Toronto Escorts

Gerald Butts wants Facebook to censor your climate change opinions

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
You're still wrong and you're still dishonest.
Fact: You can't produce a quote to support what you posted on Monday.

No one wants to read more of your bullshit and your blather. If you want to prove you're not a compulsive liar, you have to produce the quote.

I'm happy to give you another 24 hours to try. Hell, you can have 24 years, for all I care.

It won't matter ... you'll never find a quote because I never made the claim that you falsely attributed to me last Monday.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,020
17,975
113
Frankfooter and the truth are not able to co-exist
Best to ignore
Sure, larue.

Care to tell us:
1) the difference between a forcing and feedback climate effect
2) whether water vapour or CO2 are forcing or feedback effects

Go ahead, Mr Science.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,020
17,975
113
Fact: You can't produce a quote to support what you posted on Monday.
I provided quotes showing that you lied in the post where you accused me of lying.
Then I provided posts to back up my assertion.

The only one caught lying here is you.

I've already explained all of this to you.

The temperatures in the 21st century have been "flattening," to use NASA's phrase. Temperatures have not been increasing in any statistically significant way.

The fact that most of the warmest temperatures (according to NASA and NOAA) have been in this century merely reflect the fact that the plateau was reached at about the turn of the century.
That's you arguing that there is no warming and the planet wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
Case closed.

Apologize.
 
Last edited:

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
This is unbelievable. I know Frankfooter is functionally illiterate but are we now supposed to believe he doesn't know what the word "quote" means? o_O

Franky, I don't want your deranged and scientifically illiterate interpretations of my past comments. I want you to produce the actual quote of my words that are supposed to support what you posted on Monday.

So far, you have produced nothing and that's how it will remain. That's because I never made the claim you attributed to me.

You remain a compulsive liar.
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
Pressure on Venus is high because of the thermal energy added by the sun.

Venus is not hot because of the high pressures.

If for instance there was some process that removed or added atmosphere to venus, then you can say Venus is hot because of pressure.

Because venus absorbs energy from the sun, that causes venus to heatup and its atmosphere is good at trapping heat and as a consequence, the pressure increases because the temperature increases.

If there was a process that changed the volume of the atmosphere of venus, then you can say venus is hot because of the volume of the atmosphere.

It is like saying molecules are moving around quickly and that is why it is hot, if you had a device that oscillated molecules around to create heat then that is a correct statement. But if you are using a stove to heat water then it is the other way around, the molecules are moving around quickly because it is hot.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,020
17,975
113
This is unbelievable. I know Frankfooter is functionally illiterate but are we now supposed to believe he doesn't know what the word "quote" means? o_O

Franky, I don't want your deranged and scientifically illiterate interpretations of my past comments. I want you to produce the actual quote of my words that are supposed to support what you posted on Monday.

So far, you have produced nothing and that's how it will remain. That's because I never made the claim you attributed to me.

You remain a compulsive liar.
You bet the planet wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and clearly stated you believed that the planet's temperature had plateaued.
How much clearer does it have to be?

When will you apologize for lying about the terms of the bet and refusing to admit that you lost?
You are the compulsive liar here.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
You bet the planet wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and clearly stated you believed that the planet's temperature had plateaued.
How much clearer does it have to be?

When will you apologize for lying about the terms of the bet and refusing to admit that you lost?
You are the compulsive liar here.
More bullshit, still no sign of a quote. ?
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
Daily temperature changes are well in excess of the theoretical average temp change the planet has experienced since the industrial revolution (0.8 to 1C)
You were using that as an argument against CO2 being an insulating gas. I am asking how is that an argument, not can you please restate your argument.

The most modern coal planets are far more efficient than predecessors producing almost zero oxides of nitrogen and sulfur fare, more energy per CO2 equivalent and zero ash
Would it surprise you if I told you that modern coal plants are less efficient than it's predecessors?
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
Would it surprise you if I told you that modern coal plants are less efficient than it's predecessors?
yes it would


