|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
I want to know if there is a point before I start.
I think you can probably hazard a guess based on previous posting patterns.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Oxygen is heavier than air.
Argon is heavier than air.
In fact, argon is 1.4 times heavier than air. And there's a lot more argon than there is CO2. So why, pray tell, doesn't the argon separate out?
? 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.
C'mon! That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll. Evading a direct question then spouting more eroneous claptrap.
All she's done is derail this, and every, thread about climate change.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Nitrogen is lighter than air.
Oxygen is heavier than air.
Argon is heavier than air.
In fact, argon is 1.4 times heavier than air. And there's a lot more argon than there is CO2. So why, pray tell, doesn't the argon separate out?
? 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.
The topic of your motivations for "participating" in this discussion would be too tangential even for me, I'm afraid. But if you persist in talking nonsense about something I know about, I may persist in calling you on it.
quote:
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
If you'll note the statement at the top of the page:
quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged.
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
To be fair to Myrrh, she's right that a gas heavier than air will sink, if that gas can reasonably be described as confined to a given volume - even if only temporarily. Thus, CO2 enriched gases erupted from a volcano will sink and flow down the sides of the volcano, and even pool in hollows. For the short period of time before the molecules in the gas diffuse into the atmosphere.
The issue that I have is that she extrapolates the behaviour of a gas cloud to the behaviour of individual molecules. Individual molecules heavier than the average molecular mass of air will experience a gravitational force that is greater than that experienced by less massive molecules. That additional gravitational force will allow, in still air given sufficient time, a greater concentration of the heavier molecules at ground level. Though, you still won't get layers of pure molecular composition, even with infinite time in still conditions, because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion. And, of course, very few places have a completely still atmosphere for any reasonable length of time - the effects of thermals and wind will be more than enough to ensure a well mixed atmosphere.
--------------------
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
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
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.
Yes this is important!
We're talking about CO2. These descriptions were about CO2. They were not about anything else.
The composition of the gas is relevant because you insist that such a thing exists as this fictional "composition", which is precisely what I am still asking you to prove.
quote:
Stop with this "diffuses", it sinks because it's 1.5 times heavier than air, it always sinks down through air, the atmosphere, displacing it.
The air, the atmosphere, is 100% Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
That is the medium through which carbon dioxide travels.
quote:
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.
This is completely ass about tit. Prove it!
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity, against their nature in relationship to each other which isn't work and then it takes work to unmix them.
Patent nonsense and not only because you're continuing to contradict yourself.
Prove that this 'magic' something exists and is a law here.
quote:
Claiming that because I 'don't know them because I'm not a scientist like you, etc. and variations on that theme', that because you say it, it makes your claims in this specific discussion thereby true.
quote:
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.
As am I. The sooner you understand that its the AGW logic masquerading as science I'm having problems with the sooner we'll sort this.
By sort I mean that the sooner you will see that what you are claiming from AGW is nonsense...
quote:
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.
Such as the above. Which is the nonsense creation of AGWScience now being taught as if it were RealScience. Not the facts of it in effect etc. but because -
Carbon Dioxide is designated [b]a non-toxic gas[b/] in REAL SCIENCE.
Unless you understand what that means you will continue to blithely promote CO2 is toxic because you take as true the kind of rubbish explanation you've referred to which has mangled science. Mangled it because AGW mangling has created the idea of CO2 being toxic.
The only thing toxic here is AGWScience.
When CO2 kills it kills by asphyxiation.
It is this mangling of Real Science that I am objecting to here. And the con in AGW that makes claims apparently science, so close as to be easily confused, but always to the detriment of real science. I am particularly digusted at the mangling of it in relation to denigrating the very life stuff in our Carbon Life Cycle in the Real World and absolutely furious that you and your ilk are teaching that CO2 is a poison to our children in schools.
They will end up like all AGWs, confusing science fact with the science fiction created by AGW. Claiming laws in your arguments which do not exist in Science fact. Which becomes obvious every time someone from the AGW religion is asked to prove such 'laws'. You are creating a generation of confused, fearful, out of touch with reality children because you are teaching them as Truth a made up religion using science as a base and not real science. That's a fact.
