Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

The release of the bond is a chemical process. This process continues at the point of evaporation. That is my point.
I'm not sure about that. That is news to me. It's still H2O.

It's not actually relevant to your main point though, right? That back radiation doesn't warm the oceans? So why open up potential questions that detract from the main point?
 
I'm not sure about that. That is news to me. It's still H2O.

It's not actually relevant to your main point though, right? That back radiation doesn't warm the oceans?
Correct. It cannot. The mass of the evaporation layer cannot warm the next thermocline barrier layer that is roughly 14 times its mass. This removes the ocean as a heat reserve. The land reaction is different.
 
Is the bonding of the hydrogen ions a chemical process or an exothermal process?

slide10-n.jpg

What hydrogen ions? We're talking about liquid water changing into water vapor.

You said it was a chemical reaction.

Post your evidence.
 
I'm so glad my comments flew right over your head :rolleyes:

Your point was that I shouldn't highlight Billy's stupid errors because that
will harm our side of the global warming debate. My point was that it's
his stupid errors that harm our side.

Let's cooperate and figure out a way to get him to stop posting stupid errors.
 
Your point was that I shouldn't highlight Billy's stupid errors because that
will harm our side of the global warming debate. My point was that it's
his stupid errors that harm our side.

Let's cooperate and figure out a way to get him to stop posting stupid errors.
Or it's all bullshit and you are a dirt bag. I'm leaning towards the latter of the two.
 
The release of the bond is a chemical process. This process continues at the point of evaporation. That is my point. This is a contentious point.. There are many points of view on this.

The release of the bond is a chemical process.

It's not a chemical bond.

This is a contentious point.. There are many points of view on this.

Post a couple of the contentious views.
 
His obvious inexperience with all things science makes his silly claims look even less likely.
You cannot even defend your own position. Keep making wild ass assumptions you cannot back up. You like to make things personal. Makes you feel like you are superior... All it does is prove your arrogance and ignorance.
 
Last edited:
You cannot even defend your own position. Keep making wild ass assumptions you cannot back up. You like to make thing personal. Makes you feel like you are superior... All it does is prove your arrogance and ignorance.

Show the chemical reaction needed for evaporation.

To prove my ignorance.
 
Todd, I already gave you that information. I even ask you what type of reaction it is. But you ignore it and continue to attack. Hell, I even pointed out that it is a contentious point. But it has exactly squat to do with the thread.

Todd, I already gave you that information.

You didn't post anything that showed water evaporation is a chemical reaction.

slide10-n.jpg

^This doesn't show it's a chemical reaction.

And "exothermal process" isn't a thing.

Talk like that will make people doubt you have a PhD in science.

I even ask you what type of reaction it is.

It's not any kind of a reaction.

Hell, I even pointed out that it is a contentious point.

Yes, you made another claim with no evidence.
 
His obvious inexperience with all things science makes his silly claims look even less likely.
That's your mistake to make. As it stands he did a better job of arguing back radiation does not warm the ocean than you did in proving back radiation does warm the ocean. He made a case for his position and you never attempted to make a case for yours. Every argument needs a direct case and a counter argument. You didn't do that so you lose by forfeit. Which all things considered makes you look sillier than him as he beat you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top