Is CO2 "well mixed"?

The CO2 mixing may be "true", but is it "truthy"? -If I intuitively know that carbon dioxide will stick to the bottom of the atmosphere, surely this truthiness has priority over mere data? After all, G W Bush ran his administration on truthiness, and G W Bush is never wrong!
Also, I intuitively know a n¤@@er could never become a president, so there must be a conspiracy behind. This is why intuition is superior to mere "facts" -it allows me to see the reality behind the presumed "truth". :)

Credits can expire too. It can be donated to NGOs. The advantage to countries where trading takes consign is that tax is reduced. Therefore, trading the credits and its benefits increases the importance of the credit, forcing the industries to reduce emission. And by this, it will assist for making environment better place live in.

I admire the devotion to open debate and taking all comers, Coby. However, you might be setting a bad precedent with aggrandizing this with its own thread.

Wait and see: A poster self-identifying as "frankincense" will claim a revelation from God that there is no anthropogenic global warming. That'll be a fun thread . . .

Well, this problem affects many, including a certain well-known statistician. See SSWR:
p.61-62, Wegman saying:

"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."

He tries to recover in later testimony, and Judith Curry defends him as unbiased because he knew nothing of the physics.

I have just been an had a look at the holy writ of CO2 measurement at Manua Loa.

"The last four complete years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record plus the current year are shown. Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.

In the above figure, the dashed red line with diamond symbols represents the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black line with the square symbols represents the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle. The latter is determined as a moving average of SEVEN adjacent seasonal cycles centered on the month to be corrected, except for the first and last THREE and one-half years of the record, where the seasonal cycle has been averaged over the first and last SEVEN years, respectively.

The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and may not be the same as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface."

To me this does not sound like the measurement of a well mixed gas. Well, not that well mixed anyway! Seasons, recalibrations? Not the same as the globally averaged?

Do not get me wrong. I am quite convinced that us human beans are pumping the stuff into the atmos and that concentrations are increasing but surely if it was that well mixed there would be no need for these calibrations and adjustments. You could just MEASURE it. Anywhere. On a regular basis.
Explain in words of one sylabubble please.

Jack

If CO2 did truly sink through the atmosphere as myrrh had suggested, then there would be no CO2 at the top of Mauna Loa, and hence it would be a truly stupid place to put a measuring station.

Given that CO2 comprises only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, it should (according to the idiotic hypothesis), comprise the bottom 0.04% of the air column. Given that the atmopshere is generally considered to be about 100km thick, this means that CO2 (I am excluding the rare gases here) should be limited to the bottom 40 metres. Given this, I am completely perplexed how plants are able to grow up mountains. Surely they would all die from lack of CO2?

My alternate hypothesis is that CO2 (and other gases) are mixed throughout the atmosphere by wind and convection currents. Since CO2 is slightly heavier than O2 or N2, it will tend to sink and there will be a slightly higher concentration of the heavier gases at the base of the column than at the top. If you wish to make accurate measurements you will need to take the altitude of the measuring station into account.

Which hypothesis would you like to go with?

I actually saw someone use this argument as part of a shotgun blast of dumb arguments in an online debate. I was gobsmacked.

The same person went on to dispute calculations of the carbon footprint of airline travel by confidently asserting that tons (as in tons of CO2) were a measure of volume, not weight.

crakar

I apologise for not answering your balloon question earlier. So here goes:

I think if you fill a balloon with CO2 and let it go it will sink. What's your point?

Jack, it is quite well known that CO2 concentration varies by a few tens of ppmv, or even several tens, depending on the distance and altitude of the sampling point from concentrated CO2 emission sources, such as down wind from the stack of a large coal-fired power plant, or near the surface over a congested multilane highway, or even a considerable distance down wind from a densely populated industrialized city, for example. It takes time and distance for air turbulence to fully mix CO2 emissions from these sources throughout the atmosphere.

Take a look at this gif movie of CO2 flux over space and time and note that the color scale shows CO2 concentration ranging from ~378 to ~400 ppmv:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/carbontracker/movies/co2wx_hammer-glb_2…

What the Mauna Loa sampling record shows is representative of the *average* atmospheric CO2 concentration over time far from these concentrated emission sources after turbulence has had time to fully mix the gas within the full depth of the troposphere.

Mandas in post 8, no need to apologies but if you are going to question my sense of humour then you should at least address the question posed.

As for post 6 i would go with your alternate theory that CO2 levels are higher the closer you get to the surface therefore i suppose you could say CO2 was a mixed gas but not a well mixed gas.

Same goes for oxygen, there is a reason why you cannot fly above 10,000 feet in an unpressurized cabin without oxygen. In fact there was a commercial heavy in the USA that flew on auto pilot until it ran out of gas because everyone on board was suffering from hypoxia.

For a non aircraft explanation, have you ever wondered why you need oxygen bottles when you climb Mt Everest?

Therefore Oxygen is hardly a well mixed gas either.

Oh and just to reconfirm my sense of humour here is a joke. A man was driving has car and he accidentally ran into the back of another car. The driver of the other car was a dwarf and when he got out of his car he said "I am not happy" the man replied "So which one are you, grumpy?".

crakar

Well, the joke about the dwarf is good, but as for the other one.....

"....therefore i suppose you could say CO2 was a mixed gas but not a well mixed gas. Same goes for oxygen, there is a reason why you cannot fly above 10,000 feet in an unpressurized cabin without oxygen. In fact there was a commercial heavy in the USA that flew on auto pilot until it ran out of gas because everyone on board was suffering from hypoxia. For a non aircraft explanation, have you ever wondered why you need oxygen bottles when you climb Mt Everest? Therefore Oxygen is hardly a well mixed gas either...."

