Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
then again maybe not.quote:IMNSHO you may be mistaking what might be the truth for sarcasm (a great part of the fun is deciphering exactly WHAT he's saying).
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
Unless I'm wrongly taking his sarcasm at face value?
quote:? America started the nuclear war in 1991.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
NATO haemorrhaging drop by drop in Afghanistan to prevent nuclear war notwithstanding.
quote:So turkeys do vote for Christmas!
Originally posted by Evensong:
[tangent alert]
Australia recently held its national elections.
On the ballot vote, was the first ever Climate Skeptics political party.
Just thought it was interesting.
quote:Lomborg's principles remain the same. What do the data say? What will the effect of a proposal be? What will be the cost if said proposal is implemented? Does the benefit to cost ratio make it a reasonable solution? Or is it just about us feeling good with ourselves?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Second, Bjørn Lomborg has rather taken the wind out of the skeptic sails by describing climate change as "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calling for substantial expenditure to tackle climate change. Not exactly a u-turn (afterall, Lomborg never actually denied the science), but it certainly appears to be a change of tack.
quote:Deaf ears.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
quote:So turkeys do vote for Christmas!
Originally posted by Evensong:
[tangent alert]
Australia recently held its national elections.
On the ballot vote, was the first ever Climate Skeptics political party.
Just thought it was interesting.
Effect of climate change on Great Barrier Reef
Drought in Australia
quote:Really? I thought there were only 2 (tentative) declarations last year in regards to animals for instance: the black rhino and the Yangtze dolphin.
the extinction of between 5,000 and 50,000 plant and nimal species annually
quote:The number of declared extinctions reflects only a fraction of the number of actual extinctions.
Really? I thought there were only 2 (tentative) declarations last year in regards to animals for instance: the black rhino and the Yangtze dolphin.
quote:Guardian UK: Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts
Only 869 extinctions have been formally recorded since 1500, however, because scientists have only "described" nearly 2m of an estimated 5-30m species around the world, and only assessed the conservation status of 3% of those, the global rate of extinction is extrapolated from the rate of loss among species which are known. In this way the IUCN calculated in 2004 that the rate of loss had risen to 100-1,000 per millions species annually – a situation comparable to the five previous "mass extinctions" – the last of which was when the dinosaurs were wiped out about 65m years ago.
quote:OK, I'll probably regret this. But, I'll bite. What 'falsified data'?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Truth doesn't require falsified data
quote:Alan, we've been through this. You accept all excuses to continue to believe something that you have yet to show any proof for.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, I'll probably regret this. But, I'll bite. What 'falsified data'?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Truth doesn't require falsified data
Honest mistakes like "the Himalayan glaciers will disapper by 2035" (a simple typo ... the original data said 2350), or minor errors in analysis that when corrected don't actually change the results (eg: the Mann paleoclimate reconstruction), don't count. Let's have some actual data that has been falsified, preferably with some reliable source demonstrating that the data has been falsified.
quote:Your theory, you provide the proof.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ditto.
quote:Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Maybe I'm an ignoramus, but who is this Bjørn Lomborg and why does his expressing an opinion change the discussion so dramatically?
quote:And, it's your theory that climate change science is built on a foundation of falsified data and egotistical scientists looking for a quick buck. You've failed to prove that theory to basically anyone.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Your theory, you provide the proof. ...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ditto.
So, your theory, you prove it.
quote:No, what I have shown is that there are so many contradictions to your theory that to continue believing in it is become a matter of faith, not science.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it's your theory that climate change science is built on a foundation of falsified data and egotistical scientists looking for a quick buck. You've failed to prove that theory to basically anyone.
quote:I agree with you, both on the strength of the science behind climate change and the significance of Lomborg's comments ... and yet no-one (so far) has posted to say that this news has made them think again, let alone changed their mind. Has this news made anyone think again about this issue?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" [...] So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change [...]is quite significant.
quote:I don't have time at the moment to go through the whole of climate science again. But, I have time to pick up a point or two.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
quote:I don't think that Lomborg was ever in the position of extreme sceptic or conspiracy theorist, so I'm not sure how this should change anyone's thinking - least of all those most convinced on the warmist/sceptic axis.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[I agree with you, both on the strength of the science behind climate change and the significance of Lomborg's comments ... and yet no-one (so far) has posted to say that this news has made them think again, let alone changed their mind. Has this news made anyone think again about this issue?
quote:Just in case anyone is tempted to believe Myrrh's nonsense about the Mauna Loa CO2 observations, see here.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
Myrrh [/QB]
quote:Far more pressing issues to deal with does not equal we must not spend big money on climate change. Just like not spending big money on methods that don't have an effective cost/benefit ratio does not equal not spending big money in general.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
quote:I know that Lomborg hasn't shifted a great deal in his position (and the basis for reaching that position, as you point out, hasn't changed at all as far as I can see). But he has shifted from a position where any expenditure on climate change is irrational (because the benefits outweigh the costs) to one where he sees it as rational to spend several tens of billions of dollars per year. Clearly he hasn't moved to the position of many of the more extreme environmentalists where any amount of money that reduces our carbon footprint is worth spending. But, then there are very few people who hold that position anyway.
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:Far more pressing issues to deal with does not equal we must not spend big money on climate change. Just like not spending big money on methods that don't have an effective cost/benefit ratio does not equal not spending big money in general.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
quote:Well, the level of rationality is going to depend on a) how much money and benefit is in question as each project will have its own cost:benefit ratio, b) what other projects there are that money could be spent on as you'd want the biggest bang for your buck, c) how much money is available and d) how big an issue you consider climate change to be. If you consider climate change to be unimportant then no amount of benefit will make any expenditure worthwhile because the finite amount of money that could be spent would be much better spent on other issues - that seemed to be Lomborgs position a few years ago. The more important you see climate change to be then the more value you'll see in climate projects, and then you'll see that there are projects which bring a reasonable return - which seems to be where Lomborg is now.
Lomborg has pointed out what must have been obvious. That saying yeah to laws that give ridiculous amounts of money to projects that don't bring much benefit is irrational.
quote:Pielke Jnr does not seem to think that there's much new about Lomborg's proposals.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know that Lomborg hasn't shifted a great deal in his position (and the basis for reaching that position, as you point out, hasn't changed at all as far as I can see). But he has shifted from a position where any expenditure on climate change is irrational (because the benefits outweigh the costs) to one where he sees it as rational to spend several tens of billions of dollars per year. Clearly he hasn't moved to the position of many of the more extreme environmentalists where any amount of money that reduces our carbon footprint is worth spending. But, then there are very few people who hold that position anyway.
It's all entirely rational. And, if you agree with the science that human activity is having a significant detrimental impact on the global climate, and that the poor are going to experience the worst effects of those changes, then you're going to see giving large sums of money to projects that should alleviate those changes is money well spent.
quote:'Severity', 'bigger effects', or 'catastrophes' - it is in this area of 'prediction' where we should have most scepticism. And I don't think that Lomborg has done a U-turn here.
Lomborg has always had a lot of good things to say, and is well worth listening to. But, IMO, he has always underestimated the severity of the predictions of climate scientists and possibly overestimated the ability of people and society to adapt. He seems to be moving towards what to me is a more realistic position that climate change will have a much bigger effect than he'd previously assumed, and that people and society will need more help to adapt. Which shifts the cost-benefit analysis, with the results we've seen of his change in position on spending on climate change projects.
quote:I suspect that of the 2 camps, the pro- didn't consider Lomborg's apostasy notable as they didn't pay too much attention to him anyway. The anti- camp OTOH, is desperately ignoring it in the same way that they desperately ignored the vindication of Phil Jones, the debunking of "Amazongate," the reaffirmation of the temperature records, and the fact that 2010 is likely to top 1998 thus destroying their favourite (if meaningless) argument that temperatures haven't risen in the last 10 years."
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, have people actually noticed the news? Or, just totally fed up with the subject? If Lomborg can call it one of the chief concerns of the world today, surely there's something worth talking about?
quote:Which word don't you understand me saying here, "there is no honesty in the science"?
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
So Myrrh, two posters disprove your lies about CO2 measurements being worthless and we get no response beyond "yeah, yeah, yeah". But no, its nearly every scientific body in the world who are the dishonest ones.
Final post by me; any more and this thread would join Beelzebub (insert naff joke about 'warming').
PS Where is the data? Here you go for a start.
quote:Those are facts you can read in the emails for yourself. That there was an 'enquiry' which smudged around all this is to be expected, the corruption and fraud is in all areas of government, business and science.
Meltdown of the Climate Consensus
"Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
..
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers - and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train."
quote:My understanding is that it's the opposite. Predictions of an ice free North Pole during summer and concerns that mass amounts of permafrost methane are being released into the atmosphere in a feedback loop are becoming are being moved closer to the present rather than receding.
That is, we accept man does have an influence on climate, but this is tempered by an acknowledgement that mans footprint isn't quite so large and apocalyptic as first thought?
quote:You have to understand that in Myrrh's world this is one great big conspiracy. So any data, even hard data, that contradicts her claims is going to be discarded because... well, it's a conspiracy... by thousands of people, over several decades, working in all kinds of capacities, with different agendae, serving private, public, media and academic institutions, in dozens of countries who somehow all think exactly the same.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
So Myrrh, two posters disprove your lies about CO2 measurements being worthless and we get no response beyond "yeah, yeah, yeah". But no, its nearly every scientific body in the world who are the dishonest ones.
Final post by me; any more and this thread would join Beelzebub (insert naff joke about 'warming').
PS Where is the data? Here you go for a start.
quote:Most sensible people who've advocated carbon taxes have been saying that the revenue raised should be invested directly back into supporting a low-carbon economy - by investing in new technologies and helping boost markets for existing and emerging new technology. Even most politicians have recognised that they're onto a non-starter introducing a new tax and just adding the revenue into the general tax income pot.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Lomborg now seems to be proposing a carbon tax primarily for investment and research into new technologies. That might be a good way of moving forward. Surely no-one can seriously believe that things will change much until there are some affordable alternatives to fossil fuels? Research and development is vital.
quote:But that's the problem isn't it? I would be happier with a shift in taxation, rather than an increase in the tax burden. In a downturn we're already going to have to pay more tax, if you add greater carbon taxes to the mix you'll end up with disillusion, apathy and cynicism. The fact is that if we consider climate change to be a greater priority than others (and the jury is still out on that) then other things are going to have to suffer.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spawn:
[qb] Most sensible people who've advocated carbon taxes have been saying that the revenue raised should be invested directly back into supporting a low-carbon economy - by investing in new technologies and helping boost markets for existing and emerging new technology. Even most politicians have recognised that they're onto a non-starter introducing a new tax and just adding the revenue into the general tax income pot.
quote:I may be misunderstanding you. You seem to be arguing that Lomborg's change of mind would be more significant if his previous views were extreme, rather than moderate.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think that Lomborg was ever in the position of extreme sceptic or conspiracy theorist, so I'm not sure how this should change anyone's thinking - least of all those most convinced on the warmist/sceptic axis.
quote:I hope so.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Perhaps Lomborg's repositioning shows that it is possible to have a debate on policy without resorting to shrill stereotypes.[...]
quote:I think the link I gave earlier from Pielke summed it up rather well. Lomborg hasn't changed his position he's simply adopted someone else's ideas on policy. That's not going to change anyone's view on the basic issues. The fact that he was ever viewed in the 'enemy camp' by 'true believers' suggests that there is something skewed and polarised about this whole debate.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I may be misunderstanding you. You seem to be arguing that Lomborg's change of mind would be more significant if his previous views were extreme, rather than moderate.
When a person switches from one extreme view to an opposing view, I sometimes wonder how much their thinking has actually changed. I wonder if they simply exchanged zealotry about one view for zealous advocacy of the opposite?
If Lomborg was previously a moderate, reasonable and well-informed sceptic (rather than a conspiracy theorist) - and if he has changed his mind - then, for me, his change of mind would be more significant, not less.
quote:You wrote that Lomborg's adoption of other people's ideas on how to respond to climate change doesn't mean that he has changed his position. I see this differently. For me, if Lomborg has changed his views on 'what we should do about climate change,' then he has changed his position, even if he hasn't changed his view on 'whether humans cause climate change'. Of course, if you can show that Lomborg has not changed his views on 'what we should do about climate change', then I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the link I gave earlier from Pielke summed it up rather well. Lomborg hasn't changed his position he's simply adopted someone else's ideas on policy. That's not going to change anyone's view on the basic issues. [...]
quote:You'd have better chances w/ all 4 at once probably. It doesn't seem to matter what evidence you propose, or how ridiculous the implications of the theories she espouses are (i.e. rapid death), you won't break through the wall.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
You'd honestly be better off debating a young earth creationist, a 9/11 "truther", an Obama "birther" or a moon-landing denialist.
quote:Something similar has been happening in many areas. It seems to become exponentially difficult to get people to step back from their biases and enter "thinking mode" rather than a defensive "reacting mode."
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Maybe this account contains a clue. The effect on Marion Keech and her followers, when her 'end of the world' prediction did not happen, was reportedly that "they reacted to the dissonance of being wrong: by becoming even more certain that they were right". Will something similar happen here?
quote:Ahhh, but Mr. Tambourine Man sir, You can tell them links's part o' the conspiracy on account they are all rational n' stuff. Not a single line in all caps, no multi-colour text...tsk.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
quote:Just in case anyone is tempted to believe Myrrh's nonsense about the Mauna Loa CO2 observations, see here.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
Myrrh
Likewise I presume that plants and animals also have an agenda and are changing their habitats to further this evil climate change conspiracy.
See here
Basically this whole exercise links back to the OP and shows why I avoid most climate change online messaging. Clearing up the mess made by skeptics/deniers is akin to sharing a flat with an incontinent elephant. [/QB]
quote:Shrug, a 'scientist' wanting to prove a little known idea about CO2 contributing to warming, chose the largest active volcano in the world in one the worlds most active regions for CO2 emissions, a hot spot creating volcanos (the islands), constantly feeding five volcanos, hundreds of earthquakes every year, warm seas releasing said etc. etc. ... He began by chucking out all available data on measurements on CO2 which didn't fit what he wanted to be his base line, they showed considerable variation and not at all 'this mythical well mixed', and having carefully cherry picked the figures he wanted he then set about measuring CO2 levels and wouldn't you know it, less than two years later, yes really, I hope that has sunk in, this man is called a scientist, he decided that there was a rising trend in CO2 world wide caused by industrial pollution.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ahhh, but Mr. Tambourine Man sir, You can tell them links's part o' the conspiracy on account they are all rational n' stuff. Not a single line in all caps, no multi-colour text...tsk.
Don't get me started on them tricksy animals...
quote:Shhh....don't let rationality get in the way of the fantasies being portrayed by a certain person here.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, there can't NOT be AWG as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.
quote:It has never been shown to have done so in historical records. etc. etc.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, there can't NOT be AWG as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.
quote:And I should care what he says why?
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I came across this You Tube clip from Prof. Phiip Stott (Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
quote:The quote and you tube clip illustrate the lack of consensus (and its growing) towards some man made climate change ideas. I tend to agree with Stott and feel he has a lot of very valid ideas.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:And I should care what he says why?
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I came across this You Tube clip from Prof. Phiip Stott (Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
quote:I automatically scroll past anything Stott says now and only remembered after listening to a couple of seconds of that video. BBC Radio 4's "Home Planet" programme on nature and the environment often has him on. He loves to witter on, quoting numbers to ridiculous, misleading levels of precision and sound like he knows what he's talking about - on any subject under the sun, when he's so obviously reading out stuff he found online.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Stott wouldn't be part of the mass consensus for AGW since he is not, and never has been, a climate researcher (or related fields). He has no credentials, no peer reviewed publications, and no basis from which to speak.
He also appears to be a moron in his own field, based on quotes from wikipedia.
Feel free to bring up a useful source sometime.
quote:I'd suggest seeking out people who know a lot more than Stott does about climate science and listen to them.
I tend to agree with Stott and feel he has a lot of very valid ideas.
quote:Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Before this thread dissapears into outer darkness, I thought that the debate on climate change last year and the statement by William Happer (Happer is the distinguished Cyrus Fogg Professor of Physics at Princeton University) was telling.
This statement was made before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with Senator Barbara Boxer as Chairman.
Here is the link to Happer's full statement....
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public -works-committee/
Saul
quote:Of course, since it matches your predetermined outcome. Even though, of course, it matches none of your actual beliefs about what is happening in the climate.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
Myrrh
quote:He sums up the range of arguments in the main categories, very well done.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:Of course, since it matches your predetermined outcome. Even though, of course, it matches none of your actual beliefs about what is happening in the climate.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
Myrrh
quote:So, you agree that
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
quote:?
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
quote:I think not only Happer's initial statement (see below for the full paragraph) that you part-quote, is worthy of consideration, the whole statement is also worth a read in my view.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:So, you agree that
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
quote:?
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
quote:
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
quote:Ahh yes: last time we went through this you were very proud of the two weeks you spent bringing yourself up to the level of a post-doc. Must be amazing to have the ability to gain such intimate knowledge in such a short time.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When you've read as many examples of this nonsense I have there is no way you could take this seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Saul
Alan has already observed that Happer accepts the human contribution to CO2 levels but is more optimistic than most about the significance of the increase. "We're doing it but it doesn't matter to the extent of making major changes to counteract it."
Reminds me of the four stage Foreign policy according to Sir Humphrey Appleby and Foreign Secretary Sir Richard Wharton (Yes Prime Minister).
quote:
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But, I haven't justified so many pages as Myrrh, bless her. I have a paltry 2 pages and am fading fast from notoriety ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up then again maybe not.quote:I think the temptation to post something in order to get a particular reaction is a deeply perilous one - one worth acknowledging and resisting. I don't doubt that posters can get a buzz from it. But then regaining credibility becomes a bit harder afterwards, the temptation for another buzz seems even less resistable... and before you know it you're hiding under bridges and waiting for billy goats.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up
quote:Yes, you're absolutely right there mdijon.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think the temptation to post something in order to get a particular reaction is a deeply perilous one - one worth acknowledging and resisting. I don't doubt that posters can get a buzz from it. But then regaining credibility becomes a bit harder afterwards, the temptation for another buzz seems even less resistable... and before you know it you're hiding under bridges and waiting for billy goats.
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up
quote:And out of context of everything else he's actually written on the effect?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:So, you agree that
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
quote:?
