Sentences with phrase «because real gases»

Because real gases not only expand and condense when under different pressures, but expand and condense when heated and cooled, so becoming lighter or heavier than «standard air under gravity», they will rise when heated and will sink when cooled.

Real gases do not «spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere under their own molecular momentum to travel at great speeds through empty space miles apart from other bouncing off each other in elastic collisions» of ideal gas — because real gas movement is inhibited by the individual volumes of other real gases around them, under the pulling power of gravity.

Not exact matches

What this means is that real estate crowdfunding sites and EnergyFunders — the first oil and gas crowdfunding site — must continue to offer their existing investment types only to accredited investors because Regulation A + is not an available avenue for asset backed securities to be sold.

Trust me when I say I was cursing the fact that no one knows the real risk factors for SIDS and I wasn't comfortable with my child sleeping on her stomach in her own sleeping space because she hated and fought her swaddle, had an intense Moro reflex, and the gas would've been soothed by tummy sleep.

The question is not just a scientific curiosity, but has real world applications because one mechanism contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the other.

I mean, one of the real reasons that people feel compelled — the scientists involved feel compelled — to do the research in this area is because, you know, something like 18 percent of greenhouse gases that are produced come from the livestock industry.

I know this because a black Ford Edge pulled up to the gas pump next to me this morning and, from inside the gas station, it was pretty tough to tell which vehicle had which badge — the grille was the only real clue.

Set down the mouse because this respectable SUV is the SUV you've been searching for ** Real gas sipper!!!

This vehicle is a blast to drive... gas mileage is not the greatest, but you don't buy this SUV for its gas mileage, you buy it because it's a real preformer... will easily outrun most anything except ultra high performance vehicles... so far has been great in the snow

Here's something else which you'll probably not bother to read, a real pity, because it explains why your claim that «as water warms it can hold less gas» is not correct as it ignores the partial pressure of (in this case) CO2 in the atmosphere.

I've always thought that CCS was an inelegant way to lick the carbon problem — because it involves burning fuels and then corralling a huge mass of pollution rather than avoiding the pollution in the first place — but if gas is to be a real «bridge» to a low emission future rather than a nice - looking dead end then we must seriously explore ways to further cut emissions from gas plants.

In the real world I suspect that this source of gas will emerge slowly because none of these markets has the conditions in place to encourage the kind of private sector drive that has made the gas revolution so dramatic in the US.

Scattering may also drive the distribution over polarizations toward an equilibrium (which would be, at any given frequency and direction, constant over polarizations so long as the real component of the index of refraction is independent of polarization) Interactions wherein photons are scattered by matter with some exchange of energy will eventually redistribute photons toward a Planck - function distribution — a blackbody spectrum — characteristic of some temperature, and because the exchange involves some other type of matter, the photon gas temperature (brightness temperature) will approach the temperature of the material it is interacting with -LRB-?

Was that because we got richer, because gas prices were low, or because the real cost of powering a ton of steel at 60 miles an hour dropped due to higher engine efficiency?

I used to think massive investment in basic science might be our only way out, but when I read about the real cost for producing electric cars (ex., greenhouse gases used to make batteries), subsidized solar companies going under because they can not compete with China (which doesn't care about labor needs or pollution), etc., then I wonder about that too.

One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast — I can not easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I can not easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.

In the same way, a «greenhouse gas only» scenario can not be verified by observed data, because the real climate system has evolved under both greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing.

In the real world I suspect that this source of gas will emerge slowly because none of these markets has the conditions in place to encourage the kind of private - sector drive that has made the gas revolution so dramatic in the U.S.. It's also important to remember that there are lots of other sources of gas.

Everyone knows that real cooks only want gas stoves, mainly because of the instantaneous control over temperature — with no lag time as ceramic or coil elements heat or cool — and the continuous adjustment capacity to set exactly the correct heat level.

That's why there is no sound in the AGW world because to get carbon dioxide to «accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years» they had to make it an ideal gas not a real gas — if you don't know the difference you can't see what they've done.

@Myrrh The Greenhouse Effect is not real, because the «33 °C warming by greenhouse gases» is an illusion.

The impossible AGWSF Greenhouse Effect world does not have any atmosphere at all, it goes straight from the surface to its imagined empty space with the imaginary ideal gases without mass zipping around at great speeds miles apart from each other, so it has no convection because it has no real gas for gravity to work on.

AGWSF claims it can because they have taken out the real heat from the Sun, longwave infrared, so they can pretend that measurements of this «downwelling heat from the atmosphere» are from their «greenhouse gases».

AGWSF's Greenhouse Effect doesn't have convection because it doesn't have real gases, it has substituted the imaginary ideal gas without properties and processes, but our real Earth's atmosphere does have convection — the heavy ocean of real fluid gas oxygen and nitrogen weighing a ton on our shoulders, a stone per square inch, acts like a blanket around the Earth stopping the heat escaping, compare with the Moon which has extreme swings of temperature.

We say this is out of the mainstream because we reckon the real alarm would sound among New Yorkers if access to affordable natural gas got harder for lack of infrastructure — pipelines, pumping stations, storage installations and the like.

For example, because they don't have real gases with attraction so they don't have rain in their carbon cycle, because their gases have no attraction, (all rain is carbonic acid the attraction of water and carbon dioxide); so they claim their carbon dioxide can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years.

If you're going to argue with them about gravity you need to first point out they don't have any, because they have created an entirely imaginary world for their Greenhouse Effect of imaginary molecules without the real gas properties which make real gases subject to gravity.

