Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>
04-10-2016 13:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:Some laws don't apply to any real-world bodies. They are good approximations for some, but not all, such bodies. Planck's is one of those laws.

Physics applies everywhere, always.

What is hilarious is the way warmizombies rush to claim how some physics just doesn't apply when their WACKY religious dogma runs smack into it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2016 14:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Does the IGL apply everywhere?
04-10-2016 14:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Some laws don't apply to any real-world bodies. They are good approximations for some, but not all, such bodies. Planck's is one of those laws.

Physics applies everywhere, always.

What is hilarious is the way warmizombies rush to claim how some physics just doesn't apply when their WACKY religious dogma runs smack into it.


.


Nobody is disputing that physics applies everywhere.

But Planks law does not apply to non black bodies, in a round about way you have already conceded that. You have already said air and I assume the constituent elements and compounds of air are not a black-bodies.

Air is transparent not black so it can't be a black-body.
04-10-2016 14:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, I'd phrase that as "its transmissivity is greater than zero, so it is not a black body", but besides that you're correct.
04-10-2016 17:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

It's perfectly possible when you understand what the graph is actually referring to.


I think it's referring to how far down you have to look to find ice that accumulated in a particular year. Is that right?

Exactly. These are measurements of depth (edit: of a particular layer from the surface) not, as Tim seems to think, altitude. They used ground-penetrating radar to measure the depth of reflecting layers along the traverse path. They then dated these layers using chemical methods and were thus able to determine how much ice had accumulated in the intervening years.


Yes. That's it!!

The accumulation of ice keeps gettingthicker each year.

So given that they went from the edge of the ice sheet to the center of it and found that other than the very edge it was growing 1m each year either they arelying or the mass balance graph is lying.


Yes! The accumulation is growing! You're halfway there! Now realize that if the rate of melting/calving/other forms of removal exceeds the rate of accumulation/deposition, the glacier is shrinking.


The accumulation is growing means that there is more ice there. It is growing!!

How do you think it is at all possible for the ice at the center of Greenland, many hundreds of km away from the draining glaciers, to dissappear?

The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always, the top is exposed to a day or two extra when the temperature is warm enough to melt any ice at all and the gradient of the ice which drives the glacier's movement is the same as always because 80m more ice vs 200km is zero difference.

Actual measurement trumps your personal incredulity:

Greenland Ice Flow

The rate of accumulation has increased. The rate of loss has increased more.


Actual measurements from a satilite.

Actual measurements from the ground say the opposite.

What mechanism do you think is causing the ice at the center of Greenland to dissapear?? [2]
04-10-2016 17:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

It's perfectly possible when you understand what the graph is actually referring to.


I think it's referring to how far down you have to look to find ice that accumulated in a particular year. Is that right?

Exactly. These are measurements of depth (edit: of a particular layer from the surface) not, as Tim seems to think, altitude. They used ground-penetrating radar to measure the depth of reflecting layers along the traverse path. They then dated these layers using chemical methods and were thus able to determine how much ice had accumulated in the intervening years.



The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always,



How do you know? Isn't that a rash assumption? Do you KNOW there are no volcanoes or other activity taking place under there?


Fair point. I do not know that. But then if there were such volcanoes they would make obvious things happen such as explosions and plumes of steam.

In any case such a thing would be very localised. It would not do all of the Greenland ice sheet equally.

It would also not be at all associated with global warming.

So after a little thought, yes I know that there are no such active volcanoes having any significant effect on the mass balance of Greeland.
04-10-2016 17:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Yes! The accumulation is growing! You're halfway there! Now realize that if the rate of melting/calving/other forms of removal exceeds the rate of accumulation/deposition, the glacier is shrinking.


The accumulation is growing means that there is more ice there. It is growing!!

How do you think it is at all possible for the ice at the center of Greenland, many hundreds of km away from the draining glaciers, to dissappear?

The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always, the top is exposed to a day or two extra when the temperature is warm enough to melt any ice at all and the gradient of the ice which drives the glacier's movement is the same as always because 80m more ice vs 200km is zero difference.

Actual measurement trumps your personal incredulity:

Greenland Ice Flow

The rate of accumulation has increased. The rate of loss has increased more.

Actual measurements from a satilite.

Various satellites. The total ice mass has been measured using gravimetry, the altitude of the ice surface by altimetry and the rate of ice flow by radar interferometry.

