JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Boat said:

You could take away 6 million barrel’s of oil and petroleum products every single day and it would have little to no impact on US demand or price.

Are you serious?

Taking out 6 million barrels of oil a day off the market and it wont affect the price??

I agree US demand wont be affected but the price will rocket because supply has been affected and people tend to sell to the highest bidder last time I checked.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

These spins on the trends are a passing curiosity. Fueled by public panic and a misguided science establishment.

There will be a return to sanity before long and a realization of what really makes the world function.

By the way, Jay, thanks for providing that link above to the new climate science showing that CO2 and earth temperature are related in an opposite way to the usual government climate bafflegab. You deserve a blue ribbon.

It looks like some governments are abandoning the Green Dream and the renewable madness that goes with it.

"According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) announcement last week, coal is once again king: Global coal demand this year will “match the annual record set in 2013, and coal demand is likely to increase further next year to a new all-time high.” The IEA’s assessment comports with a worldwide embrace of coal that includes the European Union, until recently the world’s most zealous climate scold. The EU is now walking back its Net Zero commitments.

In some countries, governments are not so much walking back climate policies as unabashedly kicking them out. Calling wind turbines “fans” that harm the environment and cause “visual pollution” without providing much energy,

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said the government will end the subsidies and stop issuing permits for new wind projects.

Israel is also set to pull the plug on the country’s wind industry, its environmental protection minister arguing that wind provides a “negligible contribution” to the country’s power system “compared to the potential for harm to nature, which is high.”

 

For the most direct debunking of your prized piece of research, give this a read:

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49680455/Comment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at20161017-6633-1aciwgf-libre.pdf?1476772821=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DComment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at.pdf&Expires=1660922678&Signature=X2ZOKv8VH8FVSoYHPXYjyl8tcJdnrGNE4Yeq5Vo1ojrgjt0WpBeJ6YFhyzSw1P9cO-gWO0iriOIipRSUiU9nAMDsfQWza-wews5LQ3ZxsOs07kH4nyKaOZBxHU5xsUIGxPeRyze7KlWxSQyyL4kH5XrmRWhMzXUqPKi2nf2RY9CpipIvbN5EhpUxh-1q1HWCKOb1z0tgB1OXucPHq5jyLWf6EFsc5a8Djw5l51dE4PwA28fXYN3MhJl6YZlKXmDMUf6vzzADGEknQa0IrqgFc-gwnV-7YGtDtX19ckSbirk4CckjJ0Gk1p3FY9y2DpSoHciBPK1HOth8GX3BGowYqw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

Abstract

A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ 13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.

Other links to articles that criticize the research:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

For the most direct debunking of your prized piece of research, give this a read:

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49680455/Comment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at20161017-6633-1aciwgf-libre.pdf?1476772821=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DComment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at.pdf&Expires=1660922678&Signature=X2ZOKv8VH8FVSoYHPXYjyl8tcJdnrGNE4Yeq5Vo1ojrgjt0WpBeJ6YFhyzSw1P9cO-gWO0iriOIipRSUiU9nAMDsfQWza-wews5LQ3ZxsOs07kH4nyKaOZBxHU5xsUIGxPeRyze7KlWxSQyyL4kH5XrmRWhMzXUqPKi2nf2RY9CpipIvbN5EhpUxh-1q1HWCKOb1z0tgB1OXucPHq5jyLWf6EFsc5a8Djw5l51dE4PwA28fXYN3MhJl6YZlKXmDMUf6vzzADGEknQa0IrqgFc-gwnV-7YGtDtX19ckSbirk4CckjJ0Gk1p3FY9y2DpSoHciBPK1HOth8GX3BGowYqw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

Abstract

A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ 13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.

Other links to articles that criticize the research:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891

There is no "ocean acidification" It is massively buffered to a neutral Ph by the dissolved salts, if nothing else.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

There is no "ocean acidification" It is massively buffered to a neutral Ph by the dissolved salts, if nothing else.

Gotcha--so the expert researchers are making this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

Gotcha--so the expert researchers are making this up.

