Science In The 16th Century

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

  • Galileo Galilei

Ned Nikolov works for the US Forest Service in Fort Collins, Colorado. In 2016 he published the rather obvious observation that planetary temperature correlates with atmospheric pressure, not atmospheric composition.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. – The Washington Post

While Obama was president, it was unacceptable for government employees to believe anything which strayed from the dogma of the global warming religion. Employees were implicitly threatened with termination for climate heresy.  So Ned used a pseudonym, and the Washington Post ignored their research on that basis.

Sally Jewell: ‘I Hope There Are No Climate Change Deniers In The Department Of Interior’ | HuffPost

I have lost several jobs (immediately) after the company I was working for discovered I was a climate skeptic. No company wants to be called out and boycotted by green fascists.  We live in dark times now – science and truth are for all intents and purposes illegal.

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

– George Orwell

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Science In The 16th Century

  1. arn says:

    Who would have thought that the most obvious factors are responsible
    for the outcomes?
    One has to be a scientist to ignore and exclude the dancing elephant in the room.

  2. Cam says:

    Over at NSIDC, let the shenanigans begin: The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F18 satellite will be undergoing testing from June 25 to 29 and from July 9 to 12. During this time, data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) sensor on F18 may have degraded quality or may not be collected. DMSP F18 is the primary sensor that provides NSIDC with near-real-time data for sea ice monitoring (nsidc-0081, the Sea Ice Index, and the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis web page). If the data quality does not meet operational standards, NSIDC will remove the resulting sea ice fields or NSIDC may not distribute data from the F18 SSMIS during the test periods.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      “If the data quality does not meet operational standards, …”
      that is, if it does not support the melting ice meme, it gets dumped

  3. Colorado Wellington says:

    Saboteurs! Wreckers! Bloodsuckers!

    Catch them!

    • arn says:

      Whatever the red hand touches turns into shit.
      Culture,Language,Education,Families,Marriage,Universities,Media and of course Science(Comics and Star Wars have been ruined by them.They turned SW into SjW)
      Even Genders are no longer save.

      Once infected with the inflamatory virus of Karl Marx and his brilliant skills to use inflamatory speech hidden as good intention
      to divide people and use his followers+minorities+well paid screaming
      claqueurs as actors,politicians and anchormen(who do not suffer the consequences as they do not live among common people)
      a country goes fast down the shithole and straight into fascism.

  4. Johansen says:

    That’s why we appreciate your efforts, in spite of your financial hit. It’s on forums like this where the real innovation and information exchange takes place.

  5. Ed Bo says:

    Unfortunately, Nikolov and Zeller give skeptics a bad name. I would reject that work outright if it came from any of the undergraduates I teach. Anyone with a basic grasp of high school physics and math would not produce that work.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      In what journal was it published? Was it peer reviewed?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Here’s a link to the (withdrawn) paper.

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712

        It was not in a journal that published much climate-related contents.

        • Robert Austin says:

          Ed Bo,
          The link merely shows that the paper was withdrawn “not related to the scientific merit of the study”. From your comments you imply that you have the actual paper and having studied it, and have a sound scientific basis for condemning it. If you could tell us how we might access this withdrawn paper, we might have a dialogue on its merits.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Robert:

            The curve they fit to the data points has about as many coefficients as data points. In addition, the equation containing the coefficients is of a completely arbitrary nature, with no physical justification for the form selected.

            This means that there are far more “degrees of freedom” in computing the fit than there are data points. This means you can always produce a fit, but you have demonstrated no more meaning than a kid playing connect the dots.

            In any decent introductory undergraduate math course, you are taught that these techniques are a huge NO-NO. N & Z are oblivious to this.

      • Douglas Hoyt says:

        Another paper by Holmes reaches much the same conclusions as Nikolov and Zeller.

        http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

        In the presence of a gravitational field, a gaseous atmosphere will have to follow the law of conservation of energy. It naturally leads to a vertical temperature gradient. It is called an adiabatic process. No need for greenhouse gases to explain why the surface is 33 K warmer than the top of the atmosphere.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Douglas:

          Over 150 years ago, the great James Clerk Maxwell showed that the idea that a gravitational field alone would create a temperature gradient led immediately to blatant 2nd Law violations:

          “The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout, or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top.

          This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”
          (Theory of Heat, 1877, p.320)

          In Feynman’s Lectures on Physics (Vol 1, #40), he concludes the same thing, and only considers it worth a paragraph to make the same point:

          “Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium by connecting a rod to some balls at the bottom (Fig. 40–1), where they would pick up 12kT from the molecules there and would shake, via the rod, the balls at the top and those would shake the molecules at the top. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.”

          These lectures have been used to train generations of scientists and engineers.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            If you toss a ball up, it slows down. The kinetic energy decreases and the potential energy increases. The same is true for a single molecule. Since it kinetic energy decreases, we can say its temperature decreases, the higher it goes. The same is true for any number of molecules. A temperature gradient will form in a gravitational field because energy must be conserved.

            It appears Maxwell and Feynman were wrong. There is no possibility of creating an isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field since it would violate the conservation of energy, by requiring the highest molecules to have the highest amount of total energy.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            High-speed centrifuges create the equivalent of massive gravitational fields. Centrifuges for isotopic separation of gaseous UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) have been used for 75 years now.

            Any temperature gradient would totally screw up the process. None has ever been observed. Maxwell and Feynman were correct.

            Your analytical error is in not accounting for the pressure, and therefore density, gradient that occurs as you go up. While the (KE+PE) per unit mass increases as you go up in an isothermal atmosphere, the (KE+PE) per unit volume DOES NOT.

            So the upward and downward energy transfers across a horizontal plane section in an isolated isothermal atmosphere are the same.

            To use a toy example: the molecules crossing the plane in a downward direction accelerate slightly and have an average KE of 100. The molecules crossing the plane in an upward direction decelerate slightly and have an average KE of only 99 (your point).

            BUT! There are only 99 of the downward-passing molecules due to the density gradient, and there are 100 of the upward-passing molecules.

            So the downward transfer of energy is 100*99=9900, and the upward transfer of energy is 99*100=9900. This means there is no net transfer of energy, and the system is at equilibrium in the isothermal case. (I emphasize this is for a thermodynamically isolated system in a gravitational field, which is not the case on earth.)

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            The Loschmidt Effect accurately describes temperature gradients in atmospheres. Doug Cotton offers a $7500 award if you can prove him wrong. Here is a quote from him:

            “Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules – quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There’s a US $7,500 reward offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.”

            See http://www.klimarealistene.com/in-english/the-climate-realists-of-norway/ for more discussion.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            If you actually engage Mr. Cotton, you realize that he is completely in competent, and struggles to analyze the simplest of problems. I have given him disproof, and he refusess to acknowledge it.

            A couple small points, because it is not worth wasting time on him. Maxwell (who was NOT Loschmidt’s student) disproved the gravitational temperature gradient idea with the development of the kinetic theory of gases in the mid 19th century. Boltzmann added some mathematical rigor to the idea.

            It has not been seriously challenged since, which is why Cotton cannot find any peer-reviewed refutation of his idea. (I can’t find any peer-reviewed refutation of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system either.)

            There’s an interesting story of Maxwell’s struggles in developing a kinetic theory that was in accordance with the 2nd Law (which Cotton’s theory most certainly is not).

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Your basic contention is that an atmosphere in a gravitational field that contains no greenhouse gases will be isothermal.

            There are atmospheres that contain no greenhouse gases and they are not isothermal. They are called stars. We know that they are not isothermal, because of their limb darkening. It just so happens that these atmospheres have vertical temperature gradients that follow the Loschmidt effect.

            There is no evidence that any atmosphere in a gravitational field will be isothermal.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            The contention of people like Cotton is that a gravitational field ALONE will create a temperature gradient (lapse rate) in an atmosphere. This predicts that a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere will have a temperature gradient in a gravitational field at equilibrium.

            Maxwell showed that this prediction would lead directly to 2nd Law violations. Feynman considered the point so obvious he did not think it was worth more than a paragraph.

            The presence of greenhouse gases means that atmosphere is not thermodynamically isolated, but it is by no means the ONLY means of eliminating isolation.

            We have a negative lapse rate in our atmosphere because the atmosphere gains energy primarily at low altitudes and loses energy primarily from high altitudes, due to greenhouse gases being more transparent to shortwave solar than to longwave infrared.

            The plasma “atmospheres” of stars also gain energy primarily at low altitudes and lose energy primarily from high altitudes, because the energy source is from the star’s core.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            You will have a temperature gradient in gravitational field even in the case where there is no radiation. Consider the simplest atmosphere consisting one non-radiating atom. Assume the atom has energy, and it doesn’t matter where that energy comes from. It is likely to move both horizontally and vertically. As it moves vertically it loses kinetic energy and gains potential energy, because energy is conserved. The loss of kinetic energy means that as it rises, its temperature has effectively decreased. Thus, a temperature gradient is formed. There is no need to consider radiation. There is a need to conserve energy.

            In the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere, this atom would rise and never lose any velocity or kinetic energy, yet would gain potential energy. Thus, energy would be appearing out of nowhere and the law of conservation of energy would be violated.

            The same principle that applies to one atom would apply to all atoms, as would occur in atmospheres usually considered.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            You cannot conclude anything about the statistical behavior of gas from a single-molecule example.

            Here is a link to a paper by physics professors explaining how they teach students who think like you do why they should think like I do ;-)

            https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.14138

            Right now, I can’t find the full paper on-line without a paywall, but I downloaded it several years ago and could send it to you if you give me any contact info. Still, there is enough info on the opening page to give you the sense of their explanation.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            A later article by Liao contradicts your paper:
            https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979209052893

          • Ed Bo says:

            Hmmm. The abstract doesn’t even lay out their fundamental line of reasoning. Not a good start. Do you have a link to the full paper, unpaywalled?

            But here’s the bigger point. Even if you grant that gravity is causing the lapse rate (and I don’t, because of the 2nd Law “loophole” that would present), there is still no mechanism for it to transfer continuous power to the surface — and that is needed in order for the pressure to explain the elevated surface temperatures.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            For the Earth, it is not the atmosphere transferring power to the surface to heat it. It is solar radiation heating the surface that then transfers power to the atmosphere, as manifested by convection.

            The convection has limited power and only extends to the tropopause. As it rises it weakens and cools. A temperature gradient is formed. The temperature gradient appears because it is in a gravitational field. This is the Loschmidt effect that occurs in every atmosphere that has ever been observed. As Holmes states “gravity forms a density and a temperature gradient; pressure is a corollary”. Arrhenius seems to have neglected convective transport of heat in his formulation of the greenhouse effect.

            An isothermal atmosphere has never been observed on any planet or star with a sufficiently thick atmosphere.

            As for heating the Earth from thermal radiation, that is very difficult because the high index of refraction of water allows only a few microns penetration by thermal radiation. It will be quickly converted to radiation at all thermal wavelengths and much will escape to space. The Earth is wet nearly everywhere.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            All atmospheres we have examined have IR radiatively active (aka “greenhouse”) gases.

            The (metaphorical) “greenhouse effect” occurs when an atmosphere is more opaque to longwave infrared radiation than it is to shortwave solar radiation. (This is true of every atmosphere in our solar system.)