Advanced Coal Technologies Improve Emissions and Efficiency
New coal-fired generating plants are not showing up in the U.S. Elderly plants are retiring in large numbers. But other parts of the world continue to develop coal generation. Advances in combustion and emissions cleanup are part of the reason.
Battered in the U.S., coal is holding its own in the rest of the world. That’s the finding in the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy, a highly-regarded annual assessment of global energy. BP analyst Spencer Dale said, “Coal consumption increased by 25 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) since 2013. Consumption growth was driven largely by India (18 mtoe), with China consumption also up slightly (4 mtoe) following three successive annual declines during 2014–2016.”
While burning coal to generate power has well-known environmental issues—conventional pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and mercury, as well as new concerns about carbon dioxide and global warming—advanced coal technologies, both on the combustion side and with emissions controls, suggest that coal-fired generation is far from doomed.
Ultrasupercritical and CFB Technology
In much of the world, including most of Asia, advanced coal technologies—ultrasupercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—have been the focus. In the U.S. and much of the developed world, the target for advanced coal has been removing CO 2 from flue gas, either from conventional technology or coal gasification.
Ultrasupercritical and CFB technologies also play a role in reducing CO2 emissions. They increase the efficiency of the plant, meaning more power for a given amount of coal. The U.S. focus on carbon capture (and storage either for use in enhanced oil recovery, or sequestered in geologic repositories on land or deep under the sea) targets CO2 directly.
A paper from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory lays out the advantages of ultrasupercritical coal plants. “Increasing the temperature and pressure of steam improves the efficiency of boilers and turbines that use steam as a working fluid. These higher efficiency boilers and turbines require less coal and produce less greenhouse gases.” Ultrasupercritical boilers produce steam in the 1,200F to 1,400F range, compared to about 1,100F in supercritical plants.
The National Coal Council, a DOE advisory group, says, “As steam pressure and temperature are increased above 3,208 psi and 706F, the steam becomes supercritical; the water and steam form a single-phase mixture,” producing significantly increased efficiency. A typical subcritical coal-fired steam electric plant in the U.S. operates at about 32% efficiency, according to the coal council.
Two years ago, the Power Technology website reported, “General Electric (GE) is pioneering ultrasupercritical technology at the RDK 8 coal-fired power plant in Karlsruhe, Germany, with considerable success. Operated by German utility EnBW, the plant achieves 47.5% net thermal efficiency while producing 912 MW of electricity, making it one of the world’s most efficient hard coal-fired steam power plants.”

So lets have it.
Show us your report which claims new coal plants are less efficient than older ones?

Oh by the way
Holmes, R. I. (2017). Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences, 6(6), 157.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
Pressure on Venus is high because of the thermal energy added by the sun.

Venus is not hot because of the high pressures.
wrong

If for instance there was some process that removed or added atmosphere to venus, then you can say Venus is hot because of pressure.
No I can say Venus is hot because of the enormous pressures

Because venus absorbs energy from the sun, that causes venus to heatup and its atmosphere is good at trapping heat and as a consequence, the pressure increases because the temperature increases.
This has been explained to you. the ideal law calculations hold true for atmospheres with little or no green house gases



If there was a process that changed the volume of the atmosphere of venus, then you can say venus is hot because of the volume of the atmosphere.

It is like saying molecules are moving around quickly and that is why it is hot, if you had a device that oscillated molecules around to create heat then that is a correct statement. But if you are using a stove to heat water then it is the other way around, the molecules are moving around quickly because it is hot.
Yawn
Here are Nine planetary examples of Ideal gas law holding true

Holmes, R. I. (2017). Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences, 6(6), 157


Sorry but pressure not CO2 makes Venus hot
Mars has next to no CO2 in its atmosphere
Jupiter's atmosphere is almost all hydrogen and helium non greenhouse gases
The data confirms the pressure is driving the temperature

Have you ever pumped up a bicycle inner tube and noticed it gets warmer?
End of story

Time to move on
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
Newer coal plants have scrubbers which use high voltage to ionize the exhaust to give it a charge and an opposite polarity plate to attract the particulates to the plate. That system takes about 30% of the output power of a coal plant to operate.

If your argument is that venus is a closed system, then if the sun turned off; your system should still be at the same temperature and pressure, should it not?

If you replaced every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere with nitrogen such that you keep pressure the same, Venus would reflect more solar energy, which will cause temperatures to fall, which will cause pressure to fall.

The mere fact that you can use the equation to calculate temperatures based on pressure is a testament that the system is absorbing energy from the sun otherwise, the entire atmosphere will just condense (phase change to a lower energy state) leaving no gas for you to do your calculations with.

As for your bicycle analogy, if the sun somehow stopped shining and started to physically pump shit into venus like a bicycle pump, then you would be absolutely correct that it is pressure driving temperatures.

