Utopia Talk / Politics / Maria V

jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 23:26:32 2017 Seb: "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." I know :). You will get a reasonable approximation using a numerical scheme. But I feel you and I both have warned about the dangers of approximations. The issue can actually only be legitimatly approached by way of vortex theory and derived theoretical approaches complex enough to compet with quantum physics. Which is why sammy's slight of hand physics is so vexing. This is complex shit, man.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 23:39:38 2017 Sammy The devil is in the details. Notic that every time you respond seriously, you qualify by discounting variables. The road to hell is paved with small approximations.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 22 23:40:17 2017 (dropped vocals due to sticky keyboard).
Nimatzo rank	Sat Sep 23 10:24:36 2017 I am wondering though, is global warming so complicated to explain that it requires one to understand fluid mechanics, vortex theory and quantum field theory? I have a feeling that this is yet another topic on UP that has spun out of control and it has become a epenis contest over who understands a topic, in this case the general field of physics, "better".
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 23 17:50:29 2017 "fluid mechanics" That always helps. Also, it helps to understand what a fluid is. Lol jergul.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 23 18:24:06 2017 Nimi Complexity is actually the last line of defence for climate deniers as it is the only basis from which to question climate models. More atmospheric CO2 means more accumulated heat retention than would otherwise be the case is the baseline simplistic view. The mechanism is indisputable, so valid questioning of the outcome has to be derived from advanced physical theories. The point is easily illustrated by pointing out how that baseline physical attributes like atmospheric volum remain undefined.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 23 21:30:48 2017 Jergul: It would be a good approximation. Not a crap one. Nothing wrong with approximations if the assumptions are valid.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 23 21:35:13 2017 Nim: It's incredibly simple. Sam is just making it needlessly complex. Though what we've discussed so far is merely complicated. In principle, nothing an undergrad couldn't figure out in an hour and work thorough rigorously in a week. Note, we aren't actually working through it rigorously, Sam's just babbling and I can't be arsed to create an account to share worked notes and diagrams because Sam won't even address basic equations that demonstrate he's incorrect. Sam: Are you seriously arguing a gas isn't a fluid?
jergul rank	Sat Sep 23 22:35:12 2017 Seb "Nothing wrong with approximations if the assumptions are valid" My point is that proving assumption validity is incredibly complex. Which leads to circular argumentation (the approximation proves the assumption is valid). Sam thinks I was said hydrostatics is not valid for gases. And that you do not understand ideal gas law. And other nonsense. Sammy has incidentally abandoned his position and is now merely claiming that global warming will not make every storm stronger. So there is that.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 00:28:51 2017 Seb Incidentally, the discussion you and sammy are having might reach greater clarity using a fluid dynamic approach, not a hydrostatic one.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 00:35:21 2017 Sam has a position? He contradicts himself with every post. A few back he did actually admit that temp gradients will change with temperature, describing it as a "small amount of nonlinearity". Anyway, all I'm saying is I think given a number of mols, a gravitational potential and a temperature you can calculate a finite radius in which the mols will fall - i.e. radius for the atmosphere - without any messy approximations. Or rather, the physics basis is clean but the maths will get a bit horrid. Worst case in the approach I set out, you might need to do something with another boundary condition on n(z) if it tends to zero to fast (i.e. if you are having to integrate over a such and such a distance to get to an integer - you can set a clean boundary condition where you can argue the distance between molecules is great enough that they aren't really interacting so arguably not part of the atmosphere). Also, I think you can find the analytical form of the integral. But I'm lazy so I suggested a numerical approach. But nothing like, e.g. "oh, this change in gradients small so I'm going to ignore it" or "this is constant in one hydrostatic equilibrium, I'm operating in a different one, but the difference between them is 'small' (though also linear with temperature, and temp diff I consider significant) so I'll pretend this quantity is the same constant in both, even though this constant actually controls the temperature difference, I'm sure that's fine and not obviously inconsistent!"
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 00:39:50 2017 Jergul: Hydrostatic is a condition within fluid dynamics. All that stuff about convection? That's fluid dynamics. Assuming hydrostatic equilibrium is fine for describing the two eqm states. It's perfectly clear as it is. Sam's babbling because it's become very clear he's wrong. Fluid dynamics is just MHD without Maxwell's equations :p
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 01:30:07 2017 Seb Drawing system boundaries to practically limit a problem would be the way to go. Hydrostatics is fine for describing two eqm states. But fluid dynamics is the way to go if you want to describe how two states interact. A procedural point most of all, but it does have practical connetations (consider p for example). The correct tool and all that. Though of course a wrench can also be used to hammer in nails. Sammy would not have screwed up if he had immediately gone with fluid dynamics. But easy enough to do. Tacit knowledge versus reflection.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 01:32:53 2017 I did laugh at MHD comment btw. Yes. MHD without Maxwell. Easy peasy :).
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 24 04:06:13 2017 "Are you seriously arguing a gas isn't a fluid?" Bahahahahahaha. Jergul was actually confused by that Which to be fair, is one idiot level mistake, whereas you are up to be about 4 seb. Lol. Heat flows from cold to hot, gas doesnt expand when heated, thickness is not linear with temperature, and lapse rates are dominated by pressure. Your on a roll seb. A roll of dumbshittery.
