|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Given that I've shown how unfavourable 'pooling' is entropicly, I'm a little surprised it happens even over the short term - I would have thought that entropy-driven diffusion would deal with it almost as fast as the gas arrived.
Entropy provides a direction but it's still going to be restrained by the motion of individual molecules of gas.
Although they move fast (rms velocity for N2 at STP is 450m/s - or 1000mph), there are a lot of molecules there and a lot of collisions. The mean free path of molecules is consequently very short (~10^-6cm at STP, with lighter molecules travelling further than heavier ones). There are effectively no interactions between molecules over dimensions significantly in excess of the mean free path.
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
--------------------
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
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Myrrh, you say:
quote:
The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks
If this is the case, and gravity is the only factor affecting the movement of gases, why is there any air at all? Why after all this time, doesn't the 'real atmosphere' simply consist of discrete layers of gases, separated out on the basis of their molecular weight, heaviest (presumably including CO2) at the bottom?
anne
PS is there a heavenly version of the hell-call on the ship? I'd like to award Alan an honorary harp and halo on the basis of the patience and good-will that he's shown on this thread. How can anyone can be polite, coherent and informative at the early hours that he's doing some of his posting, whilst explaining physics in a way that even this idiot can follow?
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
For completeness, I did a little simulation of the CO2 concentration as a function of altitude based on entropy-driven mixing alone, using an exponential model of atmospheric density (which comes straight out from the gas laws assuming constant temperature. In practice the temperature varies a bit, but it's not bad).
Concentrations based on minimisation of the Gibbs free energy on the basis of the entropy of mixing linked earlier. (i.e. all based on physics determined before I'd guess 1882)
My minimisation algorithm is laughably simple, but gives a stable result. Code available on request (70 lines of python).
Air density is expressed as a fraction of total mass of the atmosphere in that height range. Air is modelled as N2 + trace CO2.
code:
Altitude/m Air density CO2 fraction
0 0.068992 0.000775
500 0.064236 0.000721
1000 0.059807 0.000671
1500 0.055684 0.000624
2000 0.051846 0.000581
2500 0.048272 0.000540
3000 0.044944 0.000503
3500 0.041846 0.000468
4000 0.038961 0.000436
4500 0.036275 0.000405
5000 0.033774 0.000377
5500 0.031446 0.000351
6000 0.029278 0.000327
6500 0.027260 0.000304
7000 0.025381 0.000283
7500 0.023631 0.000263
8000 0.022002 0.000245
8500 0.020485 0.000228
9000 0.019073 0.000212
9500 0.017758 0.000197
10000 0.016534 0.000184
10500 0.015394 0.000171
11000 0.014333 0.000159
11500 0.013345 0.000148
12000 0.012425 0.000138
12500 0.011568 0.000128
13000 0.010771 0.000119
13500 0.010028 0.000111
14000 0.009337 0.000103
14500 0.008693 0.000096
15000 0.008094 0.000089
15500 0.007536 0.000083
16000 0.007017 0.000077
16500 0.006533 0.000072
17000 0.006082 0.000067
17500 0.005663 0.000062
18000 0.005273 0.000058
18500 0.004909 0.000053
19000 0.004571 0.000050
19500 0.004256 0.000046
20000 0.003962 0.000043
20500 0.003689 0.000040
21000 0.003435 0.000037
21500 0.003198 0.000034
22000 0.002978 0.000032
22500 0.002772 0.000030
23000 0.002581 0.000028
23500 0.002403 0.000026
24000 0.002238 0.000024
24500 0.002083 0.000022
25000 0.001940 0.000021
25500 0.001806 0.000019
26000 0.001682 0.000018
26500 0.001566 0.000017
27000 0.001458 0.000015
27500 0.001357 0.000014
28000 0.001264 0.000013
28500 0.001177 0.000012
29000 0.001095 0.000011
29500 0.001020 0.000011
30000 0.000950 0.000010
30500 0.000884 0.000009
31000 0.000823 0.000009
31500 0.000766 0.000008
32000 0.000714 0.000007
32500 0.000664 0.000007
33000 0.000619 0.000006
33500 0.000576 0.000006
34000 0.000536 0.000006
34500 0.000499 0.000005
35000 0.000465 0.000005
35500 0.000433 0.000004
36000 0.000403 0.000004
36500 0.000375 0.000004
37000 0.000349 0.000004
37500 0.000325 0.000003
38000 0.000303 0.000003
38500 0.000282 0.000003
39000 0.000263 0.000003
39500 0.000244 0.000002
40000 0.000228 0.000002
40500 0.000212 0.000002
41000 0.000197 0.000002
41500 0.000184 0.000002
42000 0.000171 0.000002
42500 0.000159 0.000002
43000 0.000148 0.000001
43500 0.000138 0.000001
44000 0.000129 0.000001
44500 0.000120 0.000001
45000 0.000111 0.000001
45500 0.000104 0.000001
46000 0.000097 0.000001
46500 0.000090 0.000001
47000 0.000084 0.000001
47500 0.000078 0.000001
48000 0.000073 0.000001
48500 0.000068 0.000001
49000 0.000063 0.000001
49500 0.000059 0.000001
Note that we get some CO2 going right up to 50km, but there is rather less mixing than observed in practice. That tells me that the other mixing effects (wind, convection) play a significant role. Entropy provides the absolute lower bound on the amount of mixing that must have occurred once equilibrium is reached, in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
My initial intuition was that entropy was the primary driver of mixing, hence that entropy would explain the atmospheric concentration as a function of altitude largely on its own, so I was wrong there.
Doubling CO2 concentration at ground level doubles it at altitude too.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
Thanks, that sounds plausible, but still not totally intuitive to me. Will contemplate further.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
So you keep saying. So I keep telling you to prove this is what will happen in that room.
I am saying, to remind here why I say it's you talking bollocks, that unless there is something like wind, like from a fan, if the conditions which were there when the CO2 pooled are unchanged, then the CO2 will remain sitting there on the ground.
Because in real life the CO2 can't get up under its own steam and travel through the air to distribute itself until it is well-mixed.
You, arguing for AGWScience, say it can. I keep telling you I require proof and so far you have abysmally failed to deliver.
I have shown, to establish that I am not talking bollocks, many examples from common scientific knowledge in the Real world, that have talked about the known properties of CO2 in various situations, many such where it is critical to know the real facts about CO2, such as mining, living around volcanic sources etc., and they all say it stays there until something acts on it to move it. Outdoors, the wind is one such actor.
I have given you numerous examples from real life. In real science this is called observation.
