Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 23 of 25<<<2122232425>
20-04-2021 16:56
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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?
20-04-2021 17:14
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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 because there is nothing offered in support of assertions; bar the matter of infrared - well done: nor deposition of the concepts offered for falsification so it's just gainsaying - 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. Accordingly its just noise.

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

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.
20-04-2021 19:38
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.

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!

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. 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.
This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.
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.
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.
That approach of is well known formally as The Method of Propaganda - being precisely what epistemology and the scientific method were created to forbid.
Accordingly please stop wasting everyone's time - particularly your own - as there is no point in what you are doing
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?
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.
20-04-2021 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-04-2021 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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

Science isn't interpretation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
because there is nothing offered in support of assertions;

Theories stand on their own. They need nothing else.
Pete Rogers wrote:
bar the matter of infrared -

What about infrared light? Pivot fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
well done: nor deposition of the concepts offered for falsification so it's just gainsaying -

I don't have to falsify any theory of science to justify a theory of science. Paradox.
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.

Arguments do not need to contradict themselves. Paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly its just noise.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
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.

No, it doesn't. Argument by repetition fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. The atmosphere is not energy. Gravity is not energy either.
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.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacies.

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-04-2021 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.

Bulverism fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy. Insult fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy.

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!

Science is not a method or a procedure. You obviously do not know what epistemoloy is. You are using it as a buzzword.

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.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
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.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
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.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
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.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.
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.

A theory of science stands on it's own. You cannot just ignore them. External consistency check failure. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden shift fallacy.
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.

Buzzword fallacy. You deny logic. You deny science. Science is not a method or procedure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly please stop wasting everyone's time - particularly your own - as there is no point in what you are doing

Cliche fallacy.
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?

Void argument fallacy.
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.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Insult fallacy. Thought terminating cliche fallacy.


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-04-2021 21:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
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.

The word you are looking for here is 'rational'. That is very 'rational' of me.

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

... that fail internal consistency checks, let alone external ones.

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

The words you are looking for here are 'rational counterarguments'. You are being met with 'rational counterarguments'.

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.

What are you even talking about? It is you who is basing arguments on meaningless buzzwords... Heck, even the name of your theory ("ATE") is a meaningless buzzword.

Either you need to start forming valid arguments or you need to stop expecting us to buy into your wacky fundamentalist religious garbage.
20-04-2021 21:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote: This arrogant name-calling is ...

... well deserved. Stop desperately changing the subject and reconcile the FATAL FLAWS in your affirmative argument. It is no one else's responsibility to somehow prove that your WACKY and unfalsifiable religious dogma is FALSE. You bear the full responsibility of convincing others of its merit, but thus far you have failed miserably with the notable exception of your obedient admirer Duncan who wouldn't question you if you were to instruct him to believe that Venus is hot because it's just a big ball of vegetable soup.

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.

As I said, worshippers of the various Greenhouse Effect theories are mathematically incompetent. You are no exception.

You spoke of halving the volume of a gas. Mathematically, this means you divide the volume by two, not divide the volume by 1/2 as you stated. At the time, I was simply correcting what I believed to be your careless wording, but now I see by your insistence on being stupid that you have no mathematical understanding to even begin any reasoning on the matter, which explains a lot as to how you could fall for such a WACKY religion in the first place.

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.

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

That would be your position. You will not address the FATAL FLAWS in your affirmative argument. You are simply demanding obedient compliance simply because you have so ordered it.

I think it is time for you to stop struggling with things with which you don't know how to correctly grapple, such as handling an online discussion with those who are not willing to simply OBEY you like Duncan does.

IBdaMann wrote The difference between valid and void ...

... is internal consistency. I wouldn't expect you to know this.

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.

The FATAL FLAWS were, in turn, presented to you.

So we're done. We can close out this thread. Your WACKY religious dogma has been falsified.

Enjoy!

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

... clearly present to you the FATAL FLAWS in your WACKY religious dogma so you can address them and fix them, seeing as how they get your WACKY religious dogma summarily dismissed in short order.

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

... because you realize all too well that what you wrote is pure gibberish.

20-04-2021 21:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
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.
31-07-2021 16:47
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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. 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.
31-07-2021 19:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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

... 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?

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

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

Thermal energy gives temperature to matter, not to any "volume."

You 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?

Obviously 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 should 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.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-07-2021 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-08-2021 02:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
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.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
01-08-2021 03:07
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
y
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.