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
quote:It certainly isn't science, it's politics.
quote:Whatever tht is, it certainly doesn't sound like science to me.
.., Dr. Jones assured D. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine wht the peer-review literature is!"
Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scients: That's "peer review", climate-style.
Climategate
quote:We don't question your sincerity. We question your rationale (or lack thereof), and the conclusions that come from it. We question your basic understanding of science and statistics.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you knew your friends were being conned, you'd lie to them by agreeing the con was true? You think it more honourable to join in victimising them?
quote:Actually, it's a wonderful example of how peer review works, since the papers in question were published anyways, despite these two relative luminaries attempting to stop it. (though I recall the papers being eventually pulled as pieces of shit, and thereby vindicating Mann, but I may be confusing that with something else)
.., Dr. Jones assured D. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine wht the peer-review literature is!"
quote:I'm not sure such a thing is even possible.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
excluding real scientific discussion on the subject
quote:If so, the papers would be retracted. Too many hungry people could make a great start to their research career for them to ignore this. This is where your conspiracy theory falls short (and that it would need to be over a hundred years old, of course, makes it rather ludicrous).
Just quit telling me this is science. It has been shown to be a fraud.
Conclusively.
quote:It's science (and damn good science too boot). It's also politics. We're dealing with things that are caused by human activity, and can (possibly) be mitigated by changes in human activity. You've got to be a very special sort of person to study the world, find conclusive evidence that there's something adversely affecting the lives of billions of people and decide that some notion of "objectivity" means that you're not going to let yourself get involved in trying to do something about it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It certainly isn't science, it's politics.
quote:How can a simple molecule be a victim?
And the biggest victim here is CO2.
quote:Interesting. He starts off by making his scientific credentials very clear.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On this particular point, no, I wouldn't agree with him,
quote:So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
I am not a climatologist .... I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.
quote:You prove his point about the level of so called 'scientific consensus' arguements here..
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Interesting. He starts off by making his scientific credentials very clear.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On this particular point, no, I wouldn't agree with him,
quote:So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
I am not a climatologist .... I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.
quote:To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
In other contexts, such a process of taking quotes out of context simply because in isolation they support a view that's already formed gets termed "proof texting".
quote:OK, can you clarify for me what it is you disagree with? I asked if you agreed with his statement
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
Or, something else.
quote:And, you said that you disagreed. I took that too mean that
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm
quote:A tidal inlet of the sea runs about 20 yards from my back garden. The house was bought about 3 years ago. I cannot say I stay awake at night worrying about global warming flooding the place. I cannot be the only person unconcerned as there are plenty of people willing to buy these houses. The insurance company seems to be happy too.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Here's a thought. Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change should demonstrate their faith by buying a house by the sea - at sea level, in fact. If in, say, 70 years or so the house is underwater there will be no compensation. In fact, there may be a crowd of jeering meteorologists singing an "I told you so" song as you take the dog out for a swim. If the house isn't getting a tad wet by then - you win.
Any takers?
quote:And how from that do you get to this?:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, can you clarify for me what it is you disagree with? I asked if you agreed with his statement
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
Or, something else.quote:And, you said that you disagreed. I took that too mean that
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warmIs that a fair assessment of your points of disagreement. And, if it is then what is the "something complete different" that you think I'm saying you disagree with?
- You disagree that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 to 380ppm over the last century. As you've also questioned the Muana Loa data (which support that statement), I thought I was on a winner to assume you disagreed with that.
- You disagree with the statement that burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in CO2 - well, if you disagree that CO2 has increased then burning fossil fuels is irrelevant
- You disagree with the statement that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause the surface of the earth to warm. I'm sure we've had that conversation before
quote:Where have I disagreed with him on his specialist subject? You've managed to turn this about completely. It's those points you mention I disagree with where he is not a specialist.
So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professsional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
quote:I suggest you try reading the first paragraph again, for comprehension.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can only suggest you actually try reading him for comprehension, where he is a specialist he makes it very clear he thinks AGW is not only wrong and unscientific, but dangerous
quote:i.e. every area where you agree with him is him speaking outside of his specialty.
I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics
quote:There's no way possible that you're actually responding to me. Please read what I wrote again, and respond to it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nope, Alan claimed opposites as being the same, I can see the difference, and have explained it.
Myrrh
quote:This is his specialty:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
where he is a specialist he makes it very clear he thinks AGW is not only wrong and unscientific, but dangerous
quote:Titles of recent papers:
I am interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and in the application of these spin-polarized systems in other areas......I have been working on ways to use polarized 3He and 129Xe for magnetic resonance imaging of lungs and perhaps other organs.
quote:This has *nothing* to do with his specialty. He is essentially talking out his ass. And as such, we can ignore him. And as such, you should ignore him too.
Myrrh wrote:
As it stands, from his speciality he says that doubling the amount of CO2 from fossil fuel is at most going to add one degree and then it cannot do more, and that anyway, it's complete nonsense to, etc. etc. etc., because CO2 is good for us, for our plant life etc. etc. etc. Try reading it again. As a summary it's very good reading, covering as it does the main points necessary to understand what's going on here for those without the time to wade through the arguments.
quote:None of which were in the emails. And the rest of your paragraph has been very thoroughly debunked the last go 'round here as well.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then they wrote how they manipulated editors and were fiddling the numbers
quote:No, you prove them. I've read them, as have the various groups called to investigate them. Every single one has exonerated everybody involved.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Prove they weren't.
Read them.
quote:OK, from his speciality as I understood it from his own description it's probably only point C that's really close to his expertise ... that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will warm the earth surface. Though, measurement of stuff (including accounting for external influences and uncertainties) is bread and butter for any half-decent physicist then point A shouldn't really be dismissed as beyond his expertise. Though, as pjkirk has had a look at his publications (which I didn't get time to do yesterday), even the properties of CO2 isn't really his specialist subject - although, as I've said there's nothing contraversial there as the relevant properties have been known for a century or more, and can be measured with an experiment you can set up yourself if you wish.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where have I disagreed with him on his specialist subject? You've managed to turn this about completely. It's those points you mention I disagree with where he is not a specialist.
quote:Well said. And let me encourage you to continue bothering. It's worth it for the sake of all Shipmates.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Find a single instance where peer review process was tampered with. It. Is. Not. There - as I said earlier, the papers that they were so very against were all published anyways, against Mann, etc's objections.
Do the emails make them look like shit? Yeah. Do they show the least little bit of professional misconduct? No. Hell - the Attorney General of Virginia(?) took Mann to court and lost. Rapidly. There is *NO* case to be made.
Not that I expect any of this to sink in. Don't know why I bother.
quote:What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that. Because, I admit, without that foundation of the physical properties of CO2, repeatedly observed in experiment after experiment for over a century, the rest of the argument that provides conclusive evidence that the current global warming is substantially driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (plus, things like deforestation that remove natural CO2 sinks) and other greenhouse gases is meaningless.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
quote:(Breaking my non-posting vow for some comic relief.) Your thorough debunking of Happer's climatologist status reminds me of a certain
Originally posted by pjkirk:
So when you talk about him an anything other than a physicist in these areas, he is not a specialist. To clarify again, he is not a specialist in AGW. He has *never* published a paper on it, he has never refereed or done peer review on a paper, and he does not do research on it. He has even been invited by Oppenheimer (of the IPCC) to publish a scientific report outlining his objections to AGW theory, but he has not even done that.
quote:The leaked emails do not in any way debunk the science but they are rather more serious than you seem to think. Firstly, there was a prima facie case against CRU for breaches of the Freedom of Information Request (this could not be put to the test because the time had elapsed). And while Oxburgh for example exonerated the scientists involved of any deliberate wrongdoing, their statistical methodology, organisation of the data etc has been rubbished in extremely strong terms.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
No, you prove them. I've read them, as have the various groups called to investigate them. Every single one has exonerated everybody involved...
Do the emails make them look like shit? Yeah. Do they show the least little bit of professional misconduct?
quote:Again, where have I denied that?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
quote:Well, not to worry - is his message from his repeated observations of CO2 in his own field and his intelligent objective appreciation of the theory in general.
Because, I admit, without that foundation of the physical properties of CO2, repeatedly observed in experiment after experiment for over a century, the rest of the argument that provides conclusive evidence that the current global warming is substantially driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (plus, things like deforestation that remove natural CO2 sinks) and other greenhouse gases is meaningless.
quote:Well as we are with the Monty Python theme, I would suggest we go to the ''argument clinic''. This is perhaps pretty relevant to us lot in Purgatory (well actually very relevant ).
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
quote:(Breaking my non-posting vow for some comic relief.) Your thorough debunking of Happer's climatologist status reminds me of a certain
Originally posted by pjkirk:
So when you talk about him an anything other than a physicist in these areas, he is not a specialist. To clarify again, he is not a specialist in AGW. He has *never* published a paper on it, he has never refereed or done peer review on a paper, and he does not do research on it. He has even been invited by Oppenheimer (of the IPCC) to publish a scientific report outlining his objections to AGW theory, but he has not even done that.
Monty Python sketch.
quote:He has never published a paper relating to CO2 or any spectroscopy which could be useful for a climatology study that I can find (his entire list of publications can be found at http://happerlab.princeton.edu/publications ). His work now is all with certain radioactive isotopes and seeing their utility for MRI scans - a loonng ways from climatology.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
]Well, not to worry - is his message from his repeated observations of CO2 in his own field and his intelligent objective appreciation of the theory in general.
quote:I take it, Myrrh, that the concept of 'risk management' has entirely passed you by...
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
You've never produced it because it doesn't exist, like the Emperor's new clothes, you keep saying it's there, but all you're doing is bolstering your belief in the delusion.
But, now the struggle to pay for heating will be over for us, all we need is a machine to pump out CO2 and we'll be toasty warm, oh, wait, that's us! Marvellous, no more worries about pensioners surviving the cold of winters, we'll just tell them to exhale faster..
Myrrh
quote:So, you've changed your opinion since the last tthread on the subject? Fine, that's OK - people are entirely free to change their views, it would just be useful for the sake of clarity if it was said.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Again, where have I denied that?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
quote:Got one.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Find a single instance where peer review process was tampered with.
quote:? Where have I ever denied CO2 absorbs IR?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:So, you've changed your opinion since the last tthread on the subject? Fine, that's OK - people are entirely free to change their views, it would just be useful for the sake of clarity if it was said.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Again, where have I denied that?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:What sort of proof do you want? Because, the best I can offer is apparently not good enough. Since you apparently even deny that CO2 absorbs IR, which is about as close to empirically verified fact as you can get in science, I'm not sure where to go to take the case beyond that.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug.
Even with all the corrupt data and crap science you still haven't proved that CO2 drives global warming.
quote:First, CO2 absorbs IR in two relatively broad bands (about 2.5-3.0um and 4.0-4.5um) plus several narrower bands (though less strongly). CO2 strongly absorbs IR over a significant proportion of the IR spectrum. IR is absorbed by single molecules (of CO2 or other greenhouse gases). The absorbing molecule does lose that energy quite quickly - mostly through collisions with other molecules in air or by re-irradiating the energy at the same wavelength as it was absorbed. Energy lost in collisions effectively heats the air, and most of that is then re-irradiated as broad spectrumed black-body IR in all directions. Energy lost by de-excitation of the molecular vibration has a wavelength that corresponds to the strong absorption lines in CO2 (it loses the same energy as was gained) and as thus highly likely to be rapidly absorbed by another CO2 molecule. The net effect of absorption and re-irradiation (whether black-body from the bulk air mass or de-excitation of individual molecules) is to reflect some energy that would otherwise escape into space back towards the surface of the earth. The only thing that can do is result in the surface of the earth being warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases. It's a very simple mechanism, one that's been understood for a long time (at least since the work of Fourier in the 1820s).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
? Where have I ever denied CO2 absorbs IR?
My argument was that it was insignificant, both in terms of spectrum absorbed, a very narrow band, and in terms of length of time it was "stored"
quote:I still don't quite understand your problem with Muana Loa. Even if the volcanoes in the vicinity do result in a locally elevated CO2 concentration* you still wouldn't see the pattern in the data observed unless the CO2 concentration in the whole atmosphere was increasing. All the volcanic activity will do is shift the starting concentration to a higher value - you'd still have an increase of approxiamtely 100ppm in the CO2 concentration over the last 50 years, just (say) 250 to 350ppm rather than 280 to 380. You still need to explain where all that extra CO2 has come from.
the nutty professor who so wanted to prove his dedication to his new love "Environmentalism" the Truth that he put his measuring stick on top of the world's largest active volcano in world's largest active hot spot with its massive supply of CO2
quote:FFS Myrrh. Alan knows whereof he speaks.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bye, bye, Alan.
Myrrh
quote:What will it take for me to get through to y'all that it's there is no science in manipulated data?
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:FFS Myrrh. Alan knows whereof he speaks.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Bye, bye, Alan.
Myrrh
You cannot beat him in this area of science: with all due respect, your education in this area just isn't good enough for you to engage Alan with any skill.
You are just making yourself look petulant and reactionary.
quote:We've been asking the reciprocal question for a long time, I'm afraid. From your POV it is probably best to treat our arguments as demonstrating some insane level of delusion and a total incapacity to appreciate your laudable efforts to put us right.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What will it take for me to get through to y'all
quote:I'm thinking this might be one of the key morals of life, to be thoroughly absorbed by every human.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From your POV it is probably best to treat our arguments as demonstrating some insane level of delusion and a total incapacity to appreciate your laudable efforts to put us right.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
).
quote:Sadly Martin, the biggest contributions come from the hot air generated by fundy AGW's.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I wonder, Myrrh, if Agion Phos contributes to global warming ?
quote:And, right from the beginning that was known. I've said it before. I'll say it again. Climate science really started when scientists realised that the climate isn't static, This was obvious once it was realised that glaciation caused many landscape features in northern Europe. The cyclic nature of the glaciations was known before the Vostok data was collected, Vostok (and similar ice cores) simply confirmed and refined our knowledge. It was on that basis that scientists in the 1970s were saying things like "we're reaching the end of the current interglacial, and over the next centuries we'll start to observe a cooling towards another glaciation, assuming anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't counter the natural cycles". It was when scientists started to investigate whether human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 gases, and experiment with what impact that would have, that it became clear that actually our activity has been more than enough to offset the relatively small changes that drive the natural glacial-interglacial cycle of the ice age.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Right from the beginning when I first came across the Vostok graph I pointed out that we were going back into our ice age, either no one here no matter how great their scientific credentials can read a graph, or you just don't want to see it. I don't know.
quote:But if your doctor tells you that that eating saturated fats is heading you for a heart attack you might respond with "My grandma ate the same things and she lived until she was 95". Smokers have similar "ostrich" rationales.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
If your car is rolling at increasing speed down a hill, you don't worry about the brakes sticking a bit, you try and stop the thing crashing!
quote:Myrrh, just respond to Alan, carefully, and with supporting data, for each of his points. If you do so, and the data you present is convincing, then you may find that people listen to your points.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
some apposite, well researched, and supported stuff
quote:There is a kind of track record here, IBP. If you have the time, and haven't looked too much recently at this evidence ...
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Myrrh, just respond to Alan, carefully, and with supporting data, for each of his points. If you do so, and the data you present is convincing, then you may find that people listen to your points.
He's shown respect to you by responding to your specific points, and you owe him likewise. That's how discussions work.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Problem is, bashing the head off a brick wall is precisely what Myrrh thinks she is doing.quote:Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
quote:Martin, I'm not threatening you by accusing you of destroying the world because you don't believe it.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I tell you what Myrrh, you prove Agion Phos is a miracle and I'll become a high school physics denier.
quote:Myrrh - you implied that you have found some graphs that make it obvious how wrong all the scientists you disagree with are. I have looked and can't find one. Certainly not one that gives me the level of precision you imply. I don't want to play 'find the graph Myrrh is talking about', it could take me months.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Myrrh
quote:Ah, the irony! If you can't sort out the categorical difference between the credibility of some of the arguers and the nature of the argument, what makes you think you have a handle on the argument?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you can't sort out categories, what makes you think you have a handle on physics?
quote:I implied no such thing...
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:Myrrh - you implied that you have found some graphs that make it obvious how wrong all the scientists you disagree with are. I have looked and can't find one. Certainly not one that gives me the level of precision you imply. I don't want to play 'find the graph Myrrh is talking about', it could take me months.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Myrrh
quote:No, I have spent countless days in the past looking a countless bloody Vostok graphs and reading countless different ideas about it and since practically every time I do post a link y'all go into knots of angst about the source, pull your own Vostok up. We'll take a look at it.
Wouldn't it be easier if you just put your cards on the table and pointed me to the graph you are talking about?
quote:From the page you linked to and to your post. The moment you start going into all the detail of the why it happens you're going to get bogged down in irrelevancies here, and I'll get back to the beginning of your post later.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Are the references contained here relevent?
Key questions: In the 80's it was thought that we were in a period of cooling which started 6,000 years ago (i.e. in the neolithic - new stone age) and will continue for another 23,000 years. Cooling that has already been going on for the entire history of human civilisation is presumably not going to pull out any surprises in our lifetimes?
However more recent work suggests the current warm spell will last another 50,000 years.
Should we believe Imbrie over Berger, the older work over the more recent work? And if we do so, is there any reson not to accept Imbrie's timescale, indicating that cooling towards the next glacial would take place over a duration of tens of thousands of years rather than mere decades?
The list of papers citing Berger may also be of interest. Here.
quote:How can you possibly even attempt to make a prediction about possible future climate change without even attempting to understand the details of why the climate changes???
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The moment you start going into all the detail of the why it happens you're going to get bogged down in irrelevancies here, ...
What I'm looking at here is not the why of it, but the fact that for the last million years we have had a 100,000 cycle of ice ages and these as plotted from the Vostok data give us a good visual for nearly half that time.
quote:Because I'm starting from the beginning Alan.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How can you possibly even attempt to make a prediction about possible future climate change without even attempting to understand the details of why the climate changes???
quote:Well, it sure as hell wasn't man-made emissions from CO2 which have shown no ability to raise global temperatures even in our last century when we see REAL temps going down the more we began to pump in.. And since that is complete junk science, I'm not going to argue with you about it. My physics teaches a reality based CO2 and my science teaches from observation and REAL data, not cherry picked figures to create data for a theory. So I'm not going there to waste more time on this aspect. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it pools, don't even think of organising a piss up etc.