You claim in this AGWScience, that the molecules will all move around and the CO2 taking part in that dance of molecules will diffuse throughout the atmosphere and become well-mixed, so well mixed you say, that it stays mixed.
This has not been observed in real life in any of those situations where CO2 is known to pool.
All observations have shown CO2 to act according to its nature, that it is 1.5 times heavier than air. All observations have shown that CO2 acting according to this its nature will sink through the atmosphere displacing oxygen, and this is observed clearly when in large enough amounts it is known to pool on the ground. All observations have shown that unless something comes along to act on this pool, it will not move.
So, we have two things showing you are talking AGW bollocks.
The nature of CO2 itself and rather a lot of observations from real life interactions with CO2.
Well known and understood in real science and by those working in situations where it is critical to know such things, that is, the real nature and the real effects it has in interactions in real nature.
The difficulty I am having here is that you are all so far removed from real nature, real science, that you continually argue that this isn't real.
But it is real, it is the real observable science in the real world.
quote:
Do you really have no idea what toxin means?
In REALScience, as opposed to the fantasy world science created by AGW, Carbon Dioxide is designated a non-toxic gas.
Look at the List here
quote:
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.
With respect, that you disagree with it is irrelevant.
It has been given that designation when such designations were given in real world science. It was designated a non-toxic gas because it is a not toxic gas. The science is settled.
Therefore the designation is settled.
In your AGWScience you're now saying that it suddenly becomes a toxin when before it wasn't...
You're just making up science to suit this AGWScience agenda. It bears no relation to real life nor to real science.
Carbon Monoxide is a toxic gas. Carbon Dioxide isn't.
Carbon Dioxide is not a poison. It kills, when it does, by asphyxiation. By displacing oxygen because it is heavier than oxygen. It is a suffocating gas. It is no more a poison than the pillow used by some murderers to suffocate their victims.
To continue calling it a poison and claim this is science fact is to promote a scientific lie.
Either call your AGWScience a new religion requiring faith to believe its 'scientific facts' are real against all evidence to the contrary, or stop claiming to speak for real science.
AGWScienceConsensus is dishonest here, because it claims it is real science. Of course, we know it is dishonest and deliberately so from the many examples we have of it perverting real science by cherry picking data, by excluding real scientific checking of its claims in the many examples of withholding its data and calculations and by villifying those requesting it, and so on. Far too many examples for any interested in real science to take AGW seriously.
However, because it is a deliberate deception on the part of some and it has made great inroads in teaching its AGWScience as fact in schools and such, it more than just dishonest, it is malignant.
It is corrupting the minds of our children.
quote:
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.
Why shouldn't I accept it?
I thought that page very good, though its page on Carbon Dioxide ignores it by reverting back to your AGWScience of CO2 as a toxin..
I have to admit I'm surprised you asked, I thought it supported better what I was saying, rather than your continued use out of context reasons arguing against my real life and real science, from which you still cannot provide proof of your claims.
How does CO2 physically accomplish this movement of diffusion into the atmosphere in your claim when it still remains pooled on the ground and the circumstances present when it pooled haven't changed and it is still heavier than air?
How?
Perhaps the blue tack would work again here, sticking it to some of the nitrogen and oxygen atoms making a balloon and floating up?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Myrrh,
How can you write so many words and have them all be wrong?
And that page very specifically counters what you are posting. You say it's made up malarkey that all molecules in a gas are constantly in motion. Hey, guess what? That page says it too! A source of yours *once again* supports our assertions, against yours. Imagine that?
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Given that I've shown how unfavourable 'pooling' is entropicly, I'm a little surprised it happens even over the short term - I would have thought that entropy-driven diffusion would deal with it almost as fast as the gas arrived.
Entropy provides a direction but it's still going to be restrained by the motion of individual molecules of gas.
Although they move fast (rms velocity for N2 at STP is 450m/s - or 1000mph), there are a lot of molecules there and a lot of collisions. The mean free path of molecules is consequently very short (~10^-6cm at STP, with lighter molecules travelling further than heavier ones). There are effectively no interactions between molecules over dimensions significantly in excess of the mean free path.
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
That would be a cool thing to see, if there were any safe, non-toxic, convenient gases that were easily distinguishable from air by sight (any suggestions?)
But if we could see it, we'd probably want to use a time-lapse camera to stave off boredom, because it seems diffusion is quite slow under sea level atmospheric conditions, according to my estimates.
If we track the motion of one typical molecule of air (we'll change to CO2 later) starting near the floor, it looks like a random walk consisting of many very short straight-line segments in between the collisions with other molecules that Alan mentions. In this rough calculation, we can ignore the side-to-side movement and approximate the motion of the molecule as a one-dimensional random walk in the vertical direction.
For a 1-dimensional random walk, the expected distance traveled after N collisions is d*sqrt(N), where d is the average distance traveled between collisions (the mean free path). By "expected distance" I mean the probability-weighted average – some molecules will have traveled farther, and some not so far, but the expected distance will be a typical value.
If we set this expected distance equal to the height of a room h, we can solve for the number of collisions experienced along the way: N=(h/d)^2. If v is the typical speed of a molecule, the typical time between collisions is d/v, so the amount of time it takes the average molecule starting at the floor to reach the top is thus N*(d/v) or h^2/(d*v).
Taking the mean free path of an air molecule to be d=65x10^-9 m and using Alan's value of v=450 m/s for the typical speed, the time it takes the average molecule to travel from the floor to the ceiling in a room with a height of h=3 meters works out to be about 3.6 days.
Since CO2 molecules are heavier than the average air molecule, they move slower; if the RMS speed of the average air molecule is 450 m/s, that of the average CO2 molecule is 450/sqrt(1.5)=370 m/s. The slower speed lengthens the time to about 4.4 days. (I’ve been casual in my use of "typical" and "average" for speeds, times, and distances, but this result should be about the right order of magnitude.)
So if you start with a “pool” of concentrated CO2 at the bottom of a region of still air, it will take a few days to spread out evenly as it diffuses upward – but it will inexorably do so. And this is the absolute slowest rate at which the mixing occurs – any convection or other turbulence will cause it to happen much faster. Since the atmosphere has been around for ages, and has lots of turbulence, CO2 is well-mixed throughout the troposphere, with the exception of localized regions very near concentrated sources.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Myrrh, the assertion that the 'real world' is the one with absolutely zero wind in it is quite bizarre.
--------------------
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 Dave W.:
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?
Argon
I think this is a site in the making, there isn't a corresponding page on CO2.
Dave, I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in discussing Argon, or rather I'm not interested in discussing it here, I get easily distracted..