I would like to learn more of this oft quoted 1st law of thermodynamics. 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
01-08-2021 03:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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

Great! Excellent decision. Let us know when you do.

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

That's a great start.

You shouldn't have any trouble then with the next part "You can't ever destroy any energy into nothing."

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

Was it your intention to write something meaningful here?

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.

Who can ask for more?

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?

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?




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2021 04:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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.

tmiddles, I'm sure you'll agree that determining that something cannot possibly contribute to the temperature summarily excludes it from being a factor.

I could rework your statement to make the statement we know to be false:
"Accordingly BLM is a mostly peaceful idea, not one of looting and violence. It simply doesn't matter how many people are assaulted" = false

Electromagnetic energy is still not thermal energy. You still cannot demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, can you?

What I would say is that Fourier never measured the earth's average temperature in the first place so he was never shocked at what he never learned it to be. He never advocated violating thermodynamics either.

I think it's safe to assume you are missing something substantial in your education and that you actually aren't omniscient.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2021 05:19
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
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?

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.
Edited on 01-08-2021 05:47
01-08-2021 06:00
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
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.

The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.
01-08-2021 18:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


duncan61 wrote:ITN wrote

Did he write it, or did I write it?

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

This is correct. Thermal energy can only exist in matter, therefore it flows from one body of matter to another ... if and only if it is actually flowing to another body of matter. Thermal energy can also drain out of a body of matter if it is not flowing into another body of matter.

The thermal energy of a body of matter, e.g. the earth, converts to radiance, i.e. electromagnetic radiation, per the Stefan-Boltzmann law and is a measure of power normalized over area. Electromagnetic radiation is a separate form of energy from thermal energy. Electromagnetic radiation does not need matter and can reside in the vacuum of space. Electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by matter per Planck's law and other laws of chemistry while always complying with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

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

I have no idea what you trying to say here ... but it sounds like gibberish. If this is your conclusion then your conclusion says nothing.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2021 21:09
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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!!



No, it's simply the application of Charles' Law doncha know?
02-08-2021 01:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.



It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-08-2021 01:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.

I would like to learn more of this oft quoted 1st law of thermodynamics.
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
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?

Anything under a solar panel is in the shade. Haven't you noticed that?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-08-2021 01:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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?

Hey...YOU used the word. Define it.
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.

It is also being converted from one form of energy to another.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-08-2021 01:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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.

This 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.

Yeah ... you're wrong.

Here'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).

Well 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?

So 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.

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

1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?
2. 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?
3. How is the earth's temperature increased when Charles' Law specifies that it remains the same because the volume isn't changing?

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-08-2021 01:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.


Nope. The beer is transferring thermal energy to the ice (or to the refrigerator). It is heating the ice (or the refrigerator). Ice does not heat the beer. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 02-08-2021 01:22
02-08-2021 06:38
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
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
02-08-2021 07:00
James___
★★★★★
(5118)
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



Apparently you need more than one beer to understand this. In America, it can take 6 or 12 units to transfer heat content.
When ice cools beer, it is in a given volume of space. The heat content in that area will average out. If you're somewhere warm then that area could make the area around your beer cold by comparison.
If you're close to the outback and it's 30º C., if the average temperature of your beer and cooler is 20º C., the system of your beer in a cooler will eventually balance out with the area you are in.
02-08-2021 16:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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

No, you have not. Of course you will claim that you have.but we both know that you would rather have your teeth extracted without anesthesia than to actually learn something useful.

1. When have you demonstrated an ability to read anything for comprehension on Climate-Debate?
2. The 2nd LoT is expressed mathematically and can only be properly understood in that manner. What are the odds that you, of all people, are going to delve into math?
3. The 2nd LoT really cannot be fully understood without understanding the 1st LoT, which is also expressed mathematically, and it's not as though you are going to be rushing to master that one either.
4. You have not indicated any awareness of the concept of a "closed system" vs an "open system.". The 2nd LoT simply does not apply outside of a closed system and ceases to apply (becomes 'reset') if the system is ever opened.

You have no understanding whatsoever of the 2nd LoT

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

Heat is one aspect of energy addressed by the 2nd LoT, i.e. that thermal energy must flow from higher temperature (i.e. greater potential) to lower temperature (i.e. lesser potential).

If you were actually interested in understanding the 2nd LoT then you would take notes when Into the Night is explaining it to you, not pretending to correct him when you are absolutely clueless on the matter.

