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

I wouldn't call his many large errors...nits.
If it makes you feel better to do so, go for it.

You are comedy relief.
I need some relief from billy's comedy.

The energy is lost in the process of creating water vapor.

Hilarious!!!
I've already explained it to you two times. I followed his summary easily enough. You did too. But it's personal with you so you couldn't help but be you. Your true colors are that of a dirt bag, bro.

How many more times do I need to say it?
 
I've already explained it to you two times. I followed his summary easily enough. You did too. But it's personal with you so you couldn't help but be you. Your true colors are that of a dirt bag, bro.

How many more times do I need to say it?

Yes, his summary was easy to follow.
His errors were obvious.

You can keep yapping.

Won't make his huge errors any smaller.
 
So you can't explain how the ocean responds to back radiation?

It responds in 3 ways. It absorbs it, it reflects it or it causes ocean water to evaporate.

I guess billy's claim was wrong. How do you think it responds?

Billy has already explained why it doesn't.

I especially liked his use of the word "defeated".

It's a very PhD level word.
So Toad was never taught to talk at the level of your audience. You cannot share knowledge by talking over their heads. But a las toad is just flapping his gums....
 
So Toad was never taught to talk at the level of your audience. You cannot share knowledge by talking over their heads. But a las toad is just flapping his gums....

Keep posting silly errors.
It makes your PhD claim so much more believable.

You cannot share knowledge by talking over their heads.

Or by violating the FLoT, but you tried.
 
Oh, do they....?? Please... show me how. The physics tells me they cannot. The physical evidence shows they do not.

Oh, do they....?? Please... show me how.

Absorb it, reflect it or evaporate water with it. You have another choice?

The physics tells me they cannot.

Post your evidence.

The physical evidence shows they do not.

Like a magic, energy destroying tube?
 
Your "PERCIEVED" Errors. how intentional do I have to make statements, to keep it in a layman's understanding? You want it your way and refuse to see anything but your own "perception".

Stop posting stupid errors, I'll stop pointing out your stupid errors.

And please, stop pretending you're an expert.
 
Keep posting silly errors.
It makes your PhD claim so much more believable.

You cannot share knowledge by talking over their heads.

Or by violating the FLoT, but you tried.
Please, all knowing toad, share with the class how energy emitted at 12um to 16um warms the ocean when it cannot get past the first ten microns of the ocean's surface due to the evaporation layer and the colder thermal barrier just below it. I'll wait.. Please show you work.
 
Your "PERCIEVED" Errors. how intentional do I have to make statements, to keep it in a layman's understanding? You want it your way and refuse to see anything but your own "perception".
Exactly. He has no intention of trying to understand what you write. His only intention is to discredit you and he doesn't care how under handed his methods are. He's a real dirt bag.
 
You're the one making the claim that it is.. YOU PROVE IT. I have shown why it cannot happen.
I thought so.

But it's a contentious issue as near as I can tell. So I thought I would give him a chance to explain how he saw it. Problem was he wasn't interested in if back radiation warmed the oceans or not. His only intention was to discredit you. That's a dirt bag move.
 
I thought so.

But it's a contentious issue as near as I can tell. So I thought I would give him a chance to explain how he saw it. Problem was he wasn't interested in if back radiation warmed the oceans or not. His only intention was to discredit you. That's a dirt bag move.
I want to see how he thinks the energy is getting past physical barriers. Until he can show how it happens, he is just flapping his gums.
 

Forum List

Back
Top