You tell me. Svante Arrhenius, who invented this BS, was certainly full of it. Awarded himself a Nobel Prize for this, though.

Stick a Ph meter in, and see for yourself. Moreover, aqueous carbonic acid does not really exist. Only in combination with its "conjugate base"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You tell me. Svante Arrhenius, who invented this BS, was certainly full of it. Awarded himself a Nobel Prize for this, though.

Stick a Ph meter in, and see for yourself. Moreover, aqueous carbonic acid does not really exist. Only in combination with its "conjugate base"

Yes, walking down to the beach and sticking a pH meter in would be a very scientific method of validation.

Carbonic acid breaks down into H+ ions (which increases acidity).

Also, the pH of the ocean is not neutral--its is about 8.1, which makes it basic. It is just the oceans are becoming more acidic as they dissolve more CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Yes, walking down to the beach and sticking a pH meter in would be a very scientific method of validation.

Carbonic acid breaks down into H+ ions (which increases acidity).

Also, the pH of the ocean is not neutral--its is about 8.1, which makes it basic. It is just the oceans are becoming more acidic as they dissolve more CO2.

Take a sample home? Dissolve a bunch of salts yourself and see if you can nudge the Ph away with CO2?

H+ is officially a proton. For the purposes of aqueous chemistry, it is officially H3O+ aka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium

Both are really BS, IMHO. I suggest you adopt the quasipartlicle model, like they do in semiconductors. One charge carrier is an electron, another an "electron hole" Both work exactly the same, up to the sign. The Ph scale itself is a fairly broken thing. The main point is that Ph of the ocean is whatever it is now, and won't be affected by CO2, which is a very weak acid, if at all. There is already a ton of much more acidic Cl- and SO4(2-) ions there, which is what makes it a buffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Take a sample home? Dissolve a bunch of salts yourself and see if you can nudge the Ph away with CO2?

H+ is officially a proton. For the purposes of aqueous chemistry, it is officially H3O+ aka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium

Both are really BS, IMHO. I suggest you adopt the quasipartlicle model, like they do in semiconductors. One charge carrier is an electron, another an "electron hole" Both work exactly the same, up to the sign. The Ph scale itself is a fairly broken thing. The main point is that Ph of the ocean is whatever it is now, and won't be affected by CO2, which is a very weak acid, if at all. There is already a ton of much more acidic Cl- and SO4(2-) ions there, which is what makes it a buffer.

OK--so you are outlining your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

OK--so you are outlining your opinion.

I have to make sense of situations where different sciences have incompatible axiomatic bases?

For example, the H+ is sorta unspeakable in chemistry, because an actual proton is bound inside an atomic nucleus. By the strong nuclear force. Entirely different order of magnitude of energies involved, nuclear physics reactions only.

If you are interested in my own contributions, I like to consider water itself a form of deprotonated peroxide H2O2. Explains a bunch of stuff.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, Polyphia said:

For the most direct debunking of your prized piece of research, give this a read:

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49680455/Comment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at20161017-6633-1aciwgf-libre.pdf?1476772821=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DComment_on_The_phase_relation_between_at.pdf&Expires=1660922678&Signature=X2ZOKv8VH8FVSoYHPXYjyl8tcJdnrGNE4Yeq5Vo1ojrgjt0WpBeJ6YFhyzSw1P9cO-gWO0iriOIipRSUiU9nAMDsfQWza-wews5LQ3ZxsOs07kH4nyKaOZBxHU5xsUIGxPeRyze7KlWxSQyyL4kH5XrmRWhMzXUqPKi2nf2RY9CpipIvbN5EhpUxh-1q1HWCKOb1z0tgB1OXucPHq5jyLWf6EFsc5a8Djw5l51dE4PwA28fXYN3MhJl6YZlKXmDMUf6vzzADGEknQa0IrqgFc-gwnV-7YGtDtX19ckSbirk4CckjJ0Gk1p3FY9y2DpSoHciBPK1HOth8GX3BGowYqw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

Abstract

A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – plays a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. The authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ 13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.