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

Is the ice a lower temperature than the beer? If so, thermal energy will only flow from the warmer beer of higher potential to the colder ice of less potential.

... but you are struggling with that, you say?

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

Are you claiming that you observe thermal energy flowing from a lower temperature to a higher temperature? Ever?




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-08-2021 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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


Heat always flows from hot to cold. Hot and cold are relative terms.
If nothing is hotter or colder than someplace else, than no heat will flow. There is no heat.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Energy always flows from a concentration of energy to a void. Energy always dissipates.

Entropy is a measure of how random a system is. Low entropy is where you have concentrations of energy, lower regions of energy, etc. It is organized.

As energy dissipates, it becomes uniform throughout the system. It becomes disorganized.

This is entropy. It will always increase or stay the same in any given system.

Now to put it in practical terms, a cooler, some ice, and some beer.

As you know, ice is cold. It is a relative void in energy. The beer is warmer than the ice. When you put it in the cooler, that beer is a concentration of thermal energy dissipating into the ice. It is heating the ice.

The energy in the beer is becoming dissipated throughout the ice when that happens, so the beer gets cold.

Eventually, the beer and the ice will reach the same temperature. By that time, of course, the ice has melted from all that heat from the beer.

This is using just the beer in the cooler, and not considering any other energy source or sink. That is the closed system being considered here.

The cooler isn't a perfect insulator, so if you use a system the includes the outside temperature, that energy also goes into the cooler to help melt the ice.

Ice is not a relative concentration of energy. It is a relative lack of energy. Energy will flow into it to fill the 'void'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 02-08-2021 21:01
03-08-2021 01:35
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
Got it.That explanation makes sense thank you
03-08-2021 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
duncan61 wrote:
Got it.That explanation makes sense thank you

Excellent.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
03-08-2021 19:29
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.
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.
If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1) the troposphere would be bigger and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature. 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: 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. All adiabatic gas bodies in the universe have their temperatures enhanced by gravity - 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 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).
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: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?
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?
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?
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?

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.

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!

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 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 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.
03-08-2021 19:29
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.
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.
If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1) the troposphere would be bigger and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature. 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: 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. All adiabatic gas bodies in the universe have their temperatures enhanced by gravity - 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 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).
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: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?
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?
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?
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?

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.

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!

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 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 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.
03-08-2021 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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.

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.

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.

Temperature 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)

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
the troposphere would be bigger
Gravity is not changing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature.
Gravity is not changing.
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?
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.

Gravity 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

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

Sorry 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).

Gravity 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.

Inversion 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?
Yup. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?
There is no such thing as a 'scientific hypothesis'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A hypothesis comes from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.
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?
Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
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?
Insult fallacies.
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!

Gravity 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!

Gravity 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!

Gravity 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.

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


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 03-08-2021 20:17
03-08-2021 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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

I frankly have no problem with your understanding of any of this. You've got this part rather correct.
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

Nothing like trenching in summer temperatures!

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

All of points so far I consider correct.
duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

It actually doesn't make any sense whatsoever. First, you must define what 'global warming' actually means. You must also define what 'climate change' actually means. These are meaningless buzzwords.
duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites are now showing stability over the last few decades

Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia either.
duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Cooked data cannot be used in statistical math.
duncan61 wrote:
I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

I tend to keep my insults to a minimum. They don't accomplish much.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
03-08-2021 22:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


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

This brings us right back to your scientific illiteracy. You have no grasp of thermodynamics so naturally your use of the word "equilibrium" is your cry for lots of help at this point.

If, on the one hand, you are going to claim that temperature is being increased by the compression, you cannot then also claim that the system remains in equilibrium once the temperature has so increased. The temperature will have to cool in order to return to equilibrium. If you are going to insist that the temperature never cools and that the system remains forever in equilibrium thereafter, you will then be denying Stefan-Boltzmann and no amount of help can maneuver your back into even the "plausible" range.

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

... which is not the case when it is cooling after exiting equilibrium by having its temperature increased.

You need to study black body science and get that under your belt before you pretend to discuss black body science. Start with Planck's law, then master Stefan-Boltzmann, then Wein's Displacement law and then Kirchoff's law ... and then you should have sufficient proficiency to be engaging intelligently on this subject.

At the moment you are babbling nonsense.

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;

If pressure were less then there would be less gravity. There is not less gravity therefore the pressure is not less.

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

I have already explained your error. You are apparently ignoring the correction and instead opting to continue babbling nonsense.