Yes, we have Vostok data that describes almost 0.5 million years of our recent (geologically speaking) history that forms part of the current glacial-interglacial cycle of the ice age. Yes, you can look at that data and say "currently it's warmer, and has been for ~15ka", the previous warmer spell was ~15ka long (115-130ka bp). But, before that you had a longer spell of relatively warm conditions (190-220ka bp), and a very short period with current temperatures (230-240ka bp, with the warmest part within that). And, why did the ice age start in the first place? What changed in the recent past that shifted the earth from a largely ice-free planet to one dominated by ice, with the cycles of galciation and interglacials?
quote:Of course there are other factors when we go into the detail. But most of that is speculation because we don't know all the causes of the variations, the little hiccups of rises and falls along the consistent pattern of cycle which is the base line.
That to me indicates that although the Milankovich cycles are implicated, there are other factors. What are those other factors? That's what climate science is trying to work out. Without knowing more about the other factors we can say practically nothing about the future climate. Fortunately, science does know a fair bit more about those other factors - ocean currents, atmospheric chemistry, surface topography all seem to be involved.
quote:Yes it could very well be a different length..
It also means that if humanity had taken another 100ka to evolve there would be a good chance that when they looked at their Vostok core they'd see the current interglacial, and it could very easily be a different length than the previous. It only has to be a 10% longer and there would still be a millenium left of this interglacial ... and 10% is well within the variation shown in Vostok (there was a 20ka interglacial, and the core starts in an integlacial which would be at least 30ka).
quote:Sod the AGW understanding of CO2, Alan, it doesn't have any and until one gives up thinking in the AGW paradigm there can't be any.
And, that's only if you look at the temperature record from Vostok. If you're going to cite Vostok then at least be honest and include the whole record. The maximum CO2 in Vostok is 280ppm ... that means that we're currently well outside the range of CO2 concentrations shown in the core. That has to raise enormous questions about whether the pattern will continue to repeat ... since the pattern has already been broken I'd suggest that common sense would indicate that it won't continue to repeat.
quote:Yeah, I know. I was here last time, and the time before that. It's just that this time I was struck by one of my semiannual attacks of bonhomie and decided to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:There is a kind of track record here, IBP. If you have the time, and haven't looked too much recently at this evidence ...
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
...you may find that people listen to your points.
quote:And, you'd be quite right to ask "what???". And, then consider whoever said that to be potentially unreliable. You need to assess waht people say, and when they state something demonstrably false then the credibility of the rest of their argument is reduced. Of course, the rest of what they say may be true ... but it would be really good to find a more credible source.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When I read, for example, 'that CO2 remained at 280 for the last 600,000 years' and 'now our rise in industrial emissions is raising global temperature', I said, What??!?
quote:Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, you'd be quite right to ask "what???". And, then consider whoever said that to be potentially unreliable. You need to assess waht people say, and when they state something demonstrably false then the credibility of the rest of their argument is reduced. Of course, the rest of what they say may be true ... but it would be really good to find a more credible source.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When I read, for example, 'that CO2 remained at 280 for the last 600,000 years' and 'now our rise in industrial emissions is raising global temperature', I said, What??!?
Anyone who has seen the Vostok data knows full well that over the last 600ka CO2 concentrations have fluctuated between 180 and 280ppm. We can probably safely assume that the CO2 concentrations varied within that range for the whole of the ice age, the last few million years. Which, of course, makes the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 380ppm highly anomalous in Earths recent history.
quote:There's a link from that page to the Vostok graph. It does look like a heart beat trace.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing.
..
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
On the Brink of an Ice Age
quote:Not relevant??? That's in excess of a 20% variation about the mean (which would be somewhere around the 200ppm mark, since the Vostok data shows that the lower concentrations are more common - though I admit I've not put the numbers into anything to calculate the mean). It also means that we're currently approaching twice the mean concentration of the last million+ years. Such very large changes in concentrations of a gas with large greenhouse potential can not be anything but relevant.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
quote:Quite simply because the variation in solar energy input from Milankovich cycles is insufficient to account for the observed temperature changes, so there must be an amplification mechanism. Greenhouse gases provide an amplification mechanism by allowing that extra solar energy to be trapped near the surface, and there needs to be a mechanism to adjust greenhouse gas concentrations. The "heart beat" pattern of the Vostok temperature data shows that there are several such mechanisms at work, with differing response times and magnitudes. There's no way to get the complex pattern observed from only one mechanism (eg: Milankovich) or two (eg: Milankovich with single source CO2 amplification).
So what the heck does this have to do with anything in our understanding of the 100,000 years cycle of ice ages and interglacials?
quote:Look at Vostok more carefully. The peak of CO2 concentration lags behind the start of the interglacial by c800 years. Which means that the largest CO2 source operates with a response time of upto 800 years. There's one source we know of with that response time - deep ocean currents that hold CO2 when cold and release it when warmer and circulate with periods of 100s of years. But, remember what I said earlier. There are several CO2 sources with different response times. All it takes is for some of those sources to respond very much quicker and amplify the Milankovich driving signal. Science is pretty much there on understanding the natural cycle - not quite there enough to be able to predict exactly how long interglacials will last, it's not as clear how CO2 concentrations fall to allow an interglacial to end as it is how they rise to start interglacials.
Look at the Vostok graph, the time lag for CO2 is c800 years. CO2 has nothing at all to do with driving these dramatic global warming interglacials for the last million of years. It's an effect.
quote:And, we've covered that ground too. CO2 is a constituent of air not some seperate part that can be easily seperated by simple diffusion. In a still air column, given sufficient time, there will be a slight increase in CO2 concentrations at the bottom compared to the top. But, the atmosphere is rarely a still column of air. So, such partial differentiation doesn't happen.
That's our Carbon Life Cycle, we are carbon life forms, CO2 is our food.
It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
quote:It's got negligible greenhouse potential.. AGW is Con. Water vapour is the only greenhouse gas of any importance, and we're talking about the ICE AGE and GLOBAL WARMING INTERGLACIALS - which show that CO2 isn't relevant to these changes.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Not relevant??? That's in excess of a 20% variation about the mean (which would be somewhere around the 200ppm mark, since the Vostok data shows that the lower concentrations are more common - though I admit I've not put the numbers into anything to calculate the mean). It also means that we're currently approaching twice the mean concentration of the last million+ years. Such very large changes in concentrations of a gas with large greenhouse potential can not be anything but relevant.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
quote:
So what the heck does this have to do with anything in our understanding of the 100,000 years cycle of ice ages and interglacials?
quote:I'm not arguing for mechanism.. But to keep regurgitating AGW science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
Quite simply because the variation in solar energy input from Milankovich cycles is insufficient to account for the observed temperature changes, so there must be an amplification mechanism. Greenhouse gases provide an amplification mechanism by allowing that extra solar energy to be trapped near the surface, and there needs to be a mechanism to adjust greenhouse gas concentrations. The "heart beat" pattern of the Vostok temperature data shows that there are several such mechanisms at work, with differing response times and magnitudes. There's no way to get the complex pattern observed from only one mechanism (eg: Milankovich) or two (eg: Milankovich with single source CO2 amplification).
quote:
Look at the Vostok graph, the time lag for CO2 is c800 years. CO2 has nothing at all to do with driving these dramatic global warming interglacials for the last million of years. It's an effect.
quote:Alan, please, AGW does not understand CO2. AGW can keep pretending that CO2 does all these things, but it has never been able to show it has any such effect. And then it wonders why none of its models have never been able to match historic data.., none have ever been able to predict the future climate.. Because it's giving CO2 qualities and abilities it just does not possess.
Look at Vostok more carefully. The peak of CO2 concentration lags behind the start of the interglacial by c800 years. Which means that the largest CO2 source operates with a response time of upto 800 years. There's one source we know of with that response time - deep ocean currents that hold CO2 when cold and release it when warmer and circulate with periods of 100s of years. But, remember what I said earlier. There are several CO2 sources with different response times. All it takes is for some of those sources to respond very much quicker and amplify the Milankovich driving signal. Science is pretty much there on understanding the natural cycle - not quite there enough to be able to predict exactly how long interglacials will last, it's not as clear how CO2 concentrations fall to allow an interglacial to end as it is how they rise to start interglacials.
quote:
That's our Carbon Life Cycle, we are carbon life forms, CO2 is our food.
It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
quote:As I said, I'm not going to continue arguing this ridiculous AGW CO2 with you past this post. Keeling had to throw out all the data which showed it wasn't as you say, the only reason you think it is, is because he created another CO2 from cherry picking his data.
And, we've covered that ground too. CO2 is a constituent of air not some seperate part that can be easily seperated by simple diffusion. In a still air column, given sufficient time, there will be a slight increase in CO2 concentrations at the bottom compared to the top. But, the atmosphere is rarely a still column of air. So, such partial differentiation doesn't happen.
quote:I recognise (all too well) the provocation, Martin, and the (probably) humourous intent. But please don't go there again, Shipmate. A line cross is a line cross. There is a thread in Hell if you really need it.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
She's a witch, she floats! BURN HER!!
quote:That's simply because science knows that CO2 does not behave in the way you claim. Constituent molecules of the atmosphere do not spontaneously seperate into seperate layers based on their molecular mass. That goes for oxygen, nitrogen, argon etc as well as CO2. Mixed gases simply do not behave that way except under very unusual conditions - such as totally still air conditions that last for days.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
quote:An excellent summary of a clear and thought-provoking analysis.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
quote:Seconded. Great post.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:An excellent summary of a clear and thought-provoking analysis.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
quote:So you keep saying. Even when I have shown you proof to the contrary.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That's simply because science knows that CO2 does not behave in the way you claim. Constituent molecules of the atmosphere do not spontaneously seperate into seperate layers based on their molecular mass. That goes for oxygen, nitrogen, argon etc as well as CO2. Mixed gases simply do not behave that way except under very unusual conditions - such as totally still air conditions that last for days.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
quote:Again, you're making claims that there is still some "well mixed local atmosphere" without proof (and in the "experiment" as you described in your post).
CO2 that's produced in large quantities very rapidly (eg: in volcanic eruptions or some industrial processes such as fermentation) can produce local atmospheres (ie: the air in the room, mine, other enclosed place) with enhanced concentrations of CO2, even at toxic levels. But, we're still talking about a well mixed local atmosphere.
quote:Ah, but it is the small variations which have such piquancy! A bit like Pachelbel's Canon .. No - come to think of it, nothing at all like Pachelbel's Canon.
Originally posted by ken:
Deja vu all over again. We had pretty much exactly the same thread a while back, with the much same participants rising to Myrrh's infodump of the same fictional pseudoscience.
quote:The thing I noticed was that your calculations assumed an even density for the whole 100km.
Originally posted by BroJames:
Hmm, yes, you are right. Do you think anyone has noticed? I should have said 39 metres. The difference is neither here nor there really for me as I am a non-flying biped who requires oxygen to stay alive and I am only about 1.93m tall!
quote:On an earlier thread I did reassure people that they would not be asphyxiated by CO2 if they visited the Dead Sea as indicated by Myrrh's science. Myrrh said she had survived the trip too.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I think Myrhh may have missed that lesson, along with the one about basic observation, the exam for which goes as follows:
Question 1: Do you leave at the bottom of a 39m layer of CO2?
Question 2: If you do, what the hell are you breathing?
Question 3: And why aren't you dead?
quote:Been there, done that, Honest Ron. Plus PV =rT, Boyle's Law etc. Last thread for sure, probably the one before as well. There is a certain imperviousness on these points, with wriggling associated with the use of terms like "ideal gas" etc.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Can someone please come and pinch me? - I'd like some proof it's not all a bad dream.
Did they stop teaching the kinetic theory of gases at school?
quote:And you're all so much in agreement with each other that your grasp of science is better than mine..
Originally posted by BroJames:
Myrrh. Approximately 0.039% of the atmosphere by volume is CO2, and the atmosphere is approximately 100km thick. If you are correct about the behaviour of CO2 then the bottom 3-4km of the atmosphere would be pure CO2. (And we would all die.) Why, in your view, does this not take place?
quote:At last! An explanation for much of the content of this thread!
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you talk to your pot plant it will thank you for it by growing stronger and healthier ..
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:? When have I ever said anything even remotely like that?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You still haven't explained how you're still alive when you're breathing 100% CO2 every time you're not in an airplane or skyscraper.
Please do.
quote:Explain then how when CO2 sinks below oxygen, and we have enough CO2 to cover the first ~40 meters above the ground, and you can still breathe oxygen while being near the very bottom of that. Rephrased - how there actually *is* oxygen in sufficient quantity at ground level despite it being displaced by CO2 as you claim.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:? When have I ever said anything even remotely like that?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You still haven't explained how you're still alive when you're breathing 100% CO2 every time you're not in an airplane or skyscraper.
Please do.
You lot are really beginning to annoy me with your straw men arguments, as nonsensical as the rest of AGW fantasy. And that includes you Martin, I have never said that.
quote:Is nitrogen heavier than air, or lighter than air? How about oxygen?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide however is not Hydrogen, Carbon Dioxide is Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is one and a half times heavier than than air. It is not bouyant in air. It is not a molecule of Hydrogen which is lighter than air, it is a molecule of something different which is heavier than air and therefore not bouyant in air like Hydrogen. Carbon Dioxide is a gas which is denser than air. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, therefore it sinks.
quote:I have to stop you there. They've never substantiated this 1896 claim. Whenever data is requested for any of their claims based on it and which they say confirms it, it is withheld or reluctantly produced already edited. It has taken some checking the science to resort to invoking the freedom of information act in both US and Britain.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
OK, I can see the argument you are making Myrrh, and I think it's a rational one, but I don't think it goes far enough. Can I summarise, to make sure we are on the same page?
AGW proponents claim that rising CO2 causes greenhouse effect which causes rising temperatures (based on some physics from 1896). They point to the temperature record which shows a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 over the last 400K years.
quote:The answer is simpler than that. The model isn't good enough because they create their own reality about CO2 first. The models can be tweaked to pretend they fit some of the data, (I posted something from I think NOAA last year, where they admitted because they got some property of something wrong it meant all their models of the past 30 years were junk), but that has been their method of choice throughout this saga. Their results, their models, their temperature figures and their projections can't be trusted because they are cherry picked to bolster a pre-conceived notion.
The Vostok data shows that the start of the CO2 rise lags the starts of the temperature rise by ~800 years. Thus the CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature changes - it is more likely to be the result of the temperature changes.
That's a reasonable argument. To say that temperature drives CO2 is a model - a very symple model, but a model nonetheless. It also fits some of the data. We like simple models - Occam's razor tells us that if we have two models which fit the data equally well, we should pick the simpler one.
So, why is there any debate? The problem is that the model isn't good enough. The lag is present at the beginning of recent deglaciations, but only at the beginning. Why? Also, if temperature drives CO2, what drives temperature?
quote:Oh blast, I did spot something about this in passing and can't find it now..
That's where orbital precession and the amount of sun hitting the earth comes in. This graph of the Vostok data adds that into to the plots - at the bottom.
But that doesn't work either: the variation of insolation is far smaller than the variation in temperature, and doesn't show the big glacial/interglacial cycles. The only correlation is that each deglaciation is preceded by a peak in insolation.
quote:Yes, but. I'm not having an 'intuitive' argument. I'm being very practical here. I'm insisting that any claims made are made in real physics in the real world and with real data.
So we've got several simple models, and all of them are wrong. Why? Because we've oversimplified. If A and B vary together, it is tempting to say that A causes B or B causes A. But it could be that both are caused by C, or both are interelated with other variables in some much more complex way.
Unfortunately that means we need a more complex model. At which point intuitive arguments like the one we are having here become insufficient.
quote:that when you or a.n.other produce data from such a source as you've done here, I simply can't take it seriously. It is no longer worth wasting my time on it, I know that, because I have gone through so many such and the sheer deceit involved in many obvious and many subtle ways in the detail takes way too long to correct.
So how do we make a better model? There are two approaches:
- A statistical model, where we just take as many datsets as we can and try to find the relationships by working out how to combine them in different ways.
- A physical model, where we try and model the processes involved using our knowledge of basic physics.
We can do both. Here is a paper about a statistical model. More recently people have been making physical models which actually fit the data too.
quote:You see, from your "but which in turn triggers both CO2 release and albedo changes which causes further warming" is an acceptance of effects which have not only not been proved, but have been shown to be illusory and created out of an agenda and not out of scientific analysis.
And what do the models say? The physical models which best fit the data are those in which deglaciation is triggered by a peak in insolation, but which in turn triggers both CO2 release and albedo changes which causes further warming. That's what climate scientists actually believe happened. And now we see that the characterisation at the top - that CO2 drives temperature - was wrong. The actual claim of climate scientists is that CO2 and temperature are interrelated as part of a complex system with nonlinear feedbacks.
quote:What we want, those who are fed up with the con, is for these conmen to be dismissed from having any credibilty to represent science.
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
quote:Yeah, the 1896 claim is bogus. The physics was known at least 50 years before that. Here is an easy to read and understand history of the development of the science starting in the 1820s.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:I have to stop you there. They've never substantiated this 1896 claim.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
(based on some physics from 1896
quote:I think this may be where you are going wrong.
Even one example of forged data in any scientific field would be enough to discredit such work, except in this.
quote:actually, what he said was this
As Bush said, although probably something he heard rather than an original thought: you can fool most of the people some of time, and it's those we need to concentrate on.
quote:Clearly you accept virtually nothing in the article as being accurate, since I've repeated many of the arguments here (on this thread and previously) and you've not accepted them as valid. Is it just because you consider Keeling to be a "junk scientist" (a largely unsubstantiated claim that's going to be disputed by many people) that you seem to have dismissed the article as irrelevant? Or, do you consider the American Institute of Physics to be part of the conspiracy to get more funding for climate science (and, to the extent that climate science does get funding - ie: not very much which is why many UK university environmental science groups are shedding jobs at the moment - it's at the expense of other areas of science, including physics, which makes it a rather strange thing for a physics organisation to do).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I read that piece rather a long time ago.
...
Keeling, mentioned at the very beginning of the piece, was a junk scientist.
quote:And therefore ... what? Presumably you think that means CO2 can't be well-mixed in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air..
quote:And your intervention is presumably neither self-regarding, deliberate or provocative?
