|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
This may be of use to somebody.
Observations on pooling and diffusion that I remember.
MW = d x R x T/P
MW (Molecular Weight)
d density
R (Ideal gas constant)
T Temperature
P Pressure
H2 (MW = 2) and can reach escape velocity in the atmosphere
O3 (MW = 48) is slightly denser than CO2 forms in the upper atmosphere and does not fall to earth and pool.
N2 (MW = 28)
O2 (MW = 32)
Air density is slightly heavier than N2 mainly owing to the presence of O2
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.
Cl2 (MW = 71) and phosgene (MW = 91) could pool over ground and displace air in trenches for long enough for it to be used as a weapon in WW1 but in the end they mix by molecular diffusion or wind disturbance.
Cold air pools under warmer air.
Thermals of warm air rise rapidly enough to be used by birds, gliders and paragliders.
H2O (MW = 18) is less dense than air. Actually air is about 50% more dense than water vapour so I would expect air to be less dense where it has a high water vapour content. I don't know how much this would contribute to upward air currents.
NB: The MWs for the above molecules are stated to the closest integer.
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Myrrh has postulated properties of CO2 in air that are contrary to centuries of scientific knowledge. I could demonstrate the physics by a variety of experiments, some of which could be done in school-level physics classes. If I could be bothered I could go and look up some school text books and quote from them - a bit harder, but I'm sure some library somewhere has a collection of text books from before 1960 where the same physics will be described without there being any question of distortion to promote anthropogenic climate change.
But, I don't see why I need to provide further evidence of what well known and understood science says. It does seem reasonable that someone postulating a radical new understanding of atmospheric physics supports that understanding.
So, I'll repeat myself.
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.
--------------------
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
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.
For example, AGW said that temperatures had been practically unchanged up until the Industrial Revolution and then because of the rise in man-made emissions it sent the temperature rising and we're all doomed and it's all our fault, etc.
This was contrary to all well-known evidence to the contrary, from history, sciences such as geology, zoology and botany and so on, which knew very well we had distinct and great changes to our climate in those years. But this was AGWScience, data were created to fit the claim.
Despite the quite successful withholding of data to prevent checking and concomitant villification of all who dared critise AGW, when that had finally and conclusively been shown to be the well-organised world-wide AGWFraud that it was, it still didn't bother AGWers. It didn't bother them because they didn't care about the science.
Until you come back with specific answers to the specific questions I asked you, re the AGWlaws you use, you are not engaging in this as a scientist.
Your claim so you prove it.
For anyone else here that's at all interested in the real science, this page is a good start to understand the intricacies of this con, how unproven assumptions are manipulated to give the pretence that there is real world science behind these AGW claims.
This "global warming" thing.. what Watt is what?
Making assumptions and creating data to fit those assumptions is not real science, and the only possible result from such is garbage in garbage out.
Inevitably.
It's common sense.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Not intended as an answer to Myrrh - because that would be irrelevant as the posts are almost certainly not what the poster actually believes -
but if there is anyone else reading this tempted to believe the lies Myrrh is posting - yes, real observations show, time and again, that the atmosphere is pretty well mixed.
Loads have been mentioned here already. I offer another - lush vegetation at between 1,000 and 3,000 metres on the sides of steep tropical mountains. Been there, seen it with my own eyes, that needs CO2.
If the thigs that Myrrh pretends to believe were true (rather than an elaborate wind-up) then the CO2 would fall off the sides of the mountains. QED.
That poison gas thing is a good one as well.
Also, even if the gases separated in still air (they don't - or more accurately they hardly do at all but they do a tiny bit) like Myrrh's salad dreessing the truth is that the air is not still. As I am sure those of you who go outside have noticed. Maybe the Myrrh tribe live in an underground bunker and never see the sky.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
(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).
True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
The problem with arguing about gases like O2, N2, and CO2 is that they're essentially invisible under normal conditions. Myrhh claims there should be a "distinct edge" between CO2 below and the other constituents of air above, but unfortunately we don't expect to directly perceive the edge's presence or absence with our bodily senses. So we're left coarser, more indirect observations - vegetation at high elevations shows CO2 doesn't simply pool in low places (as Ken noted), thus using plant respiration as an indicator of the presence of CO2. My argument about oxygen is similar - flames in ordinary air aren't as fierce as flames in pure O2, so O2 can't be separated out in ordinary air. But neither of these are as appealing as being able to say "I can taste the CO2 in this valley, and it isn't any stronger than it was at the top of the hill" or "We can tell from the pinkish color of this air that it can't be pure oxygen, which would be bright red."