Actual measurements from the ground say the opposite.

No they don't. The ground measurements set out in this paper are of accumulation rate. They complement the satellite measurements of ice balance and loss.

What mechanism do you think is causing the ice at the center of Greenland to dissapear?? [2]

Glacial flow. The ice gradually flows from the interior to the coast, where it then melts or break off as icebergs. You do realise that ice can flow?
04-10-2016 17:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Like Into said (I think), ice moves around. Especially when it's...

Under pressure.

04-10-2016 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: Nobody is disputing that physics applies everywhere.

Au contraire mon frère, every warmizombie argument requires some physics to "not apply" so as to get around it.

Show me a warmizombie argument and I just look for the inevitable claim that some science doesn't apply. I then immediately know what the problem is with the argument.

In jwoodward48's case, his angle is to get the 2nd LoT to not apply. Like many other warmizombies before him he tried to disguise it by approaching slowly, one statement at a time, looking to play the "net flow" card like it's a trump suit.

Surface Detail wants Planck's law to "not apply" to earth so that he can claim the "Climate" goddess has whatever fantasy properties he needs her to have.

spot wrote: But Planks law does not apply to non black bodies, in a round about way you have already conceded that.

No. You made an erroneous generalization. Your problem is your lack of proficiency in logic. You have no idea of the impacts to arguments when you start inserting negatives. You make logical errors. In fact, you created a logically contradictory "yes/no" question whose correct answer was both "yes" and "no." Your resulting conclusions were equally contradictory.

I will point out that you have not provided a single example of any gas that verifiably emits energy E at a given temperature and wavelength that is measured at a value that differs from what Planck's states. As far as you have shown, you are aware of nothing that radiates differently from what Planck's states.

That's worth repeating. As far as you have shown, you are aware of nothing that radiates differently from what Planck's states.

spot wrote: You have already said air and I assume the constituent elements and compounds of air are not a black-bodies.

I have said that air is not a body. I did not made statements to the effect of "Planck's does not apply."

spot wrote: Air is transparent not black so it can't be a black-body.

Air is not a body, therefore it cannot be a black body.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2016 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: Does the IGL apply everywhere?

Where do you imagine it does not?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2016 20:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Can you get any simpler than Greenland's "ice mass balance"? Strangely, I don't see you using those words. The authors chose those words, but you avoid them. I wonder why. Hmmm.

Surface Detail wrote: By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

Of course you know that I'm not one to question your English reading comprehension but don't you mean they discovered how much more ice is present each decade? ...with the "how much" being 2%?

Surface Detail wrote: This ice doesn't stay where it is though; it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

Hence the need to specify Greenland's "ice mass balance" because ice flows.

Surface Detail wrote: However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Show? Were those other papers authored by people who actually took valid measurements on location, on the Greenland ice with calibrated equipment?

Surface Detail wrote: Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

Some warmizombie clergy orders you to BELIEVE and you rush to OBEY. It must suck to be you. You should try cognitive freedom sometime.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2016 21:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:Au contraire mon frère, every warmizombie argument requires some physics to "not apply" so as to get around it.

Ah you speak french! On t'a bercé trop près du mur?

Anyway, warmizombie? really? it wasn't funny the first time and its not funny now, why bother spending all that time being pompous and self important and pretending want a serous debate like Socrates or Kant if your just going to preceded it all by being childish?

IBdaMann wrote:
Show me a warmizombie argument and I just look for the inevitable claim that some science doesn't apply. I then immediately know what the problem is with the argument.

In jwoodward48's case, his angle is to get the 2nd LoT to not apply. Like many other warmizombies before him he tried to disguise it by approaching slowly, one statement at a time, looking to play the "net flow" card like it's a trump suit.


No thats not his angle, If you think it is it's because your an Imbecile, your angle is that the 2nd LoT invalidates everything we know about atmospheric physics since Joseph Fourier. I think someone other then you and twedeldee would have spotted it by now and made the case without interjecting childish insults.


IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wants Planck's law to "not apply" to earth so that he can claim the "Climate" goddess has whatever fantasy properties he needs her to have.


The climate is to do with atmospheric science, the atmosphere is made of air, air is not a black body.


IBdaMann wrote:
No. You made an erroneous generalization. Your problem is your lack of proficiency in logic. You have no idea of the impacts to arguments when you start inserting negatives. You make logical errors. In fact, you created a logically contradictory "yes/no" question whose correct answer was both "yes" and "no." Your resulting conclusions were equally contradictory.


