Global warming is not anthropogenic

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?

RQAA. I have already answered this question to you. Stop asking it.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

By definition. Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day

Okay. It's infrared light coming from the Sun.

duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

By conduction. It also warms the atmosphere by radiance.

duncan61 wrote:
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

Nope. Density does not affect the heat index of any substance.

duncan61 wrote:
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

This is basically correct. The atmosphere has mass. It takes time to heat or cool it, just as it does to heat and cool the Earth itself. The difference is that you are only considering the bottom of an ocean of air and attempting to describe that as the temperature of the Earth.

duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

Certainly. A contextomy shift is taking place here, along with a false equivalence. This is also known as a pivot fallacy. You are also adding a property to mass that doesn't exist in assuming incorrect things about the heat index of a substance.

duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

No, it doesn't make sense. You have to define 'climate change' and 'global warming' first. It is not possible to have a theory about meaningless buzzwords. Theories must be valid arguments.

duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

A satellite is not a thermometer, nor can a satellite measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can it be measured either.

duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia. The temperature of Australia is unknown.

duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Random numbers are not data. There is nothing to 'cook'. Also, cooking data makes it useless for statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics can only make use of unbiased raw data.

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:That's pretty dumb.

gfm7175's approach is absolutely rational. He has absolutely no reason to rush to embrace your WACKY religion when you won't even make an effort to answer any of his questions. You demand unconditional faith and you call him "dumb" for not OBEYING you "just because you say so."

IBdaMannwroteYou're a moron.

Nobody has seen hide nor hair of your explanations of the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. They are all still HERE.

There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: I always follow the demands of Epistemology

IBdaMann wrote Why not try following the scientific method? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't get out of the starting gate owing to all of your physics violations. You are pushing a religion, after all, and a particularly WACKY one that isn't even original; it's just a brazen copy of Greenhouse Effect. The only possible congregation that you will be able to attract are the extremely stupid and the extremely dishonest.

Which one is Duncan?

Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?

RQAA. I have already answered this question to you. Stop asking it.

What's RQAA? A scientific term or the usual gainsay? You use it a lot so it has to be submissible.
Did you, know that?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

By definition. Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Okay.

duncan61 wrote:
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day

Okay. It's infrared light coming from the Sun.

duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

By conduction. It also warms the atmosphere by radiance.

duncan61 wrote:
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

Nope. Density does not affect the heat index of any substance.

duncan61 wrote:
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

This is basically correct. The atmosphere has mass. It takes time to heat or cool it, just as it does to heat and cool the Earth itself. The difference is that you are only considering the bottom of an ocean of air and attempting to describe that as the temperature of the Earth.

duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

Certainly. A contextomy shift is taking place here, along with a false equivalence. This is also known as a pivot fallacy. You are also adding a property to mass that doesn't exist in assuming incorrect things about the heat index of a substance.

duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

No, it doesn't make sense. You have to define 'climate change' and 'global warming' first. It is not possible to have a theory about meaningless buzzwords. Theories must be valid arguments.

duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

A satellite is not a thermometer, nor can a satellite measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can it be measured either.

duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia. The temperature of Australia is unknown.

duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Random numbers are not data. There is nothing to 'cook'. Also, cooking data makes it useless for statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics can only make use of unbiased raw data.

None of this is interperable as science

Pete Rogers wrote:
because there is nothing offered in support of assertions;

Pete Rogers wrote:
bar the matter of infrared -

Pete Rogers wrote:
well done: nor deposition of the concepts offered for falsification so it's just gainsaying -

Pete Rogers wrote:
a waste of the boy's time.
These individuals must be adolescent as they apparently lack the understanding of the requirement for deposition of contrary argument.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly its just noise.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I don't think this chap can mentally contain the idea that the Law of Conservation of Energy dictates that compression warms gas.

Pete Rogers wrote:
His reaction will not actually deal with the notion, as I think we will find out, but his brain will somehow tell him tell us that he has, so that's what junk will emerge againt. That it reckons to have falsified particular argument is just noise - that's the level we are dealing with unfortunately.
Teenage egotism knows no limit or honourability it appears.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:That's pretty dumb.

gfm7175's approach is absolutely rational. He has absolutely no reason to rush to embrace your WACKY religion when you won't even make an effort to answer any of his questions. You demand unconditional faith and you call him "dumb" for not OBEYING you "just because you say so."

IBdaMannwroteYou're a moron.

This arrogant name-calling is coming from the very bufoon who insisted that if you reduce the volume of a gas body by 1/2 then the Thermal Energy per unit volume is arrived at by dividing by 2, not 1/2. Such is the mental capacity we are having to deal with. It was so stupid as to be beyond belief, yet amoeba-brain here has the temerity to use the very term - moron - which applies to such foolishness, in denigration of the individual - me - who knew better and had to educate him on the point accordingly. He is revealed - serially - by this kind of thing as being too immature to understand dramatic irony according to this; whereby all except him - for obvious reasons - easily witness the hilarious sight of him shoving his head up his fundament time and again whilst thinking how clever he is.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Nobody has seen hide nor hair of your explanations of the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. They are all still HERE.

There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: I always follow the demands of Epistemology

IBdaMann wrote Why not try following the scientific method? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't get out of the starting gate owing to all of your physics violations. You are pushing a religion, after all, and a particularly WACKY one that isn't even original; it's just a brazen copy of Greenhouse Effect. The only possible congregation that you will be able to attract are the extremely stupid and the extremely dishonest.

This is absolutely priceless beyond pricelessness - what infant is this Mann? Epistemology contains the scientific method you bozo!! Hence you show here that it is you who does not understand the Scientific Method because you make it clear that you have no idea of its relation to Epistemological necessities and their containments you halfwit!

Pete Rogers wrote:

Which one is Duncan?

Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.

I think it is time for you to stop struggling with things you don't know how to grapple with correctly, being the difference between valid and void means for falsification of an argument.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You use void means almost without exception so what you are doing is of no more than nuisance value really to disrupt sound process - gum up the works so to speak - nothing else.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The only acceptable process is for the examiners to take each particular and argue where be deficient in its own terms and follow the defence against that seriatim until the overthrow or dominion of the particular be made clear, then move to the next particular.
On the correct - EXAMINABLE - falsification of a key particular; i.e. one without which the theory cannot be defended: it is then successfully falsified.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The mistake that you and your mates make here is that instead of doing that you decide for yourselves that it is sufficient to simply decry the theory and mock the deposers in order to sweep it all aside so as to substitute what it is that you wish to insist as truth and squabble about that instead of proper argument. That is just quarreling, so please stop as it violates common sense because instead of falsifying anything all that you do is to deflect from material which is left improperly examined in dielectical terms. Instead forcing its dismissal by declaration.

