|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 11, 2010 13:10:25 GMT
nautonnier, The speed of air molecules is measured in hundreds of metres per second. This does not mean that they can travel from the bottom of a bell jar to the top of a bell jar in the blink of an eye as they collide with other molecules many times per microsecond so the average distance per second travelled is quite sedate. Concentration of CO2 molecule in air is 0.03% For the "Chance" that a molecule of CO2 will defy Gravity and collide with 99.97% of other molecules to get to the top...It needs to be proven more than your skeptic tank opinion. What other "Forces" will counteract the mere Gravity, the same G force that keeps you from blasting your non-sense out in space... Please post the formulas and sources... CO2 density is the same at 1 atmosphere of pressure, large amount of Gas means more volume of land covered by the Gas. This event proves that CO2 is not "mixing" or "defying Gravity" with upper atmosphere gases but remains closer to the ground reflecting its physical and molecular properties. Diffusion of CO2 is lateral, so a valley will hold CO2 way longer than a plain. Conclusion: CO2 is too heavy to be involve in the fictitious Greenhouse effect Is Steve part of the skeptic tank too? It smells like it... Gravity has no more impact now for you skeptics? What a bunch of !$$#$
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2010 15:57:52 GMT
goldbuster1
Where in the air? That's (or about 0.039%) the usual amount at 4000 metres up Mauna Loa (even when the wind is blowing the volcanic CO2 away from the sensors). So what is the amount at sea level?
And:
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 11, 2010 17:12:10 GMT
goldbuster1 Where in the air? That's (or about 0.039%) the usual amount at 4000 metres up Mauna Loa (even when the wind is blowing the volcanic CO2 away from the sensors). So what is the amount at sea level? First of all you didnt answer any of my raised questions about your twisted skeptic tank logic of the previous post, but you just add more pooh to the list. What proof do you have that the wind was blowing the CO2 away when the daily measurement was taken? The Mauna Loa lab is not on top of the volcano, it is at ground level on the most volcanic island of Haiwai, what proof do you have that the CO2 sample was not from sea level? Any volcanic activity willl produce CO2 and it will affect Mauna Loa Observatory samples wind or no wind. Skeptics rely on that type of obvious unreliable corrupted samples. Why? Now try to defend your intellectual crackery
|
|
|
Post by hunter on May 11, 2010 19:24:53 GMT
A view of the Mauna Loa atmospheric lab: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/The tide appears to be in a strong ebb. "Skeptics rely on obvious corrupted samples"? This is quite enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2010 11:32:57 GMT
Measurements are taken many times a day. They also match measurements taken at sea level at other measuring stations. You can easily find out that you are wrong. Of course it is at ground level. It's just that the ground where it is is about 3km above sea level Most observations (when the wind is in the right direction) are consistent with sea level measurements taken at many other stations. You're boring, and as thick as pigshit. So I'll probably leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 12, 2010 12:24:45 GMT
Measurements are taken many times a day. They also match measurements taken at sea level at other measuring stations. YOUR OPINION IS NO PROOF, HOW MANY TIMES A DAY? WHAT TIME? You can easily find out that you are wrong. Of course it is at ground level. It's just that the ground where it is is about 3km above sea level USING GOOGLE EARTH MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY IS 36FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL, WHERE DO YOU GET 3KM? Most observations (when the wind is in the right direction) are consistent with sea level measurements taken at many other stations. WHEN ARE THE SAMPLE TAKEN AND WHEN IS THE WIND IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? WHAT ALTITUDE THE SAMPLE TAKEN? You're boring, and as thick as pigshit. So I'll probably leave it there. Take the time to read yourself steve, im sure even you will concluded that you are of no credibility. Conclusion: 1- the CO2 Data collection process is corrupted and cherry picked to demonstrate a rise so little may it be. Samples and sites that do not show rises in CO2 level are closed, sites like Volcano are cherish, dont worry they know if its volcano CO2, they detect it - says steve....Go back to your TV now... 2- Cherry picked rises at the Volcanoes shows 0.004% CO2 level hike in 20 years! ITS ARMAGEDDON RUN FOR YOUR LIFES!!!!!!!!!!! 3- General panic is set ablaze without knowing how 0.004% CO2 is involved in then Global Warming/ then Global Cooling and now Global Climatic changes!