The questions I asked was; is air a black body? and does plank apply to non black bodies. They could be easily answered yes/no and would be an easy two marks if it were set in an exam. Waffle all you like it just makes you look foolish. The reason why you don't want to give straight answers is it because it undermines your tower of bullshit.


IBdaMann wrote:
I will point out that you have not provided a single example of any gas that verifiably emits energy E at a given temperature and wavelength that is measured at a value that differs from what Planck's states. As far as you have shown, you are aware of nothing that radiates differently from what Planck's states.


Your mate said there is no such thing as an ideal black body If that's true then anything is valid as an example even the IR calibration source wont perfectly radiate black-body radiation.

IBdaMann wrote:
That's worth repeating. As far as you have shown, you are aware of nothing that radiates differently from what Planck's states.


uh air for a start.


IBdaMann wrote:
I have said that air is not a body. I did not made statements to the effect of "Planck's does not apply."


My mistake, I thought you said something sane you did not and I'm sorry for thinking you sane.


IBdaMann wrote:
Air is not a body, therefore it cannot be a black body.


And the atmosphere is made of air


Dumbass
04-10-2016 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:Ah you speak french! On t'a bercé trop près du mur?

Ils ont utilisé mon berceau pour produire de l'électricité pour la ville.

spot wrote: Anyway, warmizombie? really?

Yes. Really. When you can grow a brain and think for yourself, ...and don't immediately attack those who do think for themselves, you might be able to depart the ranks of the "Climate" undead.

Meanwhile, as you continue to follow the herd and mindlessly regurgite what you are told to BELIEVE, a warmizombie you will continue to be.

spot wrote: ...your angle is that the 2nd LoT invalidates everything we know about atmospheric physics ...

Hey warmizombie ... you know how you were ordered to BELIEVE, without question, that your WACKY religion is science that involves "atmospheric physics"? Well, at the time you were being reamed by people you trusted. Your stupid religious dogma has nothing to do with science and when people like jwoodward48 stupidly try to apply the dogma as though it were science, then it's likely that something like the 2nd LoT is going to blow a hole through it ... and you can blow it out yo rass.

Your religion is not based on any science, especially not any sort of atmospheric physics. You're a gullible loser who has no hope of grasping the reality he observes, only of obediently accepting whatever his clergy orders him to BELIEVE.

spot wrote: The questions I asked was; is air a black body? and does plank apply to non black bodies.

You were given a complete rundown of the problems with that wording and you were asked for clarification.

You made it clear that you weren't interested in any sort of discussion but rather of showing me to just be "wrong." You basically acknowledged that by insisting on not clarifying. You're a moron.


spot wrote: Your mate said there is no such thing as an ideal black body

Really? Someone else said something therefore I am "wrong"? If that's all you're looking for then we can make this very easy.

spot, black is white.

There you go. You can jump on me for being "wrong" about something and you can feel so much better.

Are we done?

spot wrote:uh air for a start.

What composition, what temperature and what wavelength?


spot wrote: And the atmosphere is made of air

The atmosphere is a component of the body (earth).

spot, you have to be pretty stupid to not know that the atmosphere is part of the earth? Do you believe whatever any warmizombie tells you?

Yes? You do? Oh, well nevermind then.


Dégénéré.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-10-2016 22:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases. It is a good approximation for some, a bad approximation for others, and... it doesn't even claim to have anything to do with solids. If you claim that Planck applies to all bodies, I will rightfully call you an idiot.
04-10-2016 22:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases.

Give an example, i.e. substance, temperature, quantity and pressure and the scenario in which it does not apply.

Again, just one example will do.


jwoodward48 wrote: If you claim that Planck applies to all bodies, I will rightfully call you an idiot.

So rather than provide a counterexample and rub my face in it, you will just pout and call me names?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 00:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases. It is a good approximation for some, a bad approximation for others, and... it doesn't even claim to have anything to do with solids. If you claim that Planck applies to all bodies, I will rightfully call you an idiot.


You really should learn how to weld someday. It's fun.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 00:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Me: "Planck's Law doesn't apply to everything."
You: "Hey, here's something that Planck's Law applies [roughly] to! You are wrong."

*facepalm*
05-10-2016 00:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases.

