Two separate issues:
1) temperature gradient with atmospheric pressure around a planet
2) greenhouse effect
both are possible at the same time
The 'great reset' no one asked for
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
1) temperature gradient with atmospheric pressure around a planet
2) greenhouse effect
both are possible at the same time
Says the guy who no longer wants to talk about the paper he posted.
Even beyond the apparent flaws in that paper (Have you done the math yourself yet?) Solar irradiance in no way reflects the actual observations taken for Earth's average global temperature. If the pattern don't reflect it, your hallucinations must be rejected.
Says the guy who did not bother to read either paper
.
And more of your avoiding the real question
You said you want to discuss the science yet all you have done is seek to discredit and avoid the real question
You keep on bring up Total Solar Irradiance but the issue is the pressure driven temperature gradient through altitude despite constant CO2
Are you really that scientifically illiterate that you do not understand the concept of rate of change or does your ideology demand you intentionally need to deceive others?
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to yourideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
Whatever you have to tell yourself. One of us has read the paper you posted and repeated the methodology with data at other pressures (and found the relation doesn't hold). The other has repeatedly spammed the same stupid off topic graph.
The study you posted as proof claimed that solar irradiance was the determining factor in atmospheric temperature and now you want to run away yet again. Just another of your attempts to ignore science that doesn't fit your predetermined assumptions. Solar irradiance has been decreasing for almost 60 years while temperature is increasing. Even funnier is you previously spammed endless threads claiming that actual climate models are "spectacular failures" yet you happily accept this lack of relationship without question.
All you are doing is proving that you are either clueless about science or intentionally ignoring it.
One of us understands the papers and its implications. the other wasted his time calculating values outside of the scope of thick atmospheres
One of us understands the papers and its implications. the other is focusing on canceling a paper he does not understand.
The paper was explicit for pressures above 0.1 bar and those are the levels found here on earth. (Earth, you know, where the alleged CO2 problem is??)
If you had read the paper you would have know that and not wasted your time calculating values which are not relevant
What kind of engineer does that?
the Temperature gradient @ constant CO2 concentration is the issue. Yet you will not go anywhere near that
In the real world you can not hide from direct questions
All you are doing is proving you are incapable of engaging in a real scientific discussion and scientific truth is of fsr less value to you than protecting a lie.
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your lie
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
2020 was tied with 2016 as warmest year on record for the planet.
Another year when johnnylarue was wrong.
How hot was 2020? It depends who you ask, but it was another one for the record books, agencies say
Social Sharing
3 climate agencies may vary on the numbers, but the trend is the same: Earth continues to warm
Another year when johnnylarue was wrong.
How hot was 2020? It depends who you ask, but it was another one for the record books, agencies say
Social Sharing
3 climate agencies may vary on the numbers, but the trend is the same: Earth continues to warm
Are you denying that the guy's math doesn't work beyond 1 Bar? If it doesn't work for a wide range of temperatures and there is no scientific reason why it only seems to work for 1Bar then it can't be used to make the conclusion he made.
Are you denying that there is no relationship between observations of solar irradiance and global temperature in the modern era? If there is no relationship then there is no scientific basis to conclude any kind of causation.
Instead you pathetically ran away from your claim that the Ideal gas Law proved that CO2 wasn't the major player and want to distract with more things you don't seem to understand.
He was quite clear if you read his papers
The paper specified thick atmospheres 0.1 bar or more.
That was in the papers abstract and I posted that information
[/QUOTE]
Do you understand what the pressure / temperature graph represents ?
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
What a surprise, you completely run away from the paper you said proved CO2 couldn't be a major factor. That paper said solar irradiance was the main factor but sadly for you the method used in the paper shows it does not hold and more importantly can't explain how irradiance has been dropping for the past 40 years while temperature has been increasing. But instead of addressing the massive flaws in your claims you keep trying to hide behind an irrelevant relationship that was discovered 200 years ago.He was quite clear if you read his papers
The paper specified thick atmospheres 0.1 bar or more.
That was in the papers abstract and I posted that informationtwicefour times
Do you understand what the pressure / temperature graph represents ?
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
I am not running away from anything
No it did not
Pressure / density is the main driver of temperature
Go review the papers again
You obviously did not read them or you did not understand
Do you understand what the pressure / temperature graph represents ?
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
So why don't you address the fact that observations of solar irradiance and average global temperature show a diverging pattern and not the relationship you desperately wish was there? Why won't you address that the paper's methodology shows that this is not an overarching relationship but simply something that occurs at the one convenient pressure?
BTW. You posted that paper as 'proof' that CO2 was not a major factor. Now that I've exposed the flaws in his thesis, why is it you suddenly run away and if solar irradiance is not the cause of global warming, why did you post a paper saying it was?
If you want to discuss the relationship between temperature and pressure (Gay-Lussac's Law, not the ideal gas law), could you explain why the temperature of the surface has been increasing while atmospheric pressure has not?
The relationship is not variable Total Solar irradiance causing a variation in average global temperature
You do not seem to understand what the papers are about
That is because you did not review them
Clearly the temperature changes and the pressure changes with elevation. What part of a simple graph do you not understand?
Go back and review
You have not mentioned the pressure gradient at all, so no you have not exposed any flaws at all.
You are focused on variable irradiance, while ignoring the recorded temperature/ pressure gradient
The temperature increase you are speaking about is based upon a data set which is too short, incomplete , filled with errors and has been fiddled with.
Not at all suitable for determining a scientific conclusion
Garbage data in and a garbage conclusion out
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
Scientifically ignorant.
1) temperature/pressure gradient is true on all planets, regardless of the gas makeup of the atmosphere, just as it is on earth as well
2) Totally different from the greenhouse effect and solar radiation
3) Venus also experiences the greenhouse effect
Keep on proving you know what spam is to avoid defending the article you posted as proof.The relationship is not variable Total Solar irradiance causing a variation in average global temperature
You do not seem to understand what the papers are about
That is because you did not review them
Clearly the temperature changes and the pressure changes with elevation. What part of a simple graph do you not understand?
Go back and review
You have not mentioned the pressure gradient at all, so no you have not exposed any flaws at all.
You are focused on variable irradiance, while ignoring the recorded temperature/ pressure gradient
The temperature increase you are speaking about is based upon a data set which is too short, incomplete , filled with errors and has been fiddled with.
Not at all suitable for determining a scientific conclusion
Garbage data in and a garbage conclusion out
Now pay attention
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
Despite this what that flawed paper says, solar irradiance reaching Earth is on a clear negative trend for the past 40 years while global temperature is increasing.
And it seems no matter how many times I call you out on your pressure gradient argument and discus more advanced concepts, you still simply pretend I'm the stupid one. The discussion of this article started when I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim that the CO2 can't be playing a role. Now that you've disavowed your own proof, that leaves you with nothing so we can start again if you wish.
As for this idiotically simplistic graph you keep posting, how does that relate to measurements that the Earth is warming? The only way your graph could relate to warming is if you believed the altitude of the Earth's surface is decreasing (the Earth is shrinking). Or do you not want to discus measurements again?
You agreed to proceed in a respectful manner
Yet you do not procced in a respectful manner
What is the value of your words if you do not keep an agreement?
Now pay attention
You continue to start with the assumption there must a driver for 1.0 C increase in surface temperature based on a data set which is far too short, incomplete , filled with data errors and has been manipulated.
and you desperately want that driver to be anthropogenic
You will never learn anything of value in science if you start with a conclusion and try to wrap the science around that preconceived conclusion.
You need to stop doing that !
Oh and stop misquoting me as well
Again you are confusing Total Solar Irradiance with trends or changes in irradiance
Dr. Holmes used the relative solar irradiance as a factor in temperature calculations as Venus is a lot closer to the sun than earth
He made no mention of trends in solar irradiance over time ???
You mentioned trends and somehow wrote off "Total Solar Irradiance" all together. It is the energy source
You have been chasing your own tail
now that we have that straightened out .................
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
Scientifically ignorant.
1) temperature/pressure gradient is true on all planets, regardless of the gas makeup of the atmosphere, just as it is on earth as well
2) Totally different from the greenhouse effect and solar radiation
3) Venus also experiences the greenhouse effect
I need to apologize. I've been sitting laughing at your constant attempts to pretend that the Ideal Gas Law explains global warming while refraining from easily explaining where you expose your lack of understanding but it's time to simply explain to you how stupid your line of argument is.You agreed to proceed in a respectful manner
Yet you do not procced in a respectful manner
What is the value of your words if you do not keep an agreement?
