Utopia Talk / Politics / Hurricane Maria

Aeros rank	Tue Sep 19 01:33:54 2017 God really hates the caribbean this year. Just hit Cat 4
Hot Rod rank	Tue Sep 19 01:57:21 2017 Looks like another ballbuster.
Hot Rod rank	Tue Sep 19 01:59:51 2017 It just went to a Cat 5.
McKobb rank	Tue Sep 19 02:15:59 2017 Ave Maria
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 05:09:46 2017 Oooooo. The rapid intensification of the pinhole eye to cat 5 just before landfall. That island got fucking wrecked. Thats vicious. 200mph gusts easy. Fortunately it doesnt seem to be particularly developed... i dont even know its name and it has no significant airport. Seb will blame it on global warming and wonder if the ideal gas law applies to something made out of gas.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 05:14:59 2017 That storm was a pos this morning and now its a cat 5 killing shit. Impressive. Most impressive.
Aeros rank	Tue Sep 19 05:45:38 2017 That strengthening had to have broken a record. Cat 1 to Cat 5 in less then 12 hours?
murder rank	Tue Sep 19 05:47:05 2017 Puerto Rico is up next. They will all be fleeing for the mainland soon ... and then Trump will try to deport them. :o)
Aeros rank	Tue Sep 19 05:51:59 2017 Yeah, Puerto Rico is in for a major ass raping if the models hold.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 07:08:07 2017 "That strengthening had to have broken a record." Nah. Tightly wound small young storms can pull it off with some regularity. Wilma crushed this one by a lot. A couple pacific storms certainly intensified faster. This is probably top 10 in recorded history though. And the fact that it landfell as it was doing so means its winds were particularly strong. No hurricane will ever be as windy as a young rapidly intensifying one. The surge isnt that strong from the new ones, but the winds are hiroshima grade.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 07:48:08 2017 Sam: your inability to correctly apply the ideal gas law rules you out of talking science. Have a page of notes to upload when I have a moment to type them up. As I said, this is not a good format. But if you want a spoiler, substitute barometric equation for p, and you can trivially show it's impossible for dT to remain constant as T_new(z) can only be T_old(z) + const if that's the case; and when you sub for T and solve for V, you get nonsense. You need to apply the ideal gas law to individual elemental layers. Because you insisted (wrongly) that dT/dz should be constant, and hand wavingly leapt to thermal expansion you failed to think it through. It's trivial to show you can't get a consistent answer.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 07:56:31 2017 "You need to apply the ideal gas law to individual elemental layers." And each layer's thickness is linearly dependent on temperature. It doesnt matter how many levels you choose, how thick you make them. Thickness of any component is linear with T. Atmo physics 101. Gas physics 101. Lol seb doesnt understand the ideal gas law, even though it has been explained 10 times.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 08:00:49 2017 You cannot solve for V due to how gravity wells function (V trends towards infinity, but is functionally an undefined constant). It follows that increase of T = increase of P according to the equation given by the ideal gas law.
patom rank	Tue Sep 19 12:11:29 2017 Where the hell is Bill Nye when I need him to explain all this V and other shit to me so I can understand it?
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 12:15:15 2017 Patom Just think piston engines. http://mechteacher.com/otto-cycle/ There is a relationship between p, v, and t. pressure, volume, temperature.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 12:15:48 2017 hashtagebilllnyelifematters
patom rank	Tue Sep 19 12:35:15 2017 Diesel, 2 cycle or 4 cycle? Never did get the letters representing something. Never had a algebra teacher who could explain what I was studying and when or how I would be using it. I made it a point to promptly forget anything I might have picked up in algebra classes as soon as I was thrown out of my last HS.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 12:51:32 2017 Patom Lucky for you, it aint algebra. The letters are just initials. (V)olume (P)ressure (T)emperature. I gave you 4 stroke non-diesel. Here is diesel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 12:54:01 2017 I am however just pointing out that you know pressure increases if you decrease volume, temperature increases either volume or pressure and so forth. They are all in a relationship :-).