Give an example, i.e. substance, temperature, quantity and pressure and the scenario in which it does not apply.

Again, just one example will do.


You are seriously claiming that the IGL applies exactly to all gases? Lol, you've obviously learned nothing about it. Here's some textbook stuff for you:

The Ideal Gas Law is very simply expressed:

PV=nRT

from which simpler gas laws such as Boyle's, Charles's, Avogadro's and Amonton's law be derived.
Introduction

Many chemists had dreamed of having an equation that describes relation of a gas molecule to its environment such as pressure or temperature. However, they had encountered many difficulties because of the fact that there always are other affecting factors such as intermolecular forces. Despite this fact, chemists came up with a simple gas equation to study gas behavior while putting a blind eye to minor factors.

We must emphasize that this gas law is ideal. As students, professors, and chemists, we sometimes need to understand the concepts before we can apply it, and assuming the gases are in an ideal state where it is unaffected by real world conditions will help us better understand the behavior the gases. In order for a gas to be ideal, its behavior must follow the Kinetic-Molecular Theory whereas the Non-Ideal Gases will deviate from this theory due to real world conditions.

When dealing with gas, a famous equation was used to relate all of the factors needed in order to solve a gas problem. This equation is known as the Ideal Gas Equation. As we have always known, anything ideal does not exist. In this issue, two well-known assumptions should have been made beforehand:

the particles have no forces acting among them, and
these particles do not take up any space, meaning their atomic volume is completely ignored.

An ideal gas is a hypothetical gas dreamed by chemists and students because it would be much easier if things like intermolecular forces do not exist to complicate the simple Ideal Gas Law. Ideal gases are essentially point masses moving in constant, random, straight-line motion. Its behavior is described by the assumptions listed in the Kinetic-Molecular Theory of Gases. This definition of an ideal gas contrasts with the Non-Ideal Gas definition, because this equation represents how gas actually behaves in reality. For now, let us focus on the Ideal Gas.


Yep. How about "any gas", "any amount", "any temperature", and "any pressure"? Last time I checked, gases were made up of finitely-sized molecules with forces acting between them.

Now, some gases act very much like an ideal gas. They have tiny molecules that don't interact much. But start looking at heavy, high-temperature, high-pressure gases, and you'll find that the actual behavior deviates significantly from the IGL.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you claim that Planck applies to all bodies, I will rightfully call you an idiot.

So rather than provide a counterexample and rub my face in it, you will just pout and call me names?


.


You have no idea how hard I just laughed. Thank you for that. This is the most funny.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
05-10-2016 00:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:You are seriously claiming that the IGL applies exactly to all gases?

Are you seriously going to shift into EVASION mode after just one response?

You're on tap for one example. Let's have it.


jwoodward48 wrote:You have no idea how hard I just laughed. Thank you for that. This is the most funny.

You have a strange sense of humor, but I'm glad you laughed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases.

Give an example, i.e. substance, temperature, quantity and pressure and the scenario in which it does not apply.

Again, just one example will do.


You are seriously claiming that the IGL applies exactly to all gases? Lol, you've obviously learned nothing about it. Here's some textbook stuff for you:

The Ideal Gas Law is very simply expressed:

PV=nRT

from which simpler gas laws such as Boyle's, Charles's, Avogadro's and Amonton's law be derived.
Introduction

Many chemists had dreamed of having an equation that describes relation of a gas molecule to its environment such as pressure or temperature. However, they had encountered many difficulties because of the fact that there always are other affecting factors such as intermolecular forces. Despite this fact, chemists came up with a simple gas equation to study gas behavior while putting a blind eye to minor factors.

We must emphasize that this gas law is ideal. As students, professors, and chemists, we sometimes need to understand the concepts before we can apply it, and assuming the gases are in an ideal state where it is unaffected by real world conditions will help us better understand the behavior the gases. In order for a gas to be ideal, its behavior must follow the Kinetic-Molecular Theory whereas the Non-Ideal Gases will deviate from this theory due to real world conditions.

When dealing with gas, a famous equation was used to relate all of the factors needed in order to solve a gas problem. This equation is known as the Ideal Gas Equation. As we have always known, anything ideal does not exist. In this issue, two well-known assumptions should have been made beforehand:

the particles have no forces acting among them, and
these particles do not take up any space, meaning their atomic volume is completely ignored.