            When this is the case, the atmosphere gains energy on average at a lower altitude (often from the surface) than it loses energy (largely from the tropopause). As with any object heated at one end and cooled at the other, there is a temperature gradient between the two ends.

            In the atmosphere, we call this gradient the lapse rate, and it most cases it is a negative value (decreasing temperature with height), except in the case of temperature inversions.

            If the negative lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate (that is, an “unstable lapse rate”, convection starts and tends to bring the lapse rate back to adiabatic. The thermal resistance of greenhouse gases to upward energy loss to space is great enough in these atmospheres that it would create an unstable lapse rate that induces convection.

            This means that all of these atmospheres have a lapse rate pretty close to adiabatic. But this is only due to the fact that they are primarily heated from below, and cooled from above, due to “greenhouse gases”.

            Without the ability to radiate away energy from high altitudes, which requires these greenhouse gases, any convection cells would provide no net cooling, with the downward half returning as much energy to the surface as the upward half removes from the surface.

            The proposed “Loschmidt effect” says that gravity ALONE will produce a lapse rate. It does not even mention convection. It is a misunderstanding of the idea that if you throw a ball up, it slows down.

            You quote Holmes (who’s he?) as saying “gravity forms a density and temperature gradient; pressure is a corollary”. I’m sorry, but your Holmes does not understand basic physics. Gravity forms a pressure gradient, as the pressure at any point in the atmosphere simply comes from the weight (mass in a gravitational field) of the atmosphere above that point. Many other factors can affect the temperature, and therefore the resulting density according to the gas law.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            If the Earth’s atmosphere had no greenhouse gases, the sun would heat the surface and this would induce convection. This would occur very rapidly (in a matter of minutes) and there would be no chance for an isothermal atmosphere to form. Since there is no way to radiate away the heat, the atmosphere would become hotter and hotter. As it gets hotter the height of the atmosphere will increase and the entire atmosphere will get thinner and thinner. I think a lot of the atmosphere would get blown off into space. That is quite different that an isothermal atmosphere.

            The Earth has always had water, which is a greenhouse gas, which is why the above scenario has never occurred.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Forgot to mention in the last message, there will be no clouds, so the intensity of radiation reaching the surface will be much higher. Still, the surface will moderate this somewhat by emitting thermal IR. The no greenhouse atmosphere will still be much higher and thinner than the present atmosphere.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            And one final note. Your hypothetical isothermal atmosphere can only exist if the surface over which it exists is flat, has a uniform albedo, and is not rotating.

            If the surface is curved (say spherical), it will have a non-uniform heating since the sun’s rays will strike it at different angles, leading to different rates of surface heating. That means adjacent portions of the isothermal atmosphere will have different surface temperatures, which means the isothermal atmosphere cannot exist over any distance. It will be quickly destroyed by horizontal heat flows that will lead quickly to vertical heat flows.

            If the surface has spatially varying albedos, exactly the same problem arises.

            If planet is rotating, non-uniform, time-dependent heating will occur, leading to horizontal flows, cyclonic motion, and so forth that quickly will cause vertical heat flows.

            In short, the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere is possible only in the one-dimensional and static case.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Since three weeks have passed with no reply to my post, it is worthwhile to add some more comments.

            What is the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere that would exist on Earth if it had no greenhouse gases?

            To be isothermal it must have the same temperature from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. It must have the same temperature from equator to the poles. It must have the same temperature at noon and at midnight. It must have the same temperature over dark water and over white sand. It must have the same temperature in winter and in summer. In the real world none of these conditions could ever be met. And if these conditions are not met, then we are no longer talking about an isothermal atmosphere.

            In addition, the hypothetical isothermal Earth would also have to have the same albedo with and without greenhouse gases in order for the top of the atmosphere temperatures to be 255 K in both cases. This can only mean that the IPCC isothermal atmosphere has clouds, but clouds cannot form in an isothermal atmosphere – a vertical temperature gradient is required. And clouds require water, a greenhouse gas, which presumably are absent from this strange isothermal atmosphere. Even worse, this 255 K isothermal atmosphere has oceans that never freeze over.

            In short, the hypothetical isothermal atmosphere at 255 K cannot exist on a spherical rotating planet. Yet this nonsense atmosphere is used to justify the hypothetical 33 K warming due to greenhouse gases.

            As soon as there is any horizontal temperature gradient, horizontal flows leading to convergence and divergence of air masses will occur and that will then lead to convection and vertical temperature gradients.

            The IPCC greenhouse theory is seriously flawed and looks to be completely wrong.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            I’ve been traveling much of the last month and didn’t want to add a reply weeks after yours. But I see you are still interested in carrying this on.

            You say: “Since there is no way to radiate away the heat, the atmosphere would become hotter and hotter.”

            NO!!! As soon as the bottom of the atmosphere matches the temperature of the surface, it stops absorbing energy from the surface. If it is hotter than the surface, it transfers energy TO the surface. This often happens after sundown.

            When the surface radiates energy away to space better than the atmosphere, the atmosphere will transfer energy down to the surface. This is actually a pretty common occurrence even on earth. When the absolute humidity is low and there are no clouds, as often happens in winter, you get this situation.

            When this happens, you get what the meteorologists call a temperature inversion. This means there is a positive lapse rate (temperature increasing with altitude). It is very common on still, clear, winter nights in isolated valleys. I have seen it multiple times for California’s huge Central Valley. It occurs for months EVERY winter over Antartica in the long winter night there.

            And your theories cannot explain that.

            You miss my point about the isothermal atmosphere. One of the implications of YOUR analysis is that a thermodynamically isolated atmosphere in equilibrium would have a vertical temperature gradient. Standard physics, as shown by Maxwell, and explained by Feynman and others, shows that this would be in gross violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            Of course, on a rotating, spherical planet, no part of the atmosphere would ever be in equilibrium, BUT…

            A transparent atmosphere has no way of transferring energy to or from space. It can only transfer energy to or from the surface. In the absence of any long term trends, it much transfer as much energy TO the surface as it gets FROM the surface.

            Considering the day/night cycle in a transparent atmosphere: during the day, the surface absorbs solar radiation and transfers energy to the atmosphere. This can set up a negative lapse rate with updward convection. But at night, the surface radiates energy to space through the transparent atmosphere, and the atmosphere transfers energy to the surface, with a positive lapse rate (and downward convection).

            You would get similar convection cells with the tropical-to-polar differential. But in both the day/night and tropical/polar cases, there would be symmetry, with the positive and negative lapse rates matching overall.

            Contrast this with the case of the earth’s (and that of every other planet we know) atmosphere, with absorptive/emissive gases. Much of the radiation to space is from high in the atmosphere (as confirmed by satellite measurements). With the atmosphere (most of the time) absorbing energy primarily at low altitudes and emitting energy primarily at high altitudes, THIS IS WHAT CREATES THE NEGATIVE LAPSE RATE WE MOST COMMONLY SEE. (Gravity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.)

            And as I have already pointed out, even if you were to be correct about the gravity-only cause of the lapse rate, you still cannot explain the huge power imbalance at the surface. The earth and its atmosphere absorb about 240 W/m2 from solar radiation, averaged over time and area (integrated, if you prefer the more technical term).

            But the surface emits about 500 W/m2, 400 from radiation alone, again averaged/integrated over time and area. These numbers are from real measurements, known to within a few percent.

            But no one, even the worst alarmist, thinks the surface is out of balance by more than 1 W/m2. So where does the extra 260 W/m2 the surface needs to stay in approximate balance come from?

            Even granting a gravity-only negative lapse rate, your analysis would require a 260 W/m2 downward power transfer through INCREASING temperatures. That is as blatant a 2nd Law violation as one could imagine.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Attributing the 33 K warming solely to greenhouse gases is simplistic and wrong. It is based upon one-dimensional static thinking with lots of boundary conditions arbitrarily and unphysically fixed that cannot in reality be fixed. The Earth’s atmosphere and surface is a 3-D, moving, and dynamic system. Any boundary condition that leads to horizontal energy flows will almost immediately lead to vertical energy flows and a vertical temperature gradient that will be adiabatic (that is, conserves energy). Note that there is no need to consider thermal radiation, just as the Loschmidt equation states. The numbers you quote are only valid for an atmosphere containing clouds which would be absent in a greenhouse gas free atmosphere. The upward thermal flux at the surface would be nearly the same as the upward flux at the top of the atmosphere in the absence of greenhouse gases.

            As I have tried to explain above, in the simplest manner that I can, convection will arise in an atmosphere independent of its composition.

            The proper order of calculations is:
            1. Convection will be the primary cause of a vertical temperature gradient.
            2. This temperature gradient will be reduced by evaporation at the surface and condensation higher up.
            3. A third order and minor effect will be a slight steepening of the vertical temperature gradient by greenhouse gases. For a doubling of CO2, one can expect an added surface warming of a few tenths of a degree at the most, but, in any case, so small as to be hard to distinguish from zero.

            There is no point in further discussion.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Douglas:

            I’m afraid you are getting things completely backwards.

            If a section of the atmosphere receives energy from the bottom (e.g. from solar energy absorbed by the surface), the bottom will warm first, establishing a negative lapse rate. Conduction will work to reduce the lapse rate, but because the density of gas, and therefore the conductivity, is low, significant negative lapse rates can build up.

            If the “environmental” (actual physical) lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate for the gas, this is called an “unstable” lapse rate, and convection will start. This is very basic physics and meteorology.

            Convection is a RESULT of a significant lapse rate, not a CAUSE of it. It works to REDUCE the lapse rate, not to increase it. As I said, you have the direction of causality backwards.

            I have been mentioning the case of temperature inversions, and you have not even tried to grapple with the issue. In your analysis, these would not exist. But it occurs whenever the atmosphere loses energy primarily from the bottom. It occurs on earth when the sun is not shining and the atmosphere is quite transparent to IR (i.e. low absolute humidity). How do you explain the months-long inversion that happens over all of Antarctica EVERY winter?

            On a planet with a transparent atmosphere, positive lapse rates (inversions) would be as common as negative lapse rates. But on earth, negative lapse rates are far more common because of the high opacity of the atmosphere to IR (aka the “greenhouse” effect).

            You completely miss my point about the power flows on earth when you say “the numbers you quote are only valid for an atmosphere containing clouds…” Irrelevant! These are real numbers, and the surface emits power at a FAR higher rate (~500 W/m2 on average) than is absorbed from the sun (~240 W/m2 on average). Where does the additional ~260 W/m2 come from?

            N&Z claim it is atmospheric pressure. But for mechanical pressure to transfer power, it must cause movement (Work = Force * Distance, basic high school physics). And it does not! That was my original point. And you have made no attempt to argue against it.

            Also, I mentioned high-speed centrifuges. If you are correct, we would see very high temperature gradients in these. None have ever been observed. Can you provide any evidence here?

          • spike55 says:

            “(Work = Force * Distance, basic high school physics). ”

            Which seems to be about as far as you got.

            There is a downward force from air mass and gravity at any point in the atmosphere.

            There MUST be an equal and opposite force to hol;d that air up there, or it would all come rushing down.

            Where does that force come from Ed?

            How is the force created without using any energy.?

            I suppose you think it requires no energy to hold a barbell at arm’s length !!

            Its stationary, afterall , so no work is being done.