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2010 13:25:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 12, 2010 14:12:04 GMT
Mauna Loa Volcano spew CO2 at 4000 meter, so we can assume that it follows downhill to the samples site at 3400 meters, How wind affects CO2 running down a step hill?
Google Earth show lava flow path where samples are taken, if lava flow down, CO2 flow down there too?
steve how do they know if the CO2 is Volcano or humans? You claimed foaming at the mouth that they do know...explain!
Conclusion: Samples shows that Volcanoes are producing CO2 Why skeptics are using those samples to claim human made AGW?
CO2 is not able to rise at altitude that oxygen have hard time to be at Oxygen 32 g/mol CO2 44.01 g/mol
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2010 14:26:31 GMT
The influence from the volcano is variable and does not line up with the Keeling Curve. When the wind is in the right direction the CO2 levels go much higher. But none of the individual CO2 measurements fall much *below* the level of the Keeling curve. The *changes* in CO2 levels are also consistent with other measurements taken at different locations.
Troll feeding ends now. Please go and bother the Watts Up With That crowd instead.
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 12, 2010 14:44:05 GMT
steve...You said:
When the wind blows in the right direction, they are cherry picking the data...Only when the wind blows?
What is the right direction? Right or Left?
Are they cherry picking the data to match other sites?
Is is impossible for CO2 to be at those concentration at 3400 meters (11152ft) coming from sea level.
How irregular the Volcanic CO2 is produced?
Why choosing the world tallest active Volcano for CO2 measurements since the 1950's?
steve im not letting a scientific mind like yours alone, teach us master!
Please stop cheery picking which questions to answer, we need all of your wisdom!
|
|
|
Post by hunter on May 12, 2010 14:58:57 GMT
goldbuster1, You assert, "Is is impossible for CO2 to be at those concentration at 3400 meters (11152ft) coming from sea level." Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 12, 2010 15:08:18 GMT
IF concentration of O2 are lower everywhere in the world at that altitude, you betcha that CO2 will also.
Find me a concentration of Oxygen higher than sea level at 11000ft like you and your skeptic tank steve claimed that CO2 is doing on top of the world tallest volcano...And maybe I will look at wind blowing in the right direction...
Oxygen 32 g/mol (Lighter) CO2 44.01 g/mol (Heavier)
But because your a True-believer any science based fact would make any difference with you hunter, you belive in Greenhouse effect without proving it, but Gravity is heretic...
Thanks for your usual skeptic type trolling, now let your skeptic friend steve expose his beliefs
|
|
|
Post by hunter on May 13, 2010 12:34:47 GMT
IF concentration of O2 are lower everywhere in the world at that altitude, you betcha that CO2 will also. Find me a concentration of Oxygen higher than sea level at 11000ft like you and your skeptic tank steve claimed that CO2 is doing on top of the world tallest volcano...And maybe I will look at wind blowing in the right direction... Oxygen 32 g/mol (Lighter) CO2 44.01 g/mol (Heavier) So you cannot prove it. Thanks for clearing that up. But because your a True-believer any science based fact would make any difference with you hunter, you belive in Greenhouse effect without proving it, but Gravity is heretic... Thanks for your usual skeptic type trolling, now let your skeptic friend steve expose his beliefs
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 14, 2010 13:10:18 GMT
funny how hunter is believing that "man-made"CO2 concentration is higher at a few feet of the biggest volcano than in the middle of a city.
Further more he, and his friend "Skeptic" steve are believing that "man-made" CO2 is defying Gravity to be at an altitude where Oxygen concentration is dramatically reduced.
The Volcano is only there by coincidence?
hunter your are either stupid, extremely naive, suffering from ADD or a form of mild autism, or you are skeptically dishonest.
Why skeptics luv man-made volcanic CO2 cult?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 16, 2010 13:11:36 GMT
goldbuster1: According to your theory, co2 should dwell at 1" or less. Since trees seem to think it is a bit higher, that proves your theory wrong. It is that plain and simple. Emperical observations sir.
|
|