Pete Rogers wrote:
That approach of is well known formally as The Method of Propaganda - being precisely what epistemology and the scientific method were created to forbid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly please stop wasting everyone's time - particularly your own - as there is no point in what you are doing

Pete Rogers wrote:
The best approach for you to take is to start another thread where you put your own theory down for falsification and do the analysis - capish? Maybe not eh?

Pete Rogers wrote:
I have severe doubts that you will have understood any of this, so we can only wait and see whether we just get more malignancy, which has been about the limit of your understanding of what falsification entails so far. Either smarten up or go away please.

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.

Indeed he should, if he refuses to hold a discussion. He is not going to convert ITN, IBD, nor myself over to believing in his wacky "ATE" religion. It is now to the point of insanity.

That's pretty dumb.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I always follow the demands of Epistemology, taking the trouble to support my contentions with arguments,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but it is met with stuff like this, pure gainsay.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning. Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.

Pete Rogers wrote: This arrogant name-calling is ...

Pete Rogers wrote: ... coming from the very bufoon who insisted that if you reduce the volume of a gas body by 1/2 then the Thermal Energy per unit volume is arrived at by dividing by 2, not 1/2.

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

Pete Rogers wrote: ... so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason,

IBdaMann wrote The difference between valid and void ...

Pete Rogers wrote: This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.

Pete Rogers wrote: The best approach for you to take is to ...

Pete Rogers wrote: I have severe doubts that you will have understood any of this, ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

I'm most certainly satisfied with this. It seems to me that Pete doesn't wish to fix the flaws that you have noted.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

I'm most certainly satisfied with this. It seems to me that Pete doesn't wish to fix the flaws that you have noted.

If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, but the thermal energy content unaltered - according to the 1st Law.

Pete Rogers wrote:
That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less - in exact proportion to the lost volume e.g. half the volume means twice the temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any GE and mankind;s CO2 has no connection with climate change.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, but the thermal energy content unaltered - according to the 1st Law. That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less - in exact proportion to the lost volume e.g. half the volume means twice the temperature.
Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any GE and mankind;s CO2 has no connection with climate change.

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

I'm most certainly satisfied with this. It seems to me that Pete doesn't wish to fix the flaws that you have noted.

If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, but the thermal energy content unaltered - according to the 1st Law.

Lower than what? Larger than what? If there is a larger atmosphere than Earth, pressure at the surface is higher, not lower. The size of an atmosphere is determined by how much mass there is in it (assuming the same planet size as Earth).

Pete Rogers wrote:
That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less - in exact proportion to the lost volume e.g. half the volume means twice the temperature.

Nope. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy, nor the total thermal energy in a given volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any GE and mankind;s CO2 has no connection with climate change.

Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

duncan61 wrote:I would like to learn more of this oft quoted 1st law of thermodynamics.

duncan61 wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing.

duncan61 wrote: The sun provides the energy in a variable amount so the energy source is not nothing.

duncan61 wrote: Early Hot water solar panels were a header pipe of 25mm with 15mm copper tubing running verticaly on a painted black copper plate surface.

duncan61 wrote: My question is if the energy from the sun is finite and the solar panels are using this energy does this reduce the amount of energy available or does it stay constant?

tmiddles wrote:Pete I'm sure you'll agree that determining that something is contributing to the the temperature does not mean that it somehow excludes another factor.

duncan61 wrote:ITN wrote

duncan61 wrote:I may have worked it out.The energy from the sun is flowing in and energy is radiating out ...

duncan61 wrote: ... so it is not possible to use up the energy as it is in a state of flux.

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot. It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.
Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law Einstein, just in case you didn't know.

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

IBDaMann wroteThermal energy gives temperature to matter, not to any "volume."

No! No! No! laddie. Thermal energy per unit volume is the measure of temperature - stay behind after class and swot it up!! Nobody qualifies for grown-up discussion of these matters in ignorance of the inevitable consequences of CharlesLaw Einstein - if that's you.

IBDaMannwroteYou could have made at least a half-hearted effort to learn some of the physics involved in your dogma. Are you not interested in being able to explain why any rational adult should believe what you preach instead of laughing at you for being a total moron?

You really are a sandwich short of a picnic in that you possess no means for working out that temperature of a gas depends upon the amount of energy per unit volume all other things being equal - like Mass - it's Charles' Law Einstein so the moron involved must be whatever you see in the mirror when you pop your spots!

IBdaMann wroteObviously if you are not interested then you shouldn't wonder why everyone is laughing at you for being a total moron. Obviously if you are not interested then people like Duncan would realize that you are targetting them specifically because you find them to be total morons as well. You certainly aren't trying to convince people who are not scientifically illiterate or who want you to answer specific questions.

Here we have the exsquisite irony that this numpty; who doesn't even know that compression heats gas precisely because the thermal energy is thereby contained in a smaller volume and that thermal energy per unit volume defines temperature and therefore self-exposes as a true hare-brain: which is his resort to taunts - like "moron" when he knows nothing, not even the basics of Charles' Law in case I still forgot to mention it!!

tmiddles wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, but the thermal energy content unaltered - according to the 1st Law. That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less - in exact proportion to the lost volume e.g. half the volume means twice the temperature.
Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any GE and mankind;s CO2 has no connection with climate change.

[emphasis mine]

Pete I'm sure you'll agree that determining that something is contributing to the the temperature does not mean that it somehow excludes another factor. I could rework your statement to make the statement we know to be false:
"Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any albedo or emissivity. It simply doesn't matter how reflective the Earth is" = false

Also "warms" is a changing in temperature. The gravitational effect you're describing isn't changing is it?

What I would say is that when Fourier was analyzing the higher temperature of Earth relative to what he expected to find it doesn't seem he included the effect of gravity and the ideal gas law. He theorized the greenhouse effect in 1824 and the ideal gas law was 1808 so this is a question that begs some explanation.

I think it's safe to assume we are missing something in their analysis and not the other way around.

duncan61 wrote:
y

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

I'm most certainly satisfied with this. It seems to me that Pete doesn't wish to fix the flaws that you have noted.

If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, but the thermal energy content unaltered - according to the 1st Law.

Lower than what? Larger than what? If there is a larger atmosphere than Earth, pressure at the surface is higher, not lower. The size of an atmosphere is determined by how much mass there is in it (assuming the same planet size as Earth).

Pete Rogers wrote:
That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less - in exact proportion to the lost volume e.g. half the volume means twice the temperature.

Nope. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy, nor the total thermal energy in a given volume.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly gravity warms the atmosphere not any GE and mankind;s CO2 has no connection with climate change.

Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

duncan61 wrote:
You can't create energy out of nothing.The sun provides the energy in a variable amount so the energy source is not nothing.Early Hot water solar panels were a header pipe of 25mm with 15mm copper tubing running verticaly on a painted black copper plate surface.They were good scrap value.New ones are cast from some modern material and do not have copper in them.The energy they absorb is transferred to the water by conduction and convection starts a flow and return that transfers the warmer water to the cylinder above.It can be cold outside but if there is sunlight they still heat up however with cloud cover they do not work and most have an electric booster.I have installed units that have a gas booster.My question is if the energy from the sun is finite and the solar panels are using this energy does this reduce the amount of energy available or does it stay constant?

duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote
Define "available." Are you claiming that energy is created out of nothing at some point ... or that energy is destroyed into nothing at some point? If not, how is your question relevant to ... anything?

duncan61 wrote:
I may have worked it out.The energy from the sun is flowing in and energy is radiating out so it is not possible to use up the energy as it is in a state of flux.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

duncan61 wrote:
ITN wrote
Electromagnetic energy is still not thermal energy. You still cannot demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, can you?
.From what I am learning Electromagnetic energy is light and light can convert to thermal energy

.I am standing by my cold to warmer theory as I have just put 6 cans of OeTTINGER beer in the freezer as I plan to drink alone later today.The freezer will chill the beer just right and be good to go later.If I am away from refrigeration I will pack my esky with ice that I have been freezing for a while.The ice could be as low as -10 as it has not been that long and it takes about 3 months for a domestic freezer outside to get to -21.When I put cans of OeTTINGER beer on the ice direct from the box at what ever the ambient temperature is the ice will transfer energy to the beer chilling it in an hour or so.24 hours later both ice which is now water and beer will be at the ambient temperature.This indicates that the energy flowed from cold to warmer then back the other way.

duncan61 wrote:
I have read the second law and it is describing heat not cold.I am struggling with the concept of ice cooling the beer then the whole mass warming again to ambient the energy is going one way then the other.I am sure I will get it by the end of the week.Thanks for the help

duncan61 wrote: I have read the second law ...

duncan61 wrote: ... and it is describing heat not cold.

duncan61 wrote: I am struggling with the concept of ice cooling the beer

duncan61 wrote: ... the energy is going one way then the other.

duncan61 wrote:
I have read the second law and it is describing heat not cold.I am struggling with the concept of ice cooling the beer then the whole mass warming again to ambient the energy is going one way then the other.I am sure I will get it by the end of the week.Thanks for the help

duncan61 wrote:
Got it.That explanation makes sense thank you

IBdaMann wrote:

Just when you thought numb-nutz might have finally understood his error, he chimes in from the peanut gallery to triple-down on thtooopid and to raise you another five.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot.

The short answer: No, you don't have any idea why discerning the independent variables from the dependent variables matters.

Your mathematical incompetence underwhelms.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.

IBdaMann wroteThis is where you explain how Charles' Law defines temperature in terms of thermal energy. I'm looking at Charles' Law right now and nope, I don't see any thermal energy term in there anywhere. But you insist that there is so the floor is yours.

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law

Just to be clear, you are talking about an instantaneous change that causes the temperature to increase, right? The temperature will then cool, right? Oh that's right, you don't think the temperature ever cools.

IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

IBdaMann wroteWell Genius, let's apply Charles' Law to earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere's volume is not changing, therefore V1 = V2

T2 = T1*V1/V1 -> T2 = T1 -> the atmosphere's temperature is not changing.

The doesn't seem to jive well with your WACKY dogma, does it?

IBdaMann wroteSo obviously you are not interested in whether everyone is laughing at you for being a total moron. Obviously people like Duncan should realize that you targetted them specifically because you find them to be total morons as well. You certainly aren't trying to convince people who are not scientifically illiterate or who want you to answer specific questions ... and you certainly aren't interested in learning anything. In fact, you take a healthy pride in remaining completely scientifically illiterate.

IBdaMann wroteSo, you now have three more items on your plate. Please answer the following questions in addition to all the previous questions:

IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?

IBdaMann wrote2. How can temperature be determined by amount of thermal energy per volume if two different amounts of thermal energy within the same volume can be the same temperature?

IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

IBdaMann wrote:

Just when you thought numb-nutz might have finally understood his error, he chimes in from the peanut gallery to triple-down on thtooopid and to raise you another five.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot.

The short answer: No, you don't have any idea why discerning the independent variables from the dependent variables matters.

Your mathematical incompetence underwhelms.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.

IBdaMann wroteThis is where you explain how Charles' Law defines temperature in terms of thermal energy. I'm looking at Charles' Law right now and nope, I don't see any thermal energy term in there anywhere. But you insist that there is so the floor is yours.

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law

Just to be clear, you are talking about an instantaneous change that causes the temperature to increase, right? The temperature will then cool, right? Oh that's right, you don't think the temperature ever cools.

IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

IBdaMann wroteWell Genius, let's apply Charles' Law to earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere's volume is not changing, therefore V1 = V2

T2 = T1*V1/V1 -> T2 = T1 -> the atmosphere's temperature is not changing.

The doesn't seem to jive well with your WACKY dogma, does it?

IBdaMann wroteSo obviously you are not interested in whether everyone is laughing at you for being a total moron. Obviously people like Duncan should realize that you targetted them specifically because you find them to be total morons as well. You certainly aren't trying to convince people who are not scientifically illiterate or who want you to answer specific questions ... and you certainly aren't interested in learning anything. In fact, you take a healthy pride in remaining completely scientifically illiterate.

IBdaMann wroteSo, you now have three more items on your plate. Please answer the following questions in addition to all the previous questions:

IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?

IBdaMann wrote2. How can temperature be determined by amount of thermal energy per volume if two different amounts of thermal energy within the same volume can be the same temperature?

IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Just when you thought numb-nutz might have finally understood his error, he chimes in from the peanut gallery to triple-down on thtooopid and to raise you another five.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger,

ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot.

The short answer: No, you don't have any idea why discerning the independent variables from the dependent variables matters.

Your mathematical incompetence underwhelms.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.

IBdaMann wroteThis is where you explain how Charles' Law defines temperature in terms of thermal energy. I'm looking at Charles' Law right now and nope, I don't see any thermal energy term in there anywhere. But you insist that there is so the floor is yours.

