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 08-27-2019, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,948 posts, read 17,885,188 times
Reputation: 15927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The AGW "evidence" has been suspect due to manipulation of temperature measurements over the last century. Inconvenient temperature measurement which refute the idea of AGW have been discarded or changed in order to fit the AGW hypothesis.


However............................. they forgot to do something.


The gas equation PV= nRT shows that with increase temperature, there is an expected increase in pressure. One sees the converse of this at higher altitudes in which lower temperatures occur the higher one goes. Higher temps should result in higher pressures, but the opposite was observed and this was a long term trend over 100 years.


The AGW crowd forgot to change the barometric pressure measurements as well.


https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.3546


Measurements of pressure over the arctic from the late 1800s to the present actually show a decline in average barometric pressure. Of course, the opposite would be observed if temps were actually increasing.


Looks like a mistake on the part of the warmers; look for them to go back and try to change the barometric pressure data as well to cover their tracks!
You do realize that the Ideal Gas Law is based on an enclosed, constant volume, right? And it is based on the assumption of no heat transfer into or out of the system. I agree that much of the AGW hysterics are foolish, but misusing basic engineering principles doesn't help demonstrate that.

Average atmospheric pressure at a particular elevation (a non-enclosed volume) is impacted by the total mass of all gas (and I would suppose liquid) in the atmosphere, as acted upon by gravity.

Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 08-27-2019 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2019, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,497 posts, read 13,515,532 times
Reputation: 4707
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The AGW "evidence" has been suspect due to manipulation of temperature measurements over the last century. Inconvenient temperature measurement which refute the idea of AGW have been discarded or changed in order to fit the AGW hypothesis.


However............................. they forgot to do something.


The gas equation PV= nRT shows that with increase temperature, there is an expected increase in pressure. One sees the converse of this at higher altitudes in which lower temperatures occur the higher one goes. Higher temps should result in higher pressures, but the opposite was observed and this was a long term trend over 100 years.


The AGW crowd forgot to change the barometric pressure measurements as well.


https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.3546


Measurements of pressure over the arctic from the late 1800s to the present actually show a decline in average barometric pressure. Of course, the opposite would be observed if temps were actually increasing.


Looks like a mistake on the part of the warmers; look for them to go back and try to change the barometric pressure data as well to cover their tracks!
So you advocate to simply continue to clean up after natural disasters as they happen? Mankind can't do anything about stopping adverse climate change, so it would be an incredibly foolish waste to raise taxes and institute more restrictive environmental regulations to attempt to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 12:09 PM
 
2,668 posts, read 902,601 times
Reputation: 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The AGW "evidence" has been suspect due to manipulation of temperature measurements over the last century. Inconvenient temperature measurement which refute the idea of AGW have been discarded or changed in order to fit the AGW hypothesis.


However............................. they forgot to do something.


The gas equation PV= nRT shows that with increase temperature, there is an expected increase in pressure. One sees the converse of this at higher altitudes in which lower temperatures occur the higher one goes. Higher temps should result in higher pressures, but the opposite was observed and this was a long term trend over 100 years.


The AGW crowd forgot to change the barometric pressure measurements as well.


https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.3546


Measurements of pressure over the arctic from the late 1800s to the present actually show a decline in average barometric pressure. Of course, the opposite would be observed if temps were actually increasing.


Looks like a mistake on the part of the warmers; look for them to go back and try to change the barometric pressure data as well to cover their tracks!
So, Hawkeye, you think that the PhD educated atmospheric physicists with years of research experience were not aware of Boyle's Law? Just like others try to claim that they didn't account for solar activity or geothermal sources.