I sincerely, truly hope that you didn't actually mean what you said, and don't actually think that the reason you need supplemental oxygen at altitude is because oxygen "isn't a well mixed gas." I will just assume it was just poor wording on your behalf, and you are not the equal to myrrh in stupidity.

I will give you a chance to redeem yourself and correct your poor sentence construction.

The ever amusing craker tries to assert that the drop in the number of oxygen, and CO2, molecules as altitude increase is a drop in concentration.

What craker fails to grasp is that it's the total population of gas molecules that decreases, which means the concentration in ppmv remains exactly the same.

Silly craker.

Actually i thought the joke was pretty lame but there you go.

As for oxygen versus CO2,

You claim CO2 is well mixed because the winds blow it to the four corners of the globe but we all know this is not true the higher CO2 levels are nearer the surface. Yes sure wind plays a role i agree but my definition of well mixed is a consistent measurement at all heights (maybe this is all we are disagreeing on).

As for oxygen, as you know the atomic weight of oxygen is a lot less than CO2 which in theory would make it an even more "well mixed" gas. The examples i gave where intended to highlight that even oxygen varies in density the higher you ascend.

So by my definition oxygen is also not a well mixed gas, in fact Mandas can you tell me if any atmospheric gas is well mixed, that is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere at all heights and geographic locations?

Hi Jim,

Can you explain in more detail why i am silly albeit amusing.

Cheers

Craker is amusing because he has no idea what the scientific concept "concentration" expressed in parts per million by volume means.

He might try looking it up, but somehow I doubt even that would help.

No crakar. Not this time. It is not all we are disagreeing on. You just don't understand very simple concepts.

The reason you need supplemental oxygen at altitude has nothing to do with mixing of gases. It is because of pressure. As you get higher, the atmospheric pressure drops. In fact, did you know that above about 50,000ft, it wouldn't matter how much oxygen you had, you would not be able to breathe it unless the oxygen was delivered under pressure into your body? Even at lower altitudes, you become hypoxic unless the oxygen is delivered under increasing pressure. That's why astronauts where pressure suits and military aircraft oxygen systems have a pressure delivery system.

But of course, you think it is because oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, and hence there is less oxygen at altitude. Keep thinking that way - it is at least as scientifically valid as your views on climate change.

You really do need to read more and think before you say anything.

Lets start this again as their is some confusion.

You need 4% oxygen at sea level to survive, at 50,000 feet there is 4% oxygen but not enough volume so you need extra to survive. The nett effect is there is less oxygen.

Co2 on the other hand is found in much higher levels at the surface than it is at altitude.

Now depending on your point of view one or neither of these gases would be considered as well mixed. I suggest CO2 is definitely not a well mixed gas you lot will of course argue the point because it is a necessity for your global warming theory.

If CO2 is not well mixed ie there is more on the surface than in the atmosphere it will be absorbed quicker (by plants etc)therefore the residency time of CO2 will be vastly smaller than the much touted 1000 years.

Over to Skip to continue the verbal barrage.

It is now obvious why crackar is so lacking in functional brain cells. He is living in an atmosphere of only 4% oxygen while the rest of the population with normal brain cells is living in an atmosphere of aprox. 20% oxygen.

Lack of oxygen destroys brain cells crackar. I would suggest you actually read some science then go and find an oxygen supply. It will not allow for regeneration of your lost brain cells but it will prevent further deterioration in your thinking and rational senses.

I hope he finds some extra oxygen since reading his posts if he suffers additional brain cell loss will be even more taxing on intelligent people.

Ian Patrick Forrester,

Let me help you through my post

When i said "You need 4% oxygen at sea level to survive" i meant that you need 4% of oxygen at sea level to survive. I could have said "we have approx 20% of oxygen at sea level but you only need 4% to survive".

I intentionally left the 20% bit out because i did not think it needed to be said but sadly you have proven me wrong.

Any intelligent person will know that you only need 4% so if i was living in a place that had 4% at sea level then i would not have suffered any cell loss, the mere fact that you have failed to comprehend my post suggests to me by your own standards that you are not very intelligent, have you been living in an oxygen starved environment by chance?

crakar

Are you trying to be stupid, or is a natural skill that you inherited? WTF are these statements from your last posts?

"....at 50,000 feet there is 4% oxygen but not enough volume so you need extra to survive. The nett effect is there is less oxygen...

No crakar - the composition of the atmosphere is essentially the same at all altitudes. 20% O2 at sea level, 20% O2 at 50,000ft. NOT 4%.

"....Any intelligent person will know that you only need 4% so if i was living in a place that had 4% at sea level then i would not have suffered any cell loss..."

Really? Where did you get this amazing factoid from? And what if the other 96% was CO2?

"....the mere fact that you have failed to comprehend my post suggests to me by your own standards that you are not very intelligent..."

I have an alternative hypothesis. You write unscientific gibberish that no-one can comprehend. Let's have a vote to see which one most people think is correct.

What a fool you are, by the way seeing as how you are an expert on dingoes as well as everything else do you think a dingo would really take a baby from a tent?

To help you with making a decision i am going to say i do not think a dingo would such a thing, now when you consider your need for an arguement i am betting that you now think it is possible.

