Check this from the wiki:
“Charles’s law says “when a gas is compressed, temperature is raised”. There are three possible relationships between temperature and pressure in a volume of gas undergoing compression:
- Isothermal – gas remains at constant temperature throughout the process. In this cycle, internal energy is removed from the system as heat at the same rate that it is added by the mechanical work of compression. Isothermal compression or expansion is favored by a large heat exchanging surface, a small gas volume, or a long time scale (i.e., a small power level). With practical devices, isothermal compression is usually not attainable. For example, even a bicycle tire-pump gets hot during use.
- Adiabatic – In this process there is no heat transfer to or from the system, and all supplied work is added to the internal energy of the gas, resulting in increases of temperature and pressure. Theoretical temperature rise is T2 = T1·Rc((k-1)/k)), with T1 and T2 in degrees Rankine or kelvins, and k = ratio of specific heats (approximately 1.4 for air). The rise in air and temperature ratio means compression does not follow a simple pressure to volume ratio. This is less efficient, but quick. Adiabatic compression or expansion is favored by good insulation, a large gas volume, or a short time scale (i.e., a high power level). In practice there will always be a certain amount of heat flow, as to make a perfect adiabatic system would require perfect heat insulation of all parts of a machine.
- Polytropic – This assumes that heat may enter or leave the system, and that input shaft work can appear as both increased pressure (usually useful work) and increased temperature above adiabatic (usually losses due to cycle efficiency). Cycle efficiency is then the ratio of temperature rise at theoretical 100 percent (adiabatic) vs. actual (polytropic).
Pretty basic stuff hey? Well why isn’t this sort of gas law fundamental to the assumptions of this greenhouse racket? It turns out that surface gas pressure is far more important than increases in the composition of non-water-vapour greenhouse gasses when contemplating this entire racket. So why don’t we hear about air pressure at the surface when we listen to our research-grant-whores? Or why is air pressure just some add-on and not central to their models?
I was only put onto this by Alan Siddons. And then these considerations were reinforced by these really brilliant guys that Dr Marohasy has given a bit of space to. Guys like cohenite, Hissink, Barry Moore, Alan Siddons et al.
Siddons has a way of wording things in very stark terms. One piece he wrote made it sound like he was violating the idea of the conservation of energy. And we have trained up a whole swag of idiot-leftists to jump on the first thing that doesn’t sound right to them and use it to dismiss the entirety of the points the guys is making. In fact Siddons was doing no such thing but it took me awhile to get a bit of a handle on what he was saying.
Charlie Munger is Warren Buffets right-hand-man. He says that he likes to look at things in terms of many small models. I agree with this. If a big integrated model comes about almost by accident well thats fine and dandy. But one doesn’t want to force this eventuality and we ought to be using more than one angle or model to describe what we think is going on.
A problem develops when even the smarter blokes are suffering a little bit from the CURSE OF THE LONE PARADIGM. So even the smarter blokes who have rejected the failed ruling paradigm can be a little bit extremist when they find a better one.
You climb up a mountain in the tropics and the air temperature gets lower and this is mostly due simply to less compression. You pump air into a tank and that air will heat up but than that will mean that the heat energy will start to become lost from your tank and into the surrounding atmosphere. Since thermal energy travels from higher to lower temperatures. So that when you let the air out, if it has a lot of water vapour in it, your equipment can get iced up. Since now the air that has lost that heat energy is expanded and will, when expanded, manifest a much lower temperature. One needs to split up in ones mind and for analysis the seperate but related concept of joules, thermal energy and temperature. One problem with always thinking of watts-per-square metres is that this focus becomes a set of blinkers that blocks everything else out of your view of whats going on.
Now how much of all this is included in that basic model of watts-per-square-metre? This watts per square metre business is pure crankery. Its just one sliver of the reality of this complex earth. So in their world they have a planet twice as far from the sun, noon all the time, its a flat earth, but in this otherworldly flat-earth compression means nothing. Well at least in their ridiculous models. And yet you only need to walk up that tropical mountain to know that it means something.
Now I’ll link to a much-pilloried study that was linked and previewed by Dr Marohasy. Her name may be suffering a bit from its close resemblance to the evil Dr Moriati. This link is to do with the changes to the orbit of the moon around the earth. And how that would effect temperature. I haven’t bought the e-book yet but will do so in a while.
Now we have basically all been trained to look at such a thesis as pure voodoo. The author sees the effect of the moons orbit on air-pressure up North (if I read him rightly) makes a big difference. And of course it does and will do, if you are taking into account matters as I’ve described them above. But we are taught to think DENIALIST…..CYCLE-CRANK…… BURN HIM.
And yet its obvious he’s right and that air PRESSURE in specific areas where the water is often on the verge of freezing and behind where the glacier front is. And air pressure will also make a terrific difference to the moons interaction with the great ocean conveyer.
I see this as a very valuable thread. I think I did a pretty good job defending this bloke and explaining to people just what this climate science is all about. And its where I first got interested in reading everything that Barry Moore has to say. Climate science is not about supercomputers and isn’t likely to be about that level of computation any time soon. Its more about sorting the more important CYCLES from the ones that are less important. In my view the most important consideration when trying to keep us from getting locked into a major glacial period is our economic dynamism and the health and lack of obstruction to the great ocean conveyer. Particularly the gulf stream part of it. But its easy to see how other influences can be more important in the short run or could develop into a situation where a glacial period was locked in by further resistance to oceanic circulation.