Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.

like the model of the greenhouse effect, when you start with a flawed assumption, you end with a flawed assumption....repeating your bullshit claim ad nauseum is not going to change it into anything other than a bullshit claim...

try the greenhouse equations on a couple of the planets with atmospheres...lets see how close you get to the actual temperatures...certainly nowhere as close as the ideal gas law predicts...

 

[Wuwei]

I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.

Really? The cooler atmosphere via back radiation warming the warmer surface violates the 2nd? You know that leads straight towards "smart photons". Sure you misspoke, didn't you?

No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly.

This is the way I see it:
Only the sun warms the earth. The GHGs prevent the earth from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise.

If you want to think of back-radiation as heat you have to understand that the back-radiation energy originally came from the sun. No new energy was created. Finally, there is more upward earth surface radiation than downward back-radiation, so the 2nd law is preserved. Of course I'm ignoring internal earth heat manifested in conduction through the mantle and volcanoes, etc.

That view conjures up the idea that the GHGs mimic a sort of blanket. Everyone knows what a blanket does: On a cold day your skin will get cold. If you cover yourself with a blanket your skin will get warmer. The blanket is not furnishing any heat. You are. The blanket helps you retain your own heat.

 

[IanC]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.

And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

Venus (at the surface)

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

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

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


Earth (at the surface)

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

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

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


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Saturn (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Uranus (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Neptune (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

It is no coincidence that the ideal gas law predicts temperatures that are damned close to the actual temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres...no fictional greenhouse effect needed.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of predictions the greenhouse effect makes for the various planets..

Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?

I'll give it some thought.

 

[Olde Europe]

No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. [...]

If you want to think of back-radiation as heat

No, I don't want to think of back radiation as heat, because it isn't. More generally, radiation, photons, aren't heat, and that's why they cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And yes, back radiation (measured and quantified) is the reason why the earth's surface is warmer than it would be without. And yes, since the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, on average, "the atmosphere is warming a warmer surface" is an adequate way to put it, counter-intuitive as that may sound.

Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?

It's wrong because it calculates the temperature of a planet without reference to energy input, and thus it calculates the exact same temperature for a planet orbiting at 10,000 km from the sun and the otherwise exact same planet lost in space, 10,000 light years from nearest star. That should immediately strike you as utterly risible.

 

[polarbear]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

The ideal gas law does work everywhere. It's based on simple physics of molecules banging around. It will work anywhere on earth and on any planet, (assuming that the atmospheres are within reasonable pressures and molecular sizes.)

If you look at the pressure-temperature variables in a cubic meter for the molar values for the earth atmosphere, you can test the ideal gas law.
If you go near the arctic cold you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.
At the top of Mt. Everest, you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.
At the equator, you will find that the pressure, temperature are consistent.

What you can't predict from the ideal gas law alone is the predicted lapse rate. You can't predict anything about climate.

The ideal gas law alone is almost a physics tautology. Exclaiming that gasses everywhere on planets and earth follow the ideal gas law is saying nothing except that the gas law is largely valid. It says nothing about climate.

.

 

[IanC]

No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. [...]

If you want to think of back-radiation as heat

No, I don't want to think of back radiation as heat, because it isn't. More generally, radiation, photons, aren't heat, and that's why they cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And yes, back radiation (measured and quantified) is the reason why the earth's surface is warmer than it would be without. And yes, since the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, on average, "the atmosphere is warming a warmer surface" is an adequate way to put it, counter-intuitive as that may sound.

Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?

It's wrong because it calculates the temperature of a planet without reference to energy input, and thus it calculates the exact same temperature for a planet orbiting at 10,000 km from the sun and the otherwise exact same planet lost in space, 10,000 light years from nearest star. That should immediately strike you as utterly risible.

Yes, I have told SSDD in the past that this 'proof' is nothing more than circular reasoning. Using variables or assumptions that already carry the information purportedly derived.

The gravity field and density continuum would give you a very good idea of how much energy was stored in the system, radiation out would give you a good idea of solar input, or lead you to look for extra internal sources.