The System is in a state of equilibrium meaning its Thermal Energy content is constant, so you see, if pressure were less the Troposphere would contain more volume units into which that constant amount of Thermal Energy (1st Law) would then be divided; if you are able to follow this and, that that has to mean less thermal energy per unit volume so - if you can keep up - you might then go on to discover that this must mean the temperature would be less, which alone proves that Gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere and due to Charles' Law it does so in precise accordance with the volume removed by Auto-compression.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There you have it; because thermal energy must be constant in accordance with the 1st Law and the degree of enhancement of temperature is in precise accordance with the Tropospheric volume lost to our particular strength of Gravity in accordance with Charles' Law.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1)

Pete Rogers wrote:
the troposphere would be bigger

Pete Rogers wrote:
and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Charles' Law just tells you how much when you have T1 V1 and V2. Do you follow or is this still too difficult?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law

Just to be clear, you are talking about an instantaneous change that causes the temperature to increase, right? The temperature will then cool, right? Oh that's right, you don't think the temperature ever cools.

No! of course not, it is the result of the degree to which the troposphere is reduced in volume by its own weight acting upon it.

Pete Rogers wrote:
All adiabatic gas bodies in the universe have their temperatures enhanced by gravity

Pete Rogers wrote:
- didn't you know that? I thought you told us that you had come to know everything by the time you were fifteen, so I suppose this must just have slipped through the net - eh?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.

Really?

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Well, first off, the atmosphere has more or less a constant mass, pressure notwithstanding, and for some reason that seems to be lost on you, which is most odd for a genius. Now Metal cubes are peculiarly unsuited to act as an allegory for The Laws of Fluid Dynamics. Can you guess why - I've left you a clue if you look closely?
Using a second guess can you advise me whether you think that Metal Cubes on Garage Roofs are in an adiabatic state (Hint - nowhere to conduct excess heat).

Pete Rogers wrote:
It might all be beyond your grasp, like Charles' Law seems to have been regardless of its simplicity - but why not give it a go? After all its 50:50 at worst.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

IBdaMann wroteWell Genius, let's apply Charles' Law to earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere's volume is not changing, therefore V1 = V2

T2 = T1*V1/V1 -> T2 = T1 -> the atmosphere's temperature is not changing.

The doesn't seem to jive well with your WACKY dogma, does it?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, so that's torn it for me has it?

Pete Rogers wrote:
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The hypothesis we are testing is whether the Troposphere is smaller (V2) than it would be if gravity were minimal (V1) you see, would V1 be more than V2 that's all that is being asked?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Now any people round here that are not as thick as pigsh*t have worked out that V2 must indeed be less than V1 so T2 must indeed be more than T1 in the same proportion, how about you? where does your brain lie on a line of density between the lightness of brilliance and the gloopiness of porcine excrement?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteSo obviously you are not interested in whether everyone is laughing at you for being a total moron. Obviously people like Duncan should realize that you targetted them specifically because you find them to be total morons as well. You certainly aren't trying to convince people who are not scientifically illiterate or who want you to answer specific questions ... and you certainly aren't interested in learning anything. In fact, you take a healthy pride in remaining completely scientifically illiterate.

Have you ever heard of Dramatic Irony I wonder? It's where the character has shat his pants without realising and turns aggressively towards another making wild accusations about his disgusting smelliness. You should be on that stage.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wroteSo, you now have three more items on your plate. Please answer the following questions in addition to all the previous questions:

Lucky me!

IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?

Nowhere of course! because the Law holds true regardless of the amount of Thermal Energy contained in the gas body e.g. the temperature will go up by exactly a third if the weight of the troposphere compresses V2 into two-thirds of minimal Gravity's V1 - capish? Probably not!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. How can temperature be determined by amount of thermal energy per volume if two different amounts of thermal energy within the same volume can be the same temperature?

Well, it's nonsense of course, because metal cubes don't compress and therefore can offer no insight into Fluid Dynamics - the clue is in the name!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

When you bark up the wrong tree you make sure that it's a very long way away from the right one don't you? Not even in the same forest.
The Volume obviously remains the same, so let's call it an unchanging V2, but being in compression to the extent of volume reduction by its own weight when compared to what it would be with minimal gravity, V1, is how we discover that the stable state of compression giving us V2 causes the planet to have warmed beyond what it would be under V1 conditions. I shouldn't need to tell you any of this!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Oh dear, you are absolutely determined to make a complete arse of yourself, aren't you? I can only refer you to my earlier explanation of how dramatic irony works and- incidentally - sometimes the character never discovers that he shat himself all along - I wonder if you will? Anyway, the audience will know who's pooped himself here I would have thought and they'll be the one's laughing – definitely not you.

This has been more of your idiocy - alas - of which you seem to have a near-infinite supply, but I've gone easy on you - certainly not descending to your shameful level of childish abuse -and I've done it in order to give you an easier climb-down.
My friendly advice to you is to stop wriggling, because the knot will only get tighter. Anyone who doesn't think the Troposphere is in a compressed state under its own weight should not be trying to contribute to a sensible discussion, which is what this is supposed to be.

duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere
. It is comprised of gasses
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

duncan61 wrote:
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

duncan61 wrote:
so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites are now showing stability over the last few decades

duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

duncan61 wrote:
I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Pete Rogers wrote:The System is in a state of equilibrium

Pete Rogers wrote:... meaning its Thermal Energy content is constant,

Pete Rogers wrote: ... so you see, if pressure were less the Troposphere would contain more volume units into which that constant amount of Thermal Energy (1st Law) would then be divided;

Pete Rogers wrote: if you are able to follow this and, that that has to mean less thermal energy per unit volume so -

Pete Rogers wrote:There you have it; because thermal energy must be constant in accordance with the 1st Law and the degree of enhancement of temperature is in precise accordance with the Tropospheric volume lost to our particular strength of Gravity in accordance with Charles' Law.

Pete Rogers wrote:If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1)

Pete Rogers wrote: the troposphere would be bigger and the temperature lower,

Pete Rogers wrote: ... therefore gravity enhances the temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote: Charles' Law just tells you how much when you have T1 V1 and V2.

Pete Rogers wrote: No! of course not, it is the result of the degree to which the troposphere is reduced in volume by its own weight acting upon it.

Pete Rogers wrote: All adiabatic gas bodies in the universe have their temperatures enhanced by gravity

Pete Rogers wrote: I thought you told us that you had come to know everything by the time you were fifteen,

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.

Really?

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Well, first off, the atmosphere has more or less a constant mass, pressure notwithstanding, and for some reason that seems to be lost on you, which is most odd for a genius.

Pete Rogers wrote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, so that's torn it for me has it?

Pete Rogers wrote: We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses.

Pete Rogers wrote:The hypothesis we are testing is whether the Troposphere is smaller (V2) than it would be if gravity were minimal (V1) you see,

Pete Rogers wrote: Now any people round here that are not as thick as pigsh*t

Pete Rogers wrote:... have worked out that V2 must indeed be less than V1

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?

Nowhere of course!

