Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 24 of 25<<<22232425>
09-08-2021 04:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


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

You consider all science and all relevant information to be irrelevant information because you preach a WACKY religious dogma and all relevant information will run counter to your WACKY religious dogma and will expose it for being the mindless drivel that it is.

Pete Rogers wrote:Oh dear, that brain is too dense for words.

You are asking us to presume that you know what a brain is. I think that would be giving you far too much credit.

Pete Rogers wrote:Temperature is in proportion to Thermal Energy per unit volume, ...

You keep repeating this even though it has been debunked various times from several different angles. This brings us right back to how you are too stupid to learn.

Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity doesn't need to change,

I'm glad to see that you finally figured out that gravity doesn't have much in the way of needs.

Pete Rogers wrote:... secondly that weight causes pressure

You know this is not true. Nothing in nature makes weight cause pressure. In fact, I have explained to you several times that contact force is what causes pressure. Contact force is the equal but opposite force to weight. This brings us right back to you being too stupid to learn.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and thirdly pressure causes compression

... which brings us right back to your mathematical incompetence and your inability to discern the independent variables from the dependent variables. You are operating without any tools and you are too stupid to acquire any.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and thirdly, according to the degree of lost volume to this compressionm the temperature is proportionately increased.

Are you yet able to account for the additional energy required to cause this increase in temperature? Nothing is changing so neither Charles' law nor the Ideal Gas law applies.

I don't think you are able to grasp this in which case you should go away.

Pete Rogers wrote: If you insist that the 0th Law is being violated by what I told you - which it is, of course - perhaps you might explain exactly how you arrive at this stupid conclusion

I covered this completely in my post above. You are just too stupid to learn.


. I suspect that you will prove unwilling or unable, or both, in this regard.

Please go away if you are only capable of rubbish.

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" in physics. This has been explained to you many times but of course, you are too stupid to learn.

Pete Rogers wrote: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..

To call "as thick as pigsh*t" a person who believes that the atmosphere is compressing in the present progressive despite the atmosphere's volume not changing and who denies that contact force creates atmospheric pressure ... is to exaggerate his intelligence when he is obviously too stupid to learn.

09-08-2021 04:46
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
Pete Rogers wrote:
gravity is a constant


Ooops. You just destroyed your entire argument.

If gravity is constant, compression is also constant, and therefore any temperature increase from gravitational compression was conducted, convected, or radiated out shortly after any such "gravitational event".
09-08-2021 05:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
gravity is a constant


Ooops. You just destroyed your entire argument.

If gravity is constant, compression is also constant, and therefore any temperature increase from gravitational compression was conducted, convected, or radiated out shortly after any such "gravitational event".

GasGuzzler, you're a little late. This has been explained to Pete Rogers MANY times ... but he is broken record. He conflates past and present tenses to arrive at his current dogma which insists that events and changes that finished occurring in the past are occurring right now in the present. As obviously bogus as this is, he needs to do this. Here's why:

Laws such as the Ideal Gas law and Charles' law predict changes in temperature caused by changes in other gas parameters such as volume and pressure. If nothing is changing then these laws do not apply. So ... in order to artificially make these laws "apply", Pete Rogers plays the ol' switcheroo on verb tenses by speaking of the earth's atmosphere as though it is compressing right now in the present tense. Instead of saying that the atmosphere compressed long ago before there was any life on the planet, he uses the present tense to say that the atmosphere maintains its compressed state. Sure, neither the atmosphere's volume nor pressure is changing, so neither of the aforementioned laws apply, but quick-thinking Pete Rogers simply replaces the past tense with the present tense and bingo, he's back in business. Now he can pretend to explain how gravity "enhances" the atmosphere's temperature via Charles' law by compressing the atmosphere to its present volume.

You might notice that Into the Night and I have tried repeatedly to emphasize that the atmosphere's volume is not changing, and that Volume(initial) = Volume(final) which, according to Charles' law indicates that the temperature does not change. Pete Rogers nonetheless insists that the atmosphere's Volume(initial) is clearly much bigger than it otherwise would be with less gravity. He does not explain why this matters when gravity is simply not changing, as he acknowledges.

On the other hand, Pete Rogers cannot discern the difference between verb tenses so this explanation that I am giving you is totally lost on him.




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
09-08-2021 05:52
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
IBdaMann wrote:


GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
gravity is a constant


Ooops. You just destroyed your entire argument.

If gravity is constant, compression is also constant, and therefore any temperature increase from gravitational compression was conducted, convected, or radiated out shortly after any such "gravitational event".

GasGuzzler, you're a little late. This has been explained to Pete Rogers MANY times ... but he is broken record. He conflates past and present tenses to arrive at his current dogma which insists that events and changes that finished occurring in the past are occurring right now in the present. As obviously bogus as this is, he needs to do this. Here's why:

Laws such as the Ideal Gas law and Charles' law predict changes in temperature caused by changes in other gas parameters such as volume and pressure. If nothing is changing then these laws do not apply. So ... in order to artificially make these laws "apply", Pete Rogers plays the ol' switcheroo on verb tenses by speaking of the earth's atmosphere as though it is compressing right now in the present tense. Instead of saying that the atmosphere compressed long ago before there was any life on the planet, he uses the present tense to say that the atmosphere maintains its compressed state. Sure, neither the atmosphere's volume nor pressure is changing, so neither of the aforementioned laws apply, but quick-thinking Pete Rogers simply replaces the past tense with the present tense and bingo, he's back in business. Now he can pretend to explain how gravity "enhances" the atmosphere's temperature via Charles' law by compressing the atmosphere to its present volume.

You might notice that Into the Night and I have tried repeatedly to emphasize that the atmosphere's volume is not changing, and that Volume(initial) = Volume(final) which, according to Charles' law indicates that the temperature does not change. Pete Rogers nonetheless insists that the atmosphere's Volume(initial) is clearly much bigger than it otherwise would be with less gravity. He does not explain why this matters when gravity is simply not changing, as he acknowledges.

On the other hand, Pete Rogers cannot discern the difference between verb tenses so this explanation that I am giving you is totally lost on him.



Oh I do know I've said nothing new. I just thought there might be a snowballs chance in hell Peter just might get it from my simple one sentence explanation.

Yes, he's been conflating past and present since his first post over a year ago. It's kind of interesting to go back and read.

He kinda reminds me of the mechanic that pulls this, checks that, tests this, and adjusts that, parts laying all over the yard. The Fn car still won't run because he didn't notice there was no fuel in it. So basic.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
09-08-2021 15:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
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?

The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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!

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

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]
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?
[/quote]
The atmosphere is not contained. Gravity is not changing. Temperature is not total thermal energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.

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.
[/quote]
Lie. You are arguing that gravity is changing. It is not changing. V1=V2.
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.
[/quote]
It is completely relevant. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

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,[/quote]
No. Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity doesn't need to change, just tor to maintain the current level of atmospheric compression

The atmosphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and therefore the enhanced equilibrium temperature (due precisely to the provisions of the 1st Law)

Denial of Charle's Law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Gravity is not changing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and the 0th Law is not transgressed by any of this.

Yes it is. Temperature is not total thermal energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You are not up to this and cannot get your brain round what is very simple stuff

Inversion fallacy. The problem is YOU. It is YOU denying physics here.
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.
[/quote]
Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Temperature is not total thermal energy. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.
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.
[/quote]
I will not deny physics. You are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are trying to consider temperature as total thermal energy. This is wrong. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This is not possible.
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!
[/quote]
Gravity is not changing. The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Gravity is not changing. V1=V2. Only a lunatic would try to argue that gravity is changing, that it is energy, that the atmosphere is being compressed, and to continually try to argue that temperature is total thermal energy. Only a lunatic denies physics and claims it to be 'science'.

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.
[/quote]
Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

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

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

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..
[/quote]
Insult fallacies. Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics and Charle's law.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteTrue Scotsman fallacy. Denial of science.

Einstein wasn't a Scotsman

Doesn't have to be. Denial of logic. Pivot fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency check.

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,

Divisional error fallacy. Your thought experiment is irrelevant. You cannot just discard the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics or Charle's law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so I unhesitatingly accord you parity with those others who are defeated by the same struggle.

There is no struggle. You are simply discarding theories of science. You cannot just discard theories of science. You have to falsify them. The 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics have not yet been falsified.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Those who are not as thick as pigsh*t around here have no trouble realising that the hypothesis proves that gravity warms the troposphere,

A hypothesis is not a proof. A hypothesis is not a theory. Hypothesis come from a theory, not the other way 'round. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
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?

Insult fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (science<->religion).
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"

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' thought experiment. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not an experiment of any type.
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.
[/quote]
A hypothesis is not a proof. Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

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.

Gravity is not changing. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:
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. The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2.

Pete Rogers wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less. You cannot just discard theories of science.

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.

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.

Into the Night wrote:
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.

Insult fallacies. Bulverism fallacy.

Argument by repetition. Redefinitions (science<->religion, hypothesis<->theory). Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by discard. Attempted proof by insult. Attempted proof by hypothesis. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and Charle's law.

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
09-08-2021 20:37
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]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

IBdaMannwrote... but it is not compressing, right?

Correct Einstein, but the stable state of compression determines the ATE because of the increase in thermal energy per unit volume - it's the way long-division works - except on your planet apparently? Here on Earth the Total thermal energy is the same, in accordance with the 1st Law, but the units it is divided between are then fewer than they would otherwise be the case - you know, if the pressure was less. That's called a hypothesis by the way - we use them here in the world of science in order to reveal underlying facts - are they permitted in your world? Only you keep saying "Gravity does not change" which is true but of no relevance to the hypothesis under examination which considers the consequences if it did - capish? Somehow I don't think you do - or will ever get there.

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

Really? Oh dear! how sad, never mind. Well, first off, the Troposphere is spherical - more or less - around here and its weight acts towards its centre of gravity - as with all things possessing weight - so it is pulled towards this centre of gravity and therefore must be compressed in the direction of the centre of gravity? You are odd, because you seem to have no idea about any of that and yet you refer to me as "bonehead", but you just pooped yourself again, unwittingly, and accused me of making the smell! An act of such sheer stupidity that the term "bonehead" doesn't even come close!

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.

IBdaMannwroteMoron, 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.

What you just gave is a clear example that your brain cannot work it out for you that the degree of volume lost by contraction of the troposphere under gravity dictates the thermal enhancement of our - and every other - troposphere in the Uuniverse in accordance with Charles' Law, so when you say - so arrogantly and vainly - that "it has been discarded" you forget to mention that it is only people as thick as you who have done so - maybe you alone (Except for your representative on Earth- Into the Night). All those around here who are not as thick as pigsh*t have embraced it because it is clearly correct. I can't really see much hope for you on this kind of performance.

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

IBdaMann wroteOne 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?

Oh dear, you really are in a league of your own aren't you? and not a very good one at that. All such cubes have to be at ambient temperature because they are not adiabatic, you are barking up the wrong tree as your brain condemns you to do - probably for eternity - because the requisite penny to get a person over the line cannot drop in your case.


IBdaMann wroteCharles 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.

This is priceless buffoonery from a nitwit! Charles Law only pertains to "instantaneous" changes when the gas body under compression has surroundings to conduct its enhanced temperature into thus being returned quickly to the ambient level of those surroundings under the 2nd Law Junior, whereas all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into Bozo Jr- being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away for that reason: thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature. You really are a chump to confuse adiabatic and non-abiabatic behaviours as though they are identical. Please try to keep up with the rest of us!

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.?

IBdaMann wroteThe 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.

And the correct answer is "Nobody" as you will have learned from the above, with correct use of tenses, English and - more importantly - Science, so please wake up and spare us any more of this foolishness!!

Pete Rogers wrote: The point is one of hypothesis,

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

It means - for instance - testing the hypothesis "What would the situation be if the system were under lower pessure?" which is perfectly valid and a crucial line of enquiry to enable us to get at the consequences of gravity in this sense, but unfortunately - and unsurprisingly- your brain can only interpret it as a kind of "babbling" because it loses the thread so it is difficult to see how you can offer anything of value here.

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

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

Charles would wonder why anybody had wasted their time in trying to tell someone like you about his Law. Each molecule would indeed have the same thermal energy, but not temperature, because there would be fewer of them in any given unit of volume and as that very Mr Charles tried to tell those capable of understanding, which doesn't include you, T2=T1xV1/V2 where T means Temperature and V means volume. By the way humans only feel cooler when it is cooler. i thought you might possibly have learned that from personal experience, but things are different on Planet Bozo it seems.

IBdaMan wroteHigh 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.

We are talking about the Troposphere Bozo Jnr, because only gas bodies over 10KPa can maintain a thermal gradient! What is the matter with you? A person who believes that thermometers can be fooled about the temperature is in deep trouble!

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.


IBdaMann wroteIf 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.

This means that where you live (Planet Bozo) T2≠T1*V1/V2, which is imaginary.

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. IBdaMannwroteThermal 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.

That is only true of opaque bodies. The transparent atmosphere does not convert thermal Energy into electromagnetic energy. The thermal energy conducted from the surface is confined to the extent that the atmosphere, being contraced by gravity, increases the thermal content per unit volume giving you T2 in terms of Charles' Law and, being higher than T1, transfers back to the surface raising the temperature there, thus converting into electro-magnetic (infrared) emmissions.

Pete Rogers wrote:- where have you been?

IBdaMann wroteI was in school paying attention in my physics and chemistry classes.

I don't think so when it came to Charles's Law and adiabatic Gas Bodies. You must have been off-sick for that part.

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

IBdaMann wroteHere'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.

Here's a better little secret than that to shut you both up - if only that were possible. Gravity gives Weight to Mass which causes pressure leading to atmospheric contraction (autocompression) leading to a higher temperature by application of Charles' Law to an adiabatic gas body in thermal equilibrium. I guarantee it works every time - except on planet Bozo.

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

IBdaMann wroteNo. 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.

IBdaMannwroteAt 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.

According to that piece of illumination the atmosphere can't be adiabatic on Planet Bozo, which is a miracle, because that's impossible, just like the stupid idea that Charles' Law somehow wouldn't apply to adiabatic gas bodies on Planet Bozo even if it had had one. Wake up do!

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:



I like that, its good humoured, but the other form - which occurs naturally in every troposphere or interstellar gas body above 10KPa - is simply what must occur when its own weight acts upon it. It contracts under the pressure of its own weight - hence the term "Auto-compression." It is in very common use amongst mining safety engineers because deep mines can suffer excessive heat from this autocompression you tell us is a figment of their imagination. Maybe you can explain to them that it doesn't exist to save them all a lot of time and effort making the mines safer for miners.

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

Porcine excrement - to use the technical term - has the comparative density and depth; when analogously applied to the perspicacity of the mind: to prevent it from following the most elementary of truths. Like autocompression being the name we give to the result of the weight of the gas body causing contraction. Most reasonably intelligent people are mentally unchallenged by such notions so that's what you must mean by "thinner" I guess. See what you think.

... 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


IBdaMann wroteSince gravity is not changing, the atmosphere's volume is not changing.

Which is on the money, so well done Einstein, but so what?

but then he wrote
Without any changes in volume, there are no changes in the atmosphere's temperature.

not having the vaguest idea that it was beside the point, which is that by asking the hypothetical question "If the Troposphere were under lower pressure what would happen to the temperature?" we quickly discover that it would be cooler due to Charles' Law, but not this guy - too difficult!

IBdaMann then added - slightly propheticallyAre we on the same sheet of music?
to which I would imagine that the answer was manifestly negative.


Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing the atmopshere's temperature.
Which is absolutely correct, though it provides the ATE. It is the variation in net insolation that changes the temperature.

Then he loses it again when he saysYou are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics (see above) as well as the 1st law.
because both these KLaws are strictlyobserved. It should be particularly clear that it is the application of the 1st Law to a contracted troposphere that forces the temperature up, but he simply cannot follow this according to what he keeps saying.

Enjoy!


Gravity gives weight to the mass of anything; including tropospheres: and weight causes pressure which in turn leads to compression of any gas body and since the troposphere alone is involved in this compression without outside agencies it is correctly termed autocompression and it is that which creates the ATE. This will bounce off your dense skull, however, hence the thickness comparison with porcine faecal matter as I hope the observer will forgive me for labouring which point.
10-08-2021 02:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
Pete Rogers wrote:Correct Einstein,

... and you should have just stopped here ... but you can't help but turn right around and contradict yourself. Go ahead ...

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the stable state of compression ...

... is just another way of saying that the volume is not changing, and that the pressure is not changing, and that the temperature is not changing. You completely agree with me at every turn ... and then imply that you somehow disagree and that your physics violations are somehow correct. Bizarre.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... determines the ATE

You are saying that something's lack of existence determines your Greenhouse Effect. You are specifying a stable, unchanging state therefore there are no changes that exist. You are trying to claim that this nonexistence somehow has a very real effect in nature.

Let me know when you are ready for the bad news.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because of the increase in thermal energy per unit volume

We've been over this more times than you deserve. It has been debunked every which way from Wednesday and thrice on Thursday ... but you are too stupid to learn.

Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: Here on Earth the Total thermal energy is the same, in accordance with the 1st Law,

... and the amount of atmospheric mass is the same. Ergo, the same average temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the units it is divided between

Correct English grammar: "... but the units between which it is divided..."



