Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning..

Another bald statement with no evidence. You brought this up before. Some crackpot suggested a perpetual motion machine for getting free energy out of the atmosphere, 100 years ago. A few years ago someone found out he could measure adiabatic gradients in columns of air if he was really careful in keeping them undisturbed.

Is that what you are referring to? Bump the thread, let's re-examine it.

 

[IanC]

Sorry ian, but that statement is not true...as has been pointed out to you before...Gareff's experiments repeatedly showed a temperature gradient in columns of air...if you are talking about air in a bottle that can reach something like equilibrium, then yes, an increase in pressure would be required to raise the temperature...not so in the open atmosphere where the warm air at the bottom of the column is constantly overturning..

Another bald statement with no evidence. You brought this up before. Some crackpot suggested a perpetual motion machine for getting free energy out of the atmosphere, 100 years ago. A few years ago someone found out he could measure adiabatic gradients in columns of air if he was really careful in keeping them undisturbed.

Is that what you are referring to? Bump the thread, let's re-examine it.

I found your two links. So far I read the pdf for the experiment and agree with the results, but I am unsure what conclusions I should be drawing from it.

Loschmidt considered the adiabatic lapse rate a source of unlimited energy, a variation on perpetual motion.

I'll read some of the threads at Tallbloke and get back to you. So far it seems like the effect of the SLoT and the effect of the gravity field are being intertwined in a way that leads to an incongruity, much like the way you consider the gross flow of radiation from a cooler object to have an effect when taken in isolation from the actual net flow.

I would still like a link to our original discussion, if you have it.

 

[SSDD]

No long term effect other than to predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and to far surpass any predictive capability of the failed greenhouse hypothesis.

And as to not being physically viable..once more you demonstrate how little you know...the model I used is the one upon which the international standard atmosphere is based...

The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make.

Care to cut and paste the statement in context?

I already cited the article and gave the context. You can very easily find it in the article. You are the one who referenced it in the first place. Did you not read the reference you cited !?!

Didn't expect you to be able to provide any support for your claim...so long as I keep the bar very low...you never disappoint.

You still didn't read the reference you cited. Your own reference denied what you think it said.

I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.

 

[Wuwei]

I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.

I am not going to spoon-feed you an understanding of the reference you quoted. I gave you the authors conclusion in his own words. The best way for you to see the context is for you to read your own reference.

 

[cnm]

What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.

If you're getting work out of it in that case I would have thought you'd end up with the same total mass of air you started with but at a lower temperature and therefore a lower pressure. Otherwise there is such a thing as a free lunch.

 

[IanC]

What happens if you insert a device that turns the air flow into mechanical motion? You still end up with two tires at 32 psi. But you got extra mechanical motion out of the deal.

If you're getting work out of it in that case I would have thought you'd end up with the same total mass of air you started with but at a lower temperature and therefore a lower pressure. Otherwise there is such a thing as a free lunch.

I like the way you think!

In the real world there are always inefficiencies that muck up the works.

My point with that example is that entropy increased in both cases. In the first case it was totally wasted, in the second case it was partially harnessed to produce work that could increase order somewhere else. There is less of an entropy increase in the second case.

Sunlight is a highly ordered, high quality form of energy. What leaves the planet is diffuse, low quality IR. The entropy increase can just be wasted, or it can be harnessed to do work to create order somewhere else. Luckily for us there are many pathways that here on Earth that have harnessed this potential. The actual amount of energy entering and leaving is the same. The entropy increase is under no such obligation, as long as it is increasing for the system as a whole it can be used to build up order in specific areas.

Hope that helps, I'm forty years out of my last physics class but I think my general idea is correct.

Climate models consider a watt of IR to be equivalent to a watt of sunshine for their energy budgets. I don't.

 

[IanC]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...

I think it is funny that in this case you are arguing against the case made by Boltzmann using the SLoT, in favour of the case made by Loschmidt using gravity effects.

One side says equal temperature all the way up the column, the other side says a gradient. But both sides are assuming no outside influences and an unlimited amount of time to come to equilibrium.

Reality is a different beast. There are outside influences, and the real temperature gradient does not agree with either argument.

