Global warming is not anthropogenic

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Your friends are a$$holes.

I fooled you. You think I have friends. Guess again.

.

duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic.

IBdaMann wroteThis is clearly the fundamental underlying principle of your theory. Any errors here automatically render your argument FALSE.

Pete Rogers wrote:It means the only way it can lose the heat it contains is by transferring it to the planetary surface under the 2nd Law, which will warm it, and being solid/liquid will emit more IR until it comes back into equilibrium at the higher level - the ATE level.

IBdaMann WroteOoops, three errors right off the bat, any one of which renders your argument null and void. This is not surprising since we have covered this at length and shown all of this as the reason your religion cannot get out of the starting gate.

1.Heat is a flow of thermal energy, ergo heat is never "contained." Your argument fails the internal consistency check because you either don't know what heat is or you are trying to hijack the term in order to force the square peg of ATE through the round hole of physics.

2. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. Your backwards theory gets it backwards.

IBdaMann wrote3. You simply assume the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course you don't bother to explain this in any way.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion

IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

Pete Rogers wrote:- maintains a reduced volume

Right here, you acknowledge that the atmosphere is maintaining its volume, i.e. that it is clearly not compressing. The amount of work performed is zero.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... into which the warmth from insolation is fed,

IBdaMann wroteWow! So technical. So specific. So exact.

I see that you realize that you have already failed internal consistency so what's the harm in a few more flagrant errors?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the reduced volume, coupled with the 1st Law, means that the thermal energy per unit volume is more than it otherwise would be, leading to this increased temperature despite constant total thermal energy content - see?

IBdaMann wroteAt this point, you might as well jam in as many errors as you can for maximum semantic leeway, right?

IBdaMann wrote1. In the previous sentence you specified the atmosphere MAINTAINS its volume, and in this sentence you contradict yourself by stating the volume is reduced, not maintained. You don't even try to hide your confusion.

IBdaMann wrote2. I'm just pointing out your subjunctive "more than it otherwise would be" for gfm7175's amusement. He enjoys well-engineered gibberbabble.

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time. Your religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Pete Rogers wrote:That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

Pete Rogers wrote:In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance

Pete Rogers wrote:It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere,

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time

Pete Rogers wrote:You do not understand statics.

Pete Rogers wrote: The volume is compressed ...

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and then maintained

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

.. yet you won't dare question Pete Rogers on his claims that the atmosphere is responsible for making it so hot because ooops! ... the moon doesn't have any substantive atmosphere. The earth is the body with the atmosphere ... the earth is supposed to be the body that gets really really hot ... but it turns out that NOT having an atmosphere is what jacks up the temperature.

So Duncan, explain why you so obediently regurgitate Pete Rogers' boolsch't rather than dare to question it? Oh, that's right, he has you bent over furniture and is reaming you with all the scrap you are to schiitt out here in this forum.

You are Pete's groupie. If we want your opinion we'll ask Pete what it is.



.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The atmosphere is surrounded by space, just like that bottle of gas I mentioned.
Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Black body radiation actually applies to the technical use of passing current through a given body. It does not apply to celestial bodies unless you are only considering what is refracted by the surface of celestial bodies.
It has helped to allow for modern communications and radars, etc.

duncan61 wrote:
Quote
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.ITN

Did we spend billions sending man to the moon more than once and they forgot to take the thermometer every time

duncan61 wrote:
Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).18 July 2019

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic.

IBdaMann wroteThis is clearly the fundamental underlying principle of your theory. Any errors here automatically render your argument FALSE.

That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the principle of the vacuum flask

Heat does occur through a vacuum. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law now. A Dewer flask (vacuum flask, or Thermos bottle) makes no difference.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and I had presumed that a great mind such as you claim to possess might have realised that before making such a nonsensical statement.

The nonsense is YOURS. Hot coffee or soup in a Thermos bottle will eventually cool to room temperature. Cold drinks in a Thermos bottle will eventually warm to room temperature. That is heat.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:It means the only way it can lose the heat it contains is by transferring it to the planetary surface under the 2nd Law, which will warm it, and being solid/liquid will emit more IR until it comes back into equilibrium at the higher level - the ATE level.

IBdaMann WroteOoops, three errors right off the bat, any one of which renders your argument null and void. This is not surprising since we have covered this at length and shown all of this as the reason your religion cannot get out of the starting gate.

Let's see about that.

1.Heat is a flow of thermal energy, ergo heat is never "contained." Your argument fails the internal consistency check because you either don't know what heat is or you are trying to hijack the term in order to force the square peg of ATE through the round hole of physics.

In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance such that a constant reservoir of thermal energy is contained within the system. If that was not so the temperature would be Absolute Zero wouldn't it? How cool is that?

Heat is not energy. Heat is not contained in anything. Heat is not 'balance' or have to be balanced.

Pete Rogers wrote:

2. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. Your backwards theory gets it backwards.

That is a seriously flawed supposition. It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere, but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

The atmosphere is not reducing it's volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Suppose the atmosphere were under less pressure. In that case this same volume of thermal energy entering from the surface would be less concentrated and the temperature lower

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
whilst never below that of the surface obviously.

Irrelevant.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly, it is warmer when compression is greater,

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
as witnessed by our own situation, precisely because of the 1st Law whereby the constant thermal energy being held in smaller accommodation must mean an increase per cubic foot raising the temperature accordingly.
Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote3. You simply assume the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course you don't bother to explain this in any way.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time - centuries in fact; how about in yours?

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion

IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

You do not understand statics. Under Newton's Laws a static situation arises when action and reaction are equal and opposite – one positive and one negative – cancelling each other out, but the forces are continuously operating, pretty obviously i would have thought. The stable state of our atmospheric compression is because the negative work of compression is equal to the positive work of expansion.

