Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[SSDD]

You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.

Nope...that claim is yours and Ian's...like the whole "smart photon" thing belongs to rocks...My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.

Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
Oh, right. LOL!

Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math....I just thought I would toss out a smart assed one liner and never expected to be called on my math skills.

 

[SSDD]

What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.

You are making a claim that no scientist over the last 100 years believes, and you don't know why you make that claim. That is weird.

What is weird is that every scientist according to you believes an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation and measurement ever made....damned strange. Guess that is post modern science for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.

Nope...that claim is yours and Ian's...like the whole "smart photon" thing belongs to rocks...My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.

Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
Oh, right. LOL!

Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math....I just thought I would toss out a smart assed one liner and never expected to be called on my math skills.

My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.

SB says two identical objects of the same temperature will emit equal amounts of energy toward each other.
Your silly claim is that they cease to emit toward each other.

Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math

No, that's toddster speak for you're a fucking idiot to assume the greenhouse effect is the only explanation for the temperature of distant planets. DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.

You are making a claim that no scientist over the last 100 years believes, and you don't know why you make that claim. That is weird.

What is weird is that every scientist according to you believes an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation and measurement ever made....damned strange. Guess that is post modern science for you.

What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.

 

[SSDD]

What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.

What scientists "know" at this point is far less than you believe that they know...What scientists have is a lot of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

As to my not knowing what the basic mechanism for energy transfer is...big deal...no one in science knows...just like we have no idea what the basic mechanism for gravity is...we have observation...and we have models that don't match up with observation....personally, I will stick with observation...hard to go wrong there. You...well you can watch the models change and modify over the years and maybe at some point, you will realize that you have spent your life waiting for the great pumpkin to show up.

 

[SSDD]

Here's some quick math demolishing SSDD's pseudoscience fantasy.

According to wiki, Uranus radiates significantly less net heat (per square meter) than earth. (net heat = total heat radiated - absorbed solar energy).

Uranus - Wikipedia
---
Uranus's internal heat appears markedly lower than that of the other giant planets; in astronomical terms, it has a low thermal flux.[17][68] Why Uranus's internal temperature is so low is still not understood. Neptune, which is Uranus's near twin in size and composition, radiates 2.61 times as much energy into space as it receives from the Sun,[17] but Uranus radiates hardly any excess heat at all. The total power radiated by Uranus in the far infrared (i.e. heat) part of the spectrum is 1.06 ± 0.08 times the solar energy absorbed in its atmosphere.[12][69] Uranus's heat flux is only 0.042 ± 0.047 W/m2, which is lower than the internal heat flux of Earth of about 0.075 W/m2.[69] The lowest temperature recorded in Uranus's tropopause is 49 K (−224 °C), making Uranus the coldest planet in the Solar System.[
---

However, Uranus has a much thicker atmosphere than earth. Since SSDD's loopy theory says that it's the amount of the gravity-induced pressure gradient that creates heat, and Uranus has a far, far larger such gradient, then Uranus should be generating far more such heat than earth.

But no, the opposite happens.

Hence, SSDD's kook theory is conclusively proven, by the math, to be totally delusional.

Not much math there hairball...and certainly none by you supporting your claims...

Here...have a look at some math that leaves nothing to guesswork and fudge factors.

According to NASA...the temperature at 1 bar of pressure on Uranus is about 76 degrees...The atmospheric pressure at 1 bar is about 1000mb....the density of the atmosphere at 1 bar is 420g/m3.....the mean molecular weight of the atmosphere at 1 bar is 2.64g/mole.......The black body temperature estimate is 58.2 degrees

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K Interesting...don't you think?...or do you think at all...

Now show us what the temperature at 1 bar on uranus should be according to the greenhouse hypothesis.....here is a clue...there is no greenhouse effect on uranus by any definition that meshes with the greenhouse effect described by climate science....


As long as we are doing this, lets look at a couple of other planets

According to NASA, the temperature at the surface of Venus is 737K the atmospheric pressure at the surface is about 92000mb....the density of the atmosphere at the surface is 65000/m3...the mean molecular weight of the atmosphere at the surface is 43.45g/mole...the black body temperature estimate of venus is 184.2K

PV = nRT

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Odd...don't you think that the ideal gas laws give a pretty accurate estimate of the temperature while the black body temperature estimates miss by a mile?


