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

[Billy_Bob]

You do very well at trying to discredit people.

With your posts, you discredit yourself.

Again, you attempt to discredit by personal attack and never address the science presented.
Was this you "presenting science"?

I can show you why 71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"
Or this?

To defeat something all you must do is impede its progress. The energy is lost in the process of creating water vapor.

You simply do not get it. Most people do not understand most of the concepts and some of us want better understanding of those around us. But continue, it will only make me better at communicating to a target audience that is not science literate... And that is the point here. How to dumb down the subject enough to gain understanding of the basic concepts by those who are clueless. You refuse to answer how you would do this. I take that as an admission of your inability to do so.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.

The science is settled! Nuff said!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You simply do not get it. Most people do not understand most of the concepts and some of us want better understanding of those around us. But continue, it will only make me better at communicating to a target audience that is not science literate... And that is the point here. How to dumb down the subject enough to gain understanding of the basic concepts by those who are clueless. You refuse to answer how you would do this. I take that as an admission of your inability to do so.

You simply do not get it. Most people do not understand most of the concepts and some of us want better understanding of those around us.

I get it. You posted obvious errors, because with your PhD, it's difficult for you
to explain concepts correctly. It makes perfect sense now.

How to dumb down the subject enough to gain understanding of the basic concepts by those who are clueless.

Step one, make a silly claim: 71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"

Step two, use silly non-scientific terms: Anything larger in wavelength 1.1um (1100nm) will impact the skin of the ocean and be defeated in the evaporation layer.

Step three, violate conservation of energy: The energy is lost in the process of creating water vapor.

Should I continue? LOL!

You refuse to answer how you would do this.

When I try to explain things, I use real terms and don't violate any laws of physics.

I take that as an admission of your inability to do so.

I'll admit, I've been trying to explain things to you for years but you're still clueless.

Remember when you said photons from cooler matter wouldn't hit warmer matter because
they were magnetically repelled? That was a classic!!!

 

[ding]

You do very well at trying to discredit people. But I really don't give a shit and will continue to post. Again, you attempt to discredit by personal attack and never address the science presented. you nit-pick minor issues while ignoring the primary issue. You are a hack. But then we all knew that.

He practices critical theory and thinks he's practicing critical thinking. He thinks he only needs to make counter arguments which explains the nitpicking. He can't state his beliefs because his only belief is the other guy is wrong. He can't articulate anything else.

 

[ding]

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?

That was an excellent summary of your position. Todd can't state a summary of his position because he has none. So he tries to give the illusion that you must be wrong by nit picking insignificant things.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He practices critical theory and thinks he's practicing critical thinking. He thinks he only needs to make counter arguments which explains the nitpicking. He can't state his beliefs because his only belief is the other guy is wrong. He can't articulate anything else.

He reminds me of one of the Ph.D's in my doctoral program. Always the contrarian and no cognitively thought through response. Sometimes they do this to prepare you for these types of people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He reminds me of one of the Ph.D's in my doctoral program. Always the contrarian and no cognitively thought through response. Sometimes they do this to prepare you for these types of people.

The one who thought photons are repelled by covalent bonds?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The one who thought photons are repelled by covalent bonds?

And back to personal attacks... way to go... you just proved my point.

 

[ding]

He reminds me of one of the Ph.D's in my doctoral program. Always the contrarian and no cognitively thought through response. Sometimes they do this to prepare you for these types of people.

I've never seen Todd make a direct case for anything. He's more of a drive by kind of guy. It was hilarious watching Todd nit picking your choice of wording in your summary of DWSR. Never mind the fact that he never disagreed with DWSR or offered an alternative explanation. That's not his style. He is decidedly anti-intellectual. It's because he doesn't understand it.

 

[ding]

And back to personal attacks... way to go... you just proved my point.

Typical "Drive-By Todd" anti-intellectual tactic. So dumb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And back to personal attacks... way to go... you just proved my point.

That's not me attacking you personally, that's me attacking the scientific idiocy you post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Never mind the fact that he never disagreed with DWSR or offered an alternative explanation.

My alternative explanation is that billy's claims are silly.
I did like his use of the word "defeated" and his claim that energy was lost because of evaporation.
That's even funnier than your solar power cooling claims.

 

[ding]

My alternative explanation is that billy's claims are silly.
I did like his use of the word "defeated" and his claim that energy was lost because of evaporation.
That's even funnier than your solar power cooling claims.

Or you saying all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet?