But as it turns out, you just have a problem with reading comprehension. If one goes to the Conclusions section of the 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


So the pressure today is slightly higher than it was in the 1800s, which is exactly what you would predict if the air was warming, is it not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 12:13 PM
 
2,668 posts, read 902,601 times
Reputation: 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post


It is a simple fact of physics: PV = nRT


So tell us, AGW cult members, why there is not an increase in average barometric pressure if there really is an increase in temp? Has physics been suspended on earth and we now just discard mathematics and rational science and believe the rantings of a cult?
There HAS been an increase in pressure. It says so in the paper you cited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 01:41 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,890 posts, read 4,461,614 times
Reputation: 10634
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The AGW "evidence" has been suspect due to manipulation of temperature measurements over the last century. Inconvenient temperature measurement which refute the idea of AGW have been discarded or changed in order to fit the AGW hypothesis.


However............................. they forgot to do something.


The gas equation PV= nRT shows that with increase temperature, there is an expected increase in pressure. One sees the converse of this at higher altitudes in which lower temperatures occur the higher one goes. Higher temps should result in higher pressures, but the opposite was observed and this was a long term trend over 100 years.


The AGW crowd forgot to change the barometric pressure measurements as well.


https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.3546


Measurements of pressure over the arctic from the late 1800s to the present actually show a decline in average barometric pressure. Of course, the opposite would be observed if temps were actually increasing.


Looks like a mistake on the part of the warmers; look for them to go back and try to change the barometric pressure data as well to cover their tracks!
Did you actually read the paper you cited in your OP? Among other things, the authors of that paper cite the lost Franklin expedition which vanished into the Canadian arctic in the early 1820's while attempting to find the Northwest passage. I'm not impressed with the quality of data derived from the primitive instruments and techniques used at the beginning of the 19th century.

In addition, the authors of your paper state:

The detailed analyses of long‐term, continuous instrumental series of atmospheric pressure done for areas neighbouring the Arctic (SW Iceland, Hanna et al., 2004) and (southern Sweden, Bärring et al., 1999) also show very small and insignificant pressure changes between historical (19th century) and contemporary times. Analysis for the Canadian territory (>55°N and east of 120°W) also shows insignificant pressure changes between the late 19th century and the beginning of 20th century on the one hand, and modern values on the other (Slonosky and Graham, 2005).

It's no wonder that the report has been cited a mere seven times since it was first published in 2013.

Also, would you care to explain to us how the "warmers" managed to alter the temperature measurements all across the arctic from Siberia to Greenland to Alaska?

The North Pole Is 36 Degrees Hotter Than It Should Be Right Now (November 2016)

Arctic temperatures surge 45 degrees above normal in dead of winter (NBC NEWS, March 2018)

It Was 84 Degrees in Northern Russia This Weekend (April 2019)

‘Quite phenomenal’: Arctic heatwave hits most northerly settlement in world (July 2019)

The denier gang keeps posting ever more incoherent and nonsensical threads that fly in the face of common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 01:57 PM
 
3,317 posts, read 955,054 times
Reputation: 1998
Also, would you care to explain to us how the "warmers" failed to mention the record low temperatures...

..climate is the average....when one place is warm...another is cold....everything else is weather


July 24, 2019
Fall-like air breaks record lows from early 1900s in parts of southern US
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...rn-us/70008881

January 31, 2019
By the numbers: Midwestern US endures worst of polar vortex, all-time record lows broken
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...-pole/70007296

JUL. 25, 2019
All-Time July Low Temp Record Shattered
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/aus...d-on-wednesday

Nov 11, 2017
Northeast to see record low temperatures this weekend
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather...-1093816387792

5/21/19
Denver broke a 128-year record low maximum temperature record on Tuesday.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/2...breaking-cold/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 03:35 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,890 posts, read 4,461,614 times
Reputation: 10634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
Also, would you care to explain to us how the "warmers" failed to mention the record low temperatures...

