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

[Billy_Bob]

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


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

I detect a pattern here.

Please show how you stopped all natural processes and then how it is all man made... This ought to be fun...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love the deflections by both Crick and Snagletooth. No one is addressing the loss of incoming energy into our oceans. Both of you are claiming that CO2 has powers that it cannot possess. Full Stop!

 

[Billy_Bob]

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



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

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

Why are you telling such a stupid lie?

Bull Shit... You were claiming that CO2's emissions were warming the oceans. This is wrong and it cannot stop energy out of the ocean as evidenced by ERBE satellite measurements. Epic failure. 72% of the earth cannot absorb emitted energy from CO2. That means 72% of the earth's surface cannot react to CO2.

 

[ding]

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?

Antarctica is what isolates the polar region. The surrounding ocean does act to impede the spread of glaciation. If you can't understand that, you have no business being in this discussion. It's not a controversial statement. So, yes, it does extend over water, but nothing compared to how far northern hemisphere glaciers spread over the surrounding lands because it is "easier" for glaciation to spread over land than it is over water. Again.. not a controversial statement.

My claim that you will be proven wrong by colder temperatures is because the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends in interglacial and glacial periods. And the recent warming trend has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with climate fluctuations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world because of the northern hemisphere.

 

[ding]

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.

Yes, by itself orbital forcing does not cause glaciation in the polar regions. The temperature (not CO2) must be near the threshold for extensive continental glaciation for orbital forcing to trigger glacial cycles. And thresholds are a function of how isolated the polar region is from the warmer ocean waters which is driven by plate tectonics. You can literally read the temperature threshold of each polar region from the oxygen isotope curve because it correlates to glaciation. It's actually annotated on the graph under climatic events.

 

[ding]

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.

Again... totally different landmass configurations will result in different climates. This should not be a controversial statement. And if you can't understand this you have no business discussing climate.

Saying CO2 does not drive climate change is not saying CO2 has no effect. It is saying CO2 doesn't determine the planet's climate. Right now, with the present landmass configuration, the northern hemisphere drives the earths climate because it is close to its threshold for extensive continental glaciation. How do we know the northern hemisphere drives the earth's climate? Because relative to the southern hemisphere, northern hemisphere temperatures fluctuate more than southern hemisphere temperatures. Why? Because the southern hemisphere has an ocean surrounding it which modulates or stabilizes its climate relative to the northern hemisphere which has land surrounding it. You can see this from D-O events during the last glacial period.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

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.

That might be the dumbest statement ever made in the history of dumb statements. Of course the oxygen isotope curve is relevant to climate discussions. It's literally the record of climate changes. You can't have a climate discussion without using oxygen isotope data.

And I am addressing what you say.

 

[ding]

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.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love the deflections by both Crick and Snagletooth. No one is addressing the loss of incoming energy into our oceans. Both of you are claiming that CO2 has powers that it cannot possess. Full Stop!

Maybe because there is no loss?

 

[Crick]

Bull Shit... You were claiming that CO2's emissions were warming the oceans. This is wrong and it cannot stop energy out of the ocean as evidenced by ERBE satellite measurements. Epic failure. 72% of the earth cannot absorb emitted energy from CO2. That means 72% of the earth's surface cannot react to CO2.

God are you stupid. Surely you looked at these studies. Did you not understand what they were saying or did you think no one would bother checking up on a real life expert scientist such as yourself?

Abstract​

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

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.

Cloud IR radiative effects were used as a surrogate of the slow increase in downwelling IR radiation on the ocean's surface caused by increasing levels of GHGs. Cloud IR radiative effects were used because of the much larger downwelling IR radiation signal within short time scales (as opposed to attempting to analyze the slow and small GHG signal) which allows the problem to be tractable. However, the spectral emission varies for different atmospheric gases and the absorption coefficients of water also vary with wavelength. Thus, it was necessary to assess whether the downwelling radiative effects on the TSL would be the same under cloud IR radiation and that from GHGs. As discussed in section 3.2, heating rate profiles simulated under different atmospheric gas emission scenarios indicated that cloud cover is an adequate tool for this study as the heating rate profiles of cloud forcing and GHGs are similar. The major difference is the greater magnitudes of the heating rate profiles of cloud forcing as the signal is so much larger; this works to our advantage in addressing the problem at hand.