Other links to articles that criticize the research:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891

Again, these criticisms are irrelevant to the point of the research. What is the relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in earth temperature? Anthropogenic CO2 issues were not relevant for the vast periods of time encompassed in the two studies which I linked, so why that is being suggested makes no sense. We have two studies, not one, and the second is the product of a scientist who accepts the anthropogenic hypothesis. That is tantamount to a "hostile witness" in court giving supporting testimony to an opponent.

Here is the statement which your people apparently do not challenge,

"Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale,"

The impact of reduction of atmospheric particulates during the modern period is also a central factor in explaining earth temperature, again that is not included in the standard models. This study and others isolates the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and in pre-modern eras that should not be impacted by anthropogenic factors. Your critics seem to ignore that point.

Read the details of the studies.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sleepy has sanctioned 12 more Chinese companies. I think that makes the total 33. US companies can’t buy and sell with these Chinese companies. It’s progress. The goal should be no trade with all the Chinese and the Russians. In the face of a demonstrative show of anger more sanctions. Pelosi the China killer was not impressed it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/20/2022 at 3:58 AM, Boat said:

So sleepy has sanctioned 12 more Chinese companies. I think that makes the total 33. US companies can’t buy and sell with these Chinese companies. It’s progress. The goal should be no trade with all the Chinese and the Russians. In the face of a demonstrative show of anger more sanctions. Pelosi the China killer was not impressed it seems. 

Keep going. The sooner USA chokes itself economically, the better for the rest of the world. You cannot sanction everybody else. Sleepy is a perfect avatar for the state of the American hegemony, of course.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, these criticisms are irrelevant to the point of the research. What is the relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in earth temperature? Anthropogenic CO2 issues were not relevant for the vast periods of time encompassed in the two studies which I linked, so why that is being suggested makes no sense. We have two studies, not one, and the second is the product of a scientist who accepts the anthropogenic hypothesis. That is tantamount to a "hostile witness" in court giving supporting testimony to an opponent.

Here is the statement which your people apparently do not challenge,

"Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale,"

The impact of reduction of atmospheric particulates during the modern period is also a central factor in explaining earth temperature, again that is not included in the standard models. This study and others isolates the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and in pre-modern eras that should not be impacted by anthropogenic factors. Your critics seem to ignore that point.

Read the details of the studies.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=26&t=639&&a=7

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/19/2022 at 11:22 PM, Polyphia said:

Gotcha--so the expert researchers are making this up.

Not at all.... It might not be wrong when we assume higher concentration = higher solubility influenced by theoretical factors e.g. increase partial gas pressure, increase surface area, etc......

 

But, between theory and practical reality, there is always a gap...... of non conformity..

Were they showing any measuring data indicating the change?

In cold, temperate fresh water or sea water?

If it is merely assumption that no one bothers to verify with field data, how trusting we have become towards professionals with things not within our routine work, yes?........ 'n'

Wrote a feedback letter to World Bank when they published articles with similar flaw info about climate change, corals bleaching, acidification of seawater etc............ No acknowledgement of receival, nor further discussion from influential body like WB and UN........ What do you expect professionals would do? Stick to the flaw because everyone believes so, right? Until further notice.............

On 8/19/2022 at 11:45 PM, Polyphia said:

Yes, walking down to the beach and sticking a pH meter in would be a very scientific method of validation.

Carbonic acid breaks down into H+ ions (which increases acidity).

Also, the pH of the ocean is not neutral--its is about 8.1, which makes it basic. It is just the oceans are becoming more acidic as they dissolve more CO2.

Not at all that difficult. Try this:

1. Place your hand in the nearest sea water that comes onshore.

2. Feel it.

If you can feel

 

a) slippery....... this indicates it is alkaline

b) saltiness....... this indicates the salinity. It changes mildly with amount of rain it receives somewhere.

c) temperature.......... this indicates possible solubility of gas.

- If it does not vary much, it might mean solubility of CO2 has not changed much.