Pete Rogers wrote: ... are then fewer than they would otherwise be the case

There is no subjunctive in science. There is no "otherwise" that gets to be considered unless you are falsifying an argument as not being the case.

Was that your intent?

Pete Rogers wrote: - you know, if the pressure was less.

Correct English grammar: "- you know, if the pressure were less."



The only valid response is to remind you that the atmosphere's pressure is not somehow less than it is and is therefore exactly as it is and only as it is and is not enhanced in some way from what it is.

Your whole conflation of reality with your imagined reality makes for quite the absurd religion. I bet your prayers are hilarious.

Pete Rogers wrote:That's called a hypothesis by the way

Nope. You don't know what an hypothesis is. Your implication of understanding of hypotheses only appears plausible until someone such as myself reads your words and sees that you haven't a clue. When I combine that with your other general cluelessness all the pieces begin to fit together nicely.

Pete Rogers wrote:- we use them here in the world of science in order to reveal underlying facts

You are using the Marxist "we" ... meaning that you are not including yourself. You have no understanding of our world of science, and you are similarly not included in my use of "our."

Between the two of us, just leave the commentary on science to me and I'll leave you to be the expert on purveying WACKY physics violations. That way, we can each have a positive contributing role.

Pete Rogers wrote:Only you keep saying "Gravity does not change" which is true

... and you HATE it when I write things that are true. This is because they will naturally run counter to your WACKY religion and you will not be able to claim that they are false.

In short, the truth hurts your case.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... its weight acts

Weight does not act.

I'm going to simply delete the rest of this section in which you discuss the atmosphere's weight because this discussion needs to be centered around the earth's contact force (solid and liquid surface) ... and you are too stupid to ever learn what that is so I'm just going to ignore your gibberish.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... the degree of volume lost by contraction

Just so we are on the same page, you are referring to the past, right? You are referring to an action that was completed in the past, right? You didn't write "losing" but rather you wrote "lost."

Just so we are on the same page, you are not referring to any changes that are occurring in the present, right? You are acknowledging that the Ideal Gas law and Charles' law don't apply because there are no instantaneous changes being discussed, right?

Just so we are on the same page, you are claiming that the nonexistence of changes, i.e. the atmosphere's stability, is what causes your miraculous Greenhouse Effect, right?

Again, let me know when you are ready for the bad news, preferably when you are seated.

Pete Rogers wrote: so when you say - so arrogantly and vainly - that "it has been discarded" you forget to mention that it is only people as thick as you who have done so

I'm now starting to think along your lines. Yes. I see it now. Your ridiculous ATE was summarily dismissed (in the past) therefore it is being summarily dismissed right now and is in a stable state of dismissal specifically because the exact same amount of BS is being dismissed over less time than it otherwise would be ... because this is hypothesis testing and in our world of science, we dismiss this kind of BS summarily.

I think we are on the same page.

Pete Rogers wrote: - maybe you alone (Except for your representative on Earth- Into the Night).

Are you saying that Into the Night is more down-to-earth than I am?

@Into the Night - I'm back in the lead! Yesssssss!

Pete Rogers wrote: all those around here who are not as thick as pigsh*t have embraced it because it is clearly correct.

Beautiful! So your definition of "thick as pigsh*t" is "someone who does not embrace your WACKY dogsh*t ... errr, ummm, ... dogma."

I will equate belief in your WACKY religion with being thinner than pigsh*t. We'll call ATE "pig diarrhea."

Pete Rogers wrote: All such cubes have to be at ambient temperature because they are not adiabatic,

You are gibbering. Adiabaticity has nothing to do with anything. You are simply scrambling for words in order to buy time.

You claim that temperature is a function of thermal energy over volume, not over mass. You are egregiously in error. I gave you a concrete example and your denial is forcing you to scream "not adiabatic! not adiabatic!"

It's over. You're done.

Pete Rogers wrote:Charles Law only pertains to "instantaneous" changes when the gas body under compression has surroundings to conduct its enhanced temperature into thus being returned quickly to the ambient level of those surroundings under the 2nd Law Junior, whereas all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into Bozo Jr- being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away for that reason: thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature.

This is one single, solitary sentence. It's amazing to think that someone took the time to craft it and to write it. Just look at it again. I have already read it three times and I plan to read it again tomorrow after lunch.

I have a question for the rest of the board: If the aforementioned sentence were a color, what color would it be? You will all marvel at how I already know what color you will say.

Pete Rogers wrote: You really are a chump

I did it all for the nookie, yeah, for the nookie, yeah, so you can take this cookie and stick it up your ear, stick it up your ear. Why did it take so long? Why did I wait so long?

Pete Rogers wrote: Please try to keep up with the rest of us!

When exactly did you become plural? That's a neat trick by the way.

Pete Rogers wrote:It means - for instance -

You have to wait and write "for instance" after you have defined your term. You don't lead with an example. Examples are not definitions. They are examples of what is supposed be defined.

Define first then provide examples.

Try again.



Pete Rogers wrote: testing the hypothesis "What would the situation be if the system were under lower pessure?"

That is not an hypothesis. You are scientifically illiterate.

1. An hypothesis is not a question. Ergo, your question is not an hypothesis.
2. An hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. You have no falsifiable model from which to derive any hypotheses.
3. An hypothesis is a prediction about nature and necessarily includes the word "will" i.e. the future tense of some verb or what a future result will be.
4. The subjunctive, along with the word "would" is never used in science.

Pete Rogers wrote: Charles would wonder ...

No, he would not.

Pete Rogers wrote:... why anybody had wasted their time

Since you are learning English as a second language I'll give you a pointer here so that you don't sound like a total bonehead ... outside of your boneheaded religion of course. English requires subject/verb agreement. "Anybody" is singular whereas "their" is plural. The correct way to write the above is "why anybody had wasted his time ..."

Let me know if you have any questions.



Pete Rogers wrote:Each molecule would indeed have the same thermal energy, but not temperature,

You are a scientifically illiterate moron. What you just wrote is entirely stupid. Any molecule with quantity X of thermal energy will be of the exact same temperature at any other time it has X thermal energy. The thermal energy is what determines its temperature.

So go rush to Wikipedia and become even more confused than you are now. I can't wait for your response.

Moron.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because there would be fewer of them in any given unit of volume

I don't know if I mentioned that you are a scientifically illiterate moron but you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

Would you mind terribly saying "Oh, dear!" for me one more time.

IBdaMan wroteWe are talking about the Troposphere Bozo

You don't have a clue about what you speak. You have no basis for limiting the discussion to an arbitrary but undefined portion of the atmosphere, but it doesn't matter because you are an idiot preaching a comical faith in a cruel joke that was played on you.

I pity you.

Pete Rogers wrote:only gas bodies over 10KPa can maintain a thermal gradient!

I am certain that you don't even know the meaning of what you just wrote. You added an exclamation mark. Too funny. You truly believe that you said something meaningful, something that somehow makes your case.

You are in a world of hurt.

Pete Rogers wrote:What is the matter with you? A person who believes that thermometers can be fooled about the temperature is in deep trouble!

Apparently you don't even know what a thermometer measures.

I pity you.

Pete Rogers wrote:That is only true of opaque bodies.

You mean "opaque" to visible light, right?

You are wrong.

All matter is "opaque" to some electromagnetic radiation to some extent. This is where the word "black" comes into the name "black body science."

One more time ... all matter is "black" to some extent to some electromagnetic radiation. When discussing thermal energy and thermal radiation, all bodies of matter are black bodies.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Pete Rogers wrote:The transparent atmosphere does not convert thermal Energy into electromagnetic energy.

I think you got those reversed ... but you are mistaken in any event because CO2 is certainly transparent to visible light but is very black to certain infrared frequency bands and readily converts them to thermal energy.

Would you like to see a parlor trick or two demonstrating this?

Pete Rogers wrote:The thermal energy conducted from the surface

What do you mean by "surface"? I will presume that you mean the bottom of the ocean since that represents the vast majority of the lithosphere's "surface" so that must be what you mean.

So yes, the ocean certainly conducts and convects thermal energy from the bottom of the ocean, but what's your point?

Pete Rogers wrote: being contraced by gravity,

Are you speaking in the present tense, i.e. gravity is contracting the atmosphere ergo the atmosphere is being contracted by gravity? I just want you to confirm that you are conflating tenses again.

Pete Rogers wrote: ...increases the thermal content per unit volume

I see the word "increases" which is unmistakably the present tense ... which unmistakably implies a change in the present tense ... but you have already acknowledged that there are no changes taking place in the present tense because ATE is driven by the complete lack of any changes in the present tense, i.e. the stability.

You have a huge problem here. You screwed that pooch.

Pete Rogers wrote:Here's a better little secret than that to shut you both up - if only that were possible.

You don't know what you're writing, do you?

Pete Rogers wrote: Gravity gives Weight to Mass which c...

I'm deleting this whole section, with prejudice. You still haven't learned about contact force and without it, you are just gibbering.

Look up contact force and learn it. Your arguments are meaningless without discussing earth's contact force.

Pete Rogers wrote:According to that piece of illumination the atmosphere can't be adiabatic

Whoa .... easy there Tiger! Slow down. Don't get all excited. A genius at logic you are not. Don't dive into the deep end until they put water in the pool. You have a long way to go before you can start drawing valid conclusions on your own.

The 0th law of thermodynamics does not preclude adiabaticity. Just stick with the easy stuff for now.

Pete Rogers wrote:I but the other form [of Autocompression] - which occurs naturally in every troposphere or interstellar gas body

There is no such thing as "autocompression." Sorry.

Pete Rogers wrote: It is in very common use amongst mining safety engineers b

... because you believe that physics is mining safety engineers.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteSince gravity is not changing, the atmosphere's volume is not changing.
Which is on the money, so well done Einstein, but so what?

Thank you. This means that we're done. There are no changes occurring in the present. The Ideal Gas law and Charles' law do not apply. Your religion's dogma holds that something specifically nonexistent in nature causes a physics violation in nature.

So ... we're done.

10-08-2021 05:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
Pete Rogers wrote:Charles Law only pertains to "instantaneous" changes when the gas body under compression has surroundings to conduct its enhanced temperature into thus being returned quickly to the ambient level of those surroundings under the 2nd Law Junior, whereas all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into Bozo Jr- being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away for that reason: thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature.[/quote]

IBdaMann wrote:
This is one single, solitary sentence. It's amazing to think that someone took the time to craft it and to write it. Just look at it again. I have already read it three times and I plan to read it again tomorrow after lunch.

Less cleanup if you read it BEFORE lunch, but a good bit of time after breakfast.



IBdaMann wrote:
I have a question for the rest of the board: If the aforementioned sentence were a color, what color would it be? You will all marvel at how I already know what color you will say.


I will say pastels are out. Not really a beige or tan.....dark brown?

I have also read this sentence several times and I am quite frankly stunned at the stupidity!

How can one believe a higher temp from compression is forever trapped on Earth because the vacuum of space won't allow conduction? That IS the argument, yes?


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
10-08-2021 06:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


GasGuzzler wrote:Less cleanup if you read it BEFORE lunch, but a good bit of time after breakfast.

Your point is well taken. I advise all to heed your words.

In my case, my physical reactions are completely numbed by this masterful belletrism. I could read it many, ... minutes ... as in plural.

GasGuzzler wrote:I will say pastels are out. Not really a beige or tan.....dark brown?

You forgot to add how impressed you are that I already knew what color you were going to pick. The good news is that it is not too late to correct your oversight.

GasGuzzler wrote:How can one believe a higher temp from compression is forever trapped on Earth because the vacuum of space won't allow conduction? That IS the argument, yes?

Not so much because of the vacuum of space.

Pete Rogers denies the fact that only matter can have thermal energy. It is irrelevant in what volume the matter resides. The only parameter of consequence is the amount of matter over which the thermal energy is distributed.

I gave Pete Rogers a concrete example of two metal cubes A & B of identical volume but with A being double the mass of B. Both cubes at room temperature are at room temperature ... imagine that! Hence they are of the same volume and of the same temperature, but A has double the thermal energy of B. Once again, the same volume and the same temperature but double the thermal energy in that volume.

Pete Rogers will simply not acknowledge this so I know that he is fully aware that the jig is up and that he is spewing boolsch't. It's just like tmiddles being unable to admit that there is a daytime side of the moon because it totally destroys his argument that the earth's atmosphere specifically increases its temperature. Hello! The moon has no atmosphere and its daytime side is much hotter than the earth's fully-atmosphered daytime side despite being the same distance from the sun. Two cubes of the same temperature and same volume with differing amounts of thermal energy destroy Pete Rogers' argument that temperature is determined by thermal energy divided by volume, not by mass.

So tmiddles refuses to acknowledge that the moon has a daytime side and Pete Rogers refuses to acknowledge any concrete example of temperature being determined by thermal energy divided by mass.

So THAT is the argument, i.e. thermal energy resides in a volume independent of matter and temperature is thus determined by thermal energy over volume. This argument is totally bogus. It is false. Pete Rogers is a scientifically illiterate moron.




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
10-08-2021 14:06
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Correct Einstein,

... and you should have just stopped here ... but you can't help but turn right around and contradict yourself. Go ahead ...

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the stable state of compression ...

... is just another way of saying that the volume is not changing, and that the pressure is not changing, and that the temperature is not changing. You completely agree with me at every turn ... and then imply that you somehow disagree and that your physics violations are somehow correct. Bizarre.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... determines the ATE

You are saying that something's lack of existence determines your Greenhouse Effect. You are specifying a stable, unchanging state therefore there are no changes that exist. You are trying to claim that this nonexistence somehow has a very real effect in nature.

Let me know when you are ready for the bad news.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because of the increase in thermal energy per unit volume

We've been over this more times than you deserve. It has been debunked every which way from Wednesday and thrice on Thursday ... but you are too stupid to learn.

Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: Here on Earth the Total thermal energy is the same, in accordance with the 1st Law,

... and the amount of atmospheric mass is the same. Ergo, the same average temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... but the units it is divided between

Correct English grammar: "... but the units between which it is divided..."



Pete Rogers wrote: ... are then fewer than they would otherwise be the case

There is no subjunctive in science. There is no "otherwise" that gets to be considered unless you are falsifying an argument as not being the case.

Was that your intent?

Pete Rogers wrote: - you know, if the pressure was less.

Correct English grammar: "- you know, if the pressure were less."



The only valid response is to remind you that the atmosphere's pressure is not somehow less than it is and is therefore exactly as it is and only as it is and is not enhanced in some way from what it is.

Your whole conflation of reality with your imagined reality makes for quite the absurd religion. I bet your prayers are hilarious.

Pete Rogers wrote:That's called a hypothesis by the way

Nope. You don't know what an hypothesis is. Your implication of understanding of hypotheses only appears plausible until someone such as myself reads your words and sees that you haven't a clue. When I combine that with your other general cluelessness all the pieces begin to fit together nicely.

Pete Rogers wrote:- we use them here in the world of science in order to reveal underlying facts

You are using the Marxist "we" ... meaning that you are not including yourself. You have no understanding of our world of science, and you are similarly not included in my use of "our."

Between the two of us, just leave the commentary on science to me and I'll leave you to be the expert on purveying WACKY physics violations. That way, we can each have a positive contributing role.

Pete Rogers wrote:Only you keep saying "Gravity does not change" which is true

... and you HATE it when I write things that are true. This is because they will naturally run counter to your WACKY religion and you will not be able to claim that they are false.

In short, the truth hurts your case.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... its weight acts

Weight does not act.

I'm going to simply delete the rest of this section in which you discuss the atmosphere's weight because this discussion needs to be centered around the earth's contact force (solid and liquid surface) ... and you are too stupid to ever learn what that is so I'm just going to ignore your gibberish.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... the degree of volume lost by contraction

Just so we are on the same page, you are referring to the past, right? You are referring to an action that was completed in the past, right? You didn't write "losing" but rather you wrote "lost."

Just so we are on the same page, you are not referring to any changes that are occurring in the present, right? You are acknowledging that the Ideal Gas law and Charles' law don't apply because there are no instantaneous changes being discussed, right?

Just so we are on the same page, you are claiming that the nonexistence of changes, i.e. the atmosphere's stability, is what causes your miraculous Greenhouse Effect, right?

Again, let me know when you are ready for the bad news, preferably when you are seated.

Pete Rogers wrote: so when you say - so arrogantly and vainly - that "it has been discarded" you forget to mention that it is only people as thick as you who have done so

I'm now starting to think along your lines. Yes. I see it now. Your ridiculous ATE was summarily dismissed (in the past) therefore it is being summarily dismissed right now and is in a stable state of dismissal specifically because the exact same amount of BS is being dismissed over less time than it otherwise would be ... because this is hypothesis testing and in our world of science, we dismiss this kind of BS summarily.

I think we are on the same page.

Pete Rogers wrote: - maybe you alone (Except for your representative on Earth- Into the Night).

Are you saying that Into the Night is more down-to-earth than I am?

@Into the Night - I'm back in the lead! Yesssssss!

Pete Rogers wrote: all those around here who are not as thick as pigsh*t have embraced it because it is clearly correct.

Beautiful! So your definition of "thick as pigsh*t" is "someone who does not embrace your WACKY dogsh*t ... errr, ummm, ... dogma."

I will equate belief in your WACKY religion with being thinner than pigsh*t. We'll call ATE "pig diarrhea."