The Children rank	Sun Sep 24 08:11:38 2017 oh maria maria she remind me of a west side story growin up in spanish harlem she livin the life just like a movie star oh maria maria she fell in luv with east la to the sounds of the guitar yeeeh yeaaah viva carlos santana
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 10:15:25 2017 Sammy Untrue. Review thread. The only one making mistakes here is you. Grow a pair and man up to them.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 11:16:20 2017 Jergul: I really don't think we need to consider in detail the path between the two eqm states. But if we did I don't actually think we need to use fluid dynamics here (GCMs certainly don't!). Navier stokes is horrendous. Hydrostatic eqm describes the state of the system. Mathematically you can analyse that state in a number of ways. Sam: My entire field users fluid dynamics to describe charged gasses. I'm not clear what you are suggesting here, but absolutely fluid dynamics is how you describe the mechanics of gasses. I don't recognise your claims of supposed errors. Are you back to claiming backscatter violates thermodynamics again?
Nimatzo rank	Sun Sep 24 15:14:52 2017 This is completely fruitless. It is nice to "understand" the quantum level of the universe and evidently we don't fathom how it all strings together. But on the macro level all that matters is, how accurately are the models making predictions? From what I understand, pretty good. It seems like basic thermodynamic sense that if the atmosphere is getting warmer and trapping more energy, the gases inside it, would "move around" more. Things like hurricanes and other "wind related phenomena" need things like energy. Explain to me without quantum theory why that isn't correct. Unless some quantum level forces are sucking energy from our atmosphere into another dimension.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Sep 24 15:18:37 2017 I have a name for it, "Inter-dimensional heat pump effect". All the parts fit in there, fluid mechanics, turbulence, thermo-dynamics, quantum theory!
The Children rank	Sun Sep 24 15:55:05 2017 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPLV7lGbmT4
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 16:13:54 2017 Seb I was not suggesting a fluid dynamic perspective is mandatory. But it is more straight forward when describing weathersystem interaction. Sammy would not have screwed up if he had tied himself to that lanyard. Hydrostatic eqm consideration in this context is just a stillshot of a dynamic state. The assumption here is that you can use any number of hydrostatic stillshots to approximate a dynamic state.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 16:23:32 2017 Nim: Indeed. Sam is arguing nearly all the energy goes into causing the atmosphere to expand, lifting it up higher. The thing that drives storms are temperature gradients, so he's claiming the combined rising temperatures and expansion of the atmosphere cancels and results in no change in temperature gradients. He's completely wrong, and even following his assinine arguments and applying them as he suggested, the maths doesn't work out.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 16:25:41 2017 Jergul: That must be some hitherto unknown definition of straightforward. Good luck to you if you find navier stokes a simple and intuitive equation, alas I find it a complete pain and avoid it if possible. The only thing more painful wouñd be a full kinetic treatment.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 24 16:32:44 2017 "My entire field users fluid dynamics to describe charged gasses." Obviously that knowledge is not there now. You used to have intelligent thoughts so i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you used to know it. Where that knowledge went, i can only speculate. Old seb was pretty daft when it came to global warming hype, but i doubt he would have made such simpleton mistakes as misunderstanding the ideal gas law and then that backscattered energy could do useful work many times. Jergul, you thought you couldnt apply the gas to a fluid. Lol.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 24 17:38:38 2017 The gas law. Duh.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 24 22:11:44 2017 Seb There are several approximations you could use to avoid navier-stokes equation. Back of napkin forum discussions merely require a headnod towards known principles before making acceptable simplifications. I am mostly speaking on the context of the discussion. I am actually pretty sure framing the conversation on a fluid dynamic context would not have changed your argument at all, though it would have kept sammy from screwing up.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 22:13:03 2017 Sam: Fluid dynamics apply to gasses Sam. I didn't claim it could do useful work. I just said it needed to be accounted for in the energy balance. You then argued it should be neglected because it's physically impossible. You later corrected to "net flow", though I'd been using that terminology from the beginning. You fool nobody but yourself. Nothing jergul says implies you can't apply the gas law to a fluid. Ideal gas law is just an equation of state. You need it to close navier stokes, so any incompatibility is in your imagination. You are the one trying to apply the ideal gas law as if the entire atmosphere was in thermal equilibrium (i.e. has a single temperature).
Seb rank	Sun Sep 24 22:17:41 2017 Jergul: He's using the ideal gas law while treating the atmosphere as rigid body. Nothings going to stop him screwing up
Sam Adams rank	Mon Sep 25 01:03:02 2017 "Fluid dynamics apply to gasses Sam. " Duh. jergul thought otherwise. "He's using the ideal gas law while treating the atmosphere as rigid body." Wait what? How did that enter your head... unless... nah... you couldnt possibly think hydrostatic implies rigidity? "I didn't claim it could do useful work." Yet you did. "I just said it needed to be accounted for in the energy balance. " And it was. The surface warms, and then radiates more.
jergul rank	Mon Sep 25 09:36:34 2017 Sammy I think you just got confused when I was illustrating your problem with "using the ideal gas law while treating the atmosphere as rigid body. Nothings going to stop him screwing up". Frame the discussion in a fluid dynamic context. Ideal gas law is a direct supporting theorem. It might help you not screw up.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 25 11:32:17 2017 Sam: You basically defined atmosphere depth as the difference between the effective radiative height and sea level, then argued you could apply the ideal gas law, treating P as P_0 and therefore constant, the atmosphere as having a single temperature, thus giving you linear expansion. When you finally realised this doesn't work you tried to treat the atmosphere as discrete layers, but refuse to consider P as a function of z or T. Essentially, by ignoring that you are treating the atmosphere as a layer of rigid bodies that are incompressible. And your imagery backs that up when you talk about layers pushing on each other.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 25 11:37:28 2017 Sam: "Yet you did". I really didn't. Show me where you think I did. You did neglect it from power balance. You explicitly argued that as isolation hadn't charged, net power radiated to space must have not changed, therefore the atmospheres upward power channel couldn't have changed. When I explained how backscatter increase requires a corresponding increase in upward power flow, you argued that backscatter was physically impossible due to thermodynamics.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Sep 25 17:26:22 2017 "When you finally realised this doesn't work" Except it does work. Sebdumb. We have been over this. You have been shown many times that thickness varies linearly with T, and that temperature lapse rates are nearly linear. The atmosphere expands about as much as temperature increases. This is indisputable. You have nothing left but confused idiocy. "you argued that backscatter was physically impossible" It is impossible for backscatter to effectively do work. Lol seb you still understand thermo.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 25 17:59:51 2017 Sam: You keep citing PV=nKT. The only way V can be linear with T is if P is a constant, not a function of T. Do you think P is not a function of T?
Seb rank	Mon Sep 25 18:03:43 2017 Sam: I never at any point suggested backscatter does work on the atmosphere or surface. What it does is effectively reduce upward radiation. In a statistical mechanics sense, the work is done by the insolation. Tippy argued simply that backscatter was thermodynamically impossible.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 25 18:04:30 2017 If you disagree, provide a quote from me suggesting otherwise.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Sep 25 20:27:58 2017 "Do you think P is not a function of T?" Of course. Pressure is equal to the mass of the atmosphere above you. Theres no T in that. This is a fundamental requirement of any atmosphere. The effective radiating level is a pressure level. It is based on the mass above you as well. Agreed?
Seb rank	Tue Sep 26 11:14:24 2017 Sam: " Pressure is equal to the mass of the atmosphere above you. Theres no T in that" Your entire argument is that the atmosphere expands. The inevitable consequence of that is that some of the mass that was below or level with a point is now above that point. The only point this isn't true is at the surface where all the atmosphere is above you in both cases. Hence the barometric equation: P=P_0 exp (-mgz/kT). So absolutely yes, P=f(T). Do you agree? Or are you suggesting that somehow the volume increases but the mass distribution stays the same? Violating conservation of mass - why not! You already decided to violate conservation of energy.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 16:10:35 2017 The atmosphere expands. The pressure at each previous height level is a little greater. In pressure coordinates, the height of each pressure level is a little higher. Congrats seb, you learned at least a portion of the ideal gas law!!! Clap clap clap. Now you are still confused about height verse pressure levels, and which one is linear with T and which one is not, but hey, at least you now admit the ideal gas law exists. Thats a start. Lol. Remember a few threads ago when you thought increasing T HAD to to drive increased gradients because thickness was constant? Lol!
Seb rank	Tue Sep 26 19:17:54 2017 "The pressure at each previous height level is a little greater." So, basically, you finally understand P is a function of T, so V cannot be linear with T. Because V=nKT/exp(-kT/mgz)P_0 - which is very clearly not linear. "In pressure coordinates, the height of each pressure level is a little higher." I've no idea what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are trying to normalise out z by converting z into a function of P. It's word salad and tells us nothing about the relationship of V to T. "HAD to to drive increased gradients because thickness was constant? Lol!" No, I said the changes in power flow required to restore equilibrium requires a change in dT. I then went on to show that dT/dz could not possibly constant between the two equilibria both in principle and mathematically. I never at all said it had to be constant because thickness was constant. Obviously that's not true. If you feel differently, find a quote. But as it stands, it seems you are finally admitting your error.
Seb rank	Tue Sep 26 19:17:54 2017 "The pressure at each previous height level is a little greater." So, basically, you finally understand P is a function of T, so V cannot be linear with T. Because V=nKT/exp(-kT/mgz)P_0 - which is very clearly not linear. "In pressure coordinates, the height of each pressure level is a little higher." I've no idea what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are trying to normalise out z by converting z into a function of P. It's word salad and tells us nothing about the relationship of V to T. "HAD to to drive increased gradients because thickness was constant? Lol!" No, I said the changes in power flow required to restore equilibrium requires a change in dT. I then went on to show that dT/dz could not possibly constant between the two equilibria both in principle and mathematically. I never at all said it had to be constant because thickness was constant. Obviously that's not true. If you feel differently, find a quote. But as it stands, it seems you are finally admitting your error.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 19:22:46 2017 "So, basically, you finally understand P is a function of T, so V cannot be linear with T. " Sebdumb, you are trying to violate a most basic law of atmospheric physics.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 19:30:27 2017 The thickness equation is indisputable. Volume of an atmosphere, or any subset of atmosphere, is linearly based on the mean T. This is indisputable. Trying to deny basic scienrific law makes you look quite stupid. "I've no idea what you are trying to say here." Of course you dont. Why would you understand a basic tenent of atmospheric sciences such as pressure levels? No wonder you are so confused by all this.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Sep 26 19:39:40 2017 In simple english. As the temp rises in the atmosphere, so does pressure and volume as the "roof" expands into space and when it does that pressure and temp doesn't go up as much. Am I getting this right?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 19:41:31 2017 "I never at all said it had to be constant because thickness was constant. Obviously that's not true. If you feel differently, find a quote. " Seb Member Sun Sep 10 17:12:37 Nor do I think the top of the column is going to increase in height significantly. http://www...hread=81115&time=1505664692052 Rofl. Poor seb. It must suck to leave evidence of your own glaring incompetence like that.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 19:51:47 2017 "In simple english. As the temp rises in the atmosphere, so does pressure and volume as the "roof" expands into space" Basically ya, although overall pressure is unchanged. An atmosphere settles into something called hydrostatic balance, forced upon any atmosphere's pressure by gravity, such that all temperature change goes into volume change. The net result is that the atmosphere has expanded such that increased temperature is balanced(mostly) by an expanding atmosphere, leaving the temperature gradient, and therefore the energy available for storms, approximately the same. Its a physical mechanism behind the relative lack of storm strength change despite a clear trend of temperature increase.
