Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And you continue to know didlly squat... There are multiple scrubbing techniques for differing gases and particulates. MAG CORP was another business on the Great Salt Lake that employed these techs. Between the two Kennecott and MAG CORP they were two of the worst emitters of H2S in the country. Do you know what that is? When you add water, it becomes Sulfuric Acid.I knew diddly-squat about scrubbers before reading your post.
I know that removing particulates does not affect acid rain. And I know that I stated that sulfur dioxide, not H2S, is removed with a spray of limestone slurry. I never mentioned H2S. You have yet to produce a single sentence that actually responds to the comments I made. This is all babbling bullshit; an attempt to distract other readers from the fundamental errors you've made and your ongoing lie about have a PhD in atmospheric physics.And you continue to know didlly squat... There are multiple scrubbing techniques for differing gases and particulates. MAG CORP was another business on the Great Salt Lake that employed these techs. Between the two Kennecott and MAG CORP they were two of the worst emitters of H2S in the country. Do you know what that is? When you add water, it becomes Sulfuric Acid.
Stop... Just Stop... you don't have a clue.
You have quotes around the word dirty yet I never used it. Who are you quoting Todd? And if you think the statement of mine you did paste in there is bullshit, I'd like an explanation as to why.
Billy Bob said: "...the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are as clean as nuclear plants in the output of the cooling towers."You said it's not as clean. That's not the same as saying it's dirty?
Billy Bob said: "...the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are as clean as nuclear plants in the output of the cooling towers."
What's wrong Todd?
I was responding directly and quite obviously to Billy Boy's falsehood.You you said it's not as clean.
Nothing's wrong.
I was responding directly and quite obviously to Billy Boy's falsehood.
Do fuck off Todd. Go have a nice Christmas somewhere.Right. You disagreed that it was clean.
And they are. You have disproved nothing. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and I demonstrated why that is. All plant life on earth needs it and the earth is CO2 deprived as the average CO2ppm is 1,467ppm, by the empirical records. You idiots think CO2 is a problem, but I have shown that it does very little in our atmosphere, so little that it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.Billy Bob said: "...the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are as clean as nuclear plants in the output of the cooling towers."
What's wrong Todd?
Your original comment would strenuously suggest that post scrub exhaust from a fossil fuel powered plant is chemically similar to the exhaust of the cooling tower on a nuclear power plant. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE here, no matter their side of ths primary argument, KNOWS that suggestion is false. That cooling tower is putting out nothing but water vapor and air BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMBUSTION TAKING PLACE.And they are. You have disproved nothing. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and I demonstrated why that is.
Atmospheric CO2 levels from before the appearance of homo sapiens to the start of the Industrial Revolution, have never exceeded 300 ppm, Now, in the last 170 years they've reached 420 ppm, most of that in the last 50.All plant life on earth needs it and the earth is CO2 deprived as the average CO2ppm is 1,467ppm, by the empirical records.
The only thing you've shown is that your science knowledge is inadequate and that you have no compunction about presenting long-debunked arguments.You idiots think CO2 is a problem, but I have shown that it does very little in our atmosphere, so little that it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.
The authorities to which I appeal ARE the experts in the field. You are anything but. Since posting about the cigarette-like PR campaign the fossil fuel industry has been running, I have begun referring to AGW deniers such as yourself useful idiots because you have made yourself useful to the folks at Exxon/Mobil by being stupid enough to buy into their bogus arguments and have rejected mainstream science.You keep making claims by appeal to authority, never do you address the science. This is a false argument as you have no clue what the science really says. You trust without knowledge. I call people like you fools or useful idiots..
Do fuck off Todd. Go have a nice Christmas somewhere.
Because it is save for CO2 emission.Your original comment would strenuously suggest that post scrub exhaust from a fossil fuel powered plant is chemically similar to the exhaust of the cooling tower on a nuclear power plant.
IF you want, I can show you why 71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation". Its very simple.
not respond to "back radiation".
Arctic ice free? CheckAnother thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.
The science is settled! Nuff said!
"Back Radiation" LWIR radiated back towards earth
You need to post the repeatable scientific experiments detailing the relationship between temperature and these tiny levels of CO2Your original comment would strenuously suggest that post scrub exhaust from a fossil fuel powered plant is chemically similar to the exhaust of the cooling tower on a nuclear power plant. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE here, no matter their side of ths primary argument, KNOWS that suggestion is false. That cooling tower is putting out nothing but water vapor and air BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMBUSTION TAKING PLACE.
Do you remember claiming that 99.991% of the scrubbed exhaust of a coal fired plant was water vapor? I'm wondering how that is managed when 1.5% - 3% of it is carbon dioxide not to mention the other gases that slip through.
Scrubbers are wonderful things and I am glad they're being used and, to be honest, I thank you for working on them, particularly in a place as potentially hazardous as Dugway. But they're not perfect and they don't eliminate the need to move away from GHG emitting power technologies.
Atmospheric CO2 levels from before the appearance of homo sapiens to the start of the Industrial Revolution, have never exceeded 300 ppm, Now, in the last 170 years they've reached 420 ppm, most of that in the last 50.
The only thing you've shown is that your science knowledge is inadequate and that you have no compunction about presenting long-debunked arguments.
Do you REALLY want to say that that spike at the right end can't be discerned from the noise in these data? Really?
Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The authorities to which I appeal ARE the experts in the field. You are anything but. Since posting about the cigarette-like PR campaign the fossil fuel industry has been running, I have begun referring to AGW deniers such as yourself useful idiots because you have made yourself useful to the folks at Exxon/Mobil by being stupid enough to buy into their bogus arguments and have rejected mainstream science.
You say I never address the science? Explain how removing particulates reduces acid rain. Explain how the weak logarithmic nature of temp vs CO2 overcomes the logarithmic growth of CO2, the loss of sinks and its accumulation in the atmosphere. Explain how a scrubbed exhaust with 3% CO2 and small levels of other gases is "just as clean" as exhaust from a water cooling tower. Get as scientific as you like.
The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.I can show you why 71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"
Show me.
The image below is the Down Welling Solar Radiation distribution into our oceans.
Practical Handbook of Marine Science (routledgehandbooks.com)
View attachment 742098
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?
Simple. That layer is where evaporation takes place and energy is expended. The amount of energy we are talking is very small. as it takes 4 times as much energy to heat water than it does air, it is insufficient to defeat the thermocline barrier just below the evaporation layer.Defeated? What does that mean?