In as much as it relates to what I am discussing here, Argon, being heavier than air sinks in air, it will displace air just as Carbon Dioxide does. It too is non toxic, it kills, in those situations where it does pool in quantity, by asphyxiation.
quote:
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.
We don't live in a test tube..
We know the CO2 cycle, presumably if we knew more we would know more about the Argon cycle, but like CO2 it is absorbed to some extent by life, plant and animal, we have trace amounts of it in our bodies, but we don't yet fully understand it. A lot of it ends up in the sea. Some experiments have shown that insects grown in atmospheres replacing nitrogen, from memory no sure if all or some, by argon, grew better, and helium.
quote:
And if argon doesn't separate out, there's no reason to suppose that CO2 does.
Well, for a start if your scenario was actually feasible in the real world, taking into consideration real nature, then we would have a layer of CO2 beneath it first, since we clearly we don't, then there must be other factors to take into consideration.
I can't think of any real life situation that produces Argon in the way that nature produces CO2 in abundance, it's noted for being dangerous in those situations where it is extracted from separating oxygen and nitrogen in lab conditions and then used in modern technologies.
But this layering thing is clearly bothering you. I've given examples before of how this happens in say mines, that carbon dioxide is a known and dangerous hazard for those entering mines where there has been no disturbance. As is the methane found in a layer at the top, people used to be sent in covered in wet towelling while carrying a lit candle to test for this danger, and so on. The layering effect of gases is well known in the real world and to real world science, in context. This is a description of the Cameroon deaths by Carbon Dioxide suffocation, and how they worked out the best way to deal with future danger. They couldn't have done this if they didn't understand the property of CO2 in real life. An interesting read, but this from it:
quote:
People who were inside with their windows and doors shut had a better chance of surviving. There were even cases where enough CO2 seeped into homes to smother people who were lying down asleep, but not enough to kill the people who were standing up and had their heads above the gas. Some of these survivors did not even realize anything unusual had happened until they checked on their sleeping loved ones and discovered they were already dead.
Strangest Disaster of 20th Century
These things were known to happen, but until recently not well understood in all situations. Mining is one area where the hazards of these different layers was understood, hence raised lit candle on a long stick to test for methane and carrying a canary which would drop dead first if Carbon Monoxide present..
In England the use of canaries was only stopped in 1986:
Coal Mine Canaries Made Redundant
When I was at junior school, some time before the canaries were retired from active duty, the examples from mining were how we learned about the separation of gases.
Here, found a page on mining Tech Talk: Manually Mining Coal Underground
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Myrrh,
How can you write so many words and have them all be wrong?
And that page very specifically counters what you are posting. You say it's made up malarkey that all molecules in a gas are constantly in motion. Hey, guess what? That page says it too! A source of yours *once again* supports our assertions, against yours. Imagine that?
Please, read the page.
It fully supports my position, that of real science in the real world.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Myrrh, you say:
quote:
The motion is of gases separating themselves out in the real world in real science in the real atmosphere, therefore, Carbon Dioxide sinks
If this is the case, and gravity is the only factor affecting the movement of gases, why is there any air at all? Why after all this time, doesn't the 'real atmosphere' simply consist of discrete layers of gases, separated out on the basis of their molecular weight, heaviest (presumably including CO2) at the bottom?
anne
Because real life is a dynamic system, for example, in photosynthesis plants 'breathe in' Carbon Dioxide and 'exhale' Oxygen and they've shown that they grow better when there is more Carbon Dioxide in the air and in the soil, this also comes down in large amounts when it rains, and so the cycle continues. This is all part of the Carbon Life Cycle, which is our life and our world. We're still learning about it.
I've just tried to find a page and this came up, in which it says, it's about the value of soil in this cycle, that plants also give Carbon Dioxide to the soil from their roots. I wonder if that's a corollary somehow to the dual process plants have in taking it from the air?
In the day photosynthesis taking in Carbon Dioxide and breathing out Oxygen, and during the night, breathing in Oxygen and breathing out Carbon Dioxide.
I saw a programme a while back and my memory sometimes is really junk, don't recall the country but somewhere in South America. Where they've discovered the ancient people there had an amazing crop growth from 'growing' carbon, as charcoal, in a particular way in the soil and using this to enrich the land under their crops and fruit trees. It was organically alive, and spread in time throughout the soil enriched with it. They are beginning to re-establish this. The difference in health of plants grown in this mix is remarkable.
Myrrh
[code]
[ 24. September 2010, 00:00: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Myrrh, I don't know how many times we need to say this: you keep writing about 'air' as if it's a specific substance - as if you could write a chemical formula for it.
It's not. CO2 and Argon are particular substances. Air is a mixture of substances.
--------------------
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 Myrrh:
Please, read the page.
It fully supports my position, that of real science in the real world.
If this is "real science in the real world," then you also must support AGW, since it stems from the exact same physics that this page uses.
A gas consists of molecules which are *always* moving. All matter in a system which has energy (i.e. it is above absolute zero) consists of molecules which are always moving.
This is directly counter to your belief that diffusion does not exist. Molecules constantly bouncing off of each other at extremely high speeds (predicted by the same physics that predicts the laws and formulae on that page) result in diffusion. So either you don't actually believe that diffusion exists, or you don't believe the page. I don't see there being any choice in the middle of those.
If this diffusion did not exist, pooling would occur at an extremely rapid rate, and you would have the separation of the atmosphere into various layers as said by so many of us here. When the wind isn't moving and convection isn't occurring, diffusion is the only thing keeping us alive.
I'm ignoring your CO2 non-toxic crap since it is simply crap. Yes, at normal concentrations CO2 is non-toxic. At higher concentrations, however, it is most certainly toxic. An MSDS is usually the best source for toxicity information, so here you go: http://www.uigi.com/MSDS_gaseous_CO2.html
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.
Effects of chronic exposure:
Damage to retinal ganglion cells and central nervous system may occur due to the presence of carbon dioxide.
All of this is peripheral to the main point, however. Just because something is generally non-toxic or even extremely beneficial does not mean that same thing is not also poisonous under different situations. Probably every single medicines have concentrations at which they are lethal. I do dislike calling CO2 a poison, as it is extremely hyperbolic [and I haven't heard scientists call it a poison, but I haven't looked either....links would be appreciated]. But to say it is worth regulation due to impacts from higher atmospheric concentrations is not hyperbole, it is good public policy.
Hmm...can't say I'm ignoring it after writing a couple paragraphs. Oh well.
--------------------
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:
We know the CO2 cycle, presumably if we knew more we would know more about the Argon cycle, but like CO2 it is absorbed to some extent by life, plant and animal, we have trace amounts of it in our bodies, but we don't yet fully understand it. A lot of it ends up in the sea. Some experiments have shown that insects grown in atmospheres replacing nitrogen, from memory no sure if all or some, by argon, grew better, and helium.
