- 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 5:22 pm to Duke
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:22 pm to Duke
quote:The density is going to be a MEASURE of temperature and pressure. It is a function of gravity and substance.
The density is going to be a function of the temperature and the pressure.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:25 pm
0
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:24 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If so, please provide a link to said proof.
As my professors used to say whenever I posed such a lazy question to them:
"Tell me what research you have performed to try to answer this question and maybe I can help you refocus your research in the proper direction."
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:25 pm to TBoy
quote:I can tell you he makes a compelling case. Counter it.
Tell me what research you have performed
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:29 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So you're saying the density is derived from the ideal gas law?
No.
That if you're using the IGL, setting the density and the pressure will set the temperature.
quote:
It is a function of gravity and substance.
I put some mass of air in a rigid container at zero g. I come back to earth at 1 g. Did the mass in the container change?
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I can tell you he makes a compelling case. Counter it.
So he makes the Stone Cold Steve Austin case, "And that's the bottom line, because Stone Cold said so." Or in the lingo of the snooty, ipse dixit.
No thanks. He should be posting his call for research on an academic journal website. Good luck proclaiming yourself "the winner."
Idiots.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What did you use as median terrestrial temp?
I solved for temperature.
Acquired documented values for P, density, n and R and solved for T.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:34 pm to Duke
quote:This is really quite simple.
Duke
Just plug the numbers in and make your case.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:34 pm to TBoy
quote:
Idiots.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:35 pm to Duke
quote:
That if you're using the IGL, setting the density and the pressure will set the temperature.
So I guess the next step is to go through a independent exercise from the IGL and see if we get the same or similar answer...like using Stefan Boltzmann. But I’ll have to refresh myself it’s been a long time.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:So what was your terrestrial solution?
I solved for temperature.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:47 pm to TBoy
quote:His case is based on an equation.
No thanks.
Plug the numbers in and disprove it.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:59 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
it's almost laughable we waste any energy at all on worrying about CO2.
Or any of this dire "global warming" bullshiit.
It's reached the level of being cartoonish.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:06 pm to TBoy
quote:
He should be posting his call for research on an academic journal website.
Which one? What are some of the ones you prefer as providing valid information?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
This is really quite simple.
Just plug the numbers in and make your case.
Can't think of a better way to spend my time.
Taking his numbers:
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
Let's change the density to 66 kg/m^3
T = 9332*43.45/8.314*66 = 739 K
Nothing changed but the density, and the temperature changed with it. They're obviously related in the model.
What's the density at 740 k?
Density = 9332 *43.45/(8.314*740) = 65.9 kg/m^3
Now plug that into the original:
T = 9332 *43.45/(8.314 *65.9) = 740 K
The assumptions for the model mean that density = PM/RT. So you say a density at a given pressure, you're stating the temperature. So it's just a circle to solve for the temperature after that.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:15 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
BamaAtl
I'll give you credit, you are one of the best at taking partial quotes to spew your bull shite. Carry on.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:18 pm to Duke
quote:And for earth?
T = 9332*43.45/8.314*66 = 739 K
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So I guess the next step is to go through a independent exercise from the IGL and see if we get the same or similar answer...like using Stefan Boltzmann. But I’ll have to refresh myself it’s been a long time.
Don't go through that much trouble.
You still have the issue of the density changing with temperature and pressure. Whatever model you use, you'll end up in the same loop of having the density define the temperature, it'll just be more accurate since at that pressure the IGL is going to be off from reality. I'm pretty sure the CO2 is supercritical at that pressure.
The larger point of the pressure being higher meaning the temperature of Venus is higher makes sense, it's just not getting the full picture because the system also has energy entering and leaving all the time.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:23 pm to GumboPot
I’m sure someone will link some propaganda a scientist was paid to come up with.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:24 pm to Duke
Just dropping in to remind everyone that the horror of "Global Warming" is a money grab scam.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:26 pm to BamaAtl
Does this mean we have to outlaw carbonated soft drinks?
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News