An ideal gas is a hypothetical gas dreamed by chemists and students because it would be much easier if things like intermolecular forces do not exist to complicate the simple Ideal Gas Law. Ideal gases are essentially point masses moving in constant, random, straight-line motion. Its behavior is described by the assumptions listed in the Kinetic-Molecular Theory of Gases. This definition of an ideal gas contrasts with the Non-Ideal Gas definition, because this equation represents how gas actually behaves in reality. For now, let us focus on the Ideal Gas.


Yep. How about "any gas", "any amount", "any temperature", and "any pressure"? Last time I checked, gases were made up of finitely-sized molecules with forces acting between them.

Now, some gases act very much like an ideal gas. They have tiny molecules that don't interact much. But start looking at heavy, high-temperature, high-pressure gases, and you'll find that the actual behavior deviates significantly from the IGL.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you claim that Planck applies to all bodies, I will rightfully call you an idiot.

So rather than provide a counterexample and rub my face in it, you will just pout and call me names?


.


You have no idea how hard I just laughed. Thank you for that. This is the most funny.


What the heck does ideal gas law have to do with anything? You are so dead set on your Religion you will try anything, even a redirection as far afield as this.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 02:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm not evading. I used the IGL as an example, one of you insisted that the IGL really does apply to real gases, I refuted him.
05-10-2016 05:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not evading. I used the IGL as an example, one of you insisted that the IGL really does apply to real gases, I refuted him.

You asked me if the Ideal Gas Law applies everywhere.

I asked you where you believe it does not.

So the answer would be ... where?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 11:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not evading. I used the IGL as an example, one of you insisted that the IGL really does apply to real gases, I refuted him.

You asked me if the Ideal Gas Law applies everywhere.

I asked you where you believe it does not.

So the answer would be ... where?

Firstly, and most obviously, the Ideal Gas Law applies to gases, not solids; just as Planck's Law applies to bodies, not gases.

Secondly, both the Ideal Gas Law and Planck's Law are simple models of aspects of reality. There is no such thing as a perfectly ideal gas, just as there is no such thing as a perfectly black body. Under certain conditions, though, the Ideal Gas Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between the temperature, pressure and volume of a real gas, while Planck's Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between temperature, wavelength and spectral radiance of a real body.
05-10-2016 13:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not evading. I used the IGL as an example, one of you insisted that the IGL really does apply to real gases, I refuted him.

You asked me if the Ideal Gas Law applies everywhere.

I asked you where you believe it does not.

So the answer would be ... where?

Firstly, and most obviously, the Ideal Gas Law applies to gases, not solids; just as Planck's Law applies to bodies, not gases.

Secondly, both the Ideal Gas Law and Planck's Law are simple models of aspects of reality. There is no such thing as a perfectly ideal gas, just as there is no such thing as a perfectly black body. Under certain conditions, though, the Ideal Gas Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between the temperature, pressure and volume of a real gas, while Planck's Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between temperature, wavelength and spectral radiance of a real body.

.

Let's revisit your reading comprehension problem.

The question before jwoodward48 was:

IBdaMann wrote:I asked you where you believe [IGL] does not [apply].

So the answer would be ... where?


Would you care to take a stab at the question that was asked?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 15:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The IGL, if it applied to anything at all, would apply in all locations and at all times. But it doesn't apply to anything.
05-10-2016 16:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Ah you speak french! On t'a bercé trop près du mur?

Ils ont utilisé mon berceau pour produire de l'électricité pour la ville.

spot wrote: Anyway, warmizombie? really?

Yes. Really. When you can grow a brain and think for yourself, ...and don't immediately attack those who do think for themselves, you might be able to depart the ranks of the "Climate" undead.

Meanwhile, as you continue to follow the herd and mindlessly regurgite what you are told to BELIEVE, a warmizombie you will continue to be.

spot wrote: ...your angle is that the 2nd LoT invalidates everything we know about atmospheric physics ...

Hey warmizombie ... you know how you were ordered to BELIEVE, without question, that your WACKY religion is science that involves "atmospheric physics"? Well, at the time you were being reamed by people you trusted. Your stupid religious dogma has nothing to do with science and when people like jwoodward48 stupidly try to apply the dogma as though it were science, then it's likely that something like the 2nd LoT is going to blow a hole through it ... and you can blow it out yo rass.

Your religion is not based on any science, especially not any sort of atmospheric physics. You're a gullible loser who has no hope of grasping the reality he observes, only of obediently accepting whatever his clergy orders him to BELIEVE.

spot wrote: The questions I asked was; is air a black body? and does plank apply to non black bodies.

