shouldn't be having to tell you how this works. Pete Rogers wrote: There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. Into the Night wroteThere isn't. You are just denying science again. Really? Since you are denying that the Law of Conservation of Energy requires that if a given amount is confined in half its original volume the temperature must double, so forgive me if I beg to differ. If the temperature were unaltered it would mean that each unit volume would contain the same amount of thermal energy as before, so when you multiply that out (might require long-multiplication for you i warn you) the answere woulf be that the reduced volume has lost 50% of its thermal energy. Capish? Whereas if you reduce the volume of a gas by compression you cannot reduce the thermal energy whatsoever - let alone by 50% which your somewhat naive remark insists to be the case. I knew a bufoon once who thought that if you divide a quantity by a number and then divide it by another number you still get the same answer. Have you met him by any chance, and if so did you find him persuasive? Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. ATE is a buzzword. Meaningless. If The Law of Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction is a Buzzword fallacy perhaps you can explain precisely how. If a body of gas is under pressure it's temperature goes up, including if the pressure is its own weight - that's autocompression - at the rate og 14.6 lb per sqin, being a ton per sqft. Wakey wakey! Pete Rogers wrote: due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. There is not such thing as 'autocompression'. If there was no such thing as autocompression the pressure at sea level would be the same as - say - at the summit of Everest wouldn't it, but its not by a long way - two thirds in fact? Accordingly there is not only such a thing as autocompression but it is demonstrable and obvious, except to nincompoops I am reliably informed Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. Into the Night wrote Not what lights up a star. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm talking about star-making and on balance I think I'll go with Lord Kelvin and the doctrines of Astrophysics rather than a person who thinks that maintaining identical temperature whilst reducing the volume of an adiabatic gas body is not a violation of the 1st Law. With large gas bodies the fercocity of gravity causes such extreme compression and the much reduced volume still contains the same energy as the gigantic original in accordance with the 1st Law so the thermal energy per cubic foot skyrockets beyond imagination - and so does the temperature. if this were not the case then the 1st Law would be violated and the smaller body contain less total energy than the large wouldn't it - at least for anyone who can do long division? Please confirm that that includes you. 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). Into the Night wrote: 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it as such, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume. For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy- The 1st Law. Please let this sink in for all our sakes. Into the Night wroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy. Gravity doesn't have to be energy - who says it does? The total energy in the system stays the same of course, but the volume containing it is reduced and if you reduce the volume of an adiabatic gas body by 50%, say, you will retain all the energy, but have double what it used to be per cubic foot because there are only half as many cubic feet to occupy; thereby doubling the temperature as is necessary to obey the 1st Law in the case of such compression. Only a nicompoop would argue that the same thermal energy divided by a lesser number of volume units would give the same answer per unit as previously. Is it possible that that nincompoop you? Surely not. Pete Rogers wrote: The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, Into the Night wroteThe Stefan-Boltzmann law has no such restriction or model. Look again and try to find the transformation that compensates for the declining angle of incidence for insolation as you depart from equator towards pole. There is no allowance for this so ipso facto they are considering a disk. Pete Rogers wrote: so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, Into the Night wroteIt is perfectly valid to model a planet as a disc as far as exposure to light is concerned. No. That way the poles are treated as receiving the same light intensity as the tropics - which is perfectly invalid as anyone can see - nincompoops excepted of course. Pete Rogers wrote: so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. Into the Night wroteLight is not thermal energy. Its still electromagnetic radiation though. Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably [quoteInto the Night wrote]Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Where is the corroboration? Nothing is worth saying unless with substantiation; except for nitwits I suppose. You do not aspire to enter this category by any chance - do you? You're doing a pretty impression if not. Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Into the Night wrote:There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. Compression increases the thermal energy per unit volume and - hey presto - we have our ATE. Ther are twerps who think the same energy divided by fewer units gives the same content per unit. You are not tl be found amongst their number by any chance are you? Into the Night wroteNope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. Describe it as you wish it still deprives the atmosphere of volume while the thermal energy content of it remains the same in accordance with the 1st Law. Even if you use your fingers to help you should be able to work out that less units holding the same stuff means more stuff per unit. I have come accross the odd twit who cannot get his brain around that - have you? Pete Rogers wrote: They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Into the Night wroteNot the cause of the tropopause. See the Chapman cycle. Nobody said it was, but without a Tropopause there can be no thermal gradient - which is the point, please assist. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Into the Night wrote: They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Into the Night wroteSorry dude. You can't just throw out theories of science. You have to falsify them first. That's why i didn't - please pay attention to your comprehension abilities pleasewas using reductio absurdem It took the form "If they are right then their answer is reasonable, but since they are not nekither is it. Are you as good at reading and comprehension as you are at long-division please? Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Into the Night wrote: Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. Again reductio absurdem please try to comprehend - which requires absorbing the whole comment before jumping in on an isolated element. Pete Rogers wroteIf the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. Into the Night wroteThe Kelvin-Heimholtz equation does not describe anything about increasing temperatures. Denial of the ideal gas law. Maybe not, but Kelvin Helmholtz CONTRACTION does. Please practice reading so you don't waste time. Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Into the Night wrote: A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous and inescapable Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above. Into the Night wroteCircular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wrote: 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'ambient temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermdynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, Misuse of word. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. There is no sequence. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Into the Night wrote: 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. Of course it's already compressed! Then you just denied your own argument. Paradox. You are being irrational. Pete Rogers wrote: That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Into the Night wrote: A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Argument from randU fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Into the Night wrote: There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Absorption is not reflection or deflection. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Into the Night wrote: But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, CO2 does absorb infrared light. Now you are saying is doesn't?????? Paradox. You are being irrational again. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Into the Night wrote: The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Argument from randU. You are quoting random numbers. False authority fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not data. Science is not a university, government agency, academy, degree, license, consensus, voting bloc, paper, book, magazine, data, religion, or buzzword. Science is not even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Into the Night wrote: This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Never burned myself on a bike tire. Static compression is not dynamics compression. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. False equivalence fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Pete Rogers wrote: Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, Buzzword fallacy. Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Gravity is not light. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Into the Night wrote: 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Albedo doesn't send anything anywhere. Neither does emissivity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. ...deleted remaining nonsense... There is no such thing as 'negative work'. Static compress requires no work. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your post was badly malformed. I went through and extensively corrected this portion and discarded the rest. Please pay attention to your quoting.

01-02-2021 20:50
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Pressed the wrong button half way through, please ignore previous reply in favout of this finished version Into the Night wrote: Note: Extensively corrected malformed posts. Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Into the Night wrote: 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. [Into the Night wroteProofs are not discovered. They are formulated. So what? Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. Into the Night wroteALL states of matter are elastic. Think about a rubber band. I'm not sure there is a great elastic band content to the world of solid matter. Try putting a solid or a liquid in a cylinder and compressing it with a piston and you would see the point I think. In fact the term "Hydraulics" arises from the fact that water is extremely resistant to compression despite huge industrial forces being applied (force is not energy remember) - wakey wakey! You know how easy it is with gas from your bike pump at the very least. Pretty squashable stuff under a bit of force - oh and the squashing heats it up eh so just to remind you it heats up even though force is not energy, so what are you going to do about such disobedience in the real world? Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. Into the Night wroteDenial of the Conservation of Energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Of course not. If you compress a gas body to half its size it will double in temperature according to the Law of Conservation of Energy. The conserved energy means twice the amount per cubic foot if you have half the number of cubic feet. I really shouldn't be having to tell you how this works, it's embarrassing for a grown up to have to be spoon-fed on such a jjuvenile level Pete Rogers wrote: There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. Into the Night wroteThere isn't. You are just denying science again. Really? Since you are denying that the Law of Conservation of Energy requires that if a given amount is confined in half its original volume the temperature must double, so forgive me if I beg to differ. If the temperature were unaltered it would mean that each unit volume would contain the same amount of thermal energy as before, so when you multiply that out (might require long-multiplication for you i warn you) the answere woulf be that the reduced volume has lost 50% of its thermal energy. Capish? Whereas if you reduce the volume of a gas by compression you cannot reduce the thermal energy whatsoever - let alone by 50% which your somewhat naive remark insists to be the case. I knew a bufoon once who thought that if you divide a quantity by a number and then divide it by another number you still get the same answer. Have you met him by any chance, and if so did you find himpersuasive? Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. ATE is a buzzword. Meaningless. If The Law of Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction is a Buzzword fallacy perhaps you can explain precisely how. If a body of gas is under pressure it's temperature goes up, including if the pressure is its own weight - that's autocompression - at the rate og 14.6 lb per sqin, being a ton per sqft. Wakey wakey! Pete Rogers wrote: due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. There is not such thing as 'autocompression'. If there was no such thing as autocompression the pressure at sea level would be the same as - say - at the summit of Everest wouldn't it, but its not by a long way - two thirds in fact? Accordingly there is not only such a thing as autocompression but it is demonstrable and obvious, except to nincompoops I am reliably informed Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. Into the Night wrote Not what lights up a star. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm talking about star-making and on balance I think I'll go with Lord Kelvin and the doctrines of Astrophysics rather than a person who thinks that maintaining identical temperature whilst reducing the volume of an adiabatic gas body is not a violation of the 1st Law. With large gas bodies the fercocity of gravity causes such extreme compression and the much reduced volume still contains the same energy as the gigantic original in accordance with the 1st Law so the thermal energy per cubic foot skyrockets beyond imagination - and so does the temperature. if this were not the case then the 1st Law would be violated and the smaller body contain less total energy than the large wouldn't it - at least for anyone who can do long division? POlease confirm that that includes you. 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). Into the Night wrote: 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it as such, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume. For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy- The 1st Law. Please let this sink in for all our sakes. Into the Night wroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy. Gravity doesn't have to be energy - who says it does? The total energy in the system stays the same of course, but the volume containing it is reduced and if you reduce the volume of an adiabatic gas body by 50%, say, you will retain all the energy, but have double what it used to be per cubic foot because there are only half as many cubic feet to occupy; thereby doubling the temperature as is necessary to obey the 1st Law in the case of such compression. Only a nicompoop would argue that the same thermal energy divided by a lesser number of volume units would give the same answer per unit as previously. Is it possible that that nincompoop you? Surely not. Pete Rogers wrote: The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, Into the Night wroteThe Stefan-Boltzmann law has no such restriction or model. Look again and try to find the transformation that compensates for the declining angle of incidence for insolation as you depart from equator towards pole. There is no allowance for this so ipso facto they are considering a disc. Pete Rogers wrote: so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, Into the Night wroteIt is perfectly valid to model a planet as a disc as far as exposure to light is concerned. No. That way the poles are treated as receiving the same light intensity as the tropics - which is perfectly invalid as anyone can see - nincompoops excepted of course. Pete Rogers wrote: so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. Into the Night wroteLight is not thermal energy. Its electromagnetic radiation though. Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably [quoteInto the Night wrote]Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Where is the corroboration? Nothing is worth saying unless with substantiation; except for nitwits I suppose. You do not aspire to enter this category by any chance - do you? You're doing a pretty impression if not. Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Into the Night wrote:There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. Compression increases the thermal energy per unit volume and - hey presto - we have our ATE. Ther are twerps who think the same energy divided by fewer units gives the same content per unit. You are not tl be found amongst their number by any chance are you? Into the Night wroteNope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. Describe it as you wish it still deprives the atmosphere of volume while the thermal energy content of it remains the same in accordance with the 1st Law. Even if you use your fingers to help you should be able to work out that less units holding the same stuff means more stuff per unit. I have come accross the odd twit who cannot get his brain around that - have you? Pete Rogers wrote: They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Into the Night wroteNot the cause of the tropopause. See the Chapman cycle. Nobody said it was, but without a Tropopause there can be no thermal gradient - which is the point, please assist. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Into the Night wrote: They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Into the Night wroteSorry dude. You can't just throw out theories of science. You have to falsify them first. That's why i didn't - please pay attention to your comprehension abilities pleasewas using reductio ad absurdem It took the form "If they are right then their answer is reasonable, but since they are not - neither is it. Are you as good at reading and comprehension as you are at long-division I wonder? Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Into the Night wrote: Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. Again reductio ad absurdem please try to comprehend - like absorbing the whole comment before jumping in on an isolated element so you don't get the tie up. Pete Rogers wroteIf the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. Into the Night wroteThe Kelvin-Heimholtz equation does not describe anything about increasing temperatures. Denial of the ideal gas law. Maybe not, but Kelvin Helmholtz CONTRACTION does. Please practice reading so you don't waste other's time. Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Into the Night wrote: A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous and inescapable Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above - volume reduction = temperature increase to keep on the right side of The Law Into the Night wroteCircular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wrote: 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'ambient temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermdynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, Into the Night wroteMisuse of word. Buzzword fallacy. Adiabatic simply means it cant conduct heat away due to lack of surroundings - you seem unaware of that. Pete Rogers wrote: so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. Into the Night wroteThere is no sequence. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. You'd better corroborate this. It should be obvious to you by now that the 1st Law requires the temperature of a gas to increase when volume is lost by compression (no mass is lost remember) otherwise the energy will not be conserved. Without this knowledge there is no hope for you Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Into the Night wrote: 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. Of course it's already compressed! Into the Night wroteThen you just denied your own argument. Paradox. You are being irrational. Hardly - let's try once more, If the compression were less the volume would be more and the temperature lower - but always above S-B, but the compression is not less so the temperature is higher than it would otherwise be - the ATE Pete Rogers wrote: That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. The 1st Law requires that the energy be entirely conserved and when you conserve it in a reduced volume you increase the energy per unit volume and therefore the temperature Into the Night wrote: A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Into the Night wroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Argument from randU fallacies. Whatever it is doesn't matter because nothing cam prevent it from reducing the volume of the atmosphere and so increasing the temperature. (it's the good ole ATE) Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Into the Night wrote: There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Into the night wroteAbsorption is not reflection or deflection. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of quantum mechanics. Yes, some is absobed no doubt. The temperature goes up BECAUSE of the 1st Law, it would be a violation if it did not. I willignore the comment about quantum mechanics, which is unworthy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Into the Night wrote: But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, Into the NightCO2 does absorb infrared light. Now you are saying is doesn't?????? Paradox. You are being irrational again. The IR is at the same temperature as the Earth. there is no empirical evidence that this absorption does anything. poerhaps it simply acts as a frequency changer as the molecule releases IR at it's own signature frequency in turn. In any caase the only claim IPOCC has as to the thermal potency of the GE is the ATE which it claims cannot be explained otherwise - which; of course: I just have. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Into the Night wrote: The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Argument from randU. You are quoting random numbers. False authority fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not data. Science is not a university, government agency, academy, degree, license, consensus, voting bloc, paper, book, magazine, data, religion, or buzzword. Science is not even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Into the Night wrote: This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Into the Night wroteNever burned myself on a bike tire. Static compression is not dynamics compression. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. False equivalence fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Not on the bike tyre, it's the end of the handpump that heats up, because of the compressed air passing through. Static compression ensures that thermal energy flowing in is confined and therefore the temperature enhanced. It the static banks of a river are extended you get static compression of the river, so what happens in response? Well the energy increases where the volume is reduced by narrowing in order to keep on the right side of the 1st Law. Pete Rogers wrote: Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, Intpo the nigh wroteBuzzword fallacy. Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Really? Pete Rogers wrote: though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Into the Night wroteGravity is not light. Denial of quantum mechanics. Not sure what this is referring to. Who said gravity was light? Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Into the Night wrote: 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Intom the Night wroteAlbedo doesn't send anything anywhere. Neither does emissivity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Snow, Ice and Clouds etc. reflect radiation back out rather than absorbing it which is albedo. Pete Rogers wrote: Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. ...deleted remaining nonsense... Into the night wroteThere is no such thing as 'negative work'. Static compress requires no work. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Here is an answer to some Science homework. "the gas does positive work by expanding during portion 2 and negative work when it is compressed" I think you have fallen behind in the science class. Into the Night wroteYour post was badly malformed. I went through and extensively corrected this portion and discarded the rest. Please pay attention to your quoting. Sorry about that.
01-02-2021 21:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote: If The Law of Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction is a Buzzword fallacy perhaps you can explain precisely how. I already did, four times, which is three more than I should have. Perhaps he thinks he would feel stupid explaining for it a fifth time knowing that he would never get that amount of time back in his life. Perhaps you could learn to learn. What do you think about that option? It would be a win-win, yes? Pete Rogers wrote: If a body of gas is under pressure it's temperature goes up, including if the pressure is its own weight - that's autocompression Incorrect. If some outside force, e.g. gravity, is causing the gas to compress then it cannot be autocompression. Only if the gas somehow compresses on its own sans any outside forces can it be deemed autocompression. We say that people fall; we don't say that they autofly towards the ground. Once again, gravity is doing the compressing. This is the third time I have explained this to you. Don't be surprised if Into the Night doesn't feel overly motivated to explain it to you yet again. Pete Rogers wrote: If there was no such thing as autocompression the pressure at sea level would be the same as - say - at the summit of Everest wouldn't it, Nope. Your need to retreat to the subjunctive should have been your first clue that your premise is wrong. Pete Rogers wrote: I'm talking about star-making and on balance I think I'll go with Lord Kelvin and the doctrines of Astrophysics Nope. You do not have any laws of science on your side and you do not get to speak for dead people who are obviously not present to clarify what you say they are saying. All warmizombies do this, by the way. They insist upon a violation of physics and then select some dead guy who is not participating in the discussion to say "I trust/have to go with what Einstein/Bohr/Planck/etc. said." Sorry, your errors are egregious and Lord Kelvin did not argue what you are arguing. Science isn't a subjective matter of opinion anyway so it doesn't matter what any person says or said. You need to cough up the science you claim to have and form a valid argument, i.e. one that clearly states your theorem and contains a sound argument without a single error. Your WACKY religion rides on various egregious violations of physics so the only people who you should expect to embrace your dogma are those who are already in your WACKY church. Pete Rogers wrote: ... rather than a person who thinks that maintaining identical temperature whilst reducing the volume of an adiabatic gas body is not a violation of the 1st Law. You have two problems here: 1) you are pulling a tmiddles by assigning a bogus position to Into the Night that he is not arguing as your only means of somehow blaming him for the fatal shortcomings of your WACKY faith, and 2) You are (incorrectly) arguing a relationship of the Ideal Gas law while insisting that it is 1st law of thermodynamics. This highlights your scientific illiteracy which goes a long way in explaining why your dogma is so WACKY. Perhaps if you were to learn a little bit about the science in question you might avoid writing many of the stupid things that you do. Pete Rogers wrote: The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, The earth has to be represented as the (mostly a) sphere that it is because the sun is much larger than the earth and thus (slightly) more than half of the earth is incident to solar radiation at any given moment. Once you have properly calculated the amount of earth's surface area that is incident to solar radiation, only then can you compute a "disc" of equivalent surface area for use in your model. Pete Rogers wrote: Look again and try to find the transformation that compensates for the declining angle of incidence for insolation as you depart from equator towards pole. Sefan-Boltzmann accounts for all of this in the emissivity constant. Sure, some frequecies reflect because of the angle. Big deal. Only the amount of energy absorbed by the body is considered, thus we have the emissivity constant, a value strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 that represents the percentage of incident energy that is actually absorbed by the body. All wavelengths and all angles are wrapped up into one neat little constant. There you go. Pete Rogers wrote: That way the poles are treated as receiving the same light intensity as the tropics Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann addresses only "the body" and does not attempt to subdivide the atomic unit into its "poles" vs its "tropics" or its "atmosphere" vs its "solid surface." There is only the "body." A quick review of Stefan-Boltzmann will show you that this is the case. Pete Rogers wrote: Where is the corroboration? The one making the affirmative argument bears full responsibility to support his claim. That would be you. Thus far you have argued nothing but WACKY religious dogma that violates physics ... and now are reverting to the standard religious tactic of demanding that Into the Night prove your religion FALSE. Pete Rogers wrote: All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. Dogmatic religious gibberish. Pete Rogers wrote: Compression increases the thermal energy per unit volume and - hey presto - ... hey presto - radiance increases and cooling begins immediately, governed by Stefan-Boltzmann until the original temperature is reached and equilibrium is reestablished. This is worth repeating: "until the original temperature is reached" Pete Rogers wrote: ... was using reductio absurdem It took the form "If they are right then their answer is reasonable, but since they are not nekither is it. The term is reductio ad absurdum and you're in luck ... I'm an expert on the matter and you are not implementing it correctly. Reductio ad absurdem, or "proof by contradiction" shows that an erroneous assumption presumed to be true leads to a contradiction, i.e. something absurd. You have not yet shown any contradiction arising from assuming the IPCC to be correct. Pete Rogers wroteIf the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. It's called the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect and the shearing of fluids due to differing velocities has no obvious relevance to the violation of physics that you are arguing. Pete Rogers wrote: If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. You still need to show some logical contradiction that is produced through that assumption. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThe Kelvin-Heimholtz equation does not describe anything about increasing temperatures. Denial of the ideal gas law. Maybe not, but Kelvin Helmholtz CONTRACTION does. You are confused. This mechanism you mention is simply the initiating process for the nuclear fusion in stars, but you have been arguing strictly the force of gravity up to this point. Yes, the force of gravity is involved in the forming of stars, just as it is involved in many things ... but you now seem to be insisting that the initiation of nuclear fusion, i.e. what makes stars as hot as they are, is what is going on right now in earth's atmosphere. One moment you are talking strictly about gravity and the next moment you are discussing nuclear fusion ... because you obviously think they are one and the same ... and you have neatly bundled your misconception under the buzzword "Kelvin-Helmholtz CONTRACTION." Yes, you are confused. Pete Rogers wrote: Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous and inescapable Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above. Do you see? Right here. You specify "Fluid Dynamics." Right here. You are totally aware that you are absolutely referring to the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect which is a shearing of fluids due to differing velocities. You are not talking about nuclear fusion in stars. Neither gravity nor shearing fluids nor atmospheric nuclear fusion is currently increasing the earth's average global temperature. You clearly owe Into the Night a profuse apology for burdening him with your debilitating confusion and then blaming him for it. . 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
