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

[mamooth]

A more relevant and pertinent question for today is why did earth transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I'll give you a hint. It can't be explained without taking the effects of CO2 into account. Orbital effects alone aren't even close to being able to pull it off.

 

[initforme]

The FACT is it costs NOTHING to install a scrubber. Stake my life on it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Understood. You're a pathological liar. That's a statement of fact, not an opinion.

Since it's a given that you will lie outright in response to anyone saying anything, why should anyone talk to you? Why shouldn't they metaphorically spit on the sidewalk and walk away?

Now, speaking about phony claims of Ph.Ds, you claimed to be gainfully employed as an adult in the 1970s.

Then you claimed to be in a Ph.D program in the 2010s.

Can you tell us which university allowed someone whose age was in their 60's with no previous science experience to enroll in an atmospheric physics Ph.D program?

My point? You're a really inept fraud.

For someone who claims I am attacking him, it didn't take long to attack me and to avoid the science I put in front of you.

Do you really want to play this game?

You call me inept and a fraud, you run from the very basic and elementary science put forward. Tell me how the simplest of changes in output on our sun, noted by David Archibald Ph.D, Solar Helios Observatory scientist, lowered solar panel output by 10% and as that same band of solar emissions also affects out oceans how it will affect them. Pony up liar boy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'll give you a hint. It can't be explained without taking the effects of CO2 into account. Orbital effects alone aren't even close to being able to pull it off.

When you spout bull shit you spout mountains of it. Solar input into the earths oceans are what drive our climate. As I pointed out, when we account for all other drivers of temperature, what we find is what CO2 is actually doing in our atmosphere. 0.024 deg C is what CO2 is responsible for when all other active items in our atmosphere are accounted for, when we expected 2.1 deg C.

Please explain how you stopped all other drivers and left CO2 the only force in our atmosphere. The fact that this falls to significantly less than the MOE (Margin of Error), this tells me that its effect is Zero or very nearly ZERO.

Mans impact, through CO2 and Methane, is so small that it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Come on Snagletooth, answer my question..

The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.

Practical Handbook of Marine Science (routledgehandbooks.com)

You note the notations on the graph above for 100m, 10m, 1m, 1cm, and surface. These are the regions of DWSR and what in the ocean they affect. Anything larger in wavelength 1.1um (1100nm) will impact the skin of the ocean and be defeated in the evaporation layer. (First ten microns) The layer just below this is about 150 microns in depth and is cooler than the evaporation layer. Even with mixing from waves, the energy that impacts the skin is too small to generate heat into the oceans due to the mixing with the colder region.

This graph demonstrates how a minor shift in energy output on our sun can directly affect our oceans. Over 90% of the energy into our oceans occurs in the 380nm to 540nm region. A 5% shift from this region to 1.0-1.4um would put the energy outside the ability for most of the ocean to absorb.

The shift in energy that affected our solar panel arrays is in the same region that affects our oceans. The PV arrays lost 10% of their output, indicating at least that amount of shift in power from the sun. If approximately 5% of that energy falls in the primary ocean heating area this can affect our oceans uptake of 345W/m^2, were looking at a potential change nearing 16W/m^2 and the reason our ENSO is not recharging, and our oceans are cooling.

This also demonstrates why "back radiation" or LWIR that is emitted by CO2 cannot warm our oceans. The wave is too long to penetrate the oceans evaporation layer in all three of its bands of emission. Even with mixing the mass of the evaporating layer is insufficient to warm the thermocline barrier just below it that is about 150 microns in depth.

Originally posted here: Solar Dimming... What is at stake With This Change on our Sun?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love confirmation by other scientists... Refute this paper Snagletooth The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation - Wong - 2018 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

"

"Since there is no immediate, observable increase in surface heat loss associated with increased absorption of incoming IR radiation from the atmosphere, there is therefore an increase of heat available within the TSL to supply energy for the surface heat losses. It is also not possible for the additional energy in the TSL to be conducted into the bulk of the ocean (i.e., beneath the viscous skin layer) as that would require conduction up a mean temperature gradient in the TSL."

7 Conclusions
In summary, we analyzed measurements from two cruises in the tropics held during the summer months and through the analysis of nighttime data with winds less than 10 m s−1, confirmed that the turbulent fluxes (LH and SH) are independent of LWin@zenith and no significant dependence was found between cloud IR radiative effects and the turbulent fluxes on the spatial and temporal scales of our spectral measurements. Neither was a significant dependence found between LWout and LWin@zenith. Establishing these independences is important because it allows us to focus our analysis on the radiative fluxes and supports our hypothesis of the properties of the TSL influencing the heat flow at the interface as it indicates the heat from the absorbed additional IR radiation is not immediately returned to the atmosphere through the upward fluxes of LH, SH, and LWout. Our results also provide initial evidence of the mechanism for increased heat storage in the upper ocean resulting, indirectly, from the absorption of increased IR radiation in the EM skin layer. Since there is no immediate, observable increase in surface heat loss associated with increased absorption of incoming IR radiation from the atmosphere, there is therefore an increase of heat available within the TSL to supply energy for the surface heat losses. It is also not possible for the additional energy in the TSL to be conducted into the bulk of the ocean (i.e., beneath the viscous skin layer) as that would require conduction up a mean temperature gradient in the TSL.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

Come on Mamy... show me your Ph.D. skills... Prove my assessment, by a real Ph.D., incorrect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There wasn't just one snowball earth phase, so that answer is contradicted by reality.

WOW... we glaciate every 110 thousand years. How nice of you to notice. During these cycles we have 9,000-to-13.000-year periods where we warm. The one we are currently in is the Holocene. Snowball earth lasts for roughly 90,000 years in this cycle. And not one of these cycles was slowed by CO2 or enhanced by CO2. Infact, CO2 lags warming and cooling by 80-200 years.

Sorry Snagletooth, but you have no idea what reality is. We have glaciated with CO2 levels above 7000ppm and nothing has forced the earths systems to go outside of the limits we see historically.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A more relevant and pertinent question for today is why did earth transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

View attachment 743078

 

[Billy_Bob]

A more relevant and pertinent question for today is why did earth transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

View attachment 743078

Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.

The Sun's Evolution

Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.

Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics

THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to

www.armstrongeconomics.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.

The Sun's Evolution

Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.

Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics

THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to

www.armstrongeconomics.com

IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.

I hate to break it to you, seeing as you have a PhD in science, but the sun isn't massive enough to go supernova. Not even close.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Pretty huge Dipshit in science

 

[Matted Joybeard]

How does a once solar physicist, now atmospheric physicist, not understand how the sun works?

 

[ding]

Actually, if you look back at solar output you will notice that solar output was more intense and as the star has aged the fusion reaction is dimming. IF we follow known life spans of stars, we have a few billion years before the star we call the sun goes super nova.

The Sun's Evolution

Between the suns output changing and our position galactically there are several factors that cause this gradual change from greenhouse to hot house, and glaciation. And it all starts on our sun.

Sun Activity Has Collapsed To The Lowest In 9,300 Years | Armstrong Economics

THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist. Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term "lunatic" referred to

www.armstrongeconomics.com

With respect to the relatively recent transition from a greenhouse planet to icehouse planet, plate tectonics were responsible for thermally isolating the polar regions from the warmer ocean waters which lowered the temperature threshold for glaciation at each pole with each pole's glaciation threshold being different due to the differences in how they were thermally isolated (continent parked over the pole surrounded by ocean vs ocean over the pole which is thermally isolated due to surrounding lands). As temperatures declined due to natural forces orbital forcing triggered glaciation. Which there have been ~30 such glaciation events in the last 3 million years.

That sound right to you IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT

 

[ding]

That's invoking unknown magic, so it falls under the category of a religious belief instead of science.

Results have causes. Things don't just "return to the way they were" without a cause. What was the cause?

Actually it's not. We see the exact same thing in the present glacial cycles. Orbital forces trigger extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere and the planet slowly warms back to what it's temperature was prior to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

Like I already said... snowball earth is not relevant to today because land mass distribution and ocean circulation - which is the real driver of the earth's climate - was totally different than today.

 

[ding]

I'll give you a hint. It can't be explained without taking the effects of CO2 into account. Orbital effects alone aren't even close to being able to pull it off.

CO2 doesn't drive climate change. Orbital effects can't initiate glaciation unless the poles are thermally isolated and the planet is at the threshold for extensive continental glaciation. The southern hemisphere will be the first to glaciate but the oceans limit the expansion. The northern hemisphere has a higher threshold (lower temperatures required compared to the southern hemisphere) but has more land for glaciation to spread,

That sound right to you, Toro

 

[ding]

mamooth are you having a hard time interpreting the oxygen isotope curve for the Cenozoic? Would you like for me to explain it to you?

 

[Crick]

For Ding:

You seem never to have noticed this, but the poles are the portions of the Earth which receive the LEAST insolation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I'm pretty certain that has a lot to do with it being cold there. I'm pretty certain it has ALWAYS been cold there, whther or not there was a continent at the South Pole or a partially bounded ocean at the North.

 

[ding]

For Ding:

You seem never to have noticed this, but the poles are the portions of the Earth which receive the LEAST insolation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I'm pretty certain that has a lot to do with it being cold there. I'm pretty certain it has ALWAYS been cold there, whther or not there was a continent at the South Pole or a partially bounded ocean at the North.

Cold yes, glaciation, no. It's glaciation which produces the "runaway" colder temperatures. Just look at the oxygen isotope curve.

 

[ding]

For Ding:

You seem never to have noticed this, but the poles are the portions of the Earth which receive the LEAST insolation. I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I'm pretty certain that has a lot to do with it being cold there. I'm pretty certain it has ALWAYS been cold there, whther or not there was a continent at the South Pole or a partially bounded ocean at the North.

It might be helpful for you to look at the different landmass configurations through time to see which configurations produced glaciation at the poles. It's only been 3 to 5 million years that glaciation in the northern hemisphere occurred. Let me remind you that landmass configuration is only one piece of the puzzle, the other pieces are orbital forcing and glaciation thresholds which are a function of land mass configuration.

What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?

An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.

www.theatlantic.com

Toro and IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT does this sound right to you?

 

[jc456]

Why did Snowball Earth melt?

Why do you think? Was it man?