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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Thanks for the link.
FYI, it doesn't actually contain the words "chemical reaction" or "without changing" or "base".

It calls it a physical process.

Do you have a link that actually helps your claim?

Maybe this one?

A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the chemical transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.[1] Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that only involve the positions of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds between atoms, with no change to the nuclei (no change to the elements present), and can often be described by a chemical equation. Nuclear chemistry is a sub-discipline of chemistry that involves the chemical reactions of unstable and radioactive elements where both electronic and nuclear changes can occur.

The substance (or substances) initially involved in a chemical reaction are called reactants or reagents. Chemical reactions are usually characterized by a chemical change, and they yield one or more products, which usually have properties different from the reactants. Reactions often consist of a sequence of individual sub-steps, the so-called elementary reactions, and the information on the precise course of action is part of the reaction mechanism. Chemical reactions are described with chemical equations, which symbolically present the starting materials, end products, and sometimes intermediate products and reaction conditions.

Chemical reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Thanks for the non sequitur

 

[Crick]

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

Thanks for the link.
FYI, it doesn't actually contain the words "chemical reaction" or "without changing" or "base".

It calls it a physical process.

View attachment 743675

Do you have a link that actually helps your claim?

Maybe this one?

A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the chemical transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.[1] Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that only involve the positions of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds between atoms, with no change to the nuclei (no change to the elements present), and can often be described by a chemical equation. Nuclear chemistry is a sub-discipline of chemistry that involves the chemical reactions of unstable and radioactive elements where both electronic and nuclear changes can occur.

The substance (or substances) initially involved in a chemical reaction are called reactants or reagents. Chemical reactions are usually characterized by a chemical change, and they yield one or more products, which usually have properties different from the reactants. Reactions often consist of a sequence of individual sub-steps, the so-called elementary reactions, and the information on the precise course of action is part of the reaction mechanism. Chemical reactions are described with chemical equations, which symbolically present the starting materials, end products, and sometimes intermediate products and reaction conditions.

Chemical reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Thanks for the non sequitur

Billy Boy, what are the reactants involved in the evaporation of water?

 

[mamooth]

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.

I talked about something that happened around 700 million years ago, for the point of showing how paleoclimate can't be explained without including the effect of CO2.

In response, you posted data that didn't even go back a tenth as far. And you don't understand the problem with that.

It's literally the record of climate changes. You can't have a climate discussion without using oxygen isotope data.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

You can't have a discussion without words. According to your very peculiar logic, that means anyone who uses words wins the discussion.

Again... totally different landmass configurations will result in different climates.

Unless the oceans are frozen, in which case it doesn't matter. A planet can't have ocean currents if the oceans are frozen. And so your argument falls into the "not relevant" category for discussing Snowball Earth and why it melted.

This should not be a controversial statement. And if you can't understand this you have no business discussing climate.

See? You talked about something basic that everyone knows, but which isn't relevant, then you called me stupid for not talking about your irrelevant thing.

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

If anyone ever said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, that would be a devastating reply. But since no one has said that, it's a red herring.

 

[ding]

Thanks for the link.
FYI, it doesn't actually contain the words "chemical reaction" or "without changing" or "base".

It calls it a physical process.

It's nice to see you expending so much energy and effort on such an important topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's nice to see you expending so much energy and effort on such an important topic.

You can end the dispute by posting evidence that helps Billy.

Or telling him to stop posting such idiocy.

 

[ding]

I talked about something that happened around 700 million years ago, for the point of showing how paleoclimate can't be explained without including the effect of CO2.

It's too bad you never made that case in an articulate fashion. Go ahead state your case in 25 words or less. Give me the thumbnail version. You might start with a little context like what was the landmass configuration, what caused snowball earth and what ended snow ball earth. I'm all ears. Seriously.

 

[mamooth]

It's not an article, it's a peer review paper that does not say what you think it does.

In terms of anyone caring, your babbling falls into the same category as The Unibomber Manifesto.

You used to pull stuff from the PSI website (Principia Scientific International), so I took a peek at their webpage. They've gone downhill. Now they mainly focus on selling medical quackery.

The Sky Dragon Slayers are do podcasts instead of writing anything down. I tried listening, but it's coma-inducing. Sky Dragon Slayer "science" now consists of a couple guys droning on about various political conspiracy theories.

By the way, have you noticed the ENSO forecast? Basically, all of the models call for the La Nina to end soon, and for ENSO-postive conditions to start in the summer.

 

[ding]

You can end the dispute by posting evidence that helps Billy.

Or telling him to stop posting such idiocy.

That's dumb. I'm curious to know how many more times you're going to keep bringing it up. What is this like 7 times across how many different threads? I've lost track.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's dumb. I'm curious to know how many more times you're going to keep bringing it up. What is this like 7 times across how many different threads? I've lost track.

I'll stop when he admits his error.

 

[ding]

In response, you posted data that didn't even go back a tenth as far. And you don't understand the problem with that.

Because it's not relevant. You never actually made a case. It is YOU who has never looked at the pertinent data. Data that is less than 10 million years old that is relevant to today's climate. The same conditions which existed that led to the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today.

 

[mamooth]

I'm all ears. Seriously.

No, you're not.

I know this because I already explained everything to you, at a fourth-grade level. You're not as stupid as you pretend to be here. You're just a butthurt troll.

Piss off, troll. That's the only answer you deserve.

 

[ding]

I'll stop when he admits his error.

No. You won't. This is what you do.

 

[ding]

No, you're not.

I know this because I already explained everything to you, at a fourth-grade level. You're not as stupid as you pretend to be here. You're just a butthurt troll.

Piss off, troll. That's the only answer you deserve.

I am. Please make the case for CO2's role in snowball earth 600 plus million years ago.

 

[ding]

I already explained everything to you

No. You haven't. Here's your chance. What was the role CO2 played in snowball earth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. You won't. This is what you do.

I'll have no reason to mock his stupid evaporation claim once he admits he was wrong.

Doesn't mean I won't mock any new idiotic claims he makes. It's what I do.

 

[ding]

That's nice, but irrelevant.

You can't have a discussion without words. According to your very peculiar logic, that means anyone who uses words wins the discussion.

The oxygen isotope curve is NOT irrelevant. It is extremely relevant. It is the proxy temperature for earth that everyone accepts. Even your beloved climate scientists. You know... the ones you and Larsky worship as gods?

The oxygen isotope curve (which you are ignoring) shows the temperature response due to glaciation at each pole. It shows the temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation and the temperature threshold where the planet will transition from an icehouse planet to a greenhouse planet which is what YOU are worrying about. Are you suggesting the temperature threshold for glaciation is unimportant? Are you suggesting the temperature where the planet transitions from an icehouse planet to a greenhouse planet is unimportant? Have you even look at the oxygen isotope curve with respect to when each pole had episodic versus extensive glaciation? It's annotated on the graph for crying out loud. What do you think Larsky ? Is the oxygen isotope curve irrelevant?

 

[ding]

Unless the oceans are frozen, in which case it doesn't matter. A planet can't have ocean currents if the oceans are frozen. And so your argument falls into the "not relevant" category for discussing Snowball Earth and why it melted.

What does that have to do with today? Nothing. You won't even look at the earth's climate record over the last 10 million years when the only time in earth's history ice appeared on it northern polar axis. Do you think ice in a polar region where ice has never been recorded in the geologic record might have an effect on the planet's climate? Of course it does. Transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is literally the biggest climate change in the past 50 million years and it occurred only 3 to 5 million years ago. And you just want to totally ignore and dismiss it. Why? What do you think Toro? Does this sound right to you? Don't be shy because it'll hurt your friend's feelings.

 

[Crick]

What does that have to do with today? Nothing. You won't even look at the earth's climate record over the last 10 million years when the only time in earth's history ice appeared on it northern polar axis. Do you think ice in a polar region where ice has never been recorded in the geologic record might have an effect on the planet's climate? Of course it does. Transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is literally the biggest climate change in the past 50 million years and it occurred only 3 to 5 million years ago. And you just want to totally ignore and dismiss it. Why? What do you think Toro? Does this sound right to you? Don't be shy because it'll hurt your friend's feelings.

View attachment 743761

Curious what this might have to do with modern scrubbing technology.

 

[ding]

Curious what this might have to do with modern scrubbing technology.

Nothing. In that regard it's no different than your posts that had nothing to do with modern scrubbing technology. Or anyone else's off topic posts. The only difference I see is that you have no good response for mine.

 

[ding]

I'll have no reason to mock his stupid evaporation claim once he admits he was wrong.

Yes, you will. You'll keep bringing it up over and over again because this is personal for you.