OK, now you're just making this stuff up, right? "A lot of it ends up in the sea"? Where's your source for that?
quote:
But this layering thing is clearly bothering you. I've given examples before of how this happens in say mines, that carbon dioxide is a known and dangerous hazard for those entering mines where there has been no disturbance.
The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky. It's plainly ridiculous to assert that 140 kg of argon is continously, unceasingly crashing down over every square meter of earth's surface, appearing from no known source at the top of the atmosphere and vanishing without a trace when it reaches the ground - and yet this would have to be the case if accept both the observation that air is 1% argon and the bogus notion that "heavy gases always fall."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Because real life is a dynamic system, for example, in photosynthesis plants 'breathe in' Carbon Dioxide and 'exhale' Oxygen and they've shown that they grow better when there is more Carbon Dioxide in the air and in the soil, this also comes down in large amounts when it rains, and so the cycle continues. This is all part of the Carbon Life Cycle, which is our life and our world. We're still learning about it.
I've just tried to find a page and this came up, in which it says, it's about the value of soil in this cycle, that plants also give Carbon Dioxide to the soil from their roots. I wonder if that's a corollary somehow to the dual process plants have in taking it from the air?
In the day photosynthesis taking in Carbon Dioxide and breathing out Oxygen, and during the night, breathing in Oxygen and breathing out Carbon Dioxide.
Now if you want to believe that, you need to give us a mechanism by which plants can result in enough atmospheric mixing during still times to prevent air separating into component layers. This would take an insane amount of energy by the plants, and some sort of biological fan resulting in giant upwellings of air all the time. Conveniently for us, these don't exist. There is no method by which plants "breathe" out O2 in the way we breathe - there is no impetus behind the respiration. You also then need to explain how this works within the roughly 12 hour cycle of each day, and how this works with seasons. And geography - why is the atmosphere above the arctic circle then so similar to ours?
quote:
Where they've discovered the ancient people there had an amazing crop growth from 'growing' carbon, as charcoal, in a particular way in the soil and using this to enrich the land under their crops and fruit trees. It was organically alive, and spread in time throughout the soil enriched with it. They are beginning to re-establish this.
It's called terra preta and was common in parts of the amazon rainforest. They were not "growing" carbon at all. It is not "organically alive" (whatever that means) and it did not spread, except to the degree that they manually spread it. What happened was the natives made charcoal using a very slow burn of trees that they cleared, and then tilled this in the ground to a degree. We believe this acts similarly to a coral reef and led to large scale, rapid, extremely diverse microbial colonization within this soil, and thereby higher nutrient levels sequestered in the soil (i.e. they were nutrient sinks to use a word you hate...it's also an effective carbon sink). It also allowed for soil formation to occur in much deeper layers than normally happens in the Amazon (very possible it's biggest benefit). It is a pretty impressive technique which I intend to replicate when I am living somewhere semi-permanently and can have a garden again. It definitely deserves more quality research than it has received so far.
--------------------
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 Dave W.:
The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky.
Which is why I'd asked for examples of CO2 pooling without an extra-atmospheric source. There have so far been no such examples offered. Which is of no surprise to me.
--------------------
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
From the page which some here think doesn't support my position.
I originally posted it to show Alan that Carbon Dioxide is designated non-toxic in gas lists. This has been established quite some time and the science is settled, as is the designation, to call it toxic therefore is WRONG in real science.
Alan then brought this page up as an aside to the above, asking me if I agreed with what was said on that page, so 'we would be working from the same page', I said yes, I thought it very good, ...and, as it also supported my position, I wondered where he was going with this.
What I was referring to was the following:
quote:
Gases, Properties of
Ideal and real gases
All four of the gas laws previously discussed apply only to ideal gases. An ideal gas is a theoretical concept developed by scientists to learn more about gases. The particles of which an ideal gas is made have no effect on each other. That is, they do not exert gravitational attraction on each other, and they bounce off each other without losing any energy.
If one makes these assumptions about gases, it is much easier to develop laws describing their behavior. There is, however, one problem with this concept: there is no such thing as an ideal gas in the real world. All gas particles really do interact with each other in some way or another.
That fact doesn't mean that the gas laws are useless. Instead, it warns us that the predictions made by the gas laws may be more or less incorrect. The more or less depends on how closely the gas under consideration resembles an ideal gas. Some gase, like hydrogen and helium, match the description of an ideal gas quite well; other gases do not even come close.
Which is the point I have been making all along in this. Context is everything.
Which is why I know that Alan will never be able to provide me with the proof I've requested for his claims that the Carbon Dioxide still sitting pooled on the floor will under no other influence rise up and mix itself thoroughly in the atmosphere, because it's not real in the real world.
All AGW claims are of such a mixture. Devoid of real science fact in the real world, but continually promoted by claims as in these examples.
AGW begins by giving CO2 properties it doesn't have so causing it to do something contrary to its nature - 'to accumulate in the atmosphere', 'to stay up, choose how many hundreds or thousands of years the spiel can take years', or by claiming that CO2 is a poison contrary to known and established real science.
Likewise, as we've covered in other discussions, AGWScience twists all facts to suit its agenda.
Its agenda is not to promote scientific truths, because these obviously on close inspection contradict is claims, but to create the belief that its science is real. To this end AGW creates its own data sets, but even when this dishonesty is brought to everyone's attention they are so entrenched it makes no difference.
The reason I have chosen to argue these two particular points are firstly, the basic knowledge that CO2 is heavier than air is taken so much for granted by those arguing against AGWScience that it's just been a throwaway line for the most part, as it's heavier than air it's obvious it can't do this so what's there to argue about?, and they've gone into the more interesting for them aspects.. But I thought, and I've been through the arguments in a lot of the other aspects already, that this was key to problem here. And I was interested in finding out just how AGW would argue against this well known to science fact in the real world. Now I know. Secondly, it is a very big gripe of mine that AGWScience indoctrinates our children with the idea that Carbon Dioxide is a poison.
AGWScience is insidious, and powerful, it has had CO2 designated on hazards lists in some countries through its political clout and machinations, but I draw the line at it teaching our children this.
I was truly horrified that it had stooped so low as to produce an ad for tv which had a father reading a bedtime story to his little girl, making her believe that Carbon Dioxide was a danger to the world and that producing more of it would destroy the world, making it her responsibility for the future. Not only lying to her by this fictional AGW claim, but making her actually fearful of something that is absolutely essential to us and all life in the Carbon Life Cycle, of which we're all part and parcel as Carbon Life Forms. No AGW supporter understood why it offended me so much. Now you know.