So, back to your room. The conditions haven't changed. How does the CO2 which has pooled on the floor 'diffuse' back into the atmosphere to be become 'well-mixed'?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
You're the one showing ignorance here. The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Myrrh, the basic laws about gases apply to all gases. There is nothing special about CO2 in this respect.
Gases are not solids. Gases are not liquids. Solids fall down. Liquids go to the bottom of their container.
GASES DON'T. THEY DIFFUSE THROUGH THE SPACE IN WHICH THEY ARE CONTAINED.
If you don't believe gases diffuse, then there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
If you do believe gasses diffuse, then CO2 diffuses in the same way any other gas does.
[ 21. September 2010, 13:38: 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
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity, against their nature in relationship to each other which isn't work and then it takes work to unmix them.
Ahhh - you're part right.
(Would like to know if you're ready to accept 19th century physics before I go much further, but here's the first step.)
Work is the transfer of energy. To mix the gasses would take work. If energy were the driving force behind macroscopic physical processes, then all your arguments would be right.
But it isn't. Energy alone can't explain why many of physical processes or chemical reactions, go in the direction they go.
That's because the driver is not energy, it's entropy. At zero Kelvin, entropy plays no role, so the gasses separate on simple energetic grounds. But the warmer things get, the bigger the role played by entropy, and the more mixing you get.
How much mixing do we get in the 200-300K range? To work that out, we need to do some entropy calculations.
All of this is 19th century physics.
[ 21. September 2010, 13:41: Message edited by: Petaflop ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
because the motion of molecules in air will ensure that there will always be some diffusion.
She doesn't believe in diffusion, though. I don't think she believes that gases are in motion. I'm not sure Myrrh knows what a gas is, even at a 6th grade level. (Assuming she's not just wasting our time for a lark, since it's damn hard to believe somebody is that ignorant.)
You're the one showing ignorance here. The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks.
Thanks for letting us know just how badly the education system failed when you were a kid. I suggest you go to a local school and ask to borrow some of their textbooks, and work back up from there. Your thoughts about how the physical world is ordered around you are based on fantasy, not science, REAL SCIENCE, the REAL WORLD, etc.
--------------------
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 Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
If you'll note the statement at the top of the page:
quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged.
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
I haven't mistaken it, you continue to not to listen to what I'm saying. The key word I used was "irrelevant", to my discussion with Alan.
What is relevant to my discussion, is to get answers to my questions which I have directed specifically to Alan because of what he posted.
Where have I said that about argon? Irrelevant is you creating straw men arguments out of your imagination to distract the discussion I'm trying to have. So, don't bother answering that, I quite frankly don't care. If you have anything relevant to my discussion which is for AGW to provide proof of its claims, which I have requested, then please do post.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I was going to say I learnt this stuff in high school, but I actually think I learnt some of it in PRIMARY school, for goodness' sake.
Also, the observation that heavier gases don't drift to the bottom of a mixture (unlike liquids) appears to have been made by John Dalton sometime before 1801 - or so wikipedia suggests.
So Myrrh, if this is a conspiracy, it's been going for over two centuries!!!
--------------------
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:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
No, I said that in still air an externally supplied body of heavy gas (eg: something enriched in CO2) will pool until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere. That diffusion happens without any work being done.
quote:
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity
Nothing magic. Just the everyday, happens all the time, motion of molecules in a gas. Helped by mass movement of air (eg: wind). Pure physics.
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is designated [b]a non-toxic gas[b/] in REAL SCIENCE.
...
When CO2 kills it kills by asphyxiation.
No, CO2 kills by being chemically toxic. Even at a few % CO2, the concentration of O2 isn't significantly reduced - and, you'll certainly have enough O2 to breath (as anyone who's ever been up a high mountain and not asphyxiated will tell you). You need to reach very high concentrations of CO2, above 25% or so, before the reduction in the amount of oxygen you breathe in becomes significant. Above a few % concentration your lungs will allow enough CO2 into the blood to slightly increase it's acidity. That will eventually kill you.
Incidentally, the same acidification by CO2 is observed in water, and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already resulting in observable increases in ocean acidity which will have serious consequences for the survival of marine organisms.
quote:
How does the CO2 which has pooled on the floor 'diffuse' back into the atmosphere to be become 'well-mixed'?
The motion of the individual air molecules - O2, N2, Ar etc as well as CO2. That is the mechanism of diffusion.
--------------------
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
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Physical laws apply to all things, Myrrh. If it does it for CO2, it must do it for Argon. It must do it for Oxygen, and it must do it for Nitrogen. If Argon doesn't separate, then CO2 doesn't either. If Oxygen doesn't separate out from the air, then CO2 doesn't either. If Nitrogen doesn't separate out from the air, then CO2 doesn't either.
There is no wholesale separation of gases in the atmosphere, which would make sense if you understood the properties of gases at all, so your ideas are as smart as tits on a boar.
CO2 is not special, as you love to claim.
Please try to make your arguments coherent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
Just popping back to confirm that orfeo is correct and that the basic properties of solids, liquids and gases are taught at English Primary Schools. Specifically pupils should learn:
to recognise differences between solids, liquids and gases in terms of ease of flow and maintenance of shape and volume. (cf National Curriculum Key Stage 2 Sc3 1e)
I myself have taught a class of ten year-olds about how gases diffuse and fill the volume of the 'container' they are in rather than sinking to the bottom.
Hurrah, I'm part of a conspiracy at last! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 21. September 2010, 14:00: Message edited by: Mr Tambourine Man ]
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
At room temperature, an average CO2 molecule is whizzing around, bouncing off surfaces and other gas molecules, at more than 700 miles an hour. Nitrogen molecules (N2), being lighter, are a bit quicker.
Gases sometimes behave a bit like liquids, and large volumes with particular characteristics may pour downhill and pool in pockets, but that isn't their typical way of behaving. They normally act like billions of mad little rubber bullets bouncing around. given a bit of time, they are almost perfectly self-mixing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
At room temperature, an average CO2 molecule is whizzing around, bouncing off surfaces and other gas molecules, at more than 700 miles an hour. Nitrogen molecules (N2), being lighter, are a bit quicker.
Gases sometimes behave a bit like liquids, and large volumes with particular characteristics may pour downhill and pool in pockets, but that isn't their typical way of behaving. They normally act like billions of mad little rubber bullets bouncing around. given a bit of time, they are almost perfectly self-mixing.
Careful w/ the facts here, buddy....we don't want Myrrh's head to blow up ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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 Mr Tambourine Man:
I myself have taught a class of ten year-olds about how gases diffuse and fill the volume of the 'container' they are in rather than sinking to the bottom.
Alas. Myrrh is nine.
--------------------
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
The more I look at this, the more I wonder if Myrrh understands the basic properties of gases and why a gas IS a gas. And what boiling means.
Expecting gases to be constantly dragged down by gravity is pretty much a contradiction in terms. The whole point of a gas is that it has sufficient energy to NOT behave this way. If it had less energy, it would be a liquid.
Also, the wikipedia article on 'Mixture' was interesting. It talks about solutions, colloids and suspensions. As far as mixtures of gases are concerned, solutions are presented as the only option. You'd think if Myrrh was right, and that a heterogeneous mixture of gases was possible, SOMEONE would have mentioned it in the last couple of centuries.
--------------------
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
Sigh. Not that I'm meaning to imply gravity doesn't affect gases. It just doesn't affect them AS MUCH as other things. Still air for several days, etc etc...
--------------------
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
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You'd think if Myrrh was right, and that a heterogeneous mixture of gases was possible, SOMEONE would have mentioned it in the last couple of centuries.
I guess the plot just thickened again.
--------------------
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
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
I myself have taught a class of ten year-olds about how gases diffuse and fill the volume of the 'container' they are in rather than sinking to the bottom.
Alas. Myrrh is nine.
Personal attacks have no place in Purgatory. If you simply must vent, take it to Hell.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
There's something interesting going on here. We've had both empirical and particulate-level arguments to justify mixing.
But I don't think anyone has attempted to quantify it yet? Clearly there will be a gradient in the proportion of CO2, and that gradient will depend on temperature.
We could make a very naive estimate based on the particulate model. For example, the crudest calculation we might make would be to take Hatless's figure of 740mph, and work out how high that would take a CO2 molecule fired up in the air against gravity. About 5km? That gives us a basic scale. Of course, 740mph is the most common speed, many molecules go faster.
But of course that's hopelessly naive.
Entropy should give us a better tool. Here's the most crude calculation I can think of: Consider a hugely tall cylinder. There's a door located just above the bottom, separating a small section of the cylinder at the bottom containing pure CO2, from pure N2 above the door, such that if the two were mixed you'll get the same proportion of CO2 as in the atmosphere. (Ignoring O2 for now.)
If you open the door, the CO2 can stay at the bottom (the lowest energy state), or it can mix (higher energy, but lower entropy because of greater disorder).
We can calculate the change in entropy using this equation. If the change in entropy times the temperature is greater than the potential energy cost of raising the CO2, then total mixing is favoured over no mixing. (Of course, you actually get a gradient, which is even more favourable entropicly).
Now, by simply calculating the height of a cylinder at which the entropy cost of total mixing matches the energy cost, we'll get a better (crude) estimate of a scale length for the CO2 gradient.
So, if we size the cylinder to hold 1 mole total and use proportion of CO2 to be 4x10^-4, I get deltaS = 0.025 J K-1
Say T = 250K. TdeltaS = 6.25 J
Difference in amu between CO2 and N2 is 30amu. We've got 4 x 10^-4 mol of CO2, so that's 0.000 012 Kg of mass difference (because a mole of gas of amu 30 weighs 0.03Kg. Bloody cgs units.)
So if g = 10 m s-2, perfect mixing is favoured over no mixing at the point where the change in height is 5000 metres, i.e. cylinder is 10000 metres tall.
That roughly fits the numbers from the naive particulate model. Even more favoured will be a gradient of mixing to a much greater height.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
There's something interesting going on here. .
You could have fooled me. Unless this is one of those rare occasions where interesting is used as a synonym for repetitive boring drivel.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
There's something interesting going on here. .
You could have fooled me. Unless this is one of those rare occasions where interesting is used as a synonym for repetitive boring drivel.
Aumbry
If this discussion is drivel, why bother to comment? Do you have nothing to say on the topic?
Clearly, gravity must have an effect on gases, otherwise our atmosphere would escape. But the extent of the effect is too small to sort the gases by weight/density as Myrrh would have us believe. I notice she/they ignored my survival following my visit to the lowest point in the Earth's well-mixed atmosphere: the Dead Sea, where people go for the benefit of their respiratory health. Claims that the heavier gases 'pool' at low points and don't diffuse and mix just sound like a wind-up, not a serious attempt to observe or understand the real world.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Claims that the heavier gases 'pool' at low points and don't diffuse and mix just sound like a wind-up, not a serious attempt to observe or understand the real world.
Please help me cut to the chase, here.
Myrrh is being routinely vilified for having apparently suggested 'heavier gases pool' (you'll pardon me if I haven't followed the details ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ).
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
TIA.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
Her other objections have all been torn to shreds as well. This is the one she keeps repeating lately though.
She has no leg to stand on in the matter. While there are somewhat reasonable objections to be made, and which have been made, about AGW, her ideas and information sources are apparently too coked out to recognize them.
--------------------
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 Petaflop:
Mhyrr, can we presume that 19th century physicists were not part of the 21st century global climate change conspiracy?
If so, then if we can calculate the composition as a function of height of a column of gas the depth of the atmosphere using only 19th century physics, will you accept that calculation?
If then that calculation matches the readings from the WDCGG taken from monitoring stations at different elevations and from aircraft, will you accept that data?
(I have no intuition concerning the behaviour of gasses, so I don't know what I'm biting off here, so I want to know if there is a point before I start.)
I think I've already posted other hitorical measurements of CO2 levels and there's the one picture we get from satellite measurements, they say CO2 is not well-mixed. So, really don't want to get into that now. I'm trying to get Alan to answer specific questions because it's these kinds of statements AGWs make with complete abandon, and then can't prove them.
They can't prove them, although AGW has been claiming it is settled science and there's no arguments, because the proofs don't exist. So, for example as here, when I show an example of such nonsense in the statement that 'it is well known that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years', Alan comes back with, 'well, I'd say more like 200 years'...
? Prove it say! Prove it they can't. Because search as they might through all AGWScience they can't find any such scientific proofs, which is why they just make up a figure that suits, for dramatic effect.
I'm just trying to zone in on some of this.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It takes work to mix the gases. You even understand that as shown in some your statements about it, as you've used it above and elsewhere. Where you have said that in still conditions heavier than air will pool until something comes to move it.
No, I said that in still air an externally supplied body of heavy gas (eg: something enriched in CO2) will pool until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere. That diffusion happens without any work being done.
Then you're still talking bollocks.
Prove that this would happen, that this "body of heavy gas enriched (eg: something enriched in CO2" will pool as one; and not the CO2 separating out from it and pooling.
BECAUSE. I have already given you example after example, from people who do understand this, who say it is the CO2 which pools, BECAUSE it is heavier than air.
You are proposing something novel.
Unheard of in real science. It may make sense in AGW, but it is patently illogical in real life.
How do you propose this is being done? The CO2 all hold hands and wrap themselves around any lighter molecules like a blanket and so they sink and pool together? Or, how about, each little CO2 molecule has some blue tack with him and sticks it to as many lighter molecules as he can, and all his chums are doing the same? Or..
Please, do explain.
You are going against conventional wisdom of real science in the real world.
Ditto your "will pool until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere. That diffusion happens without any work being done."
Show and tell.
quote:
What you're also saying at the same time is that there is this 'magic' something that will mix them against gravity
quote:
Nothing magic. Just the everyday, happens all the time, motion of molecules in a gas. Helped by mass movement of air (eg: wind). Pure physics.
Er, nothing has changed in the room, there is no more movement of 'wind' than when the CO2 pooled.
So, how does the motion of molecules in a gas cause the CO2 which is still pooled on the ground cause it to diffuse until it is well-mixed in all the atmosphere when the CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than the atmosphere into which you claim it will do this?
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is designated [b]a non-toxic gas[b/] in REAL SCIENCE.
...
When CO2 kills it kills by asphyxiation.
quote:
No, CO2 kills by being chemically toxic. Even at a few % CO2, the concentration of O2 isn't significantly reduced - and, you'll certainly have enough O2 to breath (as anyone who's ever been up a high mountain and not asphyxiated will tell you). You need to reach very high concentrations of CO2, above 25% or so, before the reduction in the amount of oxygen you breathe in becomes significant. Above a few % concentration your lungs will allow enough CO2 into the blood to slightly increase it's acidity. That will eventually kill you.
Incidentally, the same acidification by CO2 is observed in water, and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already resulting in observable increases in ocean acidity which will have serious consequences for the survival of marine organisms.
This is truly unbelievable. This is what our children are being taught...
Do you really have no idea what toxin means?
In REALScience, as opposed to the fantasy world science created by AGW, Carbon Dioxide is designated a non-toxic gas.
Look at the List here
quote:
How does the CO2 which has pooled on the floor 'diffuse' back into the atmosphere to be become 'well-mixed'?
quote:
The motion of the individual air molecules - O2, N2, Ar etc as well as CO2. That is the mechanism of diffusion.
So show me how, explain it. How does CO2 which has pooled on the floor, and nothing else has changed in the room, become well-mixed in the air in this room?
I'm still asking you to prove it. That is not a proof.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So show me how, explain it. How does CO2 which has pooled on the floor, and nothing else has changed in the room, become well-mixed in the air in this room?
I'm still asking you to prove it. That is not a proof.
It's all here on the last 5 pages or so. Just because you are unable to recognize it does not make it so.
I suggest you re-read it, and read for comprehension this time.
--------------------
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:
Will you please, for goodness sake, butt out of my discussion with Alan if this is the continuing irrelevant responses you come up with.
No, I will not. You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a private e-mail exchange.
If you repeatedly insist that a gas 1.5 times heavier than air must obviously sink, it's perfectly relevant to ask you to explain why you apparently think a gas 1.4 times heavier than air does not.
I haven't mistaken it, you continue to not to listen to what I'm saying. The key word I used was "irrelevant", to my discussion with Alan.
You are not engaged in your private discussion, you are posting on a public forum. When you say nonsensical things, you may expect to be challenged.
quote:
Where have I said that about argon?
Every time you admit that air is a mixture of gases of different weights, you highlight the incoherence of your insistence that CO2 must always separate out because it's heavier than air.
Here, let me show you how it works, using a little thing I like to call "logic":
- Major premise (pace Myrhh) - All gases heavier than air must separate out
- Minor premise - Argon is a gas heavier than air (1.4 times heavier)
- Conclusion - Argon must separate out
But in fact we observe that argon does not separate out! So one of the premises must be wrong. Which do you want to abandon?
Petaflop - Interesting approach! I'd have gone with hydrostatic equilibrium and partial pressures myself, but your ballpark estimate is quite respectable. I've previously calculated the scale heights for various atmospheric components here, on the epic "Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment(sic)?" thread from last winter - for CO2 at 300K, it works out to about 5800 meters. Needless to say* at equilibrium the difference in CO2 concentration from (e.g.) floor to ceiling in a room is exceedingly small.
*Hah!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where have I said that about argon?
Every time you admit that air is a mixture of gases of different weights, you highlight the incoherence of your insistence that CO2 must always separate out because it's heavier than air.
Here, let me show you how it works, using a little thing I like to call "logic":
- Major premise (pace Myrhh) - All gases heavier than air must separate out
- Minor premise - Argon is a gas heavier than air (1.4 times heavier)
- Conclusion - Argon must separate out
But in fact we observe that argon does not separate out! So one of the premises must be wrong. Which do you want to abandon?
Your logic.
Show me this fantasy observation that Argon does not separate out.
In other words, prove it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll.
[Sigh]
Leave troll and crusader identification to the Hosts, please. Issue under H & A discussion.
Name-call in Hell if you feel you must. Don't do it here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Show me this fantasy observation that Argon does not separate out.
Oh, are you now claiming that argon also separates out? How fascinating! Just how thick is the layer of argon we're supposed to be living in anyway, Myrhh, down here at the bottom of the atmosphere where all the heavy gases like to hang out?
Previously you said quote:
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.
Why does the CO2 get its own layer, but poor argon is relegated to "the rest of the air"?
And then later you said quote:
It's called pooling when there's lots of it doing the same thing, 'falling out of the air' (*) because it is heavier than air [...]
(*) 'out of the air', because, Air is mainly Nitrogen and Oxygen and 1% Argon
Really, what are we to believe, Myrhh? Is argon part of the mixture we call air, along with nitrogen and oxygen? Or will you now start telling us that the entire atmosphere has distinct layers of sharply differing composition, like some kind of frou-frou alcoholic beverage?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Dave - when I said air is mainly Nitrogen Oxygen and Argon, it was to point to the simple fact that rounded up, that is what air is.
Argon is slight less than 1%, it is still a trace gas.
If this is confusing, then perhaps think of it the other way around, air just less than 100% Nitrogen and Oxygen, with bits of Argon, and much less, even tiny bits, of CO2 and other trace.
Nitrogen and Oxygen are very close in weight, Oxygen slightly heavier, so it too will separate downwards.
So, Argon, being heavier than Air, which is practically 100% not Argon, has bits of Argon always tending to sink in it.
Like CO2, it sinks in air, i.e., it displaces air.
Which is practically 100% not it.
Which could be a problem for welders in confined spaces who accidently leave their equipment leaking argon, say in a car inspection pit, and coming back later then step down into it..
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Er, nothing has changed in the room, there is no more movement of 'wind' than when the CO2 pooled.
So, how does the motion of molecules in a gas cause the CO2 which is still pooled on the ground cause it to diffuse until it is well-mixed in all the atmosphere when the CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than the atmosphere into which you claim it will do this?
Wind is the movement of large bodies of gas in the same direction. Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion.
quote:
Do you really have no idea what toxin means?
In REALScience, as opposed to the fantasy world science created by AGW, Carbon Dioxide is designated a non-toxic gas.
Look at the List here
I'll disagree with their designation of CO2 as non-toxic, although at the 400ppm concentration in their table it certainly isn't toxic. The number of people who have died from CO2 poisoning, at concentrations low enough to not significantly reduce O2 levels, is testimony enough for me of the toxic effects of CO2.
BTW, do you accept everything else on that page about the properties of gases? Because, if you do it at least gives us all a place to start trying to figure out what you're having difficulty with in comprehending very basic science.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Which could be a problem for welders in confined spaces who accidently leave their equipment leaking argon, say in a car inspection pit, and coming back later then step down into it..
Which is another example of a heavy gas sourced from sonewhere other than the atmosphere pooling temporarily before eventually diffusing into the atmosphere.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
There may well be other reasons for being sceptical about global warming that are worth discussing.
The irony here is that most sceptics about global warming DON'T believe the things that Myrrh believes.
But this is her chosen rationale: that heavy gases pool in the general atmosphere, that plants grow low to the ground because that's where the CO2 is and have stomata on the underside of leaves for the same reason, and that CO2 is incapable of being 'toxic' at any concentration (why asphyxiation is excluded as a MECHANISM of toxicity, I'm not sure - it seems that Myrrh envisions a strict distinction between chemical and physical causes, even though many 'chemical' causes can actually be explained in physical terms when you go down to the molecular level).
To be honest, if the discussion moved to more detailed discussion of the accuracy of data and modelling and the ability to separate out human CO2 production from the natural long-term atmospheric changes, many of us wouldn't be in a position to comment in much detail. It's precisely because Myrrh has chosen a battleground that involves school-level biology and physics that many of us are in a position to criticise her reasoning.
--------------------
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
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Claims that the heavier gases 'pool' at low points and don't diffuse and mix just sound like a wind-up, not a serious attempt to observe or understand the real world.
Please help me cut to the chase, here.
Myrrh is being routinely vilified for having apparently suggested 'heavier gases pool' (you'll pardon me if I haven't followed the details ).
Does that completely undermine her other skepticisms on the topic or is it a last resort of diehard ACC 'believers'?
TIA.
I don't think it follows that someone getting one thing wrong necessarily means they are wrong on everything else - no. Every mistake does reduce the likelihood that you'll take what they say as correct without checking it carefully though.
What she's doing is amateurishly trying to discredit AGW by attacking what we know about the physical properties of CO2. She hasn't a chance in hell since the properties are well-understood and have been for a very long time; no scientifically competent AGW denier would waste their time or their scientific credibility by challenging AGW on the very basics where there is NO doubt. The only effect of her derailing this discussion is to make us waste our time trying to educate her to primary school level science. Maybe that's the point.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wind is the movement of large bodies of gas in the same direction. Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion.
Go on Alan, tell her about Brownian Motion.
And while you're at it, can you ask her why people can go to places like the Dead Sea where CO2 and Argon must be problems as they displace all the Oxygen to higher places? She listens to you.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Go on Alan, tell her about Brownian Motion.
And while you're at it, can you ask her why people can go to places like the Dead Sea where CO2 and Argon must be problems as they displace all the Oxygen to higher places? She listens to you.
Other people have told her about the Dead Sea, and that you can go there without asphyxiating. I'm not the only person in this discussion with Myrrh, I don't see any need to repeat points others have made, especially when they've been well made.
If she wants to know about Brownian motion I'll explain it.
--------------------
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
Here's something else interesting.
Given that I've shown how unfavourable 'pooling' is entropicly, I'm a little surprised it happens even over the short term - I would have thought that entropy-driven diffusion would deal with it almost as fast as the gas arrived.
Now my intuition could be totally out-of-whack (and as I've already pointed out it weak in this area, which is why I'm doing calculations), but I wonder if there isn't another issue here.
I guess this is another way of asking 'how fast is diffusion?'
When gasses are released from a cylinder under pressure, they pass through a throttle valve to reduce the output pressure and control the rate of flow. This causes a significant (very significant if the cylinder is highly pressurised) cooling of the gas. Which would then allow some degree of pooling until the gas warms up to the surrounding temperature.
[ 22. September 2010, 11:53: Message edited by: Petaflop ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, Argon, being heavier than Air, which is practically 100% not Argon, has bits of Argon always tending to sink in it.
Like CO2, it sinks in air, i.e., it displaces air.
"Always tending to sink"? How can it "always" tend to sink, and yet never be finished sinking? Is there some infinite supply up at the top of the atmosphere? Does it come from outer space? And where does it go when it reaches the ground?
You can wave your hands about the "trace" gas argon, but consider this: the total mass of the atmosphere is about 4.2x10^17 kg, of which some 5.6x10^15 kg is argon. That's nearly 140 kg for every square meter of earth's surface. If that "trace" argon had settled out it there would be a layer of pure argon just above the earth's surface more than 30 meters thick.
But there isn't, so it hasn't.
And if argon doesn't separate out, there's no reason to suppose that CO2 does.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Myrrh, you have repeatedly demanded proofs of what others are saying here. As I'm not a scientist, I can't offer any and won't attempt to.
I am puzzled, though, about what you think WOULD constitute "proof" of the mixing of gases in atmosphere and the tendency of gases to disperse in whatever space is available. You have rejected all the evidence offered on these points.
Since it's very clear that you have your own specific understanding of the properties of gases (or more specifically, CO2, and there's no need to repeat this, I've read the whole thread), you must also have in mind what conditions would have to exist for CO2 to actually do what Dave W and Alan Cresswell and Barnabas and so on (sorry about any omissions) claim it does.
What proof would you accept? What are the "real world" circumstances which would have to be created for your theory to no longer be untenable?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Personal attack. Sorry. Wrong board.
[Wrongly placed post deleted in view of immediate apology - B62]
[ 22. September 2010, 12:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
That alone sets her apart as a crusading troll.
[Sigh]
Leave troll and crusader identification to the Hosts, please. Issue under H & A discussion.
Name-call in Hell if you feel you must. Don't do it here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I thought it was a fine line and that I was on the ok side of it, but it's absolutely your show, and I accept your call. My apologies (again).
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Has the endless arguement about the heaviness of CO2 missed the main point of AGW? That is, the effect that atmospheric CO2 has on AGW; how does the 0.035% of the upper atmospheric CO2 hold back or reflect the radiant heat from the earth rather than letting it be dispersed into outer space?
Can Myrrh or Alan or others respond?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Has the endless arguement about the heaviness of CO2 missed the main point of AGW? That is, the effect that atmospheric CO2 has on AGW; how does the 0.035% of the upper atmospheric CO2 hold back or reflect the radiant heat from the earth rather than letting it be dispersed into outer space?
Can Myrrh or Alan or others respond?
The heat radiated by the Earth is absorbed and then radiated by the Co2 in all directions, so some of it ends up heading back to the planet.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, of course, other greenhouses gases (methane, water vapour, CFCs etc) do the same. It's not all CO2.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Personal attack. Sorry. Wrong board.
OK, in view of your immediate withdrawal, and your apology, I've deleted the post you put on the wrong board.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