          • Johansen says:

            Go here, https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/legacy/gas-properties , put some gas in the container, increase the pressure, observe temperature. Now start over, pump gas in the container, then add some gravity, observe the kinetic energy-gradient and temperature of particles in the container

          • Ed Bo says:

            Spike:

            I see you never even got to high school physics, because you have absolute no idea of the distinction between force, energy, and power.

            My table does a fine job of holding up my barbells without any power source.

            I have asked you before for particulars, and you have always evaded the questions, but I will try one more time:

            How much steady-state power is required for a surface (a cement floor if you want to use a particular example) to hold up a 100-kg barbell (no motion)?

            Is the power transfer from the floor to the barbell, or the barbell to the floor?

    • gregole says:

      N and Z gave …. a bad name.

      Says who? If I recall, they simply showed the relationship between atmospheric density and temperature. So what? Wouldn’t you at least give them partial credit for their nice graphing and demonstration of lapse-rate?

    • kyle_fouro says:

      Either the relationship exists or it doesn’t.

    • Rosco says:

      You can easily verify the data presented in NASA’s Planetary Fact sheets by application of the Universal Ideal Gas Law.

      Take the relevant data from each Planet listed here – https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html.

      Use PV = nRT – use unit volume and calculate the answers as shown here :-

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/83y0ew6jv0x80dy/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0

      Why is it that the answers coincide with the listed data if the idea of gas compression defining temperature is nonsense ?

      After all the study of gas laws lead to the concept of absolute zero and the advancements of science that followed.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Good grief, Rosco!

        That analysis you cite has no idea what the ideal gas law means or how to use it. They completely botch the use of both the V and n terms. And they have no clue as to what the law fundamentally means.

        Yes, the ideal gas law will hold over a wide variety of conditions, but it says nothing about what “caused” the particular set of P, V, and T values in a particular conditions.

  6. Brian D says:

    I guess my question concerning pressure/temperature relationship would be in light of weather patterns. High and low pressure systems bring a variety of temperature scenarios, depending on season and location.

    • Robert Austin says:

      The pressure-temperature- net impinging radiation relationship for the surface temperature of a rocky planet would be just a crude first order relationship. Then we get into the chaotic complexity of a planet with vast quantities of H2O in three phases, the biosphere, planetary motions etc. But we do know enough to laugh at Hansen’s diagnosis of CO2 being responsible for the alleged “runaway” greenhouse effect on Venus.

  7. Ed Bo says:

    N & Z are a bit cagy about what they think the underlying mechanism would be for the relationship they “found” (or tortured from the data), but they at least imply that it is the pressure itself that explains the elevated temperature levels.

    But if you understand the implications of basic high school physics, you would realize that pressure alone cannot elevate surface temperature. Basic physics teaches us that for a force (pressure times area) to transfer energy, it must cause motion (i.e. act over a distance). So the static pressure of the atmosphere on the non-moving surface transfers no energy to the surface.

    (If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power. But for some strange reason, the dam engineers insist on letting water from the reservoirs pass through the turbines to create electrical power.)

    But increased surface pressure of an atmosphere of a given composition means increased total “optical thickness” (opacity). This is like adding additional layers of radiative insulation. But this is the “greenhouse effect”.

    • RAH says:

      Yet when I look at Venus through my 10″ reflector telescope I see nothing more than a brilliant featureless white ball. Typically in the moonless night sky when Venus is up it’s luminescence is adequate to see shadows. Talk about Albedo! The atmosphere of Venus has it in spades.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Your point would be?

        Seriously, I don’t see what your comment has to do with my arguments.

        • RAH says:

          That Opacity your talking about works both ways is the point. The atmosphere is so thick that the surface temperature remains pretty much constant from equator to poles and be it night or day.

          • Ed Bo says:

            The opacity of these atmospheres is greater to longwave infrared than to shortwave solar radiation. (That is the whole point of the greenhouse metaphor — which is just a metaphor.)

            So the atmospheres primarily gain energy in the lower altitudes, and lose energy primarily from the higher altitudes. Increased thickness of the atmosphere increases LW opacity more than SW opacity, which leads to higher surface temperatures.

          • RAH says:

            Up higher where lighter gases are found under less pressure there are winds well over 200 mph. That is the area where there is actual weather. But below the higher surface temperatures that don’t vary hardly at all. There is no “run away green house effect”. It is a constant. A constant maintained by the pressure from the thick CO2 atmosphere.

          • Ed Bo says:

            By what physical mechanism does the physical pressure of the atmosphere transfer power to the surface that can maintain its very high temperatures and match its very high power losses at these temperatures?

          • David A says:

            “By what physical mechanism does the physical pressure …”

            Yes, perhaps an ill formed question based on a poorly or wrongly stated observation of disparate T recorded on planets of disparate atmospheric pressure.

            Perhaps we start with this law,
            ” There are ONLY two ways to change the energy content of a system ( system for planets equals earth – oceans – atmosphere) in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in residence time of energy within the system”

            So ALL changes of total energy in a system not due to input flux
            ( solar cycle changes and other potential solar flux) are due to a change of residence time of energy within the system.

            So, per GHG theory, a GHG delays departing LWIR energy via redirecting some of that energy back towards the surface, increasing residence time of a portion of the energy input, thus raising T slightly.
            ( more on the complexity of this later)

            Now additional atmospheric matter, regardless of composition, can in a disparate way increase energy, also via a increase of said energies residence time, not due to pressure, but due to the capacity to hold more energy per square meter before reaching conductive convective equilibrium. ( conduction is a much faster molecular transfer process relative to radiation in a denser atmosphere) Thus, even though individual molecules may all be vibrating at the same rate, the denser molecules will impart a higher T – more total energy per square meter, or more equally vibrating molecules ( T.D.E. thermodynamic equilibrium) striking a thermometers glass transferring more energy to the mercury then fewer molecules vibrating at the same rate higher in the atmosphere.

            The residence time increase in the denser atmosphere is due to the capacity of individual molecules to hold energy; increase the numbers of molecules and the conduction process within each square meter is slowed down while input continues, thus increased total energy per square meter within the system.

            Oceans are a massive increase in residence time and total energy within the system. In terms of residence time they are a G.H.L.
            ( Greenhouse liquid) Instead of affecting LWIR, they affect SW radiation with potential residence time extending out to 1000 years.

            Now a curious thing happens with atmospheric GHGs. They not only delay the exit of radiative energy, they also accelerate it. How? Well atmospheric W/V also absorbs certain incoming SW energy, ( a non trivial amount) preventing it form reaching the GHL oceans, thereby greatly decreasing the residence time of energy in the entire earth’s system. Also in the upper atmosphere increased GHG
            molecules, relative to an equal numbers of non G.H.G. molecules which do not radiate said energy,
            decrease the residence time of that energy at that height in the atmosphere. Thus GHG molecules can both increase and decrease residence time, and thus total energy within the system. (In other ways as well via affects on conduction and convection)

            Please note the phrase “energy”, vs “temperature”, as they are two different things. Also note that the residence time of energy within the system depends on two things; the W/L of the incoming energy, and the materials encountered. ( another law?)

            The materials encountered often have dual affects, both increasing and decreasing residence time, as in the given example of GHG doing both, and likewise an increase in atmospheric density can increase residence time, or through reflective radiation, say clouds, decrease residence time.

            So the interaction between disparate W/L isolation and the materials encountered affecting residence time via affects on conduction, convection and radiation, is, IMV, extremely complex and above our current ability to accurately quantify warming and cooling due to CO2 flux.

          • Ed Bo says:

            David:

            See my (belated) response at the end of the comment thread.

    • Johansen says:

      Okay Ed, but the sneering title of the Washington Post article basically says, “Two scientists actually DARED to conduct research without going through US, the High Priests and Self-Appointed Custodians of Truth. It’s a good thing they were CAUGHT. They’re lucky they did it during off-hours, otherwise they’d be FIRED from the Forest Service.” It’s just snark and elitism on parade

    • Robert Austin says:

      Ed Bo,
      Certainly the Diesel analogy is wrong-headed just as the greenhouse analogy is a poor analogy for the action of “greenhouse” gases. The lower troposphere is almost completely opaque and to long wave radiation except for a couple of narrow windows. So additional greenhouse gases in the lower troposphere have negligible effect. Surface temperature is governed by the lapse rate over the height to the tropopause, the region where radiative gases can radiate an appreciable amount of energy directly to space. And the tropopause occurs where the atmospheric pressure is in the region of 1/10 bar. Go to the altitude of 1/10 bar in the Venusian atmosphere and you will find temperatures not radically different than those at the tropopause in our atmosphere. The difference is that on Venus the lapse rate extends down from 1/10 bar to 93 bar, thus the hellish surface temperature of Venus. So the scientist’s chart is likely correct to the first order but maybe their explanation or derivation is flawed.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Robert:

        The idea that thicker atmospheres lead to relatively elevated surface temperatures is nothing new. If that is all N&Z show, it would be like publishing a paper saying apples fall to the earth.

        • Robert Austin says:

          I agree that the idea is nothing new. The question is why did the authors feel it necessary to publish under pseudonyms? I doubt that the reason was because the authors thought their paper to be excruciatingly bad.

    • Former95B says:

      Ed:

      Would you care to comment on the countless accepted “studies” that violate ALL of high school physics?

      Or are you just being an elitist putz?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Former95B:

        I yield to no one in my scorn for the math that Mann used to create his hockey stick, where he calculated the variance of a data set about the mean of a different data set (really a subset), then used this exaggerated variance to overweight a couple of data sets that produced the blade of the stick.

        He did not disclose this “unusual” technique, and when finally called on it, he had the audacity to claim it was the “modern method”. (I wish I could have gotten away with this in my math courses, but my professors would have laughed me out of class.)

        I could cite many more of these problems with “establishment” climate science.

        But the way to defeat bad math and science is with better math and science, not worse.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power”

      Water is basically compressible.

      Pressurised air does transfer energy

      The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature

      • Ed Bo says:

        How does pressurized air transfer energy without creating motion?

        An isothermal atmosphere also obeys the ideal gas law.

      • Robert Austin says:

        “The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.”

        No, no, no, a thousand times no. The lapse rate is the result of active vertical convection. A static atmosphere with no convection nor radiation from the top of atmosphere would end up with a uniform vertical temperature profile.
        Also, I assume that you meant to say that water is basically in-compressible.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “A static atmosphere with no convection nor radiation from the top of atmosphere would end up with a uniform vertical temperature profile.”

          Never seen ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.. a figment of some mindless brain-fart

          YES, sorry you are unaware

          but

          The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself .

          The lapse rate CAUSES the vertical convection

          • Robert Austin says:

            I guess we differ on the basic physics. You also disagree with Dr. Roy Spencer among other noted climate/weather scientists. Well, good luck with your hypothesis.

          • AndyG55 says:

            CO2 GHE has never been measured or observed anywhere on the planet.

            The is no empirical evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere.

            gravity/pressure based thermal gradient… measured every day many thousands of times.

  8. Rosco says:

    According to NASA – and I quote –

    “The temperature in the clouds of Jupiter is about minus 145 degrees Celsius (minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit). The temperature near the planet’s center is much, much hotter. The core temperature may be about 24,000 degrees Celsius (43,000 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s hotter than the surface of the sun!”

    There is absolutely zero possibility of anything even remotely representing a “Greenhouse Effect” on Jupiter.