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 13:52:38 2017 Sam: No it's not. P(z)=P_0 * exp(mgz/kT(z) So if P|_1(z) * V|_1(z)=nkT|_1(z) Where |_1,2 means eqm before,after climate change, subbing for T|_2(z) = T|_1(z) + const, eliminating P using the barometric equation, you quickly find that the relationship is not linear, unless const = 0. Like I said, simple math.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 13:56:29 2017 You should listen to jergul - that's one of the holes in your thinking. When you impose the necessary boundary conditions (integrate Boltzmann equation in slab geometry to dummy variable h and solve for N) you get a hideous indefinite integral. That then let's you determine the true expansion with T. But you need to know T(z) to do it. Which is physically obvious as everything's driveven off the temp profile which is in turn driven off Q. Basically, I think you need to go back to school.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 13:58:45 2017 Basically, Sam thinks he can calculate a gradient of a line without knowing or considering it's shape.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 14:03:44 2017 -mgh. Like I said, notation is a bitch.
Hot Rod rank	Tue Sep 19 15:12:56 2017 The PM of the Dominican Republic said every roof on his island has been torn off.
smart dude rank	Tue Sep 19 15:38:27 2017 "The PM of the Dominican Republic said every roof on his island has been torn off." First of all you've got the wrong country. It's not the Dominican Republic. It's Dominica. Second, he never said "every roof" on the island has been torn off. He said "the winds have swept away the roofs of almost every person I have spoken to or otherwise made contact with." Why can you be so wrong all the time?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 16:16:11 2017 Seb, T is aproximately linear with height up to the effective radiating level. To a first order, the thickness of a layer of atmosphere is equal to the mean T beneath it. You keep trying to wiggle up bullshit to excuse the fact you forgot the ideal gas law. You made post after post where you thought a warmer atmosphere would not expand, and now you are trying to claim high nonlinearity to solve for your previous mistake, which of course is horseshit too. When in reality, temp increase is nearly balanced by thickness increase, resulting in minimal dT/dz changes, which makes an already small change negligible. Not only does the theory show this, but the observed data does as well.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 16:44:47 2017 Irrelevant Sam. I didn't specify a form for T|_1(z). Even if T|_1(z) = az + b, unless a and b are 0, the only way for dT|_1(z)/dz = dT|_2(z)/dz is if T|_2(z) = T|_1(z) + const. Sub those in to the ideal gas law and you can see there is no consistent answer. The relationship isn't linear. I'm not claiming that, I've just proved it. Lapse rate is constant, but increasing surface temp changes the pressure profile, and the lapse rate is basically adiabatic convection which is dependent on pressure, which doesn't change linearly with temp. Given that in the lower atmosphere dT/dz = lapse_rate*z, and lapse rate changes with surface temp, we can see that violates your claim dT|_1(z)/dz = dT|_2(z)/dz. Face it Sam, you don't know what your talking about. If you want I can teach you how to use the ideal gas law properly. But I'd have to charge.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 16:48:43 2017 Lapse rate is constant for a given pressure profile, to a given point, for a given surface temperature. It is of course not constant if you change the pressure profile and surface temp.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 17:31:38 2017 Arguing I claimed the atmosphere didn't expand is just an out and out lie. I said it didn't expand in a way that permitted dT/dz to remain constant. It's showing, isn't it, that you can't make the equation show what you want by simply putting in parameters.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 18:03:14 2017 "the lapse rate is basically adiabatic convection which is dependent on pressure" No. Neither the dry nor moist convective lapse rate have much to do with pressure. The dry rate is simply gravity divided by specific heat. The moist rate depends almost entirely on temperature, pressure being a second order effect. You are making idiotic statements to cover your previous idiotic statements, which was made to cover something dumb before that. First you said heat transfer would increase with a) magic backgradient flow and b) increasing gradients based on constant thickness. Ignoring part a for now, you learned that thickness was not constant, but then tried to bs that into extreme nonlinearity. When shown the ideal gas law depends linearly on T given constant mass and gravity, you tried to claim lapse rates magically made T highly nonlinear, another basic violation of fundamental physics. What will you claim now that you see lapse rates are mostly fixed? "I've just proved it. " Bwahahahahahaha. Its like a flat earther on youtube. Vaccines give you cancer!!!! I proved it!!! Look at my video!!!