..climate is the average....when one place is warm...another is cold....everything else is weather


July 24, 2019
Fall-like air breaks record lows from early 1900s in parts of southern US
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...rn-us/70008881

January 31, 2019
By the numbers: Midwestern US endures worst of polar vortex, all-time record lows broken
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...-pole/70007296

JUL. 25, 2019
All-Time July Low Temp Record Shattered
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/aus...d-on-wednesday

Nov 11, 2017
Northeast to see record low temperatures this weekend
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather...-1093816387792

5/21/19
Denver broke a 128-year record low maximum temperature record on Tuesday.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/2...breaking-cold/
..climate is the average....when one place is warm...another is cold....everything else is weather

Exactly. Low temperatures in Denver and Austin are examples of weather.

However, the high temperatures in the arctic are part of a climate change related trend that has been going on for at least 30 years now.

National Snow and Ice Data Center:

Quote:
The Arctic region is warmer than it used to be and it continues to get warmer. Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth. Most scientists agree that Arctic weather and climate are changing because of human-caused climate change.

Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. In the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1968 to 1996 reference period, according to NOAA. Satellite data show that over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent in September, the month that marks the end of the summer melt season. Satellite data also show that snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, and glaciers in Greenland and northern Canada are retreating. In addition, frozen ground in the Arctic has started to thaw out. Scientists first started to see changes in the Arctic climate in the 1970s and 1980s.




When it comes to the polar vortex and the jet stream, it might seem counterintuitive, but global warming plays a role in blasts of bitter cold weather. An excellent explanation of this phenomenon can be found at Inside Climate News:

Quote:
The northern polar jet stream (it has a counterpart in the Southern Hemisphere) is driven partly by the temperature contrast between masses of icy air over the North Pole and warmer air near the equator. Climate change, true to the predictions of the past half century, has led to faster warming in the Arctic than in the temperate zones. So the temperature difference between the two regions has been lessening.

Research suggests that this reduction in the temperature difference is robbing the jet stream of some of its strength, making it wobblier and contributing to more temperature extremes.

The jet stream is strongest in winter, when it has the greatest effect on weather in more densely populated parts of North America and Eurasia.

When it rolls along in relatively steady waves, normal weather ensues, with spells of cold, snow and intermittent warm-ups.

But when it coils far to the south, bitter cold Arctic air spills southward along with it.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 04:06 PM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,308,668 times
Reputation: 5592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Did you actually read the paper you cited in your OP? Among other things, the authors of that paper cite the lost Franklin expedition which vanished into the Canadian arctic in the early 1820's while attempting to find the Northwest passage. I'm not impressed with the quality of data derived from the primitive instruments and techniques used at the beginning of the 19th century.

In addition, the authors of your paper state:

The detailed analyses of long‐term, continuous instrumental series of atmospheric pressure done for areas neighbouring the Arctic (SW Iceland, Hanna et al., 2004) and (southern Sweden, Bärring et al., 1999) also show very small and insignificant pressure changes between historical (19th century) and contemporary times. Analysis for the Canadian territory (>55°N and east of 120°W) also shows insignificant pressure changes between the late 19th century and the beginning of 20th century on the one hand, and modern values on the other (Slonosky and Graham, 2005).

It's no wonder that the report has been cited a mere seven times since it was first published in 2013.

Also, would you care to explain to us how the "warmers" managed to alter the temperature measurements all across the arctic from Siberia to Greenland to Alaska?

The North Pole Is 36 Degrees Hotter Than It Should Be Right Now (November 2016)

Arctic temperatures surge 45 degrees above normal in dead of winter (NBC NEWS, March 2018)

It Was 84 Degrees in Northern Russia This Weekend (April 2019)

‘Quite phenomenal’: Arctic heatwave hits most northerly settlement in world (July 2019)

The denier gang keeps posting ever more incoherent and nonsensical threads that fly in the face of common sense.

The worst case scenario if climate change is false/a hoax, is a cleaner environment and (perhaps) a lower stock market.


The worst case scenario if climate change is NOT false/exaggerated is that everyone on earth dies !