I live in the real world.
In the real world AGW is a religion not science. It is a new religion mangling science to provide its doctrines. It is dishonest in every way in its acts to continue its own survival and in promoting these doctrines as real science facts. So insidious that it has already in the last few decades managed to corrupt our education system.
If you don't care about this, that's your choice, but I care.
And now I'm done here, there's nothing more I can add to present my view. I rest my case.
Thank you for listening.
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 Dave W.:
The concentration of CO2 in enclosed spaces like mines or buildings, or temporary local concentrations near subterranean sources, provides no support whatsoever to the fanciful notion that CO2 or argon must always fall from the sky.
Which is why I'd asked for examples of CO2 pooling without an extra-atmospheric source. There have so far been no such examples offered. Which is of no surprise to me.
Alan, the reason CO2 pools when and where it does is because it is in large enough quantities to do so, I have already said this several times.
That is one of its effects, from its nature, from its property of being one and a half times heavier than air.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, it pools because it is produced somewhere with sufficiently high concentrations that the volume of air has (temporarily) greater density than the surrounding atmosphere. There are plenty of well known examples of the phenomenum. Here are a list of examples from volcanic sources. That CO2 from a volcano, coal mine, fermentation tank, fire extinguisher can pool is not in dispute. What is is whether there are any circumstances in which CO2 can concentrate out of air. So far, there have been no reported examples of this. Which seeing as it would require a major re-write of the thermodynamics laws and our understanding of the fundamental nature of gases is not surprising.
--------------------
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
Just because CO2 may not be an idea gas doesn't mean that the Ideal Gas Law is not applicable to it, or the basic physical properties of a gas (one of which is that it is composed of particles which are always moving). For CO2 we can simply add in an error term to the relation to make it work - the base concepts all still hold. If you have a balloon full of CO2 and heat it up, it will expand. Or if you have it in a sealed stiff container, the pressure will increase. If you put it in a freezer, the balloon will shrink. If you add more gas to the balloon, the volume will increase or the pressure will increase, etc. These are the basic properties that we're talking about.
It simply doesn't matter that CO2 is heavier. Perfumes, as mentioned earlier, are far heavier than CO2 (and as a more complex structured molecule are less ideal than CO2), yet they still diffuse.
Just because it is not ideal, you cannot claim that these things don't hold. Especially when the ramifications of that claim mean that all air would separate into components (since our laws are universal) and kill every one of us.
Your second area does have some emotional resonance with me - I hate to see the science being misrepresented by whackjobs. Your proposals though are just as whackjob as what you rail against, which is where you fail.
--------------------
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
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Which is why I know that Alan will never be able to provide me with the proof I've requested for his claims that the Carbon Dioxide still sitting pooled on the floor will under no other influence rise up and mix itself thoroughly in the atmosphere, because it's not real in the real world.
I've provided three different proofs - a naive particulate explanation, a naive thermodynamic proof, and a more accurate thermodynamic model, all based on 19th century physics. But because I'm not Alan, these are irrelevant? The laws of physics are different according to who you talk to?
Of course the Victorians would have had to do it analytically, not having access to computers. That's much harder, but after sleeping on it I can see how to go about it. I presume you are not interested?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
One more piece of data to add: Does the difference between an ideal and a real gas make any difference here?
The gas law for ideal gasses is:
PV=nRT
For a non-ideal gas, the Van der Waals equation gives two corrections to this:
(P+n^2a/V^2)(V-nb)=nRT
The size of the a and b coeffs gives the deviation from ideality. Here are some values. If you sort the table on a or b, CO2 comes pretty near the top, 11th or 12th - it's more ideal than most gases.
How big are the deviations? At STP for n=1, T=273K, V=22.4L, P=0.98bar:
nb = 0.04
So the deviation from ideality in the V term (=22.4) is about 0.2%.
n^2a/v^2 = 0.007
So the deviation from ideality in the P term (=1) is about 0.7%.
The two deviations are in opposite directions, so the total deviation is about 0.5%. The situation at ground level is the worst possible case.
In other words, for the purposes of this discussion, CO2 is so close to an ideal gas as to make no difference. (Van der Waals equation of state, 1880).
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although, that's for CO2 rather than air. But, the only time you'll get any significant deviation from ideal gas behaviour is if the molecules in the gas are charged or highly polar, or if they're reactive. Reactive molecules don't stay in the atmosphere for very long. You'll only get charged molecules in electrical storms or at the very top of the atmosphere (due to ionisation from cosmic rays), and they'll also be reactive and so only persist there because there's a continuing source. Forces between polar moelcules are sufficiently strong that they're quite likely to attach to particulates and/or condense (water vapour is probably the most significant polar molecule in air). So, there's no reason to expect dry air to deviate significantly from ideal gas behaviour. Although humid air will (you will find that changing temperature, volume, pressure won't follow the ideal gas relationship as water condenses out).
But the gas laws apply to large volumes of gas. Diffusion is a molecular effect and will happen even in gases very far from ideal. Indeed, diffusion happens in fluids and even solids.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Because real life is a dynamic system, for example, in photosynthesis plants 'breathe in' Carbon Dioxide and 'exhale' Oxygen and they've shown that they grow better when there is more Carbon Dioxide in the air and in the soil, this also comes down in large amounts when it rains, and so the cycle continues. This is all part of the Carbon Life Cycle, which is our life and our world. We're still learning about it.
I've just tried to find a page and this came up, in which it says, it's about the value of soil in this cycle, that plants also give Carbon Dioxide to the soil from their roots. I wonder if that's a corollary somehow to the dual process plants have in taking it from the air?
In the day photosynthesis taking in Carbon Dioxide and breathing out Oxygen, and during the night, breathing in Oxygen and breathing out Carbon Dioxide.
Now if you want to believe that, you need to give us a mechanism by which plants can result in enough atmospheric mixing during still times to prevent air separating into component layers. This would take an insane amount of energy by the plants, and some sort of biological fan resulting in giant upwellings of air all the time. Conveniently for us, these don't exist. There is no method by which plants "breathe" out O2 in the way we breathe - there is no impetus behind the respiration.
I particularly enjoyed this post, actually, as it has reminded me that Myrrh's assertions about what plants are doing removing all the CO2 before it can do any harm depends upon them taking up CO2 through their stomata (the ones on the underside of the leaf...)
Which occurs by, let's see... oh yes. Diffusion. As in the Myrrh-iverse, this doesn't exist, so it's bad news for the plants as well!