    Again I quote NASA – see Planetary Fact Sheets :-

    Solar irradiance 50.26 W/m2

    Atmospheric composition (by volume, uncertainty in parentheses)
    Major: Molecular hydrogen (H2) – 89.8% (2.0%); Helium (He) – 10.2% (2.0%)
    Minor (ppm): Methane (CH4) – 3000 (1000); Ammonia (NH3) – 260 (40);
    Hydrogen Deuteride (HD) – 28 (10); Ethane (C2H6) – 5.8 (1.5);
    Water (H2O) – 4 (varies with pressure)
    Aerosols: Ammonia ice, water ice, ammonia hydrosulfide

    Almost no “greenhouse gases” and solar radiation equivalent to a Stefan-Boltzmann calculated temperature of ~172 K yet believers like Ed Bo claim the greenhouse effect explains the temperature of 24,000°C NASA claim exists deep in the atmosphere while the compression of a gas cannot ?

    Seriously – what next ? Pixies at the bottom of the garden ??

    • Ed Bo says:

      Rosco:

      I don’t believe the greenhouse effect explains the earth core temperature of several thousand degrees either.

      The outer gas giant planets emit more power to space than they receive from the sun. (This is not true of the inner “rocky” planets.) This means either they are still cooling substantially from their initial compression, or they have a significant internal energy source, or both.

  9. Rosco says:

    Ed Bo says “But if you understand the implications of basic high school physics, you would realize that pressure alone cannot elevate surface temperature.”

    He then, absurdly, says “If static pressure could transfer energy, we would not need to let water out of dams to create hydroelectric power”

    Come on Ed – don’t you know the laws of Physics of gases do not apply to liquids or solids and what does generating electricity have to do with anything being discussed ?

    That aside, this guy seems to disagree with your expert knowledge of high school physics :-

    https://www.universetoday.com/35664/temperature-of-the-planets/

    I’ll quote him :-

    Jupiter:

    “At the point where atmospheric pressure is ten times what it is on Earth, the temperature reaches 21°C, what we Earthlings consider a comfortable “room temperature”. At the core of the planet, the temperature is much higher, reaching as much as 35,700°C – hotter than even the surface of the Sun.”

    Saturn:

    “And much like Jupiter, the temperature in the upper atmosphere of Saturn is cold, but increases closer to the center of the planet. At the core of the planet, temperatures are believed to reach as high as 11,700 °C”

    Uranus:

    “Much like the other gas giants in our Solar System, the core of Uranus gives off far more heat than is absorbed from the Sun. However, with a core temperature of approximately 4,737 °C”

    Neptune:

    “With temperatures dropping to -218°C in Neptune’s upper atmosphere, the planet is one of the coldest in our Solar System. And like all of the gas giants, Neptune has a much hotter core, which is around 7,000°C.”

    Now NASA agrees with him on Jupiter having a temperature which cannot be explained by solar radiation or any other explanation except gravitational compression of a gaseous atmosphere which I showed above gives the answers NASA list using PV = nRT.

    The solar radiation or any mythological “greenhouse effect” cannot explain these facts.

    The funny thing is the “Universe Today” guy believes in the “greenhouse effect” and even quotes it as the reason for Venus having a standing energy of 16,728 W/m2 (sigma x 737^4) from an input of 130 W/m2 (using NASA 2601/4 x 0.2 – the albedo of Venus is apparently 0.8 which is why it is so bright in the night sky) yet he lists the very high temperatures for the gas giants in full knowledge there can be no greenhouse effect on any of them without even questioning the dogma ??

    If you are correct how do you explain the information readily accepted as right about the internal temperatures of the gas giants ?

    Or how do you explain that one can find the meteorological data for many places on Earth and calculate the atmospheric surface temperature using the gas laws alone ?

    Try it – you may learn something.

    I don’t claim this is even right but it is damned amazing how accurately you can get the measured data values and calculate temperatures and your criticisms mean nothing because you cannot explain the causation of the facts.

    • Ed Bo says:

      Rosco:

      You say: “Come on Ed – don’t you know the laws of Physics of gases do not apply to liquids or solids and what does generating electricity have to do with anything being discussed ?”

      This is one of your funniest statements yet! I just reviewed my physics textbooks on work transfers (Work = Force * Distance) and found no exception for gases.

      What does generating electricity have to do with this? I’ll break it down. Many people believe the static pressure of the atmosphere, by pressure alone, can maintain surface temperatures higher than if the pressure were less.

      At higher surface temperatures, the surface emits more power. So to maintain these higher temperatures, the pressure must therefore continuously transfer power to the surface. So let’s take a look at how this might be done.

      Pressure can transfer power by creating mechanical work (which could be dissipated into thermal energy). Pressure times area is force. And force on an object times the distance over which that force is transferred is the energy transferred to that object.

      But if the distance is zero, the energy transfer is zero. And the surface of the earth is not moving. So the pressure of the atmosphere is not transferring any energy to the surface, and therefore cannot explain the “elevated” temperatures seen.

      The above analysis is valid for solids, liquids, and gases. You don’t like my hydroelectric example, so I’ll give you another one.

      The high pressure of gas in an automotive engine piston transfers energy to the piston head. But it does so by moving the piston head. Your analysis claims that the energy could be transferred with no motion, that is, without the engine spinning.

      • AndyG55 says:

        So a building transfers no energy to the ground, is that what you are saying, Ed ?

        Therefore, it would not matter what the ground was made of, correct.

        • KevinK says:

          Dead Blow has a very bad understanding of physics… Must be a teacher, they only use physics on blackboards….

          “So the pressure of the atmosphere is not transferring any energy to the surface, and therefore cannot explain the “elevated” temperatures seen.”

          Never heard of a glider (the planes without engines that folks ride in and pilot) Dead Blow….. How does that their plane that is heavier than air (throw one up in the air and see how long it stays there) manage to RISE if no work is being performed by the air pressure gradients ????

          Sure hope Dead Blow is not actually teaching anywhere….

          • AndyG55 says:

            Junior high, maybe !

            Probably thinks it doesn’t take any work to hold a 40lb longbow fully drawn.

            Every structure build by man is based on the FACT that work is still being done when a structure is stationary.

            The concept of “internal work” is foreign to many people, yet kinetic energy and strain energy have the same units as the “work” defined by basic physics.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Kevin:

            You say: “How does that their plane that is heavier than air (throw one up in the air and see how long it stays there) manage to RISE if no work is being performed by the air pressure gradients ????”

            Gliders only RISE if the air is rising as well (updraft), and they rise less quickly than the rising air. If the air is static they fall.

            I do teach at a major university from time to time, and I would have no hesitation in flunking you out. I am thankful that the admissions office and the freshman math/science weeding out process has never presented me with a single student as confused as you.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You say: “Every structure build by man is based on the FACT that work is still being done when a structure is stationary.”

            Absolutely false. You do not understand the most basic concept of work, which has a very particular meaning in physics.

            If work is being done continuously, there would be an ongoing power transfer, and this would require a continuous power source. What is this continuous power source for a building???

          • AndyG55 says:

            “What is this continuous power source for a building???”

            GRAVITY,

            roflmao !

            really Ed ???

            “So a building transfers no energy to the ground, is that what you are saying, Ed ?

            Therefore, it would not matter what the ground was made of, correct.
            :

            I notice you avoided some simple questions.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Andy:

          You still maintain your fundamental confusion between energy and power.

          A building sitting statically on the ground provides no ongoing transfer of energy to the ground. When it is set onto the ground it can provide a one-time transfer of energy, but not continuous power.

          If you set a 1 kg mass on the ground and it compresses the ground 1 mm, you can get an energy transfer to the ground, possibly represented in elastic strain energy, of:

          E = 1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.001 m = 0.0098 J

          But this is a one-time transfer. You confuse it with a continuous power transfer. Rookie mistake.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “A building sitting statically on the ground provides no ongoing transfer of energy to the ground. ”

            ROFLMAO

            !!! seriously !!!

            Tell that to the foundations.

          • Robert Austin says:

            Ed Bo,
            I agree with you. AndyG55 needs to take an introductory physics course where he would learn that Energy = force x distance.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I see that poor Robert has also dipped out after junior high.

            Stick to the very basic levels Robert.

            It suits you.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Robert:

            Andy clearly is completely confused on the difference between force, energy, and power.

            In Andy’s world, hydroelectric plants could generate electrical energy without letting water out from behind the dam just by “gravitational power”. In his world, a chair would need a power source just to hold up your weight.

            Mediocre high school students I’ve worked with understand these points quickly. But they are completely beyond Andy’s comprehension.

          • AndyG55 says:

            What is stored energy measured in Ed?

            No wonder you are only allowed to work with junior high school students !!!

            Even then, DK effect.

            Seems you are saying a balsa wood chair is the same an oak chair.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “In Andy’s world, hydroelectric plants could generate electrical energy without letting water out from behind the dam just by “gravitational power”. “

            You have a vivid imagination. Due to your lack of further education, it all you have.

            At least you know what potential energy is.

            That is small start.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You ask: “What is stored energy measured in Ed?”

            Joules. But I’m asking about power, measured in Watts.

            And you keep confusing both of these with force, measured in Newtons.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Many people believe the static pressure of the atmosphere, by pressure alone, can maintain surface temperatures higher than if the pressure were less”

        And they would be totally correct.

        Mean free path is reduce at higher density, therefore temperature increases.

        You need to dig deeper than BASIC schoolboy physics text books, Ed.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Andy:

          You say: “Mean free path is reduce at higher density, therefore temperature increases.”

          Sorry, but temperature is not at all related to mean free path. You can have high mean free path at high temperatures, and low mean free path at low temperatures.

          You need to dig into BASIC schoolboy physics textbooks for the first time, which you obviously never have done.

          • David A says:

            Ed, curious as to your thoughts on this cogent comment above…
            https://realclimatescience.com/2018/06/science-in-the-16th-century/#comment-104889

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You need to dig into BASIC schoolboy physics textbooks “

            poor Ed, It is obvious that BASIC high school texts is all you have ever managed to read.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            I just checked back into my Newtonian Mechanics textbook from when I studied physics at MIT (heard of it?), and it agrees with everything I have said, and disagrees with all of your claims.

            But I’ll give you a chance. You claim that a building sitting statically on the ground is constantly transferring power to the ground due to gravity.

            To make it specific, let’s say it is a 10-metric-ton (10,000kg) building in earth’s gravity (9.8m/s2) sitting on a granite base. What is the steady-state rate of ongoing power transfer from the building to the earth, in Watts? If the answer would be any different for a base of sand, please show that answer as well.

            And please show your work, as I did above.

          • Nutation_discombobulation says:

            What has this to do with Zeller and Nikolovs’ assertions other than a chest puffing and thumping exercise.
            Their conclusion rested upon the interaction of surface pressure AND solar radiation.

            The relationship however small or tortured deserves serious investigation. Insolation proxy to stratospheric, and EM effects upon clouds has been seriously downplayed.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yawn

            Learn some structural analysis, Bo-Zo

          • AndyG55 says:

            BTW, an updated version of the Nikolov, Zeller paper was republished in 2017

            Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. Doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112 (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Eb, the whole AGW farce is built on sand, quicksand.

            You are welcome to go and build on sand if you wish.

            The force transferred from the foundations to the building must equal the weight force of the building….. or else.

            Where does that force come from, Ed. ?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Ed must be supa-doopa man.