02-02-2021 03:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Into the Night wrote: 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. [Into the Night wroteProofs are not discovered. They are formulated. So what? Read my post again. Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. Into the Night wroteALL states of matter are elastic. Think about a rubber band. I'm not sure there is a great elastic band content to the world of solid matter. A rubber band is not elastic??? They are solid matter! The ground is elastic. The oceans are elastic. EVERYTHING is elastic...even crystals. Pete Rogers wrote: Try putting a solid or a liquid in a cylinder and compressing it with a piston and you would see the point I think. No one is putting the atmosphere into a cylinder and compressing it. Pete Rogers wrote: In fact the term "Hydraulics" arises from the fact that water is extremely resistant to compression despite huge industrial forces being applied (force is not energy remember) - wakey wakey! Applying that force over time results in movement. It is work. You must have energy to do work. Force is not energy. Energy is the potential to do work. You should study the ramifications of Newton's law: F=mA Pete Rogers wrote: You know how easy it is with gas from your bike pump at the very least. Pretty squashable stuff under a bit of force - oh and the squashing heats it up eh so just to remind you it heats up even though force is not energy, so what are you going to do about such disobedience in the real world? I am putting work into the tire pump. I've never burned myself on one. I've never burned myself on the tank of my shop compressor either. The atmosphere is not in a closed container. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. Into the Night wroteDenial of the Conservation of Energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Of course not. If you compress a gas body to half its size it will double in temperature according to the Law of Conservation of Energy. The conserved energy means twice the amount per cubic foot if you have half the number of cubic feet. I really shouldn't be having to tell you how this works, it's embarrassing for a grown up to have to be spoon-fed on such a jjuvenile level Insult fallacies. Argument of the stone fallacy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. Into the Night wroteThere isn't. You are just denying science again. Really? Since you are denying that the Law of Conservation of Energy requires that if a given amount is confined in half its original volume the temperature must double, so forgive me if I beg to differ. If the temperature were unaltered it would mean that each unit volume would contain the same amount of thermal energy as before, so when you multiply that out (might require long-multiplication for you i warn you) the answere woulf be that the reduced volume has lost 50% of its thermal energy. Capish? Whereas if you reduce the volume of a gas by compression you cannot reduce the thermal energy whatsoever - let alone by 50% which your somewhat naive remark insists to be the case. I knew a bufoon once who thought that if you divide a quantity by a number and then divide it by another number you still get the same answer. Have you met him by any chance, and if so did you find himpersuasive? Strawman fallacies. Insult fallacies. The volume of the atmosphere is not being reduced. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. ATE is a buzzword. Meaningless. If The Law of Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction is a Buzzword fallacy perhaps you can explain precisely how. Already did. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: If a body of gas is under pressure it's temperature goes up, including if the pressure is its own weight - that's autocompression - at the rate og 14.6 lb per sqin, being a ton per sqft. Wakey wakey! Buzzword fallacy. There is no compression at all. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. There is not such thing as 'autocompression'. If there was no such thing as autocompression the pressure at sea level would be the same as - say - at the summit of Everest wouldn't it, but its not by a long way - two thirds in fact? Accordingly there is not only such a thing as autocompression but it is demonstrable and obvious, except to nincompoops I am reliably informed Insult fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Since you deny so many theories of science, you are obviously not informed. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. Into the Night wrote Not what lights up a star. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm talking about star-making Nope. Stars are not made by compressing gases. Pete Rogers wrote: and on balance I think I'll go with Lord Kelvin He never talked about fusion. False authority fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Name dropping. Pete Rogers wrote: and the doctrines of Astrophysics rather than a person who thinks that maintaining identical temperature whilst reducing the volume of an adiabatic gas body is not a violation of the 1st Law. The volume of the atmosphere is not being reduced. Pete Rogers wrote: With large gas bodies the fercocity of gravity causes such extreme compression and the much reduced volume still contains the same energy as the gigantic original in accordance with the 1st Law so the thermal energy per cubic foot skyrockets beyond imagination - and so does the temperature. if this were not the case then the 1st Law would be violated and the smaller body contain less total energy than the large wouldn't it - at least for anyone who can do long division? POlease confirm that that includes you. Strawman fallacies. Insult fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: 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). Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics. Into the Night wrote: 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it as such, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume.[/quote] Gravity is not energy. It is a force. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy- The 1st Law. Please let this sink in for all our sakes. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy. Gravity doesn't have to be energy - who says it does? The total energy in the system stays the same of course, but the volume containing it is reduced and if you reduce the volume of an adiabatic gas body by 50%, say, you will retain all the energy, but have double what it used to be per cubic foot because there are only half as many cubic feet to occupy; thereby doubling the temperature as is necessary to obey the 1st Law in the case of such compression. Only a nicompoop would argue that the same thermal energy divided by a lesser number of volume units would give the same answer per unit as previously. Is it possible that that nincompoop you? Surely not. Insult fallacy. Strawman fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, Into the Night wroteThe Stefan-Boltzmann law has no such restriction or model. Look again and try to find the transformation that compensates for the declining angle of incidence for insolation as you depart from equator towards pole. There is no allowance for this so ipso facto they are considering a disc. Yes there is. The area of the disc at the 'poles' is correspondingly reduced area. The model is valid. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, Into the Night wroteIt is perfectly valid to model a planet as a disc as far as exposure to light is concerned. No. That way the poles are treated as receiving the same light intensity as the tropics - The disc model has less area at the 'poles' than the 'tropics' or the 'equator'. Pete Rogers wrote: which is perfectly invalid as anyone can see - nincompoops excepted of course. Insult fallacy. Argument by consensus. Science does not use consensus. You do not get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. You are not God. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. Into the Night wroteLight is not thermal energy. Its electromagnetic radiation though. Light has no temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably [quoteInto the Night wrote]Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Where is the corroboration? Nothing is worth saying unless with substantiation; except for nitwits I suppose. You do not aspire to enter this category by any chance - do you? You're doing a pretty impression if not. Insult fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Into the Night wrote:There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: Compression increases the thermal energy per unit volume and - hey presto - we have our ATE. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: Ther are twerps who think the same energy divided by fewer units gives the same content per unit. You are not tl be found amongst their number by any chance are you? Strawman fallacy. Insult fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteNope. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy. Describe it as you wish it still deprives the atmosphere of volume Gravity does not deprive the atmosphere of volume. Pete Rogers wrote: while the thermal energy content of it remains the same in accordance with the 1st Law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: Even if you use your fingers to help you should be able to work out that less units holding the same stuff means more stuff per unit. I have come accross the odd twit who cannot get his brain around that - have you? Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Neither a tropopause nor any pressure is required at all to have a temperature gradient. Into the Night wroteNot the cause of the tropopause. See the Chapman cycle. Nobody said it was, but without a Tropopause there can be no thermal gradient - which is the point, please assist. A tropopause does not cause a thermal gradient. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Into the Night wrote: They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Into the Night wroteSorry dude. You can't just throw out theories of science. You have to falsify them first. That's why i didn't You did. You continue to do so. Pete Rogers wrote: - please pay attention to your comprehension abilities pleasewas using reductio ad absurdem It took the form "If they are right then their answer is reasonable, but since they are not - neither is it. Are you as good at reading and comprehension as you are at long-division I wonder? Strawman fallacy. Insult fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Into the Night wrote: Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. Again reductio ad absurdem please try to comprehend - like absorbing the whole comment before jumping in on an isolated element so you don't get the tie up. Fallacy fallacy. I understand your whole argument. It is based on denying the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is based on denying theories of science. Pete Rogers wroteIf the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. Buzzword fallacy. The Kelvin-Heimholtz law does not increase temperature of anything. You cannot use it to deny other theories of science. No theory of science conflicts with any other theory of science. Pete Rogers wrote: If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. Into the Night wroteThe Kelvin-Heimholtz equation does not describe anything about increasing temperatures. Denial of the ideal gas law. Maybe not, but Kelvin Helmholtz CONTRACTION does. No, it doesn't. Denial of the Kelvin-Heimholtz law. Pete Rogers wrote: Please practice reading so you don't waste other's time. Go learn physics so you don't waste other's time. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Into the Night wrote: A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous and inescapable Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above - volume reduction = temperature increase to keep on the right side of The Law Denial of the Kelvin-Heimholtz law. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteCircular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: 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. Into the Night wrote: 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'ambient temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermdynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, Into the Night wroteMisuse of word. Buzzword fallacy. Adiabatic simply means it cant conduct heat away due to lack of surroundings - you seem unaware of that. Denial of heat. Pivot fallacy. False comparison of two systems as the same system. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. Into the Night wroteThere is no sequence. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. You'd better corroborate this. It should be obvious to you by now that the 1st Law requires the temperature of a gas to increase when volume is lost by compression (no mass is lost remember) otherwise the energy will not be conserved. Without this knowledge there is no hope for you The volume of the atmosphere is not decreasing. Denial of the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Into the Night wrote: 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. Of course it's already compressed! Into the Night wroteThen you just denied your own argument. Paradox. You are being irrational. Hardly - let's try once more,[/quote] Yes. You are locked in paradox. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Pete Rogers wrote: If the compression were less the volume would be more and the temperature lower - but always above S-B, The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not temperature. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: but the compression is not less so the temperature is higher than it would otherwise be - the ATE Buzzword fallacy. There is no compression. Static pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. The 1st Law requires that the energy be entirely conserved and when you conserve it in a reduced volume you increase the energy per unit volume and therefore the temperature Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Into the Night wroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Argument from randU fallacies. Whatever it is doesn't matter because nothing cam prevent it from reducing the volume of the atmosphere and so increasing the temperature. (it's the good ole ATE) Buzzword fallacy. Pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Into the Night wrote: There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Into the night wroteAbsorption is not reflection or deflection. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of quantum mechanics. Yes, some is absobed no doubt. The temperature goes up BECAUSE of the 1st Law, it would be a violation if it did not. I willignore the comment about quantum mechanics, which is unworthy. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Into the Night wrote: But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, Into the NightCO2 does absorb infrared light. Now you are saying is doesn't?????? Paradox. You are being irrational again. The IR is at the same temperature as the Earth. Light has no temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: there is no empirical evidence that this absorption does anything. Absorption of light destroys the photon. Depending on the energy of that photon, it may result in: conversion to thermal energy, conversion to chemical energy, ionization, resonance. Pete Rogers wrote: poerhaps it simply acts as a frequency changer as the molecule releases IR at it's own signature frequency in turn. The photon is DESTROYED. There is conversion of light to light at a different frequency. Denial of quantum mechanics. Pete Rogers wrote: In any caase the only claim IPOCC has as to the thermal potency of the GE is the ATE which it claims cannot be explained otherwise - which; of course: I just have. Buzzword fallacy. Your explanation denies theories of science. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Into the Night wrote: The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Argument from randU. You are quoting random numbers. False authority fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not data. Science is not a university, government agency, academy, degree, license, consensus, voting bloc, paper, book, magazine, data, religion, or buzzword. Science is not even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Into the Night wrote: This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Into the Night wroteNever burned myself on a bike tire. Static compression is not dynamics compression. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. False equivalence fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Not on the bike tyre, it's the end of the handpump that heats up, I am putting work into the pump. Pete Rogers wrote: because of the compressed air passing through. I am putting work into the pump. Pete Rogers wrote: Static compression ensures that thermal energy flowing in is confined and therefore the temperature enhanced. There is no such thing as 'static compression'. Buzzword fallacy. Pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: It the static banks of a river are extended you get static compression of the river, Nope. Rivers do not compress. Pete Rogers wrote: so what happens in response? Nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: Well the energy increases where the volume is reduced by narrowing in order to keep on the right side of the 1st Law. Oh. You are talking about NARROWING a river. No, energy does not increase. Denial of Ohm's law (which also applies to rivers and plumbing). You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of Bernoulli's law. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, Intpo the nigh wroteBuzzword fallacy. Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Really? Really. Pete Rogers wrote: though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Into the Night wroteGravity is not light. Denial of quantum mechanics. Not sure what this is referring to. Who said gravity was light?[/quote] You did. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Into the Night wrote: 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Intom the Night wroteAlbedo doesn't send anything anywhere. Neither does emissivity. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Snow, Ice and Clouds etc. reflect radiation back out rather than absorbing it which is albedo. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of quantum mechanics. No. Snow absorbs infrared light. So does ice and clouds. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. ...deleted remaining nonsense... Into the night wroteThere is no such thing as 'negative work'. Static compress requires no work. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Here is an answer to some Science homework. "the gas does positive work by expanding during portion 2 and negative work when it is compressed" Pressure is neither expansion nor compression. Pete Rogers wrote: I think you have fallen behind in the science class. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denying the 0th, 1st, and 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the idea gas law, the Kelvin-Heimholtz law, the ideal gas law, Bernoulli's law, Ohm's law, and quantum mechanics. It is YOU that is trying to equate pressure with compression. it is YOU that is denying mathematics, by incorrectly calculating partial areas of circles. It is YOU that is making up buzzwords and calling them 'science'. It is YOU that is making up random numbers and calling them 'data'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-02-2021 03:11