You were given a complete rundown of the problems with that wording and you were asked for clarification.

You made it clear that you weren't interested in any sort of discussion but rather of showing me to just be "wrong." You basically acknowledged that by insisting on not clarifying. You're a moron.


spot wrote: Your mate said there is no such thing as an ideal black body

Really? Someone else said something therefore I am "wrong"? If that's all you're looking for then we can make this very easy.

spot, black is white.

There you go. You can jump on me for being "wrong" about something and you can feel so much better.

Are we done?

spot wrote:uh air for a start.

What composition, what temperature and what wavelength?


spot wrote: And the atmosphere is made of air

The atmosphere is a component of the body (earth).

spot, you have to be pretty stupid to not know that the atmosphere is part of the earth? Do you believe whatever any warmizombie tells you?

Yes? You do? Oh, well nevermind then.


Dégénéré.



.


Your mother didn't hug you enough when you were a baby, did she.

Allrght you can call a warmizombie, still makes you sound an idiot not interested in a serious discussion. And I'm saying your wrong there is nothing to discuss. Your friend was right about no such thing as an ideal black body just as there is no such thing as an ideal resistor ohms law is still usfull but if you want to know how a radio works you will need more then that.

Interesting concept there about air becomeing a component of the earth and then inheriting the properties of the earth. Does that work for other things? Do tyres become allminium when I fit them to my bike?
05-10-2016 17:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:Your mother didn't hug you enough when you were a baby, did she.

I'm glad you survived your botched abortion.

spot wrote: Allrght you can call a warmizombie, ...

It means so much to me to have your blessing.

spot wrote: And I'm saying your wrong there is nothing to discuss.

Correction, you're still unwilling to discuss rationally.

spot wrote: Interesting concept there about air becomeing a component of the earth ...

Not "becoming" ... just "is" a component of the earth. I guess we really do need to take this nice and slow for you.

spot wrote: ... and then inheriting the properties of the earth.

Explain.

Side question: Does a car's radiator (component) inherit the properties of the entire car or does it remain just simply a component of the car?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 17:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:Your mother didn't hug you enough when you were a baby, did she.

I'm glad you survived your botched abortion.

spot wrote: Allrght you can call a warmizombie, ...

It means so much to me to have your blessing.

spot wrote: And I'm saying your wrong there is nothing to discuss.

Correction, you're still unwilling to discuss rationally.

spot wrote: Interesting concept there about air becomeing a component of the earth ...

Not "becoming" ... just "is" a component of the earth. I guess we really do need to take this nice and slow for you.

spot wrote: ... and then inheriting the properties of the earth.

Explain.

Side question: Does a car's radiator (component) inherit the properties of the entire car or does it remain just simply a component of the car?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 17:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But the radiator can change.
05-10-2016 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
But the radiator cannot change a flat tire.
05-10-2016 19:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not evading. I used the IGL as an example, one of you insisted that the IGL really does apply to real gases, I refuted him.

You asked me if the Ideal Gas Law applies everywhere.

I asked you where you believe it does not.

So the answer would be ... where?

Firstly, and most obviously, the Ideal Gas Law applies to gases, not solids; just as Planck's Law applies to bodies, not gases.

Secondly, both the Ideal Gas Law and Planck's Law are simple models of aspects of reality. There is no such thing as a perfectly ideal gas, just as there is no such thing as a perfectly black body. Under certain conditions, though, the Ideal Gas Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between the temperature, pressure and volume of a real gas, while Planck's Law gives a reasonable approximation of the relationship between temperature, wavelength and spectral radiance of a real body.

.

Let's revisit your reading comprehension problem.

The question before jwoodward48 was:

IBdaMann wrote:I asked you where you believe [IGL] does not [apply].

So the answer would be ... where?


Would you care to take a stab at the question that was asked?

My apologies. Given that it's taken you at least two years to comprehend the fact that Planck's Law doesn't apply to gases, I suspected you may be under the impression that the Ideal Gas Law might apply to solids. I'm glad to see you're moving forwards a bit quicker here. Mind you, I suppose the name helps - Ideal Gas Law, bit of a give-away really!

