http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/goddards-folly/
ROFLMAO
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
Recent Comments
- Louis Hooffstetter on Election Results
- Roger Caiazza on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Disillusioned on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Disillusioned on Election Results
- Disillusioned on Election Results
- Disillusioned on Election Results
- Madmackz on Tracking Climate Fraud
- Mac on Election Results
- toorightmate on Election Results
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
Yes Tammy Is that clueless! The reverse sunglass guy! 8)
Guess someone doesn’t understand how gases react at temperatures approaching absolute zero.
Yes, the Sun is totally irrelevant. Even with no Sun, we would still burn up with too much evil CO2 in our atmosphere.
Dry ice does cause burns.
Tamino says- “His posts say a lot about the level of scientific understanding of Watts and his contributors.”
Translated to Tobisspeak- His f**king posts say a f**king lot about the f**king level of scienf**kingtific understanding of f**king Watts and his f**king contributors.
(see Lucia’s post for more details on Tobisspeak)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/record-for-f-words-in-climate-blog-post/
That should help on Eaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrth Day…
Since neither nitrogen or ogygen is a gas below (about) -200 deg C, it makes no sense to mention the formula for the ideal gas.
Ah, so there is no water vapor in the air below the freezing point. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think the crashing out of oxygen and nitrogen (as well as CO2 and H2O) was sort of the point. I agree that the ideal gas law doesn’t need to be shown here.
-Scott
The ideal gas law works just fine.
From Wikipedia:
Thus, I contend that the ideal gas approximation is misleading here, especially considering going to there from the current conditions, as we’d see extreme deviations from ideality as we cooled the atmosphere and saw water liquify, oxygen liquify, argon liquify, and nitrogen liquify. After those crashed out, we might see somewhat ideal conditions occur. It’s hard to say, as the rule of thumb of low pressure and high temperatures contradict here, which low pressure (after crashing of vapors) but with very low temperatures. A good way to test would be to calculate the mean free path of the hydrogen/helium left in the atmosphere to see how valid the ideal gas assumption is.
-Scott
The “ideal gas” is not a law but a model; it can be applied to a “thin” gas (gas, not liquid). If one cools the gas to the boiling (condensation) point, it will become a liquid and the “ideal gas” equation cannot be applied anymore (one could take the Van der Waals equation instead).
The point is: The ideal gas model assumes no forces between the molecules and no volume of the molecules. If they are near together, that is obviously not true anymore.
If eg the pressure is very high, the volume does not approach zero, but the sum of the volumes of the molecules.
Since air is 76% N, 23% O and 1% Ar, the other gases in the air are insignificant for this discussion.
Most of the water on Earth is liquid form. Does that mean that the water vapor in the atmosphere above it is not a gas?
What does it matter. Lisa Jackson says H2O is pollution.
Of course it is, and one can use the ideal gas equation to eg show that wet air is lighter than dry air.
But if the air cools and some of the water vapor condenses, one cannot use the ideal gas equation to describe that liquid. It is eg almost impossible to compress, whereas the ideal gas says “double pressure, half volume”.
Obviously. The ideal gas law refers only to the *gaseous portion*. Do you doubt that a T close to zero would also have a very small P, V and n? PV = nRT
I wonder what this kid thinks of global warming math?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x4mIFISQ4M