- if temperature of seawater is hot, it might mean lower solubility of CO2. Gas escapes when hot.

d) form ............ It could look swell, or regress far from common water line, prior to major events happening somewhere connected e.g. volcanic eruption, earthquake etc ..........

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

46 minutes ago, specinho said:

Not at all.... It might not be wrong when we assume higher concentration = higher solubility influenced by theoretical factors e.g. increase partial gas pressure, increase surface area, etc......

 

But, between theory and practical reality, there is always a gap...... of non conformity..

Were they showing any measuring data indicating the change?

In cold, temperate fresh water or sea water?

If it is merely assumption that no one bothers to verify with field data, how trusting we have become towards professionals with things not within our routine work, yes?........ 'n'

Wrote a feedback letter to World Bank when they published articles with similar flaw info about climate change, corals bleaching, acidification of seawater etc............ No acknowledgement of receival, nor further discussion from influential body like WB and UN........ What do you expect professionals would do? Stick to the flaw because everyone believes so, right? Until further notice.............

Not at all that difficult. Try this:

1. Place your hand in the nearest sea water that comes onshore.

2. Feel it.

If you can feel

 

a) slippery....... this indicates it is alkaline

b) saltiness....... this indicates the salinity. It changes mildly with amount of rain it receives somewhere.

c) temperature.......... this indicates possible solubility of gas.

- If it does not vary much, it might mean solubility of CO2 has not changed much.

- if temperature of seawater is hot, it might mean lower solubility of CO2. Gas escapes when hot.

d) form ............ It could look swell, or regress far from common water line, prior to major events happening somewhere connected e.g. volcanic eruption, earthquake etc ..........

CO2 is by far the heaviest atmospheric component, and its concentration in water depends overwhelmingly on one factor - pressure / depth. Until, a few kilometers down, there is none whatsoever, possibly because the oceans don't mix so well?

Just found this interesting link with a different explanation:

https://people.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/migrated/ocea213/readings/15_GeoEngineer/C_sequestration/adams_2008_Elements_CALDERIA_Ocean_CO2_Storeage.pdf

I quote

At typical ocean pressure and temperature, pure CO2 is in gas form above a depth of 400–500 m and in liquid form below. At a depth of 1000 m, liquid CO2 is about 6% less dense than seawater. Because liquid CO2 is more compressible than seawater, at a depth of 3000 m its density is similar to that of seawater. Thus, liquid CO2 would be positively buoyant and rise if it were injected above 3000 m, but it would sink if injected deeper.

So, what those guys are really saying is that liquid carbonic acid exists between 500m and ~3km and is compressible. Which would also explain the deepest ocean depths having barely any / being a huge available empty sink. (because the CO2 dropped out onto the seafloor in a solid hydrate form) It is certain that the oceans have seen much higher concentration before, judging from impressive sizes of ancient seashell fossils.

On a related note, I fail to comprehend the whole "greenhouse effect" thing. Intuitively, is the CO2's supposed role in the story that of the greenhouse roof. Yet, is most of it hanging out at the ground level! Does it not disturb anyone?

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

CO2 is by far the heaviest atmospheric component, and its concentration in water depends overwhelmingly on one factor - pressure / depth. Until, a few kilometers down, there is none whatsoever, possibly because the oceans don't mix so well?

Just found this interesting link with a different explanation:

https://people.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/migrated/ocea213/readings/15_GeoEngineer/C_sequestration/adams_2008_Elements_CALDERIA_Ocean_CO2_Storeage.pdf

I quote

At typical ocean pressure and temperature, pure CO2 is in gas form above a depth of 400–500 m and in liquid form below. At a depth of 1000 m, liquid CO2 is about 6% less dense than seawater. Because liquid CO2 is more compressible than seawater, at a depth of 3000 m its density is similar to that of seawater. Thus, liquid CO2 would be positively buoyant and rise if it were injected above 3000 m, but it would sink if injected deeper.

