|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
I read that piece rather a long time ago.
I continued reading about the subject.
That's why I know AGW is junk science.
Keeling, mentioned at the very beginning of the piece, was a junk scientist. Towards the end of his life he tried to pull back from it all, saying that maybe he had got it wrong, but his favourite disciple was making too much money from it and told everyone that his guru had gone into senile dementia and didn't know what he was saying.
Keeling had an agenda. He fiddled his figures to fix them to fit a figment of his imagination. Deliberate or not, who knows, sometimes when we want to believe something our minds just block out anything to the contrary, and he was driven by his idea.
He ignored all CO2 data showing variations that he couldn't put into his small base line, he took his small base line to the antarctic and it wasn't giving him the results he wanted, so he he moved it to the world's premier hot spot for CO2 production, and in less than two years of collecting 'data' he confidentally announced that he had established there was a trend and man-made emissions of CO2 were rising and it was causing global warming and it was a catastrophe because it was all our fault and this was going to destroy the world as we know it, and even worse, his new religion inspired followers..
His son has continued to exercise control over this forged data science, and so access to raw data, which published figures continue to be the basis for this junk science.
Even one example of forged data in any scientific field would be enough to discredit such work, except in this. But here, even that data is withheld from scrutiny is never a problem..
NASA in Shock New Controversy
And as for poor Arrhenius..
The Clouds of Unknowing .. is an example of misuse of Sources by Con Artists
It's a well known technique, quote something that is real and then by association the bullshit that follows acquires credibility, long enough to effect the con.
Of course, for such a long standing con and useful because lucrative it behoves the con artists to keep it going.
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.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What about the fraud in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Myrrh said
quote:
Even one example of forged data in any scientific field would be enough to discredit such work, except in this.
I think this may be where you are going wrong.
Let me suppose that it was forged for a second. If every area of knowledge lacks credibility as soon as there is one example of dishonesty - then no-one knows anything. Ironically, you consistently fail to show any scepticism whatsoever about your own sources.
[ 16. September 2010, 08:16: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Myrrh:
quote:
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.
actually, what he said was this
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
I don't want to recover old ground yet again, so I'm going to pick out the things I've learned over the past few days and outline where I would like to go with it in an ideal world.
Like Alan my background was in physics, so I naturally looked at the issue from a physics point of view. The stuff on statistical modelling of the climate was new to me.
Statistical models are useful because they give you information without understanding the mechanism. So the physics can be unknown, or even completely wrong, and you can still find relationships. You can then start to try and deduce the physics from the relationships you find in the data.
The disadvantage of a statistical model is that you are dependent on lots of existing data being available. So if you want to know about something completely unlike anything you've looked at before, it won't help. Then you need to try and come up with a model based on known science. (Of course if you think you know the science, you can use the statistical model as a check.)
Also, you tend to be able to detect only simple relationships. Non-linearities and complex effects like lags are harder to deal with.
Now, the exciting thing for me is that the statistical models are simple enough that we probably can do some real modelling here. I'd really love to do that.
So looking at the papers: Lorius et al (1990) doesn't detail all their methods - rather they refer back to Genthon et al (1987), which is here. Frustratingly, it's not open access (I've got access through work). Also, given the age of the paper, we're very unlikely to find a data file with all their source data in either.
But what they're doing is very simple: they feed in data from 3 sources: a temperature forcing term derived by a very simple formula from the Vostok CO2 curve (although I suspect that feeding in the raw CO2 curve will have a very similar effect), insolation curves for different seasons and lattitudes, and estimates of global ice volume. They then calculate the best weights (3 numbers) to reproduce the temperature proxy from the inputs, using different choices of the 3 inputs. In the best case they reproduce the temperature record with a squared correlation coefficient r2=0.92 - it's startlingly good.
The interesting thing is the weights. These tell us how important the insolation, CO2 and ice cover are relatively in contributing to the observed temperature. The CO2 weight varies from 0.27% to 0.85%, with the low cases arising from a case where an ice volume model is used which is itself a good proxy for temperature.
Which highlights a problem. If you feed in temperature as an input, then all the weight will go on that input and give you perfect correlation. So, for example, if CO2 is simply a temperature proxy - a result of higher temperatures rather then a cause - then it would also get a high weight. They point this out in their conclusions.