If CO2 is not well mixed ie there is more on the surface than in the atmosphere it will be absorbed quicker (by plants etc)therefore the residency time of CO2 will be vastly smaller than the much touted 1000 years.

You have inadvertently raised an interesting (to me) question. If the percentage remains the same as you go up (making it well-mixed) but the pressure is reduced, does that mean that there is more of it closer to the surface? Keep in mind that the volume increases as the radius (?) increases. Doesn't it?

pough

Yes, there are more molecules per unit volume at sea level than at altitude. But the ratio of each gas stays virtually constant.

Well, according to myhrr, the air cannot possibly be polluted with lead, as lead is much heavier than air. He would have been a fervent fan of the early negationist Ethyl Corporation, Midgley and Dr. Robert Kehoe.

CO2 should be at lower levels since it is mother's milk to all photosynthetic life forms.

IF you want to talk "greenhouse gas" then you should be speaking on H2O since it is the LARGEST and MOST INFLUENTIAL greenhouse gas.

As usual crackar is spouting scientific garbage. crackar, do you do this on purpose or are you as scientifically illiterate as your posts suggest?

Here is a comment on oxygen deficiency:

Effects of Exposure to Reduced Atmospheric Oxygen

Air normally contains about 21% oxygen with the remainder consisting mostly of nitrogen. Individuals exposed to reduced-oxygen atmospheres may suffer a variety of harmless effects. Table I contains a list of some of these effects and the sea level oxygen concentrations at which they occur. At higher altitudes the same effects generally occur at greater volume concentrations since the partial pressure of oxygen is less. If exposure to reduced oxygen is terminated early enough, effects are generally reversible. If not, permanent central nervous system damage or lethality result. Major effects hindering escape from the vicinity of an oxygen deficiency are disorientation and unconsciousness.

In general, the intensities of the effects increase rapidly with falling oxygen concentration and longer exposure duration: reduced abilities, then unconsciousness, then death. It can be concluded that any exposure to an atmosphere containing less than 17% oxygen presents a risk.

I'm not sure how long you would remain alive at 4% oxygen but it would not be for very long.

http://www.phy.anl.gov/division/esh/Cryogenic/Appendix%203/Appendix%203…

craker wrote: "Co2 on the other hand is found in much higher levels at the surface than it is at altitude."

No it is not. CO2 is found at higher levels near sources of emission, which is not at all the same thing, although craker is obviously ill equipped to understand the difference.

An analogy on a level craker might understand:
If you pee while you are in a crowded swimming pool there will initially be a warm spot with a very high concentration of urine while most of the rest of the pool will have a urine concentration of zero, assuming no one else has peed in the pool. An hour later the turbulence caused by the other swimmers and the pump jet will have diffused the urine throughout the entire pool. Urine concentration would be very low but fairly uniform throughout the pool and the warm spot of high concentration will have completely dissipated.

craker would have us not consider the mixing time and the flux in urine concentration over time and instead assume that concentration remains fixed at the uneven state of the initial moment.

Now let's complicate the analogy:
Assume that every 30 seconds someone in the pool pees. At any given time there will be one or more warm spots of elevated urine concentration that have not yet been fully mixed throughout the pool, but there will also be a more narrow range of urine concentration throughout the entire pool. More over, that narrow range will steadily increase as swimmers continue to pee in the pool.

That narrow range of concentration throughout the entire pool is what is meant by the phrase "well mixed", while the warm spots of elevated concentration occur only at and near the point of emission and are temporary.

It is CO2 that humans are "peeing" into the atmosphere, not O2 or N2. That's why there are "warm spots" of CO2 near the surface at points of emission and no corresponding warm spots of O2 or N2.

Now stop peeing in the pool, craker.

glenp chimes in with the "CO2 is plant food" argument, which is completely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, and thus a red herring.

glenp also throws in the "water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas" argument. True, there is around 10 times more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.4 % vs 0.038 %), but water vapour is not at all well mixed in the atmosphere while CO2 is. Water vapour can constitute as much as 4% of air in a humid tropical rain forest, for example, but its concentration falls rapidly as you go up in the atmosphere as temperature decreases, falling to to around 300 ppmv --well below CO2-- between 6-8 km and to only 3-4 ppmv by 10-12 km, while CO2 remains close to 389 ppmv well into the stratosphere.

Moreover, greenhouse gases are equally powerful since different gases absorb different wavelengths to different extents.

CO2 clips off the 4-4.5 micron toe of the IR emission curve, which doesn't really count for much since emission there is very low, but it absorbs very deeply indeed in 14 to 17 micron band, right at the highest part of the IR emission curve.

H2O absorbs in two broad bands of the emission curve: across the full 5 to 7.5 micron slope of the curve, and in the shallow end of the 17 to 100 micron slope, but no where does it absorb anywhere near as deeply as CO2 does.

It's the area under the curve that tells you where the work gets done, and the area under the curve is why CO2 accounts for ~20% of the greenhouse effect even though there is only 1/10 as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is water vapour and even though H2O absorbs over a much wider portion of the IR emission spectrum than CO2 does.

And again, it is CO2 that humans are injecting into the atmosphere on an industrial scale, not H2O. But even if we were, that water vapour would simply rain out unless we first made the atmosphere warmer.

Oh, look, that's exactly what we are doing, which is why absolute humidity is also rising.

obviously that should read:
Moreover, greenhouse gases are *not* equally powerful...