Because they don't have real gases with gravity their imaginary massless hard dots of nothing carbon dioxide «goes at great speeds in empty space mixing so thoroughly bouncing off other hard dots of nothing that it can't be separated out from the other ideal gases»; so it accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years.

They can't understand this real oxgen and nitrogen blanket because they don't have gravity, they don't have gravity because they don't have «real» gases subject to gravity, with volume, weight, attraction etc., and in its place have subsituted the imaginary massless hard dot of nothing «ideal» gas not subject to gravity without these real gas properties.

It is the reason that AGWSF can conjure up its mythical «backradiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere», because it can ignore all the measurements and effects of direct real heat from the Sun which in the real world is the actually energy heating land and ocean, and us.

Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as «from the atmosphere» and not from the Sun direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent warming period we had from the Sun's activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse Effect backradiation.

The other way they explain carbon dioxide accumulating is more complicated, one has to know the difference in real world physics between the artificial construct «ideal» gas and actual gases designated «real», because they are.

With electromagnetic energy from the Sun it needed to push the idea of «shortwave heats land and oceans» because it first had to take out the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, a.k.a. longwave infrared, a.k.a. heat, to establish its claimed «backradiation by greenhouse gases from trapping the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated Earth» and it didn't want any interference by the real world's direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, direct longwave infrared.

For example, Van der Waals is simply not mentioned, because a gas with volume, a real gas, spoils their «well - mixed» and «accumulates» claims, and especially, their «radiation only» claims.

On the moon, because is no O&N, the coldness at night touches to the ground — on the earth, the REAL greenhouse gases O&N as perfect insulators are keeping that coldness 45 km high up.

Because, if the real beam heat from the Sun is re-instated into the energy budget of the faked fisics Greenhouse Effect, then the Sun goes back to being a major player and «backradiation from the greenhouse gases» will be much more difficult to use in the scam.

I thought explaining how they have taken out the real heat from the Sun because they had to use its measurements for their «backradiation from greenhouse gases» would be the easiest to explain..., the arguments about the second law are interminable because few understand that physics well enough to counter the AGW tweaking of it by several sleights of hand.

In the real world the gas will collapse to the surface as a liquid before it gets to absolute zero and this will shut off further extraction of energy because the cold side of the thermocouple no longer has any cold gas to cool it.

Maybe, once there are pressure differences, because it does on Earth, but, I'm assuming his ideal gas has volume, since he's included gravity which «real» ideal gases aren't subject to I've included volume which «real» ideal gases don't have, and it's volume, isn't it?

I became interested in this thread only because upon thinking through the physics of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in the top post there was a challenge to get the real physics right thru ideal gas simplifications consistent with natural laws.

If there's no radiation from the Sun, no heat capacity in the model planet, no mass big enough to effect pressure changes («real» ideal gases which don't have mass), nothing much is happening because there's no movement, (movement from the play of hot and cold volumes as hot gases rise and cold sink, becoming less dense and gaining density), but,

Because of AGW is been changed to «shortwave only in» in order to claim that any real world measurements of downwelling longwave infrared are from «backradiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere», because there is no other source in the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy Because of AGW is been changed to «shortwave only in» in order to claim that any real world measurements of downwelling longwave infrared are from «backradiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere», because there is no other source in the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy because there is no other source in the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget.

Because they don't have real gas atmosphere, but an imaginary one of empty space populated by ideal gas without weight or volume..

In reply to people above who want to argue that the GHE isn't real, or can't work on the basis of a «trace gas», or because the air above is colder than the surface below — all I can say is «piffle».

So are you ready to back that up??? Are you ready to present evidence & make a clear - cut case that the main reason many / most of these 49 people signed this letter is because many / most of them have financial ties to & / or shills for the coal, oil & gas industries??!! If that's your real point please make your case directly & if its substantiated by sound evidence, I'll have no problem saying so.

Because they do not know their ideal gases are imaginary and not real, they call them the different names of real gases erroneously, they are not capable of extrapolating into the fun part that there is no «invisible container» around the Earth so their ideal gas hard dots of massless nothing travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through empty space miles apart from each other — are all disappearing to the ends of the universe.

This is what AGWScienceFiction has done — it has built an imaginary Earth on the imaginary ideal gas for its AGW Greenhouse Effect and because it does not teach the difference between ideal and real gas the general population have a deliberately corrupted concept of the world around us, they do not know their arguments come from a fictional fisics so they can not see how physically impossible the world they describe.

Real gases separate out from each other by weight, so, real gas methane will always rise in air because its mass is lighter than air under gravity, as is water vapReal gases separate out from each other by weight, so, real gas methane will always rise in air because its mass is lighter than air under gravity, as is water vapreal gas methane will always rise in air because its mass is lighter than air under gravity, as is water vapour.

And, because those being brainwashed with ideal gas descriptions with no teaching on the differences between ideal gas and real gases which have real properties of weight, volume and attraction, which have been given different names because they are different from each other, what we also have is the inability of those pushing the GHE to see the absurdities created by extrapolating from their ideal gas..

Which is not real gas molecules in our atmosphere — they are not constantly colliding with each other in elastic collisions, the pull of gravity and the volume and weight of the other molecules around them — constrains them — they may well have rapid molecular movement, vibrational, which is real gas kinetic, heat, but they are moving nowhere fast because they are constrained the the volume and weight of the other real molecules under gravity around them.