Gerald Butts wants Facebook to censor your climate change opinions

[Frankfooter]

Time to put your CO2 fallacy to rest permanently


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

Well Mr Science, I think you need to write a very angry letter to NASA and teach them physics, chemistry and climatology.
I'm sure they'd love to hear from you and instantly recommend you for a Nobel with your ground breaking work.

From NASA.
Second planet from the Sun and our closest planetary neighbor, Venus is similar in structure and size to Earth, but it is now a very different world. Venus spins slowly in the opposite direction most planets do. Its thick atmosphere traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, making it the hottest planet in our solar system—with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Glimpses below the clouds reveal volcanoes and deformed mountains.

As soon as NASA posts their retraction I'll bow down and support you as the genius of TERB.
Until then, you're just doing your Mr Science routine, with a healthy dose of Cliff Clavin.

 

[HungSowel]

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

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo2971/MediaObjects/41561_2017_Article_BFngeo2971_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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

If you need more experiments, let me know.

The truth is that pressure does not cause temperature, and temperature does not cause pressure. They are equivalent to each other, one is a scaled version of the other.

It is like E=MC^2, energy does not cause mass and mass does not cause energy, it is an equivalance.

With that said, it is more correct to say that temperature causes the increase in pressure because the input energy is through the form of solar radiation. If the sun was dumping shit into Venus's atmosphere, then you can say pressure is causing high temperatures, pressure is a form of energy (energy density actually) just like temperature (you can turn temperature into energy density by dividing by the volume).

You can rationalize the ideal gas law to come to a conclusion without bringing in batshit graphs from batshit websites to support your argument, so I do not know why you need to post batshit graphs from batshit websites.

 

[JohnLarue]

Scrubbers for coal plants are real and used widely and they operate on the exact principles I described.

You did not answer the question
does your high voltage ionization theory apply to ultra supercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—technologies?

You made a very all encompassing statement

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.

I suspect you reviewed an article on a specific design, which may have a 30% power demand for its specific technology
However there appears to be multiple new technologies, none of which explicitly reference high voltage ionization

you need to verify if your all encompassing statement is correct for these technologies

 

[HungSowel]

You did not answer the question
does your high voltage ionization theory apply to ultra supercritical combustion, circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion, and coal gasification—technologies?

You made a very all encompassing statement


I suspect you reviewed an article on a specific design, which may have a 30% power demand for its specific technology
However there appears to be multiple new technologies, none of which explicitly reference high voltage ionization

you need to verify if your all encompassing statement is correct for these technologies

The batshit coal plants you are talking about is a fantasy, just like thorium reactors are a fantasy.

I am talking about actual plants that operate in real life in real places.

The ionization to capture particulate matter, that is not theory. You can buy air purifiers for your home that use the same technology, though there is a drawback as the ionization creates ozone which is supposed to be bad for health, it also cluster fucks nearby electronics.

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

Too funny !
"use the compressor to force high-pressure air into the canister" Gee that sound like adding energy/ work to the system
But you indicated Venus is not a closed system because energy was being added by the sun

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.

And if the A/C unit is not plugged in, since you forbid the addition of energy/ work to a closed system....... what happens?

You have proven my point very well.

If you need more experiments, please let me know.

No I think you are more of a comic relief sort of reference

How is the deep ocean / ideal gas law experiment you theorized going?

 

[HungSowel]

If you were to instantaneously increase pressure inside a closed vessel, does temperature increase instantaneously? or is there a time lag?

If you were to instantaneously increase the temperature inside a closed vessel, does pressure increase instantaneously? or is there a time lag?

 

[JohnLarue]

If you need more experiments, let me know.

I would not let you walk my dog, let alone set up an experiment for me

The truth is that pressure does not cause temperature, and temperature does not cause pressure. They are equivalent to each other, one is a scaled version of the other.

Really?
Quick call stockholm, some fool has just re-written/ negated the Ideal gas law and should be considered for the noble darwin prize
look if you increase the pressure the tempature rises. Pump up an inner tube and feel the heat

You can rationalize the ideal gas law to come to a conclusion without bringing in batshit graphs from batshit websites to support your argument, so I do not know why you need to post batshit graphs from batshit websites.

Batshit you say
That was a peer reviewed paper from nature
You had better call them and tell them they are publishing "batshit"
Do not forget to brag about your deep ocean/ ideal gas experiment


You you have been given
1. 10 examples of the ideal gas law correctly calculating 10 separate planetary tempatures , including planets with zero or next to zero greenhouse gases
2. You have also been given a reference clearly showing the temperature dependence on pressure on Venus over 50 km of altitude changes . The paper was peer reviewed and published

The temperature on Venus is a result of the enormous pressure. not CO2
this has been spoon fed to you

yet you do not bother for a minute to carefuuly think about what you have shown.
You did not consider for one you might be wrong. you did not even bother to investigate the information and instead responded with an insulting and offensive call of "batshit"?