So, what those guys are really saying is that liquid carbonic acid exists between 500m and ~3km and is compressible. Which would also explain the deepest ocean depths having barely any / being a huge available empty sink. (because the CO2 dropped out onto the seafloor in a solid hydrate form) It is certain that the oceans have seen much higher concentration before, judging from impressive sizes of ancient seashell fossils.

On a related note, I fail to comprehend the whole "greenhouse effect" thing. Intuitively, is the CO2's supposed role in the story that of the greenhouse roof. Yet, is most of it hanging out at the ground level! Does it not disturb anyone?

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Nope, does not cut it. This story also seems to assume a uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. While in reality, it is mostly "laying down on the floor"

Are you familiar with the Nazi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van?

It is known not to work as usually described (by redirecting engine exhaust into the closed compartment with the prisoners, allegedly suffocating them with CO2) In reality, the CO2 stays near the floor and engine chokes first, before the prisoners do. (The real working Nazi gas van used CO, not CO2) The point being that there is a crucial concentration difference that already exists on a scale of one van's height, because of how much heavier CO2 is than other atmospheric components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Nope, does not cut it. This story also seems to assume a uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. While in reality, it is mostly "laying down on the floor"

Are you familiar with the Nazi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van?

It is known not to work as usually described (by redirecting engine exhaust into the closed compartment with the prisoners, allegedly suffocating them with CO2) In reality, the CO2 stays near the floor and engine chokes first, before the prisoners do. (The real working Nazi gas van used CO, not CO2) The point being that there is a crucial concentration difference that already exists on a scale of one van's height, because of how much heavier CO2 is than other atmospheric components.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/there-place-atmosphere-where-carbon-dioxide-concentrated-and-if-so-can-we-remove-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

This starts out as

"Carbon dioxide mixes evenly through the atmosphere"

Sorry, this is simply wrong. I quit reading right there. They should consult with their own chemistry department before writing crap like that? So far, goes on to show that "climate science" is not really. They obviously haven't bothered to actually measure anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This starts out as

"Carbon dioxide mixes evenly through the atmosphere"

Sorry, this is simply wrong. I quit reading right there. They should consult with their own chemistry department before writing crap like that? So far, goes on to show that "climate science" is not really. They obviously haven't bothered to actually measure anything.

You need to keep reading--I think they were referring to the fact that it is (roughly) evenly distributed horizontally (across the globe), not vertically. Later in the article (wayyyyyyy down in the second paragraph) there is this statement:

"There are more CO2 molecules at the Earth’s surface compared to miles up in the sky, but that is because the atmosphere is densest down low and slowly gets thinner as you get higher."

This quotation is in line with a previous post of yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

You need to keep reading--I think they were referring to the fact that it is (roughly) evenly distributed horizontally (across the globe), not vertically. Later in the article (wayyyyyyy down in the second paragraph) there is this statement:

"There are more CO2 molecules at the Earth’s surface compared to miles up in the sky, but that is because the atmosphere is densest down low and slowly gets thinner as you get higher."

This quotation is in line with a previous post of yours.

 

Not quite. I claimed that CO2 concentration drops quicker with attitude than for other atmospheric components. Unfortunately, you cannot really see it, but you can see something similar with, say, chlorine, which looks like green fluff sticking to the ground.

A similar effect is also known for water vapor and there is a related scare

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/studying-earth-s-stratospheric-water-vapor/

It goes something like this. There is barely any water in the upper atmosphere. But, if it gets there with help of aircraft (or some other anthropogenic means) it somehow stays there, which is horrible, because it is the most powerful greenhouse agent of all. What's true for water vapor, is true for CO2 even more, because water vapor is lighter than CO2.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/20/2022 at 9:18 AM, Polyphia said:

The source article is from 2012, a long time ago in research terms, and mentions the following,

"Age control. All radiocarbon dates were recalibrated using Calib 6.0.1 with the IntCal04 calibration and the reservoir corrections suggested in the original publications"

Read some of the responses to the article on your own site, such as  #635, pointing out that when there are very elevated levels of CO2, the historical warming trend should be continued without a stop, but that does not happen.