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.

There is no enhancement of the temperature. You continue to refuse to account for the additional energy required for the temperature to increase. Gravity is not energy. This gaping hole effectively kills your argument.

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

Since gravity is not weaker than it is (V2 = V1)

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

the troposphere isn't any bigger than it is and the temperature remains the same.

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

... therefore there isn't any enhancement of the temperature.


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

Charles' law tells you that the temperature doesn't change when the volume doesn't change, i.e. when V2 = V1

Do you follow or is this still too difficult?

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.

Yeah ... you are a science denier. This explains why your gibberish is just that, gibberish.

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

No body of matter increases in temperature without additional energy.

Guess what the troposphere doesn't have.

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

... by the time I was eight, but that's totally immaterial.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYeah ... you're wrong.
Really?

Very much so.

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.

Stay focused. You insisted that temperature is determined by thermal energy per volume. I just gave you an example of differing amounts of thermal energy per the same volume and ... the same temperature.

This is where you admit that you misspoke and that you withdraw every argument of yours that rests on the now debunked quackery that temperature is somehow determined by thermal energy over volume.

It would be nice if you would also let us know whatever the F you were thinking that caused that level of brain-fart but the admission alone will do for now.

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

Pretty much.

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

You are fluttering around in your own little world, that's for sure, but there is no science in it. You might want to look into having some installed ... and make sure to get the add-on black body science package.

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,

You don't know what a hypothesis is. This brings us back to your scientific illiteracy. I find that it really isn't possible to hold a conversation with you on this subject because you know nothing but are convinced that you know it all. You won't listen to any reason and you certainly won't accept any ideas that run counter to your WACKY Greenhouse Effect dogma. This brings us right back to your reason for posting on this site, i.e. to preach your brain-dead gravity-driven Greenhouse Effect dogma.

An intelligent individual would have awakened to this folly and would have abandoned it long ago ... but you're not an intelligent individual. Hey, you wouldn't happen to own Safemoon, would you?

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

Hold on. How thick is pigsh*t? Is it thicker or thinner than ferretsh*t?

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

We've been over this. V2 = V1. Ergo T2 = T1.

What are you, thicker than pigsh*t? This is simple stuff. Wait, you do own Safemoon, don't you?

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMan wrote1. Where is the "thermal energy" term in Charles' Law?
Nowhere of course!

Well that's too bad for your dogma and your insistence that Chrles' law defines temperature as thermal energy per volume.

So this one is discarded as well.

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

Only for a gas body. Only for an instantaneous change. The change itself is not permanent.

You have the example of the two metal cubes of differing masses and you know that matter cools. You have no rational excuse for clinging to your physics violations.



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

Immaterial. If the temperature is determined by thermal energy in a given volume then differing quantities of thermal energy over the same volume must have differing temperatures for your argument to hold.

Oooops, your WACKY argument does not hold.

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

You don't understand fluid dynamics either.

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!

Science predicts the future and does not speculate on what alternate realities might be like.

There is no "what it would be" in science. There is only what is and what is predicted in nature.

So try rephrasing your above gibberish to read as predicting unambiguously what conditions (cause) will bring about what results (effect) ... and make sure to use the future tense, i.e. an unambiguous prediction. All subjunctive is summarily discarded and donated to WACKY religions such as yours.

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?

This is what killed your WACKY dogma initially long ago. You never answered the question as to why all the compressed CO2 in the cannister being stored in my garage cools to the temperature of the garage, and achieves thermal quilibrium with the garage ambiance despite the CO2 remaining under pressure and despite you remaining ignorant of the actual meaning of the word "equilibrium."



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

This is dishonesty on your part. This is not your argument. Your argument involves conflating tenses and insisting that the atmosphere's past compression is compressing the atmosphere in the present progressive. This is what you used to kill your own argument after it was already dead from your denial that matter cools.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 03-08-2021 23:15
04-08-2021 17:12
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.

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:
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.

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:
If gravity were weaker (V2 larger than V1)

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
the troposphere would be bigger
Gravity is not changing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the temperature lower, therefore gravity enhances the temperature.
Gravity is not changing.
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?

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.

Gravity is what gives weight to Mass and the weight of the Troposphere causes a reduction in its volume. Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.? 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:
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.

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?

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.
Here's how it actually works. 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:
- 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 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.