Thank you for proving that Climate alarmist are driven by emotion and the inability to admit they were wrong about any part of the lie, rather viewing cold hard science objectively

I am confident you will remain an alarmist for the rest of your days , always wondering why the catastrophes did not play out , but never once questioning why

You are a scientific know nothing and will remain so

 

[JohnLarue]

If you were to instantaneously increase pressure inside a closed vessel, does temperature increase instantaneously? or is there a time lag?

If you were to instantaneously increase the temperature inside a closed vessel, does pressure increase instantaneously? or is there a time lag?

Your question is moot as you have forbidden the addition of energy to a closed system and thus can not increase the pressure or the temperature, instaneously or otherwise

It is time you started to think before responding

Fair warning: you get put on ignore the next time I see an insult or "batshit" type of remark

It is also time you started to realize I am trying to help you understand.
I cant change your mind about AGW, you will need to do that all on your own. But you will never get there if you continue to blindly believe the propaganda

 

[HungSowel]

Ok, I will put it another way. If you were to take a derivative of the ideal gas law (P=nRT/V) with respect to time, delta-pressure/ delta-time, what is the result? If you did the same for T=PV/nR, delta-temperature/delta-time, what is the result?

 

[HungSowel]

Venus, like most bodies orbiting the Sun is in an ellipse. When venus is closer to the sun does pressure increase? If so then by what mechanism does that happen?

 

[basketcase]

Venus, like most bodies orbiting the Sun is in an ellipse. When venus is closer to the sun does pressure increase? If so then by what mechanism does that happen?

Johnny is essentially a flat earther. He probably doesn't believe that Venus orbits the sun, let alone the ability to admit CO2 has an impact on global warming. Like flat earthers, his arguments have a veneer of scientific language but essentially his entire argument boils down to claiming that science is involved in a massive conspiracy.


Just look how he reacted to a bunch of nobodies making a petition

 

[HungSowel]

Back years ago under another username, I was on the denier side of AGW and I would insult Frankfooter with much more egregious insults than "batshit", and to Frank's credit, he never threatened to block me.

 

[JohnLarue]

Ok, I will put it another way. If you were to take a derivative of the ideal gas law (P=nRT/V) with respect to time, delta-pressure/ delta-time, what is the result? If you did the same for T=PV/nR, delta-temperature/delta-time, what is the result?

??
The variables in the equation are Pressure, temperature, Volume and the number of moles
There is not a time variable in the ideal gas law

How does one differentiate a time independent equation with respect to time?

y=f(x)
dy/dt =y >>> I guess

So you want to differentiate an equation to wind up with the same equation ???
You would first need to establish a time dependency of at least one of the variables
Gee lets see... temperature as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Volume as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Pressure as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Number of moles as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope. One can determine a rate for a specific reaction, no reaction was stated

Your statement is pure nonsense
Again you need to stop and think first

This is nonsense
You were very clear that you thought the ideal gas law was not applicable to planets because energy was being added via the sun (ie not a closed system according to you)

However in your example you want to varying temperature INSTANTANEOUSLY. How do you do that without adding energy ?

Theoretical physics is not your calling
I suggest you get a good practical understanding of a physical law including what are the variables before trying to differentiate that law

Whats next, are you going to integrate mass over time from now to infinity?
wild guess would it be the same mass ?

 

[JohnLarue]

Venus, like most bodies orbiting the Sun is in an ellipse. When venus is closer to the sun does pressure increase? If so then by what mechanism does that happen?

The rotation of Venus about its axis is extremely slow, almost a complete planetary year, yet the dark side is apparently almost as hot as the bright side.
It is thought the extremely dense atmosphere and enormous pressure results in very fast moving winds (+200 KM/hr of very very heavy gas) which circulate the heat around the planet
If this is true and the dark side stays blistering hot for half a year without any income solar radiation, then the differences in distance to the sun of an elliptical orbit would not have much impact

Now that I have addressed your questions, its time for you to answer two questions from me

1. Explain how the ideal gas law is not valid when it can accurately calculate the temp as a function of pressure on earth and Venus, both containing greenhouse gases, while also correctly calculating the temp of Jupiter, which has zero or next to zero greenhouse gases ?


2. Explain the atmospheric temperature gradient of the lower 50 km of Venus' atmosphere , which is 96.5% CO2 ?
96.5 % means the atmospheres composition is likely quite uniform throughout the atmospheric volume

 

[JohnLarue]

Johnny is essentially a flat earther. He probably doesn't believe that Venus orbits the sun, let alone the ability to admit CO2 has an impact on global warming. Like flat earthers, his arguments have a veneer of scientific language but essentially his entire argument boils down to claiming that science is involved in a massive conspiracy.


Just look how he reacted to a bunch of nobodies making a petition

Hey your back !
Tired of watching the news ?
What with Planet of the humans, defecting environmentalists exposing the climate scare, RCP8.5 is shown to be an impossible scenario used to mislead the world, Justin Trudeau self destructing and Goya food sales sky rocketing you must be looking for a break from reality.

BTW I have never claimed CO2 is incapable of absorbing /emitting some infrared radiation. That is a fact I have never disputed.

It is just not the control knob for climate on earth and it is not the primary reason Venus is blistering hot

 

[JohnLarue]

Back years ago under another username, I was on the denier side of AGW and I would insult Frankfooter with much more egregious insults than "batshit", and to Frank's credit, he never threatened to block me.

You had another user name?
Really? Why did you need to switch?

Your interactions with Frankfooter are your business
I have spent a lot of time explaining a lot to you and corrected a lot of your mistakes
If you are going to insult me, then I put an end to it

 

[Frankfooter]

Back years ago under another username, I was on the denier side of AGW and I would insult Frankfooter with much more egregious insults than "batshit", and to Frank's credit, he never threatened to block me.

Batshit is a an accurate label for Mr Science's sources.

What he proposes flies in the face of what is accepted as science.
I've had friends who had wacko ideas and believed conspiracy theories, but larue has that special sort of dunning-kruger confidence that makes him confident he's smarter than everyone else.
He's really Cliff from Cheers without the fun.

 

[HungSowel]

??
The variables in the equation are Pressure, temperature, Volume and the number of moles
There is not a time variable in the ideal gas law

How does one differentiate a time independent equation with respect to time?

y=f(x)
dy/dt =y >>> I guess

So you want to differentiate an equation to wind up with the same equation ???
You would first need to establish a time dependency of at least one of the variables
Gee lets see... temperature as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Volume as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Pressure as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope
Number of moles as a function of time. any universal equation for that ? ... Nope. One can determine a rate for a specific reaction, no reaction was stated

Your statement is pure nonsense
Again you need to stop and think first

This is nonsense
You were very clear that you thought the ideal gas law was not applicable to planets because energy was being added via the sun (ie not a closed system according to you)

However in your example you want to varying temperature INSTANTANEOUSLY. How do you do that without adding energy ?

Theoretical physics is not your calling
I suggest you get a good practical understanding of a physical law including what are the variables before trying to differentiate that law

Whats next, are you going to integrate mass over time from now to infinity?
wild guess would it be the same mass ?

Exactly, the answer is 0 because the law is an equivalence law and not a causation law, it is invariant to time.

So that means the answer to my previous 2 questions is instantaneously. It was meant as only a thought experiment, not a literal one.

 

[JohnLarue]

The batshit coal plants you are talking about is a fantasy,

Not according to the article they are not
Speaking of fantasy, how is that multi-billion dollar Wind and solar plan to completely replace fossil fuels going ?
20 years later, billions in taxpayer money transferred to Al Gore & Friends and you are up to what 4 or 5% ?

just like thorium reactors are a fantasy.

Nuclear will be the fuel of the future, no question. The envior nuts will stave the planet of energy for a while and then something really bad will happen because of it, waking the politician up to the fact we need energy.
Too bad we wasted 20+ years on wind and solar

Had the money wasted on wind and solar been allocated to Thorium research this debate would quite possibly be moot

The ionization to capture particulate matter, that is not theory. You can buy air purifiers for your home that use the same technology, though there is a drawback as the ionization creates ozone which is supposed to be bad for health, it also cluster fucks nearby electronics.

Well as son as the loonie enviro-nuts hears it is generating ozone, they will demand it is shut down

It is not as scary or stupid as purposely adding sulfates to the atmosphere!!
That is scary

 

[HungSowel]

You had another user name?
Really? Why did you need to switch?

Your interactions with Frankfooter are your business
I have spent a lot of time explaining a lot to you and corrected a lot of your mistakes
If you are going to insult me, then I put an end to it

I got banned most likely for being an asshole, which I am being now.
I am going to stop posting in this thread.