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because the Law holds true regardless of the amount of Thermal Energy contained in the gas body e.g.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. How can temperature be determined by amount of thermal energy per volume if two different amounts of thermal energy within the same volume can be the same temperature?

Well, it's nonsense of course, because metal cubes don't compress

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and therefore can offer no insight into Fluid Dynamics

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but being in compression to the extent of volume reduction by its own weight when compared to what it would be with minimal gravity, V1, is how we discover that the stable state of compression giving us V2 causes the planet to have warmed beyond what it would be under V1 conditions. I shouldn't need to tell you any of this!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Oh dear, you are absolutely determined to make a complete arse of yourself, aren't you?

Pete Rogers wrote:Anyone who doesn't think the Troposphere is in a compressed state under its own weight

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Just when you thought numb-nutz might have finally understood his error, he chimes in from the peanut gallery to triple-down on thtooopid and to raise you another five.

Pete Rogers wrote:If the pressure were lower the atmosphere would be larger, [quote]ibdaMann wrote... both of which are dependent variables, not independent variables since the number of moles is constant.

You don't understand why this matters, do you?

I rather think the boot is on the other foot.

The short answer: No, you don't have any idea why discerning the independent variables from the dependent variables matters.

Your mathematical incompetence underwhelms.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's just Charles Law! you know the one which tells everybody except you - apparently - that T2=T1V2/V1 so halving the volume will double the temperature Einstein.

IBdaMann wroteThis is where you explain how Charles' Law defines temperature in terms of thermal energy. I'm looking at Charles' Law right now and nope, I don't see any thermal energy term in there anywhere. But you insist that there is so the floor is yours.

The System is in a state of equilibrium meaning its Thermal Energy content is constant, so you see, if pressure were less the Troposphere would contain more volume units into which that constant amount of Thermal Energy (1st Law) would then be divided; if you are able to follow this and, that that has to mean less thermal energy per unit volume so - if you can keep up - you might then go on to discover that this must mean the temperature would be less, which alone proves that Gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere and due to Charles' Law it does so in precise accordance with the volume removed by Auto-compression.

IBdaMann wroteThere is no such thing as 'auto-compression'. Gravity is a force, not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There you have it; because thermal energy must be constant in accordance with the 1st Law and the degree of enhancement of temperature is in precise accordance with the Tropospheric volume lost to our particular strength of Gravity in accordance with Charles' Law.

IBdaMannwroteTemperature is not total thermal energy. You are again denying the 0th law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1)

Pete Rogers wrote:
the troposphere would be bigger

Pete Rogers wrote:
and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMannwroteCharles' Law just tells you how much when you have T1 V1 and V2. Do you follow or is this still too difficult?

Gravity is not changing. This is apparently a difficult concept for you to grasp. Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course there are the same number of moles, but so what! because its the volume that is changed and the temperature will inevitably rise in proportion to the lost volume according to Charles' Law

Just to be clear, you are talking about an instantaneous change that causes the temperature to increase, right? The temperature will then cool, right? Oh that's right, you don't think the temperature ever cools.

No! of course not, it is the result of the degree to which the troposphere is reduced in volume by its own weight acting upon it.

IBdaMannwroteGravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
All adiabatic gas bodies in the universe have their temperatures enhanced by gravity

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

IBdaMan wroteDenial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
- didn't you know that? I thought you told us that you had come to know everything by the time you were fifteen, so I suppose this must just have slipped through the net - eh?

IBdaMann wroteSorry dude, you can't say denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics is 'science'.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.

Really?

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Well, first off, the atmosphere has more or less a constant mass, pressure notwithstanding, and for some reason that seems to be lost on you, which is most odd for a genius. Now Metal cubes are peculiarly unsuited to act as an allegory for The Laws of Fluid Dynamics. Can you guess why - I've left you a clue if you look closely?
Using a second guess can you advise me whether you think that Metal Cubes on Garage Roofs are in an adiabatic state (Hint - nowhere to conduct excess heat).

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It might all be beyond your grasp, like Charles' Law seems to have been regardless of its simplicity - but why not give it a go? After all its 50:50 at worst.

IBdaMasnn wroteInversion fallacy. Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:That means the thermal energy per unit volume would be less

IBDaMann wroteTotally irrelevant. The amount of thermal energy per amount of matter remains the same. Hence the average temperature remains the same.

No Einstein! Temperature is defined by the amount of Thermal Energy per unit volume - mass being a constant in the gas body otherwise unaltered - it's just Charles' Law Einstein! (In case I forgot to mention it).

IBdaMann wroteWell Genius, let's apply Charles' Law to earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere's volume is not changing, therefore V1 = V2

T2 = T1*V1/V1 -> T2 = T1 -> the atmosphere's temperature is not changing.

The doesn't seem to jive well with your WACKY dogma, does it?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, so that's torn it for me has it?

Pete Rogers wrote:
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The hypothesis we are testing is whether the Troposphere is smaller (V2) than it would be if gravity were minimal (V1) you see, would V1 be more than V2 that's all that is being asked?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Now any people round here that are not as thick as pigsh*t have worked out that V2 must indeed be less than V1 so T2 must indeed be more than T1 in the same proportion, how about you? where does your brain lie on a line of density between the lightness of brilliance and the gloopiness of porcine excrement?

It is not insulting or fallacious to point out that there is a serious learning difficulty at this level for a contributor who is unable to recognise the validity of a thought experiment, which is the case for you, so I unhesitatingly accord you parity with those others who are defeated by the same struggle. Those who are not as thick as pigsh*t around here have no trouble realising that the hypothesis proves that gravity warms the troposphere, it's just that you are not amongst their number with the inevitable consequence that you belong to the community of those who are - that's all.
b]Pete Rogers wrote:[/b]

IBdaMann wroteSo obviously you are not interested in whether everyone is laughing at you for being a total moron. Obviously people like Duncan should realize that you targetted them specifically because you find them to be total morons as well. You certainly aren't trying to convince people who are not scientifically illiterate or who want you to answer specific questions ... and you certainly aren't interested in learning anything. In fact, you take a healthy pride in remaining completely scientifically illiterate.

Have you ever heard of Dramatic Irony I wonder? It's where the character has shat his pants without realising and turns aggressively towards another making wild accusations about his disgusting smelliness. You should be on that stage.

IBdaMan wrotePsychoquackery. Insult fallacies.

He thinks it means something, which of course it does not - now he's just throwing his toys out of his pram. For you to accuse me of being a moron when you lack the intellectual wherewithal necessary for working out that gravity must cause auto-compression of the troposhere and that the volume lost to it must cause the clonserved thermal energy content of the body to enhance the temperature. So there is neither quackery nor insult i'm just delineating the way you are - alas.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wroteSo, you now have three more items on your plate. Please answer the following questions in addition to all the previous questions:

Lucky me!

IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?

Nowhere of course! because the Law holds true regardless of the amount of Thermal Energy contained in the gas body e.g. the temperature will go up by exactly a third if the weight of the troposphere compresses V2 into two-thirds of minimal Gravity's V1 - capish? Probably not!

IBdaMan wroteGravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote2. How can temperature be determined by amount of thermal energy per volume if two different amounts of thermal energy within the same volume can be the same temperature?

Well, it's nonsense of course, because metal cubes don't compress and therefore can offer no insight into Fluid Dynamics - the clue is in the name!

IBdaMann wroteeGravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

When you bark up the wrong tree you make sure that it's a very long way away from the right one don't you? Not even in the same forest.
The Volume obviously remains the same, so let's call it an unchanging V2, but being in compression to the extent of volume reduction by its own weight when compared to what it would be with minimal gravity, V1, is how we discover that the stable state of compression giving us V2 causes the planet to have warmed beyond what it would be under V1 conditions. I shouldn't need to tell you any of this!

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Oh dear, you are absolutely determined to make a complete arse of yourself, aren't you? I can only refer you to my earlier explanation of how dramatic irony works and- incidentally - sometimes the character never discovers that he shat himself all along - I wonder if you will? Anyway, the audience will know who's pooped himself here I would have thought and they'll be the one's laughing – definitely not you.

This has been more of your idiocy - alas - of which you seem to have a near-infinite supply, but I've gone easy on you - certainly not descending to your shameful level of childish abuse -and I've done it in order to give you an easier climb-down.
My friendly advice to you is to stop wriggling, because the knot will only get tighter. Anyone who doesn't think the Troposphere is in a compressed state under its own weight should not be trying to contribute to a sensible discussion, which is what this is supposed to be.

IBdaMann wroteInsult fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'auto-compression'. Gravity is a force, not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

That is the observation of an idiot! The Troposphere is compressed towards its centre of gravity by its own weight acting upon it. Can't you follow that and why it must be true; or that if pressure were less, the troposphere would have no alternative than to be more voluminous?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the NightTemperature is not total thermal energy. You are again denying the 0th law of thermodynamics.

Of course it isn't - who said it was? But temperature is directly proportional to the amount of therrmal energy per unit volume. Double the thrmal energy per unit volume and you will double the temperature Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMannwroteCharles' Law just tells you how much when you have T1 V1 and V2. Do you follow or is this still too difficult?

Gravity is not changing. This is apparently a difficult concept for you to grasp. Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The point is one of hypothesis, being that an identical atmosphere under lesser gravity would be lighter and therefore undergo less compression and therefore be cooler.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

On the contrary, it is precisely because of the conservation of the thermal energy in the more confined space that arises from the compressive effects of gravity that the temperature is forced up - where have you been?

Pete Rogers wrote:
I've really had enough of your constant mantra - "Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing" because of its irrelevence to the point being made here.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Here's how it actually works.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You should not have tl be told this, you should know it.
It is the force of Gravity that causes mass o#f the troposphere to acquire weight weight and this weight that causes pressure in the direction of the centre of gravity - the centre of the Earth in the case of our Troposphere. A gas under pressure - including from its own weight (Auto-compression) - is automatically compressed by it. Please wake up and try to catch up.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
- didn't you know that? I thought you told us that you had come to know everything by the time you were fifteen, so I suppose this must just have slipped through the net - eh?

IBdaMann wroteSorry dude, you can't say denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics is 'science'.

You would have a point except for the fact that it is precisely because of ther forced compliance with the 1st Law that Charles' Law is being obeyed, with the result of T2 being more than the T1 that would be associated with minimal gravity (this is the hypothesis). What transgression of the 0th Law do you believe that you have discovered as there is none that i can see or that you have demonstrated. I think you are wrong about this.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Well, first off, the atmosphere has more or less a constant mass, pressure notwithstanding, and for some reason that seems to be lost on you, which is most odd for a genius.

Pete Rogers wrote:
What I am trying to get through your thick skull is the fact that the force of gravity determines the degree of Auto-compression in the Troposphere because if the force of gravity were less (the hypothesis!!) then the amount of the Autocompression would also be less (and this is known as an inescapable conclusion from the hypothesis!) which is easily seen to be correct to those low down on the porcine excrement scale of mental density.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
It might all be beyond your grasp, like Charles' Law seems to have been regardless of its simplicity - but why not give it a go? After all its 50:50 at worst.

IBdaMasnn wroteInversion fallacy. Gravity is not changing.

Oh dear, why should it have to and who suggested that it was

Pete Rogers wrote:
- I already asked if you had heard of the scientific use of "hypotheses", but got no answer;

Pete Rogers wrote:
now I know why that was - you don't understand how they are used. The real Einstein called them "thought experiments", and you should try one sometime to learn something.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not insulting or fallacious to point out that there is a serious learning difficulty at this level for a contributor who is unable to recognise the validity of a thought experiment, which is the case for you, so I unhesitatingly accord you parity with those others who are defeated by the same struggle. Those who are not as thick as pigsh*t around here have no trouble realising that the hypothesis proves that gravity warms the troposphere, it's just that you are not amongst their number with the inevitable consequence that you belong to the community of those who are - that's all.

Pete Rogers wrote:
How clever of you to realise that, but I think everyome else already knew. Now - back to what is actually happening - to use a scientific "Thought Experiment"

Pete Rogers wrote:
let us pose the hypothesis that gravity were less forceful and ask "What would be the consequences in that case?" Now everyone apart from those on the high end of the Porcine Excrement scale of intellectual density realise and say to themselves "Why, the Troposphere would be less compressed in such a hypothetical case and therefore bigger whilst containing the same amount of thermal energy under the 1st Law so it would be cooler! It's just as Charles' Law, you see!" whilst the other lot say things like "Both Gravity and Tropospheric Volume are constant!" proving them selves unsuitable for the examination of scientific hypotheses which is what you just demostrated. The most important words of enquiry are "What if?" but the are absent from your bag of tools.

Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

This is really the same as the last point in essence. Of course, the volume of the Troposphere is constant - more or less - but we are doing a "Thought Experiment" in which we ask "What about V1 if gravity were weaker?" and get the answer that it would then be more than V2.
You have shown everyone that you are not capable of seeing this - no "what if" type imagination, so I refer to my previous point about where people and their mental abilities lie on the scale of density between Light and Bright at the useful end and resembling porcine excrement on the other. Where do you see yourself on this scale given your incapacity for asking and answering the hypothetical question, "What if gravity were less?". V1 certainly doesn't equal V2 for anyone capable of that little leap of imagination

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

When you bark up the wrong tree you make sure that it's a very long way away from the right one don't you? Not even in the same forest.
The Volume obviously remains the same, so let's call it an unchanging V2, but being in compression to the extent of volume reduction by its own weight when compared to what it would be with minimal gravity, V1, is how we discover that the stable state of compression giving us V2 causes the planet to have warmed beyond what it would be under V1 conditions. I shouldn't need to tell you any of this!

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Of course not, but try to cope with the fact that we are dealing with the Scientific hypothesis "What if Gravity were less?". If you can manage that you will soon see that V1would then be bigger than V2 - and cooler what is more! You don't seem to have acquired the capacity for asking and answering "What if?" if you will forgive me for pointing it out.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Oh dear, you are absolutely determined to make a complete arse of yourself, aren't you? I can only refer you to my earlier explanation of how dramatic irony works and- incidentally - sometimes the character never discovers that he shat himself all along - I wonder if you will? Anyway, the audience will know who's pooped himself here I would have thought and they'll be the one's laughing – definitely not you.

This has been more of your idiocy - alas - of which you seem to have a near-infinite supply, but I've gone easy on you - certainly not descending to your shameful level of childish abuse -and I've done it in order to give you an easier climb-down.
My friendly advice to you is to stop wriggling, because the knot will only get tighter. Anyone who doesn't think the Troposphere is in a compressed state under its own weight should not be trying to contribute to a sensible discussion, which is what this is supposed to be.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I am very sorry that your ability does not extend to hypothetical reasoning, but that is not my fault, but your lack.
This is not an insult and I have no interest in victory unless it be based on important truth eliminating bullsh*t which is my sole aim. Try extricating your ego and make it a discussion not an attack, as any worthy adult should, so that you can behave more like a Juror (impartially assessing the facts using reason alone) not an Advocate (I must do and say anything it takes to win the argument and simply ignore or deceive people about the demerits of my case.) Only the Juror mind can help Science - or Justice for that matter.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure and that of the whole Earth accordingly.

Pete Rogers wrote:
In fact if this Gravitational Autocompression accounted for an 11% reduction in volume compared to a V1 under minimal gravity, that would account for a 33K enhancement, whereas I am pretty sure it is going to be a lot more than 11%

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'auto-compression'. Gravity is a force, not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

That is the observation of an idiot!

Pete Rogers wrote:The Troposphere is compressed towards its centre of gravity

Pete Rogers wrote: ...by its own weight acting upon it.

Pete Rogers wrote:But temperature is directly proportional to the amount of therrmal energy per unit volume.

Pete Rogers wrote: Double the thrmal energy per unit volume and you will double the temperature Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote:Charles' Law tells you what will happen to the temperature if you increase or decrease (by compression or expansion) the thermal energy per unit volume -

Pete Rogers wrote: Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.?

Pete Rogers wrote: The point is one of hypothesis,

Pete Rogers wrote: ... being that an identical atmosphere under lesser gravity would be lighter and therefore undergo less compression and therefore be cooler.

Pete Rogers wrote:On the contrary, it is precisely because of the conservation of the thermal energy

Pete Rogers wrote:- where have you been?

Pete Rogers wrote:I've really had enough of your constant mantra - "Gravity is not energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is the force of Gravity that causes mass o#f the troposphere to acquire weight weight and this weight that causes pressure in the direction of the centre of gravity

Pete Rogers wrote: What transgression of the 0th Law do you believe that you have discovered as there is none that i can see or that you have demonstrated.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Gravity is not changing.

Nobody - but nobody - me included - surprise surprise - ever suggested that it was.

Pete Rogers wrote:What I am trying to get through your thick skull is the fact that the force of gravity determines the degree of Auto-compression

Pete Rogers wrote:

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

How clever of you to realise that, but I think everyome else already knew.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Of course not, but try to cope with the fact that we are dealing with the Scientific hypothesis

Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'auto-compression'. Gravity is a force, not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

That is the observation of an idiot! The Troposphere is compressed towards its centre of gravity by its own weight acting upon it. Can't you follow that and why it must be true; or that if pressure were less, the troposphere would have no alternative than to be more voluminous?

Into The Night wroteThe troposphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

The Troposphere is in a compressed condition having lost volume due to the pressure of its own weight at 1ton per sq ft. pulling its boundary position closer to the centre of gravity, thar reduced volume being V2. V1 is the larger volume it would occupy before that compression. What is the matter with your brain?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteTemperature is not total thermal energy. You are again denying the 0th law of thermodynamics.

Of course it isn't - who said it was? But temperature is directly proportional to the amount of thermal energy per unit volume. Double the thermal energy per unit volume and you will double the temperature Einstein. You don't seem up to any of this.

Into theNight wroteTemperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.

Thanks for confirming that, uneccessary though it was. What you are blind to - apparently - is that temperature is proportionate to the amount of thermal energy per unit volume. Please try to keep up, you seem lost!

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMannwroteCharles' Law just tells you how much when you have T1 V1 and V2. Do you follow or is this still too difficult?

Gravity is not changing. This is apparently a difficult concept for you to grasp. Gravity is not changing.

Charles' Law tells you what will happen to the temperature if you increase or decrease (by compression or expansion) the thermal energy per unit volume - surely you can understand that at least? Does the term "Thought Experiment" mean anything to you?

Intothe Night wroteGravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.?

Into the Night wroteYou.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The point is one of hypothesis, being that an identical atmosphere under lesser gravity would be lighter and therefore undergo less compression and therefore be cooler.

Inti the Night wroteGravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

On the contrary, it is precisely because of the conservation of the thermal energy in the more confined space that arises from the compressive effects of gravity that the temperature is forced up - where have you been?

Into the Night wroteTemperature is not total thermal energy. Gravity is not changing. The troposphere is not being compressed. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I've really had enough of your constant mantra - "Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing" because of its irrelevence to the point being made here.

Into the Night wroteIt is completely relevant to your argument.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Here's how it actually works.

Into the /night wroteIt doesn't work. You are denying the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You should not have tl be told this, you should know it.
It is the force of Gravity that causes mass o#f the troposphere to acquire weight weight and this weight that causes pressure in the direction of the centre of gravity - the centre of the Earth in the case of our Troposphere. A gas under pressure - including from its own weight (Auto-compression) - is automatically compressed by it. Please wake up and try to catch up.

Into the Night wroteThe troposphere is not being compressed. There is no such thing as 'auto-compression'.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
- didn't you know that? I thought you told us that you had come to know everything by the time you were fifteen, so I suppose this must just have slipped through the net - eh?

IBdaMann wroteSorry dude, you can't say denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics is 'science'.

You would have a point except for the fact that it is precisely because of ther forced compliance with the 1st Law that Charles' Law is being obeyed, with the result of T2 being more than the T1 that would be associated with minimal gravity (this is the hypothesis). What transgression of the 0th Law do you believe that you have discovered as there is none that i can see or that you have demonstrated. I think you are wrong about this.

Into the Night wroteGravity is not changing. Temperature is not total thermal energy. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteHere's one for you: Two metal cubes A and B of equivalent dimensions but A has twice the mass of B. Left to sit in my garage they become the same temperature ... but A has twice the thermal energy of B. Did you catch that? A has twice the thermal energy of B within the exact same volume and yet both cubes are the same temperature.

How does that jive with your WACKY dogma?

Well, first off, the atmosphere has more or less a constant mass, pressure notwithstanding, and for some reason that seems to be lost on you, which is most odd for a genius.

Into the Night wroteFalse equivalence. You are comparing two systems as if they were the same system. The atmosphere is more than just the troposphere. The troposphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:
What I am trying to get through your thick skull is the fact that the force of gravity determines the degree of Auto-compression in the Troposphere because if the force of gravity were less (the hypothesis!!) then the amount of the Autocompression would also be less (and this is known as an inescapable conclusion from the hypothesis!) which is easily seen to be correct to those low down on the porcine excrement scale of mental density.

Into the Night wroteInsult fallacies. There is no such thing as 'autocompression'. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
It might all be beyond your grasp, like Charles' Law seems to have been regardless of its simplicity - but why not give it a go? After all its 50:50 at worst.

IBdaMasnn wroteInversion fallacy. Gravity is not changing.

Oh dear, why should it have to and who suggested that it was

Pete Rogers wrote:
- I already asked if you had heard of the scientific use of "hypotheses", but got no answer;

Into the Night wroteYes you did. RQAA. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Pete Rogers wrote:
now I know why that was - you don't understand how they are used. The real Einstein called them "thought experiments", and you should try one sometime to learn something.

Into the Night wroteTrue Scotsman fallacy. Denial of science.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not insulting or fallacious to point out that there is a serious learning difficulty at this level for a contributor who is unable to recognise the validity of a thought experiment, which is the case for you, so I unhesitatingly accord you parity with those others who are defeated by the same struggle. Those who are not as thick as pigsh*t around here have no trouble realising that the hypothesis proves that gravity warms the troposphere, it's just that you are not amongst their number with the inevitable consequence that you belong to the community of those who are - that's all.

Into the Night wroteInsult fallacies. A hypothesis is not a proof. Gravity is not energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
How clever of you to realise that, but I think everyome else already knew. Now - back to what is actually happening - to use a scientific "Thought Experiment"

Pete Rogers wrote:
let us pose the hypothesis that gravity were less forceful and ask "What would be the consequences in that case?" Now everyone apart from those on the high end of the Porcine Excrement scale of intellectual density realise and say to themselves "Why, the Troposphere would be less compressed in such a hypothetical case and therefore bigger whilst containing the same amount of thermal energy under the 1st Law so it would be cooler! It's just as Charles' Law, you see!" whilst the other lot say things like "Both Gravity and Tropospheric Volume are constant!" proving them selves unsuitable for the examination of scientific hypotheses which is what you just demostrated. The most important words of enquiry are "What if?" but the are absent from your bag of tools.

Into the NightGravity is not changing.

This seems to be the best you can make of it since you do not grasp the fact that it does not need to for what I told you to be true. Try to keep up, though your case looks hopeless.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

This is really the same as the last point in essence. Of course, the volume of the Troposphere is constant - more or less - but we are doing a "Thought Experiment" in which we ask "What about V1 if gravity were weaker?" and get the answer that it would then be more than V2.
You have shown everyone that you are not capable of seeing this - no "what if" type imagination, so I refer to my previous point about where people and their mental abilities lie on the scale of density between Light and Bright at the useful end and resembling porcine excrement on the other. Where do you see yourself on this scale given your incapacity for asking and answering the hypothetical question, "What if gravity were less?". V1 certainly doesn't equal V2 for anyone capable of that little leap of imagination

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote3. How is the Earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

When you bark up the wrong tree you make sure that it's a very long way away from the right one don't you? Not even in the same forest.
The Volume obviously remains the same, so let's call it an unchanging V2, but being in compression to the extent of volume reduction by its own weight when compared to what it would be with minimal gravity, V1, is how we discover that the stable state of compression giving us V2 causes the planet to have warmed beyond what it would be under V1 conditions. I shouldn't need to tell you any of this!

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Of course not, but try to cope with the fact that we are dealing with the Scientific hypothesis "What if Gravity were less?". If you can manage that you will soon see that V1would then be bigger than V2 - and cooler what is more! You don't seem to have acquired the capacity for asking and answering "What if?" if you will forgive me for pointing it out.

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wroteBonus question: How is it that so many people have been fooled into believing that matter cools when apparently it never can?

Oh dear, you are absolutely determined to make a complete arse of yourself, aren't you? I can only refer you to my earlier explanation of how dramatic irony works and- incidentally - sometimes the character never discovers that he shat himself all along - I wonder if you will? Anyway, the audience will know who's pooped himself here I would have thought and they'll be the one's laughing – definitely not you.

This has been more of your idiocy - alas - of which you seem to have a near-infinite supply, but I've gone easy on you - certainly not descending to your shameful level of childish abuse -and I've done it in order to give you an easier climb-down.
My friendly advice to you is to stop wriggling, because the knot will only get tighter. Anyone who doesn't think the Troposphere is in a compressed state under its own weight should not be trying to contribute to a sensible discussion, which is what this is supposed to be.

Insult fallacies. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I am very sorry that your ability does not extend to hypothetical reasoning, but that is not my fault, but your lack.
This is not an insult and I have no interest in victory unless it be based on important truth eliminating bullsh*t which is my sole aim. Try extricating your ego and make it a discussion not an attack, as any worthy adult should, so that you can behave more like a Juror (impartially assessing the facts using reason alone) not an Advocate (I must do and say anything it takes to win the argument and simply ignore or deceive people about the demerits of my case.) Only the Juror mind can help Science - or Justice for that matter.

Insult fallacies. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2. Science isn't a courtroom. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure and that of the whole Earth accordingly.

Pete Rogers wrote:
In fact if this Gravitational Autocompression accounted for an 11% reduction in volume compared to a V1 under minimal gravity, that would account for a 33K enhancement, whereas I am pretty sure it is going to be a lot more than 11%

Into the Night wroteThere is no such thing as 'autocompression'. You are making up numbers. Argument from randU fallacy. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.


You continue to deny the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Gravity is not changing. V1=V2. Your wanderings that you call your 'hypothesis' simply discards these facts.

You are denying science.