You just shat your pants again and pointed to me for the smell Einstein! Wake up for pity's sake!! Nobody - but nobody - me included - surprise surprise - ever suggested that it was. Where have you been?
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:
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 - I already asked if you had heard of the scientific use of "hypotheses", but got no answer; 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:
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?
Yup. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are in the world of the scientific hypotheses. Have you heard of it?
There is no such thing as a 'scientific hypothesis'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A hypothesis comes from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.
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?
Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
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?
Insult fallacies.

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.

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" 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.

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.

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

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.

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:
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.

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.

Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure and that of the whole Earth accordingly. 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%
04-08-2021 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
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?

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

Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.

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?
[/quote]
Gravity is not changing.

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

You.
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.

Gravity 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?

Temperature 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.

It is completely relevant to your argument.

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

[/quote]
It 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.

The 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.

Gravity 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.

False 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.

Insult 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

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

Yes 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.

True 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.

Insult 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.

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.

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.

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

There 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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-08-2021 00:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)


Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Roughly all but one of the quotes you attributed to me were from Into the Night. I think you owe him a huge apology for confusing him for the likes of me, but I'll take your mistake as a compliment. All of his points were valid. You simply either did not grasp them or you completely shifted the goalposts in your reply.

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!

You are a moron. Into the Night simply listed some axioms of science. Every statement he made here is correct ... and you referred to the whole set as "the observation of an idiot." I presume you mean that even an idiot knows these to be correct.

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

... but it is not compressing, right?

Also, saying that something is somehow compressed in a particular direction is stupid. You are a bonehead.

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

Moron, you are referring to the upward contact force provided by the earth's solid and liquid surface. Have I mentioned that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who has no business pretending to discuss physics at the adult table?

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

Moron, I just finished giving you a clear example that shows this is not the case. You are apparently too stupid to learn. Anyway, your claim that temperature is thermal energy over volume is false and has been discarded.

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

One more time, two metal cubes A and B, with A having double the mass of B and both at room temperature ... are uniformly of the same temperature yet A has double the thermal energy of B.

Conclusion: Double the thermal energy within the same volume (A) will be the same temperature as B.

Why is this the case? What is the fatal flaw in your argument to which you are blind?

Charles Law and the Ideal Gas Law pertain to instantaneous changes, however you are erroneously trying to apply that to equilibrium.

All of your arguments up to this point are so discarded for that reason.

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 -

... and you are fully aware that you are only addressing instantaneous changes. If you would just admit this error on your part you can stop trying to force-fit past tenses into present tenses and vice versa.


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

The correct question is not "Who said it was?" but rather is "Who implied it was?"

That would be you. In your confusion of tenses, you claimed that the atmospheric volume is compressing, i.e. in the present progressive. This implies that gravity is changing in the present progressive.

So the answer is "You implied gravity is changing" ... and that was a really stupid thing for you to imply. Of course, it was, and is, stupid of you to not keep your tenses straight.

Review your English grammar and if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask me for help.

Pete Rogers wrote: The point is one of hypothesis,

You still need to learn what that even means. At the moment you do not and you are just babbling.

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

Nope. It is possible that it would feel cooler to human perception but each molecule would have the exact same temperature.

High in earth's orbit, where atmospheric pressure is essentially zero, molecules can get very, very hot ... but would feel cool/cold to the touch because of the scarcity of the molecules. One more time, very, very hot molecules feel very cold. Thermometers can be fooled in this manner.

Also, water can be boiled until it freezes. If you put water in a vacuum, the lack of pressure will cause it to boil while the water's thermal energy radiates away (with no air to replace the lost thermal energy) and the liquid water will cool until it turns to ice.

If gravity were somehow reduced and the atmosphere were to expand somewhat, the temperature of the air will not be changing. The temperature of other things in the atmosphere might change due to changes in the pressure.

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

Thermal energy is not conserved. Energy is conserved. Thermal energy can be converted to electromagnetic energy at which point there will be less thermal energy. Remember, energy can change forms, you just cannot create any energy out of nothing and you cannot destroy any energy into nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:- where have you been?

I was in school paying attention in my physics and chemistry classes.

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

Here's a little secret that I'd like you to keep close to the vest (don't share this with anyone). One way to instantly get Into the Night to shut up with the whole "Gravity is not energy" deal ...

... is to not treat gravity as energy. I guarantee it. It works every time.

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

No. It is the force of gravity that accelerates the atmosphere's mass in the direction of the center of gravity. It is the contact force of the earth's solid and liquid surface that pushes against the atmosphere and creates the pressure.