Turbulence adequately explains why most gases are well mixed in the atmosphere ... so what's the simple explanation for why that doesn't apply to H2O? Ah, I think I have the answer - "phase transition". Those other gases are all still gases at the lower temperatures at altitude. No part of the atmosphere is above 100C (212F) so H20 always wants to condense out to leave a low partial pressure determined by its phase diagram. And once you're at an altitude where the temperature is below 0C, that's a *really* low partial pressure.

Of course you know that Oxygen is a deadly poison, and, if you do not die of something else first, you will eventually die of Oxygen poisoning. I think where the 4% figure came from is the idea that all life was anaerobic until Oxygen reached a concentration of 4%. At 4%, and above, there is enough Oxygen that the increased energy efficiency of aerobic metabolism is worth more than the cost of Oxygen poisoning. So far as lead atoms in the atmosphere goes, I suppose Brownian movement is a partial explanation.

mandas:

Yes, there are more molecules per unit volume at sea level than at altitude. But the ratio of each gas stays virtually constant.

Yes, I understand that. What I was wondering about has to do with the fact that as you go up and the number of molecules per volume decreases, the volume increases. Sort of. Only if you think of the "chunks" of air space as having the same thickness.

That is to say, take the volume of air from sea level to 2000 meters. (Just as an example.) Then take the next volume of air in the next 2000 meters. The second will have fewer molecule per volume, but a greater volume. Won't it? This has no effect on anything we've been discussing - I'm just curious about the math and wondering if in the end it evens out... that would make crakar even more wrong, if you can believe such a thing possible.

CO2 should be at lower levels since it is mother's milk to all photosynthetic life forms.

Should it? Have you spoken to it about this? Apparently it doesn't know where it should be, since it's all over the place. Also, maybe it's time photosynthetic life forms were weaned off their mother's milk, anyways. After a while it gets kinda creepy.

pough

I think you have confused me even more than crakar does, but probably not intentionally. So let me try to answer your query - if I get what you are saying.

Firstly, a cubic metre is still a cubic metre no matter what the altitude is. So volume does not increase as you ascend - a cubic metre will not have greater volume at altitude.

I think you are suggesting that because earth is a sphere, the further you get away from the surface then something that has an area of (say) 1 minute of arc and 1 metre thickness at sea level will have a smaller volume than something that has an area of 1 minute of arc and 1 metre thickness at 50,000 ft. Is that what you are suggesting?

If so, then you are correct. The differences would only be very slight, because there is only a very small relative change in area from sea level to 50,000 ft. The radius of the Earth is about 7,000 miles, so adding another 10 miles or so would make very little difference. But in the end it doesn't really matter, because that is not how volume is determined.

Looks like many people believe i was in error with the 4% oxygen figure.

So lets put that 4% figure to the test, i found this site to see just how wrong i was:

http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

Now lets do the math, at sea level we have 100% of the oxygen in the air available to us, using both Ian Patrick Forrester and Mandas's figures this means we have 20% of oxygen with which to inhale. Of course we dont use all of this oxygen in fact we exhale quite a bit of it.

Now we know a human can climb to the summit of Mt Everest without oxygen assistance and survive. Using the calculator on the link i supplied we can see that at 8850meters (height of the Everest summit) we have 33% of the oxygen available to us at sea level. So now all we have to do is calculate what is 33% of 20% to find out what the % of oxygen is at 8850 meters.

Once you do this you will realise that whilst i was incorrect with my 4% figure i was not that far off but yet all the loonies that frequent this place came out in force (as usual).

I will leave you all with another link which shows climbers on Everest have blood oxygen levels that by current medical standards means they should be dead. This will come as quite a shock to Ian Patrick Forrester and Mandas.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/life-extension/4298495

crakar

No matter how much you try to spin it and justify your error, this statement of yours:

"....Any intelligent person will know that you only need 4% so if i was living in a place that had 4% at sea level then i would not have suffered any cell loss..."

Is amazingly stupid, even for you. Well, maybe for you, who doesn't have too many brain cells to start with, but for the rest of us..... no.

crackar continues to show his lack of understanding of even basic science. Keep it up crackar, you just show how scientifically ignorant you deniers are. At least you are good for a laugh every once in a while.

Ever heard of the "death zone"? More climbers die from lack of oxygen than make it to the top without the use of oxygen.

By the way, who is this "Ian Patrick Forrester" you keep referring to? Must be a missing cousin of mine or is he just another mistake which you seem to be so full of?

Ian:

A few months back someone scolded you thus:

"Ian Patrick Forrester, go to your room!"

I don't recall you correcting it then so I ran with it as a joke a few times. Crakar might have just been following my lead, although since that puts me in the company of Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton its more painful than it should be.

mandas, you understood me. For volume, I was thinking of just the measure of a space, not its contents. I know it's not relevant; just some idle thought.

NASA photos of the "big blue marble" confirm that the atmosphere is not uniformly layered. And of course the comparable pictures of other swirling planets and the sun.

The analogy with the swimming pool and mixing in the pee isn't comparing like with like. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, that is simple basic physical scientific fact about carbon dioxide. If the swimming pool was filled with air and carbon dioxide introduced and lots of turbulence added, yes, it would mix up all together, but. But, once the turbulence had ceased the CO2 would sink to the bottom, because that is what CO2 does. It does it because it is heavier than air. Because it is heavier than air it displaces air and sinks below it.

So, to say the atmosphere has CO2 'well-mixed' is saying that there is constant turbulence in all the atmosphere, without ceasing. Clearly, that is not the case.

And I'll ask the question again here, what is this turbulence, what is wind?

Myrrh, I suggest you read up on Graham's Law, diffusion of gases and Brownian motion. Then you won't appear to be so scientifically illiterate with your comments on CO2 and its mixing with air.

Hint: gases mix without any turbulence at all.

I am not reading this.
This is not real.

I am not reading this.
This is not real.

I am not reading this . . .

In freshman chemistry, when studying gas laws, the Professor told us that we inhaled three molecules from Julius Caesar's dying breath every time we inhaled. In some aquatic situations, on nice sunny days, plants will run out of CO2. Some plants, Elodea is an example, can break down bicarbonate ions and extract the CO2.

Myrrh, go and read up on the ideal gas laws, the composition of the atmosphere, and atmospheric physics, especially concepts of diffusion and convection, and then get back to us.

Until you do so you will continue to make yourself sound very foolish by suggesting that CO2 fractionates in the atmosphere and sinks on anything but a highly local scale in still air conditions, such as happened in the Lake Nyos event.

I would suggest that we stop attempting to answer myrrh. He/she is either a troll or woo - in either case not to be taken seriously.

Sadly, the ones looking as if they don't know physics are those who think carbon dioxide is an ideal gas and that ideal gas laws are applicable.

I take it you don't know that 'the ideal gas' doesn't actually exist? It's purely imaginary? It is not a real gas.

Carbon dioxide is a real gas, not an imaginary one. A real gas has volume, has weight, interacts with other real gas molecules.

A real gas heavier than air such as carbon dioxide, cannot 'diffuse into the atmosphere', it's heavier than air.
If the conditions are there for it to sink, it sinks, and unless conditions change, such as venting, wind, then it will continue sitting sunk.

So, the question is, why are describing a real gas by imaginary gas laws?

Who taught you such a thing?

Given pointers to educate himself, Myrrh opts to continue to play the fool.

".....If the conditions are there for it to sink, it sinks, and unless conditions change, such as venting, wind, then it will continue sitting sunk....."

Looks as if myrrh does know what wind is after all, despite his questions to the contrary. One wonders what else he really knows, despite his - on the face of it - moronic questions and assertions.

Mandas in 36,

I am not trying to spin or justify anything. In 35 i clearly stated the math shows just how wrong i was with the 4% figure.

Did you do the math Mandas? Why dont you tell us what % of oxygen is at the summit of Mt Everest so we can see that whilst i was incorrect with 4% i was not that far off.

37, Ian you said "Ever heard of the "death zone"? More climbers die from lack of oxygen than make it to the top without the use of oxygen". That is because oxygen levels or lack thereof tend to affect people differently. It is not a hard and fast rule, it differs do to metabolism, lung capacity etc. Some climbers can make it to the summit with about 6.6% (33% of 20%) of available oxygen as opposed to 4% whilst others cannot.

In regards to your name see Skips post 38, although to put Skip out of his misery i was not following his lead.

So with all these distractions out of the way, is CO2 a well mixed gas even though it is not evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere?

crackar is still suffering from DKS. crackar, the percentage of oxygen at 30,000 feet is the same as at sea level. Are you that stupid or are you just being your usual dishonest self?

crakar

For f**k sake!!! The atmosphere is approximately 20% oxygen at the summit of Mt Everest, just like it is everywhere else. When are you people going to understand this really basic concept?

And yes, CO2 is a 'well mixed gas', just like every other gas in the atmosphere. Does that mean the composition of every single cubic metre of air is exactly the same? No, of course not! But to suggest the atmosphere is some sort of layer cake with all the heavier gases at the surface, progressing upwards to all the lighter gases, is nonsense of the highest order. You do know that Nitrogen is lighter than Oxygen, right? I don't know how aircraft engines are able to operate at altitude, given it must be mostly nitrogen up there. And of course, 'ozone' is O3, which means it must be heavier still. How the fuck the ozone layer stay up there must be a mystery to you and myrrh.

Oh, and you may wish to consider this. CO2 is a GHG not because it acts as a 'blanket', but because it absorbs LWR and re-emits radiation in a random direction. Some of that radiation actually escapes into space - particularly from CO2 particles which are high in the atmosphere. If - as you and myrrh would like to claim - that CO2 is not well mixed and is closer to the surface, then there would be less escaping radiation, and CO2 would have a greater 'greenhouse effect' than would be the case if it were well mixed.

Now, go away and have a think for a while before you pen your next missive.

Are all self proclaimed scientists as stupid as you two are?

We know at Mt Everest summit the amount of available oxygen may require some people to use bottled oxygen, this is because whilst there well be 20% up there we only have 33% of it available to us to breath, this by the way equates to about 6.6% of oxygen available to us.

Now i mentioned we only need 4% to survive and i was belted from pillar to post by the usual gang i have since admitted this figure may have been too low and have now revised it to a minium of at least 6.6% (depending on the individual).

End of story so now we move on to CO2, but nooooooooo both the self proclaimed scientists ignore everything i have written and continue on with thier diatribe about how stupid i am, of course they dont comment on the math or should i say the evidence they just continue ranting and raving about what they believe.

Of course Mandas is not happy with just the usual rubbish he then continues on with another long post of waffle and crap.

For example did i or anyone else for that matter ever state that the atmosphere is multi layered? Of course not no one has said that and yet here is Mandas claiming that is so. He does this so he can mount an argument, he changes (in his own mind) what people say and then argues with them abaout it. What a nut job our Mandas is.

