The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I am not making any sense of what you are saying...I have never suggested gas in a vacuum since there is no gas in a vacuum. When I said unpressurized gas, I simply meant gas not in a bottle...gas out in the atmosphere at 14.1psi.

I am sure that all these random statements you are making amount to something in your head, but whatever it is, you aren't communicating it to me. I am looking for a point but am not finding it.

If you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, then I am with you...but I am not getting how what you are saying disputes the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis in any way.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.

Aw- RiLLiE UnKLe YeWJeaN?

THE TERM ''Specific Heat" is - no pun actually intended - SPECIFIC to GASES.
The term ''Specific Energy" is used for other phases of matter.

Sorry guy, but you are quite wrong. Here, from various dictionaries...

The free dictionary - specific heat- The ratio of the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a unit mass of a substance by one unit of temperature to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a similar mass of a reference material, usually water, by the same amount.

Mirriam webster - specific heat - the heat in calories required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance one degree Celsius

Encyclopedia Britannica - Specific heat_ ratio of the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a body one degree to that required to raise the temperature of an equal mass of water one degree. The term is also used in a narrower sense to mean the amount of heat, in calories, required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one Celsius degree.

So since we have established that specific heat does not apply specifically to gasses, and that you are apparently confusing that with the ideal gas laws, exactly what point are you trying to make. If you have one, lets hear it.

Mein Gott... Shakin my freakin head.

Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW

Named "Specific Heats of Gases."

And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

that SPECIFIC average MOLAR HEAT determines the final TEMPERATURE during temperature CALCULATIONS.

In other phases of matter, this term is changed to specific ENERGY. And when the temperature of THAT phase matter is solved for the "Specific ENERGY" co-efficient goes in approximately the same place along your series of processing steps.
--------
This is critical when talking to a magic gas barking therm-0-billy HicK,
as opposed I suppose to a NON magic gas barking one,

so you can INSTANTLY point out the FIRST time you hear "Thim See Oh Too dun made that tair Air "Hoddurn"Hoddur",

that the term Hoddurn'Hoddur means "we just VIOLATED GAS LAW SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN TO SOLVE THIS"

and claimed CO2 laden air holds more energy than STANDARD Air.

CO2 has a LOWER Specific Heat than standard air and therefore BY gas LAW MANDATE
contributes to a LOWERED air/CO2 volume temperature rather than HIGHER.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Furthermore SSDD there is an ERROR: a MANDATORY ERROR of *precisely 33 DEGREES

when magic gassers claim to have "calculated" atmospheric temperature, and don't use the OTHER side

of the LAW
the CHART of Specific Heats of Gases is
Part II of.

The CHART is Part II of the law,
The EQUATION of the law
is Part I.

Each part, MUST be used in solving for gas temperatures,

and "Magical Gaissines dun mad uh cold nitchurjin bath uh HEEDuR"

as a VOODOO RELIGION
VIOLATES THERMODYNAMIC ACCOUNTING PROCESS TWICE
in not using that law to ACCOUNT for COMPRESSION WARMING,
which for our atmosphere is EXACTLY 33 DEGREES,
claiming to be able to process gas temps using only Stefan-Boltzmann process
which has no provision for accounting this MANDATORY 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION warming value.

Then they claim that SOMEHOW the CO2 who's SPECIFIC HEAT is LOWER than Air
is contributing to higher total energy
of a volume it LOWERS total average energy of.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?

Actually, I haven't said that at all. I have said gasses at atmospheric pressures multiple times, but haven't said zero pressure at all. If you are going to argue against what I said, then argue against what I said...not things that I haven't said. I believe I said "unpressurised" nitrogen once but of course that would mean gas at atmospheric pressure. When I say pressurized of course I mean bottled gasses..

I have tried to be patient...if you have a point, then get to it. What does the specific heat of air have to do with the point you are trying to make?

Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick.

YOU have TRIED to claim so much loopy sh** in the last ten hours it's not even worth going back over.
Starting with you telling me in PUBLIC - on an INTERNATIONAL Atmospheric CHEMISTRY
and thermodynamics THREAD

that "YEW DOANT SEE NO CONNECKSHUN" between the NITROGEN BATH being COLD,

and the CLIMATE of the PLANET it's REFRIGERATING.

 

[SSDD]

Mein Gott... Shakin my freakin head.

Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW

Named "Specific Heats of Gases."

Again...you are mistaken...


There are numerous gas laws.

Boyle's Law - The volume of a given mass of a gas is inversely related to pressure when the temperature is constant.

Charles' Law - the volume (V) of a given mass of a gas, at constant pressure (Pa), is directly proportional to its temperature (K)

Gay-Lussack's law - for a given mass and constant volume of an ideal gas, the pressure exerted on the sides of its container is directly proportional to its absolute temperature.