Nimatzo rank	Tue Sep 26 19:55:35 2017 Don't answer that, because it does not really matter. You agree the earth is warming, scientist say the earth is warming and the models are pretty good and predict the warming of the earth. We all agree it is man made. The discussion breaks down when people try to assess and quantify the damages. Will it be terrible or not so bad? Personally I rather not throw the dice, the current path must be reversed, but not at "any" cost and in a hurried panic. There are other things to be taken into account, so you don't shoot yourself in the head to heal a broken foot. This is my stance, it may be wrong, future might be really horrible. I am not really worried about hurricanes and floods, but draught and famine and rising sea level. Surely we will survive, but how much money do we have to throw into building sea walls, de-salination plants and relocating people? Money that could been used to build nukes to drop on Mecca or fund anti feminist research.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 20:09:30 2017 "but not at "any" cost and in a hurried panic." Agreed. The natural progression of technology is likely sufficiently fast. Fossil fuels will go away and be replaced by something better, with or without global warming. No one expects to power starhips, robot armies and our space colonies with coal.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 20:31:56 2017 "Its a physical mechanism behind the relative lack of storm strength change despite a clear trend of temperature increase." a. ACE strength has increased from a baseline 1980/83. The question is only if this is due to global warming, interdecennial storm cycles, or a combination of both. b. Hurricanes are generated from ocean heat and are fluid dynamic and hydrostatic processes (by definition). Global warming makes the oceans warmer and should lead to a longer hurricane season, with stronger and more frequent hurricanes. This is not unequivically the case due to a. (it has not been robustly demonstrated and will not be robustly demonstrated for a few decades as timeline data falls into place). P as a constant at any given altitude is axiomatic from a hydrostatic standpoint. P will only change when the definition for 1 atm changes. The definition is an approximation: "This value was intended to represent the mean atmospheric pressure at mean sea level at the latitude of Paris, France" It is assumed, but not demonstrated, that p has not changed (nor that mean sea level has changed for that matter).
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 20:32:55 2017 "Its a physical mechanism behind the relative lack of storm strength change despite a clear trend of temperature increase." a. ACE strength has increased from a baseline 1980/83. The question is only if this is due to global warming, interdecennial storm cycles, or a combination of both. b. Hurricanes are generated from ocean heat and are fluid dynamic, not hydrostatic processes (by definition). Global warming makes the oceans warmer and should lead to a longer hurricane season, with stronger and more frequent hurricanes. This is not unequivically the case due to a. (it has not been robustly demonstrated and will not be robustly demonstrated for a few decades as timeline data falls into place). P as a constant at any given altitude is axiomatic from a hydrostatic standpoint. P will only change when the definition for 1 atm changes. The definition is an approximation: "This value was intended to represent the mean atmospheric pressure at mean sea level at the latitude of Paris, France" It is assumed, but not demonstrated, that p has not changed (nor that mean sea level has changed for that matter).
Seb rank	Tue Sep 26 20:45:08 2017 Sam: I'm not violating it, you are. You are trying to assume constant pressure conditions, which you've accepted aren't true. "or do I think the top of the column is going to increase in height significantly." This doesn't say expansion won't happen, just not significantly. Significantly in this context would be when the change is enough to offset the rise in temp throughout the profile in a way that would leave gradient unchanged. Anything less than that isn't significant to this discussion. And indeed, I've subsequently shown that this indeed what the ideal gas law shows. Nim: Yeah, pretty much. Sam: "although overall pressure is unchanged" So you once again deny barometric equation! Jergul: No. P at any given point will change if the T profile changes. 1 atm is defined as pressure are the surface. This is the only point where P won't change as there's always 100% of the atmosphere above that point.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 20:58:26 2017 "ACE strength has increased" No. "From a baseline 1980/83." Cherry picking dates again? Lol. Why did you choose 1980? Because it was the date that conformed to your narrow world view while ignoring the obviously more active 60s and early 70s? Amatuer move. "Hurricanes are generated from ocean heat and are fluid dynamic, not hydrostatic" Lol dumb. Individual eddies are not hydrostatic but the atmospheric average is, as is any sufficiently large chunk of it at any given time. The large scale patterns that allow hurricanes are in near perfect hydrostatic equilibrium. "but not demonstrated" Of course it is demonstrated. Every significant airport on earth has an exact pressure record for its entire life. Dumb.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 21:01:11 2017 Seb I am just paraphrasing the argument. If p is static axiomatically, then it would follow that increasing t would only lead to increased v. Consider the base hydrostatic formula for p without substitution that forms the basis for sam's world view.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 21:03:33 2017 Sammy: "There is no Irma. We must look at the atmosheric average (by which I mean mean) Hurricanes cannot exist"
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 21:15:28 2017 "Significantly in this context would be when the change is enough to offset the rise in temp throughout the profile" Which it does. Almost exactly. You have been shown the thickness equation. The distance between two pressure levels, in this case the radiating level and the surface, is equal to mean T. You have been shown the derivation of the ideal gas law that leads to this inescapable law of atmospheric physics. Thickness=temperature. This is as indisputable as gravity. Lol seb the flat earther is arguing against the most basic science. And, on top of that, you thought the atmosphere could not expand significantly. Which you now try to redefine as "exactly matching". In no world does "significant" mean "exactly matching". Not even your own retarded world where leftist talking points trump science law. So not only are you wrong about basic physics (it is almost exactly matching), you are trying to worm your way out of your previous mistakes in the most dishonorable way possible. And even your weasling is wrong! Rofl!
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 21:36:20 2017 Seb, are you still confusing pressure at a given height and height between two known pressure levels?