At least I had a study which actually measured the incremental cooling effect. As for your criticism of Billy's summary of DWSR it was 100% a nit picky chicken shit criticism as evidenced by your inability to state your summary of DWSR. Did your chicken shit intentionally misleading critique refute his point? No. It did not. As evidenced by your inability to explain how your nit picky chicken shit remarks refuted his point.

Same goes for solar panels converting solar radiation into electricity and creating an incremental cooling effect. You can't make a complete case. You don't have that ability.

 

[ding]

That's not me attacking you personally, that's me attacking the scientific idiocy you post.

Horseshit. It is 100% personal with you.

 

[22lcidw]

Every new coal fired plant in the US employed this kind of technology up and until Biden killed their construction. The Green Raw Deal is a boondoggle that is about to implode massively. It is far cheaper to upgrade our current plants than to go totally electric and far more reliable than wind and solar are. The wind stops and solar is susceptible to clouds, dust and changes on our sun. In 2009 we lost 10% of the power that PV arrays were generating due to a shift in solar output. Windmills self-destruct in about 5 years now and we are not making great strides in their reliability. These forms of energy are not long-term fixes due to their unreliability and susceptibility to outside forces.

As it makes no scientific sense to do this it must be a pocket lining money issue.

The US employed these technologies on their own and used Natural Gas to lower the particulates in our air. Why is Biden unilaterally killing these proven technologies without a reliable replacement?

Originally posted Here Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

I would agree to Progs shoved into human powered plants to provide energy in a not so good time. These Village people have no concept of cold areas. And why the people who lived in those climes saved for the winter and did not live for the day like the warmer areas of Africa. Technology had to advance in colder areas. Now the dum asses have taken over.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or you saying all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet?

At least I had a study which actually measured the incremental cooling effect. As for your criticism of Billy's summary of DWSR it was 100% a nit picky chicken shit criticism as evidenced by your inability to state your summary of DWSR. Did your chicken shit intentionally misleading critique refute his point? No. It did not. As evidenced by your inability to explain how your nit picky chicken shit remarks refuted his point.

Same goes for solar panels converting solar radiation into electricity and creating an incremental cooling effect. You can't make a complete case. You don't have that ability.

Or you saying all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet?

A small portion doesn't.
Are you saying the extra 35% of solar radiation absorbed by the panels doesn't heat the planet?

At least I had a study which actually measured the incremental cooling effect.

Yes, it measured the effect at the solar farm, not where the power is used.

As for your criticism of Billy's summary of DWSR it was 100% a nit picky chicken shit criticism as evidenced by your inability to state your summary of DWSR.

I didn't make a claim about DWSR, why would I post a summary?

Did your chicken shit intentionally misleading critique refute his point?

Did you see his claim that LWIR doesn't effect 71% of the surface?
Yeah, I think the holes I poked in his claim was pretty much a refutation.

Same goes for solar panels converting solar radiation into electricity and creating an incremental cooling effect. You can't make a complete case.

A complete case? Like when you ignore much lower albedo? That's awful when that happens.
Even worse than ignoring the waste heat from the electricity.

 

[ding]

Or you saying all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet?

A small portion doesn't.
Are you saying the extra 35% of solar radiation absorbed by the panels doesn't heat the planet?

At least I had a study which actually measured the incremental cooling effect.

Yes, it measured the effect at the solar farm, not where the power is used.

As for your criticism of Billy's summary of DWSR it was 100% a nit picky chicken shit criticism as evidenced by your inability to state your summary of DWSR.

I didn't make a claim about DWSR, why would I post a summary?

Did your chicken shit intentionally misleading critique refute his point?

Did you see his claim that LWIR doesn't effect 71% of the surface?
Yeah, I think the holes I poked in his claim was pretty much a refutation.

Same goes for solar panels converting solar radiation into electricity and creating an incremental cooling effect. You can't make a complete case.

A complete case? Like when you ignore much lower albedo? That's awful when that happens.
Even worse than ignoring the waste heat from the electricity.

More nitpicking and a fucked up format. What's not to love about drive-by-todd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More nitpicking and a fucked up format. What's not to love about drive-by-todd?

Pointing out his massive errors is nitpicking? LOL!

You're funny.

 

[ding]

Pointing out his massive errors is nitpicking? LOL!

You're funny.

No... nit picking over points that have no material weight or alter the conclusion do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No... nit picking over points that have no material weight or alter the conclusion do.

71-72% of our surface will not respond to "back radiation"

Not material? DURR.