            He can lift 100kg above his head, and so long as he holds it steady and not moving, he doesn’t have to expend any energy to keep it there.

            Amazing !

          • Ed Bo says:

            Andy:

            You say: “Yawn. Learn some structural analysis, Bo-Zo”

            I well aware of structural analysis. And from that analysis, I conclude you have no idea what you are talking about.

            You also say: “The force transferred from the foundations to the building must equal the weight force of the building….. or else. Where does that force come from, Ed. ?”

            I wasn’t asking about the force. I gave you the force in the problem statement. I was asking about the power transfer induced by that force.

            And you keep dodging the question. If it’s so obvious, it should be trivial for you to answer. But you obviously don’t have a clue.

            Like a struggling high school physics student, you have no idea what the difference between force, power, and energy is.

          • Ed Bo says:

            ND:

            This has everything to do with N&Z’s assertions. They claim that atmospheric pressure by itself can cause elevated surface temperatures for a given amount of insolation.

            I’ve given it all the attention it deserves, which is not much.

  10. Ed Bo says:

    David:

    I never see the concept of “residence time” in any serious thermodynamic analysis, and I don’t consider it a useful (or even correct) concept. I believe it is much better just to keep track of all of the energy inputs and outputs for a system, as you are taught to do at the beginning of any formal thermodynamics class.

    The direct analogy is financial accounting based on “conservation of money”. You keep track of the inputs and outputs in balancing your checkbook, but there is no concept of the “residence time”of money in your bank account.

    For any system — often called a control mass — the 1st Law equation for the energy balance of the system can be expressed as:

    DeltaEnergy = Sum(EnergyInputs) – Sum(EnergyOutputs)

    This is true for any period of time. Applying it to an infinitesimal time increment, we get:

    dEnergy/dTime = Sum(PowerInputs) – Sum(PowerOutputs)

    We know from satellite measurements that the earth/atmosphere system is absorbing about 240 W/m2 from the sun’s radiation, averaged over time and area, so 240 * Aearth (surface area of the earth) Watts. This is the only significant power input (geothermal is negligible).

    We also know from satellite measurements that the earth/atmosphere system is emitting about 240 * Aearth Watts to space by longwave infrared. This is the only significant power output.

    So the earth/atmosphere system is in at least approximate balance. (No one thinks we’re out of balance by more than 1 W/m2. Even James Hansen estimates the imbalance at 0.85 W/m2.)

    But looking at the earth itself, our measurements say that the earth’s surface is emitting about 500 * Aearth Watts on an ongoing basis. Almost 400 W/m2 of this is (gross) radiative output, the other hundred being evaporative and conductive/convective output.

    But the most power the earth’s surface can be getting from the sun is 240 * Aearth Watts (even less directly by the surface, as some is absorbed by the atmosphere). And no one thinks the earth’s surface is out of balance by more than 1 W/m2. So where do we get the 260 W/m2 to bring the surface into balance?

    Many of the people here think that the atmospheric pressure (regardless of composition) can supply this power. But even the most basic analysis shows that this cannot be the case. The force on the earth from atmospheric pressure is (Pressure * Area). The energy transfer from a force is the amount of force times the distance over which the force causes motion. And the distance is zero, because the surface is not moving inward. So any amount of force times zero distance is zero work energy transfer. And the power transfer is dWork/dTime, so that is also zero.

    And that is the only physics you need to know to reject the idea that static pressure can transfer power to the earth.

    So what can close the gap? Well, so far we have not taken into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere. We do know that several atmospheric molecules absorb LWIR, and that they can radiate it in all directions, including downward toward the surface.

    We have good measurements that this downward radiation has a power flux density averaging over 300 W/m2, with the bulk of the power coming in the emission bands of H2O and CO2. This does close the gap, and put the surface in at least approximate balance. There is no other plausible explanation.

    Keep in mind that higher thermal capacitance can reduce the rate of temperature change in response to input or output changes, but will NOT affect steady state temperature (just how long it takes to get to a new steady state).

    I emphasize that this analysis says almost nothing about the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

  11. Allen Eltor says:

    Ed Bo why don’t you show us all ONE OTHER refractive insulating material reducing the energy to an object, causing it’s temperature to rise.

    Why don’t you show us YOU able to calculate the temperature of the planete’s global atmosphere and reaching the KNOWN correct values used for calibrating the planet’s instruments.?

    Why don’t you show us all ONE instance in ALL thermodynamics of a COLD nitrogen-oxygen bath RAISING the temperature of the light warmed object it

    causes nearly 30% less light to warm,

    then conduction chills being many degrees colder than the object it’s cooling.

  12. Allen Eltor says:

    The story Ed Bo tells is simple: a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.

    He denies the proper calculation of the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere because he denies there is a mandatory 33 degrees’ compression warming as PART of that KNOWN CORRECT atmospheric temperature.

    He isn’t able to name a single cold turbulent fluid bath in all thermodynamics warming the object it’s conduction chilling.

    HES the one who knows zero regarding the Ideal Gas Law and he’s never worked in a field measuring gas temperatures in his life.

    He also hasn’t ever completed a class on gas temperature calculation or he’d KNOW that *PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE are DIRECTLY RELATED.

    It’s infantile the stuff he’s saying.

  13. Allen Eltor says:

    Show me one person you have convinced a cold nitrogen-oxygen bath warmed the object it conduction cooled.
    ==================
    June 24, 2018 at 8:22 pm
    Mediocre high school students I’ve worked with…”
    ==================
    We’ll all wait here, you come back with ONE person you have convinced that a cold nitrogen bath, warms a light warmed rock it chills.

  14. Allen Eltor says:

    I see you claiming you know someone who “doesn’t know anything about the Ideal Gas Law.”

    Show us all YOU using the LAW to CORRECTLY ARRIVE at the KNOWN GOOD

    Earth global Atmospheric temperature we use to calibrate instruments and warranty everything from outer ware to INSTRUMENTS probing outer space.

    Or YOU are utterly incompetent at application of the Ideal Gas Law, and the purest of fraud barking therm-0-billy hicks.

  15. Allen Eltor says:

    Outer *wear above. I’m in a moving car my wife and I are driving to Sacramento.

  16. Allen Eltor says:

    People like Ed Bo are such obvious fakes. He’s in here taking up for a story that BEGINS with solving the temperature of the global Atmosphere WRONG,
    and he’s not just completely CLUELESS about WHERE that mandatory 33 degree error AROSE,

    he’s barking that PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE aren’t DIRECTLY RELATED,

    WITH the

    E Q U A T I O N right there MOCKING his LUDICROUS BULLSH**.

    The EQUATION of the LAW is PV = nRT.

    This is the SIMPLEST expression of LAW
    of the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER.

    It’s the LAW you teach 5TH and 6TH graders FIRST because – GASES are EASIEST to REMEMBER the NATURE of.

    He’s in here in some sort deluded Euphoria, trying to bark to scientifically savvy physicists from around the world that

    PV= nRT
    STARING his LUDICROUS BULLSH** DOWN
    does not DIRECTLY relate
    PRESSURE
    to TEMPERATURE,
    with HIGHER pressure
    MANDATING higher TEMPERATURE
    in MYRIAD everyday gas temperature relationships.

    Someone who is an adult

    is trying to tell you all that – HE didn’t KNOW,

    PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE are DIRECTLY related – and that SITTING THERE at a TERMINAL with the
    E.Q.U.A.T.I.O.N. right there

    STARING him DOWN

    he DENIES in PUBLIC the LAW DEMANDING
    pressure and temperature’s
    DIRECT RELATIONSHIP.

    He tried to tell you that’s not one of the most COMMON
    of ALL

    FRESHMAN

    GAS

    MATTER/ENERGY
    TEST QUESTIONS:

    “Explain the relationship between VOLUME, PRESSURE, and TEMPERATURE.”

    This is FRESHMAN stuff! From your FIRST CLASS in MIDDLE SCHOOL not Jr college – in the FIFTH or SIXTH GRADE –

    and he’s in here denying it like he never heard of it?!?!?!

    And – it’s PATENTLY obvious,

    HE HASN’T.

    * * * *ANY ONE of YOU* * * *
    who has EVER
    taken a GAS matter-energy relationships test,

    * * * *RAISE YOUR HAND if ONE of the TEST QUESTIONS* * * *

    you had to ANSWER

    was NOT:

    “Explain the relationships between PRESSURE, VOLUME, and TEMPERATURE?”

    Anyone here EVER had to take ANY kind of test on GAS properties, and NOT had to answer that VERY question?

    SOMEONE come in here and TELL me: “Oh, no, I ain’t nevur HERD uh THAYuT, Allen, not NEVUR in AWL my YEARS of PHYSICS education herd uv INNIE
    BODIE
    EVUR
    sayin,
    innie
    thang
    LIKE THAT.”

    And what’s the VERY next question?

    “What is one of the real-world observations related to those relationships
    and WHY is it IMPORTANT in ENGINEERING and materials handling?”

    The answer –
    “As TEMPERATURE RISES so does PRESSURE, and VICE VERSA.”

    The NEXT question is – ”Why is this important?”

    The answer to that is

    “Most equipment handling compressible-phase fluids & gases,
    is of a ‘constant-volume’ design, or form factor,
    and even those which aren’t constant volume
    still have safe operating limits,

    and
    HIGHER TEMPERATURES
    MANDATING
    HIGHER PRESSURES

    can create dangerous and even fatal errors & accidents
    if this isn’t properly accounted for.”

    I want one of you people from INUIT country
    or the INTERIOR of the AMAZON
    to PROMPT this AUDIENCE to OUTRIGHT LAUGHTER,
    by TELLING us that “Oh yeah – I TOOK a CLASS in
    S.C.U.B.A,
    AERODYNAMICS,
    WELDING,
    AIR CONDITIONING,
    ROCKET MOTOR DESIGN,
    you NAME it –
    BAKING a f***g CAKE,”

    and we NEVER
    talked about the RELATIONSHIPS
    of PRESSURE, VOLUME, and TEMPERATURE,
    and how HIGHER TEMPERATURE begets HIGHER PRESSURE
    and VICE VERSA in real life almost everywhere. That NEVER came UP.”

    Watch what this Ed Bo HiCK says.

    Everyone here be reminded that when you were JUST a LITTLE KID,
    the
    VERY FIRST PHASE of MATTER you were TAUGHT about formally was

    compressible phase or GAS phase matter and WHY?

    BECAUSE the RULES are SO SIMPLE a 5TH grader
    can EASILY understand them.

    PV = nRT means that – the R part is ‘how much energy per mole of gas/mix”

    n

    obviously
    is the number moles you’re solving mass/energy for

    This leaves ONLY THREE other VARIABLES
    affecting GAS TEMPERATURES,
    and – since TEMPERATURE
    is ONE of em,

    even 5th and 6th graders,
    can keep track of the basics here.

    This ED BO … mentally ill person, has been in here for days, WEEKS,
    telling you all that – he never HEARD of this “PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE are RELATED.”

    HE NEVER HEARD of this.

    THEN you show him in the calculation of the temperature of ANY gas, the TEMPERATURE being a DIRECT FUNCTION of the PRESSURE, –

    and WITH the EQUATION MANDATING THESE THINGS THERE in his FACE

    he CROWS to ALL the WORLD – he never heard of ANY of that sh*t.

    I don’t care WHO he told you he is, HE’S a FRAUD barking FAKE.

    He’s never – OBVIOUSLY – I just REMINDED all you guys how BASIC it is –
    he’s NEVER heard in HIS LIFE of a RELATIONSHIP between PRESSURE
    and TEMPERATURE
    in GASES.

    “MAXWELL has PROVEN that PV -nRT isn’t REALLY the LAW that DIRECTLY ASSIGNS TEMPERATURE based in PRESSURE. Noe, YaW, it CAiN’T BEA!”

    What an ignorant Therm-0-Billy posing, fraud barking sociopath HicK

    to think someone wasn’t gonna come in
    nd call him down like snapping a Chihuahua back
    trying to gobble homeless peoples’ fecal deposits
    behind the C.V.S.

    See if he shows us all one other cold nitrogen bath making sensors show objects scrubbed of energy by it
    having their temperature rise, from such turbulent buffetings.

  17. Allen Eltor says:

    I put in the phrase
    “This leaves ONLY THREE other VARIABLES

    affecting GAS TEMPERATURES,”

    sorry;

    I meant to say “Even RELATED to GAS TEMPERATURE”

  18. Ed Bo says:

    Allen:

    If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn’t write in the style of an alcoholic schizophrenic. Just saying.

    And it also would be helpful if you displayed the most rudimentary understanding of the topics you discuss. Let’s take your treatment of the ideal gas law.

    The law (pV = nRT) relates 3 variables for a given amount of gas (n = constant). If you fix one of these, there are two left. So you have one equation in two unknowns. Anybody who remotely understood their middle school algebra knows this is not enough. But it is beyond you!

    So your argument that pressure and temperature are directly and proportionally related only holds for constant-volume situations (like some of the engineering applications you cite).

    But the atmosphere is NOT REMOTELY constant-volume. There is no lid on the atmosphere!

    The pressure at a point in the atmosphere is equivalent to the weight of the atmosphere above that point, regardless of the height (volume) of that column of the atmosphere. So atmospheric problems should be considered constant-pressure, not constant-volume.

    This is the reason chemists use “enthalpy” (energy + pressure/volume work) for unconfined reactions instead of just energy.

    I know keeping track of 3 variables instead of 2 is very difficult. But you really should try!

    (I have often noticed that the weaker students in a class apply an equation blindly without any idea of what the equation really means. You are a case in point. The ideal gas law expresses a relationship between several variables. It says nothing about causality. It simply says that if you can specify all but one of the variables, you can solve for the last.)

    As to your heat transfer rantings, I have a couple of simple experiments for you to try. First, stick your hands in a bath of ice water (at 0C) and hold them there as long as you can. Your hands get really cold, don’t they?

    Now move your hands into a bath of water at room temperature (~25C) — still colder than body temperature. Your hands end up warmer. This is true EVEN THOUGH the water is colder than your body temperature and the NET conduction is from your hands to the water.

    A simple example, and I have convinced many people of it (a trivial exercise). But you ridicule it!

    Next, try a radiative example. Take a simple kitchen infrared thermometer, open your freezer door and point it at the contents of the freezer. You will get a reading of about -18C. This reading comes from the lowering of the temperature of the sensor, and its resulting lower electrical resistance.

    Now quickly point it at the contents of your refrigerator. You will get a reading of about +2C. The higher level of radiation from the refrigerator increases the temperature of the sensor above what it was when pointing to the freezer.

    This is true EVEN THOUGH the refrigerator is colder than the sensor and the NET radiative heat transfer is from the sensor to the refrigerator! Your analysis says this cannot happen, but it does!

    So you may want to reserve your mocking tone for cases where you have even the most basic clue as to what is going on…

  19. Allen Eltor says:

    Wrong answer you illiterate f****g hick, there’s 33 degrees’ COMPRESSION WARMING in SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE.

    * * *THE FACT YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT’S TRUE is WHY PEOPLE are MOCKING your IGNORANT ASS to STOMACH-CRUNCHING LAUGHTER.* * *

    You ignorant dipshit HICK.

    As far as your OTHER deluded ramblings it’s more insipid RAMBLING from the HIGH SCHOOLER who DOESN’T KNOW PRESSURE is ALWAYS a factor in the temperature of gases.

    When YOU SHOWED UP NOT KNOWING the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET has 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING as PART of it THAT was ALL there is to anything your stupid ass could have contrived to SCAM.

  20. Allen Eltor says:

    And ‘TAiN’T NEETHUR” isn’t a response you insipid hick. You’ve been in here RANTING that PRESSURE isn’t a COMPONENT of TEMPERATURE CALCULATION when IT’S ALWAYS a COMPONENT of temeperature CALCULATION in any real-world example MOST DEFINITELY the

    TEMPERATURE of THE PLANET, which THIS IS ABOUT.

    Only an idiot who’s never had so much as a WELDER’S or AIR CONDITIONER REPARMAN’S VOCATIONAL COURSE believes PRESSURE ISN’T PART of the CALCULATION of a GAS VOLUME’S TEMPERATURE.

    YOU’RE DONE when you DIDN’T KNOW the PROPER TEMPERATURE CALCULATION of THE PLANET includes SOLVING for the 33 DEGREES’ COMPRESSION WARMING.

    You’ve never had a WELDERS’ class,
    You’ve never had an AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR CLASS,
    You’ve never had a S.C.U.B.A. class, and you have DEFINITELY
    not ever had any OTHER secondarty education regarding gases,

    or you wouldn’t be so STUPID that you thought the TEMPERATURE of A GAS can be CALCULATED without knowing it’s PRESSURE.

    The level of IDIOCY to try to LECTURE PEOPLE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET

    doesn’t have PRESSURE WARMING is the class IGNORANT HICK who BELIEVED a STORY about a COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH

    being a HEATER.

    I told you guys that clown would fold up like a deck of cards and start rambling INCOHERENT BULLSHIT when told demonstrate ONE IOTA of GRASP of solving for the
    S.I.M.P.L.E.S.T. phase of matter’s TEMPERATURE.

    Notice he’s not showing anyone a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH that’s HEATER anywhere.

    He figures ”EVERYONE KNOWS COLD NITROGEN BATHS are HEATERS, WHAT’S to PROVE.

    LLooLLooLL!!

    Why’s the TEMPERATURE of THE PLANET GOT A 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION WARMING COMPONENT, JAW-JACK?

    You’ve done nothing but RAMBLE for WEEKS how- YOU DIDN’T KNOW the ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE has a 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION WARMING COMPONENT.

    HaH HAH Ha Ha HaH Hah Ha HaH HaH what an ILLITERATE, INNUMERATE HICK!!
    BWAH HAH HAH HA HAH HA HAH HAH!!

    ”WATCHEW MEENE, THIM ATUMUSFERIC TIMP’S GOT A COMPRESSION WARMING COMPONENT???!!!!??? WtF??? IT ain’t POSSIBUL!!! YaW!!”

    PROFESSIONAL ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST HERE starting in 1967, HICK.

    After that my actual DEGREE is in ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING: RADIANT TRANSFER in the ATMOPSHERE being my specialization.

    And YOU

    sell shoes at a MALL.

    IF you have a JOB which is doubtful.

    THERM-0-BILLY.

    LoL I knew I was gonna come over here and see his stupid ass not even knowing the ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE has a COMPRESSION COMPONENT of 33 degrees,

    it’s ALWAYS the SAME with ANY f*****g IDIOT who actually thought a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,

    was a MAGICAL HEATER.

    BWAH HA HA HAH HAH HA!!!

  21. Allen Eltor says:

    What kind of f***g MORON barks that the TEMPERATURES of GASES isn’t RELATED to PRESSURE when the

    V E R Y DEFINITION of TEMPERATURE is the PRESSURE TIMES the VOLUME!!

    The KIND that went to the PUBLIC SCHOOL,
    where they told his GRAND PAPPY POT was like HEROIN,

    and who graduated 30% behind home-schooled DINO RIDING
    PENTECOSTAL FUNDIE KIDS from the OZARKS, that’s what kind.

    In EVERY single educational metric ever devised to hide how insufferably stupid he was, when he left the 12 years’ government employees’ PROPAGANIZATION program.

    Where he was taught a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN FLUID BATH ATMOSPHERE
    is MAGICALLY a HEATER.

  22. Allen Eltor says:

    *aren’t related,

    above.

    I put off coming over here because I knew it was gonna be a ONE SENTENCE KNOCKOUT when I reminded the stupid m8******R that

    “The TEMPERATURE of OUR ATMOSPHERE has a 33 DEGREE WARMING COMPONENT.”

    One SENTENCE.

    He’s f***n done.

    When he can’t explain how he didn’t know that shit – WHAT ELSE IS THERE for HIM TO SAY?

    LLooLL what an innumerate, illiterate CHUMP! HaH HaH HaH!! LMAO,

    ”WATCHEW MEANE THAIRS A 33 DEGREE COMPRESSION COMPONENT to the GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE?? WHUR’DJEW HIER THAYUT???

    BWAH HA HA HA HA HA Ha!!!!

    You innumerate M.O.R.O.N.!!!

    Hah HAH HAH HA Ha HaH!! BWAAAH HA HA HAH HA HAH HA!!

  23. Ed Bo says:

    Allen:

    Thank you for confirming all my suspicions about you:

    Substance abuse problem? Check!

    Mental instability? Check!

    Failure to understand basic middle school math and high school science? Check!

    I note that you made not a single actual rebuttal to any of my arguments. (BWAHAHAHA does not count…)

    I’m sure the 9-year-old Allen noticed that when he pushed down on his bicycle pump, it got hot, and discovered the idea of “compression heating”. But unfortunately, Allen’s understanding is stuck at that of a 9-year-old.

    If he had pushed down on his bicycle pump, held it down and waited for a while, he would have noticed that it did not stay hot! Why could that be? Yet the adult Allen believes that this “compression heating” should last for billions of years in the case of the earth and the atmosphere. You should have looked closer when you were 9 years old, Allen!

    You claim a degree in electronic engineering focusing on radiant transfer. I call BS on that one!

    I have been involved in thermal testing of electronics for 35 years. In every case I have EVER tested, for the same power input, the higher the ambient temperature for the device under test, the higher the temperature of the device under test. (In the case of the earth’s surface, the effective ambient of the radiantly absorbing atmosphere of about 255K is far warmer than the effective ambient of deep space of 3K.

    In every case I have EVER tested, the greater the thermal resistance between the device and cool ambient, the higher the temperature of the device under test.

    You seem utterly unaware of these basic, basic concepts. That displays to me complete incompetence.

    I challenged you before to explain how you could use one equation in three or four unknowns as you claim to use the ideal gas law equation. You did not even venture an explanation. Why not? Oh, because you CAN’T!

  24. Allen Eltor says:

    Look around you, SHIT for BRAINS, the 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING that IS PART of the TEMPERATURE of OUR GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE,

    IS MOCKING your STUPID ASS.

    WHY doesn’t YOUR CHURCH’S CALCULATION of SURFACE TEMPERATURE MATCH the REAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE as PER the INTERNATIONALLY USED,

    KNOWN-GOOD STANDARD we CALIBRATE ALL OUR AERONAUTICAL, AEROSPACE, and HEAT/PRESSURE SENSING INSTRUMENTS AGAINST?

