[trichrider]

The question here is what in the world you thought the First Law has to do with solving gas and atmospheric temperatures.

[St. Phatty]

Originally Posted by Ununionized

You're so far out of the field you're not playing the same ball game. There is a law of thermodynamics written for solving temperatures and other values related to gases.

Stefan-Boltzmann processing alone doesn't account for temperatures of gases and atmospheres because if that gas law isn't processed properly the compression warming isn't accounted.

How useful is the
Pv=nRT formula

for calculating the amount of gas created by burning hydrocarbons & coal ?

e.g. you burn 1 cubic mile of oil and 1 cubic mile of coal, the approximate amounts we (7.5 billion people) consume annually.

I ballpark estimate that 1 cubic mile of solid as yielding 200 cubic miles of gas, CO2 & H20 in the case of hydrocarbons, CO2 in the case of the coal.

Anyway, the plants sure do like the higher CO2 levels.

I remember reading Ed Rosenthal grow books back in the 1980's, when they cited 389 ppm as a good supplemented level.

So now that our atmospheric CO2 is 402 to 405 ppm (more in the Northern Hemisphere ?), well, the plants like it. They grow faster, just like our pot plants do.

Then when they dry out and someone starts a fire ... it's a problem ... unless the fire is in the bowl on my water-pipe

[TychoMonolyth]

Originally Posted by trichrider

The question here is what in the world you thought the First Law has to do with solving gas and atmospheric temperatures.

Not solving it. It's the simple math you need that you think NASA and NOAA got wrong, and Tony Heller got right. lol

Sheesh.

[trichrider]

Saturday, 24 March 2018
Is a Warm Arctic to Blame for New York’s Snowy Winters? Written by James Murphy

Those plucky New Yorkers, so used to overcoming challenges of all kinds, have had a lot of wintry precipitation to deal with lately. The March 22 snowfall of more than eight inches in Manhattan (and nearly 14 inches in Staten Island) means that, for the fifth straight year, over 30 inches of snow has fallen on the City that Never Sleeps. The weather conditions bring up the question as to whether these snow totals are to be a new normal for the area. Is global warming (aka climate change) finally manifesting in the form of fiercer winters?

New York hasn’t seen snowfall totals like this in consecutive winters since the 1880s . And it’s not just New York. The entire northeast has seen a series of winters that have been colder and snowier than normal. Four nor’easters have hit the area this March alone. So, what exactly is going on?

One theory is that the Arctic is warming more quickly than the rest of the globe. This somehow weakens the jet stream, which usually keeps the cold air where it belongs — in the north. When the jet stream weakens, polar air can push south, deep into North America. So far, although a correlation can be made between a warmer Arctic and a colder northeast United States, a direct link cannot be made between the two events.

A study published on March 13 in Nature Communications, makes the observational connection but, again, gives no clear reason as to why there is a link. From the study: “Because this is an observational study, cause and effect can not be determined....”
“Five of the past six winters have brought persistent cold to the eastern United States and warm, dry conditions to the west, while the Arctic has been off the charts warm,” said co-author of the study, Dr. Jennifer Francis. “Our study suggests that this is no coincidence. Exactly how much the Arctic contributed to the severity or persistence of the pattern is still hard to pin down, but it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated.”

Late in February, many news outlets breathlessly reported that the Arctic is now warmer than it has ever been in recorded history. And that may indeed be true. However, “recorded history” is the key term here. Arctic temperatures have only been reliably recorded since just after World War II. In terms of long term climate — as opposed to weather — 70 years is a pretty small sample size.

And other data is incomplete as well. A lack of sea ice, for example, has been cited as a possible cause of the severe winters in the northeast. Were Arctic ice conditions of today similar to the ones in 1880s, the last time such prolonged snowfall accounts were ever recorded? We don’t really know. Although there were a couple of ill-fated expeditions in that period (the Polaris and the Jeanette expeditions), neither voyage measured sea ice scientifically. Again, accurate measurements go back only about 70 years.

It is a worthy scientific endeavor to study things such as Arctic temperature and sea ice accumulations, since it will eventually help us to understand Earth better. But scientists may be erring when they simply suppose a connection between relative warmth in the Arctic and severe winters in one (geographically speaking) small part of our world. It’s the medical equivalent of diagnosing a brain cancer by observing acne on one’s skin. You have to go deeper to find the real answers.

What role does the Sun play in the warming Arctic? Are the ocean currents stable? If not; why not? What role does geothermal energy play? Are there unknown volcanoes now active, perhaps under the sea? We need answers on everything before we act, to even know if we should act in any way. And we definitely need full answers prior to adopting socialistic governmental “solutions” to these issues.

But none of that helps people in New York who are tired of shoveling snow. And, as a fellow resident of a northern area, all I can say is, I feel their pain. But it is not really helpful (and not really scientific) to just say anthropogenic global warming is the culprit. Punxsutawney Phil has predicted a long winter on four out of the last five Groundhog Days. Since the groundhog seems to have a good handle on this, maybe he’s the one to blame.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-snowy-winters



The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Author links open overlay panelJan-ErikSolheimaKjellStordahlbOleHumlumcd



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1*C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar sign.


Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682612000417


what've you got?

[trichrider]

Originally Posted by TychoMonolyth

Not solving it. It's the simple math you need that you think NASA and NOAA got wrong, and Tony Heller got right. lol

Sheesh.

uh, he compared the data sets...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlPvwRP-fM

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

[trichrider]

British and US submarines stuck in Arctic ice, blame another secret Russian weapon



https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/0...ussian-weapon/

[Ununionized]

Wrong answer, Tony Heller and the rest of the planet can calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere correctly.
YOUR HANDLERS at MAGIC GAISSINESS COUNTRY
told you to calculate the temperature of the global atmosphere
and come up
33 degrees short.

They also told you the identical law, - which you STILL can't name,
can't properly predict the temperature on Venus, at the same time countries from all over the world have landed 13 spacecraft on Venus,

and as far as I know haven't crashed one yet.

So much for the proper standard gas law and calculations in REAL science,
not actually working right to calculate temperatures on Venus because of the "Magical Gaissiness."

Did you ever name the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of a volume of gas properly? You still can't,

what about the two sections of the law, what are they? Which section contains the part you thought means that the law doesn't work properly on Venus? Is it the chart assigning CO2 less energy per mole than standard atmospheric air, or is it the equation, whose letters you obviously ALSO don't know, - what stand for...

Why is it that G.I.S.S. at N.A.S.A. and N.O.A.A. can't properly calculate the temperature of the atmosphere and reach the International Standard Atmosphere, against which we calibrate all our instruments,
and
LAND our CRAFT on VENUS remotely using CALCULATIONS identical to those establishing the I.S.A. ?

Why do some of the busted frauds at NASA claim the temperature of the planet is 33 degrees off what the REAL calculations are?

Again - if you knew the name of the law of physics you're discussing you'd be able to say clearly that Stefan-Boltzmann processing

doesn't account for the
33 degrees of compression warming
intrinsic to compressible phase matter,

which Stefan-Boltzmann processing
isn't designed to account for compression of.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't contain any gas volume/temperature/pressure considerations and CAN NOT PROPERLY CALCULATE temperature of a volume of gas, and if you
try it
for EARTH
YOUR fake church's shortfall will be - again kids, what's the magic shortfall that IMMEDIATELY APPEARS when COMPRESSION WARMING isn't accounted for Earth's global atmospheric temperature calculations?

That's right, 33 degrees.

Take apart Magic Gas Hansen's models and what do we notice in ALL these models? NO GAS LAW CALCULATIONS IN THEM. Simply Stefan-Boltzmann processing with a 33 degree shortfall, plugging in different numbers to "try to account for the magical gaissiness what we cain't evun hardly under stand, just like whin we discovered abowt that
devil weed
bein just like heroin.
It takes a long time for the "signts two mature" in cases where magical, devilish gaissiness and weediness dun violated the laws of atmospheric and biological chemistry so bad!"

LoL

Originally Posted by TychoMonolyth

Not solving it. It's the simple math you need that you think NASA and NOAA got wrong, and Tony Heller got right. lol

Sheesh.

[Ununionized]

The identical people telling you magical gassiness dun made a cold nitrogen bath a magical heater cain't nobody understand hardly, cause awl thim physics laws is awl messed up,

also told you a clunky hockey stick generator with thousands of extra lines of code left to hide that fact, "is a whole new branch of mathematics! Climate mathematics!"

They also told you it's possible to calculate the temperatures of compressible fluids using Stefan-Boltzmann processing alone, not solving for the MANDATORY 33 degrees COMPRESSION WARMING ACTUAL GAS LAW ACCOUNTS FOR.

Hence, your church's 'calculation' of the planetary temperature is 33 degrees short, and all kinds of excuses are made for this fake artifact.

It's an inversion scam, call a cold nitrogen bath a heater, then lie, steal, lie, and program kids to believe that the same fellurs what discovered about the devil weed being just like heroin, and worse for you than methyl amphetamine,

can't be wrong about that,
or be wrong when they tell you a hockey stick generator is a new form of math,
and that a cold nitrogen bath is a giant magical heater.

[Ununionized]

Them heroinajuanas and marijuanas and magical gaissinesses, ain't somethin evurbody can understand
if they doant understand abowt
yew know


guvurmint signts.

Whur pot's jist laik heroin and yew can go to jail for "not believing in the signts"

and that it's ''werse fur yew than meth amphetamines" c a u s e it's ...yew know..
DEVIL weed,

well it's jist like thim Devil Gaisses, jist cain't evurbodie understand about devilish gaissiness what makes a cold nitrogen bath,
into a big old heater!"

YaW.

[TychoMonolyth]

In a California court case this week (27 March 2018), Judge William Alsup asked the two sides to provide him a climate science tutorial.

The plaintiffs are the coastal cities of San Francisco and Oakland. They’re suing five major oil companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP) to pay for the cities’ costs to cope with the sea level rise caused by global warming. Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

"From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change"