Avogadro's Law - the volume occupied by an ideal gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of the gas present in the container

Combined Ideal Gas Laws - or Pv=NRt is a combination of Boyle's law, Charles' law, and Gay-Lussack's law. It shows the relationship between the pressure, volume, and temperature for a fixed mass (quantity) of gas:

Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

And I still have no idea where you are going with this. The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen. Out in the atmosphere, were aren't. We are dealing with a mixture of gasses. That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen. The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.

 

[SSDD]

Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick.

I am not pretending to be anything. And I have never been to an international atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics thread.

that "YEW DOANT SEE NO CONNECKSHUN" between the NITROGEN BATH being COLD,

and the CLIMATE of the PLANET it's REFRIGERATING.

Sorry guy...I have no idea what you are talking about.. You are mixing up gas laws with specific heat,and throwing in a bunch of corn pone language that I am not even going to try and understand. I speak English so if you want to talk to me, speak English.

And by the way...the planet is not refrigerating. Refrigeration refers to a specific mechanical process and it isn't happening in the atmosphere. Refrigeration describes the process of removing heat from a low temperature reservoir and moving it to a high temperature reservoir.

 

[Allen Eltor]

SSDD some other STUPID stuff you've been saying is that " radiation can't travel toward an object warmer, than the object radiating.

If you have a ten watt resistor and you're continually warming it, warming it, it never stops,

and you put it into a cardboard box you spray painted flat black,

and set it outside in Antarctica,

and set it outside in Phoenix,

in BOTH those INSTANCES, the resistor is HOTTER than the INSIDES of the BOX.

And we'll find the temp of it radiates exactly 10 watts more, than the surrounding ambient temperatures.

This is because RADIATION
from the COOLER BOX in BOTH INSTANCES
is STRIKING the WARMER RESISTOR
and INHIBITING LEAKAGE of ENERGY.

There is a TOTAL ambient LIGHT concentration
that comes from LOWER temperature objects,
impeding loss of energy from the resistor.

This is FRESHMAN FUNDAMENTALS in CONSERVATION of ENERGY in THERMODYNAMICS.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD some other STUPID stuff you've been saying is that " radiation can't travel toward an object warmer, than the object radiating.

Ever hear of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It says " It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

Not my words...not my idea...not my anything... The second LAW of thermodynamics. it you think it is wrong, then prove it and take the results to the nobel prize committee. there is a nobel prize and a million dollar prize out there for anyone who can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrect.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Sorry guy...I am not making any sense of what you are saying...I have never suggested gas in a vacuum since there is no gas in a vacuum. When I said unpressurized gas, I simply meant gas not in a bottle...gas out in the atmosphere at 14.1psi.

I am sure that all these random statements you are making amount to something in your head, but whatever it is, you aren't communicating it to me. I am looking for a point but am not finding it.

If you are saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect, then I am with you...but I am not getting how what you are saying disputes the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis in any way.

No YOU made some random statements, and I'm just pointing out the ludicrous bullshit you've been barking since I saw you knew how to wave your hands over a keyboard.

Since you're in abject, befuddled denial about the kook sh** you've been drizzling over your keyboard all day

let's cut to another kook premise you seem to be telling people.

"Thim books dun sed cain't no radiation go frum nuttn cewlur, two nuttn warmer."

I was gonna say I have no idea but - yes I do. You tried to teach yourself thermodynamics.

LIsten to me carefully. If you have a resistor and you never stop running 10 watts through it,

and you tape it up inside a cardboard box you spray painted flat black inside and out,

and you sit it outside awhile in Antarctica,

and you sit it outside awhile in Phoenix,

it's always gonna be a little warmer, than the object warming IT.

The object WARMING it is the COOLER BOX, bathing it in field of LIGHT.

As it glows off it's OWN ten watts, it ALWAYS glows it off, starting at what's called "ambient temperature."

The sum of the light striking surface facets of that resistor, from outside that resistor,

set that resistor's ultimate temperature. Full stop, no negotiations.

Don't tell people radiant energy can't pass between a warmer and colder object.

There's a REASON for the term NET energy flow.

Don't TELL me, "You don't think a heated resistor in a FREEZER or in your OVEN

don't UNDERSTAND about THERMODYNAMICS.

Don't tell me that.

Don't sit there and tell me that resistor, which is WARMER than the inside of EITHER of those boxes,

isn't being bathed with radiant energy from the COOLER BOX.

Those LOWER temperature black cardboard boxes, don't set the final temperature at which the WARMER object

glows off it's own internal energy? OF COURSE they do. The light field in Antarctica glowing off the inside of the

cooler box, makes the rock glow off at a final temperature referred to as "Ambient + 10 Watts."