So some careful analysis is required. I'm an amateur when it comes to statistics, but it looks like a job for some sort of analysis-of-variance - need help here.
I guess the next step is to follow forward through the literature are see if there are more recent statistical models, in the hope of reaching a paper where the data is available. (Not sure if I'll have time, but it would make a great dataset for teaching, so I'll try.)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air..
And therefore ... what? Presumably you think that means CO2 can't be well-mixed in the atmosphere.
But what about oxygen and nitrogen? Do you know whether they are heavier or lighter than air?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
Why isn't this thread in Dead Horses?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Is it about a Dead Horse subject?
- biblical inerrancy ... nope
- homosexuality ... nope
- the role of women ... nope
- evolution ... nope
- abortion ... nope
- closed communion ... nope
- bitching about church music ... nope
Surely you've been around the Ship long enough to know what topics get discussed in Dead Horses?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Re Dead Horses - obviously the hosts will have their own opinions. However if the question is should Climate Change now be regarded as a dead horse? Then my view is that whilst some discussions may seem to go round in circles, climate change has significantly greater possibilities than most of the other subjects for new findings/information to come into the mix.
Luig
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
If it is not Dead Horse territory perhaps there needs to be a new category for the boring and repetitive.
This is not about Climate Change it is about a few self regarding people deliberately provoking Myrrh into an endless pointless argument.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
it is about a few self regarding people deliberately provoking Myrrh into an endless pointless argument.
And your intervention is presumably neither self-regarding, deliberate or provocative?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Myrrh, you appear to have completely missed the fact that the hydrogen in a hydrogen balloon IS CONFINED IN A BALLOON.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
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).
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What about the fraud in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ?
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.
For any who don't know what Martin is objecting to here, see Patriarch Diodoros's testimony The Testimony of the Patriarch
Myrrh
Fletcher christian - ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But, sorry folks, I actually did get it wrong. What he said was:
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
This is so astutely true that it makes me think it was from other minds.., but one thing he did remember accurately which is better than I managed. Of course, actually saying it openly is the gaff.
Myrrh
DaveW - its the first important example of how AGW has created a different CO2 from reality.
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.
In the real world farmers know this, as I said. Corn farmers in the US hope for wind to spread the Carbon Dioxide around among their crops when after several days of still conditions the levels of this our basic food stuff of life are depleted and begin to hold back the growth of the corn.
There is zilch reality in claiming that 'some man-made emissions of Carbon Dioxide stay up in the atmosphere for thousands of years'. It's actually meaningless drivel.
And that's before AGW makes all kinds of other claims about CO2 which are equally as absurd.
Myrrh
Alan, I have no good reason for believing your version.
I'm actually more upset by the con than merely that it is a con, because there has been a lot of really good work done in gathering information and I do feel like 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.
Myrrh
Petaflop, the problem with statistical models as you've described is that it actually doesn't bring us any closer to knowing more than we do now from the data we have.
I would expect such a model to describe a continuation of what we already see because the pattern is already there.
What we know is that there are several cycles involved, but, for example, we don't know the reason why we changed from the 40,000 to 100,00 in the last million years so we can't include that even in the simplest model. Without putting in parameters which explain, account for, this change a statistical model will fail to produce anything of value for us.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air...
I agree, it CAN take an amazingly long time to prove things that aren't actually true.
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).
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).
Yes. I got all that the first time. Probably back in high school.
A more fundamental problem is that Myrrh keeps trying to compare air to one of its component parts. The comparison involves a non sequitur. Air doesn't have a molecular weight. Carbon dioxide may well be heavier than many of the other components of air, but that isn't the same thing as 'heavier than air'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Sorry, this is total rubbish. The primary reason for having stomata on the bottom of leaves is to prevent water loss.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrAlpen
Shipmate
# 12858
|
Posted
Is that link broken, Myrrh?
Posts: 68 | From: Yuk | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
All the texts that say plants protect their stomata to reduce water loss make no mention of CO2 concentrations or global warming at all. They don't need to.
Having stomata on the bottom of leaves reduces water loss because the sun, I hope we can agree, is always above plants. I don't have to agree or disagree with your views on CO2 to make that statement. It's entirely neutral to your whole CO2 view.