Earth....black body temperature estimate is 254.3K

PV = nRT

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

The ideal gas laws and the actual measurements of the Diurnal temperature range are pretty close while the black body estimate again...misses by a mile..



Jupiter...at 1 bar of pressure

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K

Again...the ideal gas laws give a damned close estimate of the temperature at 1 bar while the black body estimate...again...misses by a mile. You think this pattern is coincidence?

and on and on it goes...for every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....the formula for the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...but feel free to run the numbers through the greenhouse effect formula and see what it predicts the temperatures of the various planets to be....here is a clue...it won't even be close.

 

[Wuwei]

What scientists "know" at this point is far less than you believe that they know...What scientists have is a lot of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

What scientists know at this point is far far more than you can possibly understand. What scientists have are a lot of observable, testable, measurable mathematical models that predict observable, testable, measurable phenomena to an unprecedented accuracy of parts per billion. Can your theory do that?

As to my not knowing what the basic mechanism for energy transfer is...big deal...no one in science knows.

Right, you know nothing about radiation transfer. Science does know and does not agree with your unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable idea of the second law, or radiation equilibrium, etc.

maybe at some point, you will realize that you have spent your life waiting for the great pumpkin to show up.

Maybe at some point, you will admit to yourself that you know nothing about modern science and will have spent your life uselessly trolling.

 

[Wuwei]

PV = nRT

Hey SSDD that is a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. Furthermore your mathematical model is wrong. A lot of your planets fail being "ideal". The fact that it's called the ideal gas law should have given you a clue. Try redoing your analysis using the van der Waal equation.

When does ideal gas law fail? | Socratic

The ideal gas law "fails" when the pressure is high, the volume is low, the temperature is low, or there are significant intermolecular forces.. ​

 

[SSDD]

PV = nRT

Hey SSDD that is a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. Furthermore your mathematical model is wrong. A lot of your planets fail being "ideal". The fact that it's called the ideal gas law should have given you a clue. Try redoing your analysis using the van der Waal equation.

When does ideal gas law fail? | Socratic

The ideal gas law "fails" when the pressure is high, the volume is low, the temperature is low, or there are significant intermolecular forces.. ​

Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.

When comparing the estimates of temperature on the planets with predictions made by the ideal gas law...it is clear that it did not fail...are you going to claim that it is just coincidence?

It is obvious, looking at the NASA data sheets on the planets that they have used the ideal gas law and incoming solar radiation to predict the temperatures of the various planets to a pretty high degree of accuracy...that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets...even here....why do you suppose they don't use the greenhouse gas equations for their estimates of the temperatures of the various planets?...I will tell you why...because they aren't even close....more failure for post modern science...

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.

Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.

that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets

Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.

 

[mamooth]

Not much math there hairball...and certainly none by you supporting your claims...

In other words, after your kook theory was completely demolished by the data, you responded by ... tossing insults and bringing up a crazy evasion. Same thing you always do.

Here...have a look at some math that leaves nothing to guesswork and fudge factors.

Aside from the massive basic logic failure, it seemed to be a mass of unsupported numbers. Fudge, that is.

PV = nRT

In a near-ideal situation, that equation has to hold regardless of whether there's a greenhouse effect or not. So, congratulations, you proved that gases tend to obey the ideal gas law. Being that nothing in the greenhouse theory says gases don't obey the ideal gas law, your exercise has no bearing on the validity of greenhouse theory.

 

[SSDD]

Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.

Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law...and if they tried using the greenhouse equations for the other planets, they would be so far off as to be ridiculous...look above at the black body temperature of the planets vs the temperature derived from the ideal gas law...the black body numbers are invariably way off...which is why an ad hoc fudge factor must be added in to even get the temperature right here.

 

[SSDD]

PV = nRT

In a near-ideal situation, that equation has to hold regardless of whether there's a greenhouse effect or not. So, congratulations, you proved that gases tend to obey the ideal gas law. Being that nothing in the greenhouse theory says gases don't obey the ideal gas law, your exercise has no bearing on the validity of greenhouse theory.

Except...hairball...that NASA uses the ideal gas equations to estimate the temperatures on the planets...not the greenhouse equations....if they used the greenhouse equations they would be way off...even further off than the black body temperatures which are nothing like as close to reality as the figures derived from the ideal gas laws....