Denial of Newton's Law of Motion. F=mA.
There is no such thing a 'negative work'. The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The distance travelled by this continuous compression is in the negative direction compared to the positive direction of expansion and is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa to where we are now.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:- maintains a reduced volume

Right here, you acknowledge that the atmosphere is maintaining its volume, i.e. that it is clearly not compressing. The amount of work performed is zero.

Indeed you do not understand statics, the answer being above.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... into which the warmth from insolation is fed,

IBdaMann wroteWow! So technical. So specific. So exact.

I see that you realize that you have already failed internal consistency so what's the harm in a few more flagrant errors?

We'll soon see about that.

Time makes no difference here.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the reduced volume, coupled with the 1st Law, means that the thermal energy per unit volume is more than it otherwise would be, leading to this increased temperature despite constant total thermal energy content - see?

IBdaMann wroteAt this point, you might as well jam in as many errors as you can for maximum semantic leeway, right?

What errors?

RQAA

IBdaMann wrote1. In the previous sentence you specified the atmosphere MAINTAINS its volume, and in this sentence you contradict yourself by stating the volume is reduced, not maintained. You don't even try to hide your confusion.

The volume is compressed and then maintained in that state of compression, so ipso facto it is continually compressed. if it weren't it would expand wouldn't it?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. I'm just pointing out your subjunctive "more than it otherwise would be" for gfm7175's amusement. He enjoys well-engineered gibberbabble.

Well done. Subjunctive or otherwise (see what I did there) it simply means that if the force of gravity were otherwise then the state of compression would be otherwise too and so would the extent of the ATE - capish?

Pete Rogers wrote:

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time. Your religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Please engage megabrain before opening megamouth in future

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).18 July 2019

duncan61 wrote:No one is claiming to know the average.

duncan61 wrote:The question is how hot can it potentialy get and how cold can it potentialy get

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Daytime on one side of the moon lasts about 13 and a half days, followed by 13 and a half nights of darkness. When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).18 July 2019

As measured on a single site.

That is not the temperature of the Moon.
I was at Mt Augustus in February and a thermometer on a plastic table in the sun went to 61.C.I can say that it gets to over 60 in the east Gascoyne.It has never been that hot at Albany.No one is claiming to know the average.

duncan61 wrote:
The question is how hot can it potentialy get and how cold can it potentialy get

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

IBdaMann wroteYet more physics denial on your part. Perhaps one of these days you will accept black body science. Once you do, you will get to appreciate Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein's Law, Planck's Law and a host of others.

Yes, thermal energy can flow through a vacuum. How does the sun provide thermal energy to the earth?

Pete Rogers wrote:In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance

IBdaMann wroteThere is no such thing as "heat energy." Heat is a measure of power (measured in watts) while Energy and work are measured in joules. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere,

IBdaMann wroteThermal energy is what flows. Heat is that flow. Heat, itself, does not flow ... or "pass" or "transfer" or whatever other verb you wish to apply. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

IBdaMannwroteNope, we have been over this. You slept through the subject of "tense" in English class when you were a child and as a result, you believe that the past compression event is somehow causing (present progressive) the atmosphere's volume to change today.

IBdaMannwroteThe atmosphere's volume is not changing. It is not being compressed. All of what you are claiming is not happening (present progressive). All of it happened (preterite) long ago but is not happening in the present.

You have to get your tense straight before you can make sense. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Pete Rogers wrote:In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time

IBdaMannwroteAside from your inability to grasp tense, you are supposed to be explaining why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature has changed. That has to be your priority because it forms the entire basis for your dogma.

IBdaMann wroteSo ... explain why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature somehow changed at some point in the past. Atmospheric pressure doesn't affect a planet's average temperature.

IBdaMann wroteOh, and you might wish to define what you consider to comprise the earth's average temperature as well as what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error.

Pete Rogers wrote:You do not understand statics.

IBdaMann wroteI do, and I was hoping you would eventually build a sufficiently valid argument such that we could begin discussing specific values and their margin of error. Unfortunately you have so much you must explain first before we can even stroll down that road.

Pete Rogers wrote: The volume is compressed ...

IBdaMann wroteNope. The volume was compressed, i.e. in the past. The past tense is required. Using the present tense is an error.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and then maintained

ibdaMann wroteYes, the volume is maintained (constant) because it is not being compressed.

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time.

IBdaMann wroteYour religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Recommended Reading:





Enjoy!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

IBdaMann wroteYet more physics denial on your part. Perhaps one of these days you will accept black body science. Once you do, you will get to appreciate Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein's Law, Planck's Law and a host of others.

Yes, thermal energy can flow through a vacuum. How does the sun provide thermal energy to the earth?

I did warn you that to avoid making a fool of yourself you must read and understand what is being said to you before reaching for your counter-argument, but again you have failed to do that. Your ego is therefore in control instead of your desire to analyse correctly, thus making a nincompoop of you for the following reasons.
What you just wasted your time and ours blithering on about is radiation passing through vacuums, not conduction which was quite clearly stated to you, but you didn't apprehend it.
Transparent gases lose their temperature by conduction so there can be no heat transfer beyond the limits of the atmosphere because - for the umpteenth time - you cannot conduct heat into a vacuum.
The enhanced temperature of the atmosphere - with a small allowance for the tiny amount of opaque (to IR) GG's - is conducted to the surface, from where IR is emitted and travels through the atmosphere with no effect - except the discredited GE - and on through the vacuum of outer space. If you are not going to pay attention please go and bother someone else.