obaminated rank	Tue Sep 19 18:25:16 2017 Can these fun hurricane threads not be taken over by seb and Sam's dick measuring?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 18:36:54 2017 Watching seb forget the ideal gas law is quite hilarious.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 18:43:46 2017 Then again, cat 5 hurricanes are the tip of the fun spear.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 18:59:21 2017 Sam: Of course they do. The basic way to calculate lapse rate is to look at a volumetric element of air expanding as it rises. Energy loss is work done through expansion, pushing against ambient pressure. If you change the pressure profile, lapse rate changes. Like I said, I've put your T profile, the barometric equation corresponding to your T profile into the ideal gas equation, and you can see the volume term cannot change linearly with increasing local temp. Which bit do you disagree with exactly? It's too simple an equation to obfuscate. What you've failed to account for is that local density changes, so for a given layer element, n isn't constant. Even a constant offset on T means the pcle density changes. Trying to apply to the entire atmosphere in one go just means you lose the ability to calculate gradients, but you can show that some profiles are not consistent. I can show you how to do it properly if you ask nicely. Or go back to school.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 19:00:27 2017 Gosh, Sam really knows nothing about the physical mechanisms at play or basic calculus.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 19 19:08:25 2017 So Sam as forgotten stat mech (samstistical mech), claiming that backscattering is physically impossible. He seems very confused on net Vs gross, he thinks temperature, power and energy are the same thing, he can't use calculus properly, he can't even manipulate basic equations to prove a statement. To top it all off he claims heat flow in adiabatic expansion is invariant with pressure. It's like he knows nothing at all about the subject he claims to be proficient in. Or, you know, he's just bullshitting because he can't admit an error.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 19:25:16 2017 "If you change the pressure profile, lapse rate changes. " No, it doesnt. The energy required for that volume change comes from either the gain or loss of gravitational potential energy and the molecular properties of the mass. No pressure. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is exactly gravity divided by specific heat. This is not just you being a retard, you have reached the flat earther point of total ignorance. The most fundamental equations are neglected by you, again, and again and again. You have now ignored or forgot: the second law of thermo. The ideal gas law. Hyrdostatic balance, and now basic lapse rates. Whats next? One of newtons laws?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 19:30:59 2017 Its like im back teaching physics for non science majors to undergrads at a state school with no admissions requirements again. Durrrr, how many radiuses are in a diameter durrrrr. You really are quite stupid, seb. Anyway, maria is eyeing the virgin islands with her strong side eyewall. Again. Two possible cat 5 eyewall hits in a season. Rofl.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 19:35:48 2017 Even wikipedia gives a basic derivation of lapse rates and you can see how pressure cancels in the most simple way. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate Rofl seb that egg on your face must sting. Beat by wikipedia. You are dumber than wikipedia. Ouch.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 21:31:52 2017 Sammy It cancels in the most simple way. Axiomatically by assuming a hydrostatic equilibrium. Do you see the trouble with applying fluid mechanics to ideal gas law?
jergul rank	Tue Sep 19 21:34:01 2017 Its a bird, its a plane, its the amazing liquidgas man.
Aeros rank	Tue Sep 19 22:00:20 2017 Puerto Rico is officially doomed.
Hot Rod rank	Tue Sep 19 22:47:10 2017 And they are already head over heels in debt. That's three for three. I hope FEMA has the staff to take care of all three problems.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 22:57:25 2017 916mb and cloud tops still cooling. Down to -110F. Muhahaha. Its starting an eyewall replacement cycle... the later stages of which cause weakening.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 19 23:07:49 2017 Gooodbye st croix
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 01:25:40 2017 909mb and still falling. Cloud tops still cooling. Nearly 180mph on the surface radiometer. Strong side eyewall still eyeing st croix. Eyeing get it!!!! Bahahaha. Anyway shes a top 10 storm... displacing my ivan off the top 10 recorded atlantic central pressure list:(
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 02:00:52 2017 Lol the inner eyewall told the outer eyewall to go fuck itself and just went right on intensifying. 190mph eyewall probe. 906mb and still falling. Cloud top temps now in the -120f range. Best looking atlantic storm since wilma.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 02:02:16 2017 Chance the hiroshima eyewall misses st croix to the south. Gonna be close...
Aeros rank	Wed Sep 20 02:07:04 2017 Christ what a monster. Worse then Irma now for sure.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 02:13:03 2017 Ya, a little stronger than irma at her peak. And irma wasnt exactly a slacker.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 02:16:12 2017 Still not close to wilma and haiyan, but a damn fine storm. Remains to be seen if it will landfall at this strength. Wilma did not. Haiyan did(and more).
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 03:35:36 2017 Storms peaked. Weakening time.
Aeros rank	Wed Sep 20 03:37:50 2017 Think it will be able to finish its eyewall replacement before landfall in PR?
Aeros rank	Wed Sep 20 05:17:39 2017 11 PM update. 909 MB, no weakening of intensity.
murder rank	Wed Sep 20 05:25:42 2017 I do not envy the people of St. Croix and Puerto Rico. Even half of this intensity is scary. I can't imagine catching a strong Cat 5 in the teeth.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 06:46:55 2017 "Think it will be able to finish its eyewall replacement before landfall in PR?" Doubt it. Wind field is broadening and weakening. Those nuclear grade winds are gone. St croix got it a bit but not terrible. 100 knots or so, maybe some higher gusts in spots. Not nearly as bad as Dominica. PR gonna get some surge though. Not as bad cause its an island, but a broad old 910mb storm does not fail to drive surge.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 06:52:36 2017 the nhc will leave its intensity up higher than it really is during weakening just before landfall, because they dont want people to get complacent and play in 100kt winds.
Aeros rank	Wed Sep 20 16:03:05 2017 Came ashore as a strong cat 4. Really didnt matter much in the difference though. San Juan looks completely trashed.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 16:38:39 2017 920mb is a solid hit. Those 200 mph winds went away but 150mph is still pretty hefty. Good for a fairly serious case of cockburn. The latest radar images before the station was lost indicated it was a middle cat 4... but with a 920mb core and only cat 4 wind speed, they spread out more and covered a good chunk of island.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 16:44:23 2017 The death toll shoudnt be all that bad, depending on what kind of mountain flooding occurs, but the economic damage will be.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 20 18:14:59 2017 http://water.weather.gov/resources/hydrographs/comp4_hg.png Lol. Something fucking deadly happened to that stream guage. Upstream dam break maybe. Mudslide. I guess its possible that the sensor itself fucked up but the relative continuity after the spike makes me think its real.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 09:34:23 2017 Sam: You are using dry rate. You should be using the wet rate which is dependent on T. Secondly, dry is specific heat at constant pressure. Your argument is that in the new eqm, the atmosphere expands, which means isobars are now at different heights than they were in the previous eqm. It's not surprising you find the equations keep showing no change if you keep neglecting to reflect the change!
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 09:57:11 2017 "The energy required for that volume change comes from either the gain or loss of gravitational potential energy" This is clearly wrong as if the energy only came from GPE, the temperature of the convected air element would be constant. The whole point is the element cools as it rises, and warms the next layer up. Energy is transferred to the ambient gas as it expands. The change in volume and height comes from the internal energy of the volume element U. GPE should rise (same mass, now higher up) but T should drop in a way that more than compensates. The mechanism for that is the expansion of the volume element against surrounding pressure. Work done is force X distance.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 21 17:46:31 2017 "You are using dry rate. You should be using the wet rate which is dependent on T." I should be using both. Which i do. Regardless, pressure is not in the moist rate much either, which goes to show your vast ignorance. "specific heat at constant pressure." More whining idiocy without knowledge. Cp at these temp and pressure ranges is constant to a number of significant figures. This is very much not going to cover your previous mistakes. "and warms the next layer up. " no. It pushes the next layer up. Lol dumb. The heat of adiabatic expension is magically diabatic now, in the mind of seb. "T should drop in a way that more than compensates." T is increasing, remember. This is global warming we are talking about. The atmosphere has gained a little bit of T, which causes a little bit more V. How the fuck do you forget this? Now in addition to forgetting 2nd thermo, the ideal gas law, hydrostatic balance, and the lapse rates, you forgot the atmosphere was warming? Jesus seb. Can you make a single statement without a critical mistake?