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on any planet...including this one.fakery and fraud...nothing more.

 

[mamooth]

Except...hairball...that NASA uses the ideal gas equations to estimate the temperatures on the planets...

No, dumbass, they use instruments to measure the temperatures.

Holy shit, you're stupid.

Look, just because you "model" everything by fudging and shun actual data, don't assume everyone else acts like you.

I think the funniest thing is how you think there are secret "greenhouse equations". You seem to be the only person on the planet who knows what they are. Can you let us in on the secret?

I just ask because all the normal people use the normal heat flow equations that have been around for over a century. Can you tell us why you think it's wrong to use the normal heat flow equations to describe heat flow? Why do you think secret magical "greenhouse equations" are necessary?

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.

You forgot to give me the source where NASA uses the ideal gas law to explain the atmospheres.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.

You forgot to give me the source where NASA uses the ideal gas law to explain the atmospheres.

Sorry guy...I told you that you could reference the planetary fact sheets from NASA....I thought that providing a reference was sufficient to someone who thinks so highly of his own intelligence. Had someone like rocks, or the hairball, or crick asked, I would have made every effort to draw them a picture in crayon...like I did above in post #546..

The planetary fact sheet from NASA...Here. Planetary Fact Sheets is where the planetary information came from...the pertinent information was simply plugged into the ideal gas law formula....pardon me for thinking that you were bright enough to figure that out....Hold on a second...while I grab my crayons....

Can I assume that you know what PV=nRT stands for?

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737K


92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

If you are looking for words from NASA that say "we are using the ideal gas laws to predict the temperatures of planets"...I suppose you would be out of luck...and if you like, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the NASA fact sheets happen to jibe with the figures that the ideal gas laws predict...and if you are really....really...really...out there, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the ideal gas laws actually predict the temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres with some minor adjustment for incoming solar radiation.....and if you are waaaaaaaayyyyy out there, you can make up some excuse in your head for NASA using the ideal gas laws to predict temperatures rather than applying the "oh so accurate" greenhouse model to the planets with atmospheres...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.

Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.

that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets

Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.

Simple observation..... is all that is necessary.... One method fails every time and the other does not... simple science.

 

[Wuwei]

If you are looking for words from NASA that say "we are using the ideal gas laws to predict the temperatures of planets"...I suppose you would be out of luck...and if you like, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the NASA fact sheets happen to jibe with the figures that the ideal gas laws predict.

Just as I thought. You were trying to put words into NASA's mouth.
According to your blog,

Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000

According to your NASA reference.

Jovian Atmosphere
Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars ​

In math or science the symbol ">>" means much greater than. The interpretation of the math you got at some blog is that the temperature is much greater than 169 K. That doesn't seem like a correlation at all. The NASA data sheet for Jupiter does not jibe with your blog at all.

Finally the formulas are looking at only one point in the atmosphere. That is meaningless as far as a theory of planetary physics is concerned.

On the earth you still have to consider that the surface of the earth is pumping out 400W/m^2 while receiving 160W/m^2. An ideal gas law does not take that into consideration.

 

[jc456]

Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.

Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.

that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets

Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.

Simple observation..... is all that is necessary.... One method fails every time and the other does not... simple science.

well it's obvious that one would go with the one that fails. It's the libturd mainstay. failure.

 

[SSDD]

According to your NASA reference.

Jovian Atmosphere
Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars ​

Guess you either didn't note...or don't know what 1 bar means as I explicitly wrote it.​

Finally the formulas are looking at only one point in the atmosphere. That is meaningless as far as a theory of planetary physics is concerned.

Of course they are looking at only one point...but change the pressure and the temperature changes....increase it and the temperature rises...decrease it and the temperature decreases...My example picked 1 bar of pressure and the temperature was very close...move deeper in the atmosphere and my bet is that the resulting temperature will still be very close.

Like I said, I fully expect you to make up whatever story you need to avoid the truth...and ignore everything that doesn't support your position.

On the earth you still have to consider that the surface of the earth is pumping out 400W/m^2 while receiving 160W/m^2. An ideal gas law does not take that into consideration.

And yet...

Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K [/quote]

and what does NASA list as the temperature of earth at the surface?...as I said, make a small adjustment for incoming solar radiation and guess what?....no fudge factor required...

Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.