Pete Rogers wrote:In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance

IBdaMann wroteThere is no such thing as "heat energy." Heat is a measure of power (measured in watts) while Energy and work are measured in joules. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Heat energy just means the energy which heats things - thermal energy in other words - you should not be splitting hairs over such petty matters.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere,

IBdaMann wroteThermal energy is what flows. Heat is that flow. Heat, itself, does not flow ... or "pass" or "transfer" or whatever other verb you wish to apply. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Thermal energy causes heating, so no need to make such a meal of this either.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

IBdaMannwroteNope, we have been over this. You slept through the subject of "tense" in English class when you were a child and as a result, you believe that the past compression event is somehow causing (present progressive) the atmosphere's volume to change today.

Oh dear, indeed we have been over this - and how? but we are dealing with a brain which thinks that there is no compression of the atmosphere because it all happened at the beginning for him. He is lost in a hole of his own making from where he is unable to apprehend the simple fact that the atmosphere is in a stable state of continuous compression at 1 ton per square foot. Accordingly he has no business trying to contribute further until he cottons on to this simple fact.

IBdaMannwroteThe atmosphere's volume is not changing. It is not being compressed. All of what you are claiming is not happening (present progressive). All of it happened (preterite) long ago but is not happening in the present.

You have to get your tense straight before you can make sense. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

This all discredits IBdaMann, because he doesnt see that the maintainance of the reduced volume means the compression continues and will do so far into the future. If the volume were reduced further that would mean increased compression - increased from the current level so we have a current continuous level of compression - but this elemantary and obvious point seems to bounce off his brain which cannot thereby be kick-started over the matter. He should go and do something else if this is the best he can offer.

Pete Rogers wrote:In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time

IBdaMannwroteAside from your inability to grasp tense, you are supposed to be explaining why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature has changed. That has to be your priority because it forms the entire basis for your dogma.

Try this "Once upon a time gravity compressed the atmosphere - thus reducing its volume - its volume has remained at this reduced level ever since because gravity has never stopped compressing it, if it did then the volume would incerease"
If that does not go in then you are wasting everyone's time - chiefly your own

IBdaMann wroteSo ... explain why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature somehow changed at some point in the past. Atmospheric pressure doesn't affect a planet's average temperature.

I think I've done this often enough, but up it pops from again!
From the beginning the state of compression of the atmosphere determined the loss of volume and the loss of volume determined the ATE because of the increased thermal energy contained in each of the fewer cubic feet available to accommodate it, thus increasing the temperature from S-B. It is a natural result of conserving energy - the 1st Law - in reduced accommodation. Please switch your brain on when reading this.

IBdaMann wroteOh, and you might wish to define what you consider to comprise the earth's average temperature as well as what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error.

I use the generally agreed figures, how about you?

Pete Rogers wrote:You do not understand statics.

IBdaMann wroteI do, and I was hoping you would eventually build a sufficiently valid argument such that we could begin discussing specific values and their margin of error. Unfortunately you have so much you must explain first before we can even stroll down that road.

Do you really, then howcome you don't have the faintest idea that the atmosphere is, was, and probably always will be compressed by a weight of 1 ton per sqft. I think this is lost on you so I rest my case where your brain is concerned.

Pete Rogers wrote: The volume is compressed ...

IBdaMann wroteNope. The volume was compressed, i.e. in the past. The past tense is required. Using the present tense is an error.

Its embarassing - think Mann think!

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and then maintained

ibdaMann wroteYes, the volume is maintained (constant) because it is not being compressed.

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time.

Thats because there has been no change in the state of compression, it has never stopped being compressed, just reached the equilibrium state of compression. You really have a long way to go.

IBdaMann wroteYour religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Recommended Reading:





Enjoy!

How sad and how pathetic is all this twaddle?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

You do not understand statics. Under Newton's Laws a static situation arises when action and reaction are equal and opposite – one positive and one negative – cancelling each other out, but the forces are continuously operating, pretty obviously i would have thought. The stable state of our atmospheric compression is because the negative work of compression is equal to the positive work of expansion. The distance travelled by this continuous compression is in the negative direction compared to the positive direction of expansion and is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa to where we are now.

duncan61 wrote:If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

duncan61 wrote:
Death zone
It refers to altitudes above a certain point where the amount of oxygen is insufficient to sustain human life for an extended time span. This point is generally tagged as 8,000 m (26,000 ft, less than 356 millibars of atmospheric pressure).If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

You do not understand statics. Under Newton's Laws a static situation arises when action and reaction are equal and opposite – one positive and one negative – cancelling each other out, but the forces are continuously operating, pretty obviously i would have thought. The stable state of our atmospheric compression is because the negative work of compression is equal to the positive work of expansion. The distance travelled by this continuous compression is in the negative direction compared to the positive direction of expansion and is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa to where we are now.

Your argument or position/stance in your debate with IBDM is incomplete. Atmospheric air pressure is not determined by the mass of a column of air. This suggests that atmospheric air pressure is a function of gravity.
I think this is where I like astrophysics. As the Van Allen radiation belts attract polar gasses, this helps other gasses to absorb more solar radiation. This would be conservation of energy and allow the atmosphere to expand.
Then as the Earth's sunny side rotates away from the Sun and the Van Allen radiation belts, atmospheric gasses "relax" and slowly release conserved heat content.
This shows a cause and effect and it shows how heat content can be conserved and released. This shows a complete cycle. You'll soon realize that these guys do not think that energy can be conserved.
Also, is it possible that when atmospheric gasses are excited when exposed to the Van Allen radiation belts and solar radiation that momentum is transferred to gasses on the night side of the Earth? If the image loads, it's of Newton's Cradle which the link is to a video of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

Your LAME attempt to shift semantic goalposts is duly noted. Nobody is arguing that there isn't any atmospheric pressure.