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 21 18:06:10 2017 Bottom line... if we add 1% T to the atmosphere, height of any given level, including the effective radiating level, goes up by about 1%.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 20:37:50 2017 Sam: Well, if the wet rate is dependent on T, as it is, and if lapse rate is dT/dz, as it is, how on earth do you maintain the position that dT/dz is unchanged. Pressure is in both in that a key assumption is hydrostatic equilibrium, leading to Cv, And as you've repeatedly pointed out that the hydrostatic equilibria are different so Cv doesn't have the same value between the two equilibria. "It pushes the next layer up." Read what I wrote again. I am describing heat flow in equilibria. No, the entire atmosphere is not continually expanding in bulk when in hydrostatic equilibrium. " T is increasing, remember." You are confusing the process of convection in equilibrium, with what happens to get from one equilibrium. It's like talking to someone on drugs. "we add 1% T to the atmosphere, height of any given level, including the effective radiating level, goes up by about 1%" Clearly not. PV=nKT. Consider a layer h thick at height z has V=Ah_1 Where A is surface of earth. P=p_0exp(-mgz/kT) So if T_2=1.01*T_1 for a given height V=nkT/P So V_2/V_1= 1.01*exp(1.01) Only because all the air below has expanded, you need to integrate all those small differences. Now also consider that for dT/dz being unchanged between equilibria, means T_2 = T_1 + const. That means the percentage increase in T must vary with height, so the expansion cannot be uniform at all heights as you have suggested. This is simply mathematically not consistent. You are just stacking up too many approximations and freely violating the assumptions required to make the approximations. School boy errors.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 21 22:11:46 2017 "Well, if the wet rate is dependent on T, as it is, and if lapse rate is dT/dz, as it is, how on earth do you maintain the position that dT/dz is unchanged. " There is room for a little nonlinearity there, but only a little. We are talking about minor changes that are approximately linear in short increments and only applies to the near surface. To a first order, dT/dz is constant.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 21 22:28:46 2017 "Pressure is in both in that a key assumption is hydrostatic equilibrium, leading to Cv" You are quite confused. In the ranges we are talking, specific heat is exactly constant. Lapse rates are a fundamental equation that you are fucking up again and again. LOL pressure. "Only because all the air below has expanded, you need to integrate all those small differences." All those small differences are linear. Thickness is linear with temperature, in the whole or the subset. This is a fundamental definition you fail at. Assuming constant mass, thickness is and always will be linear with T. I dunno why you added an exp for no reason... its not actually there when mass is constant. These are fundamental textbook definitions that you just dont know.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 21 22:45:03 2017 Seb wont listen to me... maybe he will listen to textbooks/classes http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/152 "Thickness -- a short explanation! 'Thickness' is a measure of how warm or cold a layer" http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/148/ "Therefore, thickness is a function of the average virtual temperature " https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/667 "So, the thickness is actually a measure of the average temperature in the layer" Lol. Poor seb. Wrong again. Sad.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 23:03:33 2017 Sam: "There is room for a little nonlinearity there" I.e. you admit you were wrong and jergul was in fact correct. You keep ignoring all the "small changes", then sure: if we ignore all the changes, there is no change. In absolute terms, what's 4 degrees warming on 290k? Just over 1%. T is a measure of the stock, you only need small changes in flows to drive a big change in stocks. " Thickness is linear with temperature" Only if pressure is constant and not only does P vary with z in equilibrium, between equilibrium it varies too because T as a function of z varies between equilibria. It's right there in the equation. You want to assume p(z) is constant in a scenario where the atmosphere is expanding. It's contradictory. All the little approximations you can make for weather depend on conditions and assumptions you are violating. It's like using the small angle approximation for a large angle, arguing it's fine because a large angle is the sum of all the small angles. There comes a point where all your approximations add up to being just badly wrong.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 23:05:04 2017 "height value of the appropriate isobaric surface" And when the atmosphere expands, isobars will move upward won't they.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 21 23:07:58 2017 "height value of the appropriate isobaric surface" And when the atmosphere expands, isobars will move upward won't they. That's completely consistent with what I said and completely invalidates your insistence on treating p as a constant when comparing two different hydrostatic equilibrium. It's oxymoronic
jergul rank	Thu Sep 21 23:47:08 2017 Seb At least he seems to finally get you cannot assume a hydrostatic system, then apply natural gas law.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 00:25:06 2017 "isobars will move upward won't they." Yes. Linearly, with T. I know its hard to understand... oh wait no its not, you are just dumb. You have been pointed to this definition in a textbook and still dont get it. "You keep ignoring all the "small changes" Yup. When the change is small enough to be insignificant, it is ignored. Common sense. "treating p as a constant" P is constant. Mass is constant and gravity is constant, are they not? "you only need small changes in flows to drive a big change in stocks." This is a thread about flows. Lol dumb. No 2nd thermo, no ideal gas law, no hydrostatic balance, pressure in lapse rates, you dont even know what pressure is, and now you forgot what we were talking about in the first place. Lol. This is great. "you cannot assume a hydrostatic system, then apply natural gas law." Lol dumb. Both are indisputable laws. Not only can you assume them, you must. But nooooo... flat earth jergul doesnt need physics laws. He saw something else on youtube.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 00:55:25 2017 Sammy Assuming the earth atmosphere is a hydrostatic system is not a law, it is an approximation. Assumptions dictate what approaches are valid. If you assume the atmosphere is a hydrostatic system, then you treat it as if it were a liquid and use laws relevant to fluid mechanics (ie how liquids act under various conditions). You can also assume the atmosphere is consists of gas and apply appropriate physical laws as you like. The dichotomy you are suffering from (pressure is constant. Wow look at the millibar drop on that hurricane) stems from you mixing and matching physical principles pretty much at random. Assumptions are used to simplify complex systems. Assumptions are neither valid or invalid, but they do dictate what physical laws are applicable to a given processes.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 01:05:11 2017 "If you assume the atmosphere is a hydrostatic system, then you treat it as if it were a liquid" Lolwut
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 01:07:23 2017 Now i will wait for jergul to explain how our atmosphere is a liquid. This aught to be hilarious.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 01:09:01 2017 Man, i sure hope jergul isnt right and all the scientists ever are wrong. I might drown in our own atmopshere!!
