Pluto and Surface Air Pressure

[ReinyDays]

Ok, then how would you explain high pressure = drier air and low pressure = wetter air?

Adiabatic heating and cooling ... Meteorology 201 ...

 

[ding]

I disagree for the reasons already stated, and I included an experiment to demonstrate the principles ... you're confusing density with pressure, they are related but they are not the same thing ...

This is a gas, not a liquid, there's plenty of room in between molecules to fit more molecules ... any density changes (less than 1% btw) is compensated by changes in volume ... as you said, we have unbounded volume ...

Ok, let's walk through this step by step.

Is the volume of the atmosphere fixed?

 

[ding]

Adiabatic heating and cooling ... Meteorology 201 ...

Can you walk me through that in simple terms.

 

[ding]

Adiabatic heating and cooling ... Meteorology 201 ...

Do you have a link that says wetter air increases atmospheric pressure? Don't hurricanes have low pressures? Aren't storm systems lower pressures?

 

[ReinyDays]

The whole conversation around temperature and distance to the sun is mind boggling. Pressure is a function of fluid density. It's the column of mass that determines pressure. And that is a function of the density of the fluid. Temperature is an adjustment. The driver is density (i.e. mass per unit volume).

EMH is intentionally muddying the water. He's a turd that won't flush down.

The math is succinct ...

Pressure is defined as force per unit area ... and force is defined as mass times acceleration ... if you want to use density ( = mass divided by volume), you have to divide both sides by volume ... force per volume equals density times acceleration ... which becomes force per unit 5-tope ... not in this universe buck-o ...

 

[ding]

The math is succinct ...

Pressure is defined as force per unit area ... and force is defined as mass times acceleration ... if you want to use density ( = mass divided by volume), you have to divide both sides by volume ... force per volume equals density times acceleration ... which becomes force per unit 5-tope ... not in this universe buck-o ...

Let's see how you address post #'s 462-464. Then I'll come back and address this.

 

[ReinyDays]

Can you walk me through that in simple terms.

PV=nRT ... constant volume and mass ...

We uplift a parcel of air in the atmosphere and pressure is reduced ... the weight of the air column above is falling, adiabatic means no exchange of energy, so as pressure falls, temperature must also fall ... if dry air is 15ºC at sea level, just lifting it up to 18,000 feet (500 mb) cools the temperature to -20ºC ... again that's without any exchange of energy ... U.S. Standard Atmosphere - Wikipedia

Do I need to explain how this temperature drop effects water's vapor pressure? ... because things go haywire thermodynamically and I really don't want to have to explain ... just think 2300 joules per gram of rain and conservation laws ...

First comes the low pressure, then it gets wet ... you have cause-and-effect backwards ... again ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Let's see how you address post #'s 462-464. Then I'll come back and address this.

You can address the math right now ... you have your demonstration of Dalton's Law ... or are 18th Century Jewish alchemists smarter than you? ...

 

[ding]

PV=nRT ... constant volume and mass ...

We uplift a parcel of air in the atmosphere and pressure is reduced ... the weight of the air column above is falling, adiabatic means no exchange of energy, so as pressure falls, temperature must also fall ... if dry air is 15ºC at sea level, just lifting it up to 18,000 feet (500 mb) cools the temperature to -20ºC ... again that's without any exchange of energy ... U.S. Standard Atmosphere - Wikipedia

Do I need to explain how this temperature drop effects water's vapor pressure? ... because things go haywire thermodynamically and I really don't want to have to explain ... just think 2300 joules per gram of rain and conservation laws ...

First comes the low pressure, then it gets wet ... you have cause-and-effect backwards ... again ...

It would be nice if you could explain in simple terms how this is relevant. Because if you keep using the ideal gas law and assuming pressure goes up when water vapor is added to the atmosphere I'm going to start calling you EMH Jr.

 

[ding]

You can address the math right now ... you have your demonstration of Dalton's Law ... or are 18th Century Jewish alchemists smarter than you? ...

I can't because I'm not going to chase your red herrings. EMH Jr.