[ 16. September 2010, 16:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Myrrh - if:
quote:
Plants take in Carbon Dioxide from the underside of their leaves because this is where they find it in greatest abundance,
and
quote:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks
are both true - um - why doesn't it fall out?
Why doesn't the CO2 just fall out of the stomata on the bottom of the leaves (except water-lilies, of course)?
--------------------
I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
I'm starting to wonder about the credibility of anyone really believing this...
[ 16. September 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks.
If CO2 always sinks, and if CO2 accounts for, say 500 parts per million in the atmosphere ...
... then how come to bottom 0.05% of the atmosphere (roughly a couple of metres) isn't pure CO2?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh - if:
quote:
Plants take in Carbon Dioxide from the underside of their leaves because this is where they find it in greatest abundance,
and
quote:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks
are both true - um - why doesn't it fall out?
Why doesn't the CO2 just fall out of the stomata on the bottom of the leaves (except water-lilies, of course)?
Because the plants breathe in REALLY HARD and suck the CO2 up, and then they hold their breath.
I'm genuinely fascinated by Myrrh's idea that plants grow on the ground because that's where the CO2 is. I always thought plants tended to grow on the ground because (1) that's where their SOLID and LIQUID nutrient requirements were met, and also (2) that plants themselves tended to be heavier than air, thanks to, well... gravity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
CO2 is heavier than air, actually heavier than air. In air it always sinks.
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."
This is correct. However, IN THE REAL WORLD, the CO2 is free to disperse and mix with other gases. And become part of the air.
This is what I mean about your comparison involving a non sequitur. You keep talking about 'air' as if it's something entirely separate from CO2. It's not. Air is a mixture, not a compound. You can't calculate the molecular weight of air, because it's not a molecule. It's a mixture of gases, and one of thoses gases IS carbon dioxide.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
She's clearly driven you fairly badly round the bend if you're now arguing with yourself like that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I can't remember offhand what the distribution of velocity of molecules in air at NTP is. But that's the relevant number.
If I re-read the first few chapters of my old textbooks I could work it out. Or I suppose I could trust Wikipedia...
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Is that link broken, Myrrh?
Sorry, I thought I'd tested it.
Ask a Scientist aka Where shall I put It?
(I'd typed a 1 instead of l in the code, which on my computer look even more similar, my l with the same base line as 1, but the downward line to the left at the top is straight.)
Myrrh
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?
Myrrh
Adeodatus - we live in an open thermodynamic system full of weather. In other words, not everywhere is the floor of a brewery or the bottom of a mine shaft or a valley in the path of a river of CO2 from an erupting volcano.
Myrrh
Orfeo - genuinly fascinated you might be, but I'm not going into evolutionary theory here further than to tell you that if the air was "the AGW well-mixed" we'd be living in a world without gravity or mass, so plants could well have evolved sitting on blankets of CO2 as it magic carpetted its way around the world for thousands of years.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Myrrh, you ask:
quote:
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?
I am definitely heavier than a hamburger, if that helps.
--------------------
I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good bye Myrrh.
Which He is of course.
See you the the other side of the glass.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrAlpen
Shipmate
# 12858
|
Posted
Myrrh,
Intriguingly, the link you posted contains the following contribution on the mixing of gases:
quote:
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.
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?
Posts: 68 | From: Yuk | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm signing off active participation in this thread too. As a Shipmate, anyway. After three long threads on this topic, I'm finding too many posts predictable - even my own!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This morning I looked at a tall tree and thought, "why the devil have you put all your leaves up the top there, away from the CO2"?
I certainly don't know how karri trees survive.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Myrrh,
Intriguingly, the link you posted contains the following contribution on the mixing of gases:
quote:
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.
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?
Wait, this a new and exciting strategy: expecting the sources Myrrh links to to actually agree with her!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh, you ask:
quote:
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?
I am definitely heavier than a hamburger, if that helps.
And better yet, you have muscles. Something plants generally tend to lack.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
DaveW - its the first important example of how AGW has created a different CO2 from reality.
[snip]
Myrrh
where the [snip] represents a lot of stuff that neglects these previously asked questions:
quote:
But what about oxygen and nitrogen? Do you know whether they are heavier or lighter than air?
