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

[Billy_Bob]

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.

View attachment 743206

That sound right to you IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT

The isolation of the poles makes it very easy to see if the planet is cooling or warming. The energy from our suns output, even minor changes that affect our oceans can change the energy balance towards or away from glaciation. There are many factors that push us one way or the other. My purpose here was show that it was not CO2 driven and that the best course of action today, in our cooling world, was to be ready for the cold that is most cetainly coming soon.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

View attachment 743225

View attachment 743226

People fail to make the connection of the Oxygen isotopes and solar output. Oxygen levels increase with the increase in vegetation. They diminish with the decrease of vegetation. This is driven by warming originating on our sun. Yes, planetary make up will slow or enhance this change due to ocean flows. When the flows changed so did the response to the energy.

 

[ding]

People fail to make the connection of the Oxygen isotopes and solar output. Oxygen levels increase with the increase in vegetation. They diminish with the decrease of vegetation. This is driven by warming originating on our sun. Yes, planetary make up will slow or enhance this change due to ocean flows. When the flows changed so did the response to the energy.

Most of these idiots have no idea what the oxygen isotope curve is telling them about earth's climate.

 

[Crick]

The isolation of the poles makes it very easy to see if the planet is cooling or warming. The energy from our suns output, even minor changes that affect our oceans can change the energy balance towards or away from glaciation. There are many factors that push us one way or the other. My purpose here was show that it was not CO2 driven and that the best course of action today, in our cooling world, was to be ready for the cold that is most cetainly coming soon.

Australia is as surrounded by ocean as is Antarctica. Is Australia covered in glaciers? The Mediterranean sea is surrounded by land. Is it covered with ice. Any change in insolation will alter the entire planet. The oceans will take longer than the continents to reach a new equilibrium, but then, for natural changes, there will be enough time. For AGW, not so much. The accelerating warming observed over the last century and a half is most certainly driven by increasing CO2 as well as deforestation and the rise of methane and other greenhouse gases. None of you deniers have produced any other possible cause for this warming. You've made some attempts but they have all been debunked out of hand. If you disagree, bring it on. Billy, if CO2 is not responsible for the recent warming, what is?

 

[ding]

Australia is as surrounded by ocean as is Antarctica. Is Australia covered in glaciers? The Mediterranean sea is surrounded by land. Is it covered with ice. Any change in insolation will alter the entire planet. The oceans will take longer than the continents to reach a new equilibrium, but then, for natural changes, there will be enough time. For AGW, not so much. The accelerating warming observed over the last century and a half is most certainly driven by increasing CO2 as well as deforestation and the rise of methane and other greenhouse gases. None of you deniers have produced any other possible cause for this warming. You've made some attempts but they have all been debunked out of hand. If you disagree, bring it on. Billy, if CO2 is not responsible for the recent warming, what is?

Glaciation occurs at polar regions for precisely the reason you state earlier. It's gets less solar radiation (intensity and duration). But that in itself does not cause glaciation in the polar regions. There needs to be thermal isolation from warm marine waters to lower the threshold for orbital cycles to trigger glaciation. That's how you go from no glaciation to glaciation at the polar regions.

 

[Crick]

Glaciation occurs at polar regions for precisely the reason you state earlier. It's gets less solar radiation (intensity and duration). But that in itself does not cause glaciation in the polar regions. There needs to be thermal isolation from warm marine waters to lower the threshold for orbital cycles to trigger glaciation. That's how you go from no glaciation to glaciation at the polar regions.

Antarctica is certainly not isolated from the Southern Ocean and its glaciers cover the entire contintent and extend over water for miles.

Certainly plate tectonics affects ocean circulation which has an effect on regional climate but - excluding volcanism - it has essentially no effect on atmospheric composition and none at all on TSI. Your claim as well as Billy Bob's that it will be getting cooler within a matter of decade is simply nonsense. How far will the Earth's plates have moved in the next century? A few meters? Less?

 

[Crick]

CO2's impact is IRRELEVANT. It has no magical powers in our atmosphere.

You'll have to point out to me in the IPCC's Assessment Reports where it claims magical powers. On the other hand, if you actually want to refute the effect that CO2 has on the atmosphere, you will have to deal with what all those studies actually DO say.