--------------------
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 Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if you have a volume of gas of say a 1cm radius sphere the majority of molecules in that volume will be totally oblivious to molecules outside it. If that volume is denser than the surrounding air (eg: the mean molecular mass is greater, or it's colder) then it will sink downwards - the collisions between molecules within the sphere will effectively drag them all down together. Of course, around the surface of the sphere molecules from within the sphere will be colliding with molecules outside (and, vice versa, of course) resulting in random mixing of that interface layer. It's on that interface layer that entropy is acting to favour mixing rather than seperation, and the sphere slowly shrinks in size as the interface becomes like the surrounding air, and a new interface layer within that is formed.
That would be a cool thing to see, if there were any safe, non-toxic, convenient gases that were easily distinguishable from air by sight (any suggestions?)
I don't know of any suitable gases for such an experiment. Most coloured gases are either difficult to obtain or nasty to handle (eg: chlorine).
But, you could do the same experiment in liquids. The dynamics are slightly different, the mean free path of molecules will be shorter and the most easily obtainable liquid (water) is polar so will have surface tension effects. I've not tried the experiment (I might have a look to see what's available at home this evening). But, it occurs to me that if you take a water-soluble liquid such as a food colouring that is sufficiently more dense than water, you could pipette a drop at the top of a glass of water. It should fall through the water (the drop being denser than water) but slowly diffuse die molecules from the surface of the drop into the surrounding water as it goes. If (say) you have a red colouring then what you should see is a descending sphere of red with an expanding trail of fading pink rather like the vapour trail of an aircraft (the spreading out of which is another easily observed example of diffusion - in that case the diffusion of water droplets into the surrounding air).
--------------------
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
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I'm only doing this in order to have a vaguely valid excuse to procrastinate doing some actual work, but I've just done Alan's experiment.
Materials: Tall glass of water. Red food colouring.
Method: shake one drop of the food colouring into the water.
Observation: The drop of food colouring falls to the bottom of the glass, gradually expanding as it goes, and taking about 3 seconds. As it falls, trails of red can be seen to spread out from the main body of the droplet sideways, and upwards. A trail is left behind it. After a short time (as in, the time it took me to type this) the colouring is distributed evenly in the water.
Conclusion: diffusion happens and fluids mix together pretty quickly and efficiently.
Notes: it would be better to leave the water to stand a little longer as it was still swirling about somewhat when I added the food colouring.
Postscript. I can't believe that we are discussing O level physics! Are there not more important CC discussions to be had?
[ 23. September 2010, 13:40: Message edited by: JonahMan ]
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Funnily enough, I nearly quoted Van der Waals' equation, but remembered I'd withdrawn from the thread! Anyway ....
If Myrrh's last defence is "ideal v no-ideal" gases, that defence fails. And her whole position then comes tumbling down.
For any participants who haven't seen it before, here is an interesting (not claimed to be comprehensive) link to van der Waals equation. Nice graph at the end, showing divergence related to atmospheric pressure, which underlines Petaflop's point.
[I did van der Waals in A level physics, but that was 50 years ago. Maybe times have changed?]
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it pools because it is produced somewhere with sufficiently high concentrations that the volume of air has (temporarily) greater density than the surrounding atmosphere. There are plenty of well known examples of the phenomenum. Here are a list of examples from volcanic sources. That CO2 from a volcano, coal mine, fermentation tank, fire extinguisher can pool is not in dispute. What is is whether there are any circumstances in which CO2 can concentrate out of air. So far, there have been no reported examples of this. Which seeing as it would require a major re-write of the thermodynamics laws and our understanding of the fundamental nature of gases is not surprising.
Pathetic.
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. Every single carbon dioxide molecule therefore is heavier than air. That's why it separates. It doesn't combine with other molecules in the air to create this imaginary 'local air' which is then heavier. It is simple physics. It is elementary physics. Because Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air it sinks through air. This can be seen conclusively when it is produced in large numbers to be become a danger to surrounding life by asphyxiation, because it displaces oxygen and nitrogen which are lighter. It separates out. It is a layer of Carbon Dioxide at the bottom of the mine shaft or well, it is a layer of Methane at the top of a shaft. It is not 'a volume of air becoming (temporarily) heavier or lighter'. If it "diffused back to become thoroghly mixed" then why doesn't this happen in mine shafts? The different gases remain separate, for yonks. You are using examples which prove what I am saying. Don't you see that? You're talking utter and complete bollocks.
Like in a closed room full of people, it will build up displacing oxygen and give everyone a headache until they open a window and let in some fresh air. A real problem for some farmers who don't adequately ventilate the barns when overwintering cattle, they kill them.
It's not this 'volume of air' that becomes heavier, how??!!! It's carbon dioxide because it is denser than air sinking and building up from the bottom up displacing the lighter molecules of oxygen and nitrogen.
Carbon is the source of all our being, it is our basic food supply. Life evolved out of carbon. Carbon Dioxide is part of that cycle, an essential form of food in that cycle. We are adapted to a carbon world. Your calculations mean shit to a plant starved of carbon dioxide.
You are not in the real world.
Show me how 'a volume of air' becomes heavier with the addition of increased levels of Carbon Dioxide.
Giving me laws which bear no relation to the proof required is not a substitute for giving me the proof required.
Using my examples to prove what you are saying when my examples actually observably prove what I am saying is just plain nonsense.
Prove your above statement conclusively or shut up.
All of you AGWs.
You're polluting the world with your AGWScience.
For any who have managed to retain basic common sense in their reasoning, we are still discovering the wonders of our Carbon Life Cycle -
Sponges Recycle Carbon to Give Life to Coral Reefs
AGWScientists, they can't think straight.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Like in a closed room full of people, it will build up displacing oxygen and give everyone a headache until they open a window and let in some fresh air.
Which proves what we are saying. If CO2 pooled out of the atmosphere like you claim then opening a window would do no good - the CO2 would remain stuck in the room unless something heavier still came along and displaced it.
When the window is opened the CO2 dissipates out and the rest of the atmosphere dissipates in. By diffusion.
Care to answer my questions the plants and the moles?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(coughs)
Myrrh.
The link re sponges and coral reefs doesn't work.
--------------------
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
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I've just redone the food colouring in the water experiment, this time having left the water for a couple of hours to get still. Similar result, it diffuses happily as the droplet falls and some nice looking trails of pink issuing from it. However you end up with, after some time, a rather nice gradient of colour - much redder at the bottom of the glass, fading to pink at the top. A bit like a tequila sunrise ecept without the tequila or the orange juice. The dye is still mixed in fairly well and doesn't separate into a layer by itself, but it does show that with these two particular substances that to mix it evenly needs more time and/or some shaking. The gradient isn't due to gravity, I'm fairly sure, but due to the time taken to diffuse properly. Still, I'm sure that Myrrh will use these observations to back up her CO2 theories!