02-02-2021 18:42
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Proof is not difficult to discover ... IBdaMann wroteIt's impossible to learn since you are on tap to provide such and you aren't meeting your requirements. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support it. You don't get to tell people to do your work for you. If you won't support your argument then it is summarily discarded. The Stars arise according to what is - in any case - a Law of Physics, not a theory. The gravity developed by great interstellar gas bodies can - and does - cause such extreme contraction as to raise temperatures to the millions - perhaps - of degrees necessary for Star formation. I think I'll go with that; favouring Lord Kelvin over your estimable self I know (close run thing eh?): and so should anybody who is not a crackpot in my unworthy opinion. Pete Rogers wrote: All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction IBdaMann wroteNope. You are inventing religious dogma. All bodies, gas or otherwise, are subject to gravity. The Kelvin-Helmholtz effect is a shearing effect in fluids wherever velocities differ. If you look carefully at the last comment you will see that it is all done by gravity. Only a nitwit would confuse The Kelvin-Helmholtz Effect with The Kelvin-Helmholz Contraction which is entirely the result of the force you accuse me of leaving out - Gravity, my callow lad - like Into the Night you need to read for comprehension, which is entirely lacking here. You even refer to these inescapable effects of Gravity as "religious dogma". I mean, how cutesy is that? IBdaMann wroteIf you are going to assign a spiritual essence to the force of gravity in the same way that Christians apply a spiritual essence to humans through the concept of the human soul or the way warmizombies apply a spiritual essence to the earth through the concept of the global Climate, then you can expect your religion to be understood as the faith-based dogma that it is. What are you raving about now? Listen chum - gravity is a force and it compresses the atmosphere; all mass being retained, naturally, and energy likewise in accordance with the First Law: so the energy per unit volume is much higher, then, than it would otherwise be, precisely - and inevitably - because there are so many fewer of these units of volume for the energy to be divided between than would otherwise have been the case, geddit? so - wait for it - hey presto!! - there it is! the ATE! right before your very own eyes where it has been all this time, but you just couldn't see it until now. How about that eh? Well done you for following, that is if you did. Pete Rogers wrote: It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. IBdaMann wroteThe Ideal Gas law is not one of the laws of thermodynamics. Precisely! That's why we stick to the Laws of Physics - well done! Gravity- strictly under its Laws (Included in the Laws of Physics as far as i know - how about you?) reduces the volume of the Atmosphere and the amount of energy does not change - as required by the First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Physics wouldn't you agree?)- if you can follow that. Accordingly, using the normally reliable method of long division - try a calculator if you struggle with this skill - the energy per unit volume is raised above what it would otherwise have been, so guess what must then be the consequence - here we go again old fellow - Caramba! - the good ole ATE appears before your very eyes as if by magic. How about that eh? Pete Rogers wrote: Our ATE is just a minor example is all, IBdaMann wroteThis is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Hardly that. What is being demostrated is that collision of IR with GGs (the GE) doesn't lead to warming. The reason that our atmosphere maintains our planetary temperature over what it would otherwise be is because of the consequence of compression and The 1st Law in combination. Compression reduces the volume and the 1st Law sees to it that the Energy content stays the same, so then you get to divide the energy between a smaller number of units of volume than would otherwise be the case - capish? - and - lo and behold what do you get? Yes - that's right - a BIGGER number than would otherwise be the case (don't forget your calculator if you have trouble with this) making it much warmer, so what does that mean? Yes - Open Sesame!! the phenomenal ATE, Pete Rogers wrote: Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. IBdaMann wroteNope. The initial temperature increase in the hydrogen cloud that became our sun radiated away long ago. The sun's temperature is a result of the nuclear fusion occurring therein. The hydrogen contains potential energy which is constantly being converted to thermal energy which is converted to thermal radiation. There is no Greenhouse Effect or ATE occurring on the sun. Again, it's all nuclear fusion. Of course stellar activity is Nuclear fusion what's that suposed to disprove? so is star creation? I am talking about star birth capish? Large interstellar gas bodies contract towards their centres of gravity. The mass is so large that its force of gravity is almost unimagineable. The compression this leads to is also of such a degree that the heat energy per unit volume skyrockets (in accordance with long division) to the millions - perhaps - of degrees that it takes to convert hydrogen into higher elements. Here is the entry in Space.com to help you out. "Star formation A star develops from a giant, slowly rotating cloud that is made up entirely or almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. Due to its own gravitational pull, the cloud behind to collapse inward, and as it shrinks, it spins more and more quickly, with the outer parts becoming a disk while the innermost parts become a roughly spherical clump. According to NASA, this collapsing material grows hotter and denser, forming a ball-shaped protostar. When the heat and pressure in the protostar reaches about 1.8 million degrees Fahrenheit (1 million degrees Celsius), atomic nuclei that normally repel each other start fusing together, and the star ignites. Nuclear fusion converts a small amount of the mass of these atoms into extraordinary amounts of energy — for instance, 1 gram of mass converted entirely to energy would be equal to an explosion of roughly 22,000 tons of TNT." There you go! good ole gravity gave an enormous Thermal boost there don't you think. Luckily for us the atmosphere and gravity are insignificant by comparison so all we get is - abracadabra! the jolly old ATE. How cool is that? 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). IBdaMann wroteLet's unpack this gibberish. I can hardly wait IBdaMann wrote1. You begin by denying Greenhouse Effect and then affirm your belief in it under a different name citing a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. No. Please read for comprehension. I am saying the loss of volume to gravity enhances the unchanged energy per cubic metre because there are fewer than otherwise. So the ATE is due to Gravity not the GE which has no thermal consequence despite all the political noise about how its going to burn us. IBdaMann wrote2. There are more than two points of view on this subject and you don't speak for all of them. In fact, you don't speak for any of them except for yours ... which is totally WACKY and runs counter to physics. If it is WACKY and runs counter to physics to say that dividing the same energy between fewer volume units must mean more energy per volume unit. Then long division needs to be condemned in your imaginary world where all this is supposedly true. I think that is for buffoons, how about you? IBdaMann wrote3. The atmosphere does not increase the average global temperature. It merely serves to reduce the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. Daytime temperatures on earth are nowhere near as hot as daytime temperatures on the moon (or on the side of the international space station facing the sun) and nighttime temperatures on earth are nowhere near as cold as nighttime temperatures on the moon. Of course not, gravity does by maintaining the volume we witness, meaning that the thermal energy per unit volume is likewise maintained at a higher concentration than if gravity were not so strong. Please read for comprehension, it is not difficult. Anyway hey! - Zapristi - there it is again Tadaaa - it's none other than the ATE. Let's hear it for the ATE making our planet habitable - good ole gravity, what would we do without it? Pete Rogers wrote: I am saying that the negative work done by gravity... IBdaMannwroteThis concept of "negative work" is utter gibberish that you refuse to unambiguously define. Until you provide an unambiguous definition, I will presume that by "negative work" you mean this: Of course not, that's for your kind of brain - uncomprehending - why would I want to mean that? No I mean this which provides formal definitions - but they have to be read for comprehension, so I won't hold my breath. There is no point where you and Into the Night are involved. I know this because I have answered this question in similar terms on many occasions, but it appears that you cannot absorb it., so here goes nothin': "In physics, work is the energy transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement. In its simplest form, it is often represented as the product of force and displacement. A force is said to do positive work if (when applied) it has a component in the direction of the displacement of the point of application. A force does negative work if it has a component opposite to the direction of the displacement at the point of application of the force." I am not sure that you have the intellectual capability to understand what positive work is let alone negative work since I've defined it munambiguously for you onn numerous occassions, but i suppose we will just have to take a chance. IBdaMannwroteDismissed. What an ego! I hate laughing at the deluded so I'll just finish with a thought from the great scottish Bard for you to ponder and hopefully work out the well-intended meaning of. O wad some power the giftie gie us, tae see oorsels as ithers see us. Good luck. I means that he hopes that your horse is not so high that you can't dismount.
02-02-2021 20:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote:The Stars arise according to what is - in any case - a Law of Physics, not a theory. The gravity developed by great interstellar gas bodies can - and does - cause such extreme contraction as to raise temperatures to the millions - perhaps - of degrees necessary for Star formation. I think I'll go with that; This would be correct. I'm glad you decided to be rational and to pull a full-180. Pete Rogers wrote:.. favouring Lord Kelvin over your estimable self I know (close run thing eh?): and so should anybody who is not a crackpot in my unworthy opinion. ... yet you just revised your story to completely agree with me. Well done. I have no idea how you imagine Lord Kelvin has any relevance here. Pete Rogers wrote: If you look carefully at the last comment you will see that it is all done by gravity. Thank you. Yes, gravity is the only force in question. All mass is affected by gravity. It is not the case that all bodies of gas become fusion reactors. You are making marked improvement. Pete Rogers wrote: Only a nitwit would confuse The Kelvin-Helmholtz Effect with The Kelvin-Helmholz Contraction ... and you were the only one who did. Pete Rogers wrote: ... so the energy per unit volume is much higher, then, than it would otherwise be ... and we come right back to your insistence that a decrease in atmospheric temperature is an increase in atmospheric temperature. You are therefore a nitwit. Let's review. 1. The atmosphere cools 2. The atmosphere contracts 3. You insist that the atmosphere has been "thermally enhanced" (temperature increased) ____ Ergo: cooling = warming You are a nutcase. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteThis is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Hardly that. It's exactly the same EFFECT, just citing a different CAUSE. Pete Rogers wrote: What is being demostrated is that collision of IR with GGs (the GE) doesn't lead to warming. That's not what you are demonstrating. You are claiming that gravity causes Greenhouse Effect and not CO2. Don't be changing your argument in mid stream. You are arguing that your god is real and that the other god is a false idol. Neither are externally consistent with science. Pete Rogers wrote: The reason that our atmosphere maintains our planetary temperature over what it would otherwise be is because of the consequence of compression Nope. Your need to call on the subjunctive should have been your clue that you are wrong and summarily dismissed. There is no "would otherwise be." Any temperature increase from gravitational compression radiated away long ago as the earth returned to its equilibrium temperature. The earth remains at the temperature "it should be." Pete Rogers wrote:Of course stellar activity is Nuclear fusion what's that suposed to disprove? It disproves your stupid claim that that's what is occurring in earth's atmosphere because you are the only nitwit to confuse the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction with the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMannwroteThis concept of "negative work" is utter gibberish that you refuse to unambiguously define. No I mean this which provides formal definitions - but they have to be read for comprehension, so I won't hold my breath. There is no point where you and Into the Night are involved. Well, there you go. You REFUSE to unambiguously define your terms and of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Dismissed. Pete Rogers wrote: I know this because I have answered this question in similar terms on many occasions, You have never answered the question. Pete Rogers wrote:"In physics, work is the energy transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement. Yes, ... in physics, WORK = FORCEDISTANCE In nature, there is no such thing as a negative FORCE In nature, there is no such thing as a negative DISTANCE In physics, there is no such thing as negative WORK ... but you claim there is, so you must be referring to some other science of which I am unaware. You are on tap to provide that science if you don't want to be summarily dismissed. Ancient Chinese Proverb* Beware of he who tries to sell Greenhouse Effect under another name - Anonymous Famous Irish Limmerick Pete Rogers was really quite direct, Not believing him amounts to neglect, Please don't be fools Compressed gas never cools Gravity is Greenhouse Effect . 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
02-02-2021 21:36
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	IBdaMann wrote: Famous Irish Limmerick Pete Rogers was really quite direct, Not believing him amounts to neglect, Please don't be fools Compressed gas never cools Gravity is Greenhouse Effect I LOVE a good limerick! Can I give it a go? Thanks! Gravity compressed gasses, Pete named it the ATE, but equilibrium happened, at a long ago date. It just doesn't matter what trick Climate tries, without more energy, her temp will not rise. So without farther ado, we now hand ATE it's fate.