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 01:16:24 2017 Fluid statics or hydrostatics is the branch of fluid mechanics that studies fluids at rest. It encompasses the study of the conditions under which fluids are at rest in stable equilibrium as opposed to fluid dynamics, the study of fluids in motion. Hydrostatics are categorized as a part of the fluid statics, which is the study of all fluids, incompressible or not, at rest. Hydrostatics is fundamental to hydraulics, the engineering of equipment for storing, transporting and using fluids. It is also relevant to geophysics and astrophysics (for example, in understanding plate tectonics and the anomalies of the Earth's gravitational field), to meteorology, to medicine (in the context of blood pressure), and many other fields. Hydrostatics offers physical explanations for many phenomena of everyday life, such as why atmospheric pressure changes with altitude, why wood and oil float on water, and why the surface of water is always flat and horizontal whatever the shape of its container Wikipedia "hydrostatics is the branch of fluid mechanics that studies fluids at rest" Sammy, did you ever enter a masters programme? I think we may be overestimating your educational level.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 02:04:47 2017 Liquid is not the same word as fluid, jergul.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 02:06:35 2017 Lol
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 08:54:00 2017 liquid is a state of matter as opposed to gas and solid (and plasmic). I am not arguing and never have argued that hydrostatics is invalid for atmospheric studies. I am saying you cannot mix and match principles for various states. If you do mix and match, you end up with hideous consistency issues and a series of gross approximations that give an invalid outcome.
Nimatzo rank	Fri Sep 22 11:09:58 2017 Isn't it wonderful that anti intellectual science denial perfectly matches those that are expected of your political views? I love when reality matches the science! Sometimes the world is black and white.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 11:45:40 2017 Nimi Understanding that science is assumption based is a pretty fundamental tenant for understanding science at all. What assumptions dictate above all is consistency in method.
Nimatzo rank	Fri Sep 22 12:31:16 2017 It is the predictable inconsistency I am talking about, left to right. Gender theory or global warming denial is almost perfectly predicted by political views. Both are laughable and at odds with the science. Then you have other issues like anti-vaccers and other conspiracy theories that is distributed more equally. There is a huge variation in pseudoscience topics, but in principle they are indistinguishable from each other.