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 22:48:02 2017 Sammy The northern hemisphere (with actual long term data on atm) show an increase in p. In a static model, any air unit under pressure, will, when heated, both expand, and be contained, by air units under pressure surrounding it. In any given instant of time, a given unit of air an increase of both p and v as a function of increased t. The problem you are running into is using a static model capable only of viewing a system in a single instant of time based on mean data from innumerable data points over an extended period of time. The static approach has obvious weaknesses and should not be treated as gospel. Particularly in a discussion revolving around dynamic systems (as per thread title).
Seb rank	Tue Sep 26 22:52:55 2017 Sam: Clearly it doesn't. I've demonstrated several times now that the ideal gas law clearly shows that is not the case. I did the math in the last thread. Do I really need to show it to you again? Nobodies fooled Sam. Not even Nim. I'm not confusing pressure at a given height and the distance between two pressure levels - the result is equivalent. But if it would help you understand, tomorrow morning I shall recast the maths that way. It's really a bit pathetic for you to keep going on like this. It's like that time you Addy beat you that game and you couldn't acknowledge it.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 22:58:41 2017 Seb I think the problem is temporal slippage. Sammy can't keep track how time might impact on static eqm. This is a pretty serious conceptual flaw.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 23:34:59 2017 "I've demonstrated several times now that the ideal gas law clearly shows that is not the case. " Awwwww isnt that cute. Seb thinks he has demonstrated the opposite of fundamental laws by confusing height and pressure. Do you also make videos on youtube claiming the earth is flat? Since you clearly forgot how to manipulate a simple equation(is exp to ln too tough for you?)... here is the proper form all settled for you. Note how the nonlinear components do not include T or thickness after a little algebra to isolate T and thickness. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsometric_equation The thickness between two constant pressure layers is linear with T. There it is for you, as clear as day, right in your face, taunting you on my behalf. You keep failing and failing. It must be embarassing for you. I can stomach losing an internet game of rtw. Can you stomach being completely hopeless at basic physics? Because you are. Remember that time you argued for a year that himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2025?
Sam Adams rank	Tue Sep 26 23:40:34 2017 "temporal slippage" You are babbling and making stuff up now jergul.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 23:49:19 2017 It just means you don't time. Any given snapshot will never show equilibrium, but rather a process moving towards equilibrium as best it can. I am just showing you another way to see that seb is right. p and v are a function of t. An increase in t will se a unit of air contained as it expands. Duh.
jergul rank	Tue Sep 26 23:49:37 2017 don't get time*
Seb rank	Wed Sep 27 08:51:00 2017 Sam: It's not a fundamental law that your bullshit is correct. There's no confusion here. Re Hyposometric equation " equivalent thickness of an atmospheric layer under the assumptions of constant temperature" Is Temperature constant throughout the column? No. Is Temperature constant between equilibria? No. Is this assumption therefore valid for the conversation we are having? No.
Seb rank	Wed Sep 27 09:57:35 2017 Btw, even if the distance between tso known pressure levels were constant, it isn't immediately obvious to me that this would demonstrate dT/dz would be invariant between two different hydrostatic equilibria. Given this was the original point of dispute, it looks to me like you are the one getting confused Sam. Anyway, I'm happy to have a go recasting into your new paradigm and demonstrate yet another way you are wrong. As with Addy beating you in a war game, I'm sure you will live it down, even if it takes 10 years to finally accept it.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 27 15:22:49 2017 Temperature varies approximately linearly with height seb. The mean T approximation in the thickness equation is valid. This is like day 2 of atmospheric physics 101. Thickness=temperature. This is fundamental, and indisputable.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 27 15:51:54 2017 "it isn't immediately obvious to me that this would demonstrate dT/dz would be invariant " It isnt clear to you how aproximately equal changes to the numerator and denominator would cancel? Lol. How are you this dumb? Scratch atmo physics, lets go back to 4th grade and teach seb fractions.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 00:15:48 2017 Sam: 1. Temperature varies linearly with height: Most importantly, all the proofs and derivations I've provided so far make no assumptions about the temperature profile. I just use T(z) - which, because I am beginning to suspect you know fuck all about standard notation - just means T is a function of altitude. Whether that's linear or some other function is irrelevant. As it happens, T is not linear. https://goo.gl/images/48bCAo T is only approximately linear in the mid to lower troposphere. The effective radiative level you've been referring to is something of a red herring. It's just the point at which the atmosphere has a temperature such that by the steffan boltzman law, it would be radiating as much energy as the earth absorbs - it's not literally a point where photons escape unhindered into space. I'm not really sure here how you think it's relevant - so I've largely been ignoring it. So lets go back to your original claim: namely, global warming doesn't increase temperature gradients. You've actually already admitted it does, as you accept the moist lapse rate is indeed dependent on temperature, and the lapse rate is the definition of the temperature gradient. You've cited the ideal gas law. Let's remember what that is: PV=nRT You've argued that because we can assume flat geometry, V= A*z, where z is the vertical coordinate, and A is the earths surface which we can treat as constant. You had a bit of a wobble, complaining when Jergul made that assumption and accused him of being a flat earther, but whatever. You're unstable. We know that. Your argument continues then that we can re-arrange and say: nRT/PA=z so therefore dz/dT = nR/PA as neither n, R, A or P will change under global warming scenarios. Any change in Temperature will simply lead to an expansion of the air, but the gradient will be constant. Of course, we know there is something wrong here because re-arranging to obtain dT/dz gives PA/nR, which is surely the lapse rate. So what's wrong? Well, it turns out, two things. The first thing is that as an equation of state, PV=nRT applies to a gas of particular pressure and Temperature, and your argument here basically treats the atmosphere as being a single gas in thermal equilibrium with constant pressure. You waived your hands and said "Well, yeah, but it's true for each layer so must be true for the whole", which is true, but then you need to integrate over those layer, and that produces a different result. More importantly, T and P are both functions of z. The second thing is that P isn't a constant. You've argued here that P is always the same as it's basically the weight of the atmosphere, which won't ever change. Unfortunately, because you are stuck with a bad model of rigidly expanding layers, you've failed to think through what actually happens when the atmosphere warms. What happens is that the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere increases, and they spend more time at higher altitudes than previously. The obvious thing about the atmosphere expanding is that more of it is at a greater altitude than previously. Thus, at any arbitrary point above the surface, pressure is larger than before because there is a greater mass of atmosphere that needs to be supported than before. The equation for P as a function of T is P=P_0 *exp(-mgz/KT) where P_0 is the pressure at the surface, m is the average mass of a molecule, g gravitational acceleration. But T is a function of z. Ok, so lets look at the ideal gas law then. V=nRT(z)/P_0exp(-mgz/kT(z)) Az=nRT(z)/P_0exp(-mgz/kT(z)) z=nRT(z)/AP_0exp(-mgz/kT(z)) dz/dt =nR/AP_0[ exp(-mgz/KT(z)) + T(z) d/dz( exp(-mgz/KT(z))] This ain't linear. Half of your argument is confusing two things: the linearity of dT/dz in one hydrostatic equilibrium to mean that dT/dz will be constant in any other hydrostatic equilibrium, which simply doesn't follow because the function of T(z) is actually determined by heat flow, and the whole point of global warming is that it messes with heat flow. In attempting to prove that dT/dz is invariant to any changes in the temperature profile and pressure profile. This is bonkers. "Btw, even if the distance between tso known pressure levels were constant, it isn't immediately obvious to me that this would demonstrate dT/dz would be invariant between two different hydrostatic equilibria." You say this is 4th grade physics, but you are being a bit thick here. You are saying that h_1 - h_2 = const: p1=P_0 * exp(-mgh_1/KT) so KT_1 * ln(P_0/P_1)/mg = h_1 and vice versa for h_2 so h1 - h_2 = [KT_1 * ln(P_0/P_1)/mg] - [KT_2 * ln(P_0/P_2)/mg] Hmm, doesn't look like we are going to find h1-h2 is constant, and even if we did assume is, I don't think we are going to find the gradient being constant either. Oh, but wait, what if we assume T_2 = T_1 (note this is not the same as it being linear, linear would be T_2 = aT_1 + b) Then we end up with our old friend the Hyposmetric equation. Only, even you agree that the entire atmosphere isn't at a single uniform temperature. You say it varies linearly with z. So, erm, yeah, that thickness equation isn't "fundamental", it's a crude approximation that works for certain purposes, but not this one - because for it to work you are having to assume that the very thing you are trying t prove is true is already true. i.e. Garbage in, garbage out. Sam flunks again.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 28 00:46:30 2017 "T is only approximately linear in the mid to lower troposphere." Which is precisely the layer we are talking about. Mistake after mistake after mistake. There is literally nothing about this subject that you know. "The equation for P as a function of T is P=P_0 *exp(-mgz/KT)" Yes, and the Ps, m g and K are all constant, when solving between 2 known Ps. to maintain those constants, dz=dT. Thickness between 2 pressure layers equals temperature. A fundamental law of the field. All that confused bs you subsequently posted came from you not understanding this.
jergul rank	Thu Sep 28 01:21:26 2017 "What happens is that the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere increases, and they spend more time at higher altitudes than previously. The obvious thing about the atmosphere expanding is that more of it is at a greater altitude than previously. Thus, at any arbitrary point above the surface, pressure is larger than before because there is a greater mass of atmosphere that needs to be supported than before." I do not figure this to be true. Increasing volume does not increase mass. If more molecules are higher up, but the number of molecules is constant, then less molecules are lower down. Mass is of course slowly increasing, but can be one of those approximations that is actually valid. The reason P is slowly increasing is given in PV=nRT. A gas with increased T will have an increased PV. V but not P is true only for a gas surrounded by vaccuum. Otherwise, an increasing V will be contained by adjacent matter and give an increased P. In hydrostatics, this effect can only be changed axiomatically. Or by changing the definition of (atm) to better match realities caused by increasing temperatures. Its not terribly important, as hurricanes are in the domain of fluid dynamics. Where actual data replaces approximated yearly global means.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 01:27:57 2017 Sam: " Mistake after mistake after mistake." That's not a mistake Sam. It's perfectly true, and everything I have said so far makes no assumptions about the shape of T(z). The mistake is yours. You are confusing T being linear with z with "constant across different hydrostatic equlibria" "Yes, and the Ps, m g and K are all constant" Sam, that's literally an equation stating P is not a constant but a function of T, which means P is therefore NOT a constant. Which is it? Yes, you agree it's a function of T, or no, it's not a function of T, it's a constant. Do you not understand maths at all? Because if it's a function of T, it's clearly not a constant. "to maintain those constants, dz=dT" No, clearly not, as shown above: dz/dt =nR/AP_0[ exp(-mgz/KT(z)) + T(z) d/dz( exp(-mgz/KT(z))] "Thickness between 2 pressure layers equals temperature." Firstly, the Hypsometric equation says h=RT/g ln(P1/p2) But only when T is constant. When T is not constant with z, then this is no longer true. As I showed when I derived the Hypsometric equation from the Barometric Equation. The Hypsometric equation is not fundamental - it's a derived result depending on certain assumptions. Now, if T is linear, you can get it in terms of average Temperature between those two heights.. BUT, and this is the important thing - this is only true for one hydrostatic equlibria. If you increase the average T between those heights, you are back to a situation where either the height will change for fixed pressure differences, which means the gradient in T will have changed. Or for a fixed differences, the pressure difference will have changed. You are confusing a change in distance with a change between two different equilibria. This has all been literally derived in front of you. The fact you don't get it shows you are basically only capable of plugging numbers into equations, not manipulating them or understanding how to derive them. This probably explains why you don't understand climatology - you are used to working in a branch of meteorology where you are given a bunch of rules of thumb that are true for a given set of conditions and told to plug numbers into them. Quite sad really.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 01:34:42 2017 Basically, the only way you can get the hypsometric equation to "prove" that dT/dz is invarient is if you assume that T(z)_after global warming has the form T(z)_before + const. This amounts to saying: If we assume dT/dz is invariant, then dT/dz is invariant. This is the problem: meteorology makes the assumption that the hydro-static equilibrium the atmosphere in doesn't change. Whereas the whole point in climatology is that this equilibrium is dependent on the temperature profile, the temperature profile is driven by power balance, there is a change in power flow and therefore a change in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 01:36:24 2017 jergul: "I do not figure this to be true" For "Thus, at any arbitrary point above the surface, pressure is larger than before because there is a greater mass of atmosphere that needs to be supported than before." read "Thus, at any arbitrary point above the surface, pressure is larger than before because there is a greater mass of atmosphere *above it* that needs to be supported than before."