Pete Rogers wrote: All such cubes have to be at ambient temperature because they are not adiabatic,

You are gibbering. Adiabaticity has nothing to do with anything. You are simply scrambling for words in order to buy time.

You claim that temperature is a function of thermal energy over volume, not over mass. You are egregiously in error. I gave you a concrete example and your denial is forcing you to scream "not adiabatic! not adiabatic!"

It's over. You're done.

Pete Rogers wrote:Charles Law only pertains to "instantaneous" changes when the gas body under compression has surroundings to conduct its enhanced temperature into thus being returned quickly to the ambient level of those surroundings under the 2nd Law Junior, whereas all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into Bozo Jr- being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away for that reason: thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature.

This is one single, solitary sentence. It's amazing to think that someone took the time to craft it and to write it. Just look at it again. I have already read it three times and I plan to read it again tomorrow after lunch.

I have a question for the rest of the board: If the aforementioned sentence were a color, what color would it be? You will all marvel at how I already know what color you will say.

Pete Rogers wrote: You really are a chump

I did it all for the nookie, yeah, for the nookie, yeah, so you can take this cookie and stick it up your ear, stick it up your ear. Why did it take so long? Why did I wait so long?

Pete Rogers wrote: Please try to keep up with the rest of us!

When exactly did you become plural? That's a neat trick by the way.

Pete Rogers wrote:It means - for instance -

You have to wait and write "for instance" after you have defined your term. You don't lead with an example. Examples are not definitions. They are examples of what is supposed be defined.

Define first then provide examples.

Try again.



Pete Rogers wrote: testing the hypothesis "What would the situation be if the system were under lower pessure?"

That is not an hypothesis. You are scientifically illiterate.

1. An hypothesis is not a question. Ergo, your question is not an hypothesis.
2. An hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. You have no falsifiable model from which to derive any hypotheses.
3. An hypothesis is a prediction about nature and necessarily includes the word "will" i.e. the future tense of some verb or what a future result will be.
4. The subjunctive, along with the word "would" is never used in science.

Pete Rogers wrote: Charles would wonder ...

No, he would not.

Pete Rogers wrote:... why anybody had wasted their time

Since you are learning English as a second language I'll give you a pointer here so that you don't sound like a total bonehead ... outside of your boneheaded religion of course. English requires subject/verb agreement. "Anybody" is singular whereas "their" is plural. The correct way to write the above is "why anybody had wasted his time ..."

Let me know if you have any questions.



Pete Rogers wrote:Each molecule would indeed have the same thermal energy, but not temperature,

You are a scientifically illiterate moron. What you just wrote is entirely stupid. Any molecule with quantity X of thermal energy will be of the exact same temperature at any other time it has X thermal energy. The thermal energy is what determines its temperature.

So go rush to Wikipedia and become even more confused than you are now. I can't wait for your response.

Moron.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because there would be fewer of them in any given unit of volume

I don't know if I mentioned that you are a scientifically illiterate moron but you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

Would you mind terribly saying "Oh, dear!" for me one more time.

IBdaMan wroteWe are talking about the Troposphere Bozo

You don't have a clue about what you speak. You have no basis for limiting the discussion to an arbitrary but undefined portion of the atmosphere, but it doesn't matter because you are an idiot preaching a comical faith in a cruel joke that was played on you.

I pity you.

Pete Rogers wrote:only gas bodies over 10KPa can maintain a thermal gradient!

I am certain that you don't even know the meaning of what you just wrote. You added an exclamation mark. Too funny. You truly believe that you said something meaningful, something that somehow makes your case.

You are in a world of hurt.

Pete Rogers wrote:What is the matter with you? A person who believes that thermometers can be fooled about the temperature is in deep trouble!

Apparently you don't even know what a thermometer measures.

I pity you.

Pete Rogers wrote:That is only true of opaque bodies.

You mean "opaque" to visible light, right?

You are wrong.

All matter is "opaque" to some electromagnetic radiation to some extent. This is where the word "black" comes into the name "black body science."

One more time ... all matter is "black" to some extent to some electromagnetic radiation. When discussing thermal energy and thermal radiation, all bodies of matter are black bodies.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Pete Rogers wrote:The transparent atmosphere does not convert thermal Energy into electromagnetic energy.

I think you got those reversed ... but you are mistaken in any event because CO2 is certainly transparent to visible light but is very black to certain infrared frequency bands and readily converts them to thermal energy.

Would you like to see a parlor trick or two demonstrating this?

Pete Rogers wrote:The thermal energy conducted from the surface

What do you mean by "surface"? I will presume that you mean the bottom of the ocean since that represents the vast majority of the lithosphere's "surface" so that must be what you mean.

So yes, the ocean certainly conducts and convects thermal energy from the bottom of the ocean, but what's your point?

Pete Rogers wrote: being contraced by gravity,

Are you speaking in the present tense, i.e. gravity is contracting the atmosphere ergo the atmosphere is being contracted by gravity? I just want you to confirm that you are conflating tenses again.

Pete Rogers wrote: ...increases the thermal content per unit volume

I see the word "increases" which is unmistakably the present tense ... which unmistakably implies a change in the present tense ... but you have already acknowledged that there are no changes taking place in the present tense because ATE is driven by the complete lack of any changes in the present tense, i.e. the stability.

You have a huge problem here. You screwed that pooch.

Pete Rogers wrote:Here's a better little secret than that to shut you both up - if only that were possible.

You don't know what you're writing, do you?

Pete Rogers wrote: Gravity gives Weight to Mass which c...

I'm deleting this whole section, with prejudice. You still haven't learned about contact force and without it, you are just gibbering.

Look up contact force and learn it. Your arguments are meaningless without discussing earth's contact force.

Pete Rogers wrote:According to that piece of illumination the atmosphere can't be adiabatic

Whoa .... easy there Tiger! Slow down. Don't get all excited. A genius at logic you are not. Don't dive into the deep end until they put water in the pool. You have a long way to go before you can start drawing valid conclusions on your own.

The 0th law of thermodynamics does not preclude adiabaticity. Just stick with the easy stuff for now.

Pete Rogers wrote:I but the other form [of Autocompression] - which occurs naturally in every troposphere or interstellar gas body

There is no such thing as "autocompression." Sorry.

Pete Rogers wrote: It is in very common use amongst mining safety engineers b

... because you believe that physics is mining safety engineers.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteSince gravity is not changing, the atmosphere's volume is not changing.
Which is on the money, so well done Einstein, but so what?

Thank you. This means that we're done. There are no changes occurring in the present. The Ideal Gas law and Charles' law do not apply. Your religion's dogma holds that something specifically nonexistent in nature causes a physics violation in nature.

So ... we're done.



Yes, indeed, you are done; and being in residence upon Bozo and so distant, beyond rescue. I have never encountered someone so determined to remain unaware of how basic physical processes work.

Troposphere is not an arbitrary term, it is that part of an atmosphere that is bounded by a tropopause, being the point at which a thermal gradient can be maintained, 10KPa, except on planet Bozo, where it must be an arbitrary term if you say so

1. the presence of a troposphere causes temperature enhancement because its elastic nature means it is being compressed under its own weight. This universal process is called autocompression
2. the degree autocompression determines the lost volume into which the thermal energy it contains is then divided so each one contains proportionately more thermal energy and is therefore responsible for thermal enhancement - the ATE. It is Charles' Law
3. This means that the IPCC claim that the GE is responsible for the ATE is wrong and since the Anthropogenic theory of global warming depends on that it is also wrong.
4. Earth's varying temperature is therefore due to fluctuations in net insolation.

Good luck on Planet Bozo where Charles Law does not apply to the troposphere and even if the Bozo-ites accepted that the volume of their troposphere is reduced by their gravity they cannot comprehend that it is therefore being compressed continually by that force to an equilibrium degree and thereby continually warmed to the tune of the ATE.
10-08-2021 15:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:Yes, indeed, you are done;

I am. I will not repeat my explanations for you. I will simply mock you.

Pete Rogers wrote:I have never encountered someone so determined to remain unaware of how basic physical processes work.

You are a scientifically illiterate moron who believes that nature can be controlled by conflating verb tenses. What a total idiot.

Pete Rogers wrote:Troposphere is not an arbitrary term,

The terms "arbitrary" and "unambiguously defined" are separate and distinct. I am nonetheless not surprised to find you conflating terms.

Pete Rogers wrote: 1. the presence of a troposphere causes temperature enhancement because its elastic nature means it is being compressed under its own weight. This universal process is called autocompression

If you weren't a total idiot you would specify "increase in temperature" as opposed to the completely ambiguous "temperature enhancement" ... and then you would eventually get around to explaining the additional energy required for the temperature to increase.

... but you never do ... because you are a total idiot.

Oooops, dismissed yet again.

Pete Rogers wrote:2. the degree autocompression determines the lost volume into which the thermal energy it contains is then divided

Oooops, already debunked too many times ... and once is enough. Two metal cubes, etc... It's thermal energy per matter, not per volume.

Dismissed.

- the ATE. It is Charles' Law

Nope. Charles' law only applies to instantaneous changes which you acknowledge do not exist.

You have dismissed this so that nobody else has to bother.

Pete Rogers wrote:4. Earth's varying temperature is therefore due to fluctuations in net insolation.

Yes. So throw out all your other crap and just stick with this.




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 10-08-2021 15:49
10-08-2021 18:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwrote... but it is not compressing, right?

Correct Einstein, but the stable state of compression

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
determines the ATE

Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
because of the increase in thermal energy per unit volume - it's the way long-division works - except on your planet apparently?

Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Here on Earth the Total thermal energy is the same, in accordance with the 1st Law, but the units it is divided between are then fewer than they would otherwise be the case -

You can't divide by volume. Only by mass. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
you know, if the pressure was less.

The atmosphere is not losing pressure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That's called a hypothesis by the way -

No, it is called a conjecture, and a denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and a denial of Charle's law. Hypothesis stem from theories, not the other way round.
Pete Rogers wrote:
we use them here in the world of science

Science isn't a 'world'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
in order to reveal underlying facts

Science isn't facts. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- are they permitted in your world?

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Only you keep saying "Gravity does not change" which is true but of no relevance to the hypothesis under examination which considers the consequences if it did - capish?
Somehow I don't think you do - or will ever get there.

A conjecture is not a hypothesis. Gravity has no quantity. There is nothing to change. Denial of Newton's law of gravitation.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwroteAlso, saying that something is somehow compressed in a particular direction is stupid. You are a bonehead.

Really? Oh dear! how sad, never mind. Well, first off, the Troposphere is spherical - more or less - around here and its weight acts towards its centre of gravity -

Gravity is a force exerted between all particles of mass. That means every particle in the atmosphere as well. Denial of Newton's law of Gravitation.
Pete Rogers wrote:
as with all things possessing weight - so it is pulled towards this centre of gravity

Gravity does not have a fixed direction. The center of gravity of something is the combined result of all particles within that something pulling against each other. Gravity has no fixed direction. Denial of Newton's law of Gravitation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and therefore must be compressed in the direction of the centre of gravity?

Gravity has no fixed direction. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
[b]Pete Rogers wrote:
[/b] You are odd, because you seem to have no idea about any of that and yet you refer to me as "bonehead", but you just pooped yourself again, unwittingly, and accused me of making the smell! An act of such sheer stupidity that the term "bonehead" doesn't even come close!

Insult fallacies.

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

IBdaMannwroteMoron, 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.

What you just gave is a clear example that your brain cannot work it out for you that the degree of volume lost by contraction of the troposphere under gravity

The atmosphere is not be compressed (or 'contracted'). Temperature is not total thermal energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
dictates the thermal enhancement

You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
of our - and every other - troposphere in the Uuniverse

You cannot create energy out of nothing on any planet in the observable universe. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
in accordance with Charles' Law,

V1=V2. Denial of Charles' Law. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so when you say - so arrogantly and vainly - that "it has been discarded"

You have discarded IBD's example. It was perfectly valid. Two cubes, each with a different density, yet equal in size, can have the same temperature, yet the denser cube will have more thermal energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
you forget to mention that it is only people as thick as you who have done so

No, you are just dead set on denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- maybe you alone (Except for your representative on Earth- Into the Night).

I do not represent IBD. We are simply both stating the same theories of science that you are ignoring.
Pete Rogers wrote:
All those around here who are not as thick as pigsh*t have embraced it because it is clearly correct. I can't really see much hope for you on this kind of performance.

Denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and Charles' law is not correct. Insult fallacies.

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

IBdaMann wroteOne 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?

Oh dear, you really are in a league of your own aren't you? and not a very good one at that. All such cubes have to be at ambient temperature because they are not adiabatic,

The cubes are just sitting there. They are adiabatic.
Pete Rogers wrote:
you are barking up the wrong tree as your brain condemns you to do - probably for eternity - because the requisite penny to get a person over the line cannot drop in your case.

This sounds like a lame attempt at a cliche, but it's not in English.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteCharles 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.

This is priceless buffoonery from a nitwit!

Insult fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Charles Law only pertains to "instantaneous" changes when the gas body under compression

The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=-V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
has surroundings to conduct its enhanced temperature

There is no 'enhanced temperature'. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. Now you are getting into trouble with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
into thus being returned quickly to the ambient level of those surroundings under the 2nd Law Junior,

Returning what? You are now beginning to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into Bozo Jr- being bounded by vacuum

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away for that reason: thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature. You really are a chump to confuse adiabatic and non-abiabatic behaviours as though they are identical. Please try to keep up with the rest of us!

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot trap light. All mass above absolute zero converts thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of Charles' law. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Of course gravity is not changing you nitwit - who said it was.?

And the correct answer is "Nobody" as you will have learned from the above, with correct use of tenses, English and - more importantly - Science, so please wake up and spare us any more of this foolishness!!

The correct answer is 'you'. YOU are trying to change gravity. Your whole stupid conjecture is based upon it. You just denied your own argument. IBD is right, you seem to have a real problem with tenses. Science is not gravity. Gravity is not science. Gravity is a force. It is not energy.

Insult fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: The point is one of hypothesis,

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

It means - for instance - testing the hypothesis

Falsified via the external consistency check. No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"What would the situation be if the system were under lower pessure?"

Sorry dude, is the same mass. It has the same overall pressure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which is perfectly valid

Invalid. Falsified via the external consistency check.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and a crucial line of enquiry to enable us to get at the consequences of gravity in this sense, but unfortunately - and unsurprisingly- your brain can only interpret it as a kind of "babbling" because it loses the thread so it is difficult to see how you can offer anything of value here.

No, you are babbling. You are making up buzzwords, denying the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, denying Newton's law of Gravitation, denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law, denying the ideal gas law, and denying Charles' law.

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

Not possible. Mass is not changing. V1=V2. Denial of Charles' law and Newton's law of Gravitation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Charles would wonder why anybody had wasted their time in trying to tell someone like you about his Law.

He is dead. He is incapable of telling anyone about his law. You do not get to speak for the dead. The law survives. It has not yet been falsified. You cannot just discard it.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Each molecule would indeed have the same thermal energy, but not temperature, because there would be fewer of them in any given unit of volume and as that very Mr Charles tried to tell those capable of understanding, which doesn't include you, T2=T1xV1/V2 where T means Temperature and V means volume. By the way humans only feel cooler when it is cooler. i thought you might possibly have learned that from personal experience, but things are different on Planet Bozo it seems.

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMan wroteHigh 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.

We are talking about the Troposphere Bozo Jnr, because only gas bodies over 10KPa can maintain a thermal gradient!

Anything can have a thermal gradient. See your local fireplace tools.
Pete Rogers wrote:
What is the matter with you? A person who believes that thermometers can be fooled about the temperature is in deep trouble!

Not at all. A thermometer is an instrument. ALL instruments can be fooled. Even our own senses can be easily fooled.

Ever hear of an optical or an auditory illusion?
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteIf 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.

This means that where you live (Planet Bozo) T2≠T1*V1/V2, which is imaginary.

IBD tripped over a stick you left in the road. Gravity cannot be reduced. It has no quantity. If the masses are the same (they are), then gravitational attraction between all particles of that mass ARE THE SAME. There is absolutely no way for gravity to somehow be reduced. This is in accordance with Newton's law of Gravitation. The gravitational constant (that's not gravity, BTW) is determined by the total mass in any given system. For practical matters, here on Earth, that constant is 32 ft per second per second. It is a measure of acceleration. It is not a value of gravity. Gravity has NO VALUE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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. IBdaMannwroteThermal 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.

That is only true of opaque bodies.

The atmosphere is opaque to certain frequencies of light. It is partially opaque to most frequencies of light. This also affects scattering. Ever wonder why the sky is blue?
Pete Rogers wrote:
The transparent atmosphere does not convert thermal Energy into electromagnetic energy.

ALL mass that is above absolute zero converts thermal energy into electromagnetic energy and electromagnetic energy into thermal energy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and a good portion of quantum mechanics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The thermal energy conducted from the surface is confined to the extent that the atmosphere, being contraced by gravity, increases the thermal content per unit volume giving you T2 in terms of Charles' Law and, being higher than T1, transfers back to the surface raising the temperature there, thus converting into electro-magnetic (infrared) emmissions.

The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything radiates light according to it's temperature (yes, that includes the atmosphere). Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:- where have you been?

IBdaMann wroteI was in school paying attention in my physics and chemistry classes.

I don't think so when it came to Charles's Law and adiabatic Gas Bodies. You must have been off-sick for that part.

