[karlos]

Originally Posted by Beemer

No Karlos, you were directly trolling at me. Agreeing with me and calling me an idiot at the same time because you can't even understand the basic premise there is a lapse rate on Venus.

The temperature on Venus directly relates to its atmospheric pressure . You cannot escape this fact.

Frankly, not interested in your Venus theories, just wanted to make sure you were not basing your whole case on a false understanding of how aircons work and I'm also interested in you being more respectful to persons like Ian who for some strange reason wants to educate you.
Yes, idiot might have been a bit strong, by using it, I presumed you are more comfortable with stronger language?

Me escape facts? Nah, I think the AGW theory is pretty easy to understand.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Beemer

No Karlos, you were directly trolling at me. Agreeing with me and calling me an idiot at the same time because you can't even understand the basic premise there is a lapse rate on Venus.

The temperature on Venus directly relates to its atmospheric pressure . You cannot escape this fact.

Karlos is right
You DO need to study some physics

temperature on Venus directly relates to its atmospheric pressure

This is like saying that because there is a fire engine at a fire firemen cause fires

[Beemer]

Duncan and Karlos. Please be my guest. Enter a pressure chamber and ask them to increase the pressure to 93 bar. Same as Venus.

Don't forget to specifically tell them to completely turn off the coolers.

You will cook.

p.s. I'm an accredited mechanical engineer from the Aerospace/defence industry. Been there, done the maths. Every project I've been on has worked according to the book.

If you have any issues regarding the "Unified Theory of Climate". I suggest you let your superior knowledge loose on these guys and correct THEM.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Duncan and Karlos. Please be my guest. Enter a pressure chamber and ask them to increase the pressure to 93 bar. Same as Venus.

Don't forget to specifically tell them to completely turn off the coolers.

You will cook.

p.s. I'm an accredited mechanical engineer from the Aerospace/defence industry. Been there, done the maths. Every project I've been on has worked according to the book.

If you have any issues regarding the "Unified Theory of Climate". I suggest you let your superior knowledge loose on these guys and correct THEM.

You are still wrong! and badly!

I cover your "accredited engineer" and raise you a Chartered Engineer!

Eur. Ing. Duncan Cairncross, BScMechE. FIMechE. CEng. DMS. MFEANNI. MIPENZ


Every project I've been on has worked.

I don't think I could claim the same - not and keep a straight face anyway

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

Thanks for posting the billboard by the way. I was trying to avoid throwing off the web page formatting since I knew it would turn out that big.

Sorry ... I didn't think of that before hand ... +1 David.
I'll re-sezie and repost shortly.

Originally Posted by david85

....but aren't changes in temperature the driver of those things (evaporation, precipitation, pressure changes, wind, etc)?

The fundamental flaw David is that this claim in question specifically excludes all of those things from having any influence ... the way it is written no evaporation is needed for bad weather ( just the mixing and changing of temperature ) , nor is pressure , wind, etc ... the exclusivity of the statement in question does not even allow for the existence of water to be needed for bad weather like rain ... somehow the temperature mix and change by itself is it ... this written exclusivity is factually incorrect ... despite Beemer's attempts at defense of it.

As for changes in temperature being the driver ... I would say the correct wording would be a driver... temperature changes are not the only factor ... for example you can't have evaporation of water where there is no water to evaporate ... water evaporates at different temperatures when the pressure is different ... water evaporates differently if there are other chemicals in it ... geographic features like mountains have an influence on what type of weather results ( on the up wind side and the down wind side ) ... etc.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by Beemer

Venus' temperature is high simply because the pressure is so high. The very same way air conditioning systems work!

Incorrect.

• Pressure doesn't make the energy that is expressed in temperature.
• Venus radiates energy away constantly ... without energy input it will eventually cool down to near absolute zero.
• A given set mass of gas changes temperature ( like those seen in an air conditioning system ) because the force of pressure concentrates the existing energy content of that gas into a smaller space ... the pressure itself does not change the energy content ... it is not the pressure itself that causes the change in temperature ... the pressure is the precursor event to the actual cause of temperature increase , which is the concentration of energy content.

Originally Posted by Beemer

Sunlight plays a very little effect. The temperatures are mostly down to pressure.

Not only is the energy input from sunlight the main reason Venus's radiation emissions don't result in it cooling down to near absolute zero... so your trivializing it here is incorrect.

Your previous statement in question , the one I am disagreeing with , excludes ANY effect from sunlight ... your statement here disagrees with your previous statement ... if this now means you see the error of the exclusivity of your previous statement , great ... please post your corrected version of the previous statement bellow:

Originally Posted by Beemer

Venus' temperature on the ground is solely due to it's atmospheric pressure of 93 bar.

[infantry11b]

The real problem with the Man Made Climate Change loonies is that they already have a conclusion and then they look for any nutty reason to suport it.

[Caps18]

Originally Posted by Beemer

The temperature on Venus directly relates to its atmospheric pressure . You cannot escape this fact.

And maybe the pressure goes up because the temperature went up... The gravity on both planets is very similar so there is no reason that the atmospheric pressure should be that high.

Originally Posted by infantry11b

The real problem with the Man Made Climate Change loonies is that they already have a conclusion and then they look for any nutty reason to suport it.

The real problem with the Man Made Climate Change deniers is they already have a conclusion and they try to find any nutty reason or crazy conspiracy theory to say it isn't happening even with all of the evidence it is. And they have billionaires and large companies funding 24/7 talk radio, TV stations, and on-line trolls to try and put some doubt into the general population or make the conservatives not want to agree with the other side because that would be 'weakness' or 'giving in'.

[david85]

Originally Posted by IamIan

The fundamental flaw David is that this claim in question specifically excludes all of those things from having any influence ...

Thats not how I read it. As I understood it, he was stating that temperature changes cause those things which combine to drive weather events. Sure those other things have influence but what starts the process and keeps it going?

Originally Posted by Caps18

And maybe the pressure goes up because the temperature went up... The gravity on both planets is very similar so there is no reason that the atmospheric pressure should be that high.

Gravity is not the only factor that determines atmospheric pressure.

[Beemer]

This is so funny. We now have respondents who claim density of gasses increase with temperature. Thanks Caps18. Enjoyed that. Wondered what the weight of heat is while you were at it? I really believed engines compressed the mixture to achieve volumetric efficiency... How wrong I was. It's obvious now. The explosion SUCKS the next cycle round. hahaha.

Maybe they use spark plugs in diesel engines because compressing the gasses does not make it hot? I'm sure you will find that totally believable. Maybe you can invent a water engine. Compress water vapour and it turns into steam. Instant steam engine! Go get it patented boys! hahaha.

I've said this before but as (mostly) all of you all have your eye's firmly closed and fingers in ears screaming La La La La La.
At a height of around 55Km over the surface of Venus, the atmospheric pressure is approximately 15psi. Ironically the temperature at this height is around 22C. Info can be found in many websites for children.

Also boys, if you pump up your bicycle tyre and hold the end of the pump with your fingers, you may find you can burn them. This is at fairly low pressures compared to what we find on Venus.

Nobody here can argue away any of the laws of thermodynamics.
If you cannot believe this, my only suggestion is you have your medication reviewed.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Duncan and Karlos. Please be my guest. Enter a pressure chamber and ask them to increase the pressure to 93 bar. Same as Venus.

Don't forget to specifically tell them to completely turn off the coolers.

You will cook.

p.s. I'm an accredited mechanical engineer from the Aerospace/defence industry. Been there, done the maths. Every project I've been on has worked according to the book.

If you have any issues regarding the "Unified Theory of Climate". I suggest you let your superior knowledge loose on these guys and correct THEM.

You still don't get it, bad example because in it you are changing the volume and pressure (just how a heat pump or AC unit is made to work) After the dive bottle has been sitting around for a day, what is the temperature? Ambiant of course. For it to be hot, there has to be an external heat source.
You and engineer, LOL