Since you understand Pete's argument so thoroughly, explain how Earth's equilibrium temperature changed because of atmospheric pressure.

.

duncan61 wrote:The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

Your LAME attempt to shift semantic goalposts is duly noted. Nobody is arguing that there isn't any atmospheric pressure.

Since you understand Pete's argument so thoroughly, explain how Earth's equilibrium temperature changed because of atmospheric pressure.

.

When the weight of atmospheric gasses is either increased or decreased because of the Moon's gravity affecting the Earth's gravity. As a result it causes the wind to blow and for high and low pressure systems to occur. But then once again, we're discussing how astrophysics influences the Earth's ATE.
And the change in gravity causes work to be performed because of the increase or decrease in mass of either atmospheric gasses or bodies of water. The force that matter has is dependent on gravity as mass is not weight. Weight is the effect that gravity has on mass.

duncan61 wrote:
The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.

duncan61 wrote:
Thats it.

duncan61 wrote:
That is my understanding of Petes claim.

duncan61 wrote:
It is not a recent thing it has always been so.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN states the air is not being compressed.

duncan61 wrote:
Should we use the term squished

duncan61 wrote:
or is there a better term.

duncan61 wrote:
Once the insults start we know who is probably correct

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

Your LAME attempt to shift semantic goalposts is duly noted. Nobody is arguing that there isn't any atmospheric pressure.

Since you understand Pete's argument so thoroughly, explain how Earth's equilibrium temperature changed because of atmospheric pressure.

.

When the weight of atmospheric gasses is either increased or decreased because of the Moon's gravity affecting the Earth's gravity. As a result it causes the wind to blow and for high and low pressure systems to occur. But then once again, we're discussing how astrophysics influences the Earth's ATE.
And the change in gravity causes work to be performed because of the increase or decrease in mass of either atmospheric gasses or bodies of water. The force that matter has is dependent on gravity as mass is not weight. Weight is the effect that gravity has on mass.

The Moon's gravity does not affect Earth's gravity. See Newton's law of gravitational attraction.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic.

IBdaMann wroteThis is clearly the fundamental underlying principle of your theory. Any errors here automatically render your argument FALSE.

That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the principle of the vacuum flask

Heat does occur through a vacuum. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law now. A Dewer flask (vacuum flask, or Thermos bottle) makes no difference.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and I had presumed that a great mind such as you claim to possess might have realised that before making such a nonsensical statement.

The nonsense is YOURS. Hot coffee or soup in a Thermos bottle will eventually cool to room temperature. Cold drinks in a Thermos bottle will eventually warm to room temperature. That is heat.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:It means the only way it can lose the heat it contains is by transferring it to the planetary surface under the 2nd Law, which will warm it, and being solid/liquid will emit more IR until it comes back into equilibrium at the higher level - the ATE level.

IBdaMann WroteOoops, three errors right off the bat, any one of which renders your argument null and void. This is not surprising since we have covered this at length and shown all of this as the reason your religion cannot get out of the starting gate.

Let's see about that.

1.Heat is a flow of thermal energy, ergo heat is never "contained." Your argument fails the internal consistency check because you either don't know what heat is or you are trying to hijack the term in order to force the square peg of ATE through the round hole of physics.

In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance such that a constant reservoir of thermal energy is contained within the system. If that was not so the temperature would be Absolute Zero wouldn't it? How cool is that?

Heat is not energy. Heat is not contained in anything. Heat is not 'balance' or have to be balanced.

Pete Rogers wrote:

2. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. Your backwards theory gets it backwards.

That is a seriously flawed supposition. It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere, but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

The atmosphere is not reducing it's volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Suppose the atmosphere were under less pressure. In that case this same volume of thermal energy entering from the surface would be less concentrated and the temperature lower

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
whilst never below that of the surface obviously.

Irrelevant.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly, it is warmer when compression is greater,

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
as witnessed by our own situation, precisely because of the 1st Law whereby the constant thermal energy being held in smaller accommodation must mean an increase per cubic foot raising the temperature accordingly.
Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote3. You simply assume the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course you don't bother to explain this in any way.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time - centuries in fact; how about in yours?

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion

IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

You do not understand statics. Under Newton's Laws a static situation arises when action and reaction are equal and opposite – one positive and one negative – cancelling each other out, but the forces are continuously operating, pretty obviously i would have thought. The stable state of our atmospheric compression is because the negative work of compression is equal to the positive work of expansion.

Denial of Newton's Law of Motion. F=mA.
There is no such thing a 'negative work'. The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The distance travelled by this continuous compression is in the negative direction compared to the positive direction of expansion and is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa to where we are now.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:- maintains a reduced volume

Right here, you acknowledge that the atmosphere is maintaining its volume, i.e. that it is clearly not compressing. The amount of work performed is zero.

Indeed you do not understand statics, the answer being above.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... into which the warmth from insolation is fed,

IBdaMann wroteWow! So technical. So specific. So exact.

I see that you realize that you have already failed internal consistency so what's the harm in a few more flagrant errors?

We'll soon see about that.

Time makes no difference here.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the reduced volume, coupled with the 1st Law, means that the thermal energy per unit volume is more than it otherwise would be, leading to this increased temperature despite constant total thermal energy content - see?

IBdaMann wroteAt this point, you might as well jam in as many errors as you can for maximum semantic leeway, right?

What errors?

RQAA

IBdaMann wrote1. In the previous sentence you specified the atmosphere MAINTAINS its volume, and in this sentence you contradict yourself by stating the volume is reduced, not maintained. You don't even try to hide your confusion.

The volume is compressed and then maintained in that state of compression, so ipso facto it is continually compressed. if it weren't it would expand wouldn't it?

[quoteInto the night wrote]The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. I'm just pointing out your subjunctive "more than it otherwise would be" for gfm7175's amusement. He enjoys well-engineered gibberbabble.

Well done. Subjunctive or otherwise (see what I did there) it simply means that if the force of gravity were otherwise then the state of compression would be otherwise too and so would the extent of the ATE - capish?

Into the night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. The atmosphere is matter. Each particle within it also has gravity.

Pete Rogers wrote:

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time. Your religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Please engage megabrain before opening megamouth in future

Into the Night wroteInversion fallacy.

Into the Night wroteArgument by repetition fallacy. RQAA. Buzzword fallacies. Denial of science (Newton's Law of Motion, 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann law, ideal gas law). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Into the NightwroteInsult fallacies.

duncan61 wrote:
The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.Thats it.That is my understanding of Petes claim.It is not a recent thing it has always been so.ITN states the air is not being compressed.Should we use the term squished or is there a better term.Once the insults start we know who is probably correct

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

IBdaMann wroteYet more physics denial on your part. Perhaps one of these days you will accept black body science. Once you do, you will get to appreciate Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein's Law, Planck's Law and a host of others.

Yes, thermal energy can flow through a vacuum. How does the sun provide thermal energy to the earth?

I did warn you that to avoid making a fool of yourself you must read and understand what is being said to you before reaching for your counter-argument, but again you have failed to do that. Your ego is therefore in control instead of your desire to analyse correctly, thus making a nincompoop of you for the following reasons.
What you just wasted your time and ours blithering on about is radiation passing through vacuums, not conduction which was quite clearly stated to you, but you didn't apprehend it.
Transparent gases lose their temperature by conduction so there can be no heat transfer beyond the limits of the atmosphere because - for the umpteenth time - you cannot conduct heat into a vacuum.
The enhanced temperature of the atmosphere - with a small allowance for the tiny amount of opaque (to IR) GG's - is conducted to the surface, from where IR is emitted and travels through the atmosphere with no effect - except the discredited GE - and on through the vacuum of outer space. If you are not going to pay attention please go and bother someone else.

Pete Rogers wrote:In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance

IBdaMann wroteThere is no such thing as "heat energy." Heat is a measure of power (measured in watts) while Energy and work are measured in joules. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Heat energy just means the energy which heats things - thermal energy in other words - you should not be splitting hairs over such petty matters.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere,

IBdaMann wroteThermal energy is what flows. Heat is that flow. Heat, itself, does not flow ... or "pass" or "transfer" or whatever other verb you wish to apply. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

Thermal energy causes heating, so no need to make such a meal of this either.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

IBdaMannwroteNope, we have been over this. You slept through the subject of "tense" in English class when you were a child and as a result, you believe that the past compression event is somehow causing (present progressive) the atmosphere's volume to change today.

Oh dear, indeed we have been over this - and how? but we are dealing with a brain which thinks that there is no compression of the atmosphere because it all happened at the beginning for him. He is lost in a hole of his own making from where he is unable to apprehend the simple fact that the atmosphere is in a stable state of continuous compression at 1 ton per square foot. Accordingly he has no business trying to contribute further until he cottons on to this simple fact.

IBdaMannwroteThe atmosphere's volume is not changing. It is not being compressed. All of what you are claiming is not happening (present progressive). All of it happened (preterite) long ago but is not happening in the present.

You have to get your tense straight before you can make sense. You have to stop gibberbabbling if you want to get anywhere.

This all discredits IBdaMann, because he doesnt see that the maintainance of the reduced volume means the compression continues and will do so far into the future. If the volume were reduced further that would mean increased compression - increased from the current level so we have a current continuous level of compression - but this elemantary and obvious point seems to bounce off his brain which cannot thereby be kick-started over the matter. He should go and do something else if this is the best he can offer.

Pete Rogers wrote:In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time

IBdaMannwroteAside from your inability to grasp tense, you are supposed to be explaining why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature has changed. That has to be your priority because it forms the entire basis for your dogma.

Try this "Once upon a time gravity compressed the atmosphere - thus reducing its volume - its volume has remained at this reduced level ever since because gravity has never stopped compressing it, if it did then the volume would incerease"
If that does not go in then you are wasting everyone's time - chiefly your own

IBdaMann wroteSo ... explain why you believe the earth's equilibrium temperature somehow changed at some point in the past. Atmospheric pressure doesn't affect a planet's average temperature.

I think I've done this often enough, but up it pops from again!
From the beginning the state of compression of the atmosphere determined the loss of volume and the loss of volume determined the ATE because of the increased thermal energy contained in each of the fewer cubic feet available to accommodate it, thus increasing the temperature from S-B. It is a natural result of conserving energy - the 1st Law - in reduced accommodation. Please switch your brain on when reading this.

IBdaMann wroteOh, and you might wish to define what you consider to comprise the earth's average temperature as well as what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error.

I use the generally agreed figures, how about you?

Pete Rogers wrote:You do not understand statics.

IBdaMann wroteI do, and I was hoping you would eventually build a sufficiently valid argument such that we could begin discussing specific values and their margin of error. Unfortunately you have so much you must explain first before we can even stroll down that road.

Do you really, then howcome you don't have the faintest idea that the atmosphere is, was, and probably always will be compressed by a weight of 1 ton per sqft. I think this is lost on you so I rest my case where your brain is concerned.

Pete Rogers wrote: The volume is compressed ...

IBdaMann wroteNope. The volume was compressed, i.e. in the past. The past tense is required. Using the present tense is an error.

Its embarassing - think Mann think!

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and then maintained

ibdaMann wroteYes, the volume is maintained (constant) because it is not being compressed.

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time.

Thats because there has been no change in the state of compression, it has never stopped being compressed, just reached the equilibrium state of compression. You really have a long way to go.

IBdaMann wroteYour religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Recommended Reading:





Enjoy!

How sad and how pathetic is all this twaddle?

Into the Night wroteYour twaddle is indeed sad and pathetic. The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:Good luck justifying that too. I would be most interested to read the reasoning if you were able to provide it, but it has no relevance otherwise..

Pete Rogers wrote:Increased air density is a side effect of compression

Pete Rogers wrote: ... since the matter is forced into a more confined space and so is the thermal energy it contains thus increasing the temperature ... [/q]
Too funny. This is where you contradict yourself and simultaneously acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing (present progressive) and therefore none of this is happening (present progressive).

[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: ...and transferring back to the surface

Pete Rogers wrote: establishing the ATE at at least 33C overall.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.

Into the night wroteNo, it doesn't. The air is part of Earth.

duncan61 wrote:
Thats it.

Into the Night wroteNope. You still haven't got it.

duncan61 wrote:
That is my understanding of what Pete is saying. [quote] Into the Night wroteNo, you don't have that one right either. Pete is claiming that additional energy is coming from something that is not being compressed.

duncan61 wrote:
It is not a recent thing it has always been so.

Into the Night wroteNope. You cannot separate the air and the Earth. It is all the Earth.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN states the air is not being compressed.

Into the night wroteIt isn't.

duncan61 wrote:
Should we use the term squished

Into the Night wroteNope. Can't use that either. A thesaurus won't help you here.

duncan61 wrote:[/b]
or is there a better term.

Into the nighy wroteNo.

duncan61 wrote:
Once the insults start we know who is probably correct

Into the Night wroteAttempted proof by non-sequitur.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic.

IBdaMann wroteThis is clearly the fundamental underlying principle of your theory. Any errors here automatically render your argument FALSE.

That's rather embarrassing for you because you really ought to have learned that heat cannot be conducted into a vacuum.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the principle of the vacuum flask

Heat does occur through a vacuum. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law now. A Dewer flask (vacuum flask, or Thermos bottle) makes no difference.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and I had presumed that a great mind such as you claim to possess might have realised that before making such a nonsensical statement.

The nonsense is YOURS. Hot coffee or soup in a Thermos bottle will eventually cool to room temperature. Cold drinks in a Thermos bottle will eventually warm to room temperature. That is heat.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:It means the only way it can lose the heat it contains is by transferring it to the planetary surface under the 2nd Law, which will warm it, and being solid/liquid will emit more IR until it comes back into equilibrium at the higher level - the ATE level.

IBdaMann WroteOoops, three errors right off the bat, any one of which renders your argument null and void. This is not surprising since we have covered this at length and shown all of this as the reason your religion cannot get out of the starting gate.

Let's see about that.

1.Heat is a flow of thermal energy, ergo heat is never "contained." Your argument fails the internal consistency check because you either don't know what heat is or you are trying to hijack the term in order to force the square peg of ATE through the round hole of physics.

In a condition of thermal equilibrium, as enjoyed on Earth, the incoming and outgoing heat energy are in balance such that a constant reservoir of thermal energy is contained within the system. If that was not so the temperature would be Absolute Zero wouldn't it? How cool is that?

Heat is not energy. Heat is not contained in anything. Heat is not 'balance' or have to be balanced.

Pete Rogers wrote:

2. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. Your backwards theory gets it backwards.

That is a seriously flawed supposition. It is true that heat initially passes from the surface into the atmosphere, but then something else happens because the effect of gravity is to deprive it of part of its volume.

The atmosphere is not reducing it's volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Suppose the atmosphere were under less pressure. In that case this same volume of thermal energy entering from the surface would be less concentrated and the temperature lower

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
whilst never below that of the surface obviously.

Irrelevant.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly, it is warmer when compression is greater,

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
as witnessed by our own situation, precisely because of the 1st Law whereby the constant thermal energy being held in smaller accommodation must mean an increase per cubic foot raising the temperature accordingly.
Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote3. You simply assume the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course you don't bother to explain this in any way.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

In my world it has been widely accepted that Gravity causing compression is not magic for a very long time - centuries in fact; how about in yours?

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion

IBdaMann wroteYou still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it.

Your argument is DISMISSED (still).

You do not understand statics. Under Newton's Laws a static situation arises when action and reaction are equal and opposite – one positive and one negative – cancelling each other out, but the forces are continuously operating, pretty obviously i would have thought. The stable state of our atmospheric compression is because the negative work of compression is equal to the positive work of expansion.

Denial of Newton's Law of Motion. F=mA.
There is no such thing a 'negative work'. The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The distance travelled by this continuous compression is in the negative direction compared to the positive direction of expansion and is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa to where we are now.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:- maintains a reduced volume

Right here, you acknowledge that the atmosphere is maintaining its volume, i.e. that it is clearly not compressing. The amount of work performed is zero.

Indeed you do not understand statics, the answer being above.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... into which the warmth from insolation is fed,

IBdaMann wroteWow! So technical. So specific. So exact.

I see that you realize that you have already failed internal consistency so what's the harm in a few more flagrant errors?

We'll soon see about that.

Time makes no difference here.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the reduced volume, coupled with the 1st Law, means that the thermal energy per unit volume is more than it otherwise would be, leading to this increased temperature despite constant total thermal energy content - see?