The light field in Phoenix, makes the rock glow it's 10 watts off at a temperature called "Ambient + 10 watts."

If I see you come in here and tell that to people some more, I'm gonna come in here and dispute it again and again

with the IDENTICAL resistor example used in FRESHMAN PHYSICS to explain what AMBIENT TEMPERATURE is.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Don't start trying to pretend YOU'RE the one who's the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist, hick.

I am not pretending to be anything. And I have never been to an international atmospheric chemistry and thermodynamics thread.

that "YEW DOANT SEE NO CONNECKSHUN" between the NITROGEN BATH being COLD,

and the CLIMATE of the PLANET it's REFRIGERATING.

Sorry guy...I have no idea what you are talking about.. You are mixing up gas laws with specific heat,and throwing in a bunch of corn pone language that I am not even going to try and understand. I speak English so if you want to talk to me, speak English.

And by the way...the planet is not refrigerating. Refrigeration refers to a specific mechanical process and it isn't happening in the atmosphere. Refrigeration describes the process of removing heat from a low temperature reservoir and moving it to a high temperature reservoir.

You are as ignorant as you seemed when you tried to claim physics texts speaking of Conservation of Energy

means that ambient temperature doesn't exist.

Here's the difference between your befuddled pseudo-science and my real science: I paid people money to teach me how to interpret the words in those books so I don't go somewhere and say the stupid sh** you are.

In exchange for answering thousands of questions, with - I said hundreds of trick questions, about JUST such matters as you're SLAUGHTERING, I earned a degree after several THOUSAND hours in

RADIATION related
Electronic Engineering.

I have a couple of educational specialties, one of them being RADIANT ENERGY.

You think you're gonna go over and just pick up the same books I read and say "Oh, I purnownst awl thim werds right, now I'm uh radiation Engineer."

No you're not. Which is why your GOOFY-#$%'d claims, have you in direct violation of the critical thermodynamics principle "ambient temperature."

 

[Allen Eltor]

Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

And I still have no idea where you are going with this. The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen. Out in the atmosphere, were aren't. We are dealing with a mixture of gasses. That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen. The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.

 

[SSDD]

See you around...or maybe not. If you can't hold up your side of the conversation, it is just me talking to myself. Good luck in getting across whatever idea you have in your head to someone. You sure failed miserably in making any sense at all to me...or anyone else that you have tried to talk to so far.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Not just "one of the laws," THE Law of thermodynamics written SPECIFICALLY
for SOLVING matter-energy relationships of GASES

has TWO PARTS.

Part 1 is the EQUATION of the Law,

Part 2 is the CHART of the Law named for the gases SPECIFIC HEATS.

The Chart's NAMED for them
R is derived from them,
and is *included as part of the Chart of Law.

If someone tells you, "I'm going to calculate matter-energy relationships
for these gases, I've got to get the Chart, what chart?

The ______ ________ __ ________ (Chart of Specific Heats of Gases.)

It doesn't take much to clear it up at first I didn't realize when you said you didn't know what I was getting at and I saw you referring to the actual specific heats... and I thought, "I think I might have dropped or mauled some paragraphs up there."

As far as your remarks about the Specific Heats of Nitrogen not mattering, I can understand you saying it wasn't clear due to me calling the Individual Gas Constant the Specific Heat


I'm often splitting my attention typing about this. It's very plain if I have to come to a discussion about the ATMOSPHERE and people have been in here swearing they're arguing Atmospheric physics,

and you alone are the ONLY ONE who even risks taking a STAB at trying to name the LAW of PHYSICS you're all in here SUPPOSED to be using to solve your questions - it's like this everywhere so I just don't pay attention and don't get emotionally involved.

I'm speed typing this between trips w/ the wife & grandson, bathing, feeding, entertaining,animals, farm house repairs.

The Specific Heats of Gases, and the Individual Gas Constants that derive from them,
ARE gas thermodynamic law.

They're not suggestions, they're gas law and they're gas law globally.

In fact - if someone EVER tells you
they've been processing atmospheric mass-energy values,
and they don't IMMEDIATELY start discussion of these charts of Law
and the processing of equations using it - they're a COMPLETE fake.

Most of you have never even known of an atmospheric chemist who wasn't a crook.

That's pretty pathetic but it's what happened to your generation.

Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

And I still have no idea where you are going with this. The specific heat of a particular gas like nitrogen only matters if you are dealing with pure nitrogen. Out in the atmosphere, were aren't. We are dealing with a mixture of gasses. That mixture of gasses is called air, and air has a specific heat and it is different from the specific heat of pure nitrogen. The specific heat of pure nitrogen has no bearing on the temperature in the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the specific heat of air.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Do you REALLY not understand what we're talking about here? There is a CHART of gas LAW

Named "Specific Heats of Gases."

