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

[Toddsterpatriot]

But your replies came after that and my discussion with Billy.

I respond to posts in order, I don't read every post and then go back to comment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

As it stands he did a better job of arguing back radiation does not warm the ocean

That wasn't his claim.

71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"

Like it's a perfect mirror that bounces 100% of the LWIR back into space.

Heating up a thin layer on the surface is "responding".
Absorbing the IR and causing increased evaporation is "responding".

So instead of showing global warming doesn't happen over 71-72% of the planet,
he just proved, over and over, that he's a liar and doesn't know basic science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As it stands he did a better job of arguing back radiation does not warm the ocean

That wasn't his claim.

71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"

Like it's a perfect mirror that bounces 100% of the LWIR back into space.

Heating up a thin layer on the surface is "responding".
Absorbing the IR and causing increased evaporation is "responding".

So instead of showing global warming doesn't happen over 71-72% of the planet,
he just proved, over and over, that he's a liar and doesn't know basic science.

You really do not have a clue. Your parroting things not based in science because you have not disproved my hypothesis. Thanks for playing...

 

[Billy_Bob]

As it stands he did a better job of arguing back radiation does not warm the ocean

That wasn't his claim.

71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"

Like it's a perfect mirror that bounces 100% of the LWIR back into space.

Heating up a thin layer on the surface is "responding".
Absorbing the IR and causing increased evaporation is "responding".

So instead of showing global warming doesn't happen over 71-72% of the planet,
he just proved, over and over, that he's a liar and doesn't know basic science.

And there you go... It's called Laymans terms. You cannot grasp the concept, so you demean people. I am not trying to prove it to you, I am trying to help other people to understand why it is not happening. Why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot, why the oceans are not warming due to CO2. Why Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed hypothesis. I am addressing laypeople not other Ph.D's

You want a technical discussion at the Ph.D level, I can arrange that. Better put on your big boy panties.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

pretty typical PhD'd physicist researcher behavior to invest inordinate amounts of time in slapfights with internet randos imo

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And there you go... It's called Laymans terms. You cannot grasp the concept, so you demean people. I am not trying to prove it to you, I am trying to help other people to understand why it is not happening. Why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot, why the oceans are not warming due to CO2. Why Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed hypothesis. I am addressing laypeople not other Ph.D's

You want a technical discussion at the Ph.D level, I can arrange that. Better put on your big boy panties.

Stop pretending you're an expert and explain how evaporation is a chemical reaction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really do not have a clue. Your parroting things not based in science because you have not disproved my hypothesis. Thanks for playing...

Your parroting things not based in science

Like "71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"" or Anything larger in wavelength 1.1um (1100nm) will impact the skin of the ocean and be defeated in the evaporation layer?

You're not very good at science but you do keep me laughing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

His entire argument is personal. He has made no attempt to actually debate anything. In one of his last posts he tries to imply that the ocean does not reflect all LWIR back into space, yet he proves nothing. It's because he says so with no evidence to back it up. The ERBE satellite shows this position to be incorrect.

You will note the slope of outgoing LWIR is totally opposite all modeling. This indicates that the atmosphere is not holding the LWIR and that it is indeed escaping to space.

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Stop pretending you're an expert and explain how evaporation is a chemical reaction.

IS the bond change a chemical process? You tell me...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IS the bond change a chemical process? You tell me...

No, evaporation doesn't involve any chemical process.

Tell me more about the bond "change". Use your PhD.

What is your PhD in again? Some sort of science?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, evaporation doesn't involve any chemical process.

Tell me more about the bond "change". Use your PhD.

What is your PhD in again? Some sort of science?

Start a thread, Todd.. This one is about the Technology we have to use everything under our feet as there is no climate emergency of any kind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Start a thread, Todd.. This one is about the Technology we have to use everything under our feet as there is no climate emergency of any kind.

Should I title it, "All the clues that Billy has no PhD"?

Don't run away now. Explain why evaporation is a chemical reaction.

If not for yourself, do it for ding.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Should I title it, "All the clues that Billy has no PhD"?

Don't run away now. Explain why evaporation is a chemical reaction.

If not for yourself, do it for ding.

I already did. I also admitted it is a contentious point. So why do you focus on it? Here it is once again. Chemical reactions always change the bonding structure of the molecules. IN the case of H20, the phase change into ice causes the hydrogen atoms to more closely bond. So, which is it, Todd. The basic principle of phase change or is it a chemical reaction creating the change in the molecule? This is controversial bull shit and has no bearing on this thread. I am done arguing about this crap. Your thread derailment is done.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did. I also admitted it is a contentious point. So why do you focus on it? Here it is once again. Chemical reactions always change the bonding structure of the molecules. IN the case of H20, the phase change into ice causes the hydrogen atoms to more closely bond. So, which is it, Todd. The basic principle of phase change or is it a chemical reaction creating the change in the molecule? This is controversial bull shit and has no bearing on this thread. I am done arguing about this crap. Your thread derailment is done.

I already did.

You're lying. That's why you won't post your evidence now.

I also admitted it is a contentious point.

You're lying. That's why you won't post your evidence now.

Chemical reactions always change the bonding structure of the molecules.

Chemical reactions have reactants and products. What are those in evaporation?

So, which is it, Todd. The basic principle of phase change or is it a chemical reaction creating the change in the molecule?

A phase change isn't a chemical reaction. The molecule doesn't change.
It's not a contentious point.

I am done arguing about this crap.

You brought up the crap, I merely pointed it out.

Your thread derailment is done.

But your lying ignorance will continue.

Now run away before I embarass you some more.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I already did.

You're lying. That's why you won't post your evidence now.

I also admitted it is a contentious point.

You're lying. That's why you won't post your evidence now.

Chemical reactions always change the bonding structure of the molecules.

Chemical reactions have reactants and products. What are those in evaporation?

So, which is it, Todd. The basic principle of phase change or is it a chemical reaction creating the change in the molecule?

A phase change isn't a chemical reaction. The molecule doesn't change.
It's not a contentious point.

I am done arguing about this crap.

You brought up the crap, I merely pointed it out.

Your thread derailment is done.

But your lying ignorance will continue.

Now run away before I embarass you some more.

You have done nothing of the sort..


The only thing you have done is embarrassed yourself. You have made no counterpoint and you have been solidly defeated. Now runaway child.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have done nothing of the sort..


The only thing you have done is embarrassed yourself. You have made no counterpoint and you have been solidly defeated. Now runaway child.

Still nothing on that chemical reaction?

That's a surprise.

 

[jc456]

Another thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.

The science is settled! Nuff said!

No such thing in science. You just admitted to being a science rejector

 

[jc456]

Nothing I posted is fantasy. CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and its emission needs to be reduced and stopped if possible.

Why can’t you just prove it then?

 

[Donald H]

No such thing in science. You just admitted to being a science rejector

No. Sometimes the science is settled.
That in no way is saying that it needs to remain settled.

For one instance: The fact that creation is superstitious belief is settled science.

But science continues to ask for proof of it not being settled.

Do you have anything to offer?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No. Sometimes the science is settled.
That in no way is saying that it needs to remain settled.

For one instance: The fact that creation is superstitious belief is settled science.

But science continues to ask for proof of it not being settled.

Do you have anything to offer?

Skepticism is science... your denial of that is anti-science.