Nope. He has it right. You don't.

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

IBdaMann wroteHere'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.

Here's a better little secret than that to shut you both up - if only that were possible. Gravity gives Weight to Mass which causes pressure leading to atmospheric contraction (autocompression) leading to a higher temperature by application of Charles' Law to an adiabatic gas body in thermal equilibrium. I guarantee it works every time - except on planet Bozo.

Sorry, dude. You tried yet again to use gravity as energy. Ya can't shut me up that way!

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwroteAt 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.

According to that piece of illumination the atmosphere can't be adiabatic on Planet Bozo, which is a miracle, because that's impossible, just like the stupid idea that Charles' Law somehow wouldn't apply to adiabatic gas bodies on Planet Bozo even if it had had one. Wake up do!

Charles' law applies to every planet in the observable universe. I do not know where this planet Bozo is. Are you from there? It's a strange name for a planet. We had a Bozo here, but he was a clown.

Pete Rogers wrote:
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:



I like that, its good humoured, but the other form

There is no other form.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- which occurs naturally in every troposphere or interstellar gas body above 10KPa -

There is no other form. You cannot discard any law of physics just because a gas has low pressure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
is simply what must occur when its own weight acts upon it.

Weight doesn't act upon anything Weight is not a force.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It contracts under the pressure of its own weight

The atmosphere is not being 'contracted'. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- hence the term "Auto-compression."

Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is in very common use amongst mining safety engineers

No, it isn't. I am a scientist and an engineer that works with these guys.
Pete Rogers wrote:
because deep mines can suffer excessive heat from this autocompression

Buzzword fallacy. The stuffy temperatures in any mine are due to poor ventilation. A tricky thing to provide in some mines, because they contain explosive materials and dusts.
Pete Rogers wrote:
you tell us is a figment of their imagination.

Nah. Just yours.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Maybe you can explain to them that it doesn't exist to save them all a lot of time and effort making the mines safer for miners.

Straw man fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteBy the way, how thick is pigsh*t and who "around here" do you believe is "thinner" than it?

Porcine excrement - to use the technical term - has the comparative density and depth; when analogously applied to the perspicacity of the mind: to prevent it from following the most elementary of truths. Like autocompression being the name we give to the result of the weight of the gas body causing contraction.

The atmosphere does not compress itself. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Most reasonably intelligent people are mentally unchallenged by such notions so that's what you must mean by "thinner" I guess. See what you think.

Non-English portion. This sounds like it might be an attempt at an insult.
IBdaMann wroteSince gravity is not changing, the atmosphere's volume is not changing.

Which is on the money, so well done Einstein, but so what?[/quote]
RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but then he wrote
Without any changes in volume, there are no changes in the atmosphere's temperature.

not having the vaguest idea that it was beside the point, which is that by asking the hypothetical question "If the Troposphere were under lower pressure what would happen to the temperature?" we quickly discover that it would be cooler due to Charles' Law, but not this guy - too difficult!

The atmosphere is not changing, overall. It still have the same mass.

Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity indubitably enhances Tropospheric Temperarure

IBdaMann wroteGravity is not changing the atmopshere's temperature.
Which is absolutely correct, though it provides the ATE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is the variation in net insolation that changes the temperature.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
If, for some reason, emissivity increases, then not only would Earth absorb more light, it would also EMIT more light.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Then he loses it again when he saysYou are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics (see above) as well as the 1st law.
because both these KLaws are strictlyobserved.

Nope. You are denying them both.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It should be particularly clear that it is the application of the 1st Law to a contracted troposphere

The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
that forces the temperature up,

You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity gives weight to the mass of anything; including tropospheres: and weight causes pressure which in turn leads to compression of any gas body

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and since the troposphere alone is involved in this compression

You cannot discard the rest of the atmosphere or the surface.
Pete Rogers wrote:
without outside agencies it is correctly termed autocompression and it is that which creates the ATE.

Buzzword fallacies. Definition by self fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This will bounce off your dense skull, however, hence the thickness comparison with porcine faecal matter as I hope the observer will forgive me for labouring which point.

Insult fallacies.

Argument by repetition fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of the 0th, 1st, 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Charles' law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Plancks' law, the ideal gas law, much of quantum mechanics, and Newton's law of Gravitation.

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
Edited on 10-08-2021 19:21
10-08-2021 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you should have just stopped here ... but you can't help but turn right around and contradict yourself. Go ahead ...


Yes, indeed, you are done; and being in residence upon Bozo and so distant, beyond rescue. I have never encountered someone so determined to remain unaware of how basic physical processes work.

You keep speaking of this planet Bozo. Where is it? Why would anyone name a planet after a TV show clown?
Pete Rogers wrote:
Troposphere is not an arbitrary term, it is that part of an atmosphere that is bounded by a tropopause, being the point at which a thermal gradient can be maintained, 10KPa, except on planet Bozo, where it must be an arbitrary term if you say so

The entire atmosphere has a thermal gradient. There is nothing special about the troposphere or the tropopause in this matter. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere, where temperature falls with increasing altitude, to the stratosphere, where the temperature increases with increasing altitude.
The upper part of the stratosphere, with less pressure, is at a higher temperature than the tropopause, which has higher pressure. WTF???? Explain ATE with THAT one!
Pete Rogers wrote:
1. the presence of a troposphere causes temperature enhancement because its elastic nature means it is being compressed under its own weight. This universal process is called autocompression

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, Charles' law (V1=V2), and Newton's law of gravitation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
2. the degree autocompression determines the lost volume into which the thermal energy it contains is then divided so each one contains proportionately more thermal energy and is therefore responsible for thermal enhancement - the ATE. It is Charles' Law

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
3. This means that the IPCC claim that the GE is responsible for the ATE is wrong and since the Anthropogenic theory of global warming depends on that it is also wrong.

Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
4. Earth's varying temperature is therefore due to fluctuations in net insolation.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Good luck on Planet Bozo where Charles Law does not apply to the troposphere and even if the Bozo-ites accepted that the volume of their troposphere is reduced by their gravity they cannot comprehend that it is therefore being compressed continually by that force to an equilibrium degree and thereby continually warmed to the tune of the ATE.

Nope. You don't get to use gravity as energy. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


Denial of numerous theories of science. Buzzwords. Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism). Denial of statistical mathematics.

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
11-08-2021 05:57
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
IBdaMann wrote:


GasGuzzler wrote:Less cleanup if you read it BEFORE lunch, but a good bit of time after breakfast.

Your point is well taken. I advise all to heed your words.

In my case, my physical reactions are completely numbed by this masterful belletrism. I could read it many, ... minutes ... as in plural.

GasGuzzler wrote:I will say pastels are out. Not really a beige or tan.....dark brown?

You forgot to add how impressed you are that I already knew what color you were going to pick. The good news is that it is not too late to correct your oversight.

GasGuzzler wrote:How can one believe a higher temp from compression is forever trapped on Earth because the vacuum of space won't allow conduction? That IS the argument, yes?

Not so much because of the vacuum of space.


You sure about this? I'll owe ya one but read it one more time.

I would swear he is claiming that the compression of the atmosphere forever traps heat because there is "no surroundings to lose temperature(conduct) to.

Pete Rodgers wrote:
all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into - being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away....thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature


...and yes, your brilliance was truly on display when you predicted the color assignment of that awful paragraph sentence would be dark brown.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
11-08-2021 06:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


GasGuzzler wrote:You sure about this? I'll owe ya one but read it one more time.

I would swear he is claiming that the compression of the atmosphere forever traps heat because there is "no surroundings to lose temperature(conduct) to.

Pete Rodgers wrote:
all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into - being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away....thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature

Yes, he is making that claim. Allow me to restate my response to you.

His argument about the cause of ATE is gravity and involves conflating tenses. He additionally tosses in some denial of Stefan-Boltzmann (as Into the Night has addressed) by claiming that the vacuum of space somehow prevents thermal radiation from radiating away. You are correct that this claim is being made. I'm just not going to rATE it as somehow able to equATE to the main argument of ATE and I didn't want to debATE it since it is not worth the effort. We addressed the "CO2 tank in the garage" ad nauseum right out of the starting gATE and Into the Night has it covered as of lATE.



GasGuzzler wrote:...and yes, your brilliance was truly on display when you predicted the color assignment of that awful paragraph sentence would be dark brown.

Your recognition being a little late does not detract from my sincere appreciation.

I wish to recognize your recognition. Consider it recognized.

.


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
18-08-2021 17:31
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you should have just stopped here ... but you can't help but turn right around and contradict yourself. Go ahead ...


Yes, indeed, you are done; and being in residence upon Bozo and so distant, beyond rescue. I have never encountered someone so determined to remain unaware of how basic physical processes work.

You keep speaking of this planet Bozo. Where is it? Why would anyone name a planet after a TV show clown?
Pete Rogers wrote:
Troposphere is not an arbitrary term, it is that part of an atmosphere that is bounded by a tropopause, being the point at which a thermal gradient can be maintained, 10KPa, except on planet Bozo, where it must be an arbitrary term if you say so

The entire atmosphere has a thermal gradient. There is nothing special about the troposphere or the tropopause in this matter. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere, where temperature falls with increasing altitude, to the stratosphere, where the temperature increases with increasing altitude.
The upper part of the stratosphere, with less pressure, is at a higher temperature than the tropopause, which has higher pressure. WTF???? Explain ATE with THAT one!
Pete Rogers wrote:
1. the presence of a troposphere causes temperature enhancement because its elastic nature means it is being compressed under its own weight. This universal process is called autocompression

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, Charles' law (V1=V2), and Newton's law of gravitation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
2. the degree autocompression determines the lost volume into which the thermal energy it contains is then divided so each one contains proportionately more thermal energy and is therefore responsible for thermal enhancement - the ATE. It is Charles' Law

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
3. This means that the IPCC claim that the GE is responsible for the ATE is wrong and since the Anthropogenic theory of global warming depends on that it is also wrong.

Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
4. Earth's varying temperature is therefore due to fluctuations in net insolation.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Good luck on Planet Bozo where Charles Law does not apply to the troposphere and even if the Bozo-ites accepted that the volume of their troposphere is reduced by their gravity they cannot comprehend that it is therefore being compressed continually by that force to an equilibrium degree and thereby continually warmed to the tune of the ATE.

Nope. You don't get to use gravity as energy. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


Denial of numerous theories of science. Buzzwords. Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism). Denial of statistical mathematics.

No argument presented.

If the atmosphere were not compressed today it would be bigger Einstein ipso facto it remains in a state of constant compression. It is a stable state because the compressive gravitational force is met by an equal and opposite force of expansion causing equilibrium, whereas the notion of a stable state of continuous comprehension eludes you, being beyond your comprehension, apparently, elementary though the physics is.
When you pumped your bike tyre until you could pump no more, the air within the cylinder remained in a state of compression until you released it, Einstein, when the air volume got bigger, and the force of Gravity has the same effect; only unlike your bicep it doesn't have to let go so the compression is permanent you nitwit - sorry, I mean Einstein.
That means the thermal energy content is concentrated to the extent that volume remains lost and the temperature increased in precise proportion to that % volume loss, being Charles' Law - Einstein.
The system is one of continuous thermal flow in equilibrium at this enhanced temperature which is therefore constant Einstein, unfortunately your tomfoolery is similarly constant. Who taught you such nonsense. I must conclude that you are in fact a failed autodidact since there can be no other explanation.
Your grasp of the wrong endof the stick is pretty total.
18-08-2021 17:50
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:Less cleanup if you read it BEFORE lunch, but a good bit of time after breakfast.

Your point is well taken. I advise all to heed your words.

In my case, my physical reactions are completely numbed by this masterful belletrism. I could read it many, ... minutes ... as in plural.

GasGuzzler wrote:I will say pastels are out. Not really a beige or tan.....dark brown?

You forgot to add how impressed you are that I already knew what color you were going to pick. The good news is that it is not too late to correct your oversight.

GasGuzzler wrote:How can one believe a higher temp from compression is forever trapped on Earth because the vacuum of space won't allow conduction? That IS the argument, yes?

Not so much because of the vacuum of space.


You sure about this? I'll owe ya one but read it one more time.


GasGuzzler wroteI would swear he is claiming that the compression of the atmosphere forever traps heat because there is "no surroundings to lose temperature(conduct) to.

It's a flow system you twerp. The thermal energy leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than otherwise to the precise extent that it is confined by the reduction in tropospheric volume caused by its own weight acting on itself. Your brain doesn't extend to this sort of thing though does it, fundamental though it is?

Pete Rodgers wrote:
all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into - being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away....thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature


GasGuzzler wrote..and yes, your brilliance was truly on display when you predicted the color assignment of that awful paragraph sentence would be dark brown.

What are you talking about you wazzock, do you think atmospheres can conduct heat into empty surroundings? If so then exactly how do they manage that according to the dwellers on your planet? It was you or one of your friends who added the colour you twit, should be the same as your face I reckon
18-08-2021 18:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:[the atmosphere] remains in a state of constant compression.

So you recognize the state of the atmosphere is constant.

Therefore you recognize that neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies in the present tense.

I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Pete Rogers wrote: [the atmosphere] is a stable state

Enough! I'm convinced. Neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies in the present tense.

Pete Rogers wrote:because the compressive gravitational force is met by an equal and opposite force of expansion

Nope. If only you had paid attention in English class you would be able to understand the correct answer when I write it out for you ... and you wouldn't confuse differing tenses.

The weight of the atmosphere is met by an equal and opposite contact force from the lithosphere's and hydrosphere's surface. These are different things from what you were talking about.

Also, energy is not a force and no force is energy. You still haven't been able to grasp this distinction. The kinetic energy of molecules is not an "expansive force."

Pete Rogers wrote: ... causing equilibrium

Equilibrium is not caused. Equilibrium is a natural state brought about by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's the breaking of equilibrium that needs a cause. You are discussing a stable equilibrium and therefore "cause" does not apply, being beyond your comprehension, apparently, elementary though the physics is.

Pete Rogers wrote:When you pumped your bike tyre until you could pump no more, the air within the cylinder remained in a state of compression until you released it, Einstein,

Finish this thought. You need to specify that the air in the tyre never cooled but rather always maintained it's enhanced temperature.

Go on, specify it. State it clearly and unequivocally for all to read. The earth's atmosphere and the tyre's air were heated by compression and never cooled at any time in the past which is why both remain in a temperature-enhanced state of compression in the present tense..

Write it, affirmatively, in your own words.

Pete Rogers wrote: That means the thermal energy content is concentrated to the extent that volume remains lost and the temperature increased in precise proportion to that % volume loss, being Charles' Law - Einstein.

Do you add the word "content" instead of just writing "thermal energy" because you believe that thermal energy can somehow be contained? ... and do you continue to believe that thermal energy is contained in volume and not in matter specifically?

You have already acknowledged that Charles law does not apply (per equilibrium)

You are brazenly ignoring/denying the example of the two metal cubes.

You are actively destroying your own arguments ... because you are stupid in that way. WACKY religions such as yours do that to people.

Pete Rogers wrote: The system is one of continuous thermal flow in equilibrium at this enhanced temperature which is therefore constant Einstein,

Spell it out for everyone. Specify that, to the best of your understanding, it never cools.

Until then, I must conclude that you are in fact a failed autodidact since there can be no other explanation. Your grasp of the wrong end of the stick is pretty total.

18-08-2021 18:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and you should have just stopped here ... but you can't help but turn right around and contradict yourself. Go ahead ...


Yes, indeed, you are done; and being in residence upon Bozo and so distant, beyond rescue. I have never encountered someone so determined to remain unaware of how basic physical processes work.

You keep speaking of this planet Bozo. Where is it? Why would anyone name a planet after a TV show clown?
Pete Rogers wrote:
Troposphere is not an arbitrary term, it is that part of an atmosphere that is bounded by a tropopause, being the point at which a thermal gradient can be maintained, 10KPa, except on planet Bozo, where it must be an arbitrary term if you say so

The entire atmosphere has a thermal gradient. There is nothing special about the troposphere or the tropopause in this matter. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere, where temperature falls with increasing altitude, to the stratosphere, where the temperature increases with increasing altitude.
The upper part of the stratosphere, with less pressure, is at a higher temperature than the tropopause, which has higher pressure. WTF???? Explain ATE with THAT one!
Pete Rogers wrote:
1. the presence of a troposphere causes temperature enhancement because its elastic nature means it is being compressed under its own weight. This universal process is called autocompression

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, Charles' law (V1=V2), and Newton's law of gravitation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
2. the degree autocompression determines the lost volume into which the thermal energy it contains is then divided so each one contains proportionately more thermal energy and is therefore responsible for thermal enhancement - the ATE. It is Charles' Law

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
3. This means that the IPCC claim that the GE is responsible for the ATE is wrong and since the Anthropogenic theory of global warming depends on that it is also wrong.

Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacies.

Pete Rogers wrote:
4. Earth's varying temperature is therefore due to fluctuations in net insolation.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Good luck on Planet Bozo where Charles Law does not apply to the troposphere and even if the Bozo-ites accepted that the volume of their troposphere is reduced by their gravity they cannot comprehend that it is therefore being compressed continually by that force to an equilibrium degree and thereby continually warmed to the tune of the ATE.

Nope. You don't get to use gravity as energy. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


Denial of numerous theories of science. Buzzwords. Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism). Denial of statistical mathematics.

No argument presented.

If the atmosphere were not compressed today it would be bigger Einstein ipso facto it remains in a state of constant compression.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is a stable state because the compressive gravitational force is met by an equal and opposite force of expansion causing equilibrium, whereas the notion of a stable state of continuous comprehension eludes you, being beyond your comprehension, apparently, elementary though the physics is.

Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
When you pumped your bike tyre until you could pump no more, the air within the cylinder remained in a state of compression until you released it, Einstein, when the air volume got bigger,

The volume of the bike tire remains essentially the same, though I am putting air into it. I am using chemical energy to pump up the tire. I am not releasing the air in the pump or the tire.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the force of Gravity has the same effect;

Gravity is not energy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
only unlike your bicep it doesn't have to let go so the compression is permanent you nitwit - sorry, I mean Einstein.

You do not need to release any pressure to pump up a bike tire.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That means the thermal energy content is concentrated to the extent that volume remains lost and the temperature increased in precise proportion to that % volume loss, being Charles' Law - Einstein.

The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2, therefore T1=T2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The system is one of continuous thermal flow in equilibrium at this enhanced temperature which is therefore constant Einstein,

There is no heat. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
unfortunately your tomfoolery is similarly constant. Who taught you such nonsense. I must conclude that you are in fact a failed autodidact since there can be no other explanation.

Insult fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Your grasp of the wrong endof the stick is pretty total.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

Denial of the 0th, 1st, 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, Charles' law, statistical mathematics.

Argument by repetition fallacy. Denial of 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
18-08-2021 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:Less cleanup if you read it BEFORE lunch, but a good bit of time after breakfast.

Your point is well taken. I advise all to heed your words.

In my case, my physical reactions are completely numbed by this masterful belletrism. I could read it many, ... minutes ... as in plural.

GasGuzzler wrote:I will say pastels are out. Not really a beige or tan.....dark brown?

You forgot to add how impressed you are that I already knew what color you were going to pick. The good news is that it is not too late to correct your oversight.

GasGuzzler wrote:How can one believe a higher temp from compression is forever trapped on Earth because the vacuum of space won't allow conduction? That IS the argument, yes?

Not so much because of the vacuum of space.


You sure about this? I'll owe ya one but read it one more time.


GasGuzzler wroteI would swear he is claiming that the compression of the atmosphere forever traps heat because there is "no surroundings to lose temperature(conduct) to.

It's a flow system you twerp.

There is no heat.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The thermal energy leads to a higher equilibrium temperature

Temperature is not total thermal energy. There is no heat.
Pete Rogers wrote:
than otherwise to the precise extent that it is confined by the reduction in tropospheric volume caused by its own weight acting on itself. Your brain doesn't extend to this sort of thing though does it, fundamental though it is?
The atmosphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not energy. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rodgers wrote:
all atmospheres lack such surroundings to lose temperature into - being bounded by vacuum - and so must retain that thermal enhancement; which cannot be transferred away....thus maintaining this elevated equilibrium temperature


GasGuzzler wrote..and yes, your brilliance was truly on display when you predicted the color assignment of that awful paragraph sentence would be dark brown.

What are you talking about you wazzock, do you think atmospheres can conduct heat into empty surroundings?

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If so then exactly how do they manage that according to the dwellers on your planet?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Denial of the 0th, 1st laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
18-08-2021 20:09
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:[the atmosphere] remains in a state of constant compression.

IBdaMannwroteSo you recognize the state of the atmosphere is constant.

Nice of you to notice

IBdaMannwroteTherefore you recognize that neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies in the present tense.

They apply permanently - of course. The atmosphere - like all gas bodies in the universe - is adiabatic, Einstein

IBdaMannI'm glad we got that out of the way.

Are you sure about that?

Pete Rogers wrote: [the atmosphere] is a stable state

IBdaMan wroteEnough! I'm convinced. Neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies in the present tense.

Except for the fact that both apply permanently you would be right wouldn't you, Einstein

Pete Rogers wrote:because the compressive gravitational force is met by an equal and opposite force of expansion

IBdaMann wroteNope. If only you had paid attention in English class you would be able to understand the correct answer when I write it out for you ... and you wouldn't confuse differing tenses.

Well since the laws apply permanently, past, present and the future you are undergoing tense brain failure again. These laws are only transitory for gases in containment or otherwise in contact with surroundings of some kind.

TIBdaMan wrotehe weight of the atmosphere is met by an equal and opposite contact force from the lithosphere's and hydrosphere's surface. These are different things from what you were talking about.

Oh dear! The boundary of the troposphere is where it is because the compressive force of its weight is balanced by the forces of expansion. It's time for you to give up if you cannot work that out.

IBdaMann wroteAlso, energy is not a force and no force is energy. You still haven't been able to grasp this distinction. The kinetic energy of molecules is not an "expansive force."

If you release your bike pump when you can no longer increase the compression the air in the cylinder will expand as would the atmosphere if under less pressure from its own weight. Do you really have trouble following stuff like this?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... causing equilibrium

IBdaMannwroteEquilibrium is not caused. Equilibrium is a natural state brought about by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's the breaking of equilibrium that needs a cause. You are discussing a stable equilibrium and therefore "cause" does not apply, being beyond your comprehension, apparently, elementary though the physics is.

The planet warms until the IR emissions balance net insolation and not before, Einstein, which is when equilibrium is caused to arise.

Pete Rogers wrote:When you pumped your bike tyre until you could pump no more, the air within the cylinder remained in a state of compression until you released it, Einstein,

IBdaMann wroteFinish this thought. You need to specify that the air in the tyre never cooled but rather always maintained it's enhanced temperature.

Of course the tyre cools you nitwit, because it has surroundings into which the 2nd Law can conduct the excess temperature. What has gone wrong with your brain that you are confused about that?

IBdaMan wroteGo on, specify it. State it clearly and unequivocally for all to read. The earth's atmosphere and the tyre's air were heated by compression and never cooled at any time in the past which is why both remain in a temperature-enhanced state of compression in the present tense..

Write it, affirmatively, in your own words.

Oh my giddy Aunt! you really are a chump. I will gladly oblige - of course - but I'm not sure that your brain will be able to follow.
The tyre loses excess temperature into its surroundings so everything returns to ambience. Charles' Law is instantaneous in this case, or at least the enhancement is temporary.
The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into. Accordingly it is conducted back to the surface, thus warming the planet until increased IR emission causes the system to come back into thermal equilibrium at the enhanced level.
That really should be simple enough, but I think it is going to prove too difficult for you from my experience of all your barkings up of far distant trees.

Pete Rogers wrote: That means the thermal energy content is concentrated to the extent that volume remains lost and the temperature increased in precise proportion to that % volume loss, being Charles' Law - Einstein.

IBdaMann wroteDo you add the word "content" instead of just writing "thermal energy" because you believe that thermal energy can somehow be contained? ... and do you continue to believe that thermal energy is contained in volume and not in matter specifically?

No, silly boy, it is a flow system that has reached equilibrium, so incoming energy balances outgoing causing the thermal content of the system to remain constant. This is a bit basic for you not to be knowing isn't it?

IBdaMann wroteYou have already acknowledged that Charles law does not apply (per equilibrium)

Sez you! Charles' Law operates constantly precisely to maintain equilibrium, Einstein.

IBdaMannwroteYou are brazenly ignoring/denying the example of the two metal cubes.

You are darned tootin'. It is a matter of common sense to leave out that which has no possible connection or relevance.

IBdaMannwroteYou are actively destroying your own arguments ... because you are stupid in that way. WACKY religions such as yours do that to people.

Hmm - you've really lost contact with reality haven't you.

Pete Rogers wrote: The system is one of continuous thermal flow in equilibrium at this enhanced temperature which is therefore constant Einstein,

IBdaMann wroteSpell it out for everyone. Specify that, to the best of your understanding, it never cools.

Oh dear me. The system is in equilibrium, Einstein, so the temperature stays the same! Do you think that might mean that it never cools? I'll leave it to you to work that out to see if you have the capacity to do so.

Until then, I must conclude that you are in fact a failed autodidact since there can be no other explanation. Your grasp of the wrong end of the stick is pretty total.


18-08-2021 21:16
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
Peter Rodgers wrote:
The tyre loses excess temperature into its surroundings so everything returns to ambience. Charles' Law is instantaneous in this case, or at least the enhancement is temporary.
The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into.


IBdaMann, there it is again! I think this is the main disconnect. Somehow, air warmed only by compression cannot escape Earth due to the vacuum of space. Incredible!
18-08-2021 23:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


GasGuzzler wrote:
Peter Rodgers wrote:The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into.


IBdaMann, there it is again! I think this is the main disconnect. Somehow, air warmed only by compression cannot escape Earth due to the vacuum of space. Incredible!

Yes, I was going to address this in another post but because you raised this issue specifically, I'll address it here.

The short answer is that Pete Rogers denies Stefan-Boltzmann (among other things)

Earth is just like water in a vacuum, i.e. it freezes despite everything being at room temperature. The water radiates its thermal energy away. All matter above absolute zero radiates thermally. Without any air (matter) to replace the water's lost thermal energy, the water's temperature drops ... and of course freezes in the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4BGV7-1lhs&t=451s

The earth is always radiating at exactly the same rate it is absorbsing energy from the sun, i.e. equilibrium. If the atmosphere were to ever increase in temperature above the equilibrium temperature, its radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would increase in excess of the equilibrium radiance, the atmosphere's temperature will cool by radiating into space thermal energy faster than that which is acquired from the sun. The atmosphere would then return to the previous temperature that radiates equally to what is being absorbed from the sun.

22-08-2021 19:47
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


GasGuzzler wrote:
Peter Rodgers wrote:The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into.


IBdaMann, there it is again! I think this is the main disconnect. Somehow, air warmed only by compression cannot escape Earth due to the vacuum of space. Incredible!

Yes, I was going to address this in another post but because you raised this issue specifically, I'll address it here.

The short answer is that Pete Rogers denies Stefan-Boltzmann (among other things)

Earth is just like water in a vacuum, i.e. it freezes despite everything being at room temperature. The water radiates its thermal energy away. All matter above absolute zero radiates thermally. Without any air (matter) to replace the water's lost thermal energy, the water's temperature drops ... and of course freezes in the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4BGV7-1lhs&t=451s

The earth is always radiating at exactly the same rate it is absorbsing energy from the sun, i.e. equilibrium. If the atmosphere were to ever increase in temperature above the equilibrium temperature, its radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would increase in excess of the equilibrium radiance, the atmosphere's temperature will cool by radiating into space thermal energy faster than that which is acquired from the sun. The atmosphere would then return to the previous temperature that radiates equally to what is being absorbed from the sun.


Now that's just plain silliness, fantastic!

I love to sit and watch you boys wandering over to the wrong tree then yelping up it for all you are worth, but you yelp the same lacunas instead of discovering what is really being told to you.

Try this and give me your yelps for a laugh.

Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less - it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

Now, if pressure were less so would compression be, but the 1st Law tells us (hopefully including you) that Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere would be identical, so the temperature would be lower Einstein wouldn't it?

Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

It is beyond belief - more or less - that you keep running around completely missing this simple and inevitable fact of life; to the extent that it's simply priceless to behold!
Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere so there is no transgression on my part Albert, unless you can explain and demonstrate one of course - being the genius that you are according to ... you?

It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish when they say the Greenhouse Effect warms anything, but it does it from the point of view of the Law of Gravity, The 1st Law of Thermodynamics and Charles' Law -mbasic Physics - as i have tried to adsvise you, but you just start yelling - as it were - saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual. He will know the answer from the pain level, but doubtless if he tells you to get off you will assure him that his pain does not exist and it's just that he's got his tenses wrong!
22-08-2021 19:47
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


GasGuzzler wrote:
Peter Rodgers wrote:The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into.


IBdaMann, there it is again! I think this is the main disconnect. Somehow, air warmed only by compression cannot escape Earth due to the vacuum of space. Incredible!

Yes, I was going to address this in another post but because you raised this issue specifically, I'll address it here.

The short answer is that Pete Rogers denies Stefan-Boltzmann (among other things)

Earth is just like water in a vacuum, i.e. it freezes despite everything being at room temperature. The water radiates its thermal energy away. All matter above absolute zero radiates thermally. Without any air (matter) to replace the water's lost thermal energy, the water's temperature drops ... and of course freezes in the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4BGV7-1lhs&t=451s

The earth is always radiating at exactly the same rate it is absorbsing energy from the sun, i.e. equilibrium. If the atmosphere were to ever increase in temperature above the equilibrium temperature, its radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would increase in excess of the equilibrium radiance, the atmosphere's temperature will cool by radiating into space thermal energy faster than that which is acquired from the sun. The atmosphere would then return to the previous temperature that radiates equally to what is being absorbed from the sun.


Now that's just plain silliness, fantastic!

I love to sit and watch you boys wandering over to the wrong tree then yelping up it for all you are worth, but you yelp the same lacunas instead of discovering what is really being told to you.

Try this and give me your yelps for a laugh.

Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less - it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

Now, if pressure were less so would compression be, but the 1st Law tells us (hopefully including you) that Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere would be identical, so the temperature would be lower Einstein wouldn't it?

Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

It is beyond belief - more or less - that you keep running around completely missing this simple and inevitable fact of life; to the extent that it's simply priceless to behold!
Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere so there is no transgression on my part Albert, unless you can explain and demonstrate one of course - being the genius that you are according to ... you?

It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish when they say the Greenhouse Effect warms anything, but it does it from the point of view of the Law of Gravity, The 1st Law of Thermodynamics and Charles' Law -mbasic Physics - as i have tried to adsvise you, but you just start yelling - as it were - saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual. He will know the answer from the pain level, but doubtless if he tells you to get off you will assure him that his pain does not exist and it's just that he's got his tenses wrong!
23-08-2021 01:35
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
Pete Rogers wrote:
....Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere .....


Tell me more about this "containment". Why only the troposhere? Is it everlasting? Is this the secret to keeping our homes warm on a "colder than we otherwise would be" winter night? What exactly is containing this thermal energy?


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
23-08-2021 05:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:Now that's just plain silliness, fantastic!

I read your post in its entirety and I would be inclined to use stronger wording.

Pete Rogers wrote:Try this and give me your yelps for a laugh.

How about I just laugh at you instead?

Pete Rogers wrote: Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less

More or less? Explain.

Pete Rogers wrote:- it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

GasGuzzler brought up a good point. Why do you shift back and forth between the terms "atmosphere" and "troposphere" as though they are equivalent and, at the same time, distinct? Explain that one too.

Pete Rogers wrote:Now, if pressure were less ...

Since pressure is not less ... your subjunctive is FALSE.

Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

Already debunked many times ... and just once is enough. Only matter can have thermal energy. No thermal energy can fit in a vacuum, regardless of the volume.

Your denial of the example of the two cubes gets your argument summarily dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote:Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere

Nope. Give it up. You are a scientifically illiterate moron, and here is where you need to be able to distinguish between the independent variables and the dependent variables ... but your mathematical incompetence prevents you from being able to do so.

You're just getting it totally wrong and you aren't interested in getting it right.

Dismissed. Learn your variables.

Pete Rogers wrote: It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish

It means that you are talking the exact same rubbish. There is no substantive difference between your Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement and Greenhouse Effect. Your religion is just as stupid as theirs.

Pete Rogers wrote: ...saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous

This brings us back to your lack of English reading comprehension. Charles' law and the Ideal Gas law apply to instantaneous changes. If there are no changes then they don't come into play. In a stable system they don't come into play.

You have emphasized the stability of the atmosphere's volume and equilibrium. This doesn't afford you any wiggle room.

You're done.

Pete Rogers wrote: and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

This brings us right back to your lack of proficiency in the English language. For something to be "compressing" in the present progressive, its volume has to be decreasing in the present progressive. You acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing and is thus not decreasing ... but you aren't smart enough to connect the dots and realize that the atmosphere is not compressing in the present progressive.

You still haven't mastered English verb tenses and it's causing you to be one very annoying time-waster.

Pete Rogers wrote:Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual.

The last time I stepped on Into the Night's big toe, we noticed that his toe stopped compressing the moment his toe's volume stopped decreasing. I remained standing on his toe while his toe was no longer reducing in volume and noticed that it was no longer compressing any further.

I then had a revelation brought on by my English proficiency that his toe was no longer compressing in the present progressive. All the pieces of the big picture fell into place and I understood that the compression that completed in the past was simply not happening in the present.

Now, I admit, grasping these concepts has always come easy for me and of course, your mileage may vary because of your situation. Past tense. Present tense. I truly believe that one needs to be able to distinguish between tenses such as these if one wants to have a view of the world that isn't entirely chaotic.

23-08-2021 12:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you release your bike pump when you can no longer increase the compression the air in the cylinder will expand as would the atmosphere if under less pressure from its own weight. Do you really have trouble following stuff like this?

Pressure is not weight. A bike pump does not 'release' pressure into a tire.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The planet warms until the IR emissions balance net insolation and not before, Einstein, which is when equilibrium is caused to arise.

There is no cause. Equilibrium simply is.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course the tyre cools you nitwit, because it has surroundings into which the 2nd Law can conduct the excess temperature. What has gone wrong with your brain that you are confused about that?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not the law of conductive heating. There is no such thing as an 'excess' temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The tyre loses excess temperature into its surroundings so everything returns to ambience. Charles' Law is instantaneous in this case, or at least the enhancement is temporary.

Charles' law is not used here. There is no such thing as an 'excess' temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The atmosphere, by contrast, is surrounded by vacuum, so there is nothing out there to conduct into. Accordingly it is conducted back to the surface, thus warming the planet until increased IR emission causes the system to come back into thermal equilibrium at the enhanced level.

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Hmm - you've really lost contact with reality haven't you.

Define 'reality'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Oh dear me. The system is in equilibrium, Einstein, so the temperature stays the same! Do you think that might mean that it never cools? I'll leave it to you to work that out to see if you have the capacity to do so.

If the temperature stays the same, it is not cooling.


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
23-08-2021 13:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less - it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

Now, if pressure were less so would compression be, but the 1st Law tells us (hopefully including you) that Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere would be identical, so the temperature would be lower Einstein wouldn't it?

Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is beyond belief - more or less - that you keep running around completely missing this simple and inevitable fact of life; to the extent that it's simply priceless to behold!

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere so there is no transgression on my part Albert, unless you can explain and demonstrate one of course - being the genius that you are according to ... you?

The presence of an atmosphere does not falsify or nullify the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The atmosphere is mass. It radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law just like any mass. Yes, it has a 'surface area' to radiate from. All gases do.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish when they say the Greenhouse Effect warms anything, but it does it from the point of view of the Law of Gravity,

There is no such thing as a 'law of gravity'. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics

You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Gravity is not energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and Charles' Law -mbasic Physics

You deny Charles' law. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
as i have tried to adsvise you, but you just start yelling - as it were - saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

The atmosphere is not being compressed. Charles' law is instantaneous and always applies. No exceptions.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual. He will know the answer from the pain level, but doubtless if he tells you to get off you will assure him that his pain does not exist and it's just that he's got his tenses wrong!

Not a problem. I normally wear steel toed shoes. You can park a car on my foot and it won't hurt at all.


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
24-08-2021 03:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Into the Night wrote:If the temperature stays the same, it is not cooling.

@Into the Night

Good catch. I overlooked that one.

The atmosphere's temperature is in a stable state in the present tense, i.e. unchanging due to being in equilibrium, yet is simultaneously warming in the present progressive from gravity's ongoing thermal enhancement ... thus causing the earth to be cooling in the present progressive from the present progressive heating in the past.

You were keen to spot this one.

------------------

@Duncan, this is the crap that you claim to understand and believe. You claim this, because apparently your English proficiency is this abysmal. So yes, there is a solid basis for pointing out your dishonest crap. Don't claim that I am somehow being "insulting" when you bear full responsibility for writing the stupid schytt you write. You are entirely to blame for you being a dumbazz, not I.

Moron.

24-08-2021 19:17
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
....Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere .....


Tell me more about this "containment". Why only the troposhere? Is it everlasting? Is this the secret to keeping our homes warm on a "colder than we otherwise would be" winter night? What exactly is containing this thermal energy?

Hmm, it just doesn't get any better for you, Einstein, does it?

When in thermal equilibrium - as it is - the total thermal energy in the Troposphere is more or less constant with the thermal energy flowing in being the same as that flowing out and this constant amount is what the troposphere "contains".

It is analogous to a reservoir with inflow equalling outflow, thus "containing" a constant level of water despite being part of a flow system - except on planet Bozo where there is no such thing as "containment" you tell me - shame about all the reservoirs that don't contain any water despite a river coming in; hang on! how does the river flow through if the reservoir doeesn't contain anything?

The reason that it is only the Troposphere that matters, Einstein, is because it is only when the pressure (you know, the thing caused by gravity, Einstein) is more than 10kPa that any gas body is capable of sustaining a thermal gradient isn't it, Einstein, and we call the 10kPa level the Tropopause, don't we Einstein, beneath which lies the business end of the atmosphere, know as - and this will surprise you - the Troposphere, doesn't it Einstein?

Now off you pop to a forest where you can't see the wood for the trees and bark up another one so we can have a good laugh.
24-08-2021 23:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
....Thermal Energy contained in the troposphere .....


Tell me more about this "containment". Why only the troposhere? Is it everlasting? Is this the secret to keeping our homes warm on a "colder than we otherwise would be" winter night? What exactly is containing this thermal energy?

Hmm, it just doesn't get any better for you, Einstein, does it?

When in thermal equilibrium - as it is - the total thermal energy in the Troposphere is more or less constant with the thermal energy flowing in being the same as that flowing out and this constant amount is what the troposphere "contains".

Heat is not contained in anything.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is analogous to a reservoir with inflow equalling outflow, thus "containing" a constant level of water despite being part of a flow system - except on planet Bozo where there is no such thing as "containment" you tell me - shame about all the reservoirs that don't contain any water despite a river coming in; hang on! how does the river flow through if the reservoir doeesn't contain anything?

Temperature is not total thermal energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason that it is only the Troposphere that matters, Einstein, is because it is only when the pressure (you know, the thing caused by gravity,

Pressure is not caused by gravity. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Einstein) is more than 10kPa that any gas body is capable of sustaining a thermal gradient isn't it, Einstein, and we call the 10kPa level the Tropopause, don't we Einstein, beneath which lies the business end of the atmosphere, know as - and this will surprise you - the Troposphere, doesn't it Einstein?

So the tropopause, stratosphere, thermosphere, mesosphere, have no mass???
Pete Rogers wrote:
Now off you pop to a forest where you can't see the wood for the trees and bark up another one so we can have a good laugh.

Care to try to fold another cliche into that mess?


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
24-08-2021 23:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:Hmm, it just doesn't get any better for you, Einstein, does it?

Why do you think everyone else is Einstein? Is it because you are as dumb as a bag of rocks?

I'll just call you Rocky.

Pete Rogers wrote:... and this constant amount is what the troposphere "contains".

Thermal energy cannot be contained ... even if you put the word "contains" in quotation marks. Matter, and only matter, can have thermal energy but it is never contained. Thermal energy flows freely out of matter per the Stefan-Boltzmann law that you deny.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is analogous to a reservoir with inflow equalling outflow,

Nope. That is a completely inappropriate analogy because the reservoir contains the water. Thermal energy cannot be contained.

The proper analogy is a spaghetti strainer under a kitchen tap.



Water goes into the strainer and flows out freely. It is possible to have so much water flowing into the strainer that the water actually starts to back up ... and will continue to accumulate until reaching equilibrium. Turn off the tap and all of the water flows out because none of it is contained, not even with quotation marks.

So it looks like you owe GasGuzzler a much better explanation.

Pete Rogers wrote:The reason that it is only the Troposphere that matters, Einstein, is because it is only when the pressure is more than 10kPa

No, Rocky, no minimum amount of pressure is required for any atmosphere to maintain any particular temperature. Thermal energy is all that is required to maintain temperature, and that applies to all matter.

So ... no.

Pete Rogers wrote:... any gas body is capable of sustaining a thermal gradient

So this is dogma item #2.

Pete Rogers' Dogma Item #1: A planet surrounded by a vacuum cannot cool
Pete Rogers' Dogma Item #2: 10kPa is the holy number, the number required for a gas body to maintain a thermal gradient. Ooooooh. Aaaaaah.

Rocky, are you aware that both of those statements are false?

Now off you pop to a forest where you can't see the wood for the trees and bark up another one so we can have a good laugh.

25-08-2021 17:48
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
And in other news, improved desalination and cheaper clean energy. But saying there is no problem and saying we can't look to innovation won't help the situation. Communism has basically failed because it does not allow for new ideas. Kind of why Marxism isn't the answer.

https://theweek.com/news/1004107/extreme-heat-and-drought-are-crushing-key-crops-and-punishing-us-farmers
25-08-2021 18:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


James___ wrote:And in other news, improved desalination and cheaper clean energy.

This is not a complete sentence. I usually wouldn't mind but this says nothing ... although I bet you could fill it out into a nifty slogan of some kind. Add some music and you'll have a jingle.

James___ wrote: But saying there is no problem and saying we can't look to innovation won't help the situation.

When there is no problem but people mistakenly believe there is, saying there is no problem definitely helps the situation. When people who mistakenly believe there is a problem look to "innovation" on which to waste time, money and effort in search of a "solution" are helped when they are told that there is no problem and are thus prohibited from wasting time, money and effort in search of a "solution in search of a problem."

So yes, it definitely helps the situation.

James__, there is no problem within this context. Just do a quick check and you'll see. Once you do, your situation will be greatly improved.

James___ wrote: Communism has basically failed because it does not allow for new ideas. Kind of why Marxism isn't the answer.

Marxism is basically succeeding in its goal of destroying society after society because of the reasons you mentioned among other things. Marxism is only the answer for destruction of everything that is good in the world. Marxism is hatred. Hatred for what? Name something good.

25-08-2021 18:59
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:Now that's just plain silliness, fantastic!

read your post in its entirety and I would be inclined to use stronger wording.

Pete Rogers wrote:Try this and give me your yelps for a laugh.

How about I just laugh at you instead?


Pete Rogers wrote: Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less

IBdaMann wroteMore or less? Explain.

There are always at least miniscule fluctuations Einstein, thats why "more or less" is correct. I hope you understood the explanation, but I wouldn't count on it; Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote:- it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

IBdaMann wroteGasGuzzler brought up a good point. Why do you shift back and forth between the terms "atmosphere" and "troposphere" as though they are equivalent and, at the same time, distinct? Explain that one too.

Any uncontained gas body is compressed towards its centre of gravity according to its weight as determined by the strength of that gravity, but it cannot sustain a thermal gradient unless and until the pressure produced by the gravity acting on its mass exceeds a weight sufficient to produce a pressure (the compressive force) of at least 10kPa Einstein. The point in an atmosphere where this weight is first acheived is known as the Tropopause and the volume below is the Troposphere err .. Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote:Now, if pressure were less ...

IBdaMann Wrote]Since pressure is not less ... your subjunctive is FALSE.

Dismissed.

Thats really a cracker! It's called a hypothesis Einstein and it doesn't seem as though you are familiar with this as the fundamental reasoning technique for all science! Einstein used to refer to them as "Thought Experiments" Einstein. You ask "What if?" and then use your imagination to work out what the consequences must be, given the assumptions, Einstein, you should try it as a cure for this continuous incontinent drivel of yours.

Pete Rogers wrote: Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

IBdaMann wroteAlrea (dy debunked many times ... and just once is enough. Only matter can have thermal energy. No thermal energy can fit in a vacuum, regardless of the volume.

Wrong tree as always Einstein, but bark away if it pleases you.

Of course thermal energy cannot occupy a vacuum, that is why any gas body surrounded by one cannot lose any into it!! That's the meaning of ADIABATIC Einstein, please try to read for comprehension instead of making silly points without thinking.

If you ever find the right tree, you should discover that the degree to which the volume of the Troposphere is confined by the action of its own weight squashing it (Like Gas Guzzler's big toe) - its permanent state of compression in other words - is directly proportionate to the increase per unit volume of the conserved thermal energy (1st Law)

Together this is Charles' Law which doesn't work up your tree because some Bozo up there thinks it is not continuous even though the Atmosphere is adiabatic and the state of compression permanent Einstein. That really is the work of a Bozo's Bozo!

IBdaMann wroteYour denial of the example of the two cubes gets your argument summarily dismissed.

Dismissed from planet Bozo maybe, but here on Earth anything that has surroundings reverts to their temperature because of the 2nd Law of Dynamics, but this doesn't happen if the gas body is surrounded by nothing Einstein, also metal cubes do not compress anyway do they Einstein, so where is your analogy?

Pete Rogers wrote:Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere

IBdaMann wroteNope. Give it up. You are a scientifically illiterate moron, and here is where you need to be able to distinguish between the independent variables and the dependent variables ... but your mathematical incompetence prevents you from being able to do so.

You're just getting it totally wrong and you aren't interested in getting it right.

Dismissed. Learn your variables.


Pete Rogers wrote: It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish

IBdaMan wroteIt means that you are talking the exact same rubbish. There is no substantive difference between your Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement and Greenhouse Effect. Your religion is just as stupid as theirs.

Since the GE has no thermal effect the difference is 100% Einstein, because the state of permanently reduced volume of the atmosphere (its degree of compression) - particularly the Troposphere - and the 1st Law are the cause of the ATE Einstein, the combined effect being Charles' Law.

Pete Rogers wrote: ...saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous

IBdaMann wroteThis brings us back to your lack of English reading comprehension. Charles' law and the Ideal Gas law apply to instantaneous changes. If there are no changes then they don't come into play. In a stable system they don't come into play.

Its that tree again isn't it Einstein? V1 is the volume of the Troposphere as it would be at a hypothetical 10kPa surface pressure and V2 is its volume today at 101.3kPa. T2 is the permanent temperature we witness in the current permanent state of compression, Einstein - and T1 is what it would be without the ATE - except on Planet Bozo, where your tree to bark up is to be found and whoever's up there is telling you that T1=T2. Clever guy eh?

You have emphasized the stability of the atmosphere's volume and equilibrium. This doesn't afford you any wiggle room.

You're done.

Dramatic irony - you've soiled your pants again and accused me of making the smell - the stability of the atmosphere's reduced volume dictates the temperature under Charles' Law Einstein.

Pete Rogers wrote: and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

IBdaMann wroteThis brings us right back to your lack of proficiency in the English language. For something to be "compressing" in the present progressive, its volume has to be decreasing in the present progressive. You acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing and is thus not decreasing ... but you aren't smart enough to connect the dots and realize that the atmosphere is not compressing in the present progressive.

You still haven't mastered English verb tenses and it's causing you to be one very annoying time-waster.

More dramatic irony - par excellence!
That it is compressed and remains in that state of compression is all you need to concern yourself with Einstein.
As long as that is the case - and it always will be Einstein - then the temperature will be enhanced in the ratio of V1 to V2. You have to remember - if you are capable of working it out in the first place - that this is a flow system in equilibrium and is adiabatic, so Charles Law is in permanent operation Einstein. Nothing to do with the metal cubes you place on on garage roofs on next to your tree on Planet Bozo; Einstein

Pete Rogers wrote:Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual.

IBdaMann wroteThe last time I stepped on Into the Night's big toe, we noticed that his toe stopped compressing the moment his toe's volume stopped decreasing. I remained standing on his toe while his toe was no longer reducing in volume and noticed that it was no longer compressing any further.


I then had a revelation brought on by my English proficiency that his toe was no longer compressing in the present progressive. All the pieces of the big picture fell into place and I understood that the compression that completed in the past was simply not happening in the present.

Now, I admit, grasping these concepts has always come easy for me and of course, your mileage may vary because of your situation. Past tense. Present tense. I truly believe that one needs to be able to distinguish between tenses such as these if one wants to have a view of the world that isn't entirely chaotic.


It's your logic combined with an astonishingly ill-informed attempt to confine the meaning that is attributed to the word "Compressing" that's up the Swanny - Einstein.
The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment that the compressive force came into balance with the expansion force, so it is definitely still being compressed because your big boot is still compressing it, but the extent to which you are compressing it is not increasing. You don't have to continually overcome the balancing force of expansion in order to be compressing something, Einstein otherwise you would need that marvel - the infinitely massive hobnail boot to be compressing poor old Into the Night's Big Toe! If you stopped compressing poor old Into the Night's big toe it would simply mean that you had removed your big foot!

Let's throw you a rubber ring to stop you drowning in this incontinent drivel.

Another word for "compressing" is "squeezing".

Now when you squeeze that ballas hard as you can until you cannot reduce its volume further by that squeezing force it would only be among the trees of the forests on Planet Bozo that the advice would be given. "That's when you stopped the ball Einstein, just whenthat idiot Rogers argued that you were squeezing it at your maximum - what moron thinks that?" whereas around here we would say that it was when you let go that you stopped squeezing and not when you were squeezing at your maximum; Einstein.

25-08-2021 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:Now that's just plain silliness, fantastic!

read your post in its entirety and I would be inclined to use stronger wording.

Pete Rogers wrote:Try this and give me your yelps for a laugh.

How about I just laugh at you instead?


Pete Rogers wrote: Since the Earth is in Thermal Equilibrium - more or less

IBdaMann wroteMore or less? Explain.

There are always at least miniscule fluctuations Einstein, thats why "more or less" is correct. I hope you understood the explanation, but I wouldn't count on it; Einstein.

How do you know? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:- it means that the Thermal Content of the Troposphere is similarly constant - more or less.

IBdaMann wroteGasGuzzler brought up a good point. Why do you shift back and forth between the terms "atmosphere" and "troposphere" as though they are equivalent and, at the same time, distinct? Explain that one too.

Any uncontained gas body is compressed towards its centre of gravity according to its weight as determined by the strength of that gravity, but it cannot sustain a thermal gradient unless and until the pressure produced by the gravity acting on its mass exceeds a weight sufficient to produce a pressure (the compressive force) of at least 10kPa Einstein. The point in an atmosphere where this weight is first acheived is known as the Tropopause and the volume below is the Troposphere err .. Einstein.

The atmosphere is not being compressed. Neither is the tropopause, or the troposphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Now, if pressure were less ...

IBdaMann Wrote]Since pressure is not less ... your subjunctive is FALSE.

Dismissed.

Thats really a cracker! It's called a hypothesis Einstein and it doesn't seem as though you are familiar with this as the fundamental reasoning technique for all science!

Science isn't hypothesis. Science isn't a 'fundamental reasoning technique'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Einstein used to refer to them as "Thought Experiments" Einstein.

Who are you talking to? The same person you are talking about in the third person? You really need to learn English. Science isn't 'though experiments'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing but that.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You ask "What if?" and then use your imagination to work out what the consequences must be, given the assumptions, Einstein, you should try it as a cure for this continuous incontinent drivel of yours.

Contrivance. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced in proportion to the particular extent that the force of gravity confines its volume.

IBdaMann wroteAlrea (dy debunked many times ... and just once is enough. Only matter can have thermal energy. No thermal energy can fit in a vacuum, regardless of the volume.

Wrong tree as always Einstein, but bark away if it pleases you.

Of course thermal energy cannot occupy a vacuum,

Since you say thermal energy can't go into a vacuum, and you deny that any energy can pass through a vacuum, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude?
Pete Rogers wrote:
that is why any gas body surrounded by one cannot lose any into it!!

How does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That's the meaning of ADIABATIC Einstein,

No, that is NOT the meaning of 'adiabatic'. Adiabatic does not mean denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you ever find the right tree, you should discover that the degree to which the volume of the Troposphere is confined by the action of its own weight squashing it (Like Gas Guzzler's big toe) - its permanent state of compression in other words - is directly proportionate to the increase per unit volume of the conserved thermal energy (1st Law)

Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Together this is Charles' Law which doesn't work up your tree because some Bozo up there thinks it is not continuous even though the Atmosphere is adiabatic

Meaningless. Filled with too many buzzwords. Learn English.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the state of compression permanent Einstein.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYour denial of the example of the two cubes gets your argument summarily dismissed.

Dismissed from planet Bozo maybe, but here on Earth anything that has surroundings reverts to their temperature because of the 2nd Law of Dynamics,

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy. Earth is surrounding by space. It has surroundings. Nothing 'reverts' to any temperature. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't destroy energy into nothing either.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but this doesn't happen if the gas body is surrounded by nothing Einstein,

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. How does the Sun heat the Earth, dude?
Pete Rogers wrote:
also metal cubes do not compress anyway do they Einstein, so where is your analogy?

So to you all solid objects cannot compress. Any reference to them will therefore be summarily dismissed, since it forms a paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Stefan Boltzman is supposed to tell you what the surface temperature would be without an Atmosphere

IBdaMann wroteNope. Give it up. You are a scientifically illiterate moron, and here is where you need to be able to distinguish between the independent variables and the dependent variables ... but your mathematical incompetence prevents you from being able to do so.

You're just getting it totally wrong and you aren't interested in getting it right.

Dismissed. Learn your variables.


Pete Rogers wrote: It all means that IPCC are talking rubbish

IBdaMan wroteIt means that you are talking the exact same rubbish. There is no substantive difference between your Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement and Greenhouse Effect. Your religion is just as stupid as theirs.

Since the GE has no thermal effect the difference is 100% Einstein, because the state of permanently reduced volume of the atmosphere (its degree of compression)

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- particularly the Troposphere -

The troposphere is not being compressed. It isn't capitalized either. Learn English.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the 1st Law are the cause of the ATE Einstein,

Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
the combined effect being Charles' Law.

V1=V2. Denial of Charles' Law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: ...saying stupid things like Charles' Law is instantaneous

IBdaMann wroteThis brings us back to your lack of English reading comprehension. Charles' law and the Ideal Gas law apply to instantaneous changes. If there are no changes then they don't come into play. In a stable system they don't come into play.

Its that tree again isn't it Einstein? V1 is the volume of the Troposphere as it would be at a hypothetical 10kPa surface pressure and V2 is its volume today at 101.3kPa.

Contrivance. V1=V2. The atmosphere is not being compressed or expanded.
Pete Rogers wrote:
T2 is the permanent temperature we witness in the current permanent state of compression, Einstein - and T1 is what it would be without the ATE - except on Planet Bozo, where your tree to bark up is to be found and whoever's up there is telling you that T1=T2. Clever guy eh?

No. V1=V2. Your contrivance is senseless. The atmosphere is not being compressed or expanded.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Dramatic irony - you've soiled your pants again and accused me of making the smell - the stability of the atmosphere's reduced volume dictates the temperature under Charles' Law Einstein.

Denial of Charle's Law. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: and Gravity cannot be continuously compressing stuff.

IBdaMann wroteThis brings us right back to your lack of proficiency in the English language. For something to be "compressing" in the present progressive, its volume has to be decreasing in the present progressive. You acknowledge that the atmosphere's volume is not changing and is thus not decreasing ... but you aren't smart enough to connect the dots and realize that the atmosphere is not compressing in the present progressive.

You still haven't mastered English verb tenses and it's causing you to be one very annoying time-waster.

More dramatic irony - par excellence!
That it is compressed and remains in that state of compression is all you need to concern yourself with Einstein.

The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
As long as that is the case - and it always will be Einstein - then the temperature will be enhanced in the ratio of V1 to V2.

V1=V2. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of Charle's Law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You have to remember - if you are capable of working it out in the first place - that this is a flow system in equilibrium

You cannot contain or trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and is adiabatic,

Adiabatic has no meaning here. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so Charles Law is in permanent operation Einstein.

Correct. V1=V2.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Nothing to do with the metal cubes you place on on garage roofs on next to your tree on Planet Bozo; Einstein

The metal cubes example is valid. Again, V1=V2. Thermal energy is NOT the same between the two cubes, even though they have equal volume, but different density.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Try standing on Into the Night's big toe and see if the compression stops immediately after having first mounted it because the compression is instantaneous not continual.

IBdaMann wroteThe last time I stepped on Into the Night's big toe, we noticed that his toe stopped compressing the moment his toe's volume stopped decreasing. I remained standing on his toe while his toe was no longer reducing in volume and noticed that it was no longer compressing any further.


I then had a revelation brought on by my English proficiency that his toe was no longer compressing in the present progressive. All the pieces of the big picture fell into place and I understood that the compression that completed in the past was simply not happening in the present.

Now, I admit, grasping these concepts has always come easy for me and of course, your mileage may vary because of your situation. Past tense. Present tense. I truly believe that one needs to be able to distinguish between tenses such as these if one wants to have a view of the world that isn't entirely chaotic.


It's your logic combined with an astonishingly ill-informed attempt to confine the meaning that is attributed to the word "Compressing" that's up the Swanny - Einstein.

YOU said that solid objects cannot be compressed! Which is it, dude? You are locked into paradox. I'll call this the Big Toe paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment that the compressive force came into balance with the expansion force, so it is definitely still being compressed because your big boot is still compressing it, but the extent to which you are compressing it is not increasing. You don't have to continually overcome the balancing force of expansion in order to be compressing something, Einstein otherwise you would need that marvel - the infinitely massive hobnail boot to be compressing poor old Into the Night's Big Toe! If you stopped compressing poor old Into the Night's big toe it would simply mean that you had removed your big foot!

Irrational. Big Toe paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Let's throw you a rubber ring to stop you drowning in this incontinent drivel.

Another word for "compressing" is "squeezing".

The atmosphere is not being squeezed. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Now when you squeeze that ballas hard as you can until you cannot reduce its volume further by that squeezing force it would only be among the trees of the forests on Planet Bozo that the advice would be given. "That's when you stopped the ball Einstein, just whenthat idiot Rogers argued that you were squeezing it at your maximum - what moron thinks that?" whereas around here we would say that it was when you let go that you stopped squeezing and not when you were squeezing at your maximum; Einstein.

Big Toe paradox. Irrational.


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
25-08-2021 23:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:There are always at least miniscule fluctuations

... which are negligible ... so they can be considered zero and we can assume equilibrium. When you say "equilibrium, more or less" then you can no longer presume equilibrium because you are implying non-negligible fluctuations.

You can't base an argument on presumed equilibrium while maintaining one foot in the "not in equilibrium" camp so that you can switch semantics when convenient.

Pete Rogers wrote:Any uncontained gas body is compressed towards its centre of gravity

Dismissed. We've been over this.

1. There is no such thing as being compressed in a particular direction
2. Gravity is the force keeping the atmosphere on earth while contact force is the force maintaining the atmosphere's volume.

Oooops, once again there's that "contact force" that you don't quite understand well enough to consider ... so you don't ... and you get your argument dismissed.

What is this, the fifth time I have explained this to you? You really are too stupid to learn, aren't you? It must suck to be you ... but the good news is that you aren't smart enough to ever really understand that. Good for you!

Pete Rogers wrote:... but it cannot sustain a thermal gradient unless and until the pressure produced by the gravity acting on its mass exceeds a weight sufficient to produce a pressure (the compressive force) of at least 10kPa Einstein.

False. Any temperature gradient is determined by the distribution of thermal energy, not due to the presence of any minimum pressure. What is your rationale for believing this? I'm sure it's bound to be entertaining.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann Wrote
Pete Rogers wrote:Now, if pressure were less ...
Since pressure is not less ... your subjunctive is FALSE. Dismissed.
It's called a hypothesis

No, it is not. This brings us right back to your lack of English proficiency and to your scientific illiteracy simultaneously.

You used the subjunctive to imagine a scenario that is not the case ... but tried to present the scenario as, in fact, being the case. This is called "introducing false assumptions" and if allowed to stand, one can prove anything. Most people such as you who have WACKY pet religions tend to reach for the subjunctive in order to get false premises introduced into an argument and accepted by those engaged in the discussion.

I'm not willing to accept any false assumptions today. Try me next week.

Also, your scenario is a hypothetical one; it is not an hypothesis. I understand your confusion stemming from your scientific illiteracy. You don't even know what an hypothesis is and Wikipeida is no help on this matter ... so you are totally screwed. It must suck to be you.

Pete Rogers wrote: Einstein used to refer to them as "Thought Experiments"

I'm familiar with thought experiments. They are great for building a better understanding of why something cannot happen. Engineers use this process to think through why something will not work. Mathematicians use this same technique to develop proofs by contradiction.

You, on the other hand, did not engage in a thought experiment. You engaged in imaginative science fiction writing. Star Wars is not an hypothesis, it is science fiction. Gravity generating thermal energy is not an hypothesis; it is science fiction. Perhaps if ATE gains traction you can sell the movie rights to George Lucas.

Pete Rogers wrote: Einstein, you should try it as a cure for this continuous incontinent drivel of yours.

Allow me to throw this back at you. The most popular of thought experiments are those that seek to defeat the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you would take your own advice and engage in this exercise, you might stop denying the laws of thermodynamics and instead embrace them.

Pete Rogers wrote: [/b] Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced

I realize you particularly like the phrase "ipso facto" but you are still responsible for using it correctly. It appears that someone told you that this particular Latin phrase is a trump card, i.e. that it is somehow an automatic win for your argument if you use the phrase. There is no ATE that is caused by gravity, even if you claim "ipso facto." You aren't Harry Potter and don't get to dictate how physics is to work by casting the right spell.

Learn English, learn science and then try to craft arguments involving physics. You will meet with much greater success.

Pete Rogers wrote:Of course thermal energy cannot occupy a vacuum, that is why any gas body surrounded by one cannot lose any into it!!

The earth does not lose thermal energy into the vacuum; it simply loses thermal energy ... as the thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy which does radiate into the vacuum.

Energy is lost into the vacuum, just not in the form of thermal energy.

I gave you a link to a video showing room-temperature water boiling simply because it is put into a vacuum, and then freezing when sufficient thermal energy had been lost as electromagnetic radiation. You should have watched it but obviously did not. Clearly you intend to remain totally ignorant and to maintain the high stupidity level of your posts.

Pete Rogers wrote:... you should discover that the degree to which the volume of the Troposphere is confined

Zero. There is nothing confining the troposphere anywhere, just as there is nothing confining you when you are out walking in the park.

It would appear that you need to learn English.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... here on Earth anything that has surroundings reverts to their temperature because of the 2nd Law of Dynamics, but this doesn't happen if the gas body is surrounded by nothing Einstein,

Aren't you forgetting Stefan-Boltzmann? Stefan-Boltzmann explains exactly what happens very clearly.

Oh wait, you are scientifically illiterate and you have no idea what Stefan-Boltzmann explains. You have no idea why your science fiction is absurd. It must suck to be you.

Anyway, you'll recall that I gave you a link to a video showing room-temperature water boiling simply because it is put into a vacuum, and then freezing when sufficient thermal energy had been lost as electromagnetic radiation. Wait, I think I already covered this.

Pete Rogers wrote: also metal cubes do not compress ...

You have never wondered how two cubes of the same metal can be of different densities? Ask me how I know.

Your ATE is still dismissed from seven different angles.

Pete Rogers wrote:Since the GE has no thermal effect the difference is 100% Einstein,

Since ATE has no thermal effect either, the difference is 0%, Rocky.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because the state of permanently reduced volume ...

Only matter can have thermal energy. No vacuum can have thermal energy, no matter the volume. Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: the combined effect being Charles' Law.

Charles' law only applies to instantaneous change. You specify a stable equilibrium, ergo Charles' law does not apply.

The earth's atmosphere cooled long ago to the earth's equilibrium temperature and has remained ingloriously unenhanced ever since.

Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: V1 is the volume of the Troposphere as it would be at a hypothetical 10kPa surface pressure and V2 is its volume today at 101.3kPa.

Nope. Learn Charles' law.

V2 = the volume right now in the present tense.
V1 = the volume in the past, such as yesterday.

V2 = V1. Temperature2 = Temperature1

Free English Tip: The words "would" and "should" can only be used to show an argument to be false. If you ever see these words being used to support an argument then the argument is assigned the value of FALSE. The reason is that the subjunctive is expressly that which is not the case.

Pete Rogers wrote:... and T1 is what it would be without the ATE

So from what we just learned above, this statement is FALSE. QED.

Pete Rogers wrote: the stability of the atmosphere's reduced volume dictates the temperature under Charles' Law.

Only matter can have thermal energy. No vacuum can have thermal energy, no matter the volume. Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: That it is compressed and remains in that state of compression is all you need to concern yourself with Einstein.

That being the case, neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies.

This kind of chops your argument off at the knees.

You will never get anywhere until you start accounting for the additional energy needed to increase the earth's average global temperature, which includes the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Only matter can have thermal energy so your attempt to focus on an atmospheric volume does nothing to account for any of the needed additional energy since the amount of matter is obviously remaining the same.

Until you start addressing the additional energy requirements, your argument will be dismissed summarily. Conflating tenses will not avail you. Dipping into the subjunctive will not avail you. Using bad math will not avail you. Denying science will not avail you. Acknowledging my comparative level with Einstein will not avail you. Employing all the same physics violations as do warmizombies will not avail you.

If you are claiming an increase in temperature then you must explain from whence the required additional energy cometh. Period. Otherwise, your argument gets the boot.



Pete Rogers wrote: so Charles Law is in permanent operation

More poor word selection on your part. Charles' law is a law of science and is not somehow a system that is in operation. Charles' law always applies whenever there is an instantaneous change in a gas volume.

What? The atmosphere's volume is not changing in the present tense? Ipso facto Charles' law is not "operating" in the present tense.

V2=V1. Temperature2=Temperature1.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's your logic combined with an astonishingly ill-informed attempt to confine the meaning that is attributed to the word "Compressing"

That's a funny way to characterize not conflating tenses. I will not write "compressing" (present progressive) when referring to compression that completed in the past.

Pete Rogers wrote:The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment that the compressive force came into balance with the expansion force, so it is definitely still being compressed because your big boot is still compressing it,

Nope. You need to learn English. The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment my foot could not compress it any further. My foot could not compress it any further and all compression therefore ceased because my foot could not compress the toe any further. Did you catch that? There was no more compression from that point forward so the big toe was definitely not still compressing. Your statement is just another sad example of your need to conflate tenses in order to get your statements to appear to be correct.

Pete Rogers wrote:Another word for "compressing" is "squeezing".

This is reflective of your poor English proficiency.

Compressing does not mean squeezing. Neither applies in the case of the atmosphere.

Compressing requires a reduction in volume and the atmosphere is not reducing in volume.

Although squeezing requires no reduction in volume, it requires force from opposing sides/directions ... but the atmosphere has only contact force from the bottom of the atmosphere and nothing to provide any "squeezing" from atop.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere from leaving the earth. Contact force maintains the atmosphere's volume. Neither of these forces is capable of creating thermal energy out of nothing or of somehow increasing the temperature of matter.

There is no compressing and there is no squeezing. One has to wonder how you ever arrived at this egregious misunderstanding if not for having slept through your schooling.


26-08-2021 14:59
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:


Pete Rogers wrote:There are always at least miniscule fluctuations

... which are negligible ... so they can be considered zero and we can assume equilibrium. When you say "equilibrium, more or less" then you can no longer presume equilibrium because you are implying non-negligible fluctuations.

You can't base an argument on presumed equilibrium while maintaining one foot in the "not in equilibrium" camp so that you can switch semantics when convenient.

Pete Rogers wrote:Any uncontained gas body is compressed towards its centre of gravity

Dismissed. We've been over this.

1. There is no such thing as being compressed in a particular direction
2. Gravity is the force keeping the atmosphere on earth while contact force is the force maintaining the atmosphere's volume.

Oooops, once again there's that "contact force" that you don't quite understand well enough to consider ... so you don't ... and you get your argument dismissed.

What is this, the fifth time I have explained this to you? You really are too stupid to learn, aren't you? It must suck to be you ... but the good news is that you aren't smart enough to ever really understand that. Good for you!

Pete Rogers wrote:... but it cannot sustain a thermal gradient unless and until the pressure produced by the gravity acting on its mass exceeds a weight sufficient to produce a pressure (the compressive force) of at least 10kPa Einstein.

False. Any temperature gradient is determined by the distribution of thermal energy, not due to the presence of any minimum pressure. What is your rationale for believing this? I'm sure it's bound to be entertaining.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann Wrote
Pete Rogers wrote:Now, if pressure were less ...
Since pressure is not less ... your subjunctive is FALSE. Dismissed.
It's called a hypothesis

No, it is not. This brings us right back to your lack of English proficiency and to your scientific illiteracy simultaneously.

You used the subjunctive to imagine a scenario that is not the case ... but tried to present the scenario as, in fact, being the case. This is called "introducing false assumptions" and if allowed to stand, one can prove anything. Most people such as you who have WACKY pet religions tend to reach for the subjunctive in order to get false premises introduced into an argument and accepted by those engaged in the discussion.

I'm not willing to accept any false assumptions today. Try me next week.

Also, your scenario is a hypothetical one; it is not an hypothesis. I understand your confusion stemming from your scientific illiteracy. You don't even know what an hypothesis is and Wikipeida is no help on this matter ... so you are totally screwed. It must suck to be you.

Pete Rogers wrote: Einstein used to refer to them as "Thought Experiments"

I'm familiar with thought experiments. They are great for building a better understanding of why something cannot happen. Engineers use this process to think through why something will not work. Mathematicians use this same technique to develop proofs by contradiction.

You, on the other hand, did not engage in a thought experiment. You engaged in imaginative science fiction writing. Star Wars is not an hypothesis, it is science fiction. Gravity generating thermal energy is not an hypothesis; it is science fiction. Perhaps if ATE gains traction you can sell the movie rights to George Lucas.

Pete Rogers wrote: Einstein, you should try it as a cure for this continuous incontinent drivel of yours.

Allow me to throw this back at you. The most popular of thought experiments are those that seek to defeat the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you would take your own advice and engage in this exercise, you might stop denying the laws of thermodynamics and instead embrace them.

Pete Rogers wrote: [/b] Ipso facto the Tropospheric Temperature will be enhanced

I realize you particularly like the phrase "ipso facto" but you are still responsible for using it correctly. It appears that someone told you that this particular Latin phrase is a trump card, i.e. that it is somehow an automatic win for your argument if you use the phrase. There is no ATE that is caused by gravity, even if you claim "ipso facto." You aren't Harry Potter and don't get to dictate how physics is to work by casting the right spell.

Learn English, learn science and then try to craft arguments involving physics. You will meet with much greater success.

Pete Rogers wrote:Of course thermal energy cannot occupy a vacuum, that is why any gas body surrounded by one cannot lose any into it!!

The earth does not lose thermal energy into the vacuum; it simply loses thermal energy ... as the thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy which does radiate into the vacuum.

Energy is lost into the vacuum, just not in the form of thermal energy.

I gave you a link to a video showing room-temperature water boiling simply because it is put into a vacuum, and then freezing when sufficient thermal energy had been lost as electromagnetic radiation. You should have watched it but obviously did not. Clearly you intend to remain totally ignorant and to maintain the high stupidity level of your posts.

Pete Rogers wrote:... you should discover that the degree to which the volume of the Troposphere is confined

Zero. There is nothing confining the troposphere anywhere, just as there is nothing confining you when you are out walking in the park.

It would appear that you need to learn English.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... here on Earth anything that has surroundings reverts to their temperature because of the 2nd Law of Dynamics, but this doesn't happen if the gas body is surrounded by nothing Einstein,

Aren't you forgetting Stefan-Boltzmann? Stefan-Boltzmann explains exactly what happens very clearly.

Oh wait, you are scientifically illiterate and you have no idea what Stefan-Boltzmann explains. You have no idea why your science fiction is absurd. It must suck to be you.

Anyway, you'll recall that I gave you a link to a video showing room-temperature water boiling simply because it is put into a vacuum, and then freezing when sufficient thermal energy had been lost as electromagnetic radiation. Wait, I think I already covered this.

Pete Rogers wrote: also metal cubes do not compress ...

You have never wondered how two cubes of the same metal can be of different densities? Ask me how I know.

Your ATE is still dismissed from seven different angles.

Pete Rogers wrote:Since the GE has no thermal effect the difference is 100% Einstein,

Since ATE has no thermal effect either, the difference is 0%, Rocky.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because the state of permanently reduced volume ...

Only matter can have thermal energy. No vacuum can have thermal energy, no matter the volume. Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: the combined effect being Charles' Law.

Charles' law only applies to instantaneous change. You specify a stable equilibrium, ergo Charles' law does not apply.

The earth's atmosphere cooled long ago to the earth's equilibrium temperature and has remained ingloriously unenhanced ever since.

Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: V1 is the volume of the Troposphere as it would be at a hypothetical 10kPa surface pressure and V2 is its volume today at 101.3kPa.

Nope. Learn Charles' law.

V2 = the volume right now in the present tense.
V1 = the volume in the past, such as yesterday.

V2 = V1. Temperature2 = Temperature1

Free English Tip: The words "would" and "should" can only be used to show an argument to be false. If you ever see these words being used to support an argument then the argument is assigned the value of FALSE. The reason is that the subjunctive is expressly that which is not the case.

Pete Rogers wrote:... and T1 is what it would be without the ATE

So from what we just learned above, this statement is FALSE. QED.

Pete Rogers wrote: the stability of the atmosphere's reduced volume dictates the temperature under Charles' Law.

Only matter can have thermal energy. No vacuum can have thermal energy, no matter the volume. Dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: That it is compressed and remains in that state of compression is all you need to concern yourself with Einstein.

That being the case, neither the Ideal Gas law nor Charles' law applies.

This kind of chops your argument off at the knees.

You will never get anywhere until you start accounting for the additional energy needed to increase the earth's average global temperature, which includes the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Only matter can have thermal energy so your attempt to focus on an atmospheric volume does nothing to account for any of the needed additional energy since the amount of matter is obviously remaining the same.

Until you start addressing the additional energy requirements, your argument will be dismissed summarily. Conflating tenses will not avail you. Dipping into the subjunctive will not avail you. Using bad math will not avail you. Denying science will not avail you. Acknowledging my comparative level with Einstein will not avail you. Employing all the same physics violations as do warmizombies will not avail you.

If you are claiming an increase in temperature then you must explain from whence the required additional energy cometh. Period. Otherwise, your argument gets the boot.



Pete Rogers wrote: so Charles Law is in permanent operation

More poor word selection on your part. Charles' law is a law of science and is not somehow a system that is in operation. Charles' law always applies whenever there is an instantaneous change in a gas volume.

What? The atmosphere's volume is not changing in the present tense? Ipso facto Charles' law is not "operating" in the present tense.

V2=V1. Temperature2=Temperature1.

Pete Rogers wrote: It's your logic combined with an astonishingly ill-informed attempt to confine the meaning that is attributed to the word "Compressing"

That's a funny way to characterize not conflating tenses. I will not write "compressing" (present progressive) when referring to compression that completed in the past.

Pete Rogers wrote:The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment that the compressive force came into balance with the expansion force, so it is definitely still being compressed because your big boot is still compressing it,

Nope. You need to learn English. The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment my foot could not compress it any further. My foot could not compress it any further and all compression therefore ceased because my foot could not compress the toe any further. Did you catch that? There was no more compression from that point forward so the big toe was definitely not still compressing. Your statement is just another sad example of your need to conflate tenses in order to get your statements to appear to be correct.

Pete Rogers wrote:Another word for "compressing" is "squeezing".

This is reflective of your poor English proficiency.

Compressing does not mean squeezing. Neither applies in the case of the atmosphere.

Compressing requires a reduction in volume and the atmosphere is not reducing in volume.

Although squeezing requires no reduction in volume, it requires force from opposing sides/directions ... but the atmosphere has only contact force from the bottom of the atmosphere and nothing to provide any "squeezing" from atop.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere from leaving the earth. Contact force maintains the atmosphere's volume. Neither of these forces is capable of creating thermal energy out of nothing or of somehow increasing the temperature of matter.

There is no compressing and there is no squeezing. One has to wonder how you ever arrived at this egregious misunderstanding if not for having slept through your schooling.



Small fluctuations are still fluctuations, Einstein, so "more or less" is correct and Zero is not, being only an approximation - unless you live on Planet Bozo where you tell me that small amounts are not permitted to possess dimensions - harsh place Bozo.

Everything that exists has weight, including uncontained gas bodies - Einstein- either due to their own mass and Gravity or with the additional Gravity of their host Planet if they happen to be atmospheres - Einstein.

Weight is the result of Gravity acting on Mass - Einstein - and weight still acted in the direction of its Centre of Gravity last time I checked my plumbline. How about on your Planet - Bozo - where you so vehemently assure us all that weight has no direction. Do the plumblines go sideways, or is the direction random?

Gases are a unique phase of matter because they compress and for all uncontained bodies this is due to their own weight - except on Bozo - and in the case of all Tropospheres - except the one on Bozo - this compression means the gas body is reduced in volume in proportion to the particular strength of Gravity and increased in temperature according to Charles' Law accordingly.

Simple really Einstein

Now you've done it again haven't you - dirtied your pants I mean. The point you are missing is that I told you; though it went right over your head: that the atmosphere cannot lose Thermal Energy into the surrounding vacuum because

a) it can't do it by conduction because there is nothing to conduct the energy into and
b) being transparent it is unable to originate IR, so the excess temperature has to be conducted to the only thing it is in contact with; the planetary surface: whereupon the temperature increases and therefore the IR emission which then travels through both the transparent atmosphere and the surrounding vacuum without effect until it comes into contact with non-transparent matter to which it can only then transfer thermal energy - Einstein.

meaning

c) The atmosphere enhances the temperature of the Earth due to its concentrating of thermal energy to the particular degree made inevitable by the extent of its permanent state of compression - Einstein.

Now off you go to Bozo and find your tree. Alternatively you could try understanding what has just been said to you, it's up to you Einstein.
26-08-2021 17:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Pete Rogers wrote:Small fluctuations are still fluctuations

EVASION. You don't get to argue equilibrium and not equilibrium at the same time. At this point you are simply weaseling in recognition that your WACKY religious dogma has been thoroughly raked over the coals and you have no counterrebuttal.

I notice that you still have yet to address a single rebuttal. You merely repeat your debunked mantras reminiscent of the days of broken records.

Your king is tipped. Once again, you're done.

Pete Rogers wrote:Everything that exists has weight,

Nope. All matter has mass. Weightless matter floating in space has no weight. Ideas have no weight. Electricity has no weight ... electrons do but not electricity. Your statement is stupid.

Pete Rogers wrote:Weight is the result of Gravity acting on Mass

So why didn't you write this first and allow it to prevent you from writing the previous statement?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and weight still acted in the direction of its Centre of Gravity last time I checked my plumbline.

This returns us to your poor grasp of English and your general inability to distinguish between words. Different words are not the same word.

You are supposed to be explaining your stupid notion that compression (not gravity) which is a reduction in volume, is somehow in a particular direction. I realize that you believe that a force is itself energy but I did not previously realize until now that you believe a force is compression as well. Wow. That whole "squeezed is another word for compression" really drove home just how totally lost you are ... and you have no interest in being found.

Pete Rogers wrote: where you so vehemently assure us all that weight has no direction.

Nope. This brings us back to your abysmal English reading comprehension. I neither stated nor implied that because gravity is a force and every force has direction. Compression, however, does not. You were stupidly arguing that compression has a direction ... because you don't realize that force and compression are different words with different meanings. Even the fact that these two words are spelled differently was not enough of a clue for you that there just might be differences between them. Wow.

Pete Rogers wrote: Gases are a unique phase of matter

Too funny. All phases of matter are unique.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... because they compress

Gases are not unique in this particular manner. As I mentioned in my previous post, you have never wondered how two otherwise identical objects of the same metal can be of different densities. Likewise, you have never considered how a metal object can change volumes, e.g. a quarter that reduces in volume and increases in density. You really should think about it.



... so you're wrong.

Pete Rogers wrote:... the atmosphere cannot lose Thermal Energy into the surrounding vacuum because

a) it can't do it by conduction because there is nothing to conduct the energy into and
b) being transparent it is unable to originate IR, so the excess temperature has to be conducted to the only thing it is in contact with; the planetary surface
c) The atmosphere enhances the temperature of the Earth due to its concentrating of thermal energy to the particular degree made inevitable by the extent of its permanent state of compression

a) Correct. Earth loses energy (i.e. cools) via thermal radiation into space.
b) Incorrect. All matter radiates thermally, per Stefan-Boltzmann. All matter, always, everywhere. Earth's atmosphere is radiating thermally into space right now. Brush up on your black body science.
c) Incorrect. The instantaneous change of the atmosphere's volume completed long ago in the past as did its cooling back to equilibrium temperature (per Stefan-Boltzmann) and neither the amount of the atmosphere's matter, the atmosphere's volume, the atmosphere's amount of thermal energy nor the atmosphere's temperature is changing in the present.

You got one out of three. Maybe there's a consolation prize in it for you.

Alternatively, you could try understanding what has just been said to you, it's up to you Rocky.

IBdaMann wrote previously, but Pete Rogers totally ignored, the following information that would have saved Pete Rogers some embarrassment had only he paid attention:

1. There is no such thing as being compressed in a particular direction
2. Gravity is the force keeping the atmosphere on earth while contact force is the force maintaining the atmosphere's volume.

Any temperature gradient is determined by the distribution of thermal energy, not due to the presence of any minimum pressure.

You used the subjunctive to imagine a scenario that is not the case ... but tried to present the scenario as, in fact, being the case. This is called "introducing false assumptions" and if allowed to stand, one can prove anything. Most people such as you who have WACKY pet religions tend to reach for the subjunctive in order to get false premises introduced into an argument and accepted by those engaged in the discussion.

The earth does not lose thermal energy into the vacuum; it simply loses thermal energy ... as the thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy which does radiate into the vacuum. Energy is lost into the vacuum, just not in the form of thermal energy.

I gave you a link to a video showing room-temperature water boiling simply because it is put into a vacuum, and then freezing when sufficient thermal energy had been lost as electromagnetic radiation. You should have watched it but obviously did not.

There is nothing confining the troposphere anywhere, just as there is nothing confining you when you are out walking in the park.



You have never wondered how two cubes of the same metal can be of different densities? Ask me how I know.

Only matter can have thermal energy. No vacuum can have thermal energy, no matter the volume. Dismissed.

Charles' law only applies to instantaneous change. You specify a stable equilibrium, ergo Charles' law does not apply.

The earth's atmosphere cooled long ago to the earth's equilibrium temperature and has remained ingloriously unenhanced ever since.

Dismissed.

Learn Charles' law.

V2 = the volume right now in the present tense.
V1 = the volume in the past, such as yesterday.

V2 = V1. Temperature2 = Temperature1

Charles' law is a law of science and is not somehow a system that is in operation. Charles' law always applies whenever there is an instantaneous change in a gas volume. What? The atmosphere's volume is not changing in the present tense? Ipso facto Charles' law is not "operating" in the present tense.

V2=V1. Temperature2=Temperature1.

Free English Tip: The words "would" and "should" can only be used to show an argument to be false. If you ever see these words being used to support an argument then the argument is assigned the value of FALSE. The reason is that the subjunctive is expressly that which is not the case.

You will never get anywhere until you start accounting for the additional energy needed to increase the earth's average global temperature, which includes the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Only matter can have thermal energy so your attempt to focus on an atmospheric volume does nothing to account for any of the needed additional energy since the amount of matter is obviously remaining the same.

Until you start addressing the additional energy requirements, your argument will be dismissed summarily. Conflating tenses will not avail you. Dipping into the subjunctive will not avail you. Using bad math will not avail you. Denying science will not avail you. Acknowledging my comparative level with Einstein will not avail you. Employing all the same physics violations as do warmizombies will not avail you.

If you are claiming an increase in temperature then you must explain from whence the required additional energy cometh. Period. Otherwise, your argument gets the boot.



You need to learn English. The moment the big toe's volume stopped decreasing was the moment my foot could not compress it any further. My foot could not compress it any further and all compression therefore ceased because my foot could not compress the toe any further. Did you catch that? There was no more compression from that point forward so the big toe was definitely not still compressing. Your statement is just another sad example of your need to conflate tenses in order to get your statements to appear to be correct.

Compressing does not mean squeezing. Neither applies in the case of the atmosphere.

Compressing requires a reduction in volume and the atmosphere is not reducing in volume.

Although squeezing requires no reduction in volume, it requires force from opposing sides/directions ... but the atmosphere has only contact force from the bottom of the atmosphere and nothing to provide any "squeezing" from atop.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere from leaving the earth. Contact force maintains the atmosphere's volume. Neither of these forces is capable of creating thermal energy out of nothing or of somehow increasing the temperature of matter.

There is no compressing and there is no squeezing. One has to wonder how you ever arrived at this egregious misunderstanding if not for having slept through your schooling.


[/quote]
Page 24 of 25<<<22232425>





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