Idea Gas Law is still rejected!!!

My goodness.  You would have thought people would have thought.  But, they didn’t.  As most of you know by now, there was another posit on how to figure our climate.  Drs. Ned Nikolov, & Karl Zeller, have written a series of papers which was apparently condensed to a statement called the Unified Theory of Climate.  I believe it originally was carried by Tallbloke.  Anthony covered it at WUWT.  Sadly, they committed heresy to climatology by writing the unprintable.  They wrote (gasp!) PV = nRT  Surprised smileSurprised smileSurprised smile  How could they?!?!?!?!?!  Most of us recognize this as the Idea Gas Law. 

Many of the people at WUWT simply reject applying this law to anything climate.  The problem is, it is a law.  With laws, we don’t get to choose when they apply and when they don’t apply.  They always apply. By the very act of typing this law causes mass hallucinations and causes people to only see P=T.  It also causes people to slip into a delusional state which causes them to constantly repeat that pressure doesn’t cause temperature.  To date, there is no known cure for this malady.

Many people get so caught up in the P vs T thing they miss the other variables.  The fact is, the P and the T don’t vary very much.  At least, they haven’t in the last few thousand years.  We’re talking about 0.5K delta  ——->(delta or a triangle means change for the uninitiated, I just thought I throw that in to wow and impress everybody with my real sciency linguistics  Punch) .  Another thing to note, the IGL doesn’t ascribe causation.  It is simply an equation.  For some reason, this causes people to miss the forest because of all the trees in front of it.  Pressure isn’t a determination on its own, and neither is temperature.  They are functions of other things such as work.  But, work isn’t a thing in and of itself either.

How I would use the IGL would be as a check to see if my other formulas and thoughts were correct.  I don’t believe we have to precision to know the exact volume or mole mass (or temps for that matter) of our entire atmosphere.  So, we’re not going to be able to detect a change of a few hundredths of a degree C or F using the IGL.  But, its a law, so other thoughts concerning our atmospheric temps must conform to the IGL.  People, it is really that simple.  And when you look at it properly, it is really that complicated.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Idea Gas Law is still rejected!!!

  1. Mike Davis says:

    I had beans and rice last night so I can experience the IGL today!

  2. IanH says:

    Why did the poster cite no references (that I spotted)?. Have the authors not read (for example):

    Click to access CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf

    How does their work differ from or add to the prior publications?. The idea that the atmospheric mass has halved due to loss to space is cute, but needs some serious support IMO.

    It would be nice to have a review of the alternative non-greenhouse explanations of planetary temperature published somewhere that the Hockey team rent seekers dont have editorial power to censor dissenting views.

    If New Scientist wasn’t such awful PC pap, the poster would make for a good article.

    I agree that the subsequent article critisising the poster summary article seemed to have missed the point utterly.

    • suyts says:

      Ian, I agree the work needs cleaned up. And, I agree that there should be much more non GHG literature.

      It just drives me up a wall when people react to science laws like they did and think they get to choose when certain laws apply and don’t apply.

    • suyts says:

      The problem is they’re looking at the question wrong. But, all one has to do is go back to Newton and follow the problem out from there. Pressure is force over area. Force causes work. Work causes a transfer of energy. Base physical mechanics.

  3. Mike Davis says:

    It is the story of the five blind men describing the elephant. They each only know the portion they are feeling and are blind as to how it fits the “Big Picture”

    • suyts says:

      Exactly. I’ve worked on unifying the separate schools of thought, but it’s difficult to separate what is redundantly described in different fashions and what is unique.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s