How is this even a discussion at this point ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 04:20 PM
 
16,835 posts, read 14,251,233 times
Reputation: 20739
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The AGW "evidence" has been suspect due to manipulation of temperature measurements over the last century. Inconvenient temperature measurement which refute the idea of AGW have been discarded or changed in order to fit the AGW hypothesis.


However............................. they forgot to do something.


The gas equation PV= nRT shows that with increase temperature, there is an expected increase in pressure. One sees the converse of this at higher altitudes in which lower temperatures occur the higher one goes. Higher temps should result in higher pressures, but the opposite was observed and this was a long term trend over 100 years.


The AGW crowd forgot to change the barometric pressure measurements as well.


https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.3546


Measurements of pressure over the arctic from the late 1800s to the present actually show a decline in average barometric pressure. Of course, the opposite would be observed if temps were actually increasing.


Looks like a mistake on the part of the warmers; look for them to go back and try to change the barometric pressure data as well to cover their tracks!
Dude, did you even pass high school chemistry?

1. You think it universally gets colder the higher you go? The thermosphere is typically between 200 and 600oC and is more than 50 miles up.

2. The ideal gas law requires constant volume, constant moles and an ideal gas (it’s even in the name)if you re going to look for an inverse reaction between temperature and pressure. Hence using Gay-Lussacs law instead.

3. It also only really works for monoatomic gases. Guess what the atmosphere is made of? Diatomic gases.

4. The first assumption of the ideal gas law has to do with the collisions of the particles in their container. What exactly is the container for the atmosphere?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 05:24 PM
 
19,837 posts, read 12,465,394 times
Reputation: 10975
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Dude, did you even pass high school chemistry?

1. You think it universally gets colder the higher you go? The thermosphere is typically between 200 and 600oC and is more than 50 miles up.

2. The ideal gas law requires constant volume, constant moles and an ideal gas (it’s even in the name)if you re going to look for an inverse reaction between temperature and pressure. Hence using Gay-Lussacs law instead.

3. It also only really works for monoatomic gases. Guess what the atmosphere is made of? Diatomic gases.

4. The first assumption of the ideal gas law has to do with the collisions of the particles in their container. What exactly is the container for the atmosphere?
"Dude"- did you ever take a PHYSICS class in your life? Boyle's Law is PHYSICS, not CHEMISTRY, as there is no chemical reaction.


1. 99% of the atmosphere is in the first three layers and YES- temps decrease when you get higher in the atmosphere. Again- SEE BOYLE'S LAW. This is why it is cold on the top of Mt. Everest. But for you- pack light and wear a t-shirt- you will be fine. The thermosphere is hotter, but is so for relative exposure to radiation, not due to gas pressure.


2. The volume of the earth's atmosphere varies over short periods of time, but remains remarkably stable over longer time periods. This is what we call thermostatic equilibrium. I'm pretty sure they didn't cover that in 6th grade, so I don't expect you to know that. Gravity, of course, is the predominant factor in maintaining the volume of the earth's atmosphere, but there are regional and temporal variations.


3. Mono0atomic gases? Nonsens- Boyle's Law is the "ideal gas law" but can AND IS applied quite routinely to compositional gas, such as AIR, which makes up the ATMOSPHERE.


4. The "container" of the atmosphere IS THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. Are you suggesting that our atmosphere extends infinitely into space? We have this electromagnetic force called GRAVITY that helps to maintain our atmosphere stable and provides for an atmosphere, and atmospheric total volume, which does change, but in absolute volume is constant over time.


5. Again, 99% of our atmosphere is in the first three layers and those layers remain remarkably stable, despite small regional and temporal variations, the overall volume of the atmosphere has remained fairly constant- certainly over the time period in which the AGW cult is concerned with. The molar composition of our atmosphere up to 33,000 feet remains very constant.




So ,"Dude", do a little reading, learn a little physics, then come back and chat when you are all grown up.
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