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 01:38:27 2017 The only point where there is the same amount of mass above it as before is the surface, because at the surface (assuming smooth flat earth and no depressions in surface yada yada yada) 100% of the atmosphere is always above that point.
jergul rank	Thu Sep 28 01:46:05 2017 Seb "The only point where there is the same amount of mass above it as before is the surface, because at the surface (assuming smooth flat earth and no depressions in surface yada yada yada) 100% of the atmosphere is always above that point." Right, I see what you meant. Carry on.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 28 01:56:48 2017 "P is therefore NOT a constant. " Sebdumb, when calculating between two given pressure levels, they are constant. The effective radiating level is a pressure level, as it is defined precisely as the integrated optical depth(mass) above it. The optical depth does change slightly, but only slightly. Lol sebdumb you still do not get the concept of a pressure level. Another mistake.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 08:41:49 2017 Sam: How can P be constant if you are calculating between two different pressure levels dumb arse? Constant means P is the same at both levels. How stupid are you? P is a function of T, which is a function of z. Therefore, PV=nKT does not prove dT/dz does not change, unless you plug that in as an assumption. That's what you are doing. Circular logic. In any case, you admit the moist lapse rate is T dependent, and the dry one varies if you derive it under different hydrostatic equilibria. I don't know how more obvious it can be made to you that you are wrong.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 28 16:08:11 2017 "How can P be constant if you are calculating between two different pressure levels " Ahahahahahahahahahahaha Notice how there are 2 different variables for the 2 pressures? The equation shows, clear as day, the thickness between two known pressure levels is linear with the mean teampurature of that layer. This aint hard seb. Rofl No wonder you left science. You had to. Because you simply suck at it.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 22:29:47 2017 Sam: So you agree, that in the ideal gas law, P is not in fact a constant, which is what you first denied: Seb: "The equation for P as a function of T is P=P_0 *exp(-mgz/KT)" Sam: Yes, and the Ps, m g and K are all constant So, we agree, P is not a constant, it is a function of T, T is a function of z (specified by power flows). "The equation shows, clear as day, the thickness between two known pressure levels is linear with the mean teampurature of that layer" So the only real question is, does the mean temperature of that layer change linearly with global warming, or does it change by a constant offset? e.g. does every temperature get say x% hotter, or does every temperature have a fixed offset added to it. In the latter case then, your thicknesses would change differently between each layer, and in the former, each would increase by the same amount. This equation does not allow you to prove that dT/dz is a constant because to derive this equation, you have made assumptions about the shape of T(z). What you are trying to argues it that because dT/dz = const, dT/dz is insensitive to changes in T. This equation doesn't show what you think it shows.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 28 22:32:05 2017 Well, I'm off on holiday tomorrow - so this has no run it's course for me. I've shown you in several different ways how you are wrong. We've used maths, we've derived equations, we've discussed basic concepts like whether or not backscatter is physically possible or not, or thermodynamically driven. What I have concluded is that you actually don't really understand your subject at all, you don't understand maths. The less we say about "T = thickness" the better.
Nimatzo rank	Thu Sep 28 23:09:32 2017 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjxJsltLDrw
Nimatzo rank	Thu Sep 28 23:10:04 2017 Fact..... hurricanes are driven by warm oceans. Fact..... the oceans are warmer than they used to be Fact..... theres a LOT of people in denial about this! *From video description.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 29 00:18:57 2017 "This equation does not allow you to prove that dT/dz is a constant " That equation by itself is not proof(its one piece of many), but it does allow it. You spent weeks thinking that dT/dz HAD to change. Do you now concede that mistake, that it is possible z goes up by about the same as T?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 29 00:20:49 2017 "hurricanes are driven by warm oceans. " Yes, and by colder air aloft. "the oceans are warmer than they used to be" The air aloft is also warmer, negating surface change.
