Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your blog theory simply doesn't work for the Jupiter example. It doesn't work for any example because the use of the ideal gas law in the context of your theory assumes the system is adiabatic. Planets are far from adiabatic. You are promoting an amateur exercise that no scientist believes - deniers nor warmers.Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.
Your blog theory simply doesn't work for the Jupiter example. It doesn't work for any example because the use of the ideal gas law in the context of your theory assumes the system is adiabatic. Planets are far from adiabatic. You are promoting an amateur exercise that no scientist believes - deniers nor warmers.Like it or not, there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws with adjustments for incoming solar radiation works for every planet...while the greenhouse effect equations only work here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.
Your blog hypothesis depends on the atmosphere being adiabatic. That is totally erroneous. The numbers don't even work. You will believe it because you want to, but absolutely no scientist, denier nor warmer, is would believe something that stupid.Denial of what you can see is hardly a rational argument...but hey...you aren't operating from a position of rationality..you are operating from a position of faith....
And I have no theory....I have the ideal gas laws...and the results of the equations...they predict the temperatures of the planets far more closely than the greenhouse hypothesis...even here on earth...without the need for an ad hoc fudge factor.
By the way...where are these greenhouse equations?...Ever seen them?....or have you just been told to trust?...and not look too closely?
Your blog hypothesis depends on the atmosphere being adiabatic. That is totally erroneous. The numbers don't even work. You will believe it because you want to, but absolutely no scientist, denier nor warmer, is would believe something that stupid.Denial of what you can see is hardly a rational argument...but hey...you aren't operating from a position of rationality..you are operating from a position of faith....
And I have no theory....I have the ideal gas laws...and the results of the equations...they predict the temperatures of the planets far more closely than the greenhouse hypothesis...even here on earth...without the need for an ad hoc fudge factor.
By the way...where are these greenhouse equations?...Ever seen them?....or have you just been told to trust?...and not look too closely?
The question is are his results wrong?Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
OBSERVATIONS WHICH WORK vs Fantasy that can not be proven....Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
OBSERVATIONS WHICH WORK vs Fantasy that can not be proven....Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'll go with physical observations that work
The question is are his results wrong?Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
OBSERVATIONS WHICH WORK vs Fantasy that can not be proven....Your ideal gas law can only be applied to an adiabatic system in the way you are attempting. It's amazing that you feel that the atmosphere is adiabatic. I guess when you learn physics from blogs that's what happens.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'll go with physical observations that work
Simply fascinating to watch...isn't it....that ideal gas law can't possibly predict the temperatures of the planets and the fact that it does must be some coincidence...or denier magic...or something...because it can't possibly be right...and yet it is...but it can't be....and yet it is...it must be a trick...and yet it predicts those temperatures...but it can't...and yet it does...and on and on and on...
You don't really have to believe in a hair-brained blog. Back-radiation is real. All scientists for the last 100 years believe there is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law. Do you believe entropy properties are valid?It is like you are saying black is white because white is black....the fact is that the ideal gas laws plus an adjustment for incoming solar radiation provide a pretty accurate prediction for temperature across every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....that isn't coincidence...
You are simply mistaken and don't like it and are thrashing about for some reason to not believe your eyes...it is damned entertaining to watch as well as I sit on a stack of equations that predict the temperature for every damed planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while your hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor.....
[Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?
[Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?
the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
[Q Do you believe entropy properties are valid?
the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
Wow! So few words, so much fail.
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the entropy (the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system) cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink. Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. Thus, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/5130/Notes/SecondLaw.pdf
The second law of thermodynamics states that all natural processes are irreversible.
That's right!the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible
That's not right!.no back radiation ever.
That's right!the second law is all about entropy...energy rolling down hill...always becoming less organized....energy moving from the warm surface of the earth to the cooler atmosphere is and example of entropy...and in addition, it is a natural process...and all natural processes are irreversible
That's not right!.no back radiation ever.
Where in the law of entropy does it say that? Nowhere. As long as the colder object received more energy than it emits, the entropy law is satisfied. Anyone can understand that.
and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
Wow! So few words, so much fail.
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the entropy (the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system) cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink. Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. Thus, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time.
and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
Todd was no doubt referring to the last sentence "....no back radiation ever..."you are funny...and sad...
...all natural processes are irreversible.
and all natural processes are irreversible....no back radiation ever...
Todd was no doubt referring to the last sentence "....no back radiation ever..."you are funny...and sad...
...all natural processes are irreversible.
Now who's funny and sad.