Again...you are mistaken...


There are numerous gas laws.

Boyle's Law - The volume of a given mass of a gas is inversely related to pressure when the temperature is constant.

Charles' Law - the volume (V) of a given mass of a gas, at constant pressure (Pa), is directly proportional to its temperature (K)

Gay-Lussack's law - for a given mass and constant volume of an ideal gas, the pressure exerted on the sides of its container is directly proportional to its absolute temperature

Avogadro's Law - the volume occupied by an ideal gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of the gas present in the container

Combined Ideal Gas Laws - or Pv=NRt is a combination of Boyle's law, Charles' law, and Gay-Lussack's law. It shows the relationship between the pressure, volume, and temperature for a fixed mass (quantity) of gas:

Specific heat, is not a gas law...specific heat is the amount of energy, usually expressed in calories that it takes to raise the temperarure of a specific amount of a substance gas, solid or liquid, by a specific temperature, and this can be referred to as the law of specific heat... There is, however, no specific heat law that applies only to gasses
And when you PLUG those VALUES into the "R" spot in gas equations, related to calculating temperature,

I'm just reminding you - you're as dumb as a stump, you can apologize for this trash later.

You're so dumb you can't be SHOWN the right law of physics for solving gas mass/energy relationships, told what they're for and figure out it's a law of thermodynamics.

Remember that when you're trying to act like a smartass later.

You've "never been in an international Atmospheric Chemistry and Radiation thread in your life?"

YOU'RE IN one NOW, DiPSTiCK.

 

[Allen Eltor]

I'm the one who's been talking while you scurried around Google looking for some way to duck
being caught making your inane claims. While you've spent the morning trying and failing
to learn the parts of the Law of Thermodynamics
governing what you're in here claiming
"erases Ambient Temperature from all thermodynamics."

No it doesn't, you just can't grasp
why you can't just
grab an advanced thermo text
and start claiming you're gonna teach us
what it means.

No you're not, you're gonna slaughter it, like you have been.

See you around...or maybe not. If you can't hold up your side of the conversation, it is just me talking to myself. Good luck in getting across whatever idea you have in your head to someone. You sure failed miserably in making any sense at all to me...or anyone else that you have tried to talk to so far.

 

[SSDD]

At the risk of repeating myself...Allen, go develop your communication skills...learn to speak in coherent sentences and give people at least some idea of what sort of point you are trying to make in less than 3,000 words spread across 6 or 8 posts. Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.

And for pete's sake...don't claim that you are an engineer of any sort other than perhaps a domestic engineer or a janitorial engineer...most everyone here knows that as one travels the path to a degree in engineering, a fair amount of time is spent learning the art of technical writing, since so much time will be spent in the course of their career doing exactly that. Communicating complex ideas in a manner that people who don't have their education will understand exactly what they hell they are talking about. The very definition of technical writing is simplifying the complex.

If you were trying to communicate an idea to a customer and kept barking about cold nitrogen baths somehow altering the global temperature your customer with rightly assume that you were not only barking mad, but got your degree from a vending machine, then they would probably sue you to get back any money they had paid you, and look for someone who could get the job they needed done and communicate their findings in a coherent manner and spread the word to any potential customer that you were piss poor at your job and that they shouldn't hire you even to sweep hair at a barber shop. In today's world, professionals know that individuals on social media can destroy a reputation in short order so courtesy, effectiveness, and professionalism are the watchwords.

Work on your communication skills if you want to actually talk to people on this board, We may not agree with each other, but at least most of us try to speak in an understandable manner and actually attempt to get our ideas across. Further, we try to explain what we are thinking rather than simply assuming that someone else knows what we are thinking...terms like cold nitrogen bath out in the open atmosphere mean nothing and no one, my self included, knows what the hell you are talking about.

So when you learn to communicate a bit more effectively, I for one, will be glad to talk to you, but I am not going to spend any appreciable amount of time trying to figure out what the hell point you are trying to make if you either won't, or can't make it clear.

 

[P@triot]

Everything the minions on the left believe about "Global Warming" is a farce. How embarrassing.

Photographer behind viral images of starving polar bear questions climate change narrative it promoted

 

[P@triot]

And the best part about this study? It comes from Harvard.

New Harvard studies show wind power does more damage, requires more land than previously thought

 

[P@triot]

Even the left-wing political activists posing as “scientists” are starting to admit that it was all a farce...

Climate scientist offers stunning response to ‘mistakes’ in major study on accelerated ocean warming

 

[P@triot]

So much for the left’s claims that “greenhouse gases” are being “trapped” in the atmosphere and are causing the planet to heat up.

Thanksgiving Day will be coldest in over a century for millions in U.S.