Originally posted by aumbry:
it is about a few self regarding people deliberately provoking Myrrh into an endless pointless argument.
quote:I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
quote:Myrrh, you appear to have completely missed the fact that the hydrogen in a hydrogen balloon IS CONFINED IN A BALLOON.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When Hydrogen is described in real physics as being lighter than air, do any of you have a problem understanding what this means? Think Hydrogen balloons. That Hydrogen is bouyant in air is because it is lighter than air, it is bouyant in air because it is less dense than air.
quote:Well, not true in the sense that Myrrh claims. A confined body of pure CO2 (or air enriched in CO2), say in a balloon, will be heavier than air and sink to the ground unless it's heated so that it has a lower density than air. But, that's a function of density of pure gases rather than the molecular weight of individual molecules (although they are correlated).
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
quote:Martin, I gave you an example from my own life's experiences, that a candle we put on a grave when we gathered to remember someone we loved dearly kept getting blown out completely by the gusty wind, and then from being completely out, and do count 15 + elephants to get a grip on the timing, it re-lit itself, and this happened many times, which shows, to me, there are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What about the fraud in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
when I see such work take for granted that AGW science is real, because its not in their field and they take it on trust, and so the thinking goes awry.quote:Yes. I got all that the first time. Probably back in high school.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Well, not true in the sense that Myrrh claims. A confined body of pure CO2 (or air enriched in CO2), say in a balloon, will be heavier than air and sink to the ground unless it's heated so that it has a lower density than air. But, that's a function of density of pure gases rather than the molecular weight of individual molecules (although they are correlated).
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
What Myrrh has repeatedly claimed is that CO2 molecules, being heavier than most other molecules in the atmosphere, will experience a greater gravitational force and hence have a greater concentration at the surface compared to higher in the atmosphere, to the extent of "pooling" near the surface. Though it is true that in a still column of air, gravity will work that way to increase the concentrations of heavier molecules at the base of the column, the time taken for any significant increase in concentration is very long. Plus, even if the air wasn't disturbed by external forces (eg: wind), there still won't be a pool of CO2 at the bottom because convection will still provide a mixing mechanism within the column (think of something akin to a laval lamp, except in air the individual molecules don't seperate out in the way that the different liquids in a lava lamp are kept seperated by surface tension of the drops).
quote:Sorry, this is total rubbish. The primary reason for having stomata on the bottom of leaves is to prevent water loss.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The carbon life cycle exists because Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. It comes to the ground and plant life came into existance and formed as it did because it did this. (Not going into evolutionary theory argument here..).
Plants take in Carbon Dioxide from the underside of their leaves because this is where they find it in greatest abundance, as winds and heat waft it up around them. Except for those plants like water lilies which take it in from the top of their leaves. Adaptations are not random.
quote:Um, but my position on plant stomata has nothing to do with global warming at all. The only reason you see it as being related to global warming is that YOU are requiring stomata to support your CO2 argument.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you keep looking at life the universe and everything through AGW glasses there is zilch chance that any conclusions you make will be anything but fiction.
So, 'this isn't the same thing as heavier than air', and 'the main reason is to avoid water loss'..
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks.
Knowing this, we can use the information to think about and solve real life situations.
For example, an exchange here: Where shall I put it?
Myrrh
quote:and
Plants take in Carbon Dioxide from the underside of their leaves because this is where they find it in greatest abundance,
quote:are both true - um - why doesn't it fall out?
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks
quote:If CO2 always sinks, and if CO2 accounts for, say 500 parts per million in the atmosphere ...
Originally posted by Myrrh:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks.
quote:Because the plants breathe in REALLY HARD and suck the CO2 up, and then they hold their breath.
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh - if:
quote:and
Plants take in Carbon Dioxide from the underside of their leaves because this is where they find it in greatest abundance,
quote:are both true - um - why doesn't it fall out?
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks
Why doesn't the CO2 just fall out of the stomata on the bottom of the leaves (except water-lilies, of course)?
quote:Yes, why the hell am I breathing a mixture of around 21% oxygen? Surely I should be either breathing pure oxygen or none at all, depending on if I've hit the right altitude - both of which I understood were rather bad for me...
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well why also doesn't the air around us separate into layers of oxygen, nitrogen, C02 and water-vapour? With all manner of pollutants as thin, clearly visible smokey layers around the floor?
quote:What you actually mean is "Pure CO2 that is kept separated from air, and prevented from mixing with air (eg by being in a CO2-filled balloon) is heavier than air. In air it always sinks."
Originally posted by orfeo:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks.
quote:Sorry, I thought I'd tested it.
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Is that link broken, Myrrh?
quote:I am definitely heavier than a hamburger, if that helps.
Anne - perhaps because the plant's mechanism for absorption is greater than anything the molecule can do to resist?
What resistance does your hamburger have against you picking it up and taking a bite?
quote:I am not sure of your position on this ... I understood you to be claiming the opposite. The consensus in this document on gases is that, basically, they mix. Did you read it and understand it to claim there would be a significant gas density gradient?
It is popularly misconceived that light (low-density) gases will somehow
float atop heavy (higher density) gases. Indeed, if the higher density gas
was admitted low in the room, and done so in a manner that would not cause
much mixing, it would take a while for the gases to become thoroughly
mixed by the mechanisms mentioned above. Even so, they would eventually mix.
quote:Wait, this a new and exciting strategy: expecting the sources Myrrh links to to actually agree with her!
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Myrrh,
Intriguingly, the link you posted contains the following contribution on the mixing of gases:
quote:I am not sure of your position on this ... I understood you to be claiming the opposite. The consensus in this document on gases is that, basically, they mix. Did you read it and understand it to claim there would be a significant gas density gradient?
It is popularly misconceived that light (low-density) gases will somehow
float atop heavy (higher density) gases. Indeed, if the higher density gas
was admitted low in the room, and done so in a manner that would not cause
much mixing, it would take a while for the gases to become thoroughly
mixed by the mechanisms mentioned above. Even so, they would eventually mix.
quote:And better yet, you have muscles. Something plants generally tend to lack.
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh, you ask:
quote:I am definitely heavier than a hamburger, if that helps.
Anne - perhaps because the plant's mechanism for absorption is greater than anything the molecule can do to resist?
What resistance does your hamburger have against you picking it up and taking a bite?
quote:where the [snip] represents a lot of stuff that neglects these previously asked questions:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
DaveW - its the first important example of how AGW has created a different CO2 from reality.
[snip]
Myrrh
quote:Care to give these a shot, Myrrh?
But what about oxygen and nitrogen? Do you know whether they are heavier or lighter than air?
quote:My position on this is as I've said. To remind that AGWCO2 does not exist in the real world, and, it is important in the real world to know the REALC02 to be able to think logically in the real world about the real CO2, to solve real problems. Did you read it to the end?
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Myrrh,
Intriguingly, the link you posted contains the following contribution on the mixing of gases:
quote:I am not sure of your position on this ... I understood you to be claiming the opposite. The consensus in this document on gases is that, basically, they mix. Did you read it and understand it to claim there would be a significant gas density gradient?
It is popularly misconceived that light (low-density) gases will somehow
float atop heavy (higher density) gases. Indeed, if the higher density gas
was admitted low in the room, and done so in a manner that would not cause
much mixing, it would take a while for the gases to become thoroughly
mixed by the mechanisms mentioned above. Even so, they would eventually mix.
quote:And, your position is still complete and utter BOLLOCKS. I've been talking about real CO2 in the atmosphere. You've generally been talking about the behaviour of pure CO2 gas in the artificial environments of confined places (and, I might add, that in that specific circumstance you've been largely correct - if you release a large quantity of CO2 into a confined space with limited air movement it will initially pool before it diffuses out of the confinement and mixes with the greater atmosphere), and then assuming that that behaviour is reversible. I'm sorry, but very few processes are reversible ... you can't unmix gases without putting in a lot of energy. That's basic thermodynamics.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My position on this is as I've said. To remind that AGWCO2 does not exist in the real world, and, it is important in the real world to know the REALC02 to be able to think logically in the real world about the real CO2, to solve real problems.
quote:Yes, I did. And, in addition to the statement that gases mix rapidly I found the bit where it said that CO2 produced in a malfunctioning furnace concentrates at ground level. I assume that's what you wanted us to see. And, again, no one here has ever denied that if you produce a large volume of CO2 it'll initially pool before it mixes with the atmosphere. In most cases that mixing will be very quick, but if the amount of CO2 is very large or the source ongoing then ground level concentrations can increase with a 'pool' of CO2 enriched air (though, of course, not pure CO2).
Did you read it to the end?
quote:I'm not sure of where you get the thousands of years claim. Most CO2 we produce (whether from breathing or burning fuel) is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, ie: within days. A lot of that then gets back into circulation on different timescales - most sinks absorb and release CO2 at different times (water will take in more CO2 when cold, say at night, and release it when it warms up. Likewise plants photosynthesise CO2 during the day but often respire CO2 at night), though rarely the same CO2 molecules that were initially absorbed. I'm not sure if the residence time of individual molecules is relevant anyway. Over half of the anthropogenic CO2 is rapidly removed, permanently, from the atmosphere into assorted sinks - increased plant growth, absorbed into oceans etc. The rest has a mean residence time which, if my memory recalls correctly (there's a link I posted on one of the earlier threads) for a timescale of decades, a couple of centuries at most.
AGW claims that Carbon Dioxide 'stays up in the atmosphere for thousands of years even' and 'is well-mixed' and so on and on, are nonsense in the real world.
quote:A large source of CO2 may allow a 'pool' of CO2 enriched air to form. But, CO2 will not spontaneously seperate out from air to create a layer of pure CO2 on the floor - or even a pool of significantly CO2 enriched air. The sort of pooling you seem to be consistently suggesting does not happen in the real world. I challenge your Google-fu to find any example of CO2 pooling from the atmosphere (not an example of an extra-atmospheric source of CO2, like a volcano or fermentation tank, but the CO2 coming straight out of the air). You're convinced it happens, there must be at least one example of it actually happening.
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and it pools
quote:Oxygen is also heavier than air - does it "pool"?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
AGW claims that Carbon Dioxide 'stays up in the atmosphere for thousands of years even' and 'is well-mixed' and so on and on, are nonsense in the real world. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and it pools, as I have consistently argued here, it cannot do the things that AGW says it can. AGW has created a completely different CO2 in a physical world which bears no relation to this, our down to earth physical reality.
(The bold is directed to some here, not specifically for you.)
quote:This all happened before on this exact same topic. Myrrh did various internet searches for soundbites that sounded like the sort of thing Myrrh wanted to say, and then linked to them. Quite a lot of them in fact made the opposite point. Now all we get is a rehash of the same kind of irrelevant links - some of the very some ones IIRC.
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
The consensus in this document on gases is that, basically, they mix. Did you read it and understand it to claim there would be a significant gas density gradient?
quote:Prove it!!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, your position is still complete and utter BOLLOCKS. I've been talking about real CO2 in the atmosphere. You've generally been talking about the behaviour of pure CO2 gas in the artificial environments of confined places (and, I might add, that in that specific circumstance you've been largely correct - if you release a large quantity of CO2 into a confined space with limited air movement it will initially pool before it diffuses out of the confinement and mixes with the greater atmosphere), and then assuming that that behaviour is reversible. I'm sorry, but very few processes are reversible ... you can't unmix gases without putting in a lot of energy. That's basic thermodynamics.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My position on this is as I've said. To remind that AGWCO2 does not exist in the real world, and, it is important in the real world to know the REALC02 to be able to think logically in the real world about the real CO2, to solve real problems.
quote:
Did you read it to the end?
quote:Which is why I gave an exchange from real life, from real scientists thinking through a problem in which knowledge of the REAL properties of CO2 are critical. Where to position a detector for CO has to take into consideration the propety of CO2 produced in this scenario because it can effectively block sensing of CO if the position is too low.
Yes, I did. And, in addition to the statement that gases mix rapidly I found the bit where it said that CO2 produced in a malfunctioning furnace concentrates at ground level. I assume that's what you wanted us to see. And, again, no one here has ever denied that if you produce a large volume of CO2 it'll initially pool before it mixes with the atmosphere. In most cases that mixing will be very quick, but if the amount of CO2 is very large or the source ongoing then ground level concentrations can increase with a 'pool' of CO2 enriched air (though, of course, not pure CO2).
quote:
AGW claims that Carbon Dioxide 'stays up in the atmosphere for thousands of years even' and 'is well-mixed' and so on and on, are nonsense in the real world.
quote:As I quoted, according to AGW scientists this is a given, 'it is well known that some man-made CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for thousands of years' and one sees this figure, could be hundreds, could be a thousand, whatever, it's man-made or just CO2, but anyway it's like your initial claim here, unproven codswallop. Not making any sense in its parts. Something bandied about by AGWers without proof, but, as I've shown above, is obviously nonsense because it creates a different property for CO2. Which I'm now calling this AGWC02, because claims made for it are whatever AGW want it to be for whatever argument they're having. What is consistent, is that they have to ignore the real properties of CO2 in making these claims.
I'm not sure of where you get the thousands of years claim. Most CO2 we produce (whether from breathing or burning fuel) is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, ie: within days.
quote:Or they say, 'a couple of hundred years at most', or similar.
A lot of that then gets back into circulation on different timescales - most sinks absorb and release CO2 at different times (water will take in more CO2 when cold, say at night, and release it when it warms up. Likewise plants photosynthesise CO2 during the day but often respire CO2 at night), though rarely the same CO2 molecules that were initially absorbed. I'm not sure if the residence time of individual molecules is relevant anyway. Over half of the anthropogenic CO2 is rapidly removed, permanently, from the atmosphere into assorted sinks - increased plant growth, absorbed into oceans etc. The rest has a mean residence time which, if my memory recalls correctly (there's a link I posted on one of the earlier threads) for a timescale of decades, a couple of centuries at most.
quote:Oh right, so we live in a constantly turbulent atmosphere do we? So turbulent and so consistently so that it maintains CO2 well-mixed and evenly diffused throughout? Like being in a permanent washing machine cycle?
As for "well mixed". We've covered that. In a real atmosphere where there is convection and wind, there is no way in which gases in the atmosphere can be anything other than well mixed. There may be local spots where mixing is less - where there's some confinement of some description that includes a source of a gas, or in some way prevents a gas from entering. Those local spots don't need to be fully confined like a mine or building, they can be partially confined like a volcanic crater (especially if the weather creates a temperature inversion).
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and it pools
quote:It's its property to do so. In large concentrated amounts it is known as pooling.
A large source of CO2 may allow a 'pool' of CO2 enriched air to form. But, CO2 will not spontaneously seperate out from air to create a layer of pure CO2 on the floor - or even a pool of significantly CO2 enriched air. The sort of pooling you seem to be consistently suggesting does not happen in the real world. I challenge your Google-fu to find any example of CO2 pooling from the atmosphere (not an example of an extra-atmospheric source of CO2, like a volcano or fermentation tank, but the CO2 coming straight out of the air). You're convinced it happens, there must be at least one example of it actually happening.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Context is all.
In real life what CO2 does depends on its actual properties in actual situations according to actual behavioural laws.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Given time? How much time? We've had an atmosphere for as long as I can remember - shouldn't that separation have happened by now?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How did the CO2 in Alan's hypothesis get to be "diffused out"?
Nothing's changed. The Carbon Dioxide is still sitting on the ground displacing the Oxygen and Nitrogen in the air, which therefore, means that there is now a distinct edge between the Carbon Dioxide in its pool on the ground and the rest of the air which is 20/80 O/N and some Argon and trace other bits.
And so it will stay. Until conditions change to change it.
(And yes, given time, the Oxygen being slightly heavier than Nitrogen will also separate out.)
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I challenge your Google-fu to find any example of CO2 pooling from the atmosphere (not an example of an extra-atmospheric source of CO2, like a volcano or fermentation tank, but the CO2 coming straight out of the air). You're convinced it happens, there must be at least one example of it actually happening.
quote:Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
quote:But you claimed that heavier-than-air oxygen spontaneously separates out from lighter-than-air nitrogen, and that clearly isn't true (otherwise this 18th century French guy could have saved himself a lot of work), so why is the burden all on Alan?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
You proposed (supported) a theory, you have to show the workings out for your theory.
Your claim so you prove it.
quote:True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
Originally posted by Orfeo:
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
quote:Yes it does..
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
quote:Ahem, I'm the one saying AGW claims are bullshit. Therefore, when AGWclaims are made by AGWsupporters I am the one asking for proof.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:But you claimed that heavier-than-air oxygen spontaneously separates out from lighter-than-air nitrogen, and that clearly isn't true (otherwise this 18th century French guy could have saved himself a lot of work), so why is the burden all on Alan?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
You proposed (supported) a theory, you have to show the workings out for your theory.
Your claim so you prove it.
quote:It covered an aspect of this AGWScience it intended to cover, extremely well I thought.
(Oh, and by the way - your most recent link says absolutely nothing about the terrible conspiracy to fake CO2 concentration measurements, or that its heavier-than-air properties alone drive a stake through the heart of AGW. Kind of a surprising omission, isn't it? Don't these junkscience.com people know anything about how your non-AGW CO2 is supposed to behave?)
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
quote:Please, do read my reply to Orfeo.
True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
quote:That's odd. It shows CO2 rising upwards out of container! I guess the effect of diffusion must overcome gravity in gaseous states. I'll have to admit I was wrong about heavier gases pooling.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...this page is fun ... and has a great picture!
quote:The point is that AGW theory has been falsified in all its parts.
Originally posted by ken:
Myrrh, why are you doing this? You are far too clever for use to believe that you really believe the mendacious self-contradictory nonsense in that last post - or at any rather the person who posts under your name on some other threads is to clever to believe it. You seem to have taken it on yourself to spout lies about science in some weird campaign against Alan. What's the point?
quote:An explanation of why this con started back at least 200 years ago is still in order.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I think this is important, because I don't believe the first.
Myrrh
quote:Your claims would have us believe that heavier gases always settle below lighter ones, which is clearly false.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Ahem, I'm the one saying AGW claims are bullshit. Therefore, when AGWclaims are made by AGWsupporters I am the one asking for proof.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:But you claimed that heavier-than-air oxygen spontaneously separates out from lighter-than-air nitrogen, and that clearly isn't true (otherwise this 18th century French guy could have saved himself a lot of work), so why is the burden all on Alan?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
You proposed (supported) a theory, you have to show the workings out for your theory.