When you say that there has to be atleast 0.8 atmospheres of pressure for the ideal gas law to work, that 0.8 atmospheres can be expressed as an energy density meaning that there has to be a minimum energy density for the law to work.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,020
17,975
113
More bullshit, still no sign of a quote. ?
Moving goalposts, moviefan.

I showed you the quotes where you said you claimed the temperature of the planet had plateaued at the turn of this century and based on that you bet that it wouldn't hit 0.83ºC in 2015.
You lost that bet then tried to switch charts to claim you didn't lose.

Now you're back claiming I somehow lied and you need a 'direct quote' and moving the goal posts after I gave you evidence.
Too bad, I gave you the two statements that back up my claim, there is no requirement for a direct quote.
What I said is an accurate report of your claims.

You are totally dishonest.
You lost the bet and still refuse to act honourably.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
Newer coal plants have scrubbers which use high voltage to ionize the exhaust to give it a charge and an opposite polarity plate to attract the particulates to the plate. That system takes about 30% of the output power of a coal plant to operate.

If your argument is that venusYour argu is a closed system, then if the sun turned off; your system should still be at the same temperature and pressure, should it not?

If you replaced every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere with nitrogen such that you keep pressure the same, Venus would reflect more solar energy, which will cause temperatures to fall, which will cause pressure to fall.

The mere fact that you can use the equation to calculate temperatures based on pressure is a testament that the system is absorbing energy from the sun otherwise, the entire atmosphere will just condense (phase change to a lower energy state) leaving no gas for you to do your calculations with.

As for your bicycle analogy, if the sun somehow stopped shining and started to physically pump shit into venus like a bicycle pump, then you would be absolutely correct that it is pressure driving temperatures.

When you say that there has to be atleast 0.8 atmospheres of pressure for the ideal gas law to work, that 0.8 atmospheres can be expressed as an energy density meaning that there has to be a minimum energy density for the law to work.
your arguing against experimental observations which verify the ideal gas LAW correctly calculates the planetary temperatures for the planets which has enough pressure to create a closed system

Your claim is that you cant add energy to a closed system

Then name an example of the ideal gas law where changes in pressure, volume or temperature can occur where there is no energy (or work) added ?
Note: Chemical reactions add or subtract energy (exothermic or endothermic)

The increase in temperature by addition of pressure within a bicycle inner tube is a classic example
You are adding energy to the system (The inner tube) via the work you do to pump up the inner tube
The change in pressure caused by the work/ energy of pumping up the inner tube causes a change in temperature as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Similarly an exothermic chemical reaction will add heat energy and the ideal gas law has been used extensively to study reaction chemistry

Explain how you would design an experiment to observe pressure changes as a function of temperature (constant Volume) WITHOUT adding heat energy to a closed system ?









Applying your condition for a closed system (including no energy additions ) would render the Ideal Gas LAW invalid.

Please provide the link for the website where you got this closed system to energy addition nonsense
It will be interesting to see if it is one of these fraudulent Climate change mis-information sites like skeptical science run by John Cook
Apparently alarmists would rather eat their children that acknowledge Venus is hot due to pressure and not CO2
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
Newer coal plants have scrubbers which use high voltage to ionize the exhaust to give it a charge and an opposite polarity plate to attract the particulates to the plate. That system takes about 30% of the output power of a coal plant to operate.
The article made a clear statement
They increase the efficiency of the plant, meaning more power for a given amount of coal.
advanced coal technologies—ultrasupercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—have been the focus.
Please verify if your high voltage ionization theory is universal and applies to ultra supercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—technologies
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
(T)here is no requirement for a direct quote.
Bullshit.

The requirement most certainly does exist. What doesn't exist is the actual quote, because Franky's post last Monday was total B.S.

My statement that Frankfooter is a compulsive liar is verified by his confirmation that he can't produce a quote. As I have said all along, that's because I never made the claim that Frankfooter falsely attributed to me last week.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
81,020
17,975
113
Bullshit.

The requirement most certainly does exist. What doesn't exist is the actual quote, because Franky's post last Monday was total B.S.

My statement that Frankfooter is a compulsive liar is verified by his confirmation that he can't produce a quote. As I have said all along, that's because I never made the claim that Frankfooter falsely attributed to me last week.
Yes, you are bullshitting.
You said that the global temperature plateaued 2 decades ago.

The fact that most of the warmest temperatures (according to NASA and NOAA) have been in this century merely reflect the fact that the plateau was reached at about the turn of the century.
And you bet that the temperature wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.

Moviefan-2;5243530 said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
How could the temp rise higher than 0.83ºC if global temps had already plateaued?

And you are still lying that you didn't lose the bet.

I just proved you lied twice.
The score is 2 to nothing for me, moviefan.

You're just another dishonest climate change denier.
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
your arguing against experimental observations which verify the ideal gas LAW correctly calculates the planetary temperatures for the planets which has enough pressure to create a closed system

Your claim is that you cant add energy to a closed system

Then name an example of the ideal gas law where changes in pressure, volume or temperature can occur where there is no energy (or work) added ?
Note: Chemical reactions add or subtract energy (exothermic or endothermic)

The increase in temperature by addition of pressure within a bicycle inner tube is a classic example
You are adding energy to the system (The inner tube) via the work you do to pump up the inner tube
The change in pressure caused by the work/ energy of pumping up the inner tube causes a change in temperature as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Similarly an exothermic chemical reaction will add heat energy and the ideal gas law has been used extensively to study reaction chemistry

Explain how you would design an experiment to observe pressure changes as a function of temperature (constant Volume) WITHOUT adding heat energy to a closed system ?









Applying your condition for a closed system (including no energy additions ) would render the Ideal Gas LAW invalid.

Please provide the link for the website where you got this closed system to energy addition nonsense
It will be interesting to see if it is one of these fraudulent Climate change mis-information sites like skeptical science run by John Cook
Apparently alarmists would rather eat their children that acknowledge Venus is hot due to pressure and not CO2
I would get a single-walled pressure container like a paintball canister (a SodaStream canister should work too), tape a thermocouple to the outside of the paintball canister, put insulation around the paintball canister, get a compressor from Canadian tire (the cheapest one), use the compressor to force high-pressure air into the canister and then look at the temperature of the canister. Should cost about $150ish for all the equipment including fittings and air hoses. You could probably return the compressor and get $75 back so in the end, it should cost $75 plus HST.

Alternatively, you could go to staples and purchase a can of compressed air that is used to clean keyboards, when you spray the compressed air the pressure inside the can decreases and you will feel the can get cold. Grip the can as hard as you can and spray until you get frostbite. Then go to the hospital and get a doctor to confirm it is indeed frostbite. The total cost should be about $5 plus HST.

Alternatively, you could buy a small window-sized Air Conditioning unit, confirm that it does indeed cool the air, and look at the operating principles to verify that compression of a gas does indeed raise the temperature and a reduction in the pressure of the gas does indeed drop temperatures. An AC unit is a closed system. Total cost should be $300 plus HST.

If you need more experiments, please let me know.
 
Last edited:

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
The article made a clear statement



Please verify if your high voltage ionization theory is universal and applies to ultra supercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—technologies
Scrubbers for coal plants are real and used widely and they operate on the exact principles I described.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
I would get a single-walled pressure container like a paintball canister (a SodaStream canister should work too), tape a thermocouple to the outside of the paintball canister, put insulation around the paintball canister, get a compressor from Canadian tire (the cheapest one), use the compressor to force high-pressure air into the canister and then look at the temperature of the canister. Should cost about $150ish for all the equipment including fittings and air hoses. You could probably return the compressor and get $75 back so in the end, it should cost $75 plus HST.

Alternatively, you could go to staples and purchase a can of compressed air that is used to clean keyboards, when you spray the compressed air the pressure inside the can decreases and you will feel the can get cold. Grip the can as hard as you can and spray until you get frostbite. Then go to the hospital and get a doctor to confirm it is indeed frostbite. The total cost should be about $5 plus HST.
Time to put your CO2 fallacy to rest permanently

Venus has a lapse rate (as does earth) with temperature declining with altitude and not surprisingly declining pressure

The deep atmosphere of Venus and the possible role of density-driven separation of CO2 and N2




clearly the temperature decreases as you increase in altitude as the enormous pressures decline
since the atmosphere is 96% co2 there cannot be a co2 gradient over 100 km of atmosphere

The high temperature of Venus is caused by pressure , not CO2
done, fineto, end of story

No need to apologize for the earlier unwarranted insults, however you should acknowledge
1. you were mislead by the climate alarmists
2, The high temperature of Venus is caused by pressure , not CO2
3. A lot of people accept the climate propaganda without questioning it
4. You will not accept the climate propaganda as factual without investigating it further
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts