U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2019, 08:19 AM
 
1,477 posts, read 333,800 times
Reputation: 1647

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomC23 View Post
No one is denying Boyle’s Law exists. However, your flawed application of it that you gleaned from a few links on the Internet certainly can be denied. Atmospheric pressure is the weight of a 1 sq cm column of air at sea level. Boyle’s law is not relevant when discussing atmospheric pressure for meteorological purposes. The atmosphere does not increase pressure uniformly and is not contained in a “bottle”. Heat is transferred around the earth by atmospheric convection and with it comes corresponding changes in pressure. It’s what we call “weather”.

I got these measurements at the same time this afternoon from two airport METARs. By your theory, the pressure in Anchorage should be lower with a temp of 18C, than the pressure in Cedar Rapids with a temp of 26C. But it’s not. The sea level pressure in Anchorage is 1022.1 and the sea level pressure in Cedar Rapids is 1011.4.

If the earth did not rotate, had no mass, was not heated by the sun, and our atmosphere was contained in a impervious container, you might have a point “Doc”, but, because of the aforementioned, you don’t.
This is a BS apples to oranges comparison. You don't compare temps/pressures in different locales, you compare the relative changes in the same locale over time. Today in Anchorage, it is 12C and the pressure is 1020. It appears the pressure has gone down with the temperature from your reading. But any single measurement is anecdotal and I'm willing to wager long term trends will reinforce Boyle's Law. If a variable value increases on one side of the equation, a value has to increase on the other side or it's simply not an equation.

Your flawed application of temp/pressure readings across different geographic regions does nothing to support your arguments or disprove Boyle's law. But it's instructive that you think it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2019, 09:09 AM
 
19,824 posts, read 12,461,452 times
Reputation: 10965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50 View Post
This is a BS apples to oranges comparison. You don't compare temps/pressures in different locales, you compare the relative changes in the same locale over time. Today in Anchorage, it is 12C and the pressure is 1020. It appears the pressure has gone down with the temperature from your reading. But any single measurement is anecdotal and I'm willing to wager long term trends will reinforce Boyle's Law. If a variable value increases on one side of the equation, a value has to increase on the other side or it's simply not an equation.

Your flawed application of temp/pressure readings across different geographic regions does nothing to support your arguments or disprove Boyle's law. But it's instructive that you think it does.
Read the link- it was a LONG TERM average measurement of pressure over ONE HUNDRED years!!!

Now if you AGW cult members think that temp can be measured over time at the same local, why not pressure?

The pressure measurement is actually MORE apt, as it at least is using the same method over that time, while temp data has used FOURDIFFERENT measurements of temp.

Physics has not been suspended- AGW is bunk!!! Look for the cult to now “revise” pressure measurements!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,753 posts, read 20,294,414 times
Reputation: 8517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
The ideal gas law is intended to be applied to a local volume. On the scale of the Earth's atmosphere, there is too much variation in temperature and pressure for it to be useful as a global predictor. You would need to divide up the volume into suitably small pieces then integrate across the lot.



Yet higher air temperatures usually mean lower pressure areas; the opposite of what you assert. Why?
Because you are making the wrong assumptions.

Yes, the ideal gas law was intended to be used on a closed system.

Different gasses, or combinations of gasses, produce different pressures based on the amount present in the container (PV) that is assumed to be closed and a fixed volume.

Alternately, volume can increase or decrease while temperature varies and pressure is held constant.

In the case of the Earth, temperature would directly influence off gassing of land masses, ice sheets and the oceans.

Increased surface temperatures (on average) would lead to increased atmospheric volume and density and increased barometric pressure at the surface.

Short answer, yes, on a system like a planet with liquid and ice, rising temperature definitely causes increased surface pressure and this can be easily measured with a barometer.

More raw data to "adjust," no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,753 posts, read 20,294,414 times
Reputation: 8517
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
PV= nRT is an equation for high school textbooks that simplifies the understanding of fluid dynamics.

It is known as the "ideal gas law" because it is only valid for an "ideal" (meaning usually fictional) gas.

Real scientists use equations far more complex than this. Your post is laughable but typical of denialist level ignorance about science.

"Fluid dynamics"?


"Ideal" gasses can include any combination of gasses and a variation of this equation is routinely used in conjunction with dry air.

Of course, the Earth's atmosphere contains liquid water and both temperature and pressure vary from one place to another, so the information we can glean is limited.

It is not so limited that we don't bother measuring barometric pressure in a particular location when we want to predict the weather, so we can definitely measure barometric pressure, today, in order to infer temperature and some point in the past, relative to today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 11:41 AM
 
7,687 posts, read 2,744,917 times
Reputation: 3028
The conclusion of the linked article says atmospheric pressure was lower in the historical period as compared to today. Not higher. Below is part of the clonclusion from the linked article.




Analysis of the all atmospheric pressure data from the historical period (1801–1920) allows us to draw the following conclusions:

The Arctic in the historical period analysed had slightly lower pressure values than at present. On average, in the period 1861–1920, the mean annual pressure of the Arctic as a whole was lower by 0.8 hPa (Table ). Lower values of atmospheric pressure were observed in all the study regions, excluding the Atlantic region.

The Canadian and Pacific regions are the only ones for which we have data for the whole study period (1801–1920). Both regions experienced slightly lower pressure (by 1.5 and 0.8 hPa, respectively) than in the modern period (Table , Figure ).

The greatest changes from the historical period to present day were noted in all winter months and in winter as a whole (see Table and Figures and ). In 1861–1920 winter pressure was about 2 hPa lower. In summer and autumn changes were very small and their average differences came to − 0.1 and − 0.2 hPa, respectively.

The results showed that atmospheric pressure changes in the Arctic between periods 1801–1920 and 1961–1990 were not large. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that almost all mean monthly atmospheric pressure values lie within 1 SD from the modern mean, and they never exceed the level of 2 SD (see Figure ).

Recent, commonly used datasets of sea level atmospheric pressure (HadSLP2 and 20CR) reveal quite a large positive bias in the period 1850–1920 in comparison to the real data from the instrumental observations (Table , Figure ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 01:33 PM
 
1,323 posts, read 820,562 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstien View Post
Just be cause something can be applied does not mean it is applied.

Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech

Ben Carson's Scientific Ignorance
Special creation, and its criticism, is metaphysics, not science.

You may be surprised to know that science (alone) cannot disprove creationism. The reason for this is that any naturalized science that looks into origins, or the distant past, is predicated on metaphysical assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 01:42 PM
 
19,824 posts, read 12,461,452 times
Reputation: 10965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstien View Post
Just be cause something can be applied does not mean it is applied.

Ben Carson touts creationism during Nashville speech

Ben Carson's Scientific Ignorance


You are attacking the messenger as you cannot deal with the message. Just stick to the problem, which you cannot deal with:


If AGW is true (which it is not), then we should see an average increase in earth's barometric pressure over the last 100 years. Why has this not happened?


It is a simple equation that has described the physical properties of gases. All of your insults don't change physics. By the way, how many physics classes did you take in college? I would bet none. However, Boyle's Law is so basic that it is even covered in basic high school physics, so probably even you were exposed to it at one time or another.


PV= nRT


Liberals have decided that AGW is a fact and work on denying and vilifying any information that questions the contention. This, of course, is characteristic of a cult and not science.


So has physics now been suspended on earth and we are just going to resort to pseudo-science?


Please explain how Boyle's Law is no longer relevant on earth. It has been used to explain (quite correctly) a number of observations we see in nature. For example, temperatures tend to decrease as we go higher in altitude, despite the fact that "heat rises". Also, this is how pressure cookers work. The laws of physics have not been suspended and liberal lunacy does not now rule the universe.


If Boyle's Law was not correct, it would be toasty on the top of Mt. Everest. Yet, it is cold, just as the equation would predict.


AGW has not replaced valid science. However, the AGW cult members will cling to the premise of a cult, rather than believe any actual science or physics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 01:45 PM
 
7,687 posts, read 2,744,917 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
You are attacking the messenger as you cannot deal with the message.


It is a simple equation that has described the physical properties of gases.


PV= nRT


Liberals have decided that AGW is a fact and work on denying and vilifying any information that questions the contention. This, of course, is characteristic of a cult and not science.


So has physics now been suspended on earth and we are just going to resort to pseudo-science?


Please explain how Boyle's Law is no longer relevant on earth. It has been used to explain (quite correctly) a number of observations we see in nature. For example, temperatures tend to decrease as we go higher in altitude, despite the fact that "heat rises".


If Boyle's Law was not correct, it would be toasty on the top of Mt. Everest. Yet, it is cold, just as the equation would predict.


AGW has not replaced valid science. However, the AGW cult members will cling to the premise of a cult, rather than believe any actual science or physics.
The paper that you linked to concluded that atmospheric pressure in the arctic region was lower in the 19th century than it is today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 02:04 PM
 
19,824 posts, read 12,461,452 times
Reputation: 10965
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Because you are making the wrong assumptions.

Yes, the ideal gas law was intended to be used on a closed system.

Different gasses, or combinations of gasses, produce different pressures based on the amount present in the container (PV) that is assumed to be closed and a fixed volume.

Alternately, volume can increase or decrease while temperature varies and pressure is held constant.

In the case of the Earth, temperature would directly influence off gassing of land masses, ice sheets and the oceans.

Increased surface temperatures (on average) would lead to increased atmospheric volume and density and increased barometric pressure at the surface.

Short answer, yes, on a system like a planet with liquid and ice, rising temperature definitely causes increased surface pressure and this can be easily measured with a barometer.

More raw data to "adjust," no?


Again, the laws of physics on planet earth have not been suspended. What HAS happened is that lunacy and pseudo-science of liberalism has spawned AGW to promote a political agenda.


Like all lies, there are a number of unanticipated issues that arise and eventually expose the lie.


Look for the AGW cult to now fake the barometric pressure data then claim it was always higher, not lower!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 06:06 PM
 
1,323 posts, read 820,562 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstien View Post
There is no such thing as scientific "proof".

Again there is no such thing as scientific "proof"...that's not how science works.
I know what you're referring to here, but (without getting into justification theory) let's put this idea to the test.

What do you think happens when a scientific theory is falsified?

Hypothesis: "All swans are white."
Observation: "Black swans exist that are endemic to Australia."
Conclusion: "The proposition 'all swans are white' is false."

How certain are we that the proposition is falsified?

If we flip the hypothesis to its contrapositive, "all swans are not white", how certain are we that the proposition is verified?

The idea that science doesn't deal with proof/certainty is specific to explanatory or predictive modeling of the real world.
Where science involves unobservables, or strays into metaphysics, this rule does not necessarily hold true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top