So i suggest you go away Mandas and have a think about the shit you post, here are some tips.

A, Actually read what is posted
B, Attempt to understand what the poster is trying to say.
C, If in doubt ask for clarification.
D, Form a response from what was posted and dont make shit up.
E, Dont get your party frock all wrinkled up when someone does not agree with you, thats why it is called a debate not a "lets all agree with Mandas chat".

crackar, go and sit in a room with 6.6% oxygen in it. It will certainly keep you quiet for a considerable time. It probably won't affect your working neurons since you don't appear to have any. Maybe you tried to live in 6.6% oxygen some time previously?

although to put Skip out of his misery i was not following his lead.

A joy.

I don't know whether to laugh at or pity craker and his total inability to comprehend the difference between *concentration*, which is defined as the measure of how much of a given substance there is ***when mixed with other substances***, verses *density*, which is defined as how much of a substance there is per unit volume.

He seems to think that the two are interchangeable, and that the phrase "well mixed" means of uniform density throughout the atmosphere.

One has to wonder if Craker has taken even high school chemistry. Surely he could not have passed the course given his confusion of such fundamental concepts.

Ian,

You say a lot of things but in the end you dont actually say anything. post 54 is a classic example of what i am talking about.

Let me ask you some simple questions for you to prove my point.

Q1, If i inhale air at sea level what % of that air is oxygen.

Q2, If i inhale air at the summit of Mt Everest what % of that air is oxygen.

Q3, Can a human being stand on the summit of Mt Everest without oxygen assistance?

Answer these 3 questions for me could.

Thanks

Either one will do Jim as long as it allows you to carry on like a fuckwit here. By the way what is the definition of well mixed?

Oh and to you Skip i hope i have given you joy, dont think for second that anything you do or say will influence me one iota.

crakar

You are an unmitigated fuckwit of the highest order. Let me just answer your three questions from post 57, because it appears you have not read anything that has been said, nor do you understand anything past about grade 5 science.

Q1 - approximately 20% of the air you inhale at sea level is oxygen.

Q2 - approximately 20% of the air you inhale at the summit of Mt Everest is oxygen (do you get this yet!!!!?????)

Q3 - some super-fit humans can stand for a short period at the summit without supplemental oxygen, but even they can only do it for a very brief period, and even then they will have severe restrictions in their ability to do anything but the most basic of tasks.

As to your diatribe at post 53 about reading what is said and not making shit up - perhaps you might wish to follow your own advice.

Since crakar is so stupid that he cannot even answer (correctly) very simple questions, here are the answers.

A1, 21%
A2, 21%
A3, yes, if he has been acclimatized to such high altitudes.

And before you go off on another diatribe crakar, I and everyone else here knows the difference between the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere, and the amount of oxygen which is 'available' for respiration (which, by the way, has nothing to do with breathing in and out - it is about the cellular exchange of gases).

In the atmosphere, the amount of 'available oxygen' has nothing to do with the percentage of oxygen - because that is a fixed quantity. It has everything to do with atmospheric pressure. But once again, everyone else here seems to know that except you.

You see, this thread is all about the mixing of gases - it has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure. It is only you who wants to try and make a point about that. And the only reason you are doing so, is because you have been caught out making an absolute fool of yourself (again!!), and you are desperately trying to dig yourself out of the huge hole you have dug for yourself. But the only problem with trying to dig yourself out of a hole, is that you just end up digging the hole deeper. Its much better manning up and admit your mistake, then someone might throw you a lifeline.

You should try this tactic sometime. After all, you make more mistakes and dig yourself into holes more often than anyone else I know.

Gee wiz Mandas you dont speak like any scientist i know.

Lets look at the questions asked and the answers provided shall we.

Q1, If i inhale air at sea level what % of that air is oxygen.

A from Mandas 20% A from IPF 21% lets assume that one of these self proclaimed scientists is correct.

Q2, If i inhale air at the summit of Mt Everest what % of that air is oxygen

A Lets once again assume one expert on this subject is correct.

Q3, Can a human being stand on the summit of Mt Everest without oxygen assistance?

It appears you can under certain circumstances, by why is this so?

Well it is because we are talking about %, therefore everytime you inhale at sea level you inhale about 4 litres of air so 20% of that is oxygen at 8850 meters you might inhale about 1 litre of air and 20% of that is oxygen which is not very much.

Now in a previous post i explained that at 8850 meters when you inhale you inhale about 33% of the available oxygen that you would have at sea level. This is equivilent to about 6.6% of oxygen rather than the 20% we are all enjoying now.

This 6.6% was a revised figure from my original 4%, unfortunately our two experts on every subject touched on by this website have either failed to grasp the logic of this statement or (as i suspect) they simply do not read what is written and are more inclined to make shit up and then argue about the shit.

Hopefully these book educated self proclaimed experts on every subject imaginable will now finally grasp logic and we can move on.

So what is the definition of a "well mixed gas", if the definition is a gas that is found in lower concentrations the higher you ascend then i would disagree.

You keep getting stupider by the minute crakar.

"....Gee wiz Mandas you dont speak like any scientist i know...."

But I don't work at DSTO and am not a geek - so.... what?

"....A from Mandas 20% A from IPF 21% lets assume that one of these self proclaimed scientists is correct....."

I said 'approximately 20%', and Ian said 21%. I tend to think that 21% is 'approximately 20%', but who am I to disagree with a lunatic who thinks it isn't?