02-02-2021 23:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Famous Irish Limmerick Pete Rogers was really quite direct, Not believing him amounts to neglect, Please don't be fools Compressed gas never cools Gravity is Greenhouse Effect I LOVE a good limerick! Can I give it a go? Thanks! Gravity compressed gasses, Pete named it the ATE, but equilibrium happened, at a long ago date. It just doesn't matter what trick Climate tries, without more energy, her temp will not rise. So without farther ado, we now hand ATE it's fate. I will readily admit that I got a good laugh from your post (and IBD's). Bonus points to you both.
04-02-2021 20:49
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The Stars arise according to what is - in any case - a Law of Physics, not a theory. The gravity developed by great interstellar gas bodies can - and does - cause such extreme contraction as to raise temperatures to the millions - perhaps - of degrees necessary for Star formation. I think I'll go with that; IBdaMann wroteThis would be correct. I'm glad you decided to be rational and to pull a full-180. It's just a re-statement that you have finally understood. You don't normally read alternative opinions for understanding only for attack purposes, which is not the manner of serious evaluation, but you have accidentally read what I have been continually saying properly. Well done at last, though looking at what is to come further down this remains abnormal behaviour for you. Pete Rogers wrote:.. favouring Lord Kelvin over your estimable self I know (close run thing eh?): and so should anybody who is not a crackpot in my unworthy opinion. IBdaMannwrote... yet you just revised your story to completely agree with me. Well done. Another simple restatement of what I said all along. Previous comment applies. IBdaMann wroteI have no idea how you imagine Lord Kelvin has any relevance here. You sure don't - yet you say you now agree with me. You have failed in reading and comprehension once again; back to normal in that case: and this sudden epiphany of yours is going to dissolve when the penny drops. The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction is a phenomenon whereby gas cloud compression causes heating - sometimes so fierce and extreme as to make stars - even though the total energy content of the system is unaltered (in line with the 1st Law). This is the very thing you have not so far been able to get your brain round; alas for the long-suffering onlooker. Pete Rogers wrote: If you look carefully at the last comment you will see that it is all done by gravity. IBdaMann wroteThank you. Yes, gravity is the only force in question. All mass is affected by gravity. As I consistently told you. In fact it turns it into the weight that causes the pressure to arise and therefore the compression that must occur in a gas as an inevitable consequence and since it is not externally imposed we call it autocompression, just as we do in the case of the Star formation from large interstellar adiabatic gas bodies. Yet the great IBdaMann apparently knows this is wrong - I don't think he knows anything about the matter though. IBdaMannwroteIt is not the case that all bodies of gas become fusion reactors. Well I'm glad we cleared that up so now you know what the rest of us always have - well done! IBdaMannwroteYou are making marked improvement. You don't say. My position has not changed so that's great news. It means that I don't actually have to do anything, just leave you to blunder on until you eventually discover what I actually said and that it was correct in the first place after all. You simply read what I said for comprehension at last; instead of the usual motive of unconsidered dismissal: bringing a rare moment of clarity to bear. Pete Rogers wrote: Only a nitwit would confuse The Kelvin-Helmholtz Effect with The Kelvin-Helmholz Contraction IBdaMann wrote... and you were the only one who did. Really? Where? You were the chap who rejoindered about the wrong thing - the Effect - when i had talked only about the Contraction. Take responsibility because science belongs to honest men alone. I'll deal more fully with this chicanery of yours a little later in this reply. Pete Rogers wrote: ... so the energy per unit volume is much higher, then, than it would otherwise be IBdaMann wrote... and we come right back to your insistence that a decrease in atmospheric temperature is an increase in atmospheric temperature. You are therefore a nitwit. Let's review. 1. The atmosphere cools 2. The atmosphere contracts 3. You insist that the atmosphere has been "thermally enhanced" (temperature increased) ____ Ergo: cooling = warming You are a nutcase. Oh dear, it's even worse than I thought, you've barely understood a word. Please pay attention and try to comprehend. If a gas body - such as our atmosphere - were under lower pressure than at present then it would be bigger - capish? - and therefore cooler (less thermal Energy per cubic foot you see?) That means our particular strength of gravity precisely determines the level of the ATE - how about you capish that too? The atmosphere doesn't cool unless incoming energy decreases or the rate of irradiation from the surface increases. Compression guarantees permanent Thermal Enhancement of adiabatic gas bodies such as planetary atmospheres. Half the volume means twice the thermal energy per cubic ft so twice the absolute temperature - this is what you can't get your brain round, alas- simple long division. Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wroteThis is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Hardly that. See further down. IBdaMannwroteIt's exactly the same EFFECT, just citing a different CAUSE. No. They are unconnected phenomena of which only one has a warming effect - that being Gravity. The theory of the GE is about warming from IR interception and is wrong. Gravity is the cause of the ATE not the GE, which has no thermal consequence. Pete Rogers wrote: What is being demostrated is that collision of IR with GGs (the GE) doesn't lead to warming. IBdaNMann wroteThat's not what you are demonstrating. You are claiming that gravity causes Greenhouse Effect and not CO2. Don't be changing your argument in mid stream. You are arguing that your god is real and that the other god is a false idol. Neither are externally consistent with science. Poppycock man! I am claiming that Gravity is responsible for the ATE and that the GE - which has no connection to Gravity - is not. Only GG's, not Gravity, intercept IR so only GG's can be connected to the GE, which is erroneouly believed to result in warming. Talk sense please, this is the same argument as before. Please go back and look at the original post I began the thread with. You keep barking up the wrong tree - determinedly it seems.. Pete Rogers wrote: The reason that our atmosphere maintains our planetary temperature over what it would otherwise be is because of the consequence of compression IBdaMan wroteNope. Your need to call on the subjunctive should have been your clue that you are wrong and summarily dismissed. There is no "would otherwise be." Any temperature increase from gravitational compression radiated away long ago as the earth returned to its equilibrium temperature. Of course not! It is hypothetical as with all thought experiments. It is simply the case that a more compressed atmosphere would have more thermal energy per cubic ft than a less compressed one, so if the circumstances were "otherwise" than our current extent of compression the ATE would be different. So it is correct to say our atmosphere is warmer than it "would otherwise be" if compression was less. IBdaMannwroteThe earth remains at the temperature "it should be." It's a flow system in Equilibrium Einstein, including continuous enhancement. Take an analogy. If a River is in a permanent condition of lost volume due to a narrowing, the energy per unit volume will increase in order to conform to the first Law and that situation will remain constant as long as the contraction of volume continues, like gravity it doesnt just go away, but the flow remains permanently at increased energy in order to conserve total energy within the reduced system. It is the same for heat energy flowing into the confinement provided by gravitational contraction in the atmosphere - it's autocompression. Energy per unit volume is increased in order that total energy be conserved in the same way. It's a continuous process, not like a pan boiling then you switch the gas of or something so it can cool down! Pete Rogers wrote:Of course stellar activity is Nuclear fusion what's that suposed to disprove? IBdaMannwroteIt disproves your stupid claim that that's what is occurring in earth's atmosphere because you are the only nitwit to confuse the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction with the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect. How far you are prepared to go off the ethical rails in an attempt to prevail ignobly is hard to believe - it is against all the principles of scientific enquiry. Here is the proof that it was you who didnt know the difference between the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction and the Kelvin-Helmholtz Effect and that you have made a fraudulent claim here. I wrote Pete Rogers wrote All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction you replied IBdaMann wroteNope. You are inventing religious dogma. All bodies, gas or otherwise, are subject to gravity. The Kelvin-Helmholtz effect is a shearing effect in fluids wherever velocities differ. Proving conclusively that you erroneously equated the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction was The Kelvin-Helmholtz Effect. I rest my case on the ignobility of your methods - performed so shamelessly. If you wish to be taken seriously you must foreswear deception and bad faith since both violate the common ethic necessary for honest evaluation of competing theories such as we have here. Either learn to adhere to the requirements of integrity or desist from commentary please. Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMannwroteThis concept of "negative work" is utter gibberish that you refuse to unambiguously define. No I mean the formal definitions already provided - 5 times at least - but they have to be read for comprehension, so I won't hold my breath. There is no point where you and Into the Night are involved. IBdaMannwroteWell, there you go. You REFUSE to unambiguously define your terms and of course you blame others for your shortcomings. Really, I've done it at least 5 times and i do it again a little further below. IBdaMann wroteDismissed. Really? We'll see about that! Pete Rogers wrote: I know this because I have answered this question in similar terms on many occasions, IBdaMann wroteYou have never answered the question. I'm not sure how many times you need to be given this unambiguous definition. So far I've obliged you with it on five previous occasions at least. Please read the sixth; or more: for comprehension not predetermined and unconsidered dismissal. Here we go again. This time it is from an engineering facility called "The Stack Exchange" found in the "Engineering Beta" section and it says the following in answer to the question:- "Why do I get negative work done for adiabatic compression of air?" the unambiguous answer they give is:- "The question should say "work done on the gas as it is compressed". The usual convention is that work done by the gas is positive, while work done on the gas is negative." I have a feeling that this will not gain admittance to the workings of your brain any more than all the others becauae it does not fit your erroneous preconception. Your brain will only accept evidence that does not show it to be misguided. Pete Rogers wrote:"In physics, work is the energy transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement. IBdaMann wroteYes, ... in physics, WORK = FORCEDISTANCE No problem IBdaMann wroteIn nature, there is no such thing as a negative FORCE In nature, there is no such thing as a negative DISTANCE In physics, there is no such thing as negative WORK ... but you claim there is, so you must be referring to some other science of which I am unaware. You are on tap to provide that science if you don't want to be summarily dismissed. You embarrass yourself when you behave like this, just look at the previous comment on negative work to find the correct answer. IBdaMannwroteAncient Chinese Proverb* Beware of he who tries to sell Greenhouse Effect under another name - Anonymous Why would anyone want to do that? IBdaMann wroteFamous Irish Limmerick Pete Rogers was really quite direct, Not believing him amounts to neglect, Please don't be fools Compressed gas never cools Gravity is Greenhouse Effect Do you mean Limerick by any chance? Compressed gas continually fed with thermal energy from the Planetary surface will reach an equilibrium temperature and stay there if it is adiabatic - sure. Let's see whether you have understood any of this or if it you are about dominion not truth - which wlould make you a waste of everybody's time. Please don't be that.