Hot Rod rank	Fri Sep 29 00:34:27 2017 Seb - It would be a good approximation. Not a crap one. Nothing wrong with approximations if the assumptions are valid. I can attest to that. It is my MO.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 29 10:46:56 2017 Sam: dT/dz has to change. I've demonstrated that. And you've accepted it: you noted wet lapse rate, definition of dT/dz, depends on T. We've demonstrated the assumptions on dry lapse rate render it particular for a given hydrostatic eqm and cannot be used to compare them. Earlier, I showed that actually it was impossible for dT/dz to remain invariant between equilibria. The fact you have now produced an irrelevant equation that, having assumed a linear form of T, shows that the separation of two isobars depends on the average temperature between them does not prove anything at all about how the gradient of T changes between two different hydrostatic equilibria. The fact this, again, irrelevant equation allows a constant offset doesn't invalidate the previous analysis that demonstrated why that was impossible. The reason why hypsometric equation appears to allow it is because far from being fundamental, it's a derived equation under certain assumptions, so there is information loss, which means it has less predictive power. We've now demonstrated your analysis tells us nothing. So, I'd encourage you to go back to my analysis and try and understand it and if you think it flawed in assumption or mathematical treatment, explain why. This is how we do science. I'm off for a week now - let me know where you have gotten to by the time I get back. Class dismissed.
Nimatzo rank	Fri Sep 29 11:32:42 2017 But basic home ed tells me that water transfers heat better than air. So are the oceans and the air heating up at the same rate?
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 29 18:12:13 2017 Seb, you went from a moment of clear thought back to babbling bullshit. The fact that you do not understand pressure levels, lapse rates, hydrostatic balance, how to rearrange natural logs, nor even the ideal gas law itself, is extremely embarassing, and testament to your failed mental state. You are yet again failing to understand the large picture, and desperatly clinging to minor hiccups such as low level humidity. Lol seb the flat earther still thinks that thickness is not linear with temperatute. "Ive proven it!!!" Bwahahahahahaha. Nimatzo, the oceans lag behind the land a little but not all that much. The air naturally takes on the characteristics of either deepending on where it is.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 29 18:28:53 2017 I like how seb has gone from "the atmosphere doesnt expand" to "it expands but highly nonlinear" to "but but but but its an approximation!" as bit by bit he starts to realize how stupid he was. Next up, learning what pressure and thickness are, and maybe you can learn to avoid beimg stupid at all.
jergul rank	Sun Oct 01 15:40:17 2017 Sammy You know hurricanes are created and sustained by positive feedback loops and that sea temperature is the defining characteristic of that loop. Warmer water down to 60 m means the positive loop can be sustained longer than otherwise would have been the case. In sum: When in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Stop digging the hole deeper sammy.
Seb rank	Sun Oct 01 20:22:12 2017 Sam: Checking in to see if you are doing your homework. Instead I find you playing with straw men. I simply said that atmospheric expansion was not linear with the increase in temperature driven by climate change. I stand by that as that is what the equations show. You even accepted that moist lapse rate is temp dependent, and I think you grasped earlier, when you asked me to agree that the hypsometric equation didn't rule your proposition out, that the hypsometric equation doesn't actually compare two equilibria. Do your homework. I've laid out my analysis, critique it. You will not be able to destroy it as I have yours.
Seb rank	Sun Oct 01 20:23:33 2017 "how to rearrange natural logs" Seriously? I just derived the hypsometric equation by rearranging natural logs only a few posts ago. Are you so crap at maths it went over your head?
Nimatzo rank	Sun Oct 01 20:38:14 2017 I imagine sebs wife asking if they can go out and have dinner, now that they are on vacation With seb responding: Not tonight honey, I have to rearrange some natural logs, some douche on the Internet is wrong!
Seb rank	Mon Oct 02 13:44:44 2017 That's why I told him I'm not continuing during holiday.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 03 04:00:04 2017 "I simply said that atmospheric expansion was not linear with the increase in temperature driven by climate change." That is what you said after you remembered that a warming gas expands. And you are still wrong. "I stand by that as that is what the equations show. " If you are a retard, you might think that. "hypsometric equation doesn't actually compare two equilibria. " It can with the slightest amount of independent thought, which leads to what is essentially a law of atmospheric physics: thickness changes equal temperature changes. Now that is an approximation but to a first order it is true, accurate to greater than 90%, and directly disproves pretty much everything you have said. That you do not understand this, is testament to your amatuer status in the field. And a not very good one, at that.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 03 09:40:22 2017 Sammy Your last post. You realize how much you are hedging on mathematical points, right? Also, accurate to greater than 90% infers pressure change less than 10%. Which would seem to be a good ballpoint ratio stab at what happens as the planet warms. Gas expands and is contained by the ambient environment. V and P increase.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 03 15:41:32 2017 Sam: Why do you think I forgot it? Because I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant? You yourself seem to have forgotten that the wet lapse rate is dependent on temperature. You've already openly admitted you are wrong. "It can with the slightest amount of independent thought" Yup, you relax the assumptions used in its derivation as I did, and then you find basically: a. dT/dx needs to change and b. You still need to specify T(z). Like I said, I've pretty much done all the maths for you. There's not much left to actually disagree about. Your going to have to do what the grown up boys do and do some algebra rather than arithmetic. Accurate to 90% when we are dealing with a change in energy stocks and flows of less than 2%? Your hilarious Sam. Sure, because the post global warming conditions are not a 10% change! Next you will be saying that the only significant difference is like between that of Mars, Venus and Earth.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 03 17:23:19 2017 "Why do you think I forgot it? " Because you specifically stated that increased T must increase dT/dz, clearly and obviously forgetting that z could also change. Lol "Accurate to 90% when we are dealing with a change in energy stocks and flows of less than 2%?" 90% of the 2%. Lol again. Poor seb.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 03 17:26:05 2017 "I've pretty much done all the maths" Ive disproved gravity!!! Ive done the maths!!! Read my manifesto on youtube and see how i disproved a law of science!!! Rofl. Seb the flat earther.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 03 21:21:30 2017 How many hiroshima sized nuclear bombs gives the energy equivalent of 90% of 2%? 100 000 000? Something like that?
	show deleted posts