IBdaMann wroteAt this point, you might as well jam in as many errors as you can for maximum semantic leeway, right?

What errors?

RQAA

IBdaMann wrote1. In the previous sentence you specified the atmosphere MAINTAINS its volume, and in this sentence you contradict yourself by stating the volume is reduced, not maintained. You don't even try to hide your confusion.

The volume is compressed and then maintained in that state of compression, so ipso facto it is continually compressed. if it weren't it would expand wouldn't it?

[quoteInto the night wrote]The atmosphere is not being compressed.

You have excelled yourself, because if you were correct that would mean that under a pressure of less than 1 ton per square foot the Atmosphere would not be of greater volume. Think man!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. I'm just pointing out your subjunctive "more than it otherwise would be" for gfm7175's amusement. He enjoys well-engineered gibberbabble.

Well done. Subjunctive or otherwise (see what I did there) it simply means that if the force of gravity were otherwise then the state of compression would be otherwise too and so would the extent of the ATE - capish?

Into the night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. The atmosphere is matter. Each particle within it also has gravity.

You are at least correct in stating that "The atmosphere is matter" so good on you for that - well done! Funny stuff matter though, because when it is in its gaseous phase, such as as an atmosphere or interstellar gas body - it doesn't matter which - it is always under compression depending upon the particular force exerted on it from the direction of its centre of gravity. Its size depends proportionately upon the pressure exerted what is more, dictating the particular degree of compression it is under. Accordingly our atmosphere is under the state of compression dictated by the particular strength of our gravity. This state of compression; as for any gas body: is held at the level you witness - being the particular equilibrium state of compression hereabouts (it never changes you know)- by the balancing outwards force trying to expand it against that very force of gravity pulling it in.
It is strange that you keep saying that our atmosphere is not compressed since I thought even a nincompoop would have cottoned on to the fact that if what he were saying was literally true it would be forced to disappear by dispersion wouldn't it? But it doesn't does it because it is held together by the compressing force of gravity isn't it!! Think man, think!

Pete Rogers wrote:

So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time. Your religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post.

Please engage megabrain before opening megamouth in future

Into the Night wroteInversion fallacy.

Good luck with justifying that. These statements have no meaning without justification, but you don't seem to have grasped the need.

Into the Night wroteArgument by repetition fallacy. RQAA. Buzzword fallacies. Denial of science (Newton's Law of Motion, 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann law, ideal gas law). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Good luck justifying that too. I would be most interested to read the reasoning if you were able to provide it, but it has no relevance otherwise.

Into the NightwroteInsult fallacies.

It is not an insult fallacy when a person is assuming standards held to be valid by his opponent. For instance; taking your own case: you clearly do not regard your calling me "WACKY" or making unsupported personal attacks such as "Religious dogma" and "Word salad" - whatever that is supposed to mean - to be insult fallacies so I was adopting parity with your own approach as I had understood that you clearly think insults of these types are valid for use in reasoned argument. If that is not true then you should desist and I will happily follow suit to help you reach higher ground at last.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:Increased air density is a side effect of compression

IBdaMann wroteOnce again you are a moron. Increasing density is compression, by definition, and is not merely incidental. You have to be stupid to refer to compression as a side effect of itself.

IBdaMann wroteOoops, it looks like it's time for you to lash out at Into the Night.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... since the matter is forced into a more confined space and so is the thermal energy it contains thus increasing the temperature ... [/q]
[quote]IBdaMann wroteToo funny. This is where you contradict yourself and simultaneously acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing (present progressive) and therefore none of this is happening (present progressive).

Pete Rogers wrote: ...and transferring back to the surface

IBdaMann wrloteToo funny. This is where you contradict yourself by simultaneously accepting the 2nd law of thermodynamics and acknowledging that the surface warms the atmosphere and not the other way around.

Pete Rogers wrote: establishing the ATE at at least 33C overall.

IBdaMannwrote... and Duncan, there you have it. The ATE, which is a temperature increase of 33C overall, can only be established by egregiously violating physics, logic and the English language.

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.Thats it.That is my understanding of Petes claim.It is not a recent thing it has always been so.ITN states the air is not being compressed.Should we use the term squished or is there a better term.Once the insults start we know who is probably correct

May I put this slightly differently; for your consideration: by way of intended simplification.
Increased air density is a side effect of compression since the matter is forced into a more confined space and so is the thermal energy it contains thus increasing the temperature and transferring back to the surface establishing the ATE at at least 33C overall. The gaseous atmosphere does not cool the Earth, but maintains the ATE at a particular extra %, representing the degree of volume lost to Gravity at the surface, so when the Earth cools at night less thermal energy is conducted into the atmosphere for enhancement so the atmosphere loses more heat to the surface acheiving a lower equilibrium level.
If that does not help please let me know and I will try to be clearer.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There you go. A good example of your belief that insult constitutes valid argument when deployed by you, but forms the basis of objection - insult fallacy - when another goes along with it.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is your logical failure that exposes you most,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so you are not the one to be taken seriously when pronouning upon what is and what is not fallacy! Wake up man!

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
The denser air at the surface affects the speed that the earth warms and cools.

Into the night wroteNo, it doesn't. The air is part of Earth.

So what? The state of compression at the base of the atmosphere forces the entering energy to occupy a smaller volume than otherwise so you get more energy per unit volume than otherwise - see - causing the ATE?

duncan61 wrote:
Thats it.

Into the Night wroteNope. You still haven't got it.