04-02-2021 21:02
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	In simple terms Pete you have described that the Temperature of the Earth has been set and gravity compressing or sucking the atmosphere down has had an influence due to volume and density.
04-02-2021 22:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote:It's just a re-statement that you have finally understood. Nope. You are pulling a tmiddles special. 1. You state a basic premise that everyone knows, e.g. all mass is affected by gravity 2. You claim that your premise leads to a physics violation, e.g. gas that is compressed by gravity never cools 3. Someone points out the stupidity of your conclusion 4. You pretend that all you ever said was your basic premise 5. You then return to preaching your physics violation as though the preceding never happened The bottom line is that you continue to preach Greenhouse Effect under a different name, i.e. ATE, citing a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Of course, when your stupid dogma fails scrutiny you become indignant and pretend that gravity is somehow being questioned, i.e. you shift semantic goalposts. I won't waste time with your games. Your ATE, which is an EFFECT, which I totally understand is CAUSED by gravity, is what violates physics, not the gravity. For others who might be following along, when the earth's atmosphere compressed long ago, and increased in temperature per the Ideal Gas law, it immediately began to cool to the earth's equilibrium temperature and that was all she wrote for any temperature increase from gravitational compression. There is no ongoing atmospheric thermal EFFECT beyond bringing daytime and nighttime temperatures closer together. If you'd like, at this point you can just claim that this is what you were saying all along and we can just forget you ever said anything to the contrary, such as ... Pete Rogers wrote: Compression guarantees permanent Thermal Enhancement of adiabatic gas bodies such as planetary atmospheres. Just for laughs, how much warmer is Neptune from its atmosphere being compressed by gravity? Just for laughs, how much warmer is an atmosphere that cools and contracts, thus being more compressed? Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere doesn't cool unless incoming energy decreases or the rate of irradiation from the surface increases. Wrong tense. Learn English grammar. The atmosphere most certainly cooled (past tense). The earth, of which the atmosphere is a part, remains at equilibrium average temperature, which is the same equilibrium average temperature it would have without any atmosphere at all ... it would just have greater disparity between daytime and nighttime temperatures. Check out the moon. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteThis is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Hardly that. See further down. Sure ... let's look further down. Pete Rogers wrote: [Greenhouse Effect and ATE are] phenomena of which only one has a warming effect - that being Gravity. The theory of the GE is about warming from IR interception and is wrong. Thank you. This is where you lay out your dogma that your Greenhouse Effect, which you simply call ATE, is caused by gravity and is real and is active in our lives ... whereas CO2 is a false god that isn't real. I got it. Thank you. You are preaching the exact same EFFECT ... just with a different CAUSE. I'm beginning to think you don't quite grasp this whole CAUSE->EFFECT thing. Maybe this is the root of your problem. Pete Rogers wrote: What is being demostrated is that collision of IR with GGs (the GE) doesn't lead to warming. IBdaMann wroteThat's not what you are demonstrating. You are claiming that gravity, not CO2, causes the Greenhouse Effect. Don't be changing your argument in mid stream. You are arguing that your god is real and that the other god is a false idol. Neither are externally consistent with science. Poppycock man! I am claiming that Gravity is [the cause] responsible for the ATE [effect] and that the GE - which has no connection to Gravity - is not [the cause of the effect]. This is exactly what I said you said. Try reading for comprehension. Since your EFFECT is exactly the same physics-violating EFFECT as Greenhouse Effect, the CAUSE is irrelevant. Your religious dogma suffers from the exact same fatal flaws and cause it to be summarily dismissed. You claim an increase in temperature. You do not account for any additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Yes you created a religious term, i.e. negative work, and you tried to pass it off as science, as somehow accounting for the needed additional energy, but your term and its zany definition are totally bogus. So, if you want to make any headway in this discussion instead of being stuck at the starting gate, address this violation of thermodynamics. . 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
04-02-2021 23:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Pete, You are obviously not fooling IBD... He clearly sees right through your charade.
06-02-2021 16:02
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	Pete Rogers wrote: Swan wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Swan wrote 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. Proof is not difficult to discover as there is much of this kind across the Universe. All gas bodies are subject to The Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction which is what is involved. It is a characteristic unique to gas because of the three main states of matter it is the only elastic one. It is not speculation, but a requirement of thermodynamics whereby a direct result of The Law of Conservation of Energy is the increase in temperature because there is more thermal energy per unit volume due to contraction than would otherwise be so. There should be no mystery here or doubt about it. Our ATE is just a minor example is all, due to the low gravity and modest resultant autocompression (contraction). Large Gas Bodies result in Star Formation because the autocompression is so fierce as a result of the great mass producing enormous gravity that it leads to a Thermal Enhancement of millions, maybe billions of degrees - not sure what is required. 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). Swan wrote 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. Yep, but its not the gas doing it per se, but gravity acting upon it to reduce its volume. For example, if the volume of a gas body is compressed to half its original size then the temperature would double as there is then twice as much thermal energy accommodated by each unit of volume as dictated by The Law of Conservation of Energy. The 33C is incorrect for a different reason, being that in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth is represented as a disc rather than a Globe, so it entails the flawed notion of perpendicular insolation everywhere, so the poles would receive the same thermal energy per sq ft as the equator in that model. The ATE is therefore much larger - nearer 100C probably Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Swan Wrote There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Please see previous answer. All atmospheres above 10kPa in the universe are thermally enhanced in proportion to the stength of the local gravity. They have to be over 10kPa to maintain a Tropopause, without which there can be no stable Temperature Gradient. Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this Swan wroteThey aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. They would be correct if what they said about there being no other possibility was true, but what I have to say overthrows that possibility - that's the point I was making - not validating them, but quite the opposite. Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Swan wrote Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the ATE could not be caused by anything other than the GE that would be reasonable, except it is not. It is due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction as already explained. If you look again you will see that my point is to show that their assumption about this is wrong. Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Swan wrote A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. Predicate is correct, being in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and the ubiquitous Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction Law in particular leading directly to the ATE - see above. 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. Swan wrote 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. Steady Soldier! Gas bottles will always be at ambient temperature as they must lose any and all thermal enhancement to their surroundings under the 2nd Law. This does not happen to the atmosphere because it has no surroundings into which its thermal energy can be lost because there is only vacuum beyond the edge. Accordingly our atmosphere - unlike the Gas bottles - is adiabatic, so it can only transfer enhancement back to the surface where it causes warming and an increase in IR emission until a revised equilibrium temperature level is obtanied. Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Swan wrote 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. Of course it's already compressed! That's the reason the atmosphere is so much more reduced in volume than if local gravity were weaker. This reduction in volume means that the thermal energy conducted into it from the surface is divided between fewer cubic feet than would otherwise be available, so each contains more of the stuff than it otherwise would, meaning we get our particular ATE in precise accordance with our particular gravity. Swan wrote A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Don't forget we have a system of energy flowing in, then being Atmospherically enhanced due the degree of compression after, then transferred back and eventually out in the form of increased IR. Given the specifics our atmosphere must be at 288C including enhancement in exact proportion to volume loss at 14.7apsi Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for Swan wrote There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Inasmuch as some trace gases, like CO2, are opaque to certain wavelengths of IR - meaning they are reflected and deflected after contact there is a GE to that extent (however misleadingly it is actually named), but the underlying question is whether it has the thermal consequence claimed for it by IPCC et al; or indeed any at all. Their claim relies on the false idea that there can be no other explanation for the ATE, but of course there is - Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. The energy that causes the ATE comes from the Negative Work of Gravitational autocompression so the GE is thermally irrelevant. Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, Swan wrote But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. I agree with this absolutely 100%, but I was referring to the thermal consequence alone in that answer. If you check you should see that - and I stand by it, Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. Swan wrote The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Estimates are that Humankind and all it's associated activities account for 3% of global CO2 emissions. This figure is agreed by both sides of the argument. I obtained the figure, on this occasion, from Geocraft - being the Fossil Dept of The University of West Virginia, but there is much concordance besides from Earth Scientists and Atmospheric Physicists everywhere, so I am happy to go along since there seems to be little contention in the matter. Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant Swan wrote This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. If the predicate was not valid you would never have gone "ouch!" after a bit when pumping your bike tyres up all those years ago. Unless the value of gravity changes or the make-up of the atmosphere alters significantly the ATE will always be the same, though it would vary a tiny amount if Solar Radiation altered more than a bit. Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Swan wrote 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. Net insolation is simply the difference between incoming rays and albedo sending them back. Only this and the negative work of compression provide the thermal energy. 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. Swan wrote 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. Albedo is just the proportion of the insolation reflected back. There is no constant involved, not least because of the inability of any scientist to account for the contribution from cloud cover effect accurately. Swan wrote The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. I have no need to quarrel with that. Swan wrote 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. There was a lot of meddling and distortion with thermometer data; presumably for political reasons: but Satellite measurements seems to offer something a bit better. Swan wrote Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, Every adiabatic gas body in the Universe is in a state of thermal enhancement as the result of the particularity of local gravity. It is the automatic effect of the Kelvin-Helmholtz Contraction. This is so extreme in large gas bodies that their TE reaches those billions? of degrees necessary for Star formation. It is because of the relatively tiny size of our Atmosphere that we only get a modest increase - the inescapable 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. Swan wrote 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. I agree 100% that any atmosphere the moon may have can safely be ignored. It is not necessary to use thermometers to measure the average temperature of the moon, otherwise I accept everything you say here and would add that the average moon temperature would be roughly the same as the Earth's if it had no atmosphere. Swan wrote 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. The slow rotation of the Moon in relation to the Sun means it is vastly cooler on the dark side with zero energy for half a lunar month and vastly warmer on the bright side with full energy for the other half of the lunar month, but the average between the two would be around the same as an Earth lacking an atmosphere. As it is the Earth conducts thermal energy into the atmosphere at its base where the extent of volume lost to compression causes the temperature to rise to an exactly proportional extent. There will be exchanges from atmosphere to surface as that is the only way the atmosphere can lose it's heat - being otherwise bereft of surroundings into which heat can be conducted. Swan wrote 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. The average temperature is estimated and all estimates seem to be fairly close to each other. It is a bit difficult for me to see why this can't be done except by direct measurement as you suggest. Swan wrote 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. I agree with a lot of this. Radiation passes through the Troposphere with little or no effect, being transparent to all but a few "greenhouse" frequencies and turns into thermal energy upon striking the solid/liquid surface and warming it whereupon it is transferred into the atmosphere by conduction at the base. The state