murder rank	Fri Sep 22 13:08:14 2017 Hurricane threads used to be more fun before they got gayed up with global warming.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 16:32:55 2017 Jergul, you are using the words fluid and liquid interchangeably, like a common pleb. Furthermore, you think gas laws do not apply to fluids, which is obviously wrong when the fluid is a gas. You did not know that fluid is a liquid or gas? Lol. Thats bad. A horrible beginner mistake i would expect out of a non-science undergrad. Nimatzo, the planet is warming a little. No, that does not make every storm worse. Science and batshit global warming hype and scary sounding news articles are different things and you know that.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 16:58:01 2017 Sammy Fluid mechanics does not cover gas and plasma states in a particularly elegant way (vortex theory and some extentions that are theoretically related to quantum mechanics) and only emerged in the 1850s (or some 2000 years after Archimedes "eureuka" moment). I illustrated one of the difficulties with applied hydrostatics on atmosphere earlier: "You cannot solve for V due to how gravity wells function (V trends towards infinity, but is functionally an undefined constant)." Your handwaving approach to assumptions is invalid. You have to commit to an assumption and use proper method consistently. This is also true if you set system boundaries around dynamic processes. You would then need to base your reasoning on assuming a fluiddynamic state (as the case would be in decribing a specific hurricane). The case you are arguing against initially is my stating that global warming gives more and bigger hurricanes. Not that it makes every storm worse. You should try to refrain from shifting parameters on a whim. It makes for rotten scientific thinking.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 17:12:16 2017 "Fluid mechanics does not cover gas and plasma states in a particularly elegant way (vortex theory and some extentions that are theoretically related to quantum mechanics) and only emerged in the 1850s (or some 2000 years after Archimedes "eureuka" moment). I illustrated one of the difficulties with applied hydrostatics on atmosphere earlier: "You cannot solve for V due to how gravity wells function (V trends towards infinity, but is functionally an undefined constant)."" Rofl. Batshit crazy. Fluid mechanics doesnt work with gasses and you cannot solve for atmospheric volume because gravity. The science loving left!!! Lololololol
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 17:27:07 2017 Sammy The only question you are answering now is "did you ever start in that master's programme?" You inability to understand even basic premise is quite stunning.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 17:33:28 2017 But knock yourself out: What is the exact volume of the air around earth? If you can solve for v, then that would be your answer.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 18:09:20 2017 Lol the one who doesnt know what a fluid is is asking others if they went to school. Perhaps you should indeed figure out what a fluid is before worrying about the definition of its top.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 18:12:47 2017 So in addition to not knowing the definition of fluid, you think the gas law does not apply because the "top of atmosphere" is arbitrary? Rofl. Seb and jergul flat earth physics. This is great.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 22 21:01:33 2017 Sam: P=p_0exp (-mgh/kT) Do you dispute this? If not, then clearly *not linearly*
Seb rank	Fri Sep 22 21:04:10 2017 " Mass is constant and gravity is constant, are they not? " Yes, and? Your entire argument is that the distribution is different because the atmosphere has expanded. That means for every point other than the surface, the pressure will be higher because there is more mass above any given point other than the surface than previously. Are you thick or something?
Seb rank	Fri Sep 22 21:09:16 2017 "This is a thread about flows" Your argument is that the temp distribution is "nearly the same" - that's a stock. Not a flow. My point is that a very small change in flow of power can lead to small changes in distribution and surface temp (which is only a couple of %). Arguing that these changes can be dismissed as "too small" without evaluating what matters is nonsensical. It amounts to using 90 * 1 * radius to calculate a tangent of a 90 degree angle.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 22 21:18:20 2017 Jergul: Actually you can solve for the atmospheric height. Use: n (z) = n_0exp (-mgz/kT) If you know T (z) and n_0 Then Integral [An(z)] from 0 to dummy variable h and set equal to N (number of gas pcles) Solve for h. Sam: You've been using slab geometry as an implicit assumption to date. If you go spherical, you get gradients given your arguments. I've not bothered picking that up given the more substantive errors. Whose flat earth believer?
Seb rank	Fri Sep 22 21:21:28 2017 Jergul: Have to say, it's a horrible indefinite integral and I've not checked if it does converge. You probably need to do it with a numerical scheme.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 21:27:17 2017 "that's a stock. Not a flow." Its much closer to a flow. Also you are confusing dT with T again. "P=p_0exp (-mgh/kT) " Yes, but P0 and P are constant. The surface pressure and the effective radiating level pressure and the top of atmosphere are constant, or nearly so. You are taking an equation you just learned, and not surprisinly, using it wrong. "That means for every point other than the surface, the pressure will be higher" If your vertical axis is meters, yes. Congrats on finally learning that the atmosphere expands as it warms. That confused you at first. Too bad for you thickness is defined using a mass/pressure vertical axis. Lol. Yet another fundamental mistake.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 21:34:32 2017 "If you go spherical, you get gradients given your arguments. " Very very minor ones. You are tacking on less than 100 meters in atmospheric thickness to a platerary radius of some 6000 kilometers. Which leaves a spherical change in volume 2 orders of magnitude less than the temperature driven volume change. Thus a flat plate approximation is valid. You are grasping at straws to even bring up something so easily countered.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 22 21:45:37 2017 "P=p_0exp (-mgh/kT)" Lets get back to this. You do realize that if pressure/mass/gravity are all constant, h varies exactly linearly with T?
	show deleted posts