".....Now in a previous post i explained that at 8850 meters when you inhale you inhale about 33% of the available oxygen that you would have at sea level....."

If that is what you said, then you are WRONG!!! Get it - WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you inhale at 8,850 metres, you inhale 100% of the available oxygen, which is 20% of the gaseous mixture of the atmopshere. Get it? This is such a simple concept and for the life of me I cannot grasp how anyone with an IQ about 50 can fail to understand it. Oh. Wait.....

Of the air you inhale, 6.6% (your figures) of it is oxygen available for cellular respiration. That is because of the low partial pressure of the air outside the body (and in the lungs) compared to the pressure inside the body. For fuck sake crakar, go away and learn some biology and physiology, as well as some chemistry, physics and climatology. Is there anything you understand at all?

"....So what is the definition of a "well mixed gas", if the definition is a gas that is found in lower concentrations the higher you ascend then i would disagree...."

And your point would be......?????

I think the problem here is that once you make a statement there is no turning back for you.

Yes you breath 20% oxygen at sea level and you breath 20% oxygen at 8850 meters.

At sea level you inhale about 4 litres of "air" this 4 litres of air contains "approximately" 20% of oxygen. If at 8850 meters you inhale a bit over a litre of air which contains approximately 20% of oxygen then you will inhale far less oxygen at 8850 meters than at sea level.

In fact you will only inhale 33% of oxygen that you would normally inhale at sea level. Therefore (33% of 20%) of oxygen is able to be inhaled which is the equivilent of about 6.6% oxygen as opposed to the normal 20%.

I dont think i can explain this in a more basic way not that it matters because i am sure that you understand and have understood what i am saying but as i said earlier you just like to argue the most stupid points.

True you do not work for DSTO but i was thinking more along the lines of an educated person.

Re mixed gas my point is that a gas that is not consistant throughout the atmosphere is not well mixed. I do not think this is a correct term.

crakar, crakar, crakar, crakar

Will you please stop showing your ignorance!!!!

"....At sea level you inhale about 4 litres of "air" this 4 litres of air contains "approximately" 20% of oxygen. If at 8850 meters you inhale a bit over a litre of air which contains approximately 20% of oxygen then you will inhale far less oxygen at 8850 meters than at sea level....."

No. No. No. No. No. No. Fucking No!!!!!!!!!

If you inhale 4 litres of air at sea level, you will still inhale 4 litres of air at 8,850 metres. Volume is volume is volume is volume. It doesn't matter what the altitude is.

The difference, as I have been trying to tell you over and over and over again, is pressure. The 4 litres of air you inhale at 8,850 metres will contain less molecules. But it is still 4 litres. Try annd understand the differences between:
a - volume
b - pressure
c - ratio

These concepts are taught at a very basic level to every school student. How come you don't understand them?

"....Re mixed gas my point is that a gas that is not consistant throughout the atmosphere is not well mixed...."

If, buy consistant you mean exactly the same ration in every defined volume throughout the atmosphere, then every single gas is 'not well mixed'. But it is a stupid definition. Well mixed means - in a scientific definition - there will be some variability, but in free air away from sources of variation, the differences are so minor as to make no appreciable difference. And I am fairly confident that everyone else here understands it to mean exactly that.

No. No. No. No. No. No. Fucking No!!!!!!!!!

Thats gold Mandas, pure gold.

I have no idea why you are continuing with this, is it your ego that is getting in your way? Lets try to look at this another way. If a man has ten apples and he gives 20% of those apples to his friend how many apples will he give him?

The next day the same man has 5 apples and he gives 20% to his friend how many apples will he give him?

It works the same way with oxygen at sea level with 20%, at 50000 feet there is 20% of oxygen as well, but at sea level we live quite well but at 50000 feet we would die of oxygen starvation but yet there is still 20% of oxygen.

You see Mandas 20% can represent any value depending on the size of the whole. At 50000 feet oxygen is 20% of not very much therefore there is not much oxygen thus we cannot survive at this height.

Breathing at 8850 meters would be like breathing at sea level but with only 6.6% of oxygen not 20%. I hope but i doubt this concept will finally sink in.

"...I have no idea why you are continuing with this, is it your ego that is getting in your way? ..."

Just trying in a vain attempt to explain a simple concept to a moron. Obviously I am not a very good teacher. Either that, or the pupil is beyond hope.

"....Breathing at 8850 meters would be like breathing at sea level but with only 6.6% of oxygen not 20%. I hope but i doubt this concept will finally sink in...."

Well, obviously it hasn't sunk in yet (I am talking about you). Maybe someone else can explain it better. Perhaps my mistake was using words with more than one syllable (oops, sorry - big words!).

You do realise that the lower you stoop with your language the less respect you get. Now if you want to be a good teacher that is something you need to work on.

Maybe i can ask you a question which may finally solve this little impasse.

Q1, If we breath in 20% oxygen at sea level how much do we breath out? In other words does our body utilize all 20% or do we simply exhale some of it?

Supplemental, if we do simply exhale some of it then how much?

Q2, If there is 20% of oxygen at 8850 meters then why do most people fall over and die?

Wow, what fun ensues when everyone is online at the same time!

If we want this discussion to have any utility whatsoever I think two things need to happen. One, crakar needs to be way less sloppy with his terminology and stop losing track of the concepts behind the numbers and two, people have to work harder and read between his words to divine what he is really saying. He is wrong, but I think most are talking past him and are addressing what he says rather than what he means! (I know, I know...)

crakar, 4 litres of lung capacity will inhale 4 litres of air whether it is low pressure air or high pressure air, okay? Don't be so sloppy. The conversation would advance if you would more readily admit to wrong/sloppy statements (and if others would let you back down -ie, you dropped 4%, now say 6.6%, we can drop that number too, it doesn't make any difference!)

