Of course, true to form (thanks Jim D!), you are mocking and rejecting the exact same claims that you previously were acknowledging, saying to have made yourself. Here is what I had written:
(Pierre-Normand): “Sure, but the energy source for performing this work — the work of the buoyant force — entirely is *external* to the parcel of air that is being raised some distance dz and hence has *no* effect at all on the kinetic energy of the constituent molecules of the raised air parcel. (Just write down a simple force diagram). The decrease in kinetic energy of the constituent molecules only is due to the adiabatic expansion and the internal energy expended as a consequence of this work W= PdV that the parcel exerts on its surrounding while expanding. [snip Carnot cycle second stage analogy]”
And here had been your reply:
(Rob Ellison): “That’s what I have said a number of times now quite explicitly. Are you so cretinous you reply to what you think my comments are rather than actually reading them?
As for the rest I see much arm waving about things that have been discussed endlessly – but nothing more than the terms of the dry adiabatic lapse rate I have given several times as well. Do you take pleasure in repeating the obvious?”