    YOU’RE BARKING that the PEOPLE who SOLVE the PLANET’S ACTUAL TEMPERATURE For PHYSICAL and THEORETICAL PURPOSES,

    ARE WRONG when they REACH the RIGHT TEMPERATURE of the PLANET,

    INCLUDING the 33 DEGREES’ COMPRESSION WARMING.

    You’ve never SHADOWED a SEAT in a SCHOOL for SO MUCH as a WELDER or AIR CONDITIONER REPAIRMAN.

    YOU’RE so STUPID that EVEN BEING REMINDED your SQUEALS that ”IT AIN’T EVUN POSSIBUL!”

    are PROVEN OUTRIGHT FANTASY FABRICATION when the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE of the PLANET is CALCULATED using 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING,

    YOU’RE PRETENDING to BE O B L I V I O U S to WHAT THIS MEANS to your

    FANTASY

    that PRESSURE isn’t PART of GAS TEMPERATURES.

    YOU don’t HAVE so much as a VOCATIONAL CERTIFICATION in physical measurement.

    THE TEMPERATURE of the PLANET : whether you APPROVE with your HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA or NOT,

    INCLUDES 33 DEGREES’ COMPRESSION WARMING.

    NO NEGOTIATIONS, M****RF*****R, the REAL GLOBA ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE contains 33 DEGREES’ COMPRESSION WARMING.

    You’re ON the WEBSITE of a MAN who DISCOVERED THIS when he saw CARL SAGAN and NASA SOLVING for the TEMPERATURE of VENUS,

    and he REALIZED there is a COMPRESSION WARMING ELEMENT to VENUS’ TEMPERATURE,

    and that there is a COMPRESSION WARMING of

    33 DEGREES, in SOLVING for EARTH’S OWN GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE.

    That’s NOT NEGOTIABLE by YOU, HICK.

    THAT’S not NEGOTIABLE by YOU: YOU’VE been PROVEN WRONG before you ARRIVED here to BE wrong.

    The SAME LAW YOU’RE DEFYING OTHERS to SOLVE FOR TEMPERATURES OF GASES,

    IS THE ONE USED in SOLVING for THE EARTH’S and VENSUS’ TEMPERATURES

    you INSIPID, ILLITERATE, INNUMERATE DOLT.

    YOU AREN’T ALLOWED to NEGOTIATE the PLANETS’ ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS AREN’T SET BY THEIR PRESSURES,

    PART OF ALL THEIR and ANY GASES’ TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS,

    USINIG THE LAW YOU’RE DEFYING US ALL to USE,

    is THE COMPRESSION WARMING these ATMOSPHERES GENERATE.

    You’ve never FINISHED an AIR CONDITIONING or WELDING COURSE.

    For that matter YOU VERY PROBABLY never FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL but in

    ANY case,

    YOU showed up to tell the people of this forum the TEMPERATURES of VENUS and EARTH are DIRECT FUNCTIONS of the PRESSURE of those ATMOSPHERES

    and DEFIED us all to KNOW that the VERY LAW YOU CLAIM CAN’T SOLVE GAS TEMPERATURES, is THE ONE USED.

    YOU’RE a FRAUD BARKING B U M B L I N G ***DROPOUT.***

    YOU aren’t in a position to call ANYONE on ANYTHING.

    YOU WERE BARKING your INNUMERATE LUNACY when I ARRIVED,

    at the WEBSITE of a MAN whose OPENING BARRAGE in DISCREDITING
    your CHURCH Of ILLITERATE HICKS,

    was
    POSTING AN ARTICLE on HOW the IDEAL GAS LAW used in SOLVING TEMPERATURES of GASES hence PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES,

    MANDATES a CERTAIN AMOUNT of COMPRESSION WARMING for ANY GAS VOLUME.

    YOU are not HERE to NEGOTIATE THAT. YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG ON BOTH FRONTS you ILLITERATE HICK,

    when you SHOWED UP
    telling everyone the LAW USED ISN’T,

    and that COMPRESSION WARMING that’s PART Of BOTH PLANET’S TEMPERATURES,

    IS part of their temperatures.

    You ignorant error barking HICK.

    The TEMPERATURES of EARTH AND VENUS HAVE COMPRESSION WARMING INCLUDED.

    YOU’RE NOT going to ESCAPE that.

    NEVER.

    You’re SIMPLY DEFYING everyone KNOWING

    that the LAW USED in SOLVING TEMPERATURES of GASES is the ONE USED.

    I don’t give a fuck if you tested light bulbs or NOT: THERE is NO SUCH THING as the TEMPERATURE of EARTH OR VENUS * * * NOT * * * having COMPRESSION warming components.

    You’re so STUPID
    you’re on the WEBSITE of a man whose TRUTH in SCIENCE CAREER STARTED,

    when he SORTED OUT FOR HIMSELF, the VERY F***G LUDICROUS CLAIM you’re TRYING to MAKE.

    That there is a DIRECT COMPRESSION RELATED WARMING COMPONENT in EARTH’S and VENUSS’ TEMPERATURES.

    *YOU’RE F****G DONE.*

    you CAME not KNOWING compression warming is a DIRECT PART of the TEMPERATURE of both EARTH and VENUS,

    and BARKED for MONTHS it’s not POSSIBLE,

    to have it REVEALED to you, it’s ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and in FACT YOUR CHURCH

    IS FOUNDED

    ON THEM HIDING from YOU where their FAKE 33 DEGREES c a m e FROM:

    THEY DON’T INCLUDE COMPRESSION WARMING in SOLVING EARTH TEMP.

    THEY DON’T INCLUDE COMPRESSION WARMING in SOLVING VENUS’ ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE.

    THEY DON’T USE the VERY LAW REAL SCIENTISTS USE, in CALCULATING them.

    HERE’S TONY HELLER whose WEBSITE you’re BARKING your iLLITERATE, INNUMERATE, HILLBILLY BULLSHIT on, DISCOVERING FOR HIMSELF,
    that
    COMPRESSION WARMING is an INTRINSIC PART of EARTH and VENUS’ temperatures.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

    • Disillusioned says:

      Allen Eltor,

      Most of us will SCREAM for emphasis every once in awhile. But, when one’s entire rant is made up of SCREAMING, people tend to tune one out (even if what one has to say is good).

      Your post? I don’t know. I tuned you out. ;-P

    • spike55 says:

      Allen been taking the LSD , YET AGAIN

      Gone all psychotic and manic

      ZERO-SCIENCE, just a demented chihuahua barking behind a 6ft fence.

      So HILARIOUSLY FUNNY

      Meet Allen… on a good day.

  25. Allen Eltor says:

    I’m riding in my wife’s van on the interstate poking the letters out with the tip of a stylus, I’m dropping letters, and sometimes including spaces I don’t want, sorry guys.

  26. Allen Eltor says:

    WRONG ANSWER, you INNUMERATE therm-0-billy HiCK

    THAT’S THE LAW WRITTEN for SOLVING GAS TEMPERATURES.

    Nobody ASKED YOU if it’s OK.

    NOBODY CONSULTED your stupid ass if it’s ok the law has 3 variables, just like nobody asked you when OHM’S law has THREE VARIABLES.

    Your insipid ass has challenged me to EXPLAIN to you HOW the LAWS of PHYSICS,

    could POSSIBLY WORK,

    when the LAWS have 3 VARIABLES in their EQUATIONS.

    That kind of INNUMERACY isn’t achieved, having ever even been privy to a vocational course in the military or somewhere.

    ALL EQUATIONS of LAW, have MORE than ONE VARIABLE in them,

    you STUPID chimpanzee. ALL LAWS have MORE than one VARIABLE.

    Mein FrriKKeN GOtt, HOW STUPID do you have to BE, to believe the COLD nitrogen atmosphere is a HEATER?
    ———–
    So stupid you don’t think EQUATIONS of LAW can work because they HAVE MORE than ONE VARIABLE in them.

    “I challenged you before to explain how you could use one equation in three or four unknowns as you claim to use the ideal gas law equation. You did not even venture an explanation. Why not? Oh, because you CAN’T!”
    ————-
    The above THERM-0-BILLY HiCK, just tried to TELL ME that – LAWS with MORE than ONE VARIABLE cain’t WERK, thay’s GOT TWO MINNIE UN NOWNS,

    yew CAIN’T FIGYUR NUTHIN OWT LAIK THAT!”

    That is the argument this magic gasser has for ”WHY IT CAIN’T EVUN BE RIAGHT THAT THIM TIMPURCHURS UH VENUS & ERTH, HAS GOT COMPRESHIN WARMIN’ TWO UM, THAY’S RAWNG, IT JIST CAIN’T BE!

    The GRAND finale he provides as his proof is that ”EQUATIONS OF LAW THAT HAS TWO OR THREE VARIABLES in EM CAIN’T BE USED TWO FIGUR NOTHIN’ OWT!”

    WRONG answer, you illiterate therm-0-billy HiCK.

  27. Allen Eltor says:

    Matter of fact you haven’t said conything here, that IS correct.

    You’ve railed for WEEKS: on a man’s website that was spawned

    by his SOLVING EARTH and VENUS’ TEMPERATURES the WAY he saw CARL SAGAN and by extension NASA solving it

    and discovering there’s 33 DEGREES’ COMPRESSION WARMING in EARTH’S properly computed temperature and MANY MANY COMPRESSION-WARMING DERIVED DEGREES in VENUS’ temperature.

    AND THAT THE VERY LAW you CLAIM

    ”CAIN’T BE YEWSED FUR NUTHIN WITAWL THIM VARIABLES”

    is

    THE LAW
    PROPERLY USED,
    when S O L V I N G for those TEMPERATURES.

    How can you POSSIBLY BE, more WRONG?

    YOU THINK the EQUATIONS of LAW in PHYSICS, ”CAIN’T SOLVE NUTHIN WHIN THAY’S GOT MOAR’N WUN VARIABLE??”

    WHAT KIND of INSANE, BRAIN-DAMAGED science darkening HiCK,
    approaches ENTIRE PLANETARY TEMPERATURE FORUMS,

    SCREAMING that ”THIM LAWS THAY YEWS CAIN’T BE RAIGHT!”

    and that ”THAIR AIN’T NO WAY TIMPURCHURS is CUNNECKTID with PRESSURS!”

    Even a TIRE repair boy at a SERVICE station knows PRESSURE and VOLUME, are DIRECT FUNCTIONS of TEMPERATURE.

    The SERVICE STATION guy working that job cause his PROBATION officer iNSISTS he HAVE a f***g JOB will nod when people remind him that PRESSURE and VOLUME are *DIRECT FUNCTIONS* OF TEMPERATURE.

    “It ain’t possibul fur no bodie two KNOW THiM THANGS, yewsin NO LAW, what’ GOTS uh BUNCHA VARIABLES!”

    And

    “It SEEMS AWFUL SUSPISHUS two ME, that YAW DONT THINK a COLD BATH is uh HEEDUR!”

    “Yaw must not be signtsie!”

    “I dun TESTID….”

    WHAT have you TESTED?
    WHAT did you TEST that LED you to BELIEVE, that

    PRESSURE and VOLUME,
    are not D.I.R.E.C.T. MATHEMATICAL functions
    of TEMPERATURE?

    *WITH the EQUATION of LAW* being THROWN in your IGNORANT FACE

    TIME after TIME, after T.I.M.E,

    WHAT in this PLANET do YOU CLAIM taught YOU,
    that THE REAL LAW for SOLVING TEMPERATURES ISN’T,
    and that it’s BECAUSE it HAS MULTIPLE VARIABLES in it,
    THAT MAKES IT WORTHLESS for the JOB it was WRITTEN?

    WHO told you, EQUATIONS of LAW,
    with MULTIPLE VARIABLES,

    AREN’T really REAL?

    YOU’RE CLAIMING that THE 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION of EARTH,
    and the MANY DEGREES’ COMPRESSION Of VENUS’ TEMPERATURE,

    AREN’T really REAL

    even though we’ve landed 13 CRAFT on the SURFACE of VENUS using the LAW,

    and SENT back SECOND by SECOND THERMAL and PRESSURE READINGS,

    ALL the WAY to the SURFACE.

    It CAIN’T bea REELE, I dun TESTID sum STUFF in LECK TRONICKS!

    Well thermobilly I dun wint two skewl fur FOUR YEARS, and I SPECIALIZED
    in
    ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION TRANSFER. So YOU’RE just F***D.

    I did THAT,

    because I WAS TIRED of WORKING as an ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST.

    You insolent, ignorant, illiterate,

    innumerate, HiCK.

    That’s what you are, and it’s why you’re in here screaming the LAW WE USE to SOLVE for GAS TEMPERATURES can’t BE a LAW because it has MULTIPLE VARIABLES.

    And that ”Yew jist cain’t sea how evurbodie doant undurstand about the magical gaissiness,

    and it makin a COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE a HEEDUR, & awl.”

    You’re as obviously and transparently fraudulent from the very first word you’ve said, as every other magic gas barking dipshit I’ve had the pleasure of spitting onto the head of for being so STUPID he thought a COLD BATH is a HEATER

    Actually you ADMIT you’ve never shadowed a seat in a school of any kind, and that you can’t understand how someone could SOLVE for VARIABLES in ALGEBRA.

    That’s about all you needed to say regarding your grasp of what makes equations of law valid.

    Yew cain’t sea how nobodie kin solve nuthin whin thairs awl thim variabulls.

    Here’s the way it works you stupid mufus: there’s a law used in solving gas temperatures and it’s the one whose equation is PV =nRT. Whether your stupid science darkening ass likes it is IRRELEVANT because it’s so easy to SHOW people

    how UTTERLY innumerate AND ILLITERATE your stupid ass is. In fact, YOU’RE in here basically ADMITTING it or if you HAD the education to run a welding machine, you’d have SAID so then declared ”I don’t CARE if it WORKS for ALL OTHER gas CALCULATIONS it cain’t be trew abowt owur atmusfear, YaW, it jist cain’t!”

    You don’t even have the bona fides of an AIR CONDITIONER man or a WELDER.
    No
    Once
    Not
    Ever

    have you given another person CORRECT answers on ANY technical test regarding gases and their properties, or – YOU’D know how SIMPLE GAS MECHANICS ARE.

    You’d have KNOWN that the reason there can’t B E much math to them,
    is because they all act as independent, what’s referred to as ‘idealized’ entities: they don’t ADHERE to each other so there’s no mathematics for THAT,

    they don’t COMBINE in that adherence to form STABLE structures like for solids, so there’s no math for THAT,

    there’s SOLELY the CHARACTERISTICS: PRESSURE, VOLUME, TEMPERATURE, and ENERGY per MOLE, average. And that’s ALL there fuckin is to COUNT, hicK.

    And you’re so stupid you can’t even keep up with an otherwise illiterate WELDER in that because the MINUTE he told you, the IDEAL GAS law is used,

    YEW started LEG PISSING about ‘THIM MULTIPLE VAIRABLE THANGLIES CAIN’T NEVUR SOLV, NUTHIN!”

    No,
    YOU,
    are an innumerate
    and an illiterate
    science darkening,
    fraud barking moron.

    Who thinks WELDERS and AIR CONDITIONING MEN have ”ALREADY GOT SO MUCH EDJYAKAYSHIN THAY THINK THIM MATH-A-VARIABLE ALGIBRAYSHUNS is gawnuh SOLVE sumthin but THAT WELDER’S jist so COLLIDJiE, he cain’t FIGUR NUTHIN OWT, he’s BOOK BOUND, till he’s PLUM HELPLISS,
    I dun TESTID sum BATTRIES & what-not.”

    You’re so insufferably stupid – YOU don’t even KNOW there’s a LAW: that STATES;
    Earth’s CLIMATE,
    can
    NOT be CHANGING.

    There’s a law that states that, therm-0-billy, why don’t you give us all a speech on how that law came to be and just wtF your Church’s explanation of it’s claims flying DIRECTLY INTO that LAW’S FACE – the law that says CLIMATE can NOT be changing right now, at ALL. NOT One f***g TENTH, not one f***g MiLLi-Pascal.

    Tell us all what law I’m talking about, stupid.

    “Yew dun gotta cawl me on THAT wun” so you need to start barking deap thawts abowt uh magical gassiness, hillbilly, that wow EVERYONE in this thread.

    WHAT is the NAME
    of the LAW of MODERN PHYSICS,
    which establishes CLEARLY with MATHEMATICAL PRECISION
    that Earth CLIMATE
    can NOT change as you THINK it can.

    Tell us HOW we know the law’s TRUE.

    And then you tell ME why I, and ALLLLLLLLL OTHER aircraft communications and instrumentation Electronic Engineers, are WRONG,
    and in FACT,
    none of our STUFF is WORKING: that it’s OUR IMAGINATION
    that CLIMATE can’t be changing.

    EXPLAIN your CHURCH’S ANSWER to that, hicK

    then when you lOCK up like a STOLEN BIKE left outside all winter,

    I’m gonna EXPLAIN your, and your church’s DOCTRINE about that,

    FOR your stupid ass
    and we
    are all gonna have a REMARKABLY funny time
    talking about it all.

    HiCK.

  28. Allen Eltor says:

    Ed Bo’s so stupid he thinks the climate can actually change.

    AinT’CHeW ED’Bo.

    YEW so STEWPID YEW THAWT aT’TAiR CLiMIT, SHE’S uh CHANGiN’, EVURBODIE NOES THAT! YaW! WUT ELSE cuud it beya DOiN!”

    Ain’t that RIGHT, ED’BO. HMM? AiN’T TAT RAiGHT?

    TELL me now: aT’TaIR CLIMIT, SHE’S uh CHAYNGiN YaW, I dun LOOK’tAT tha WETHUR CHANNUL an SEEN it WITH muh ON I’s! yaW.”

    I DARE you to tell me ”At TaiR CLiMIT she’S uh CHANGiE WuN, BoY HOWDiE LeMMe TAYLeYaH!”

    SAY that
    to me.

    Do that SOON, after you EXPLAIN to this INTERNATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY and ENERGY FORUM’S READERS, how ”YEW CAIN’T FIGYuR NuTHIN OWT with AWL thim VAiReeYaBuLS, yaw NUCKLE-HeDS!

    YeW CAiN’T DEW’iT at’s why YEW dun GOTCHEW sum GLOABUL WARMIN,

    “An YAW aint evun NO’d HOW cawse yaw DUM,
    yew THINK THIM GAIS LAWS, is REEL.”

    TELL me NOW
    you intellectual invalid, how ”I SEEN YAW SAY AT’TAIR CLIMIT MAIGHT NOT BE CHANGIN, EVURBODIE NOs, IT DUZ I dun LooK’t AT tha WeTHur CHANNeL an thay got climit chaynge, EVURWHAiR YaW!”

    Tell me that now ED BO: that ”Yaw say climit ain’t chaingin,”

    “Yaw duM.”

    I DARE you to, you stupid,

    mouth breathing,
    hicK.

    Soon enough you’re gonna be over your fantasy that

    ”EQUATIONS of LAW with MULTIPLE VARIABLES, AIN’T eVuN REELE.”

    and you’re not gonna be inspired, to TALK about
    your CHURCH’S TEACHINGS
    so I’m letting you know,

    we’re GONNA be talking about THAT doctrine of the Church of the Science Darkening, Innumeratti/Illiteratie Maggots soon.

    Since you’re here to represent illiteratie blowflies who think “cold nitchurgin atmusfears is heedurs,”

    you’re going to be discussing it in defense of the church of the illiterate intellectual blowfly so stupid it thinks a cold nitroxy bath is a heater.

    And you’ll need to sound as convincing then
    as you sound, discussing how

    ”Multi-variable equations of law ain’t reele.”

    You’re a hicK. And it’s all your church will send. But if you go find MORE illiterate hicks like yourself, who think ”Oh HELL YEAH when I THINK COALED NITCHURGIN BATH, I THINK HEEDUR!” – you guys can take turns explaining about how thim multivariable equations of law, is jist confewsing evurthang, and how

    thim fellurs what’s astronauts and pile its, thay’s jist lucky ain’t nevur nuthin goan rawng, sints thay bulieve thim preshurs
    has got sumthin two do with tim pur churs,
    and thim multi-variable equations of law, is reele.

    I’ll be back and when I come back you better have information on hand regarding how ”thim climits kin chaynge, I tol’t chew uh DUZiN THYMZ, it it’s REEL,
    CLIMIT
    CHAYNGE,
    is REEL. ”
    “YaW.”

    • Disillusioned says:

      Allen Eltor said, “I’ll be back and when I come back you better have information on hand regarding how ”thim climits kin chaynge, I tol’t chew uh DUZiN THYMZ, it it’s REEL,
      CLIMIT
      CHAYNGE,
      is REEL. ”
      “YaW.”

      Next time you come back, maybe -maybe – you’ll be sober.

    • spike55 says:

      This is HILARIOUSLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

      Have you got a pack of drunk monkeys working for you, Allen.

      From your limited grasp of science, you could even have a group of highly toked Arts students using your keyboard.

      You come across as a demented chihuahua, barking at a Doberman.

    • spike55 says:

      Allen, I’m pretty sure that you, and every rational scientific thinker here, agree with the existence of the gravity-based pressure temperature gradient.

      I think that is what you are trying to emphasise, it is very hard to tell.

      But please,

      Try to remain coherent !!

      These sort of posts don’t help anybody, least of all you.

  29. Ed Bo says:

    Allen:

    You just keep digging deeper, both in substance and style.

    Several weeks ago, I compressed air into my car tires to a gauge pressure of 2000 mbar (~30psi), and so an absolute pressure of 3000 mbar. Following your logic of constant 33C compression heating for the standard atmospheric pressure of ~1000 mbar, I expected to find today an additional constant 66C elevated temperature for my tires.

    What? It didn’t happen!!! How could that be? Allen promised me it would be so!!!

    Since you are adamant about the ideal gas law’s explanatory power, please explain to me how to solve the following problem (just putting specific numbers on the questions I have been posing to you for weeks now):

    Given one mole of a gas at 3000 mbar (3000 hPa), what is the temperature of that gas?

    You have insisted repeatedly that you have all the information needed to solve this problem.

    I have just reviewed my textbooks from when I studied physics and thermodynamics at MIT (heard of it?), and they don’t agree with you that pressure and temperature always vary proportionally together in lockstep.

    You will have to convince me that my MIT professors and textbooks were completely wrong. So far you haven’t even tried.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *