tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5273851580379902125..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Question of the day at WUWT: Why doesn't CO2 stay near the ground?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80965514060390165382014-03-28T04:36:54.221+11:002014-03-28T04:36:54.221+11:00The mixing ratio of tetrafluoromethane, CF4, (even...The mixing ratio of tetrafluoromethane, CF4, (even heavier than CO2) is altitude-independent through the troposphere and stratosphere. This has been well known for a generation. This figure from NOAA is worth showing to the incognoscenti. <br /><br />http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1998/faq1.html<br />OnymousGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09132474758071908026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4265680662779818792014-03-27T09:05:06.108+11:002014-03-27T09:05:06.108+11:00Remember meteorologist Joe Bastardi? He also got ...Remember meteorologist Joe Bastardi? He also got it wrong.<br /><br />Joe Bastardi "Implications of co2 specific gravity heavier than air (1.5 to 1) it cant possibly cause trapping hot spot at 400mb in GHE" facebook, Jan 13, 2012<br /><br />Joe Bastardi: "CO2 can not cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. It's radiative processes are much different. So it cannot - literally cannot cause global warming." Said on Fox Business and quoted by ThinkiProgress, also on March 11, 2012. "Bastardi doubles down on his anti-science BS in the comments."Same Ordinary Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07688744006745904247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39298400848579454742014-03-27T08:43:34.448+11:002014-03-27T08:43:34.448+11:00"it is the aggressive nature of the enquiry t...<i>"it is the aggressive nature of the enquiry that is the give away that there is not a real desire to understand."</i><br /><br />that, plus not listening to the answersAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50007240012331031872014-03-26T22:56:51.546+11:002014-03-26T22:56:51.546+11:00I agree that no question is stupid - if it is aske...I agree that no question is stupid - if it is asked with a genuine spirit of enquiry and desire to understand that is admirable. As you say it is the aggressive nature of the enquiry that is the give away that there is not a real desire to understand. <br /><br />It is a bit odd to only ask for a "pro CAGW teacher" for enlightenment. (Is there such a creature?). I think that is an unintentional tell that you cannot look for sensible answers from the denier community.<br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68497179667914762632014-03-26T22:47:23.691+11:002014-03-26T22:47:23.691+11:00I have an image of the future : a face falling int...I have an image of the future : a face falling into a palm ... forever.<br /><br />Thank you for that pointer, John Mashey, and for all your forensic efforts. Deeply appreciated.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54809612869187551592014-03-26T19:33:48.738+11:002014-03-26T19:33:48.738+11:00If the atmosphere did stratify according to molecu...If the atmosphere did stratify according to molecular mass, there would be a tiny thin layer of CO2 at the bottom (I'm ignoring some trace gases) so there would be no trees because there would be nothing for them to use in photosynthesis at their height. Above the CO2 layer would be a thicker layer of argon, then a more substantial layer of oxygen in which animals would have to live, along with fungi. Above the oxygen layer is the thickest layer, nitrogen, and finally water vapour on top.<br /><br />Luckily reality isn't like that. And some of these people feel competent to comment on complex science and they can't master basics. Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51737452620778966002014-03-26T18:40:47.912+11:002014-03-26T18:40:47.912+11:00Heh, I commented on this in the last month or so (...Heh, I commented on this in the last month or so (was it here or and Prof Bunny's?) and reminisced about the Tim Curtin days:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/22/remember-eg-becks-dodgy/comment-page-2/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/22/remember-eg-becks-dodgy/comment-page-2/#comments</a><br /><br />It's worth wading through the posts to see just what a numpty Curtin was...<br /><br />The thing is, if anyone actually wanted to educate themselves before opening their mouths to change feet they could easily find pages such as these:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03325.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03325.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34733/why-does-air-remain-a-mixture" rel="nofollow">http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34733/why-does-air-remain-a-mixture</a><br /><br />that give some general background, and just as easily find some research on exactly this subject:<br /><br /><a href="www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/v71/cave-71-01-100.pdf%E2%80%8E" rel="nofollow">www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/v71/cave-71-01-100.pdf</a><br /><br /><a href="lss.fnal.gov/archive/2005/conf/fermilab-conf-05-635-ad.pdf" rel="nofollow">lss.fnal.gov/archive/2005/conf/fermilab-conf-05-635-ad.pdf</a><br /><br />And there's no excuse for not knowing about it - the matter was researched almost a hundred years ago:<br /><br /><a href="www.jbc.org/content/73/2/379.full.pdf%E2%80%8E" rel="nofollow">www.jbc.org/content/73/2/379.full.pdf</a><br /><br />Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82417508125430425232014-03-26T14:49:45.040+11:002014-03-26T14:49:45.040+11:00Sometimes reality is more bizarre than fantasy.
Tr...Sometimes reality is more bizarre than fantasy.<br />Try pp.10-12 of the PDF linked in my other comment, and then p.8 to see where all those bad arguments appear. The Wegman Report was wrong on science and statistics. See also <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/foia-facts-1-more-misdeeds" rel="nofollow">FOIA Facts 1</a> which brought all this up to date ... and got worse.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16026217770539496932014-03-26T12:36:07.682+11:002014-03-26T12:36:07.682+11:00Victor, your statement presupposes that turbulence...Victor, your statement presupposes that turbulences are sufficiently understood to make such a definitive assertion.<br /><br />Sorry, I couldn't help it. I was channelling Eric for a moment. It just goes to show how silly the arguments that deniers make. They seem to think that just because they don't understand the physical processes of the planet, that no one else does. CO2 is well mixed all the way up to 100km, and for someone like Wegman not to know that, is disgraceful. He did say that he wasn't a atmospheric scientist, so how on earth could he debunk the work of Mann. It's no wonder that he copied and pasted so much for his 'paper'<br /><br />It seems that deniers are getting stupider, and then to top it off, to try and make themselves look smarter, they troll blogs with the most stupid and inane comments, hoping that their stupidity will somehow be transferred to other people.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77362600736111686712014-03-26T12:06:56.702+11:002014-03-26T12:06:56.702+11:00The question is not that stupid, what is stupid is...The question is not that stupid, what is stupid is to think that climate scientists have overlooked something this obvious and aggressively ask: "surely there is a pro CAGW teacher out there who could enlighten me?"<br /><br />The description of the education website is for a gas in a container. Then diffusion is the mixing force. In the atmosphere <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence" rel="nofollow">turbulence</a> is much stronger as diffusion. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21437028267064100642014-03-26T12:03:18.798+11:002014-03-26T12:03:18.798+11:00I am not an atmospheric scientist but doesn't ...I am not an atmospheric scientist but doesn't the world gliding altitude record stand at something like 45,000 feet? Last time I checked, gliders were heavier than CO2 molecules.Debunkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51927773678561402842014-03-26T10:18:52.126+11:002014-03-26T10:18:52.126+11:00Forgive me, but even for Wegman that sounds far-fe...Forgive me, but even for Wegman that sounds far-fetched.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73946025967374916302014-03-26T07:10:04.475+11:002014-03-26T07:10:04.475+11:00Rattus: yes:
Strange Scholarship,, pp.61-62.
'...Rattus: yes:<br /><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/STRANGE.SCHOLARSHIP.V1.02.pdf" rel="nofollow">Strange Scholarship</a>,, pp.61-62.<br />'DR. WEGMAN. Again, it is the connection between carbon dioxide and temperature increase. Now, Mr. Inslee pointed out that he thinks there is a physical explanation based on a blanket of carbon dioxide in the reflection. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. Where it sits in the atmospheric profile, I don't know. I am not an atmospheric scientist to know that but presumably if the atmospheric--if the carbon dioxide is close to the surface of the Earth, it is not reflecting a lot of infrared back.'<br /><br />A week or so later, he tried to back out of that p..62.<br /><br /><br />John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5021124079287377932014-03-26T05:18:46.322+11:002014-03-26T05:18:46.322+11:00Didn't Wegman make this gaff in front of Congr...Didn't Wegman make this gaff in front of Congress? What a tool...Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12818617417912530392014-03-26T04:22:26.489+11:002014-03-26T04:22:26.489+11:00And how about those clouds? Ice crystals, large as...And how about those clouds? Ice crystals, large assemblies of water molecules, surely this should drop like a stone?!Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50690073844897499552014-03-26T03:19:49.119+11:002014-03-26T03:19:49.119+11:00If I could only count the number of times I've...If I could only count the number of times I've had to argue with climate deniers over this simple point.<br /><br />I usually mention that maybe they should avoid the coasts and mountain valleys because they are clearly uninhabitable due to heavy concentrations of CO2 that have settled there.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.com