The Sun/Ocean dynamo is the control.

Definition from Oxford Language Dictionary: DYNAMO: a machine for converting mechanical energy into electrical energy; a generator. Surprising that a phD physicist would misuse a term like that. But, of course, that's not you, is it.

IT is the reason that we have glaciated with levels above 7,000ppm.

Readers take note here how Billy Bob is using a made up term with no given definition or explanation and claiming that it refutes the work of thousands of actual PhD scientists and tens of thousands of peer reviewed published studies

The earth's temperature has NEVER "run-away" even at those levels and has never gone outside the 12-15 deg C boundaries in 4.5 billion years.

The position of climate science is that while a runaway climate change may be theoretically possible, it is exceedingly difficult to create in the real world. And current concern is about exceeding 1.5C or 2C and worst case scenarios talk about 4-5C as catastrophic. So, this whole statement is pure strawman.

The paleo records show how irrelevant CO2 is to the earth's energy budget.

A whole lot of science show that is it entirely relevant. Have you falsified CO2's absorption spectrum? Have you falsified the spectrum of outgoing LW radiation? Have you falsified the direct measurements of LW backscatter from CO2? Have you falsified the temperature record of land, sea and air for the entire anthropocene? I hate to inform you of this, but the pretty little graph you and Ding like to throw around doesn't do any of that. There are a lot of things that can affect the Earth's temperature. No one has ever said otherwise and a lot of things can happen over 600 million years. But the correlation coefficient between CO2 and global temperature for the last century or so is exceedingly high and it is very close to that high for the entirety of the longest ice core records - a proxy that greatly exceeds the accuracy and resolution of your little crayon box below.

View attachment 742989

We expected 2.1 Deg C of rise and after all other active drivers were accounted for, what was left, 0.024 deg C is all it can muster. The margin of error is +/-0.07 deg C. This means that the potential warming that CO2 is capable of is Statistically ZERO.

Do you understand how to put a link here? Were you aware that USMB actually requires it of you? So, WHO says all that was left was 0.024C? And how did you get a PhD in physics without passing Statistics 101?

 

[mamooth]

Why do you think? Was it man?

No. It was volcanoes releasing CO2 over millions of years. With all the CO2 sinks frozen over, that CO2 built up in the atmosphere, and eventually warmed the earth enough to melt things.

 

[jc456]

No. It was volcanoes releasing CO2 over millions of years. With all the CO2 sinks frozen over, that CO2 built up in the atmosphere, and eventually warmed the earth enough to melt things.

CO2 doesn’t build like that! Come on man

 

[mamooth]

Actually it's not. We see the exact same thing in the present glacial cycles. Orbital forces

So in your case, there's a cause. In Billy's case, there wasn't, so he's invoking magic.

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.

Those orbital factors don't have nearly enough punch to cause the warming and cooling cycles on their own. They require CO2 to reinforce them. The cycles warm the oceans a bit, causing them to release CO2, and the CO2 feedback takes over from there.

Like I already said... snowball earth is not relevant to today

Of course it does, as it shows that paleoclimate can't be explained without including the effects of CO2. It destroys the arguments of those who claim that CO2 has no effect. That's my point, that claiming CO2 has no effect on climate is absurd, and that someone would have to be very stupid to make such an argument. I made that point, and your attempted deflections don't change that.

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?

Your curves are not relevant to the issue I was discussing. If you still don't understand why and need it dumbed down more, just ask.

And next time, please address what I actually say, instead of addressing what you wish I'd said.

 

[mamooth]

CO2 doesn’t build like that! Come on man

Try to understand that a Fallacy of Personal Incredulity is _not_ a convincing argument to rational people.

 

[mamooth]

Most of these idiots have no idea what the oxygen isotope curve is telling them about earth's climate.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart.

So, I can do it.

You're a cult imbecile, so you can't.

 

[mamooth]

Do you really want to play this game?

You attacked me first, so clearly you do. And I'm happy to reply in kind.

Tell everyone what school you attended for your Ph.D.

Tell everyone why they admitted you into a Ph.D. program at age 60+.

Tell everyone why they admitted you when you had zero science background.

This is where you deflect and run, again.

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.

Easy. You're making stupid shit up again. That's usually the answer to any question you ask.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to show your evidence that "solar panel output has lowered by 10%".

This is where you deflect and run, again.

 

[mamooth]

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.

Um, no. That's just some crazy shit you made up.

Please explain how you stopped all other drivers and left CO2 the only force in our atmosphere.

I didn't. That's just some crazy shit you made up.

I detect a pattern here.

 

[mamooth]

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.

Dear god, no.

Main sequence stars like the sun get hotter as they age, by about 1% every 100 million years.

At least your ignorance is well-rounded. You fail completely at everything.

 

[mamooth]

WOW... we glaciate every 110 thousand years.

Not during the snowball earth phases. One of them lasted 100 million years. That's a thousand of your cycles. The earth stayed frozen the whole time.

You're so damn stupid, you don't even know when snowball earth happened, or how long it lasted. You actually thought it was geologically recent.

Given the sheer magnitude of your stupidity, you shouldn't be annoying the grownups. Get back to the kiddie table.

 

[mamooth]

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

Why would I need to refute a paper that backs me up?

"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."

Precisely.

Backradiation doesn't warm the oceans directly. It slows down heat loss out of the oceans, warming the oceans indirectly.

Just as I've been pointing out for years. Here's on example. You were on the thread, so you saw it.

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

That IR goes into the oceans, and is absorbed by the oceans. At least >90% is. The oceans reflect very little in the longwave IR band. Total BULL SHIT.. IR is expelled in the first ten microns of the oceans surface through evaporation. I want to know where you got math skills this fucked up...

www.usmessageboard.com

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

I've never, ever claimed anywhere that I had a Ph.D.

Why are you telling such a stupid lie?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You attacked me first, so clearly you do. And I'm happy to reply in kind.

Tell everyone what school you attended for your Ph.D.

Tell everyone why they admitted you into a Ph.D. program at age 60+.

Tell everyone why they admitted you when you had zero science background.

This is where you deflect and run, again.


Easy. You're making stupid shit up again. That's usually the answer to any question you ask.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to show your evidence that "solar panel output has lowered by 10%".

This is where you deflect and run, again.

Ask him why he thinks evaporation is a chemical reaction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So in your case, there's a cause. In Billy's case, there wasn't, so he's invoking magic.

You are ignoring basic science. IF 72% of the earth cannot absorb the energy it cannot use it. NO magic involved. You're ignoring basic physics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You'll have to point out to me in the IPCC's Assessment Reports where it claims magical powers. On the other hand, if you actually want to refute the effect that CO2 has on the atmosphere, you will have to deal with what all those studies actually DO say.

Definition from Oxford Language Dictionary: DYNAMO: a machine for converting mechanical energy into electrical energy; a generator. Surprising that a phD physicist would misuse a term like that. But, of course, that's not you, is it.

Readers take note here how Billy Bob is using a made up term with no given definition or explanation and claiming that it refutes the work of thousands of actual PhD scientists and tens of thousands of peer reviewed published studies

The position of climate science is that while a runaway climate change may be theoretically possible, it is exceedingly difficult to create in the real world. And current concern is about exceeding 1.5C or 2C and worst case scenarios talk about 4-5C as catastrophic. So, this whole statement is pure strawman.

A whole lot of science show that is it entirely relevant. Have you falsified CO2's absorption spectrum? Have you falsified the spectrum of outgoing LW radiation? Have you falsified the direct measurements of LW backscatter from CO2? Have you falsified the temperature record of land, sea and air for the entire anthropocene? I hate to inform you of this, but the pretty little graph you and Ding like to throw around doesn't do any of that. There are a lot of things that can affect the Earth's temperature. No one has ever said otherwise and a lot of things can happen over 600 million years. But the correlation coefficient between CO2 and global temperature for the last century or so is exceedingly high and it is very close to that high for the entirety of the longest ice core records - a proxy that greatly exceeds the accuracy and resolution of your little crayon box below.




Do you understand how to put a link here? Were you aware that USMB actually requires it of you? So, WHO says all that was left was 0.024C? And how did you get a PhD in physics without passing Statistics 101?

Again, knowing what wavelength of energy can penetrate the oceans to depth, defines how much energy actually enters the system.
The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.

Practical Handbook of Marine Science (routledgehandbooks.com)

[notations mine]

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?