OK, I'm assuming you mean "where" as "in under what circumstances" since, obviously, physical laws are do not vary with location. Anyway, the ideal gas law assumes an ideal gas, that is, one composed of infinitesimally small particles with no forces acting between them that are colliding sufficiently frequently to equalise their energy distributions. Furthermore, it is also assumed that the distances between the particles are negligible compared to the dimensions of the system as a whole.

Obviously, perfectly ideal gases don't exist. However, so long as the particles are small compared to the distances between them, the forces between them are too small to significantly affect their motion, they are moving quickly and we are considering a sufficiently large volume, then the ideal gas law is applicable in the sense that it can be used to give reasonably accurate predictions.

In conclusion, places where the IGL is not applicable include, for example, the interiors of solids and liquids, and of gases that are under high pressure (above 100 atm or so) or not far above their boiling point e.g. O2 at -180 deg C.
05-10-2016 19:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, that's just Marxist propaganda. I will insult you, but I won't actually explain what's wrong with your post, nor my own views. I will just assert over and over that I am right, and that you are stupid.
05-10-2016 19:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, that's just Marxist propaganda. I will insult you, but I won't actually explain what's wrong with your post, nor my own views. I will just assert over and over that I am right, and that you are stupid.


Yes, proof by repeated assertion is a most effective technique. You've got me there. Evidence? Pah! Theoretical basis? Ha! Alternative theories? For morons!
Edited on 05-10-2016 19:51
05-10-2016 19:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, this is fun.

Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply everywhere? You dogmatic warmist! You notice that your claims violate several laws - so you just say, "well maybe they don't apply to me". I guess you slept through science class in first grade.

We don't even need IBnto!
05-10-2016 19:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, this is fun.

Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply everywhere? You dogmatic warmist! You notice that your claims violate several laws - so you just say, "well maybe they don't apply to me". I guess you slept through science class in first grade.

We don't even need IBnto!

You're denying your own argument. And you switched contexts! Moron.
05-10-2016 20:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This is the best.

The Marxist Communist Corrupt Liberal Governmental Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax is real! Why would the government pay for anything it doesn't want? There are all these requirements for funding, such as "the study must support AGW." What do you mean, you can't predict results ahead of time with that kind of accuracy? They just fabricate it all! And of course there are no records of these requirements. I just KNOW it's happening. You're just a dogmatic, illiterate warmist. Of course YOU wouldn't be able to see it.
Edited on 05-10-2016 20:04
05-10-2016 20:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Just another circular Warmizombie argument of the stone. You wouldn't measure breakfast cereal that way, would you (allowing for settling)? Dismissed.
05-10-2016 20:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:

I'm glad you survived your botched abortion.


OOO burn! You have a talent for insults I have to concede that.
IBdaMann wrote:
It means so much to me to have your blessing.


Sadly understanding what someone is trying to say to you is not one of your talents.

IBdaMann wrote:
Correction, you're still unwilling to discuss rationally.


If you wanted a rational discussion you would act like a rational person. Your wrong the rest of the universe is right, read a book if you want to find out why and stop asking me.

IBdaMann wrote:
Not "becoming" ... just "is" a component of the earth. I guess we really do need to take this nice and slow for you.

Take it as slow as you want a component does not automatically inherit the properties of what its a part of.

IBdaMann wrote:

Explain.

Side question: Does a car's radiator (component) inherit the properties of the entire car or does it remain just simply a component of the car?


Of course not. You are the one introducing the novel theory so it's up to you to explain things.
05-10-2016 20:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Its against the constitution of the USA to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. the greenhouse effect violates it so anyone who believes in the greenhouse effect is unamerican.

fun game!
05-10-2016 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: OOO burn! You have a talent for insults I have to concede that.

You took the discussion to that level. Did you pat yourself on the back?


spot wrote: Sadly understanding what someone is trying to say to you is not one of your talents.

Correct. I happily understand what others post. I then respond with corrections.

You simply gibber.

spot wrote: If you wanted a rational discussion you would act like a rational person.

I see you are trying to redefine "rational person." When you can't hang with reality just play semantics games like a good Marxist.


spot wrote:Of course not. You are the one introducing the novel theory so it's up to you to explain things.

Nope. That inheritance thing is your invention. Of course it is completely bogus and of course you then pretend to assign it to me ... because you are a loser who is discovering that he is wrong about virtually everything and who is now at the point where he desperately needs me to be wrong about something.

So you fabricate some silly assertion and pretend that I am its advocate.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact