- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:28 pm to yatesdog38
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:28 pm to yatesdog38
quote:Yes and no.
trap heat
Reenergized 360° heat emission.
0
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:29 pm to GumboPot
quote:who’s proof?
Is their proof ... ?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
DOes it account "with precision" for the entirety of it though?
I don't see how. Pressure is high for the IGL to start with. Plus it doesn't consider the energy the sun is providing and what fraction is being radiated away.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:dumb
AggieHank86
How about addressing substance rather than spelling.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:36 pm to Duke
quote:Nor do I.quote:I don't see how.
Does it account "with precision" for the entirety of it though?
But, I'm always deferent to math majors.
I may be missing something.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:38 pm to GumboPot
It's so tiny relative to water vapor and methane, it's almost laughable we waste any energy at all on worrying about CO2.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:40 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:Well at least relative to water vapor and atm pressure.
It's so tiny relative to water vapor and methane
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:47 pm to Duke
quote:
Plus it doesn't consider the energy the sun is providing and what fraction is being radiated away.
Any warming "study" that doesn't include solar activity from the Sun is disingenuous and has an agenda imo.
If I turn my thermostat up 5 degrees, that is likely the cause of increased temperature in my house, correct?? I can close the blinds, take cold showers, not use the stove or oven, and measure the impact. Or I could just lower my thermostat back down....
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Always happy to show you evidence that you're wrong
Do you even correlation vs causation?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:54 pm to WorkinDawg
quote:Not just IYO.
Any warming "study" that doesn't include solar activity from the Sun is disingenuous and has an agenda imo.
As a matter of fact.
Indisputable fact.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:03 pm to WorkinDawg
quote:
Any warming "study" that doesn't include solar activity from the Sun is disingenuous and has an agenda imo.
Obviously not accounting for the sun would make a study worthless. Those doing studies do know the sun is a thing and has cycles.
quote:
If I turn my thermostat up 5 degrees, that is likely the cause of increased temperature in my house, correct??
Yes, not removing that heat from the system would raise the temperature.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Can I impose on you to do that math for this chem/bio major?
The ideal gas law can be rearranged as a function of density (d) to drop the volume term.
So PV = nRT solved for T and include density ---->
T = P/Rd/n or T = Pn/Rd
This is the mean temperature (T in kelvin), mean pressure (P in KPa), mean density (d in kg/m^3) and the universal gas constant (R at 8.314 J/mol-K).
Mean surface pressure of Venus is 92.1 atmospheres = 9332 KPa.
Mean surface density of Venus is 67 kg/m^3.
Mean moles is 43.45
T = 9332*43.45/8.314*67 = 727.91 K = 454.76 C
Wiki says the following:
LINK
So the ideal gas law is off by 7.25 degrees C through this exercise. But that can be attributed to an inaccurate density published in wiki. If the density were 66.43 kg/m^3 instead of the documented 67 kg/m^3 the ideal gas law would have nailed the surface temperature published in wiki.
ETA: Here is a quote from a scientific paper on the density of Venus atmosphere:
quote:
Atmospheric density at the surface is about 65 kg m-3
LINK
So there is a little dependency between Wiki and this paper.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:08 pm to WorkinDawg
quote:
Any warming "study" that doesn't include solar activity from the Sun is disingenuous and has an agenda imo.
The sun’s heat/light output is extremely stable. It’s the magnetic field’s variability that impacts our atmosphere and causes small changes in our global temperature. On a grander scale it’s the Milankovitch Cycles that influence global temperature, but that takes thousands of years, so we don’t have to worry about it.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The ideal gas law can be rearranged as a function of density (d) to drop the volume term.
You set the temperature when you set the density. Of course it works out.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The ideal gas law can be rearranged as a function of density (d) to drop the volume term.
So PV = nRT solved for T and include density ---->
T = P/Rd/n or T = Pn/Rd
This is the mean temperature (T in kelvin), mean pressure (P in KPa), mean density (d in kg/m^3) and the universal gas constant (R at 8.314 J/mol-K).
Mean surface pressure of Venus is 92.1 atmospheres = 9332 KPa.
Mean surface density of Venus is 67 kg/m^3.
Mean moles is 43.45
T = 9332*43.45/8.314*67 = 727.91 K = 454.76 C
Wiki says the following:
LINK
So the ideal gas law is off by 7.25 degrees C through this exercise. But that can be attributed to an inaccurate density published in wiki. If the density were 66.43 kg/m^3 instead of the documented 67 kg/m^3 the ideal gas law would have nailed the surface temperature published in wiki.
I was just about to say this
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:17 pm to Duke
quote:
You set the temperature when you set the density. Of course it works out.
But I acquired the density of 67 from wiki first.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:20 pm to GumboPot
quote:
But I acquired the density of 67 from wiki first.
It's a gas. The density is going to be a function of the temperature and the pressure.
PV = nRT
mass = moles * molar mass (mol * mass/mol)
n = mass/M
PV = massRT/M
PM/RT = density
So when you set the density and the pressure, you defined the temperature.
So then when you plug it into the IGL to solve for temperature, you get the temperature defined by setting the pressure and density.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:What did you use as median terrestrial temp?
But I acquired the density of 67 from wiki first.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:21 pm to Duke
quote:
It's a gas. The density is going to be a function of the temperature and the pressure.
You take your fancy science learnin and leave here now son.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:21 pm to Duke
quote:
The density is going to be a function of the temperature and the pressure.
So you're saying the density is derived from the ideal gas law?
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News