But I think there is a simple way to demonstrate, using the unaided senses, that heavier-than-air molecules don't just separate out of air and pool on the ground:
Perfumes.
Take geraniol, for example - "the primary part of rose oil, palmarosa oil, and citronella oil (Java type)." With a molecular weight of 154, it's a good 3.5 times heavier than CO2, and more than 5 times heavier than air. (Here's a selection of odorants; I haven't checked the exact numbers for all of them, but a glance at their structural diagrams shows they're all distinctly heavier than air or CO2. The fishy amines appear to be the lightest.)
By Myrhh's argument, there's no way you should be able to open up a bottle of perfume, hold it under your nose, and smell it!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I wondered if any of the online physics textbooks covered diffusion. But, they don't seem to. It's not a text book, but this page is fun ... and has a great picture!
--------------------
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 orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
Yes it does..
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.
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, at the same time and place, because, its property of being heavier than air means that unless there is something keeping it up, it will fall downwards.
In large enough amounts it can become like a river, flowing down to lower ground. I've given you links to read up on this to check for yourselves. Find your own to check against mine.
This property of CO2 being heavier than air and so displacing oxygen is well known by science, so its use in fire extinquishers for example, depriving that combusting of oxygen will cause the fire to go out.
I have falsified this claim, that Carbon Dioxide doesn't pool), here. Already.
Falsify (COD) show to be false.
If something is falsified in science, it has been shown to be false.
It is, therefore, a great irritation to have to continue listening to those still claiming this.
It's an even greater irritation to think that some are still teaching this by spreading misinformation saying it is scientific fact.
This spreading of misinformation masquerading as real science is detrimental to our health.. even teaching our children that Carbon Dioxide is a poison because they think that this too is a scientific fact, because AGWScience says so.
Myrrh
(*) 'out of the air', because, Air is mainly Nitrogen and Oxygen and 1% Argon.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace molecule found in Air.
Air Composition
If you round up to the nearest whole number, Air is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. It is mainly Nitrogen. The rest is trace.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace molecule found in Air.
It is insignificant in Air.
It is heavier than Air, one and a half times heavier, therefore, its trajecory is always downwards in air unless something is keeping it up, because, its nature is to come to earth, where in large amounts it pools. And the dangers of this are well known in real life, in real science and by real scientists in any field in which knowing the real properties of Carbon Dioxide is important to know.
And so, important for us to know, because the next time we read a page like this purporting to be 'science', we won't be fooled into thinking this is real science fact just because there's a lot of scientific jargon in it.
AGWScience
Because we're now able to spot one thing we know to be false, we won't take the rest of it in trust either.
Will we?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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.
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?
Ahem, I'm the one saying AGW claims are bullshit. Therefore, when AGWclaims are made by AGWsupporters I am the one asking for proof.
In other words, this is an OP by an AGWsupporter saying AGW is true and he claims, AGW claims, are supported by real science. I am responding.
I am the one asking for proof of these claims.
I still have not had one proof given to me.
I have been asking this for a long time now.
I still have not had one proof given to me.
I am the one saying AGW is not supported by real science. I have given proof that the AGW claim "that Carbon Dioxide doesn't pool" is false, given proof that this claim is falsified.
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? No, don't answer that, no more tangents.
As I am trying to make the point here, I am concentrating on Alan's post on the previous page and asking for specific answers to my specific questions.
Can you present them?
quote:
(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?)
It covered an aspect of this AGWScience it intended to cover, extremely well I thought.
Its conclusion, that in the act of using unproven assumptions pulled out of the air to suit and contradicted scientific claims and excluding known science in its models, it was most definitely shown that AGWScience produces garbage in which inevitably produces garbage out, which is AGWScience in a nutshell.
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:
True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
Please, do read my reply to Orfeo.
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...this page is fun ... and has a great picture!
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.
Nah.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
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?
The point is that AGW theory has been falsified in all its parts.
Therefore, the only conclusion I can reach is that it is created and maintained by utter idiots who en masse stepped through the looking glass with Alice but forgot where they came from or it is a con manipulating the fact that the majority of people take things on trust, especially when these come from disciplines which are complex and full of jargon coated scientists.
I think this is important, because I don't believe the first.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I think this is important, because I don't believe the first.
Myrrh
An explanation of why this con started back at least 200 years ago is still in order.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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.
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?
Ahem, I'm the one saying AGW claims are bullshit. Therefore, when AGWclaims are made by AGWsupporters I am the one asking for proof.
Your claims would have us believe that heavier gases always settle below lighter ones, which is clearly false.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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:
True. And yet unsatisfying to the armchair chemist/physicist.
Please, do read my reply to Orfeo.
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
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.
So unless the only way you can smell perfume is to crawl around on the floor (presumably getting beneath the layer of pure oxygen your theory would predict!) you really should reconsider your entire "heavier gases always fall down" position.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No Alan, that's not the way it works in real world science.
Real world science tests a hypothesis (CO2 pools down low on the ground) against actual observations (no, it doesn't).
Yes it does..
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.
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.
--------------------
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 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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.
?
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
Explanations from these examples have been consistent.
CO2 pools because it is 1.5 times heavier than air, in large amounts it sinks and displaces oxygen thereby pooling on the ground.
Oxygen is slightly heavier than Nitrogen.
Just how do you propose that CO2 is 'attached' to some "local air mass" that it brings this down with it when it sinks?
This is more extraordinary then your saying it 'diffuses into air to become well-mixed after it has sunk'.
What don't you understand about CO2 being 1.5 times heavier than air?
In large amounts it pools. It doesn't suddenly become 1.5 times heavier than air, it begins by being 1.5 times heavier than air, therefore, in large amounts in sinking it pools by displacing air.
In other words, if in large amounts it pools it's because it is heavier than air, not for any other reason. This is when it is dangerous.
It moves downwards, towards the ground, because it is 1.5 times heavier than air. Like propane which is also 1.5 times heavier than air.
This is the real world I'm in, CO2 doesn't change it properties to suit an agenda..
The examples I gave were specific to show CO2 pools. Not anything else.
quote:
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.
Don't you read my explanations? Or are you merely distracting? Or, seriously, don't you understand?
Have you become so convinced of the AGWScience about CO2 that it becomes, it appears here, impossible for you to untangle this?
What chance then do our children have being taught this AGWScience in schools?
OK, one more page with links so you can read about it.
Carbon Dioxide Quotes
NOW.
Answer my questions.
Including the extra one in bold above...
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Interesting fellow, David P Wozney; no dinosaurs (fossils have been made up from chicken bones), no moon landings either.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Interesting fellow, David P Wozney; no dinosaurs (fossils have been made up from chicken bones), no moon landings either.
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Interesting fellow, David P Wozney; no dinosaurs (fossils have been made up from chicken bones), no moon landings either.
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.
Then don't follow Myrrh's Carbon Dioxide quotes.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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:
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
Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Now answer my questions.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Then don't follow Myrrh's Carbon Dioxide quotes.
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.
As for my personal beliefs on the subject, there's no doubt climate change is happening, what's in doubt is if it's caused by humans and whether anything we do will change what's coming.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
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.
"is observed" - Show.
"to mix with air by molecular diffusion in a fairly short time." - How does it do this?
"It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions." - Prove.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions." - Prove.
Well, have we all asphyxiated yet? That strikes me as a reasonably easy one to test...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
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.
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?
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'..
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
The balloon is cheating. It keeps the outbreathed air separate from the air around it.
If what you said was true then it would work without the balloon. Your breath would fall to your feet.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
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.
I understand that the noxious components of the gas contain sulphur, and so are of a similar or greater weight than CO2.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Experiment. Take one balloon, breathe into it until it is full. Tie off. Release.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The balloon is cheating. It keeps the outbreathed air separate from the air around it.
And the balloon itself weighs something. It falls even if you use a balloon pump rather than "heavy" exhaled air.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Hands up anyone who's been to a low point on the Earth's surface and survived.
Me! I have been to the very lowest point in Earth's atmosphere: the Dead Sea. I floated on the surface 400 metres (1300 feet) below normal sea level. I don't remember seeing or hearing any warnings about high levels of CO2 locally. I survived, so claims about CO2 from the atmosphere pooling and remaining over extended periods are ignorant tosh and can be discounted.
If CO2 really could drop out of the mixed body of gas which comprises the constantly turbulent atmosphere and form 'pools' of gas which stayed there, then the Dead Sea, which is in a natural hollow with no water outlet would be a dangerous place to go without breathing gear. In fact, people go there to enjoy themselves or for the benefit of their health.
This should be sufficient proof of the daftness of Myrrh's theory for anyone with a functioning brain cell.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
"It certainly does not separate out in atmospheric conditions." - Prove.
Well, have we all asphyxiated yet? That strikes me as a reasonably easy one to test...
Concentration perhaps?
100% of Air is Nitrogen and Oxygen and Argon. Even at the Dead Sea.
That's why CO2 is called a trace gas.
What concentration of CO2 does it take to first make one feel dizzy and second to asphyxiate?
Which is why it's even more remarkable that such a trace gas creates all the life we see around us. But plants don't just rely on us and other animals who breathe in its oxygen to give them carbon dioxide in return, at night they too take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. They also take in carbon dioxide via roots, as carbon dioxide comes to earth with rain and directly into the soil.(*) The Carbon Life Cycle.
The worst part of the AGWScience nonsense, is how it has created this 'bogeyman' from the such a precious thing essential as the food of life.
It's in the language used, 'scrub' CO2 from the atmophere, 'carbon sinks' as descriptions of carbon dioxide in plants, water, rocks, as something evil and dangerous that will destroy us and these are only of use in that they 'scrub' it from the atmosphere..
In all this pretence that AGW cares about the world, it has divorced us from the reality of what we are here and now, in earth, created out of the earth. Like some religions do with their doctrines, creating a perfection elsewhere because this our earthy reality is 'fallen' or 'came out of evil'. Instead of wonder and awe at the magnificence and interrelatedness of life in earth, AGW is teaching our children that carbon dioxide is "a poison", and they pretend they're spouting science.
AGW has taken the "Life" out of the Carbon Life Cycle, which includes us.
It is thoroughly and despicably evil, because it does evil while masquerading as a good.
And it's subtle, this page would be quite good if it wasn't for the blind spot of AGW:
Carbon Cycle
Look at diagram, death of organic compounds is at ground level, where plants use it directly where they are, in the atmosphere around them and in the soil. But no, this has carbon dioxide rising back into the atmosphere before coming down again.
So, how does it 'rise' into the atmosphere?
(*)All this nonsense from AGW has left us ungrounded, unlike the plants which grow stronger from carbon dioxide from the air around them and from soil they're in.
Roots (Miscellaneous) - Summary
Myrrh
Ken, now fill it with hydrogen.
How to Make Hydrogen Balloons
Petaflop - depends of course on what you've eaten, but the primary gas is said to be nitrogen.
Next time put a match to it, and let us know what happened.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre 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 examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
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.
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.
It's obvious, because CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, it displaces air.
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:
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.
Novel properties?! I don't know where to start answering that lot.
Re-read the descriptions, they do not talk about 'a volume of gas sinking', they are specific that it is Carbon Dioxide sinking, and pooling.
They say this because they understand what being 1.5 times heavier than air actually means.
That's why real people working with real CO2 understand it better than you do, because they work with the fact that one of its properties is that it is 1.5 times heavier than air and displaces air.
So how does this gas, which is 1.5 times heavier than air, which is one and a half times heavier than air, rise? As per your description in the post in which I asked you to prove it.
quote:
I note you still haven't found anything to prove 'diffusion'..
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.
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.
Alan, you make a specific claim about CO2. I have asked you, I've now lost count of how many times, to prove it.
Prove it. You claim this is REAL science, that AGW is based on it because it is REAL science. Surely you're not having a problem actually finding that proved in all the gazillions of pages churned out by AGW and its supporters?
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.
It is patent nonsense in real science from the established properties of CO2, which is that it is 1.5 times heavier than air.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I do wish you and others here would read for comprehension.
Myrrh
[ 20. September 2010, 20:02: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
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.
*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.
I would say do your own fucking research, but it's a hopeless cause.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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. 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 ...
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I wonder if Myrrh has a stoty about how the air recognises CO2 as a "trace" constituent and not really part of the air, while accepting Ar, or O2, or N2 as full members? (Which it would have to do to expel one kind of molecule preferentially to others)
Does every molecule come with its own Maxwell's demon escort?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
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.
*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.
I would say do your own fucking research, but it's a hopeless cause.
I've done my research..
You continue to misunderstand what I am doing in this discussion, I am arguing against AGW by asking AGW, through its supporters here, to prove their science which they say is fact.
For example, in real science, this world not the fantasy AGWWorld, Carbon Dioxide is designated non-toxic.
That actually means something specific in the REALScienceWorld. But what do we have here? Because AGWScience call CO2 a poison its supporters justify writing posts to uphold this 'interpretation'. This is crass nonsense.
This is what happens in 'new religious' beliefs, older doctrine is 're-interpreted', often to the point as here of meaning something so completely different it becomes its opposite.
AGW has become a new religion, interestingly uniting both believers in God and Atheists. But the results of confronting them with 'older' or 'real science' teaching from which they have mangled their new beliefs is the same, and predictable.
The great Atheist Comic Dara O'Briain acted just as y'all are here when a group of Atheists invited a venerable old scientists to talk to them and he pointed out a few actual scientific facts which showed AGW was nonsense...
It's the poison bit that really offends me, because this is such a denigration of how wonderful and important CO2 is to us, Carbon Life Forms, and because AGW and its faithful believers against all that's rational in science are teaching this to our children and frightening them with bedtime ads making them fearful of it, thinking they are responsible for destroying the world as we know it if they produce too much of it, and because, it's A BIG FUCKING LIE.
Ooops, did I shout? Sorry.
You see the problem I have here?
You are the one's claiming AGWScience is true. I have come into this discussion demanding you provide proof.
In other words, it's for you to toddle off and find me proof that these claims you make are real science, such as those Alan made in his post, prove that they are actual laws.
Please, go back to that post and answer the questions I've asked. You answer them, because you're making claims here for AGW. Defend your effin theory or butt out of my questioning.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
NATO haemorrhaging drop by drop in Afghanistan to prevent nuclear war notwithstanding.
? America started the nuclear war in 1991.
Myrrh
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.
Either way, I just noticed this one. What the fuck are you talking about?
--------------------
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 ken:
Does every molecule come with its own Maxwell's demon escort?
This sentence made returning to read this thread today worthwhile. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My examples all showed that it was the CO2 that was doing the pooling.
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.
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.
No, that is not what is happening in any of the examples you have so far posted.
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.
They have all said it pools because it is heavier than air. The it is Carbon Dioxide not anything else, they said so.
They couldn't have been more specific that they were talking about Carbon Dioxide and not any other gas in combination.
quote:
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).
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:
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:
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.
Well, so you are...
However, you are using these, whatever you think they mean, in this specific climate context, claiming it it proves what you say is right in this context.
Claiming these prove your statements.
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.
Now you are saying they are irrelevant...
If you can't relate them to your specific statements in this specific climate context to which I have asked specific questions, then you are not providing the proof I have requested.
Do stop obfuscating. Just do it.
Answer my specific questions.
quote:
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 ...
You've just told me they were irrelevant!
Listen Alan, you used them to prove the statements you made, prove them in the context I have asked or admit you can't.
REALWorldScience says CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air. How does it diffuse according to your claim? How does it stay thoroughly mixed and can't be unmixed according to your claim, etc?
You have used these statements to 'prove' I am wrong. And your peanut gallery fanclub continue to denigrate me for daring to question you.
I have asked simple, logical, questions, answer them.
And when you make your vinaigrettes to test your claim that this is standard science and not AGWBullshit, varying the flavouring, so you can eat your experiments with greater enjoyment when you've done.
quote:
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 happens because we live in a physical world not a fantasy created by AGW. It's common bloody sense.
I challenge you to prove that Carbon Dioxide which is 1.5 times heavier than air 'diffuses' into the atmosphere etc.
I am here, see above post, challenging your AGW claims. It behoves you to provide them or admit your claims are bogus and imagined, not fact, but fiction.
That's real scientific method.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Otherwise you're just presenting a faith position, where anything you say is right according to that faith position.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
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.
[ 21. September 2010, 00:29: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
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.
If you use a cotton bud carefully, it might help?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
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.
If you use a cotton bud carefully, it might help?
Myrrh
WTF does that have to do w/ anything, or are you trolling?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
Answer my specific questions.
[snip]
I have asked simple, logical, questions, answer them.
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.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Tum-ti-tum - we got you on the Argon didn't we Myrrh?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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.
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?
? 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.
quote:
Answer my specific questions.
[snip]
I have asked simple, logical, questions, answer them.
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.
- 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.
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'.
If you want to participate, then as I have said, find the answers from the vast store of AGWScience that proves what he has been saying, as I have requested.
Myrrh
Ken -
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Help Alan answer my specific questions. He's clearly having problems, and stop wasting your time and mine on something you've misunderstood by creating this strawman you find oh so amusing.
Myrrh
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
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.)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