It's clear that you don't actually know what you mean when you refer to the "it" which you say he hasn't "got". Gravity must cause temperature enhancement on Earth the same as compression of any gas body anywhere does. For whoever has cottoned on to that truth it's Yep, not Nope you see?

duncan61 wrote:
That is my understanding of what Pete is saying. [quote] Into the Night wroteNo, you don't have that one right either. Pete is claiming that additional energy is coming from something that is not being compressed.

If it weren't being compressed it would dissipate ipso facto you are talking out of your hat. (Surprise surprise.)

duncan61 wrote:
It is not a recent thing it has always been so.

Into the Night wroteNope. You cannot separate the air and the Earth. It is all the Earth.

The Atmosphere is indeed part of the Earth - the gaseous part - so it behaves according to its very different property of compressibility and that separates it phenomenally from the Aquasphere and Lithosphere doesn't it- that's the point Einstein.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN states the air is not being compressed.

Into the night wroteIt isn't.

If you were right in saying this, then the atmosphere would dissipate, but it doesn't, so you are wrong - capish?

duncan61 wrote:
Should we use the term squished

Into the Night wroteNope. Can't use that either. A thesaurus won't help you here.

The atmosphere is both compressed and squished whichever term you like to choose. If you held your finger over the end of your bike pump and pushed until you could push no further the air within will be squished and remain compressed at an equilibrium level until your arm can't take it any more. The air is squished, just like it is in the atmosphere, but with a little extra help from you increasing the squishing.

duncan61 wrote:[/b]
or is there a better term.

Into the nighy wroteNo.

You are right - congratulations - "compressed" is the best term because it is more scientific.

duncan61 wrote:
Once the insults start we know who is probably correct

Into the Night wroteAttempted proof by non-sequitur.

This is a very poor comment from an individual who continually accuses others of "Insult fallacy". It is a failure of integrity - the minimum requirement for rational discussion - which requires that you not be hypocritical as you clearly are here.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:Increased air density is a side effect of compression

IBdaMann wroteOnce again you are a moron. Increasing density is compression, by definition, and is not merely incidental. You have to be stupid to refer to compression as a side effect of itself.

Spoken by a true idiot.
Compression is the act of volume reduction with the consequence (side effect) that the material content per unit volume - known as the density of the material - is forced to increase. To say that compression is density increase rather than that compression causes density increase is an elementary mistake. I wouldn't expect a school pupil to get that wrong.

IBdaMann wroteOoops, it looks like it's time for you to lash out at Into the Night.

And this from the nincompoop who does not know that compression increases density, but thinks compression and density are the same thing and then says "Once again you are a moron" and accuses me of lashing out!! I mean - really - I rest my case?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... since the matter is forced into a more confined space and so is the thermal energy it contains thus increasing the temperature ... [/q]
[quote]IBdaMann wroteToo funny. This is where you contradict yourself and simultaneously acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing (present progressive) and therefore none of this is happening (present progressive).

Of course the atmosphere's volume isn't changing! That's precisely because its state of compression has reached equiliblrium due to the equal force trying to expand it. We are - accordingly - in this continual stable degree of atmospheric compression. You seem to have trouble getting your brain round such simple points at the same time as rather laughably calling me a moron etc.. When you stick your head up your fundament you are the only one - apart from those who have done the same thing (like Into the Night perhaps) - who cannot see the hysterical spectacle that the rest of us can.

Pete Rogers wrote: ...and transferring back to the surface

IBdaMann wrloteToo funny. This is where you contradict yourself by simultaneously accepting the 2nd law of thermodynamics and acknowledging that the surface warms the atmosphere and not the other way around.

Oh , your laughing again - its great to see someone who is so easily amused! It's a graduated process and is not unrelated to why the temperature goes up when you put a lid on a simmering pan - for instance - even though the ingoing thermal energy does not change when you do.
Since the beginning - more or less - we have been in temperature equilibrium at a level dictated by insolation and Atmospheric compression, but when the first scintilla of energy entered the base of the atmosphere from the planetary surface it was immediately enhanced and the 2nd law direction briefly reversed until the next scintilla enters and the same vibration of the 2nd Law continues until equilibrium is reached at the enhanced level balanced by departing IR from the surface.

Pete Rogers wrote: establishing the ATE at at least 33C overall.

IBdaMannwrote... and Duncan, there you have it. The ATE, which is a temperature increase of 33C overall, can only be established by egregiously violating physics, logic and the English language.

Please justify this claim. Assertions of this type have no meaning otherwise and cannot be considered. No violation of any kind has occurred as far as i can see, so please enlighten me as to why you know better, otherwise don't bother to make comments as; being empty: they cannot be considered.

The same must be said of images, where the message seems tangential at best and simple mockery at worst. No place for that in a discussion aimed at uncovering the truth

With a bit of luck the penny might drop, but you have to think like a juror - impartially that is - not like an advocate whose job is to win an argument regardless of the lack of merit in his position - anything else is a violation of the scientific method.

Pete Rogers wrote:The state of compression at the base of the atmosphere forces the entering energy to occupy a smaller volume

Pete Rogers wrote: ... than otherwise

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Thats it.

Into the Night wroteNope. You still haven't got it.

It's clear that you don't actually know what you mean when you refer to the "it" which you say he hasn't "got". Gravity must cause temperature enhancement on Earth the same as compression of any gas body anywhere does. For whoever has cottoned on to that truth it's Yep, not Nope you see?

Pete Rogers wrote:If it weren't being compressed

Pete Rogers wrote: The Atmosphere is indeed part of the Earth - the gaseous part - so it behaves according to its very different property of compressibility and that separates it phenomenally from the Aquasphere and Lithosphere doesn't it- that's the point Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote:You are right - congratulations - "compressed" is the best term because it is more scientific.