of compression at that point determines greater thermal content per cubic foot than if it was not at such high pressure and this causes TE which transfers back to the surface, warming it further so increasing the emission of IR until equilibrium is re-established at what is then the ATE level. Swan wrote 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). That first part is true, except I think I am correct in saying that the transparent gases of the troposphere cannot act as sources of radiation; precisely because of their transparency: which simply passes through them in both directions - from Sun to Earth, and from Earth to Space. Whilst convection, advection etc. may be dramatic for us, for the atmosphere it is simple heat exchange with a zero sum. Rising heat is exactly matched by falling coolness, if I may be forgiven for putting it that way. it is the same thing with advection. Heat transfer into the Troposphere is almost entirely due to conduction at the contact surface and as it continues up it enters a continually reducing state of compression. Swan wrote 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. This continuingly reducing pressure the higher you go means that the state of compression lessens, so the thermal energy per cubic ft is less and the air cooler as a result. The pressure at the Summit of Everest is 4.7 lb/sqin, being about a third of that we experience at sea level and the average temperature is -28C because the relatively uncompressed atmosphere at that level means far less thermal energy per cuft, which is why closest sea level temperatures (Kolcata) are so much higher - around 25C I think - meaning that the atmospheric volume lost to compression at the summit - the thinness of the air - accounts for this difference. Swan wrlote In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less. The thermal energy acquired by conduction to the Stratosphere is low, I agree, but unlike the Troposphere it is not transparent to high energy radiation which it absorbs with the appropriate heating effect. The pressure being below 10kPa means the Stratosphere cannot maintain a thermal gradient due to compression either. If the atmosphere were at a lower pressure the lost volume of it would be less so the incoming thermal energy would be distributed between far more cubic feet than are currently available, so it would be cooler. Accordingly the atmosphere is thermally enhanced. This phenomenon is true of all significant gas bodies and occurs in line with the strength of local gravity. The reason the temperature falls as altitude is gained is that the weight of air above reduces so the extent of compression is less. Pressure at the Summit of Everest is less than a third tof that at sea level making it very cold. This phenomenon of the ATE only applies to atmospheres under a pressure of 10kPa (around 1.4 lb/sq ft) because below this it cannot sustain a temperature gradient - meaning that the rules do not apply. Areas like the stratosphere fall into this category. Swan wrote Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate. It is thermal energy per unit volume Swan wrote 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. These are all zero sum factors and make nothing but transitory differences balanced precisely elsewhere - simultaneous give and take makes the sum of zero - nothing is added to the system. Swan 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? I am saying that the negative work done by gravity in compressing the atmosphere causes the thermal energy to be concentrated in a more confined space inevitably increasing the temperature - the ATE Yo retard, I did not make any of the quotes that you just attributed to me, with the exception of the last one which would be the first one cross checked, so learn how to read the board. LOL You still wasting your life farting for the FBI, Farting Bimbos and Imbeciles? Edited on 06-02-2021 16:38
06-02-2021 21:43
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:It's just a re-statement that you have finally understood. IBdaMannwroteNope. You are pulling a tmiddles special. 1. You state a basic premise that everyone knows, e.g. all mass is affected by gravity So what? IBdaMannwrote 2. You claim that your premise leads to a physics violation, e.g. gas that is compressed by gravity never cools You are failing to read for comprehension. I claim no such thing. It stays in equilibrium at the level caused by the ATE and the ATE arises because the loss of volume to compression dictates a higher energy content per cubic foot. This is a permanent situation just the same as insolation is a permanent situation. The only way Gravity induced enhancement can fall back is if the energy concentration per cubic foot falls and that would require expansion of the atmosphere. To get back to where you think would mean you would have to turn gravity down, so good luck. IBdaMann wrote 3. Someone points out the stupidity of your conclusion. Unfortunately that someone was you who can't seem to understand this, but I'll give you another opportunity to cotton on nonetheless. a. The planet is warmed by the Sun and that heat is conducted into our adiabatic atmosphere (so far so good?) b. Now for the difficult bit (impossible for you to follow so far). Due to its gravitationally reduced volume the thermal energy per cubic foot is more than it would be if the force of gravity were less. Whether less or more the resultant temperature would be at least as high as the surface if there was no atmosphere, but in the case of our stronger gravity a good deal higher. (I hope you can get that, though I agree it takes some pondering, so I'll just wait and see what happens c. The gravitationally increased temperature causes the transfer of thermal energy back to the surface resulting in more warming which is brought into thermal equilibrium by increased IR emission which stabilise the system temperature at the ATE level that we witness today. IBdaMann wrote 4. You pretend that all you ever said was your basic premise I don't "pretend" anything, I stick to the the theory stated just above without deviation. IBdaMann wrote 5. You then return to preaching your physics violation as though the preceding never happened That is your main failure of comprehension if you will pardon me for saying so. The very reason for all of this is precisely the requirement of the 1st law. If Energy is to be conserved in a compressed medium such as an adiabatic gas body (our atmosphere being a good example) the temperature must rise in direct proportion to the volume lost to compression. Otherwise you would have lots more cubic feet all containing the same thermal energy as in the case of the less compressed atmosphere, meaning that total thermal energy held in the body must have increased, which violates the 1st Law. IBdaMann wroteThe bottom line is that you continue to preach Greenhouse Effect under a different name, i.e. ATE, citing a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Of course, when your stupid dogma fails scrutiny you become indignant and pretend that gravity is somehow being questioned, i.e. you shift semantic goalposts. Thats wrong. The GE is a theory that IR interception by opaque gases results in the ATE, which is mistaken, There is no alternative name for the GE. IBdaMann wroteI won't waste time with your games. Your ATE, which is an EFFECT, which I totally understand is CAUSED by gravity, is what violates physics, not the gravity. There are no games, but you do waste your time because you cannot understand the consequences, to the temperature of a gas body, of the conservation of energy when it occupies a volume reduced by compression. Perhaps it takes a bit more imagination than you are permitting yourself to employ. IbdaMannwroteFor others who might be following along, when the earth's atmosphere compressed long ago, and increased in temperature per the Ideal Gas law, it immediately began to cool to the earth's equilibrium temperature and that was all she wrote for any temperature increase from gravitational compression. There is no ongoing atmospheric thermal EFFECT beyond bringing daytime and nighttime temperatures closer together. You ought to have the feeling that maybe you are missing something - barking up the wrong tree as it were. Gravitational Compression (autocompression) is continuous and at the level we see, not something that happened a long time ago, It is that we are looking at a flow system whereby heat energy is continually entering and leaving the system. The ATE is permanent because the Atmosphere's loss of volume to compressionn is permanent so the enhancement must also be. The Atmosphere is Adiabatic - meaning that it can't conduct heat into its surroundings because there are none, only vacuum. The only way it can lose it is to the planetary surface leading to increased temperature whic is brought into equilibrium by increased IR emmission, This increased result in temperature is the ATE- nothing to do with Greenhouses please note. IBdaMann wroteIf you'd like, at this point you can just claim that this is what you were saying all along and we can just forget you ever said anything to the contrary, such as ... Please see the aforegoing - I have never departed from any of it - never contradicted myself in this matter or altered any of the features. Pete Rogers wrote: Compression guarantees permanent Thermal Enhancement of adiabatic gas bodies such as planetary atmospheres. IBdaMannwroteJust for laughs, how much warmer is Neptune from its atmosphere being compressed by gravity? Just for laughs, how much warmer is an atmosphere that cools and contracts, thus being more compressed? I like a person who likes a laugh, so of course it'd be an honour. The ATE of Neptune is 34K. Without its atmosphere the temperature would be the same as its Moon - Triton, being 38K, whereas Neptune is at 72K. I hope that amuses you as much as you anticipated that it would. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere doesn't cool unless incoming energy decreases or the rate of irradiation from the surface increases. IBdaNMann wroteWrong tense. Learn English grammar. The atmosphere most certainly cooled (past tense). No, it is an energy flow process and reaches and maintains its equilibrium temperature, IBdaMann wroteThe earth, of which the atmosphere is a part, remains at equilibrium average temperature, which is the same equilibrium average temperature it would have without any atmosphere at all ... it would just have greater disparity between daytime and nighttime temperatures. Check out the moon. Check out the moon indeed. Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be at the same average temperature as the moon 198K so the presence of the atmosphere actually provides 90K ATE meaning that the loss of volume attribuable to autocompression at 101.3 kPa is 45%. The 198K thermal energy being thus forced into the reduced accommodation. The moon is much hotter in the day and much cooler at night than a "black body" Earth because the day is so long and the night likewise. Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wroteThis is your name for the very same Greenhouse Effect that you deny. You simply claim a different cause, i.e. gravity instead of CO2. Pete Rogers wroteHardly that. See further down. IBdaMann wroteSure ... let's look further down. Pete Rogers wrote: [Greenhouse Effect and ATE are] phenomena of which only one has a warming effect - that being Gravity. The theory of the GE is about warming from IR interception and is wrong. IBdaMann wroteThank you. This is where you lay out your dogma that your Greenhouse Effect, which you simply call ATE, is caused by gravity and is real and is active in our lives ... whereas CO2 is a false god that isn't real. IBdaMann wroteI got it. Thank you. You are preaching the exact same EFFECT ... just with a different CAUSE. I'm beginning to think you don't quite grasp this whole CAUSE->EFFECT thing. Maybe this is the root of your problem. That's a semantic argument, whereas this is a scientific argument. The GE is a theory based on the claim that GG's intercepting IR explains the ATE because nothing else can, but it is wrong. The ATE is a natural result of the 1st Law demanding that - whatever the strength of gravity and the consequent loss of volume caused to the atmosphere by compression (autocompression to be precise) - the total energy contained in it must be unaltered, so the more the compression the greater the ATE. In our case we witness 90K. IBdaMann wrote[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: What is being demostrated is that collision of IR with GGs (the GE) doesn't lead to warming. [quote]IBdaMann wroteThat's not what you are demonstrating. You are claiming that gravity, not CO2, causes the Greenhouse Effect. Don't be changing your argument in mid stream. That is incorrect. I am claiming that Gravity causes the ATE. IBdaMann wroteYou are arguing that your god is real and that the other god is a false idol. Neither are externally consistent with science. Pete Rogers wrotePoppycock man! I am claiming that Gravity is [the cause] responsible for the ATE [effect] and that the GE - which has no connection to Gravity - is not [the cause of the effect . IBdaMann wroteThis is exactly what I said you said. Try reading for comprehension. Oh dear, you have got your knickers in a twist. The ATE is not the GE, because the GE does no warming. IBdaMann wroteSince your EFFECT is exactly the same physics-violating EFFECT as Greenhouse Effect, the CAUSE is irrelevant. Your religious dogma suffers from the exact same fatal flaws and cause it to be summarily dismissed. No. The only violation of physics is in the Claim that the GE is responsible for the ATE, it is not. The thing responsible is the loss of volume to compression in a system which must obey the 1st Law. IBdaMann wroteYou claim an increase in temperature. You do not account for any additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Yes you created a religious term, i.e. negative work, and you tried to pass it off as science, as somehow accounting for the needed additional energy, but your term and its zany definition are totally bogus. Negative work is an ordinary workaday Engineering term. Here is an extract from a high school homework solutions page "It can be seen from the pV diagram that 1 and 3 are isochoric processes meaning that thei rcontribution to the total work is zero. If Cycle 1 is traversed clockwise, the gas does positive work by expanding during portion 2 and negative work when it is compressed during portion 4." I've told you this many times but it seems incomprehensible to you. It is standard low-grade Physics that you ought to know if you are to make progress in understanding. After all your mind thinks it is Magic. IBdaMann wroteSo, if you want to make any headway in this discussion instead of being stuck at the starting gate, address this violation of thermodynamics. As I hope you will have realised now, this is the crux. The violation of The Laws of Thermodynamics comes when you conclude that despite the 1st Law ensuring conservation of total energy contained within the body, a low pressure example would be at the same temperature as present, so you would have many more cubic feet, but all containing the same thermal energy so that when you multiply out, your conjecture resulty in an increase of total thermal energy, thus violating the 1st Law. Accordingly the error is yours.
