Carryfast:
As for the Atlantic being too cold as a comparison at our type of latitude the Hudson Bay is stated as around -1 C today let alone -19 in Novosibirsk.Feel free to explain the difference. 
You speaking to me curryfart? You need to refer to the dearboy when he was taking about some cold water blob or something.
I just said in his defence he may have meant gulf stream, being its:-
A/ actually in the water
B/ not in the sky (why were you on about sky?)
C/ not in land locked Siberia (now what ya talking about?
Up to you Einstein. Arenât you going to answer the science teacher by the way? How rude.
James the cat:
Carryfast:
As for the Atlantic being too cold as a comparison at our type of latitude the Hudson Bay is stated as around -1 C today let alone -19 in Novosibirsk.Feel free to explain the difference.
You speaking to me curryfart? You need to refer to the dearboy when he was taking about some cold water blob or something.
I just said in his defence he may have meant gulf stream, being its:-
A/ actually in the water
B/ not in the sky (why were you on about sky?)
C/ not in land locked Siberia (now what ya talking about?
Up to you Einstein. Arenât you going to answer the science teacher by the way? How rude.
The questions were for him and any other believer who wants to answer them.You chose to get involved in the discussion so feel free to comment or ignore.As for the believers who knows itâs sometimes jet stream or gulf stream and any other bs which they think confirms their ideas.Real world relative global temperatures and the link between pressure and temperature,being just some of the inconvenient facts.That donât fit the global warmist script of melting Polar ice,increasing temperatures,cold Atlantic and Venus being cooked by the composition of its atmosphere as opposed to the pressure.
Carryfast:
.Real world relative global temperatures and the link between pressure and temperature,being just some of the inconvenient facts.That donât fit the global warmist script of melting Polar ice,increasing temperatures,cold Atlantic and Venus being cooked by the composition of its atmosphere as opposed to the pressure.
I swear you nearly said socialist there.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Why do you keep banging on about atmospheric pressure? Unless the pressure is changing it has no affect on temperature. Before you set off in the morning is the air in your tyre warm because it is at 6bar ? Compression ignition is the heat generated in the rapid compression, it is the opposite of draining air out of a tank when ice will form (rapid decompression)
CO2 has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, not 0.01%
Unless itâs actually changing pressure has no effect on temperature. Then explain why temperature reduces by almost 10 degrees C for every 1,000 metres in altitude.Bearing in mind there is no actual change in pressure at each different level.
It is mostly to do with greenhouse gases that insulate us against large fluctuations in temperature, lower air pressure contains less greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide etc which means heat escapes back into space much more easily.
If liquids / gases were simply hotter because they were under more pressure as you are suggesting. Then how would you explain what is happening deep in the oceans, 2 mile down at a 1000bar pressure ?
Well, we can now add Venus to Carryfasts list of obsessions along with 6x4s, the confederacy, WW2 and whatever else is his Google search du jour.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Why do you keep banging on about atmospheric pressure? Unless the pressure is changing it has no affect on temperature. Before you set off in the morning is the air in your tyre warm because it is at 6bar ? Compression ignition is the heat generated in the rapid compression, it is the opposite of draining air out of a tank when ice will form (rapid decompression)
CO2 has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, not 0.01%
Unless itâs actually changing pressure has no effect on temperature. Then explain why temperature reduces by almost 10 degrees C for every 1,000 metres in altitude.Bearing in mind there is no actual change in pressure at each different level.
It is mostly to do with greenhouse gases that insulate us against large fluctuations in temperature, lower air pressure contains less greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide etc which means heat escapes back into space much more easily.
If liquids / gases were simply hotter because they were under more pressure as you are suggesting. Then how would you explain what is happening deep in the oceans, 2 mile down at a 1000bar pressure ?
Firstly weâre not comparing like with like in the case of water IE you canât compress a liquid to the levels required which is the principle of hydraulics.IE Hydraulic fluid doesnât get hot under pressure it gets only gets hot with pump/motor losses and if the input power is more than the output the difference is converted to heat.
As for the altitude temperature equation the weather scientists obviously donât agree with you.
ââAs the pressure decreases temperature decreasesââ.
onthesnow.com/news/a/15157/a ⌠mperature-
switchlogic:
Well, we can now add Venus to Carryfasts list of obsessions
No just global warmist bs myth busting in this case.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Why do you keep banging on about atmospheric pressure? Unless the pressure is changing it has no affect on temperature. Before you set off in the morning is the air in your tyre warm because it is at 6bar ? Compression ignition is the heat generated in the rapid compression, it is the opposite of draining air out of a tank when ice will form (rapid decompression)
CO2 has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the industrial revolution, not 0.01%
Unless itâs actually changing pressure has no effect on temperature. Then explain why temperature reduces by almost 10 degrees C for every 1,000 metres in altitude.Bearing in mind there is no actual change in pressure at each different level.
It is mostly to do with greenhouse gases that insulate us against large fluctuations in temperature, lower air pressure contains less greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide etc which means heat escapes back into space much more easily.
If liquids / gases were simply hotter because they were under more pressure as you are suggesting. Then how would you explain what is happening deep in the oceans, 2 mile down at a 1000bar pressure ?
Firstly weâre not comparing like with like in the case of water IE you canât compress a liquid to the levels required which is the principle of hydraulics.IE Hydraulic fluid doesnât get hot under pressure it gets only gets hot with pump/motor losses and if the input power is more than the output the difference is converted to heat.
As for the altitude temperature equation the weather scientists obviously donât agree with you.
ââAs the pressure decreases temperature decreasesââ.
onthesnow.com/news/a/15157/a ⌠mperature-
You say the weather scientists obviously donâ't agree with me then post a link showing that they do!
As I said it is mostly related to greenhouse gases, hence when there is cloud cover (more greenhouse gas) the decrease with altitude is less marked, take away that cloud cover to reveal clear skies (less greenhouse gas) and the temp fall off to altitude is greater. Hence temperature is more related to greenhouse gases than air pressure.
although not related to the above; here is a little puzzle for you, find out the coldest ever temp at the top of Cairngorm, then compare that to the coldest ever temp at Braemar (3000â lower) (and obviously since records began)
BillyHunt:
Captain Caveman 76:
Do you know why & can you explain it to me please, just try & keep it simple. Oh & no links, I donât bother reading them.
For the past 150 years or so, the average temperature has been measured and recorded using sea temperature as a reference. The trend has been an increase in meaaured temperature. The conclusion from these observations is: burning fossil fuels has had a âgreenhouse effectâ and therefore global warming is a manmade phenomena.
However, this doesnât take into account periods where the temperature has been below average, so the phrase "global warming was replaced with âclimate changeâ. Computer models confirmed that CO2 from human activity was the primary contributing factor behind any warming observed.
All well and good, but it doesnât take into account that atmospheric water vapour is a more effective âgreenhouse gasâ than carbon dioxide. Nor does it account for solar activity that operates on known 4, 11 and 80 year cycles. Volcanic activity is also a major source of greenhouse gasses, and impossible to predict. And I forgot to say, in geological terms, we are effectively coming out of a mini ice age. I could go on, but I wonât.
My beef with all this is our governments attitude to climate change. It introduces âcarbon taxesâ. It does nothing to protect rainforests, the planets natural carbon sink, itâs removing subsidies for renewable energy sources. Itâs putting faith in nuclear energy, a producer of water vapour, instead of solar, wind or tidal.
I gave up a job teaching science because the curriculum demanded I teach man made climate change as fact, so I do actually know a little bit about this topic.
Hope this helps, and if Iâve perked your interest, I can provide links.
Are you sure this is true, you never mentioned Venus or Sagan. 
At last a piece by someone who knows what theyâre on about, as opposed to some armchair warrior trawling Google for their âfactsâ.
So would it be fair to say that you agree with what the government scientists say but youâre not happy with what theyâre doing about those findings? Thereâs no ulterior motive, not trying to trip you up or anything like that, Iâm just interested in if you think they are correct and, if youâre not, why do you think they put this stuff out.
Climate change is a fact, the planets climate is changing, just as it has done for the past four and a half billion years. Nobody can deny that. But, IMO (and others), there isnât enough evidence to catagoricaly say âhuman activity is responsible for what weâve seen over the past 100 or so yearsâ. Even if there was, our governments reaction to it has been woeful. I my opinion, MMCC is used by government to scare the (generally ill educated) population into accepting restrictions, demands and taxes. In short, population manipulation. Thats why itâs being taught as fact in schools, to indoctrinate the next generation.
Weâre never going to hear the end of this now
Oh we will as soon as someone posts something new CF will be bugging Google for the answer and will forget this one, hopefully ! 
Nowadays, thanks to trucknet, I always end the day far better educated than when I began it! Totally confused, bewildered and baffled, trusting nobody in authorityâŚbut better educated.
Pete.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
As for the altitude temperature equation the weather scientists obviously donât agree with you.
ââAs the pressure decreases temperature decreasesââ.
onthesnow.com/news/a/15157/a ⌠mperature-
You say the weather scientists obviously donâ't agree with me then post a link showing that they do!
As I said it is mostly related to greenhouse gases, hence when there is cloud cover (more greenhouse gas) the decrease with altitude is less marked, take away that cloud cover to reveal clear skies (less greenhouse gas) and the temp fall off to altitude is greater. Hence temperature is more related to greenhouse gases than air pressure.
although not related to the above; here is a little puzzle for you, find out the coldest ever temp at the top of Cairngorm, then compare that to the coldest ever temp at Braemar (3000â lower) (and obviously since records began)
More bs global warmist spin.Yes other factors âaffectâ the figures.In which case at best your claim still results in a figure of around 6 degrees C reduction per 1,000 metres in altitude.None of which alters the main point contained in the article that ââtemperature decreases as pressure decreasesââ and obviously vice versa.
While a 1,000 metre altitude difference obviously isnât going to make enough of a pressure/temperature difference for it not to sometimes be cancelled out by âotherâ factors.
Unlike trying to extrapolate temperatures from a planet with an atmospheric pressure of 92 bar to one with an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar.On that note no the âcompositionâ of Venusâ atmosphere didnât cook the planet even at 95% + CO2 composition.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
As for the altitude temperature equation the weather scientists obviously donât agree with you.
ââAs the pressure decreases temperature decreasesââ.
onthesnow.com/news/a/15157/a ⌠mperature-
You say the weather scientists obviously donâ't agree with me then post a link showing that they do!
As I said it is mostly related to greenhouse gases, hence when there is cloud cover (more greenhouse gas) the decrease with altitude is less marked, take away that cloud cover to reveal clear skies (less greenhouse gas) and the temp fall off to altitude is greater. Hence temperature is more related to greenhouse gases than air pressure.
although not related to the above; here is a little puzzle for you, find out the coldest ever temp at the top of Cairngorm, then compare that to the coldest ever temp at Braemar (3000â lower) (and obviously since records began)
More bs global warmist spin.Yes other factors âaffectâ the figures.In which case at best your claim still results in a figure of around 6 degrees C reduction per 1,000 metres in altitude.None of which alters the main point contained in the article that ââtemperature decreases as pressure decreasesââ and obviously vice versa.
While a 1,000 metre altitude difference obviously isnât going to make enough of a pressure/temperature difference for it not to sometimes be cancelled out by âotherâ factors.
Unlike trying to extrapolate temperatures from a planet with an atmospheric pressure of 92 bar to one with an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar.On that note no the âcompositionâ of Venusâ atmosphere didnât cook the planet even at 95% + CO2 composition.
I really am at a total loss as to why you are going on and on about Venus, Venus had some catastrophic atmospheric failure 4 billion years ago when the sun doubled its heat output and its oceans all evaporated. No body is worrying about that occurring here on planet earth.
It looks very likely that we will double CO2 levels in the atmosphere from pre industrial levels, and the vast majority of all scientists agree that will raise our average global temperature by a few degrees, does not sound much, but it will cause chaos - it would really be better if we were not embarking on the giant experiment with our atmosphere.
Iâm starting to come to the conclusion that the deniers are probably as bonkers as those who donât believe in the moon landings.
Evil8Beezle:
Take your pick people! 
OR
Iâm leaning towards option 2!
Bluey Circles:
Iâm starting to come to the conclusion that the deniers are probably as bonkers as those who donât believe in the moon landings.
The believers are the ones who are acting like a militant religious sect.
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/t ⌠for-paris/
it really doesnt matter if climate change is accelerated by mans activities
because the solutions are exactly the same as requirements for a successful economy in the future :
energy self sufficiency , as we have next to no oil left and our coal is largely unobtainable then developing renewable energy is a sensible policy . whether it hydro , tidal , wave , wind , biomass or even nuclear fusion . being energy self sufficient is good business
protecting our biodiversity , makes sense because its hard to alter one niche without effecting our entire ecosystem . whether this is forests or pollinating insects or rivers .mother nature has spent billions of years figuring out a natural balance , and when we change a small part we effect our environment in ways we cant even compute
encourage cooperation and not competition in energy intensive industries . like super market distribution systems and public transport .
food self sufficiency , if we keep tarmacing and building on our small island just to accommodate ever rising population we will one day starve . and we cant guarantee any supply from abroad as they have huge over population issues
abolish religious philosophies , people who think that they can abuse mother nature and be saved by their icons of jesus and mateyboyo are the most dangerous people around and will return the country to dark ages . these zealots are also largely responsible for over population crisis .
boredwivdrivin:
it really doesnt matter if climate change is accelerated by mans activities
energy self sufficiency , as we have next to no oil left and our coal is largely unobtainable then developing renewable energy is a sensible policy . whether it hydro , tidal , wave , wind , biomass or even nuclear fusion . being energy self sufficient is good business
If the global warmist believers are prepared to admit defeat on their bs ideas then the question of coal is obviously one of freedom of choice not that we supposedly suddenly now canât any longer âobtainâ it.As for oil and gas stocks.Putting a block on all further exports of the stuff will at least add a lot more to itâs ( eventual ) depletion date which certainly isnât nowhere near yet and after which we can then use coal to provide synthetic replacements.
As for tidal and wind neither of those provide a permanent output and nuclear is expensive and dangerous.While if you donât want to cut down trees and reduce plant life biomass is also a non starter.