Your claim so you prove it.
quote:Yeah, it's a mixture - that's the point. It doesn't separate out. If gases behaved the way you think they do, we could not be surrounded by a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. We clearly are, so obviously your thinking is wrong.
As for Oxygen spontaneously separating out from Nitrogen because it is heavier than air, although I don't recall putting it quite like that, you also have to bear in mind that Nitrogen is 3% lighter than air, so it's more a case of them separating out from each other...
As for Lavoisier, he proved that air was a mixture of Nitrogen and Oxygen and not 'one thing' as had been thought before. So what exactly is your point?
quote:I've given you an example of an entire class of gases which are much heavier than both air and CO2, and which are clearly able to diffuse upward (and in every other direction) in still air, a fact which is readily verifiable to anyone in the possession of a functioning sense of smell.
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).quote:Please, do read my reply to Orfeo.
True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
And the same applies to you here, by saying this you are claiming something other than the very well known fact of it in the real world and very well known to real science. So my challenge - prove it.
Myrrh
quote:I've been paying attention, thanks. I'm perfectly happy that CO2 *does* pool in a number of limited circumstances. But once again it's your technique of reasoning by generalisation that falls flat on its face: the fact that CO2 pools in certain circumstances does NOT mean that CO2 pools in all circumstances, and most crucially it does NOT mean that it pools in the general atmosphere.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Yes it does..
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
That's why I know when someone is talking bollocks, when they say it doesn't.
Real life, fact, has lots of examples of Carbon Dioxide pooling on the ground, lots and lots and lots.
And lots.
From observation.
I've given you numerous examples here. To continue saying it doesn't is not paying attention.
quote:The examples you have given have all been cases where there is a large source of CO2, that allows a local increase in CO2 concentration that is in same way contained (which is something we all know happens - it's why we need CO2 monitors in mines, breweries etc to ensure we know if CO2 concentrations are reaching toxic levels). You've not shown that this demonstrates pooling of CO2, rather than just pooling of a local air mass that contains more CO2 than the average for the global atmosphere. And, you still haven't given an example of CO2 seperating out of air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Real life, fact, has lots of examples of Carbon Dioxide pooling on the ground, lots and lots and lots.
And lots.
From observation.
I've given you numerous examples here.
quote:?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The examples you have given have all been cases where there is a large source of CO2, that allows a local increase in CO2 concentration that is in same way contained (which is something we all know happens - it's why we need CO2 monitors in mines, breweries etc to ensure we know if CO2 concentrations are reaching toxic levels). You've not shown that this demonstrates pooling of CO2, rather than just pooling of a local air mass that contains more CO2 than the average for the global atmosphere. And, you still haven't given an example of CO2 seperating out of air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Real life, fact, has lots of examples of Carbon Dioxide pooling on the ground, lots and lots and lots.
And lots.
From observation.
I've given you numerous examples here.
quote:Don't you read my explanations? Or are you merely distracting? Or, seriously, don't you understand?
So, here we go again ...
I challenge your Google-fu to find any example of CO2 pooling from the atmosphere (not an example of an extra-atmospheric source of CO2, like a volcano or fermentation tank, but the CO2 coming straight out of the air). You're convinced it happens, there must be at least one example of it actually happening.
quote:Oh no, please, please not the no dinosaurs and no moon landing conspiracy theories. The 9/11 nonsense was bad enough, but I can't take more crackpot theories being given validation. Don't even tempt someone to go down those paths.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Interesting fellow, David P Wozney; no dinosaurs (fossils have been made up from chicken bones), no moon landings either.
quote:Then don't follow Myrrh's Carbon Dioxide quotes.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:Oh no, please, please not the no dinosaurs and no moon landing conspiracy theories. The 9/11 nonsense was bad enough, but I can't take more crackpot theories being given validation. Don't even tempt someone to go down those paths.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Interesting fellow, David P Wozney; no dinosaurs (fossils have been made up from chicken bones), no moon landings either.
quote:
Yes, volcanic gas can be harmful to humans, animals, plants, agricultural crops, and property. Usually, the hazards from volcanic gases are restricted to the areas immediately surrounding volcanic vents and fumaroles and to low spots on the flanks of volcanoes. But these hazards can sometimes persist for long distances downwind from a volcano.
Health hazards can range from minor to life threatening. ... One of the most serious hazards occurs when volcanoes emit large quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and collects in low spots, displacing air in these locations. Hundreds of people have died of carbon dioxide asphyxiation near volcanoes in the past two decades, most of them in Cameroon, Africa, and in Indonesia.
Volcanic Gas
quote:Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
Usually the large amounts of carbon dioxide released by Kilauea get dispersed by winds so we can breathe nice, healthy, oxygen-rich air on the caldera floor.
Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn't readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas. In the summit caldera these areas include underground openings, such as lava tubes, pits, and underground vaults. In such places, simple filter masks cannot protect individuals from asphyxiation.
..
So what's causing the high CO2 levels in Kilauea caldera?
Don't daydream in low-lying places in Kilauea caldera
quote:The difference is she believes climate change is a conspiracy theory, not that she's expounding on a conspiracy theory. It's interesting watching her try to prove it, even if the science is just as wacky.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then don't follow Myrrh's Carbon Dioxide quotes.
quote:"is observed" - Show.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This may be of use to somebody.
...
CO2 (MW = 44) is observed to mix with air by molecular diffusion in a fairly short time. It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions.
quote:Well, have we all asphyxiated yet? That strikes me as a reasonably easy one to test...
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions." - Prove.
quote:Your examples, including the references to volcanoes you just posted, are all about volumes of gas enriched in CO2 being released into confined spaces (which would include the 'open air' when there's no wind to rapidly disperse the new volume of gas), and doing exactly what everyone here agrees such a volume of gas will do ... sink towards the ground and pool in low lying spots.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
quote:Not attached. Part of. When a volcano belches out gas, it's a well mixed volume of gas that includes CO2, various sulphur and nitrogen compounds, nitrogen, argon ... probably not much oxygen. That volume of gas behaves a bit like a leaky bubble - there'll be diffusion from the edges with the volcanic gases leaking into the greater atmosphere, and atmospheric gases leaking in, that will eventually cause the volume of gas to disperse as it mixes with the greater atmosphere. In the time it takes for that diffusion to completely disperse the volume of gas it behaves as a seperate body of gas, sinking towards the ground (unless the proportion of heavier molecules is relatively low and it's significantly warmer than the surrounding air, in which case it will rise like a hot air balloon). Simple physics, that doesn't require CO2 to exhibit the novel properties that you consistently claim for it.
Just how do you propose that CO2 is 'attached' to some "local air mass" that it brings this down with it when it sinks?
quote:Go to your library. Borrow a copy of the text books for physics and chemistry used in the local schools. It's all there. You can do lots of very simple experiments to demonstrate diffusion. Some have been mentioned in this thread. Or, you can just do a thought experiment.
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
quote:The balloon is cheating. It keeps the outbreathed air separate from the air around it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
quote:I think I may have done so. It all started with too many chilli, with the requisite beans, last night. With the inevitable result this morning. First there was the event itself, which was fortunately of the silent variety. And then it registered on my nose, which is located rather higher than my, well, lower parts. And then, by their expressions, it registered on the noses of my colleagues.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
quote:And the balloon itself weighs something. It falls even if you use a balloon pump rather than "heavy" exhaled air.
Originally posted by ken:
The balloon is cheating. It keeps the outbreathed air separate from the air around it.
quote:Concentration perhaps?
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Well, have we all asphyxiated yet? That strikes me as a reasonably easy one to test...
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions." - Prove.
quote:?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Your examples, including the references to volcanoes you just posted, are all about volumes of gas enriched in CO2 being released into confined spaces (which would include the 'open air' when there's no wind to rapidly disperse the new volume of gas), and doing exactly what everyone here agrees such a volume of gas will do ... sink towards the ground and pool in low lying spots.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
I'm still waiting for an example where the trace component CO2 in air seperates out and pools. Because, that's the non-physical behaviour you're attributing to CO2.
quote:
Just how do you propose that CO2 is 'attached' to some "local air mass" that it brings this down with it when it sinks?
quote:Novel properties?! I don't know where to start answering that lot.
Not attached. Part of. When a volcano belches out gas, it's a well mixed volume of gas that includes CO2, various sulphur and nitrogen compounds, nitrogen, argon ... probably not much oxygen. That volume of gas behaves a bit like a leaky bubble - there'll be diffusion from the edges with the volcanic gases leaking into the greater atmosphere, and atmospheric gases leaking in, that will eventually cause the volume of gas to disperse as it mixes with the greater atmosphere. In the time it takes for that diffusion to completely disperse the volume of gas it behaves as a seperate body of gas, sinking towards the ground (unless the proportion of heavier molecules is relatively low and it's significantly warmer than the surrounding air, in which case it will rise like a hot air balloon). Simple physics, that doesn't require CO2 to exhibit the novel properties that you consistently claim for it.
quote:
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
quote:Alan, you make a specific claim about CO2. I have asked you, I've now lost count of how many times, to prove it.
Go to your library. Borrow a copy of the text books for physics and chemistry used in the local schools. It's all there. You can do lots of very simple experiments to demonstrate diffusion. Some have been mentioned in this thread. Or, you can just do a thought experiment.
Imagine you have a pack of cards in which you have seperated the red cards to the top of the pack, and the black to the bottom. Now, start roughly shuffling them by moving blocks of cards from one spot in the deck to another. Initially, the deck will still have blocks of black and red cards. But, it won't take long before there'll be no more than a few cards of the same colour next to each other. What you have just done is demonstrate diffusion, the red and black cards have diffused into each other. Do you think that by continuing to shuffle those cards you'll return to the situation where all the red cards are on top and the black at the bottom? Because that reversal of diffusion is what you think CO2 molecules do in air. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
quote:I do wish you and others here would read for comprehension.
Originally posted by ken:
You've done it again Myrrh - posted links to documents that you claim support your view when in fact one of them is talking about something else entirely and the other one is fine with the standard view.
quote:*YOU* are the one with the coked out ridiculous ideas which run contrary to several hundred years of science in almost every field. Ideas which, if true, would make life impossible on this planet in the forms we see. There is no onus on us to prove anything.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You go to the library. You go to AGW 'authorities'. You do a thought experiment about how that CO2 on the floor can 'diffuse' in the atmosphere.. And come back with an answer. You prove it. Or stop saying it is proven fact.
quote:No, that is not what is happening in any of the examples you have so far posted. All of the CO2 in the examples you've cited has come from a source other than the atmopshere - volcanoes, fermentation in breweries, fire extinguishers etc. In none of the examples you've given has CO2 been removed from the atmopshere (indeed, all of them have added CO2 to the atmosphere as the pool diffuses into the atmosphere).
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Your examples, including the references to volcanoes you just posted, are all about volumes of gas enriched in CO2 being released into confined spaces (which would include the 'open air' when there's no wind to rapidly disperse the new volume of gas), and doing exactly what everyone here agrees such a volume of gas will do ... sink towards the ground and pool in low lying spots.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
I'm still waiting for an example where the trace component CO2 in air seperates out and pools. Because, that's the non-physical behaviour you're attributing to CO2.
I've said it is called pooling when there is sufficient amount of it.
But, that is obviously what is happening, the trace component of air is separating out and moving downwards to earth, together with neighbour CO2 doing the same is called pooling.
quote:In reference to diffusion, I'm making a general claim about gases. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about CO2 diffusing into a nitrogen/oxygen mix, or aromatic compounds (as per the example given about perfume). The gas laws and thermodynamics for any gases mixing are the same. In fact, they hold for non-polar liquids (polar liquids have surface tension effects that complicate things by providing containment). The same physics is used to control diffusion of dopants into solids, without which your computer woudl fail to work. And, also to understand diffusion across membranes, which plant and animal cells rely on to function.
Alan, you make a specific claim about CO2. I have asked you, I've now lost count of how many times, to prove it.
quote:I've done my research..
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:*YOU* are the one with the coked out ridiculous ideas which run contrary to several hundred years of science in almost every field. Ideas which, if true, would make life impossible on this planet in the forms we see. There is no onus on us to prove anything.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You go to the library. You go to AGW 'authorities'. You do a thought experiment about how that CO2 on the floor can 'diffuse' in the atmosphere.. And come back with an answer. You prove it. Or stop saying it is proven fact.
I would say do your own fucking research, but it's a hopeless cause.
quote:So, I was going through the first page of the thread and seeing that it isn't actually your thread, it is Alan's thread, so it is on you to prove your nutjob theories to him, not him to you.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:? America started the nuclear war in 1991.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
NATO haemorrhaging drop by drop in Afghanistan to prevent nuclear war notwithstanding.
Myrrh
quote:This sentence made returning to read this thread today worthwhile.
Originally posted by ken:
Does every molecule come with its own Maxwell's demon escort?
quote:Alan, really, enough. The descriptions have not been about a 'volume of air/gases enriched with CO2' or any of the ways you think to express this, they have been about Carbon Dioxide, specifically.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, that is not what is happening in any of the examples you have so far posted.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Your examples, including the references to volcanoes you just posted, are all about volumes of gas enriched in CO2 being released into confined spaces (which would include the 'open air' when there's no wind to rapidly disperse the new volume of gas), and doing exactly what everyone here agrees such a volume of gas will do ... sink towards the ground and pool in low lying spots.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
I'm still waiting for an example where the trace component CO2 in air seperates out and pools. Because, that's the non-physical behaviour you're attributing to CO2.
I've said it is called pooling when there is sufficient amount of it.
But, that is obviously what is happening, the trace component of air is separating out and moving downwards to earth, together with neighbour CO2 doing the same is called pooling.
quote:Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
All of the CO2 in the examples you've cited has come from a source other than the atmopshere - volcanoes, fermentation in breweries, fire extinguishers etc. In none of the examples you've given has CO2 been removed from the atmopshere (indeed, all of them have added CO2 to the atmosphere as the pool diffuses into the atmosphere).
quote:
Alan, you make a specific claim about CO2. I have asked you, I've now lost count of how many times, to prove it.
quote:Well, so you are...
In reference to diffusion, I'm making a general claim about gases. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about CO2 diffusing into a nitrogen/oxygen mix, or aromatic compounds (as per the example given about perfume). The gas laws and thermodynamics for any gases mixing are the same. In fact, they hold for non-polar liquids (polar liquids have surface tension effects that complicate things by providing containment). The same physics is used to control diffusion of dopants into solids, without which your computer woudl fail to work. And, also to understand diffusion across membranes, which plant and animal cells rely on to function.
We're talking about something that is fundamental to large swathes of science, and largely irrelevant to climate science.
quote:You've just told me they were irrelevant!
And, it's something that's been well understood and studied for centuries. Yet you want to sweep away vast sections of science libraries as totally wrong and existing just to support the science of climate change (despite practically all of the science you want rid of pre-dating climate science by decades if not centuries). And, you still think that I need to prove my position against your crack pot nonsense? Surely it's the person who wishes to overturn centuries of scientific enquiry who needs to bear the burden of proof?
Now, I'm still waiting ...
quote:It happens because we live in a physical world not a fantasy created by AGW. It's common bloody sense.
I challenge your Google-fu to find any example of CO2 pooling from the atmosphere (not an example of an extra-atmospheric source of CO2, like a volcano or fermentation tank, but the CO2 coming straight out of the air). You're convinced it happens, there must be at least one example of it actually happening.
quote:If you use a cotton bud carefully, it might help?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Myrrh,
I'd like to try one more time to show you why CO2 diffuses into the atmosphere, across membranes, etc.
First, I need you to answer a couple of questions, so I know where to start, and how to go about it.
*Why does a gas have pressure?
*In as much detail as you can, how do solids, liquids, and gases differ?
If you can answer these for us, we might better be able to answer your queries from us.
quote:WTF does that have to do w/ anything, or are you trolling?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:If you use a cotton bud carefully, it might help?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Myrrh,
I'd like to try one more time to show you why CO2 diffuses into the atmosphere, across membranes, etc.
First, I need you to answer a couple of questions, so I know where to start, and how to go about it.
*Why does a gas have pressure?
*In as much detail as you can, how do solids, liquids, and gases differ?
If you can answer these for us, we might better be able to answer your queries from us.
Myrrh
quote:Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
The air, the atmosphere, is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
quote:Really, Myrhh, you're hardly in a position to be demanding answers to questions (which Alan has anyway graciously provided) when you yourself are so strikingly unwilling or unable to answer questions about your own peculiar, demonstrably false notions.
Answer my specific questions.
[snip]
I have asked simple, logical, questions, answer them.
quote:? What don't you understand about my explanation, explanations, of why I am participating in this discussion? If you want to learn about science go ask a scientist interested enough to tell you. Otherwise, think about it for yourself.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
The air, the atmosphere, is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
Oxygen is heavier than air.
Argon is heavier than air.
In fact, argon is 1.4 times heavier than air. And there's a lot more argon than there is CO2. So why, pray tell, doesn't the argon separate out?
quote:
Answer my specific questions.
[snip]
I have asked simple, logical, questions, answer them.
quote:Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with. I'm not interested in what his peanut gallery fanclub thinks of me or thinks 'my position'.
Really, Myrhh, you're hardly in a position to be demanding answers to questions (which Alan has anyway graciously provided) when you yourself are so strikingly unwilling or unable to answer questions about your own peculiar, demonstrably false notions.
- You have claimed that oxygen naturally separates out from air - the large number of companies that earn money by performing this very task demonstrates that this is not the case.
- You have claimed that heavier than air gases always "fall down" - the ability to smell perfume molecules (5 times heavier than air) rising from a bottle demonstrates that this is not the case - and with a fresh, lilac scent!
Until you can comprehend how these observations doom your naive beliefs about gases, I fear any physics-based explanations offered you will be for naught.
quote:OK, it isn't really important whether we're talking about pure CO2 or gas that has a higher than normal CO2 content. An extra-atmospheric source of heavier than air gas will initially pool near the ground if conditions are right - ie: if there's some confinement and basically still air. The actual composition of the gas is largely irrelevant, if the gas has a higher density than air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, really, enough. The descriptions have not been about a 'volume of air/gases enriched with CO2' or any of the ways you think to express this, they have been about Carbon Dioxide, specifically.