07-02-2021 02:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	Pete Rogers wrote: You are failing to read for comprehension. I claim no such thing. I'm not going to chase you around in circles. This is about the fifth time you have denied your own THERMAL EFFECT upon which you return to insisting after asserting that you make no such claim. In my last response to you, I spelled out the fatal flaw in your argument and what you need to do to correct it, i.e. account for the ADDITIONAL ENERGY that causes the increase in temperature that you call the THERMAL EFFECT which is what all other warmizombies call Greenhouse EFFECT. IBdaMann wrote: Since your EFFECT is exactly the same physics-violating EFFECT as Greenhouse EFFECT, the CAUSE is irrelevant. Your religious dogma suffers from the exact same fatal flaws and cause it to be summarily dismissed. You claim an increase in temperature. You do not account for any additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Yes you created a religious term, i.e. negative work, and you tried to pass it off as science, as somehow accounting for the needed additional energy, but your term and its zany definition are totally bogus. So, if you want to make any headway in this discussion instead of being stuck at the starting gate, address this violation of thermodynamics. You have not thusly accounted for any additional energy and therefore your argument remains dismissed. Either account for the needed additional energy or abandon your claim of any thermal EFFECT. Dismissed. . 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
07-02-2021 02:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	There is an anomaly that does show that gravity has a compressive affect. Atmospheric air pressure is based on a column of water equal in height to 1 second of gravity in the equation f = ma where a = d/t. In this instance gravity accelerates at 32.174 ft/sec or 9.81 m/s. A column of water that is 32.185 feet high and has 32.185 in^3 of water will create more force than it's mass. Water weighs 0.036 ounces per cubic inch. A column 32.174 feet tall weighs 13.899 lbs. Why a force of 14.7 psi at it's base? Gravity's compressive affect for a mass/body that is not accelerating. If you guys ever read up on the history of science, you would know this. In metric terms, 981 grams of water will create 1,030 grams of force/cm^3. This is because if a body/mass is not accelerating and has any height to it that matters, then it's inability to accelerate will increase it's kinetic potential. This means that a 1 kg weight at rest would weigh more if that 1 kg of mass was 9.81 meters in height. But it's not so the compressive potential of gravity is pretty much ignored. p.s., am bored so sorry for supplying some technical data to your argument. Edited on 07-02-2021 02:32

07-02-2021 02:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMannwrote 2. You claim that your premise leads to a physics violation, e.g. gas that is compressed by gravity never cools You are failing to read for comprehension. I claim no such thing. It stays in equilibrium at the level caused by the ATE and the ATE arises because the loss of volume to compression dictates a higher energy content per cubic foot. This is a permanent situation just the same as insolation is a permanent situation. The only way Gravity induced enhancement can fall back is if the energy concentration per cubic foot falls and that would require expansion of the atmosphere. To get back to where you think would mean you would have to turn gravity down, so good luck. So you claim that your premise leads to a physics violation, e.g. gas that is compressed by gravity never cools. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote 3. Someone points out the stupidity of your conclusion. Unfortunately that someone was you who can't seem to understand this, but I'll give you another opportunity to cotton on nonetheless. a. The planet is warmed by the Sun and that heat is conducted into our adiabatic atmosphere (so far so good?) No. The Earth is not heated by conductive heat. Lose the buzzword 'adiabatic'. You don't know what it means. Pete Rogers wrote: b. Now for the difficult bit (impossible for you to follow so far). Due to its gravitationally reduced volume the thermal energy per cubic foot is more than it would be if the force of gravity were less. Whether less or more the resultant temperature would be at least as high as the surface if there was no atmosphere, but in the case of our stronger gravity a good deal higher. (I hope you can get that, though I agree it takes some pondering, so I'll just wait and see what happens So your premise is to violate laws of physics, e.g. gas compressed by gravity never cools. Pete Rogers wrote: c. The gravitationally increased temperature causes the transfer of thermal energy back to the surface resulting in more warming which is brought into thermal equilibrium by increased IR emission which stabilise the system temperature at the ATE level that we witness today. So your premise further is to violate laws of physics, by warming a warmer body with a colder one, thus reducing entropy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-02-2021 03:05
07-02-2021 02:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote 5. You then return to preaching your physics violation as though the preceding never happened That is your main failure of comprehension if you will pardon me for saying so. The very reason for all of this is precisely the requirement of the 1st law. If Energy is to be conserved in a compressed medium such as an adiabatic gas body (our atmosphere being a good example) the temperature must rise in direct proportion to the volume lost to compression. Otherwise you would have lots more cubic feet all containing the same thermal energy as in the case of the less compressed atmosphere, meaning that total thermal energy held in the body must have increased, which violates the 1st Law. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Temperature is not total thermal energy. You are also violating the 0th law of thermodynamics. 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
07-02-2021 02:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	James___ wrote: There is an anomaly that does show that gravity has a compressive affect (sic). ... sure, but not a permanent thermal effect because gravity is not an energy source. Gravity is just a force. James___ wrote: Atmospheric air pressure is based on a column of water equal in height to 1 second of gravity Are you saying that a small one of these is the basis for atmospheric pressure? James___ wrote:A column 32.174 feet tall weighs 13.899 lbs. Aren't you forgetting a couple of dimensions? . Attached image:
07-02-2021 02:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteYou claim an increase in temperature. You do not account for any additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Yes you created a religious term, i.e. negative work, and you tried to pass it off as science, as somehow accounting for the needed additional energy, but your term and its zany definition are totally bogus. Negative work is an ordinary workaday Engineering term. Here is an extract from a high school homework solutions page "It can be seen from the pV diagram that 1 and 3 are isochoric processes meaning that thei rcontribution to the total work is zero. If Cycle 1 is traversed clockwise, the gas does positive work by expanding during portion 2 and negative work when it is compressed during portion 4." I've told you this many times but it seems incomprehensible to you. It is standard low-grade Physics that you ought to know if you are to make progress in understanding. After all your mind thinks it is Magic. There is no engineering term 'negative energy'. There is no such term in science either. It is a meaningless buzzword, nothing more. Your crazy theory and the use of this buzzword isn't magic. Magic follows the laws of physics. All talented magicians use physics and violate no law of physics. Your crazy theory and the use of this buzzword is instead magick...a vague supernatural method of ignoring physics. 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
07-02-2021 02:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: There is an anomaly that does show that gravity has a compressive affect (sic). ... sure, but not a permanent thermal effect because gravity is not an energy source. Gravity is just a force. James___ wrote: Atmospheric air pressure is based on a column of water equal in height to 1 second of gravity Are you saying that a small one of these is the basis for atmospheric pressure? James___ wrote:A column 32.174 feet tall weighs 13.899 lbs. Aren't you forgetting a couple of dimensions? . When you say that gravity is not a source of energy, it is. When you consider that satellites stay in orbit, it is because of the force that gravity exerts on their mass. As a result, they accelerate according to the formula in the attached image. I'll also post a link to an orbital velocity calculator. And I've done the math myself, etc. so I know it's based on the attached image. And force which you said gravity is can be converted into momentum when acceleration is allowed for. https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224665242 p.s., you can have "Sum Fun" with math. p.s.s., what you showed requires a thermal updraft. A lake can kill a tornado because the warm air from the ground that feeds it will be disrupted. I guess you could say that tornadoes are the result of the conservation of energy. And if energy is not available to be conserved, then there is no tornado. p.s.s.s., did you put me on the Moon? KEWL!!!!!! Attached image: Edited on 07-02-2021 03:00
07-02-2021 03:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: There is an anomaly that does show that gravity has a compressive affect (sic). ... sure, but not a permanent thermal effect because gravity is not an energy source. Gravity is just a force. James___ wrote: Atmospheric air pressure is based on a column of water equal in height to 1 second of gravity Are you saying that a small one of these is the basis for atmospheric pressure? James___ wrote:A column 32.174 feet tall weighs 13.899 lbs. Aren't you forgetting a couple of dimensions? . When you say that gravity is not a source of energy, it is. When you consider that satellites stay in orbit, it is because of the force that gravity exerts on their mass. As a result, they accelerate according to the formula in the attached image. I'll also post a link to an orbital velocity calculator. And I've done the math myself, etc. so I know it's based on the attached image. And force which you said gravity is can be converted into momentum when acceleration is allowed for. https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224665242 p.s., you can have "Sum Fun" with math. p.s.s., what you showed requires a thermal updraft. A lake can kill a tornado because the warm air from the ground that feeds it will be disrupted. I guess you could say that tornadoes are the result of the conservation of energy. And if energy is not available to be conserved, then there is no tornado. p.s.s.s., did you put me on the Moon? KEWL!!!!!! Gravity is not energy. It is a 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
07-02-2021 03:16
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@Peter Rogers, IBDM put this avatar in his image. Did you notice it? I think he put it in his image to see if I was paying attention. The image though wasn't flat enough to be the Bonneville Salt Flats and isn't pock marked like the Moon is unless he magnified its surface. Nothing in here should be taken personally because I always tell IBDM, son, when I talk to your mother.... @IBDM, I think if I didn't mention it that everyone in here would've missed the fact that you put my avatar in your pic. Attached image: Edited on 07-02-2021 03:28
07-02-2021 03:34
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Gravity has potential energy. Just ask google. Bear in mind ITN, that noone says that google is God.
07-02-2021 03:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14397)	James___ wrote: [quote]James___ wrote: When you say that gravity is not a source of energy, it is. Gravity is not a source of energy. Gravity is a force and is therefore a source of acceleration. James___ wrote: [quote] When you consider that satellites stay in orbit, it is because of the force that gravity exerts on their mass. Yes. This is called centripetal acceleration. The force of gravity causes the satellites to accelerate centripetally (towards the center of the earth). James___ wrote: p.s.s., what you showed requires a thermal updraft. ... but more importantly it requires a downdraft of cold air. James___ wrote: A lake can kill a tornado because the warm air from the ground that feeds it will be disrupted. There is nothing any lake can do if the cold downdraft is sufficiently strong. This is why tornadoes "touch down" as opposed to "rise up." James___ wrote: p.s.s.s., did you put me on the Moon? KEWL!!!!!! I don't know exactly where it is. I just like to put you in KEWL places. If you'd like to be in the moon, we can put you in the moon. . Attached image: Edited on 07-02-2021 03:42
07-02-2021 03:42
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: I don't know exactly where it is. I just like to put you in KEWL places. If you'd like to be in the moon, we can put you in the moon. . And you wonder why I say "Son"...... Edited on 07-02-2021 04:42

Page 14 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