Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation

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.

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.


.

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.

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?

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.

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]

spot wrote: Nobody is disputing that physics applies everywhere.

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

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

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

jwoodward48 wrote: Does the IGL apply everywhere?

Surface Detail wrote: Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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

spot wrote: Anyway, warmizombie? really?

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

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

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

spot wrote:uh air for a start.

spot wrote: And the atmosphere is made of air

jwoodward48 wrote: The IGL does not apply exactly to any real-life gases.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?


.

jwoodward48 wrote:You are seriously claiming that the IGL applies exactly to all gases?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

So the answer would be ... where?

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.



.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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!

IBdaMann wrote:

I'm glad you survived your botched abortion.

IBdaMann wrote:
It means so much to me to have your blessing.

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

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.

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?

spot wrote: OOO burn! You have a talent for insults I have to concede that.

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

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

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