There is still something about SSDD'S comment that has triggered my 'apple vs oranges' alert.

 

[SSDD]

No, I didn't misspeak. "warming a warmer surface" are just words that do not describe the physical process correctly. [...]

If you want to think of back-radiation as heat

No, I don't want to think of back radiation as heat, because it isn't. More generally, radiation, photons, aren't heat, and that's why they cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And yes, back radiation (measured and quantified) is the reason why the earth's surface is warmer than it would be without. And yes, since the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, on average, "the atmosphere is warming a warmer surface" is an adequate way to put it, counter-intuitive as that may sound.

Thanks. It is an interesting topic. I don't really know why your comment is wrong, or perhaps just misleading. I am suspicious that volume is the wrong variable in an atmosphere. Perhaps density?

It's wrong because it calculates the temperature of a planet without reference to energy input, and thus it calculates the exact same temperature for a planet orbiting at 10,000 km from the sun and the otherwise exact same planet lost in space, 10,000 light years from nearest star. That should immediately strike you as utterly risible.

Yes, I have told SSDD in the past that this 'proof' is nothing more than circular reasoning. Using variables or assumptions that already carry the information purportedly derived.

The gravity field and density continuum would give you a very good idea of how much energy was stored in the system, radiation out would give you a good idea of solar input, or lead you to look for extra internal sources.

There is still something about SSDD'S comment that has triggered my 'apple vs oranges' alert.

Might it be that the ideal gas laws come damned close to the actual temperatures....needing some adjustment for solar input on the planets closer to the sun while the greenhouse model won't even get you close on any planet but earth...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor?

And yes there is an apples and oranges thing...that being the ideal gas laws represent actual science while the greenhouse effect described by climate science represents nothing more than mediocre pseudoscience.

 

[IanC]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

 

[Wuwei]

Might it be that the ideal gas laws come damned close to the actual temperatures....needing some adjustment for solar input on the planets closer to the sun while the greenhouse model won't even get you close on any planet but earth...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor?

And yes there is an apples and oranges thing...that being the ideal gas laws represent actual science while the greenhouse effect described by climate science represents nothing more than mediocre pseudoscience.

Looking at the ideal gas laws for different atmospheres is nothing but a verification of the ideal gas laws, not a statement about climate.

Can the ideal gas law predict the temperature/pressure on a mountain and why it differs from the temperature/pressure at the equator?

 

[IanC]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.

And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

Venus (at the surface)

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

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

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


Earth (at the surface)

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

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

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


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Saturn (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Uranus (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Neptune (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

It is no coincidence that the ideal gas law predicts temperatures that are damned close to the actual temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres...no fictional greenhouse effect needed.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of predictions the greenhouse effect makes for the various planets..

I'm sorry but I just don't follow what is happening with the R constant. How are they deriving it?

 

[IanC]

Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.

like the model of the greenhouse effect, when you start with a flawed assumption, you end with a flawed assumption....repeating your bullshit claim ad nauseum is not going to change it into anything other than a bullshit claim...

try the greenhouse equations on a couple of the planets with atmospheres...lets see how close you get to the actual temperatures...certainly nowhere as close as the ideal gas law predicts...

Can you link us up to these greenhouse equations?

 

[SSDD]

Looking at the ideal gas laws for different atmospheres is nothing but a verification of the ideal gas laws, not a statement about climate.

And yet, they accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system with atmospheres while the greenhouse effect only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

And they work because the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant to climate beyond it's mass...

Can the ideal gas law predict the temperature/pressure on a mountain and why it differs from the temperature/pressure at the equator?

Doesn't the US ideal atmosphere do that?..and is the US ideal atmosphere not based on the ideal gas laws?

 

[SSDD]

Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.

like the model of the greenhouse effect, when you start with a flawed assumption, you end with a flawed assumption....repeating your bullshit claim ad nauseum is not going to change it into anything other than a bullshit claim...

try the greenhouse equations on a couple of the planets with atmospheres...lets see how close you get to the actual temperatures...certainly nowhere as close as the ideal gas law predicts...