The additional energy generated from the absorption of IR radiation has been shown to support the change in the TSL temperature gradient. Our results indicate the mean curvature of the TSL has adjusted such that the gradient at the bottom boundary of the TSL adjusts from a higher to lower gradient. This was established through the lack of correlation between LWin@zenith with ΔTskin-5m and LWout indicating that the absorption of LWin@zenith is independent of ΔTskin-subskin and the correlation observed between LWin@zenith with ΔT0.1mm and ΔT0.1mm/ΔT5m which illustrates that more of the TSL profile exists within the EM skin layer's emission depth of ∼0.1 mm as LWin@zenith increases.

Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases. The absorption of increased longwave has been deduced to compress vertically the curvature of the TSL, with a higher gradient forming close to the interface and a lower gradient at subskin depths. The smaller vertical gradient at subskin depths impedes the transfer of heat from the mixed layer into the TSL. Because the heat sink at the interface does not change measurably on the scales of our individual measurements, this means that less heat from the mixed layer contributes to the loss of heat at the interface. This analysis was based on the immediate changes of the TSL to the heat fluxes due to the instantaneous response of the TSL. Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

Attempts to relate directly the curvature of vertical temperature gradient in the TSL and EM skin layer, as developed by Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b), to changes in the incident IR radiation did not produce a convincing dependence, at least on the time scales of our measurements. Revealing such a relationship will require more sensitive instruments than are currently available.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Abstract​

Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean. This paper investigates the physical mechanism between the absorption of IR radiation and its effect on heat transfer at the air-sea boundary. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

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.

Cloud IR radiative effects were used as a surrogate of the slow increase in downwelling IR radiation on the ocean's surface caused by increasing levels of GHGs. Cloud IR radiative effects were used because of the much larger downwelling IR radiation signal within short time scales (as opposed to attempting to analyze the slow and small GHG signal) which allows the problem to be tractable. However, the spectral emission varies for different atmospheric gases and the absorption coefficients of water also vary with wavelength. Thus, it was necessary to assess whether the downwelling radiative effects on the TSL would be the same under cloud IR radiation and that from GHGs. As discussed in section 3.2, heating rate profiles simulated under different atmospheric gas emission scenarios indicated that cloud cover is an adequate tool for this study as the heating rate profiles of cloud forcing and GHGs are similar. The major difference is the greater magnitudes of the heating rate profiles of cloud forcing as the signal is so much larger; this works to our advantage in addressing the problem at hand.

The additional energy generated from the absorption of IR radiation has been shown to support the change in the TSL temperature gradient. Our results indicate the mean curvature of the TSL has adjusted such that the gradient at the bottom boundary of the TSL adjusts from a higher to lower gradient. This was established through the lack of correlation between LWin@zenith with ΔTskin-5m and LWout indicating that the absorption of LWin@zenith is independent of ΔTskin-subskin and the correlation observed between LWin@zenith with ΔT0.1mm and ΔT0.1mm/ΔT5m which illustrates that more of the TSL profile exists within the EM skin layer's emission depth of ∼0.1 mm as LWin@zenith increases.

Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases. The absorption of increased longwave has been deduced to compress vertically the curvature of the TSL, with a higher gradient forming close to the interface and a lower gradient at subskin depths. The smaller vertical gradient at subskin depths impedes the transfer of heat from the mixed layer into the TSL. Because the heat sink at the interface does not change measurably on the scales of our individual measurements, this means that less heat from the mixed layer contributes to the loss of heat at the interface. This analysis was based on the immediate changes of the TSL to the heat fluxes due to the instantaneous response of the TSL. Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

Attempts to relate directly the curvature of vertical temperature gradient in the TSL and EM skin layer, as developed by Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b), to changes in the incident IR radiation did not produce a convincing dependence, at least on the time scales of our measurements. Revealing such a relationship will require more sensitive instruments than are currently available.

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

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.

Yeah, but Billy has a PhD......LOL!

 

[Crick]

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.

Yeah, but Billy has a PhD......LOL!

He told you so himself, didn't he...

 

[Crick]

This one should sting Toad...



{Bolding mine}

SOURCE


So, with CO2 and "backradiation" excluded in the oceans, the potential warming by CO2 alone drops by 72%.

You really are stupid enough to crow about a link to an article that says you're wrong as clear as clear can be. And Ding, you are following the WRONG guy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He told you so himself, didn't he...

He did.
He also told me that the evaporation of water is a chemical reaction.

 

[Crick]

He did.
He also told me that the evaporation of water is a chemical reaction.

I saw that. Y'know, I thought he had quit claiming to actually have that doctorate but he repeated it somewhere just a day or two ago.

I get a kick about him claiming to be the one who wants debate when any attempt to actually debate him on actual thread topics leads to him disappearing to go complain about us to Ding in another thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I saw that. Y'know, I thought he had quit claiming to actually have that doctorate but he repeated it somewhere just a day or two ago.

I get a kick about him claiming to be the one who wants debate when any attempt to actually debate him on actual thread topics leads to him disappearing to go complain about us to Ding in another thread.

Even funnier than his claim about the PhD is his claim that his huge (really massive) errors
in this thread were because he was trying to put his science expertise into layman's terms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He did.
He also told me that the evaporation of water is a chemical reaction.

WOW... both of you have no freaking clue what is happening. You have taken the IPCC bible as fact and refuse to look at the empirical evidence. You throw out adhominem attacks and you don't even know what it is your spewing.

Others have shown you why it is considered a chemical reaction and I have openly admitted that it IS A CONTENTIOUS POINT.

You refuse to address the point that I have laid out. You dance around the basic physics of the energy in energy out balance of our atmosphere. Even Crick has no clue what he is reading. The concept is so above your ability in understanding that it isn't funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WOW... both of you have no freaking clue what is happening. You have taken the IPCC bible as fact and refuse to look at the empirical evidence. You throw out adhominem attacks and you don't even know what it is your spewing.

Others have shown you why it is considered a chemical reaction and I have openly admitted that it IS A CONTENTIOUS POINT.

You refuse to address the point that I have laid out. You dance around the basic physics of the energy in energy out balance of our atmosphere. Even Crick has no clue what he is reading. The concept is so above your ability in understanding that it isn't funny.

You have taken the IPCC bible as fact and refuse to look at the empirical evidence.

Sorry, I don't give a shit about what the politicians of the IPCC publish.

Others have shown you why it is considered a chemical reaction

Who has shown that? Where?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really are stupid enough to crow about a link to an article that says you're wrong as clear as clear can be. And Ding, you are following the WRONG guy.

You're having reading comprehension problems again, Crick. Just wow.

It's not an article, it's a peer review paper that does not say what you think it does. You continue to ignore the ramifications of the long wavelength of IR. You keep ignoring the physical barriers to absorption and transmission in the TSL.

The paper clearly shows that LWIR cannot warm the oceans and cannot retain heat in the oceans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have taken the IPCC bible as fact and refuse to look at the empirical evidence.

Sorry, I don't give a shit about what the politicians of the IPCC publish.

Others have shown you why it is considered a chemical reaction

Who has shown that? Where?

Water Vapor is a classic example of a Phase Change (Chemical reaction) without changing the base chemistry of the molecule.

Phase transition

ALL Chemicals react to something a reality known for a few centuries.