Please wake up and try to catch up, and let me know if you have any questions.

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.

At least you asked. I'll give you credit for that.

The 0th law of thermodynamics establishes the concept of thermal equilibrium
and you are violating this law by trying to apply to it laws that pertain only to instantaneous change.

Also, Into the Night refers to the temperature-defining aspect of the 0th law. As I showed above, very hot molecules, i.e. of high temperature, can "feel" cold to human perception. Thermometers can be fooled. What define's the molecule's temperature, or that of any other body of matter?

If body of matter A is in thermal equilibrium with a body B of known temperature then body A is of B's temperature, regardless of how it feels on your skin or what any piece of equipment reads.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity is not changing.
Nobody - but nobody - me included - surprise surprise - ever suggested that it was.

You implied it. You did not "say" it, nor did you "suggest it." You implied it. You conflated tenses and pretended the atmosphere was changing volume (in the present progressive) which implies gravity is changing.

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

There is no such thing as Auto-compression unless you are talking about this:



By the way, how thick is pigsh*t and who "around here" do you believe is "thinner" than it?

... and I want to make sure we are clear on the next point:

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


Since gravity is not changing, the atmosphere's volume is not changing.

Without any changes in volume, there are no changes in the atmosphere's temperature. Are we on the same sheet of music?


Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure

Gravity is not changing the atmopshere's temperature. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics (see above) as well as the 1st law.

Enjoy!




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2021 20:30
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.

You don't say! why would it need to as it has already caused, and permanently maintains, the smaller volume than the Troposphere would otherwise occupy thus enhancing he thermal energy per unit volume and the temperature in exact proportion and maintaining that higher level in equilibrium. Not wishing to be personal, but you are not very bright are you?
Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.?

Into the Night wroteYou.

Of course I did no such thing, you are being obtuse, which is the result of not being very bright - alas.
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.

I am pleased you worked that out, but you wasted your time on the effort because it is irrelevant information in this context.

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.

Oh dear, that brain is too dense for words. Temperature is in proportion to Thermal Energy per unit volume, Gravity doesn't need to change, just tor to maintain the current level of atmospheric compression and therefore the enhanced equilibrium temperature (due precisely to the provisions of the 1st Law) and the 0th Law is not transgressed by any of this. You are not up to this and cannot get your brain round what is very simple stuff

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.

In that case may I check if you understand the unbelievably simple facts that, firstly, gravity is what gives weight to mass, secondly that weight causes pressure and thirdly pressure causes compression and thirdly, according to the degree of lost volume to this compressionm the temperature is proportionately increased. I don't think you are able to grasp this in which case you should go away.

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.

If you insist that the 0th Law is being violated by what I told you - which it isn't, of course - perhaps you might explain exactly how you arrive at this stupid conclusion. I suspect that you will prove unwilling or unable, or both, in this regard.

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'.

That the troposphere is smaller than it would be under lower pressure proves you are talking rot on both counts. Please try to keep 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.

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

V1 is the volume ot the troposphere under low pressure and V2 under 1 ton per sq.ft, so it takes a lunatic to argue that they are the same.

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.

You just repeated the lunatic claim that the atmosphere under 10KPa would be of equal volume to today's 101,3KPa. Please go away if you are only capable of rubbish like that.

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.

To call a person that believes gravity does not compress gas bodies towards their centres of ggravity under their own weight, who thinks that there are people in this discussion who do not kow that gravity is a constant and who thinks the Troposphere at 10KPa would occupy the same volume as it does at 101.3KPA as "thick as pigsh*t" is to exaggerate their intelligence, somit is a compliment..

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

You.
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.

This is puny stuff by any standards. There is undoubtedly such a thing as Scientific use of hypotheses unless you are forbidding us to ask "What if ...?" and if so, then by what authority?Scioence is what you get when you establish what is the case and what is not. I think you have been reading arts-based desperadoes like Karl Popper, perhaps.
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.

Einstein wasn't a Scotsman and his "thought experiments" were a big part of the theory of relativity. Other than that, what's your point, or the point of you for that matter?

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.

That a body of gas under low pressure is bigger than if it were under high pressure is an hypothesis that is true unless you know of a body of gas that behaves otherwise, but if you don't then your belief to the contrary takes you back into the strange world of complimentary porcine excrement you see?

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.

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


There is something seriously wrong with your mind's functionality in the presence of relatively simple and obvious facts. You are amazingly stupid alas.
Page 23 of 25<<<2122232425>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

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

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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