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Like in a closed room full of people, it will build up displacing oxygen and give everyone a headache until they open a window and let in some fresh air.
Which proves what we are saying. If CO2 pooled out of the atmosphere like you claim then opening a window would do no good - the CO2 would remain stuck in the room unless something heavier still came along and displaced it.
When the window is opened the CO2 dissipates out and the rest of the atmosphere dissipates in. By diffusion.
Care to answer my questions the plants and the moles?
It proves no such thing as you're saying. You're saying Carbon Dioxide dissipates out without any other cause except that 'it does'. Opening the window to let in an exchange of air is not proof for your claim. It is proof of mine.
Just like the yonks of separation of gases in mines and pits is not a proof of your claim. It is a proof of mine.
It is a proof of my claim, because, it is a statement of observable fact about the nature of gases by real science in the real world.
Your science exists only in your heads.
No, I don't care to answer any of your other questions. I want you to understand what I am saying.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I want you to understand what I am saying.
We understand what you're saying. We disagree with you though, and forever will do so.
What you are saying is simply stupid, doesn't reflect the world around us, would lead to the death of most of life on the planet, and is very silly. It has also been disproven probably several hundred times in this thread, though you don't seem willing to taught so you refuse to see them.
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I want you to understand what I am saying.
We understand what you're saying. We disagree with you though, and forever will do so.
What you are saying is simply stupid, doesn't reflect the world around us, would lead to the death of most of life on the planet, and is very silly. It has also been disproven probably several hundred times in this thread, though you don't seem willing to taught so you refuse to see them.
You're failing to take on board the gobbledegook of your claims.
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
I am at loss to think how much simpler I can make this.
Gases separated out in a mine or pit stay separated out in a mine or pit, for yonks and yonks. They do not magically somehow "diffuse back into the atmosphere of the pit to become thoroughly mixed". Do they?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
The process through which CO2 gets into plants in the first place...
Or are you disagreeing with yourself as well now?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just thought I'd give the scientists here the full quote (of which an edited portion appears in Myrrh's link).
Full Eureka Article re Sponges
Interesting example of natural recycling, but the finding does not support the assertions in the rest of the link Myrrh quotes. Present and possible future dangers to coral reefs are an interesting topic in their own right, and I'm sure AGW fits in there - but IIRC warmer oceans and pollution factors are very important. No expert of course - maybe we have an oceanographer on board for this tangent?
At least it would make a change from "same old same old".
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
The process through which CO2 gets into plants in the first place...
Or are you disagreeing with yourself as well now?
This is becoming even more absurd. You're not even following Alan's argument..
Opening a window is doing something. Alan's claim is that nothing else has to happen, CO2 will get up off the floor and diffuse itself into the atmosphere until it is thoroughly mixed.
Opening the window is doing something, like putting on a fan, or providing wind. Opening the window allows an exchange of gases, the lighter gases moving out create movement. For a better exchange of gases open two windows and get a through draught going.
What Alan is saying is that in the pit or mine there is no separation of gases, because they will thoroughly mix together.
Yet he still gives this, mines and pits, as an example proving his claim..
..which it actually, in real life, proves false. Got it?
Science is the exploration of facts. When theories do not fit the facts they are falsified. Falsified means proved false. When a theory is falsified it is proved false. Alan's theory is proved false. By the nature of CO2 being heavier than air and by observation of separation of gases, in real life.
AGW is not real science. That's a fact. Proven.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Myrrh - a wee question for you. In your hypothetical example of mine gas, you are no doubt aware that the principal gas found in mines is methane (firedamp), which is lighter than air. Why do you think this gas builds up and has to be vented along with the CO2?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I've just redone the food colouring in the water experiment, this time having left the water for a couple of hours to get still. Similar result, it diffuses happily as the droplet falls and some nice looking trails of pink issuing from it. However you end up with, after some time, a rather nice gradient of colour - much redder at the bottom of the glass, fading to pink at the top. A bit like a tequila sunrise ecept without the tequila or the orange juice. The dye is still mixed in fairly well and doesn't separate into a layer by itself, but it does show that with these two particular substances that to mix it evenly needs more time and/or some shaking. The gradient isn't due to gravity, I'm fairly sure, but due to the time taken to diffuse properly. Still, I'm sure that Myrrh will use these observations to back up her CO2 theories!
Wouldn't your experiment be more fun with Guinness and Bass?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just thought I'd give the scientists here the full quote (of which an edited portion appears in Myrrh's link).
Full Eureka Article re Sponges
Interesting example of natural recycling, but the finding does not support the assertions in the rest of the link Myrrh quotes. Present and possible future dangers to coral reefs are an interesting topic in their own right, and I'm sure AGW fits in there - but IIRC warmer oceans and pollution factors are very important. No expert of course - maybe we have an oceanographer on board for this tangent?
Not a tangent for me Barnabas.
At the bottom of the page I linked is this:
quote:
In the field of geology, when we falsify a hypothesis or a theory, we trend to start looking for a new hypothesis or theory. That's why we rely very heavily on Chamberlain's Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. In the junk science of ocean acidification and anthropogenic global warming, it appears that the process is to simply discard any data that deviate from the ruling theory.
And as, some of us, have seen here, another favourite trick is to claim stuff as proof when in reality it proves the opposite.
However, the point of the article I linked to was in explanation of the Carbon Cycle of which we are a dynamic part. This is what is not understood by those who believe AGW claims, because they do not have enough real science to see how nonsensical the claims of AGWScience.
This page below expands on that theme.
quote:
Contrary to the belief that CO2, once in the atmosphere, stays there for many years (the term used by EPA is "long-lived"), this is not the case. It is constantly being absorbed by water and plants on land.
This is the dynamic life process we are in. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it is life's FOOD!
And the page a rather good summary in its own right of the complete lack of intellectual integrity of AGWScience for its claims about the Carbon Cycle:
quote:
Conclusion
It ought to be self-evident that CO2 is not only NOT a pollutant, but absolutely vital to life on earth. EPA's decision to define it as a "dangerous pollutant" is contrary to all evidence and, frankly, mind-boggling. ...
Naming CO2 a "danterous pollutant" is voodoo science.
CO2 and EPA's Voodoo Science
AGW has completely severed us from the reality of life on earth by its corrupt doctrines, masquerading as science for its authority.
Life exists because Carbon Dioxide is being emitted in abundance from the thousands of volcanic and tectonic events on land and sea, feeding the world.