 

[ReinyDays]

It would be nice if you could explain in simple terms how this is relevant. Because if you keep using the ideal gas law and assuming pressure goes up when water vapor is added to the atmosphere I'm going to start calling you EMH Jr.

I can't because I'm not going to chase your red herrings. EMH Jr.

Ah ... the ad hominem attack ... the last desperate argument in a losing cause ... thank you for admitting you're wrong ...

The math is succinct ...

 

[ding]

Ah ... the ad hominem attack ... the last desperate argument in a losing cause ... thank you for admitting you're wrong ...

The math is succinct ...

You are posting gibberish. Be better.

 

[EMH]

You bringing up Mars and Pluto is a wild goose chase that has no bearing on earth's atmosphere and subsequent calculation of SAP.

LMFAO!!!

Mars and Pluto are data. Both show SAP goes up as planet warms. There is a legit debate of how much of that is warming and how much is ice melt, but the direction is the same.

If your planet's SAP is not rising, then your planet is NOT WARMING and NOT UNDERGOING A NET ICE MELT regardless of whether the ice is H2O, Co2, or N.

And hence Co2 FRAUD is COMPLETELY BUSTED by SAP.

 

[ding]

LMFAO!!!

Mars and Pluto are data. Both show SAP goes up as planet warms. There is a legit debate of how much of that is warming and how much is ice melt, but the direction is the same.

If your planet's SAP is not rising, then your planet is NOT WARMING and NOT UNDERGOING A NET ICE MELT regardless of whether the ice is H2O, Co2, or N.

And hence Co2 FRAUD is COMPLETELY BUSTED by SAP.

Is the earth's atmospheric pressure based upon on the mass of the column of air?

 

[EMH]

this is the weight of the air column above our unit area ... 14.7 pounds-force per square inch or 101,300 newtons per square meter ... volume is considered infinite, or specifically the atmosphere merges with the interplanetary medium ... out there past lunar orbit someplace ... there's a "vacuum" of knowledge in this part of the universe ...

As Mars clearly documents, SAP correlates with distance from Sun and hence temperature.

AP correlates with Temperature in sealed container and the altitude AP calc. Funny, air pressure correlates with temperature on EVERY SINGLE FORM OF AIR PRESSURE except, according to you, surface air pressure.

Just like every other planet shows SAP rising when closer to Sun, except the fudged fraud from WU....

 

[EMH]

I think we can all agree that EMH's claims that "the slight decrease in SAP over the last 60 years or so is because the planet is cooling" and "if all the glaciers and ice caps melted, SAP would increase to 3-5 bars" are the signs of a serious mental defect.

Either that, or we all work for the Mossad, spreading fake global warming info.

The skateboard on Mars completely refutes you. Jurassic completely refutes you. Pluto completely refutes you. Northern hemisphere SAP completely refutes you. The only thing that supports you is a big serving of fudge from WU.


Earth SAP is on a 60 year down trend, a slight one.

But what does your side claim. That's right, warming and.... ONGOING NET ICE MELT, and as we can see from Mars and Pluto both,

ongoing net ice melt = warming = higher SAP

and hence the Co2 FRAUD is completely refuted by SAP. Earth is neither warming nor experiencing an ongoing net ice melt.

And that is because Co2 does precisely NOTHING - highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

 

[EMH]

Is the earth's atmospheric pressure based upon on the mass of the column of air?

Surface air pressure on any planet is

(mass of gas column pulled down by planet's gravity) x (a planetary coefficient) x (temperature)


because just the mass of the gas column is refuted by Mars skateboard SAP data.

 

[EMH]

PV=nRT ... constant volume and mass ...

Sealed container AP is 100% correlated with temperature.

A planet's atmosphere is a bit comparable to a tire. When a tire is inflated, it expands a bit. But the higher the AP inside the more it expands. And it does expand when heated. Temperature correlation is there, not linear, but there.

 

[EMH]

Pressure is defined as force per unit area

And "force of air" increases with temperature.

 

[ding]

Surface air pressure on any planet is

(mass of gas column pulled down by planet's gravity) x (a planetary coefficient) x (temperature)


because just the mass of the gas column is refuted by Mars skateboard SAP data.

And mass depends on the molar composition of the fluid, right?