Care to give these a shot, Myrrh?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrAlpen:
Myrrh,
Intriguingly, the link you posted contains the following contribution on the mixing of gases:
quote:
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.
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?
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?
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.)
AGW has created a completely different Carbon Dioxide to the REAL Carbon Dioxide in our REAL world.
That Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air is one of the basic physical properties of Carbon Dioxide in the REAL world we actually see all around us and ourselves in it.
Proving, conclusively, without a shadow of a physics doubt, that it cannot be this fictional AGWCO2 in their oft bandied about but never able to prove when asked to show proof version of what AGW say Carbon Dioxide can do.
This point is crucial, because it is so bloody basic.
Besides all the nonsense claims they make for Carbon Dioxide they have ended up with no 'feel' for it. For example, it has become something to be discussed as a "poison", and serious oh so highly qualified scientists spend years trying to work out the best ways of burying it to take it out of the atmosphere...
Because they have bought this nonsense physics hook line and sinker and really think it is dangerous and should be got rid of.
For the AGW conned, plants and rocks and seas have become "carbon sinks", only of importance in their fictional quest to reduce levels of it so they can save the world and so they keep claiming that it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years and every scrap we add to that is us showing complete disregard for the danger the earth is in!
The above only appears the comedic nonsense it is, worthy of a Monty Python sketch, for those who do really understand that this AGW concept is built from an imagined Carbon Dioxide; existing only in their imagined AGW physical world where their AGWCarbon Dioxide drives global warming and doubling it will destroy the earth and it will be our fault and we're worse than holocaust deniers for disagreeing with them.
So, first the basics, Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it pools, therefore it can't do staying in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and, Carbon Dioxide is the essential non-poisonous trace gas that fuels our Carbon Life Cycle; without it all plants will die and so will we because it is the basic food stuff of plants as it settles on the ground and mixes with water to feed the plants and they also breath it in in photosynthesis to give us oxygen as they breath out.
We are Carbon Life Forms, all part and parcel of this Great Cycle, The Carbon Life Cycle in Earth.
If any here have other questions about the physical properties of the basics, there are teachers out there. Though I do understand how difficult it is now to find them as the education system has also been corrupted by AGW (because any disagreeing with the fictional consensus science has a tough time getting to study real physics about this, job applications open only to AGWReality people and so on). It has all become extremely corrupted.
I suggest you enquire from those, as in the link I gave, and look for scientists who actually work with the physical world as it is.
It can be extremely difficult to find one's way out of a deliberately created delusional world, keep hold of these basics, and measure the information you get against this.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Did you read it to the end?
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.
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.
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
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Alan, Alan, Alan - I'm shaking my head in DEEPEST sympathy.
Which of these DON'T apply do you think ?
Decision-making and behavioral biases
Anchoring the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
Bandwagon effect the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.
Bias blind spot the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people.
Choice-supportive bias the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
Confirmation bias the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
Congruence bias the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
Contrast effect the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object.
Denomination effect the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).
Distinction bias the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.
Endowment effect "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it".
Experimenter's or Expectation bias the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.
Extraordinarity bias the tendency to value an object more than others in the same category as a result of an extraordinarity of that object that does not, in itself, change the value.[citation needed]
Focusing effect the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
Framing effect drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.
Hyperbolic discounting the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.
Illusion of control the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.
Impact bias the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
Information bias the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
Interloper effect the tendency to value third party consultation as objective, confirming, and without motive. Also consultation paradox, the conclusion that solutions proposed by existing personnel within an organization are less likely to receive support than from those recruited for that purpose.
Irrational escalation the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.
Loss aversion "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".(see also Sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
Mere exposure effect the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.
Money illusion the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.
Moral credential effect the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Negativity bias the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
Neglect of probability the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
Normalcy bias the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Omission bias the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
Outcome bias the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Planning fallacy the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
Post-purchase rationalization the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pseudocertainty effect the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
Reactance the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
Restraint bias the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Selective perception the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflex the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm.
Status quo bias the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).
Wishful thinking the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.
Zero-risk bias preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Biases in probability and belief
Ambiguity effect the tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown."
Anchoring effect the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (also called "insufficient adjustment").
Attentional bias the tendency to neglect relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.
Authority bias the tendency to value an ambiguous stimulus (e.g., an art performance) according to the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority on the topic.
Availability heuristic estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples.
Availability cascade a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").
Base rate neglect' or Base rate fallacy the tendency to base judgments on specifics, ignoring general statistical information.
Belief bias an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
Clustering illusion the tendency to see patterns where actually none exist.
Capability bias the tendency to believe that the closer average performance is to a target, the tighter the distribution of the data set.
Conjunction fallacy the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.
Gambler's fallacy the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the Law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
Hindsight bias sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable.
Illusory correlation inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two events, either because of prejudice or selective processing of information.
Observer-expectancy effect when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
Optimism bias the tendency to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions.
Ostrich effect ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Overconfidence effect excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.
Positive outcome bias the tendency of one to overestimate the probability of a favorable outcome coming to pass in a given situation (see also wishful thinking, optimism bias, and valence effect).
Pareidolia a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism bias the tendency for depressed people to be over-pessimistic about the outcome of planned actions.
Primacy effect the tendency to weigh initial events more than subsequent events.
Recency effect the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events (see also peak-end rule).
Disregard of regression toward the mean the tendency to expect extreme performance to continue.
Stereotyping expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effect the tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.
Subjective validation perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
Well travelled road effect underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and over-estimate the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
and many more from Wikipedia
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
Oxygen is also heavier than air - does it "pool"?
Nitrogen is lighter than air - does it inexorably rise, like hydrogen in a balloon?
If you don't understand how it's possible that air can consist of several different gases which have different molecular weights and yet remain mixed together, your judgements about what constitutes good science and what doesn't will remain less than compelling.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I wonder if Myrrh can explain how water vapor, being heavier than air accounts for the largest portion of the upper atmosphere where the greenhouse effect takes place? Where, incidently, only 0.04% by volume is CO2.
Or, Myrrh, are you pulling our leg in continuing your untennable position?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Its not just that Myrrh hasn't actually read all the quoted references in a hurry to post - the one you pointed out seems to have remained unread for some years after first being used.
There is no serious intent to discuss or to prove anything I think. It's like a clever version of one of those programs that generates fake blog content to attract Google links and Adsense adds - its the quantity of the links that count, not their quality or relevance.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.
Prove it!!
Damn it Alan, I really have had enough of your own claims to be the scientist here bolstered by your peanut gallery fan club.
Prove this: "- if you release a large quantity of CO2 into a confined space with limited air movement it will initially pool before it diffuses out the confinement and mixes with the greater atmosphere"
Alan, I insist you prove it. Until you do don't bother claiming that you speak with scientific authority on this.
And the rest of you can either put up or shut up.
When I, carefully, mix eggs with oil I get mayonnaise. That is well-mixed. I know it is well mixed. I can put it into a jar and store it for use much later.
When I make a vinaigrette and put it in a bottle in the middle of the table for general use, those using it some time after it was made will have to re-shake the bottle to get it well-mixed again.
After the initially pooling, in Alan's hypothesis, assuming the conditions remain unchanged, the same limited air movement, what will really happen?
The C02 will remain pooled.
Why?
Because it has already done so and the conditions have not changed for anything else to happen.
What's the other error here?
He said: "..and then assuming that behaviour is reversible. I'm sorry, but very few processes are reversible .."
As we've probably all experienced with making a vinaigrette, that's simply not true. Even the mayonnaise if left for long enough will begin to separate.
He said: "you can't unmix gases without putting in a lot of energy."
?
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.
We could put on a fan and keep it on until all the CO2 becomes well-mixed with the surrounding air, but when we switch the fan off and go away, the Carbon Dioxide being heavier than air, will again settle down to the ground.
In other words, it takes energy to mix.
(And yes, given time, the Oxygen being slightly heavier than Nitrogen will also separate out.)
Because that is the nature of the beast.
The REAL CO2.
Proved time after time a constant characteristic in real life to be one of the properties of CO2.
quote:
Did you read it to the end?
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Or they say, 'a couple of hundred years at most', or similar.
While the poor old plants at ground level are thinking, why's dinner taking so long coming..?
Poor sods, they'd starve in the AGWworld. Can't get the service there.
quote:
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).
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?
I hadn't noticed.
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and it pools
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.
It's its property to do so. In large concentrated amounts it is known as pooling.
So, where does this "once mixed doesn't become un-mixed" come from?
From the amount of times I've seen this used in AGW arguments it must be a LAW. Well established. I've never heard of it as such. Does it have someone's name on it?
Or is this another LAW as you gave above, "you can't unmix gases without putting in a lot of energy"?
That is, it only exists in the AGW world and not in this, the real world I'm in?
When we first began discussing this subject, I knew zilch about it and you told me that it wasn't your field but you did know some. It wasn't long before we disagreed. I wasn't excluding information from people whose field it was, though more often than not they were villified by the AGW supporters. That's from whom I learned real world properties of CO2. And why you've never been able to provide me with proof for your statements.
My conclusion is, that what you have learned about the subject not in your own field has been taken in trust that the information you got was from actual science of those parts not in your own field. I've seen this time and again, quoting 'LAWS' which make no sense, giving CO2 properties it doesn't have and so on. But the arguments for these have over the decades become convoluted and argued for so fiercely using these non-existent laws that they have taken on a life of their own, in effect, have now created a completely distinct other world physics, bearing no relation at all to ours.
And that applies to the rest of you here. You haven't bothered to check if the basics are real science.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Have you ever been to a stage show where they squirt lots of "dry ice"? This, as it happens, is not ice, but is in fact solid Carbon Dioxide, made solid by pressurising it at a low temperature. Of copurse, when it hits the relatively warm atmosphere in the theatre, it boils very quickly, producing that lovely cloudy/misty effect.
Now, what happens next? Does this CO2
a) lie around in pools for the rest of the evening, thus ruining the view of the legs of the dame, and choking anyone who is either very short or falls over
OR
b) It rapidly mixes with the rest of the air due to the large amount of kinetic energy possessed by the different molecules in it; they move around at high speed, happily bouncing off each other and exchanging momentum until they are all mixed up in a dynamic fashion, still all zooming around at high speed of course, including the now assimilated CO2. No wind required, just boring, ordinary thermodynamics.
Also: vinaigrette is not the same as air, nor is it mixed in the same way, being more of a colloid I suspect in which largish particles are suspended in a liquid, but do, as you point out, separate out if you leave them. Though neither chemistry nor cooking are my strong suit, so I am open to correction.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Context is all.
In real life what CO2 does depends on its actual properties in actual situations according to actual behavioural laws.
These AGWlaws and claimed properties for CO2 are proved false in this.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
A vinaigrette is a mix of polar and non-polar liquids (oil and water) which will separate due to varying chemical properties/etc unless an emulsifier is added. A colloid, by contrast, will never separate.
And we've been telling you the "LAW" for a year now, Myrrh. It's the Ideal Gas Law. Which conveniently pre-dates AGW by more than a century, being first published in 1834 (though other statements or approximations of it may predate PV = nrT by some time...I don't know). Which conveniently is derivable from many sources - empirically, kinetics, statistical mechanics, and possibly others, giving this a rather extreme level of coherence with physics as a whole.
Alan could readily prove this to you, I'm sure, but the chances of you understanding the math is somewhere smaller than the chance of a nuke being responsible for 9/11. Feel free to check out the statistical mechanic derivation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law though for proof.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
In real life there's a little thing called the atmosphere, which is what you're totally ignoring every time you insist on properties that apply in a very small closed system but which are totally overridden in the real world by other forces.
Alright, I'm done. I can't possibly see anything funnier than the absolultely EPIC post Myrrh provided where she reiterated all the fallacies in one truly amazing epic sweep. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
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?
You say air is 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen (those are O2 and N2, by the way, not O and N) - by your logic, there should be a "distinct edge" between the oxygen and the nitrogen. Where is this edge?
Since the oxygen is heavier, and we're living at the bottom of the atmosphere, does that mean we're breathing pure oxygen? Sounds dangerous!
pjkirk - I believe you're right about the vinaigrette and mayonnaise examples; solids and liquids are generally a lot more complicated, mainly because of all the short-range forces between molecules which can be usually be neglected in gases.
The most fundamental reason why gases don't remain separate is molecular diffusion; as Alan noted, this is a spontaneous process and as such is an aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This would occur even in still air; in the actual atmosphere (contra Myrhh) the composition is kept homogeneous up to about 100 km by turbulent mixing.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