In a continual cycle, the plants fed with Carbon Dioxide give us the Oxygen we have in our atmosphere for us to breathe. So life evolved. We are Carbon Life Forms.
It is not a pollutant.
It is not a poison.
It is the very foodstuff of Life itself.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Myrrh - a wee question for you. In your hypothetical example of mine gas, you are no doubt aware that the principal gas found in mines is methane (firedamp), which is lighter than air. Why do you think this gas builds up and has to be vented along with the CO2?
I have noted several times in this that methane builds up in the roof of mines because it is lighter. As I have been trying to explain here that gases separate and without disturbance will remain separate.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just thought I'd give the scientists here the full quote (of which an edited portion appears in Myrrh's link).
Full Eureka Article re Sponges
Interesting example of natural recycling, but the finding does not support the assertions in the rest of the link Myrrh quotes. Present and possible future dangers to coral reefs are an interesting topic in their own right, and I'm sure AGW fits in there - but IIRC warmer oceans and pollution factors are very important. No expert of course - maybe we have an oceanographer on board for this tangent?
At least it would make a change from "same old same old".
Barnabas62 - I'm not sure any knowledge of oceanography is required to comment on the fact that the paper cited does not have any bearing upon the claims made in the blog article - you've done that already!
But on the subject of ocean acidification vs. carbonate chemistry and deposition - atlantic core samples do indeed seem to have shown that decreasing pH levels (ie increasing acidity) does cause some species to lay down more rather than less calcium carbonate. The mechanism is at present unknown (or it was when I last looked) but it might be an evolutionary advantage to the organism if it did that - the greater acidity would cause more rapid dissolution of the CaCO3 and an organism that could do that may have a greater survival advantage. Quite what the longer term lookout of this might be I don't know. It certainly doesn't invalidate any AGW observations - it simply shows that certain species appear to have a biochemical mechanism that strengthens their ability to lay down CaCO3 under more aggressive aquatic conditions.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As I have been trying to explain here that gases separate and without disturbance will remain separate.
But you've been doing it using the wrong words and the wrong concepts. If you used the right words and the right concepts, you might have a hope of convincing some of us that you know what you are talking about.
Suppose you were trying to explain the motion of the planets. Then I'd expect you to talk about gravity. If instead you talk about magnetism, then I'll conclude you don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: Under some circumstances gases mix. Under others they separate. Or to put it another way, the process can go in either direction, depending on the circumstances.
You have been making arguments about energy. But energy is conserved. The amount of energy in the system doesn't change on mixing or separating. By talking about energy you can't say anything about which way the process goes.
So how can you tell which way the process will go under any set of circumstances? Science has known the answer for over 200 years now. And that answer is the basis for all of chemistry, most of biology and a lot of physics. It's the fundamental principle behind the internal combustion engine, it's fundamental to the working of your refrigerator, it is used every day not just by scientists, but by millions of real world engineers working on everything from power generation to industrial chemistry to jet engines to air conditioning.
Alan has referred to the concept and so have I. If you want to convince anyone, if you want to show that the process goes one way and not the other, you're going to have to use it.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
? It supports the blog article.
AGWScience claims all kind of dire things happen will happen because of extra CO2 in the ocean, will note, you'll never get actual data from them, they withhold it even when they do have it. It's all imagined and then put into imaginary models and imaginatively cranked until the imagined result is obtained..
That these models have yet to show any correspondence with reality is only obvious it seems to those who can see how they manipulate data to produce it..
Life eats carbon dioxide.
Anyway,
The AGWScience is Voodoo link I put in has the interesting observation that:
quote:
The steady supply of CO2 to the atmosphere (mainly from volcanic emissions) and the consumption by plants keep it in balance. Overall, the result is termed a "steady state". In a steady state, individual molecules are constantly being added and removed, but the overall balance remains more or less constant.
A simple calculation of mankind's production of CO2 from fossil fuels shows that over the lst one hundred years, if there were no natural removal processes, CO2 would have increased to approximately 100,000 parts per million, or 10% in the air. As the atmosphere contains only 0.04% CO2, it is obvious that this CO2 is no longer there. In fact, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has barely budged from pre-industrial times.
And this:
quote:
How much of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billions tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
And the above please note well, is from real data and statistical analysis and not some concoction dreamed up by AGWScience which excludes paramaters which falsify its desired results in their computer models..
So what's happening?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
It must be about time to bring the science back into the 21st century from the 18th, and the thread back to some actual climate change news. There's an interesting article in the Guardian today: The psychology of climate change
It ends by noting some suggestions for scientists wanting to disseminate findings:
quote:
1) Sampling issues: clarity about the source and representativeness of samples of evidence that your audience and you are using to form inferences and draw conclusions.
2) Framing issues: methods for presenting science should engage cognitive and emotional processing, in a balanced manner, and try to make distant future outcomes concrete.
3) Comprehending the problem and solution: communicators should take into account the "mental model" held by members of their audience and tailor presentations accordingly.
4) Consensus building: the process and public perception of reaching a consensus about the science needs to be effective, transparent, and objective.
In a way this seems fairly obvious, but I suppose most scientists aren't used to (or good at) speaking to the general public, and it is probably a useful reminder. The other thing is that in my view it is not the science which is controversial (at a general level anyway), nor the need to take action, but the question of what to do, who should so it and importantly, who should pay. Unlike, say, the ozone layer hole which once the science was universally agreed, along with a method to resolve it, countries were able to agree a protocol, implement and police it pretty effectively. But reducing carbon emissions requires the actions of a whole lot of actors, individuals and companies as well as governments, which is much more difficult to institute, manage and monitor. Especially as there is a large chunk of prisoners' dilemma floating about.
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. Every single carbon dioxide molecule therefore is heavier than air. That's why it separates.
You are treating carbon dioxide molecules like little solids.
They are molecules of gas.
And this is why your entire argument falls down.
[code]
[ 23. September 2010, 23:58: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It is not a pollutant.
It is not a poison.
It is the very foodstuff of Life itself.
Myrrh
And why does it have to be one or the other?
As has already been said by many others, the fact that something is beneficial, even essential at one concentration does not prevent it being bad at another concentration. TOO MUCH OXYGEN WILL KILL YOU.
--------------------
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
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Water is essential to life. I drink plenty every day, bathe in it, swim in it, get rained on by it - heck, I'm largely made of it.
But if I stick my head in a bucket of this wonderful, essential, non-poisonous stuff I'll die.
Salt? Yes please, on my chips, in most foods. But too much and you'll snuff it.
Same with pretty much everything. Including that wonder molecule, CO2.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