Now pay attention
You continue to start with the assumption there must a driver for 1.0 C increase in surface temperature based on a data set which is far too short, incomplete , filled with data errors and has been manipulated.
and you desperately want that driver to be anthropogenic
You will never learn anything of value in science if you start with a conclusion and try to wrap the science around that preconceived conclusion.
You need to stop doing that !
Oh and stop misquoting me as well
Again you are confusing Total Solar Irradiance with trends or changes in irradiance
Dr. Holmes used the relative solar irradiance as a factor in temperature calculations as Venus is a lot closer to the sun than earth
He made no mention of trends in solar irradiance over time ???
You mentioned trends and somehow wrote off "Total Solar Irradiance" all together. It is the energy source
You have been chasing your own tail
now that we have that straightened out .................
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
According to your own admission, the gases at higher altitudes are at a lower pressure. In case that's too tricky for you, that means that there is more distance between the particles of the gases. Therefore the CO2 (like all gases there) will be spread further out even if the percent composition is the same and therefore it's ability to trap heat is diminished. More dense CO2 means more warming potential while less dense CO2 means lower warming potential.
I am sure you still won't be able to understand the science you quote and will continue to spam away without ever once even attempting to explain how your imaginings explain a warming trend on Earth. Do you really think that somehow atmospheric pressure on Earth is increasing somehow or go you think that the Earth is shrinking?
p.s. It's funny that just a few posts ago you were claiming that solar irradiance wasn't the cause of warming but now you're trying desperately to pretend that the decrease in solar irradiance is not supposed to affect the Earth's temperature. If I didn't prefer to keep my participation on this forum quiet, I would have so much fun posting your attempts at science for their comedic value. The fact that he doesn't acknowledge the changes in irradiance and temperature exposes how superficial his report is.
You do need to apologize
#1 for not reading the papers
#2 for For misquoting me
I never said the "the Ideal Gas Law explains global warming"
I merely pointed out that pressure and density drive temperature & do so @ 400 ppm and also when CO2 is 96.5%
This is not possible if CO2 is the control knob for temperature , which you & the IPCC claim
Ha Ha !
96.5%CO2 @ one atmosphere & 96.5% Co2 @ 90 atmospheres
Co2 is essentially all the molecules when @ 96.5%
Those CO2 molecules are really not spread out, as there are 6.02e+23 of them in approx 22 litres @ one atmosphere
More than enough to exterent an outward pressure of 760 torr,
More than enough to intercept a photon. because @ 96.5% all there is is CO2 and yet @ one atmosphere it is 400K colder than @ 90 atmospheres
Nice try
Come on ! you are an engineer, surely you understand auto compression
Pressure is the primary driver of temperature in the atmosphere
Again you need to explain how temperature varies so much when the control knob Co2 is a constant 96.5% ?
Do you believe the atmosphere is a very set and defined volume ?
If so please give its exact dimensions
You will find its boundaries are defined loosely and the boundaries vary with latitude
Pressure is the primary driver of temperature in the atmosphere
Given how the temperature varies by 400 K @ a constant 96.5 CO2 (essentially all CO2) , CO2 can not be the driver of temperature
Superficial?
No what we have here is your superficial reading of his papers.
His intent was never to prove or disprove a time series impact of changes in irradiance on Temperature.
He uses Total Solar Irradiance not changes in irradiance
In fact he makes no mention of time dependance as the ideal gas law is a time independent equilibrium state equation
Now why would you expect a time series conclusion from a time independent equilibrium state equation ?
Time for you to dust off your old text
Now back to the question you will not answer
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature
What is wrong with you?
How many times do you have to be told ?
I am under zero obligation to explain your conclusion as it is based on a data set which is far too short, incomplete , filled with errors and has been fiddled with
Why in the world do I need to explain a spurious trend based on a very flawed data set ?
Nope
I will just illustrate how the fundamental laws of physics do not support your ideologically motivated conclusion
Why do you have the need to intentionally mislead others?
How warm would the Earth's atmosphere be if there was no solar irradiation and pressure alone drove the temperature?