You're reading something into it that isn't there.
quote:CO2 molecules travel through the air (mostly N2, O2 and Ar). One colelction of molecules travelling through another collection of molecules is called diffusion. And, the arrow of entropy dictates that unless you do some work that motion will always be towards mixing the gases together.
Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
The air, the atmosphere, is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
That is the medium through which carbon dioxide travels.
quote:I'm trying to explain the physics of gases. I don't believe that someone needs to be a scientist to know science, but it probably needs someone to so the teaching. Now, this isn't an ideal medium for teaching science, but I can't just pop over to your house with some equipment and have you run a few experiments in an improvised teaching laboratory, or even borrow the science labs at your local high school (which will have the relevent equipment since the experiments should be part of the pre-16 year old curriculum). So I'm trying to make do with what I have.
Claiming that because I 'don't know them because I'm not a scientist like you, etc. and variations on that theme', that because you say it, it makes your claims in this specific discussion thereby true.
quote:I think you can probably hazard a guess based on previous posting patterns.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
I want to know if there is a point before I start.
quote:C'mon! That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll. Evading a direct question then spouting more eroneous claptrap.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:? What don't you understand about my explanation, explanations, of why I am participating in this discussion? If you want to learn about science go ask a scientist interested enough to tell you. Otherwise, think about it for yourself.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Oxygen is heavier than air.
Argon is heavier than air.
In fact, argon is 1.4 times heavier than air. And there's a lot more argon than there is CO2. So why, pray tell, doesn't the argon separate out?
quote:The topic of your motivations for "participating" in this discussion would be too tangential even for me, I'm afraid. But if you persist in talking nonsense about something I know about, I may persist in calling you on it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:? What don't you understand about my explanation, explanations, of why I am participating in this discussion? If you want to learn about science go ask a scientist interested enough to tell you. Otherwise, think about it for yourself.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Oxygen is heavier than air.
Argon is heavier than air.
In fact, argon is 1.4 times heavier than air. And there's a lot more argon than there is CO2. So why, pray tell, doesn't the argon separate out?
quote:No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
quote:If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged.
quote:To be fair to Myrrh, she's right that a gas heavier than air will sink, if that gas can reasonably be described as confined to a given volume - even if only temporarily. Thus, CO2 enriched gases erupted from a volcano will sink and flow down the sides of the volcano, and even pool in hollows. For the short period of time before the molecules in the gas diffuse into the atmosphere.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
quote:She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
quote:Yes this is important!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, it isn't really important whether we're talking about pure CO2 or gas that has a higher than normal CO2 content. An extra-atmospheric source of heavier than air gas will initially pool near the ground if conditions are right - ie: if there's some confinement and basically still air. The actual composition of the gas is largely irrelevant, if the gas has a higher density than air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, really, enough. The descriptions have not been about a 'volume of air/gases enriched with CO2' or any of the ways you think to express this, they have been about Carbon Dioxide, specifically.
You're reading something into it that isn't there.
quote:
Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
The air, the atmosphere, is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
That is the medium through which carbon dioxide travels.
quote:This is completely ass about tit. Prove it!
CO2 molecules travel through the air (mostly N2, O2 and Ar). One colelction of molecules travelling through another collection of molecules is called diffusion. And, the arrow of entropy dictates that unless you do some work that motion will always be towards mixing the gases together.
quote:
Claiming that because I 'don't know them because I'm not a scientist like you, etc. and variations on that theme', that because you say it, it makes your claims in this specific discussion thereby true.
quote:As am I. The sooner you understand that its the AGW logic masquerading as science I'm having problems with the sooner we'll sort this.
I'm trying to explain the physics of gases. I don't believe that someone needs to be a scientist to know science, but it probably needs someone to so the teaching. Now, this isn't an ideal medium for teaching science, but I can't just pop over to your house with some equipment and have you run a few experiments in an improvised teaching laboratory, or even borrow the science labs at your local high school (which will have the relevent equipment since the experiments should be part of the pre-16 year old curriculum). So I'm trying to make do with what I have.
quote:Such as the above. Which is the nonsense creation of AGWScience now being taught as if it were RealScience. Not the facts of it in effect etc. but because -
There was a reference in one of your posts to CO2 toxicity (sorry, I read it this morning and now can't find it again). CO2 toxicity is unrelated to climate science. Here is a site about CO2 toxicity (sorry, it's rather an untidy layout) that's aimed mainly at building inspectors. It lists different levels of CO2 and their effect on humans (and, although not stated, other mammals, birds etc), and also shows how those toxic effects are due to CO2 rather than simply reducing the O2 concentration. Here's a summary of different concentrations:
- 400ppm is normal outside air
- 600ppm is normal indoors air (poor ventilation with people in there breathing)
- 1% (ie: 10000ppm, or 10x the level you cited earlier for greenhouses) is when people start to feel drowsy
- above 2% you'll get heaviness of chest and deeper respiration
- above 3% breathing rate doubles. Above 5% quadruples.
- Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.
quote:You're the one showing ignorance here. The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
quote:Ahhh - you're part right.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity, against their nature in relationship to each other which isn't work and then it takes work to unmix them.
quote:Thanks for letting us know just how badly the education system failed when you were a kid. I suggest you go to a local school and ask to borrow some of their textbooks, and work back up from there. Your thoughts about how the physical world is ordered around you are based on fantasy, not science, REAL SCIENCE, the REAL WORLD, etc.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:You're the one showing ignorance here. The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
quote:I haven't mistaken it, you continue to not to listen to what I'm saying. The key word I used was "irrelevant", to my discussion with Alan.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
If you'll note the statement at the top of the page:
quote:If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged.
quote:No, I said that in still air an externally supplied body of heavy gas (eg: something enriched in CO2) will pool until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere. That diffusion happens without any work being done.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
quote:Nothing magic. Just the everyday, happens all the time, motion of molecules in a gas. Helped by mass movement of air (eg: wind). Pure physics.
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity
quote:No, CO2 kills by being chemically toxic. Even at a few % CO2, the concentration of O2 isn't significantly reduced - and, you'll certainly have enough O2 to breath (as anyone who's ever been up a high mountain and not asphyxiated will tell you). You need to reach very high concentrations of CO2, above 25% or so, before the reduction in the amount of oxygen you breathe in becomes significant. Above a few % concentration your lungs will allow enough CO2 into the blood to slightly increase it's acidity. That will eventually kill you.
Carbon Dioxide is designated [b]a non-toxic gas[b/] in REAL SCIENCE.
...
When CO2 kills it kills by asphyxiation.
quote:The motion of the individual air molecules - O2, N2, Ar etc as well as CO2. That is the mechanism of diffusion.
How does the CO2 which has pooled on the floor 'diffuse' back into the atmosphere to be become 'well-mixed'?
quote:Careful w/ the facts here, buddy....we don't want Myrrh's head to blow up
Originally posted by hatless:
At room temperature, an average CO2 molecule is whizzing around, bouncing off surfaces and other gas molecules, at more than 700 miles an hour. Nitrogen molecules (N2), being lighter, are a bit quicker.
Gases sometimes behave a bit like liquids, and large volumes with particular characteristics may pour downhill and pool in pockets, but that isn't their typical way of behaving. They normally act like billions of mad little rubber bullets bouncing around. given a bit of time, they are almost perfectly self-mixing.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Alas. Myrrh is nine.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
I myself have taught a class of ten year-olds about how gases diffuse and fill the volume of the 'container' they are in rather than sinking to the bottom.
quote:I guess the plot just thickened again.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You'd think if Myrrh was right, and that a heterogeneous mixture of gases was possible, SOMEONE would have mentioned it in the last couple of centuries.
quote:Personal attacks have no place in Purgatory. If you simply must vent, take it to Hell.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Alas. Myrrh is nine.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
I myself have taught a class of ten year-olds about how gases diffuse and fill the volume of the 'container' they are in rather than sinking to the bottom.
quote:You could have fooled me. Unless this is one of those rare occasions where interesting is used as a synonym for repetitive boring drivel.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
There's something interesting going on here. .
quote:If this discussion is drivel, why bother to comment? Do you have nothing to say on the topic?
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:You could have fooled me. Unless this is one of those rare occasions where interesting is used as a synonym for repetitive boring drivel.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
There's something interesting going on here. .
Aumbry
quote:Please help me cut to the chase, here.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Claims that the heavier gases 'pool' at low points and don't diffuse and mix just sound like a wind-up, not a serious attempt to observe or understand the real world.
).quote:Her other objections have all been torn to shreds as well. This is the one she keeps repeating lately though.
Originally posted by 205:
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
quote:I think I've already posted other hitorical measurements of CO2 levels and there's the one picture we get from satellite measurements, they say CO2 is not well-mixed. So, really don't want to get into that now. I'm trying to get Alan to answer specific questions because it's these kinds of statements AGWs make with complete abandon, and then can't prove them.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Mhyrr, can we presume that 19th century physicists were not part of the 21st century global climate change conspiracy?
If so, then if we can calculate the composition as a function of height of a column of gas the depth of the atmosphere using only 19th century physics, will you accept that calculation?
If then that calculation matches the readings from the WDCGG taken from monitoring stations at different elevations and from aircraft, will you accept that data?
(I have no intuition concerning the behaviour of gasses, so I don't know what I'm biting off here, so I want to know if there is a point before I start.)
quote:Then you're still talking bollocks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, I said that in still air an externally supplied body of heavy gas (eg: something enriched in CO2) will pool until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere. That diffusion happens without any work being done.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
quote:
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity
quote:Er, nothing has changed in the room, there is no more movement of 'wind' than when the CO2 pooled.
Nothing magic. Just the everyday, happens all the time, motion of molecules in a gas. Helped by mass movement of air (eg: wind). Pure physics.
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is designated [b]a non-toxic gas[b/] in REAL SCIENCE.
...
When CO2 kills it kills by asphyxiation.
quote:This is truly unbelievable. This is what our children are being taught...
No, CO2 kills by being chemically toxic. Even at a few % CO2, the concentration of O2 isn't significantly reduced - and, you'll certainly have enough O2 to breath (as anyone who's ever been up a high mountain and not asphyxiated will tell you). You need to reach very high concentrations of CO2, above 25% or so, before the reduction in the amount of oxygen you breathe in becomes significant. Above a few % concentration your lungs will allow enough CO2 into the blood to slightly increase it's acidity. That will eventually kill you.
Incidentally, the same acidification by CO2 is observed in water, and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already resulting in observable increases in ocean acidity which will have serious consequences for the survival of marine organisms.
quote:
How does the CO2 which has pooled on the floor 'diffuse' back into the atmosphere to be become 'well-mixed'?
quote:So show me how, explain it. How does CO2 which has pooled on the floor, and nothing else has changed in the room, become well-mixed in the air in this room?
The motion of the individual air molecules - O2, N2, Ar etc as well as CO2. That is the mechanism of diffusion.
quote:It's all here on the last 5 pages or so. Just because you are unable to recognize it does not make it so.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So show me how, explain it. How does CO2 which has pooled on the floor, and nothing else has changed in the room, become well-mixed in the air in this room?
I'm still asking you to prove it. That is not a proof.
quote:You are not engaged in your private discussion, you are posting on a public forum. When you say nonsensical things, you may expect to be challenged.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:I haven't mistaken it, you continue to not to listen to what I'm saying. The key word I used was "irrelevant", to my discussion with Alan.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
quote:Every time you admit that air is a mixture of gases of different weights, you highlight the incoherence of your insistence that CO2 must always separate out because it's heavier than air.
Where have I said that about argon?
quote:Your logic.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Every time you admit that air is a mixture of gases of different weights, you highlight the incoherence of your insistence that CO2 must always separate out because it's heavier than air.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where have I said that about argon?
Here, let me show you how it works, using a little thing I like to call "logic":
- Major premise (pace Myrhh) - All gases heavier than air must separate out
- Minor premise - Argon is a gas heavier than air (1.4 times heavier)
- Conclusion - Argon must separate out
But in fact we observe that argon does not separate out! So one of the premises must be wrong. Which do you want to abandon?
quote:[Sigh]
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll.
quote:Oh, are you now claiming that argon also separates out? How fascinating! Just how thick is the layer of argon we're supposed to be living in anyway, Myrhh, down here at the bottom of the atmosphere where all the heavy gases like to hang out?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Show me this fantasy observation that Argon does not separate out.
quote:Why does the CO2 get its own layer, but poor argon is relegated to "the rest of the air"?
The Carbon Dioxide is still sitting on the ground displacing the Oxygen and Nitrogen in the air, which therefore, means that there is now a distinct edge between the Carbon Dioxide in its pool on the ground and the rest of the air which is 20/80 O/N and some Argon and trace other bits.
quote:Really, what are we to believe, Myrhh? Is argon part of the mixture we call air, along with nitrogen and oxygen? Or will you now start telling us that the entire atmosphere has distinct layers of sharply differing composition, like some kind of frou-frou alcoholic beverage?
It's called pooling when there's lots of it doing the same thing, 'falling out of the air' (*) because it is heavier than air [...]
(*) 'out of the air', because, Air is mainly Nitrogen and Oxygen and 1% Argon
quote:Wind is the movement of large bodies of gas in the same direction. Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Er, nothing has changed in the room, there is no more movement of 'wind' than when the CO2 pooled.
So, how does the motion of molecules in a gas cause the CO2 which is still pooled on the ground cause it to diffuse until it is well-mixed in all the atmosphere when the CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than the atmosphere into which you claim it will do this?
quote:I'll disagree with their designation of CO2 as non-toxic, although at the 400ppm concentration in their table it certainly isn't toxic. The number of people who have died from CO2 poisoning, at concentrations low enough to not significantly reduce O2 levels, is testimony enough for me of the toxic effects of CO2.
Do you really have no idea what toxin means?
In REALScience, as opposed to the fantasy world science created by AGW, Carbon Dioxide is designated a non-toxic gas.
Look at the List here
quote:Which is another example of a heavy gas sourced from sonewhere other than the atmosphere pooling temporarily before eventually diffusing into the atmosphere.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Which could be a problem for welders in confined spaces who accidently leave their equipment leaking argon, say in a car inspection pit, and coming back later then step down into it..
quote:There may well be other reasons for being sceptical about global warming that are worth discussing.
Originally posted by 205:
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
quote:I don't think it follows that someone getting one thing wrong necessarily means they are wrong on everything else - no. Every mistake does reduce the likelihood that you'll take what they say as correct without checking it carefully though.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Please help me cut to the chase, here.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Claims that the heavier gases 'pool' at low points and don't diffuse and mix just sound like a wind-up, not a serious attempt to observe or understand the real world.
Myrrh is being routinely vilified for having apparently suggested 'heavier gases pool' (you'll pardon me if I haven't followed the details
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
TIA.
quote:Go on Alan, tell her about Brownian Motion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wind is the movement of large bodies of gas in the same direction. Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion.
quote:Other people have told her about the Dead Sea, and that you can go there without asphyxiating. I'm not the only person in this discussion with Myrrh, I don't see any need to repeat points others have made, especially when they've been well made.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Go on Alan, tell her about Brownian Motion.
And while you're at it, can you ask her why people can go to places like the Dead Sea where CO2 and Argon must be problems as they displace all the Oxygen to higher places? She listens to you.
quote:"Always tending to sink"? How can it "always" tend to sink, and yet never be finished sinking? Is there some infinite supply up at the top of the atmosphere? Does it come from outer space? And where does it go when it reaches the ground?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, Argon, being heavier than Air, which is practically 100% not Argon, has bits of Argon always tending to sink in it.
Like CO2, it sinks in air, i.e., it displaces air.
quote:I thought it was a fine line and that I was on the ok side of it, but it's absolutely your show, and I accept your call. My apologies (again).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:[Sigh]
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll.
Leave troll and crusader identification to the Hosts, please. Issue under H & A discussion.
Name-call in Hell if you feel you must. Don't do it here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:The heat radiated by the Earth is absorbed and then radiated by the Co2 in all directions, so some of it ends up heading back to the planet.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Has the endless arguement about the heaviness of CO2 missed the main point of AGW? That is, the effect that atmospheric CO2 has on AGW; how does the 0.035% of the upper atmospheric CO2 hold back or reflect the radiant heat from the earth rather than letting it be dispersed into outer space?
Can Myrrh or Alan or others respond?
quote:OK, in view of your immediate withdrawal, and your apology, I've deleted the post you put on the wrong board.
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Personal attack. Sorry. Wrong board.
quote:Entropy provides a direction but it's still going to be restrained by the motion of individual molecules of gas.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Given that I've shown how unfavourable 'pooling' is entropicly, I'm a little surprised it happens even over the short term - I would have thought that entropy-driven diffusion would deal with it almost as fast as the gas arrived.
quote:If this is the case, and gravity is the only factor affecting the movement of gases, why is there any air at all? Why after all this time, doesn't the 'real atmosphere' simply consist of discrete layers of gases, separated out on the basis of their molecular weight, heaviest (presumably including CO2) at the bottom?
The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks
code:Note that we get some CO2 going right up to 50km, but there is rather less mixing than observed in practice. That tells me that the other mixing effects (wind, convection) play a significant role. Entropy provides the absolute lower bound on the amount of mixing that must have occurred once equilibrium is reached, in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Altitude/m Air density CO2 fraction
0 0.068992 0.000775
500 0.064236 0.000721
1000 0.059807 0.000671
1500 0.055684 0.000624
2000 0.051846 0.000581
2500 0.048272 0.000540
3000 0.044944 0.000503
3500 0.041846 0.000468
4000 0.038961 0.000436
4500 0.036275 0.000405
5000 0.033774 0.000377
5500 0.031446 0.000351
6000 0.029278 0.000327
6500 0.027260 0.000304
7000 0.025381 0.000283
7500 0.023631 0.000263
8000 0.022002 0.000245
8500 0.020485 0.000228
9000 0.019073 0.000212
9500 0.017758 0.000197
10000 0.016534 0.000184
10500 0.015394 0.000171
11000 0.014333 0.000159
11500 0.013345 0.000148
12000 0.012425 0.000138
12500 0.011568 0.000128
13000 0.010771 0.000119
13500 0.010028 0.000111
14000 0.009337 0.000103
14500 0.008693 0.000096
15000 0.008094 0.000089
15500 0.007536 0.000083
16000 0.007017 0.000077
16500 0.006533 0.000072
17000 0.006082 0.000067
17500 0.005663 0.000062
18000 0.005273 0.000058
18500 0.004909 0.000053
19000 0.004571 0.000050
19500 0.004256 0.000046
20000 0.003962 0.000043
20500 0.003689 0.000040
21000 0.003435 0.000037
21500 0.003198 0.000034
22000 0.002978 0.000032
22500 0.002772 0.000030
23000 0.002581 0.000028
23500 0.002403 0.000026
24000 0.002238 0.000024
24500 0.002083 0.000022
25000 0.001940 0.000021
25500 0.001806 0.000019
26000 0.001682 0.000018
26500 0.001566 0.000017
27000 0.001458 0.000015
27500 0.001357 0.000014
28000 0.001264 0.000013
28500 0.001177 0.000012
29000 0.001095 0.000011
29500 0.001020 0.000011
30000 0.000950 0.000010
30500 0.000884 0.000009
31000 0.000823 0.000009
31500 0.000766 0.000008
32000 0.000714 0.000007
32500 0.000664 0.000007
33000 0.000619 0.000006
33500 0.000576 0.000006
34000 0.000536 0.000006
34500 0.000499 0.000005
35000 0.000465 0.000005
35500 0.000433 0.000004
36000 0.000403 0.000004
36500 0.000375 0.000004
37000 0.000349 0.000004
37500 0.000325 0.000003
38000 0.000303 0.000003
38500 0.000282 0.000003
39000 0.000263 0.000003
39500 0.000244 0.000002
40000 0.000228 0.000002
40500 0.000212 0.000002
41000 0.000197 0.000002
41500 0.000184 0.000002
42000 0.000171 0.000002
42500 0.000159 0.000002
43000 0.000148 0.000001
43500 0.000138 0.000001
44000 0.000129 0.000001
44500 0.000120 0.000001
45000 0.000111 0.000001
45500 0.000104 0.000001
46000 0.000097 0.000001
46500 0.000090 0.000001
47000 0.000084 0.000001
47500 0.000078 0.000001
48000 0.000073 0.000001
48500 0.000068 0.000001
49000 0.000063 0.000001
49500 0.000059 0.000001
quote:Thanks, that sounds plausible, but still not totally intuitive to me. Will contemplate further.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
quote:So you keep saying. So I keep telling you to prove this is what will happen in that room.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Wind is the movement of large bodies of gas in the same direction. Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Er, nothing has changed in the room, there is no more movement of 'wind' than when the CO2 pooled.
So, how does the motion of molecules in a gas cause the CO2 which is still pooled on the ground cause it to diffuse until it is well-mixed in all the atmosphere when the CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than the atmosphere into which you claim it will do this?
quote:
Do you really have no idea what toxin means?
In REALScience, as opposed to the fantasy world science created by AGW, Carbon Dioxide is designated a non-toxic gas.
Look at the List here
quote:With respect, that you disagree with it is irrelevant.
I'll disagree with their designation of CO2 as non-toxic, although at the 400ppm concentration in their table it certainly isn't toxic. The number of people who have died from CO2 poisoning, at concentrations low enough to not significantly reduce O2 levels, is testimony enough for me of the toxic effects of CO2.
quote:Why shouldn't I accept it?
BTW, do you accept everything else on that page about the properties of gases? Because, if you do it at least gives us all a place to start trying to figure out what you're having difficulty with in comprehending very basic science.
quote:That would be a cool thing to see, if there were any safe, non-toxic, convenient gases that were easily distinguishable from air by sight (any suggestions?)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Entropy provides a direction but it's still going to be restrained by the motion of individual molecules of gas.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Given that I've shown how unfavourable 'pooling' is entropicly, I'm a little surprised it happens even over the short term - I would have thought that entropy-driven diffusion would deal with it almost as fast as the gas arrived.
Although they move fast (rms velocity for N2 at STP is 450m/s - or 1000mph), there are a lot of molecules there and a lot of collisions. The mean free path of molecules is consequently very short (~10^-6cm at STP, with lighter molecules travelling further than heavier ones). There are effectively no interactions between molecules over dimensions significantly in excess of the mean free path.
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
quote:Argon
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:"Always tending to sink"? How can it "always" tend to sink, and yet never be finished sinking? Is there some infinite supply up at the top of the atmosphere? Does it come from outer space? And where does it go when it reaches the ground?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, Argon, being heavier than Air, which is practically 100% not Argon, has bits of Argon always tending to sink in it.
Like CO2, it sinks in air, i.e., it displaces air.
quote:We don't live in a test tube..
You can wave your hands about the "trace" gas argon, but consider this: the total mass of the atmosphere is about 4.2x10^17 kg, of which some 5.6x10^15 kg is argon. That's nearly 140 kg for every square meter of earth's surface. If that "trace" argon had settled out it there would be a layer of pure argon just above the earth's surface more than 30 meters thick.
But there isn't, so it hasn't.
quote:Well, for a start if your scenario was actually feasible in the real world, taking into consideration real nature, then we would have a layer of CO2 beneath it first, since we clearly we don't, then there must be other factors to take into consideration.
And if argon doesn't separate out, there's no reason to suppose that CO2 does.
quote:These things were known to happen, but until recently not well understood in all situations. Mining is one area where the hazards of these different layers was understood, hence raised lit candle on a long stick to test for methane and carrying a canary which would drop dead first if Carbon Monoxide present..
People who were inside with their windows and doors shut had a better chance of surviving. There were even cases where enough CO2 seeped into homes to smother people who were lying down asleep, but not enough to kill the people who were standing up and had their heads above the gas. Some of these survivors did not even realize anything unusual had happened until they checked on their sleeping loved ones and discovered they were already dead.
Strangest Disaster of 20th Century
quote:Please, read the page.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Myrrh,
How can you write so many words and have them all be wrong?
And that page very specifically counters what you are posting. You say it's made up malarkey that all molecules in a gas are constantly in motion. Hey, guess what? That page says it too! A source of yours *once again* supports our assertions, against yours. Imagine that?
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh, you say:
quote:If this is the case, and gravity is the only factor affecting the movement of gases, why is there any air at all? Why after all this time, doesn't the 'real atmosphere' simply consist of discrete layers of gases, separated out on the basis of their molecular weight, heaviest (presumably including CO2) at the bottom?
The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks
anne
quote:If this is "real science in the real world," then you also must support AGW, since it stems from the exact same physics that this page uses.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Please, read the page.
It fully supports my position, that of real science in the real world.
quote:All of this is peripheral to the main point, however. Just because something is generally non-toxic or even extremely beneficial does not mean that same thing is not also poisonous under different situations. Probably every single medicines have concentrations at which they are lethal. I do dislike calling CO2 a poison, as it is extremely hyperbolic [and I haven't heard scientists call it a poison, but I haven't looked either....links would be appreciated]. But to say it is worth regulation due to impacts from higher atmospheric concentrations is not hyperbole, it is good public policy.
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.
Effects of chronic exposure:
Damage to retinal ganglion cells and central nervous system may occur due to the presence of carbon dioxide.
quote:OK, now you're just making this stuff up, right? "A lot of it ends up in the sea"? Where's your source for that?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We know the CO2 cycle, presumably if we knew more we would know more about the Argon cycle, but like CO2 it is absorbed to some extent by life, plant and animal, we have trace amounts of it in our bodies, but we don't yet fully understand it. A lot of it ends up in the sea. Some experiments have shown that insects grown in atmospheres replacing nitrogen, from memory no sure if all or some, by argon, grew better, and helium.
quote:The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky. It's plainly ridiculous to assert that 140 kg of argon is continously, unceasingly crashing down over every square meter of earth's surface, appearing from no known source at the top of the atmosphere and vanishing without a trace when it reaches the ground - and yet this would have to be the case if accept both the observation that air is 1% argon and the bogus notion that "heavy gases always fall."
But this layering thing is clearly bothering you. I've given examples before of how this happens in say mines, that carbon dioxide is a known and dangerous hazard for those entering mines where there has been no disturbance.
quote:Now if you want to believe that, you need to give us a mechanism by which plants can result in enough atmospheric mixing during still times to prevent air separating into component layers. This would take an insane amount of energy by the plants, and some sort of biological fan resulting in giant upwellings of air all the time. Conveniently for us, these don't exist. There is no method by which plants "breathe" out O2 in the way we breathe - there is no impetus behind the respiration. You also then need to explain how this works within the roughly 12 hour cycle of each day, and how this works with seasons. And geography - why is the atmosphere above the arctic circle then so similar to ours?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Because real life is a dynamic system, for example, in photosynthesis plants 'breathe in' Carbon Dioxide and 'exhale' Oxygen and they've shown that they grow better when there is more Carbon Dioxide in the air and in the soil, this also comes down in large amounts when it rains, and so the cycle continues. This is all part of the Carbon Life Cycle, which is our life and our world. We're still learning about it.
I've just tried to find a page and this came up, in which it says, it's about the value of soil in this cycle, that plants also give Carbon Dioxide to the soil from their roots. I wonder if that's a corollary somehow to the dual process plants have in taking it from the air?
In the day photosynthesis taking in Carbon Dioxide and breathing out Oxygen, and during the night, breathing in Oxygen and breathing out Carbon Dioxide.
quote:It's called terra preta and was common in parts of the amazon rainforest. They were not "growing" carbon at all. It is not "organically alive" (whatever that means) and it did not spread, except to the degree that they manually spread it. What happened was the natives made charcoal using a very slow burn of trees that they cleared, and then tilled this in the ground to a degree. We believe this acts similarly to a coral reef and led to large scale, rapid, extremely diverse microbial colonization within this soil, and thereby higher nutrient levels sequestered in the soil (i.e. they were nutrient sinks to use a word you hate...it's also an effective carbon sink). It also allowed for soil formation to occur in much deeper layers than normally happens in the Amazon (very possible it's biggest benefit). It is a pretty impressive technique which I intend to replicate when I am living somewhere semi-permanently and can have a garden again. It definitely deserves more quality research than it has received so far.
Where they've discovered the ancient people there had an amazing crop growth from 'growing' carbon, as charcoal, in a particular way in the soil and using this to enrich the land under their crops and fruit trees. It was organically alive, and spread in time throughout the soil enriched with it. They are beginning to re-establish this.
quote:Which is why I'd asked for examples of CO2 pooling without an extra-atmospheric source. There have so far been no such examples offered. Which is of no surprise to me.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky.
quote:Which is the point I have been making all along in this. Context is everything.
Gases, Properties of
Ideal and real gases
All four of the gas laws previously discussed apply only to ideal gases. An ideal gas is a theoretical concept developed by scientists to learn more about gases. The particles of which an ideal gas is made have no effect on each other. That is, they do not exert gravitational attraction on each other, and they bounce off each other without losing any energy.
If one makes these assumptions about gases, it is much easier to develop laws describing their behavior. There is, however, one problem with this concept: there is no such thing as an ideal gas in the real world. All gas particles really do interact with each other in some way or another.
That fact doesn't mean that the gas laws are useless. Instead, it warns us that the predictions made by the gas laws may be more or less incorrect. The more or less depends on how closely the gas under consideration resembles an ideal gas. Some gase, like hydrogen and helium, match the description of an ideal gas quite well; other gases do not even come close.
quote:Alan, the reason CO2 pools when and where it does is because it is in large enough quantities to do so, I have already said this several times.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which is why I'd asked for examples of CO2 pooling without an extra-atmospheric source. There have so far been no such examples offered. Which is of no surprise to me.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky.
quote:I've provided three different proofs - a naive particulate explanation, a naive thermodynamic proof, and a more accurate thermodynamic model, all based on 19th century physics. But because I'm not Alan, these are irrelevant? The laws of physics are different according to who you talk to?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Which is why I know that Alan will never be able to provide me with the proof I've requested for his claims that the Carbon Dioxide still sitting pooled on the floor will under no other influence rise up and mix itself thoroughly in the atmosphere, because it's not real in the real world.
quote:I particularly enjoyed this post, actually, as it has reminded me that Myrrh's assertions about what plants are doing removing all the CO2 before it can do any harm depends upon them taking up CO2 through their stomata (the ones on the underside of the leaf...)
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:Now if you want to believe that, you need to give us a mechanism by which plants can result in enough atmospheric mixing during still times to prevent air separating into component layers. This would take an insane amount of energy by the plants, and some sort of biological fan resulting in giant upwellings of air all the time. Conveniently for us, these don't exist. There is no method by which plants "breathe" out O2 in the way we breathe - there is no impetus behind the respiration.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Because real life is a dynamic system, for example, in photosynthesis plants 'breathe in' Carbon Dioxide and 'exhale' Oxygen and they've shown that they grow better when there is more Carbon Dioxide in the air and in the soil, this also comes down in large amounts when it rains, and so the cycle continues. This is all part of the Carbon Life Cycle, which is our life and our world. We're still learning about it.
I've just tried to find a page and this came up, in which it says, it's about the value of soil in this cycle, that plants also give Carbon Dioxide to the soil from their roots. I wonder if that's a corollary somehow to the dual process plants have in taking it from the air?
In the day photosynthesis taking in Carbon Dioxide and breathing out Oxygen, and during the night, breathing in Oxygen and breathing out Carbon Dioxide.
quote:I don't know of any suitable gases for such an experiment. Most coloured gases are either difficult to obtain or nasty to handle (eg: chlorine).
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:That would be a cool thing to see, if there were any safe, non-toxic, convenient gases that were easily distinguishable from air by sight (any suggestions?)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
quote:Pathetic.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it pools because it is produced somewhere with sufficiently high concentrations that the volume of air has (temporarily) greater density than the surrounding atmosphere. There are plenty of well known examples of the phenomenum. Here are a list of examples from volcanic sources. That CO2 from a volcano, coal mine, fermentation tank, fire extinguisher can pool is not in dispute. What is is whether there are any circumstances in which CO2 can concentrate out of air. So far, there have been no reported examples of this. Which seeing as it would require a major re-write of the thermodynamics laws and our understanding of the fundamental nature of gases is not surprising.
quote:Which proves what we are saying. If CO2 pooled out of the atmosphere like you claim then opening a window would do no good - the CO2 would remain stuck in the room unless something heavier still came along and displaced it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Like in a closed room full of people, it will build up displacing oxygen and give everyone a headache until they open a window and let in some fresh air.
quote:It proves no such thing as you're saying. You're saying Carbon Dioxide dissipates out without any other cause except that 'it does'. Opening the window to let in an exchange of air is not proof for your claim. It is proof of mine.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Which proves what we are saying. If CO2 pooled out of the atmosphere like you claim then opening a window would do no good - the CO2 would remain stuck in the room unless something heavier still came along and displaced it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Like in a closed room full of people, it will build up displacing oxygen and give everyone a headache until they open a window and let in some fresh air.
When the window is opened the CO2 dissipates out and the rest of the atmosphere dissipates in. By diffusion.
Care to answer my questions the plants and the moles?
quote:Ah, sorry Barnabas, I had to rush, and I've been so careful since I had a spate of doing it, one too many -a
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(coughs)
Myrrh.
The link re sponges and coral reefs doesn't work.
quote:We understand what you're saying. We disagree with you though, and forever will do so.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I want you to understand what I am saying.
quote:You're failing to take on board the gobbledegook of your claims.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:We understand what you're saying. We disagree with you though, and forever will do so.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I want you to understand what I am saying.
What you are saying is simply stupid, doesn't reflect the world around us, would lead to the death of most of life on the planet, and is very silly. It has also been disproven probably several hundred times in this thread, though you don't seem willing to taught so you refuse to see them.
quote:Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
quote:This is becoming even more absurd. You're not even following Alan's argument..
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
The process through which CO2 gets into plants in the first place...
Or are you disagreeing with yourself as well now?
quote:Wouldn't your experiment be more fun with Guinness and Bass?
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I've just redone the food colouring in the water experiment, this time having left the water for a couple of hours to get still. Similar result, it diffuses happily as the droplet falls and some nice looking trails of pink issuing from it. However you end up with, after some time, a rather nice gradient of colour - much redder at the bottom of the glass, fading to pink at the top. A bit like a tequila sunrise ecept without the tequila or the orange juice. The dye is still mixed in fairly well and doesn't separate into a layer by itself, but it does show that with these two particular substances that to mix it evenly needs more time and/or some shaking. The gradient isn't due to gravity, I'm fairly sure, but due to the time taken to diffuse properly. Still, I'm sure that Myrrh will use these observations to back up her CO2 theories!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Not a tangent for me Barnabas.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just thought I'd give the scientists here the full quote (of which an edited portion appears in Myrrh's link).
Full Eureka Article re Sponges
Interesting example of natural recycling, but the finding does not support the assertions in the rest of the link Myrrh quotes. Present and possible future dangers to coral reefs are an interesting topic in their own right, and I'm sure AGW fits in there - but IIRC warmer oceans and pollution factors are very important. No expert of course - maybe we have an oceanographer on board for this tangent?
quote:And as, some of us, have seen here, another favourite trick is to claim stuff as proof when in reality it proves the opposite.
In the field of geology, when we falsify a hypothesis or a theory, we trend to start looking for a new hypothesis or theory. That's why we rely very heavily on Chamberlain's Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. In the junk science of ocean acidification and anthropogenic global warming, it appears that the process is to simply discard any data that deviate from the ruling theory.
quote:This is the dynamic life process we are in. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it is life's FOOD!
Contrary to the belief that CO2, once in the atmosphere, stays there for many years (the term used by EPA is "long-lived"), this is not the case. It is constantly being absorbed by water and plants on land.
quote:AGW has completely severed us from the reality of life on earth by its corrupt doctrines, masquerading as science for its authority.
Conclusion
It ought to be self-evident that CO2 is not only NOT a pollutant, but absolutely vital to life on earth. EPA's decision to define it as a "dangerous pollutant" is contrary to all evidence and, frankly, mind-boggling. ...
Naming CO2 a "danterous pollutant" is voodoo science.
CO2 and EPA's Voodoo Science
quote:I have noted several times in this that methane builds up in the roof of mines because it is lighter. As I have been trying to explain here that gases separate and without disturbance will remain separate.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Myrrh - a wee question for you. In your hypothetical example of mine gas, you are no doubt aware that the principal gas found in mines is methane (firedamp), which is lighter than air. Why do you think this gas builds up and has to be vented along with the CO2?
quote:Barnabas62 - I'm not sure any knowledge of oceanography is required to comment on the fact that the paper cited does not have any bearing upon the claims made in the blog article - you've done that already!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just thought I'd give the scientists here the full quote (of which an edited portion appears in Myrrh's link).
Full Eureka Article re Sponges
Interesting example of natural recycling, but the finding does not support the assertions in the rest of the link Myrrh quotes. Present and possible future dangers to coral reefs are an interesting topic in their own right, and I'm sure AGW fits in there - but IIRC warmer oceans and pollution factors are very important. No expert of course - maybe we have an oceanographer on board for this tangent?
At least it would make a change from "same old same old".
quote:But you've been doing it using the wrong words and the wrong concepts. If you used the right words and the right concepts, you might have a hope of convincing some of us that you know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As I have been trying to explain here that gases separate and without disturbance will remain separate.
quote:And this:
The steady supply of CO2 to the atmosphere (mainly from volcanic emissions) and the consumption by plants keep it in balance. Overall, the result is termed a "steady state". In a steady state, individual molecules are constantly being added and removed, but the overall balance remains more or less constant.
A simple calculation of mankind's production of CO2 from fossil fuels shows that over the lst one hundred years, if there were no natural removal processes, CO2 would have increased to approximately 100,000 parts per million, or 10% in the air. As the atmosphere contains only 0.04% CO2, it is obvious that this CO2 is no longer there. In fact, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has barely budged from pre-industrial times.
quote:And the above please note well, is from real data and statistical analysis and not some concoction dreamed up by AGWScience which excludes paramaters which falsify its desired results in their computer models..
How much of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billions tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
quote:In a way this seems fairly obvious, but I suppose most scientists aren't used to (or good at) speaking to the general public, and it is probably a useful reminder. The other thing is that in my view it is not the science which is controversial (at a general level anyway), nor the need to take action, but the question of what to do, who should so it and importantly, who should pay. Unlike, say, the ozone layer hole which once the science was universally agreed, along with a method to resolve it, countries were able to agree a protocol, implement and police it pretty effectively. But reducing carbon emissions requires the actions of a whole lot of actors, individuals and companies as well as governments, which is much more difficult to institute, manage and monitor. Especially as there is a large chunk of prisoners' dilemma floating about.
1) Sampling issues: clarity about the source and representativeness of samples of evidence that your audience and you are using to form inferences and draw conclusions.
2) Framing issues: methods for presenting science should engage cognitive and emotional processing, in a balanced manner, and try to make distant future outcomes concrete.
3) Comprehending the problem and solution: communicators should take into account the "mental model" held by members of their audience and tailor presentations accordingly.
4) Consensus building: the process and public perception of reaching a consensus about the science needs to be effective, transparent, and objective.
quote:You are treating carbon dioxide molecules like little solids.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. Every single carbon dioxide molecule therefore is heavier than air. That's why it separates.
quote:And why does it have to be one or the other?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It is not a pollutant.
It is not a poison.
It is the very foodstuff of Life itself.
Myrrh
quote:Myrrh, I want to ask you a really serious question from this, and I'd be grateful if you gave an answer.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:This is becoming even more absurd. You're not even following Alan's argument..
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
The process through which CO2 gets into plants in the first place...
Or are you disagreeing with yourself as well now?
Opening a window is doing something. Alan's claim is that nothing else has to happen, CO2 will get up off the floor and diffuse itself into the atmosphere until it is thoroughly mixed.
Opening the window is doing something, like putting on a fan, or providing wind. Opening the window allows an exchange of gases, the lighter gases moving out create movement. For a better exchange of gases open two windows and get a through draught going.
What Alan is saying is that in the pit or mine there is no separation of gases, because they will thoroughly mix together.
Yet he still gives this, mines and pits, as an example proving his claim..
..which it actually, in real life, proves false. Got it?
quote:Let's not.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My room example had been if you release a volume of CO2 into a closed room. It will initially pool on the floor, but slowly diffuse into the room such that the CO2 concentration in the room will be the same everywhere - the dimensions of the room would be too small for gravitational seperation to be significant. If you open a window (not part of my original scenario) and the air outside is still and at the same pressure then there won't be any mass flow of air through the window (let's assume that we can open a window without disturbing the air as we do so), but the process of equilibration will continue by diffusion through the window - albeit very slowly because of the relatively small area over which diffusion between room and outside can occur.
quote:Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
quote:One thing has changed. In my original room, CO2 was introduced as a single event. So, the change is that CO2 is no longer being introduced. The pool that is formed will then diffuse into the atmosphere of the room. If you continue to add CO2 it will continue to pool, with the gas from the top of the pool continuing to diffuse and the CO2 concentration in the room continuing to rise. As the CO2 concentration rises the negative bouancy of the introduced gas will decrease and it will sink more slowly and pool less effectively.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We'll stick with your original room, Carbon Dioxide has been introduced and it has pooled on the floor. Nothing has changed in the room, no extra windows opened..
quote:No, it will diffuse into the atmosphere. Not back into the atmosphere because it was never part of the atmosphere in the first place. This is CO2 introduced from another source.
You say, the individual molecules are moving around so quickly that the Carbon Dioxide will diffuse back into the atmosphere of the room from only this movement, nothing else.
quote:As the CO2 is introduced there will be some diffusion of air molecules into the new volume of gas, so it won't be pure CO2. The slower the CO2 is added the more mixing there will be. But, it's largely irrelevant whether you introduce pure CO2 or 10% CO2+90% normal air - except that the pure CO2 will be a denser volume of gas and have greater negative bouancy, and thus sink and pool faster.
You also say in your scenario, that it is not simply Carbon Dioxide pooling, but, that it is Carbon Dioxide together with a local body of air, and it is these together which pool.
quote:Exactly, we're not talking about individual molecules which are moving too fast for gravity to have a significant impact on differentiating between them based on molecular mass. The pertinant object is an volume of gas with dimensions much greater than the mean free path of constituent molecules which has a density different from the surrounding gas. For near-ideal gases, density is proportional to the mean molecular mass of the constituent molecules. Pure CO2 has a density 1.5x that of air, a 50% CO2 50% air mix will have a density 1.25x that of air. In both cases a volume of gas greater than a few mm dimension will sink through air due to negative bouancy.
That is, it is this 'local body of air' as an entity which has become heavier because of the amount of CO2 in it, and it all pools together.
quote:There is no "seperating itself out" because the CO2 released into the room that pools was never part of the air in the room to seperate from. But, yes I agree that introducing a large volume of pure CO2 into a confined space will result in some of that CO2 forming a pool below the lower density air of the room (which will be composed of O2, N2 and Ar in normal ratios and an increased, and increasing, concentration of CO2 because we've added some that's slowly diffuing into the air.
That when a large amount of Carbon Dioxide is released into a room it will pool on the ground separating itself out from the lighter molecules, because it is heavier than air.
quote:Yes, we're talking about gas, not individual molecules within gas. I'm clear on that.
All descriptions of such, of gases heavier than air sinking down through the air and pooling are likewise referring only to the gas and not to anything else.
quote:Well, I'm now getting confused by your use of 'local air'. I just mean that two gases are different. One is the air of the room (O2, N2, Ar and 400-1000ppm CO2) and the other is the gas introduced (which could be pure CO2, pure propane, or any other mixture of gases with a mean molecular mass greater than the mean molecular mass of the air in the room. In that scenario, for the duration in which the introduced gas maintains coherence as a seperate body of gas (ie: when it has dimensions significantly larger than the mean free path of the constituent molecules) it will have negative bouancy and sink. If you want to call that introduced gas a 'local air' be my guest.
1.I say: As in the example of propane, the countless descriptions of the properties of CO2 in large amounts pooling when conditions are there for it to pool, all say it is because the gas is heavier than air that it pools. It is the gas itself which pools and not any such thing as a 'local air containing large amounts of a heavier gas'.
You say: that even a heavier than air gas when introduced into an atmosphere comes in a package of 'local air', and it is this package which being made heavier by the amount of heavier than air gas in it which pools as an entity.
quote:As I said, for conditions to remain unchanged there would need to be a continuous source of CO2 (at a constant rate) and a sufficiently large room that the concentration of CO2 in the air doesn't increase significantly during the course of the experiment as introduced CO2 diffuses into it.
2.I say: because the CO2 is heavier than air that once it pools it stays pooled if the conditions which allowed it to pool do not change. Because, all desciptions from the real world have this description, from actual observation of the properties of heavier than air gases. All say that once a gas has pooled because it is heavier than air it stays pooled unless conditions change, venting for example.
You say that the motion of individual molecules is enough to diffuse it through the atmosphere after it has pooled and no other changes to the room take place.
quote:Some volcanoes emit almost pure CO2, most produce gases containing a mixture of molecules. In all but the most rapid outgasing, the gas produced will mix to an extent with the air that sits right above the vent. If that gas is denser than air it will sink and pool, regardless of whether it's pure CO2 or something else. Pooling can only occur with volumes of gas significantly larger than the mean free path of the constituent molecules. These are the 'local bodies of air' (if you want to use that phrase) that pool.
I have asked you to prove both these things.
1. To prove, examples you gave volcano etc., that the Carbon Dioxide comes together with a 'local body of air' and it is this as an entity which pools.
quote:It's difficult to prove with gases, because you can't see them. But, it can be demonstrated in liquids as per my experiment with food colour in water, although diffusion rates through liquids will be slower.
2. To prove, that by the movement of the molecules alone the CO2 sitting on the floor having pooled will rise up and diffuse into the atmosphere of the room and will mix itself thoroughly.
quote:That has been my argument all along in this Barnabas, that is how I have been differentiating my real world science from AGWScience which I say is not real, does not exist in the real world, is fantasy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:Host Hat On
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:That has been my argument all along in this Barnabas, that is how I have been differentiating my real world science from AGWScience which I say is not real, does not exist in the real world, is fantasy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I have used this consistently.
I have also used consistently, not just to Alan, but for all those arguing against me here claiming AGWScience is real, that they do not live in the real world.
This distinction is crucial to my arguments. I live in the real world, where, for example, CO2 is heavier than air and sinks and doesn't rise up to float away and mix with the atmosphere, where CO2 has been designated in the real world science as a non-toxic gas, and doesn't suddenly become toxic when some imaginary line is drawn, etc.
Myrrh
quote:So did you keep it? If so, what does it look like a day later?
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I've just redone the food colouring in the water experiment, this time having left the water for a couple of hours to get still. ... you end up with, after some time, a rather nice gradient of colour - much redder at the bottom of the glass, fading to pink at the top ... to mix it evenly needs more time and/or some shaking...
.
quote:I'd second that.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Feynmann's lectures are excellent
quote:Regular participants in this thread.
Originally posted by fredwa:
It would seem to me that if Myrrh's hypothesis that CO2 (being heavier that air) will sink through the atmosphere and accumulate at sea level is correct, it follows that the % of CO2 in air will fall with altitude. The sampling station at Mauna Loa is 3397 meters above sea level. If Myrrh's hypothesis is correct it should report a lower % of CO2 than a station at sea level.
To test this I chose a date (June 2000) and using this website http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html I chose a sampling station at 28 meters above sea level (Baltic Sea) to compare with Mauna Loa.
The results are these
Mauna Loa 371.520ppm
Baltic Sea 370.080ppm
Conclusion, there is no significant difference in CO2 % with altitude, so Myrrh's hypothesis is incorrect.
Of course for a robust result I would need to replicate but as this result will surprise no one (with the possible exception of Myrrh) I don't see the point.
I'm not a scientist so may have made a mistake in all this so please let me know if I have.
Fredwa
quote:I doubt that Myrrh will be convinced.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
fredwa has provided a link to a site which seems to me to provide conclusive and comprehensive observational proof that CO2 does not pool at lower latitudes. Very much as expected of course.
quote:From Chapter 1, he appears to have believed that gas molecules are in perpetual motion. I fear he must have been part of The Conspiracy, and not a Real Scientist after all.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:I'd second that.
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Feynmann's lectures are excellent
Although, curiously, he doesn't talk much about sinking carbon dioxide. I suppose even geniuses have their blind spots.
quote:It's not just Mauna Loa. Mt Kenya, an extinct volcano, which is even higher, shows very similar results.
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:I doubt that Myrrh will be convinced.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
fredwa has provided a link to a site which seems to me to provide conclusive and comprehensive observational proof that CO2 does not pool at lower latitudes. Very much as expected of course.
First of all because Mauna Loa is a volcano, so of course there'll be CO2 in the atmosphere at that point.
Secondly because no statistics produced by any official body can be trusted.
Not my opinion, I hasten to add.
quote:Well, having just sunk a bottle of Fairtrade Freedom Ale...
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Just thought of another CO2 pooling experiment.
Open a bottle of beer (preferably real ale, for quality purposes). Pour it into a glass. You will observe bubbles coming out of the surface of the liquid to produce what is called, in the trade, a head. These bubbles are made out of our favourite gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is dissolved but comes out of the beer when the pressure is released.
Now, I reckon that if you leave the beer, the bubbles gradually pop, releasing the gas they contain into the space at the top of the glass. If Myrrh's pooling theory is correct, it should remain there rather than diffusing out into the surrounding atmosphere as it is in a local low point. So, if you then strike a match, and hold it just over the surface of the beer, it should go out as there is no Oxygen, just CO2.
I haven't tried this myself as I drank the beer before I thought of it, but anyone else is welcome to give it a go. It's probably less dangerous than Alan's methane explosion option.
I suppose I could do it myself, but it would involve another bottle of Wychwood...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:People make alcoholic lemonade too which fizzes. This could be done more cheaply w/ any regular pop/soda as well.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What?
There's C02 in lemonade? How?
I make lemonade out of lemons, tap water, and sugar. Where does the C02 come from?
And can someone offer more details about the iodine experiment? Sounds interesting (if it's not dangerous).
quote:Ah, so really clarifying that it was a multiple-target Commandment 3 violation inside of your Commandment 6 violation. Clever.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I have also used consistently, not just to Alan, but for all those arguing against me here claiming AGWScience is real, that they do not live in the real world.
quote:While you're away, feel free to look up Brownian motion.
You still haven't given me the name and date for this person who said that 'once something is mixed it stays mixed'. I have already falsified that, proved it wrong.
I don't know where you got it from, but this cannot be a LAW in real science.
quote:Well, clearly the GWPF weren't persuaded. Which isn't entirely surprising. They also seem to consider the emails to reveal things of greater consequence than most other observers. As stated in the foreword, "Even if only some of these accusations were substantiated the consequences
Despite the seriousness of the matters revealed in the Climategate e-mails, the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were
rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive
(bottom of the first page of the summary and conclusions)
quote:I'll PM you, Martin. I think that will be best.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
fredwa - empiricism trumps dispositionally impenetrable rhetoric every time - THANK YOU.
HOSTS, ADMINS :-
Please can Myrrh be allowed back to attempt to play a dialectical antithesis to this winning card and ONLY that ?
quote:There are generally two ways that government funded projects generate literature. One is to publish findings in peer-review literature, subjecting them to the full glare of criticism from the scientific community (and, others who read the papers), with basically not much more than a summary presented to the sponsor. The other model, which is what we've mostly adopted in the work I've done, is to write a full report for the sponsor, and then extract some concise papers for peer-review publication. But, we've been doing small bits of work with short (less than 100 page) reports. And, what the minister (or even most senior civil servant) actually reads is just the summary unless they specifically want to read the whole thing. Ministers and/or senior civil servants can't read every bit of work that their department commissions, they trust the judgement of their juniors to highlight the important findings and policy implications.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nevertheless, on first reading, I thought that at least one part of the criticism in the report had some force. That was the section beginning at para 36, i.e. the comment re Phil Jones' notorious "Mike's Nature trick" e-mail.
I know it's been aired before in these threads, so there isn't anything new there. But nevertheless, it kind of sticks in my craw.
quote:Exactly. The idea that 'trick' involves deceit is a projection by people who WANT to read it that way. 'Trick' can just as equally mean a method, process or technique.
Originally posted by Inger:
I think anyone with any knowledge of scientists should have understood the use of the word 'trick' - and not just scientists; 'tricks of the trade' is a perfectly respectable term after all.
quote:This is true. However, the point I'm making is more that they do not automatically indicate NON-straightforward behaviour. Context is everything. My problem with the hysteria surrounding that particular e-mail is that people jumped to the conclusion that 'trick' meant 'trickery' without considering the context. The word trick has multiple meanings, and people immediately decided to give it the worst possible one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Inger, orfeo
I have some reservations. Trick is associated with trickery and hide with concealment. In common parlance, they are not straightforward words. They do not always indicate straightforward behaviour.
quote:No the simplest explanation is that the tree ring data is not a very good proxy. However, I agree that all the explanations for the divergence need to be looked at. And I certainly agree that there was no intention to deceive in the use of the term 'trick'.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simplest explanation for the divergence is that another factor has become important in the last 50 years which has changed the relationship between growth and temperature...
quote:If you have a data set that previously shows a good correlation between A and B, which then abruptly (and 50 years is abrupt, considering the time-scales we're dealing with) deviates - it's highly likely there's some external factor at play.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:No the simplest explanation is that the tree ring data is not a very good proxy. However, I agree that all the explanations for the divergence need to be looked at. And I certainly agree that there was no intention to deceive in the use of the term 'trick'.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simplest explanation for the divergence is that another factor has become important in the last 50 years which has changed the relationship between growth and temperature...
quote:Well that assumes that there was a good correlation between A and B in the first place. How reliable for example were temperature records for the relatively short period in which the two sets of data can be tested against each other? Is it possible that if you are trying to prove a warming hypothesis through historic temperature records that you might be making assumptions about the evidence which aren't warranted? At the very least the divergence throws up doubt about what we can know and deduce about past temperature. We have to try, but we also have to admit that the uncertainties are high.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[If you have a data set that previously shows a good correlation between A and B, which then abruptly (and 50 years is abrupt, considering the time-scales we're dealing with) deviates - it's highly likely there's some external factor at play.
quote:About 350 years for accurate temperature measurements, but historical records are also useful. As you point out, there are perils in extrapolating beyond the edges of a data set, but if you get a good correlation for the first 300, then increasingly off-beam for the last 50, there's a research opportunity right there.
Originally posted by Spawn:
How reliable for example were temperature records for the relatively short period in which the two sets of data can be tested against each other?