The troposphere has a cooling gradient. The stratosphere remains unchanged for a while and then starts to increase, the higher levels zigzag back and forth. It is impossible to reconcile these findings without taking radiation and magnetic fields into consideration.

 

[SSDD]

I note that you still didn't provide any comments in context...you just going to keep making the claim without backing it up with observation?...typical post modern pseudoscience.

I am not going to spoon-feed you an understanding of the reference you quoted. I gave you the authors conclusion in his own words. The best way for you to see the context is for you to read your own reference.

No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.

 

[SSDD]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...

I think it is funny that in this case you are arguing against the case made by Boltzmann using the SLoT, in favour of the case made by Loschmidt using gravity effects.

You can't rightly apply SB to the atmosphere...or air in general.

 

[Wuwei]

No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

 

[IanC]

Since energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm, the claim is moot.

Again, since there is no net flow...moot.

You still haven't cited proof of that. There is none.

Of course I have...the second law of thermodynamics itself...in addition to every measurement ever made...

I think it is funny that in this case you are arguing against the case made by Boltzmann using the SLoT, in favour of the case made by Loschmidt using gravity effects.

You can't rightly apply SB to the atmosphere...or air in general.

Why are you changing the subject to the S-B equations?

Boltzmann was the physicist that mathematically proved Stefan's empirical relationship. But that is not all he did.

Boltzmann had a long standing feud with Loschmidt that has not been totally settled to this day. SLoT vs gravity effects. Obviously neither is sufficient by itself. Somewhat reminiscent of the argument over whether photons are waves or particles.

The S-B equations can be useful for gasses but you have to analyze the effect wavelength by wavelength.

 

[LOki]

The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.

Every denial that human activity effects the climate is a denial of the reality of human activity and climate.

The effects that climate change might have on humanity and society while not terribly scientific, are all interesting.

I am most interested in the "doomsday" predictions of the average global warming alarmist. You know what I'm referring to: widespread famine and food riots, etc..., leading to the loss of 2/3 of the world's population.

That's why I advocate for the open burning of tires (even new ones) in everyone's back yard.

Good times!

 

[SSDD]

No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

Laughing in your face...what's next? You going to pretend that you never made the claim in the first place?

 

[Wuwei]

No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

Laughing in your face...what's next? You going to pretend that you never made the claim in the first place?

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

 

[SSDD]

Why are you changing the subject to the S-B equations?

you were the one who brought boatsman in...I have always said that you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere...when when the topic gets around to experimental evidence that gravity induces temperature gradients in columns of air, you want to bring boatsman back into the conversation.

 

[SSDD]

The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.

Every denial that human activity effects the climate is a denial of the reality of human activity and climate.

Can you provide a single piece of data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. That is the basis of man made climate change..and yet, there is not the first piece of measured data that even begins to establish the relationship between CO2 and warming in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

No one is asking you to spoon feed anything to anyone...You were asked to back up a claim that you made with a statement in context...clearly you can't do it...not surprising in the least.

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

Laughing in your face...what's next? You going to pretend that you never made the claim in the first place?

I made many claims. Which one are you referring to?

Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.

 

[Wuwei]

Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.

You don't remember which claim you want me to back up?

 

[LOki]

The global warming effect on climate change is obviously, and demonstrably real.

Every denial that human activity effects the climate is a denial of the reality of human activity and climate.

Can you provide a single piece of data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. That is the basis of man made climate change..and yet, there is not the first piece of measured data that even begins to establish the relationship between CO2 and warming in the atmosphere.

Look. There are reams of well documented data, "made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere." It'll be the first thing that comes up in a google search.

And as long as there's any kind of evidence that even implies climate change could wipe out 2/3 of humanity, there's NOTHING you're going to tell me that will prevent me from burning tires in my back yard to help that along.

 

[SSDD]

Still laughing in your face...what a liar and coward you are.

You don't remember which claim you want me to back up?

I remember, and you remember...

" The author himself admits that he failed to predict what you think he predicted. You are putting words into the authors mouth that he did not make."

Don't worry about it loser...I never expected you to provide his statement in context...you were just shooting off your mouth without a clue...you didn't want to be wrong yet again so you just said the first thing that came into that little mind of yours.