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

[Billy_Bob]

Back to original topic.

Now that CO2 is dealt with in our atmosphere as a non-issue lets clean the particulates and get our coal and gas fired plants back up and running. CO2 is not the boogie man they claim it is ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is a paper on this very subject;

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

________________________________________

You can nitpick all you want Toad... you are a failure in all things scientific.

It is well established that LWIR cannot warm the layers immediately below the skin layer. Tell me Toad, is changing the state of water a chemical reaction?

It is well established that LWIR cannot warm the layers immediately below the skin layer.

It warms the skin layer?

Thanks for admitting your error.

Tell me Toad, is changing the state of water a chemical reaction?

Nope. Not even a little.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I credit him for trying to state his case.

Yes, his persistence in defending his errors is very admirable.
Reminds me of SSDD.

 

[ding]

Yes, his persistence in defending his errors is very admirable.
Reminds me of SSDD.

And yet the main point stands because your only intention was to make this personal.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Another thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.

The science is settled! Nuff said!

Why do you people get upset when science is questioned? As we saw with vaccines and masks it’s important to question.

 

[ding]

It is well established that LWIR cannot warm the layers immediately below the skin layer.

It warms the skin layer?

Thanks for admitting your error.

Tell me Toad, is changing the state of water a chemical reaction?

Nope. Not even a little.

You really need to see this in context of land versus ocean. Because the impression you are leaving is that you believe back radiation materially warms the oceans. Is that what you are arguing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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%.

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.

Thanks. Why would there be increase in surface heat loss?

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

LOL! Were you one of the co-authors?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know... But others who read this will see him for what he is.. a Troll. I am here for those who will learn and see the CAGW lie for what it is, not for idiots like him.

With your error-filled arguments against CAGW, you'll probably convince people that it's real.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Thanks. Why would there be increase in surface heat loss?

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

LOL! Were you one of the co-authors?

Again nothing to add... You want to destroy never discuss... Fuck off Toad..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet the main point stands because your only intention was to make this personal.

He's the one taking my corrections of his errors personally.
I don't have any problem with him when he posts actual facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really need to see this in context of land versus ocean. Because the impression you are leaving is that you believe back radiation materially warms the oceans. Is that what you are arguing?

You really need to see this in context of land versus ocean.

No I don't.

Because the impression you are leaving is that you believe back radiation materially warms the oceans.
Have I used the word materially even once in this thread?

I saw the claim that "71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation""

If it "responds" even minimally, that claim is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again nothing to add... You want to destroy never discuss... Fuck off Toad..

LOL!

Go play with your imaginary PhD.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL!

Go play with your imaginary PhD.

You never addressed any premise I posted.. You practice nothing close to science. You can continue to play with yourself...

 

[ding]

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.

Thanks. Why would there be increase in surface heat loss?

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

LOL! Were you one of the co-authors?

Looks like a legitimate study to me. What's the nit you are going to pick?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never addressed any premise I posted.. You practice nothing close to science. You can continue to play with yourself...

ITs called the evaporation layer for a reason Todd. This is where the chemical reaction takes place, which cools the layer just below it, and releasees the energy in water vapor, into our atmosphere.

Is this you, practicing science?

 

[ding]

He's the one taking my corrections of his errors personally.
I don't have any problem with him when he posts actual facts.

I wan't born yesterday. He's taking them exactly as you are intending them. Spare me the rationalization of your behavior.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like a legitimate study to me. What's the nit you are going to pick?

Who claimed there should be an "immediate, observable increase in surface heat loss associated with increased absorption of incoming IR radiation from the atmosphere"?

Was it me? Then how does it help any of Billy's silly claims?
How does it refute anything I've posted?

 

[Billy_Bob]

ITs called the evaporation layer for a reason Todd. This is where the chemical reaction takes place, which cools the layer just below it, and releasees the energy in water vapor, into our atmosphere.

Is this you, practicing science?

You still do not know what a phase change is.... Don't bother looking Toad.. just continue jerking off. Its what your good at.

 

[ding]

You really need to see this in context of land versus ocean.

No I don't.

Because the impression you are leaving is that you believe back radiation materially warms the oceans.
Have I used the word materially even once in this thread?

I saw the claim that "71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation""

If it "responds" even minimally, that claim is wrong.

That's because your intention is to make it personal so the material difference between the back radiation of land versus sea doesn't matter to you but it does matter to the central point he has made and you are arguing against.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wan't born yesterday. He's taking them exactly as you are intending them. Spare me the rationalization of your behavior.

Tell him to stop posting such stupid fucking errors.
Then I'll stop correcting his stupid fucking errors.

Then he can stop crying.