Can you link us up to these greenhouse equations?

Look at the graphs...they are right there...they claim to get within a couple of degrees of the temperature here on planet earth...if they are of any value at all, they should be able to get within a couple of degrees of any of the other planets...

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, they accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system with atmospheres while the greenhouse effect only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

And they work because the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant to climate beyond it's mass...

My point is the ideal gas law doesn't predict climate variations at various points on the earth. It only computes one variable when you know all the others.

Doesn't the US ideal atmosphere do that?..and is the US ideal atmosphere not based on the ideal gas laws?

"US ideal atmosphere" is not a science term. You need to define it and say how it predicts atmospheric pressures or temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.

And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

Venus (at the surface)

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

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

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


Earth (at the surface)

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

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

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


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Saturn (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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


Uranus (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Neptune (at 1 bar)

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

PV = nRT

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

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

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

It is no coincidence that the ideal gas law predicts temperatures that are damned close to the actual temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres...no fictional greenhouse effect needed.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of predictions the greenhouse effect makes for the various planets..

I'm sorry but I just don't follow what is happening with the R constant. How are they deriving it?

The mean molecular weights of the atmospheres in g/mole can be found in the Nasa Planetary Fact Sheets here..

 

[SSDD]

My point is the ideal gas law doesn't predict climate variations at various points on the earth. It only computes one variable when you know all the others.

Neither does the greenhouse effect...the ideal gas laws do predict the temperatures at various altitudes however..and it does accurately predict the temperatures of other planets...a feat the greenhouse model is entirely unable to do...

"US ideal atmosphere" is not a science term. You need to define it and say how it predicts atmospheric pressures or temperatures.

Then look up US standard atmosphere or international standard atmosphere...want to claim a minor victory because I said ideal instead of standard?

 

[Wuwei]

Neither does the greenhouse effect...the ideal gas laws do predict the temperatures at various altitudes however..and it does accurately predict the temperatures of other planets...a feat the greenhouse model is entirely unable to do...

As I said the ideal gas law only predicts one variable when given all the others.

Then look up US standard atmosphere or international standard atmosphere...want to claim a minor victory because I said ideal instead of standard?

Thanks, I had no idea what you were referring to. There was no victory. Just a clarification.

I looked it up, and International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
The ideal gas law cannot begin to do anything near that level of complexity. So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?

 

[Olde Europe]

So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?

It's not really SSDD "talking", he's just resurrecting the old denialist hoax by Steve Goddard, as amended and expanded by another crappy WUWT post, pompously titled the "Unified Theory of Climate", all based on the gross misunderstanding / abuse of the adiabatic lapse rate and the ideal gas law. They all suggest that pressure is the sole determinant of an atmosphere's temperature, and voilà, "climate change" just disappeared.

Really, what these goofs try to sell is this: If you compress a gas, it heats up (which it does - ideal gas law), and it keeps that temperature forever, and that's why Venus is so hot (92bar!), and that is what determines a planet's climate. If Venus were dragged out of its orbit by some rogue planet and were to find another orbit at the outer fringes of this solar system, its climate wouldn't change one whit. Kid you not.

You even find phrases like this (from the second Goddard link above):

If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.​

Because the ideal gas law says so.

 

[SSDD]

I looked it up, and International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) is a complex model "of how the pressure, temperature, density, and viscosity of the Earth's atmosphere change over a wide range of altitudes or elevations."
The ideal gas law cannot begin to do anything near that level of complexity. So why did you bring up the ideal gas law as predicting atmospheric properties over a wide range of conditions?

You didn't look it far enough up...it is pretty well known througout the rest of science that the standard atmosphere is derived from the ideal gas law...climate science ignores it because it is damned inconvenient.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/atmosphere_lecture_slides.pdf
http://snowball.millersville.edu/~adecaria/ESCI241/esci241_lesson01_composition.pdf
Equations - Air Density and Density Altitude