 

 

 

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/21/2022 at 3:31 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

CO2 is by far the heaviest atmospheric component, and its concentration in water depends overwhelmingly on one factor - pressure / depth. Until, a few kilometers down, there is none whatsoever, possibly because the oceans don't mix so well?

Just found this interesting link with a different explanation:

https://people.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/migrated/ocea213/readings/15_GeoEngineer/C_sequestration/adams_2008_Elements_CALDERIA_Ocean_CO2_Storeage.pdf

I quote

At typical ocean pressure and temperature, pure CO2 is in gas form above a depth of 400–500 m and in liquid form below. At a depth of 1000 m, liquid CO2 is about 6% less dense than seawater. Because liquid CO2 is more compressible than seawater, at a depth of 3000 m its density is similar to that of seawater. Thus, liquid CO2 would be positively buoyant and rise if it were injected above 3000 m, but it would sink if injected deeper.

So, what those guys are really saying is that liquid carbonic acid exists between 500m and ~3km and is compressible. Which would also explain the deepest ocean depths having barely any / being a huge available empty sink. (because the CO2 dropped out onto the seafloor in a solid hydrate form) It is certain that the oceans have seen much higher concentration before, judging from impressive sizes of ancient seashell fossils.

On a related note, I fail to comprehend the whole "greenhouse effect" thing. Intuitively, is the CO2's supposed role in the story that of the greenhouse roof. Yet, is most of it hanging out at the ground level! Does it not disturb anyone?

Not too sure how that works out but consider this:

1. www.pmel.noaa.gov> eoi > education > pressure

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth.

2.

www.carbon=dioxide-properties.com> aboutco2

Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atm.

( which is > 50 meters below sea water).

The question is .............. how do you get free flowing CO2 in the open sky to go down on its own that far to form a liquid?

If gas CO2 remains at 1 atmospheric pressure, we assume solubility happens only on the surface, yes?

This brings to another point........

Regardless how heavy CO2 is, upon released from the source, it will disperse on its own to less dense area in the air.  'Hot air rises' indicates that it will go up to higher altitude of the air instead of sticking on the surface of water or land, or everywhere under surrounding temperature, yes? Therefore, we could probably deduce that CO2 can only be found in minute amount right above sea level and dissolves mildly? How much change would this create is awaiting confirmation, yes?

 

Regarding greenhouse effect..................

It was probably an idea from winter agricultural farm....... How they kept the enclosed farm green throughout the winter. It was a warmth place to start with.

On environment........

Imagine dry air and humid air condition possibly found in any concrete high rises filled city.

Dry air can be cleared easily with wind.

Humid air would take some times to be cleared.

It might indicate that water vapour, with the highest capacity to retain heat among all waste gases released, traps heat.

On climate, it refers to a blanket of warmth formed when heat was retained within cloud and water vapour...

This blanket of cloud helps to regulate temperature within a certain or minute range in many places.

Places without cloud usually have extreme temperature and coldness.

image.png.53c0785e77a13c60a2084d6d11eb102b.png

Quoting this from a discussion board posted on an online course " Designing a climate neutral world, by DELFTx"

" It is speculated that since water vapour is considered important factor to us and farmers, it is conveniently taken out to accommodate CO2 as the major culprit and target of action. This act of cutting corner provided misleading argument, policy and mostly futile yet costly mediation.

There is probably a need to revise what is known to make effort ahead not in vain and more cost effective."

Edited by specinho
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The source article is from 2012, a long time ago in research terms, and mentions the following,

"Age control. All radiocarbon dates were recalibrated using Calib 6.0.1 with the IntCal04 calibration and the reservoir corrections suggested in the original publications"

Read some of the responses to the article on your own site, such as  #635, pointing out that when there are very elevated levels of CO2, the historical warming trend should be continued without a stop, but that does not happen.

 

 

 

You will have to explain the point of your pulling out the quotation that you did--I can only guess.

It's not my site, but the person who sponsors it has answered your question multiple times (for example, in response to comment #478).

You might want to take the MOOC that the skepticalscience site is advertising called "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial." It could be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.