Now, (taking your figures at face value) if for reasons of biology and air pressure the "available oxygen" at the summit of Everest is one third of what it is at sea level this does not mean that the concentration of oxygen is one third. You seem to accept this by not disputing ~20% O2 at sea level and ~20% O2 at altitude but it appears in your subsequent train of arguments afterwards. Try to avoid the math, it isn't helping you and you can tell it isn't because you begin it all with 20% O2 on Everest, run the numbers through your equations and end up with 6.6% O2 on Everest. Doesn't make sense, right? O2 is ~20% everywhere, doesn't matter if you would suffocate in a depressurized Airbus at cruising altitude but do fine at the airport.

As for well mixed, I think you are trying to define that term as a constant *density* throughout the atmosphere. You then demonstrate that there are fewer molecules of O2/CO2/whatever at higher altitudes, therefore they are not well mixed. That is just wrong. Words and terms have definitions by consensus and you are not using the consensus definition. "well mixed" is about relative concentrations, period, end of story, 20% of thick air and 20% of thin air are the same mixing. By your definition, "air" itself is not well mixed in the atmosphere because as you go higher its density drops, which is a pretty useless definition. (Interesting aside, the absolute density does matter to the greenhouse effect!)

Your whole line of argument is an irrelevant distraction.

As for Myrrh, it is a troll and we should all ignore her/him unless and until she/he actually addresses the points in the main post:
1. why are CO2 levels rising in the same way all over the globe, all different altitudes? Specifically, why are they the same at 71°19' N, 156°36' W, 11 m above Mean Sea Level (Point Barrow, Alaska) and at 89°59' S, 24°48' W 2810 m above Mean Sea Level (near the South Pole)
2. why don't O2 and N2 seperate following the same logic?
3. where are some examples to support the claim that "all measurements" show CO2 is not well mixed? Let's have some high altitude sampling that shows much lower (0?) concentrations of CO2.

If he/she does not directly address these specific points then he/she is transparently and completely wrong and knows it and anyone reading the thread will know that too. Any other arguments or repetitions of his debunked points should be ignored.

Perfect, I throw craker a way out of his hole of confusion and get called a fuckwit for it.... by an ignorant clown.

As for craker's question: "what is the definition of well mixed?"

It does ***not*** mean uniform density, full stop.

It means there is a reasonably uniform ***concentration*** with a fairly narrow range of variability, the area surrounding and down wind of emission sources excepted as mixing has not yet fully taken place there.

It has nothing what so ever to do with the density of any individual gas. It has to do with the proportion of that gas mixed with any other gases present.

To illustrate, let's look at global warming/climate change deniers' favorite greenhouse gas, water vapour.

Because it's concentration in air is dependent on temperature it is *NOT* at all well mixed.
It's ***concentration*** can be as high as 4000 ppmv in a humid tropical rain forest but drops rapidly as elevation increases, falling to around 300 ppmv between 6-8 km, which is around 90 ppmv lower than CO2 at 6-8 km. By 10-12 km there is only 3-4 ppmv H2O, while CO2 is still at 390 ppmv.

The total number of molecules per unit volume of both gases --ALL gases--drops as elevation increases due to the drop in pressure, but the ***concentration*** of H2O falls rapidly while the ***concentration*** of CO2 remains the same.

Which is why the greenhouse effect of CO2 dominates H2O above 6-8 km, and why it is the drop in pressure/density that determines the elevation at which emitted IR is more likely to reach space instead of being absorbed. Adding more CO2 increases both its concentration and the total population of CO2 molecules per unit volume and thus increases that elevation.

This is in a very interesting discussion - in some ways -- but the constant level of childish insult is off-putting. Does it have a pedagogical benefit?

If only there was a device to take the discussion and separate out the information from the other gases, rather than having them so thoroughly mixed.

I sometimes love how people from different sides of the world post here. I have a rather two way discussion (if that's what you wish to call it) with crakar, then when we are safely tucked up in bed the conversation continues from the US etc.

Anyway, just wanted to say I am off to Canberra with work for a week or so. Please carry on without me.

You can tell maths is like a foreign language to someone when a ratio of 1:4 becomes 33% rather than 25%.

I thin we should trumpet this idea though. If CO2 sinks, we'd better stop pumping the stuff out, coz' we're all gonna die! Only those rich enough to buy hill-top properties will have any oxygen. Beachfront mansions are for the plebs.

What's foolish here is to use ideal gas laws to explain a real gas.

That's why you haven't been able to grasp that molecules have weight and interact with other molecules under gravity and pressure and attraction.

Only those using the ideal gas law idea that all molecules travel madly about at great speed knocking into each other but not interacting are unable to see that this is not real life gases in the real world and so imagine that the one and a half times heavier than air carbon dioxide molecule can pick itself up under its own steam and rise up in the atmosphere to defuse among all the other weightless ideal gases..

That's not even basic understanding of real physics, that's nuts.

Sadly, and I do mean that, what you have lost in this imaginary scenario is any real feel for the actual physical world around you.

I certainly do know what wind is, what I am asking for is an explantion from you AGW's as to what it is. Since the basis for your understanding of CO2 is not in the real world I'd like to know how you explain it.

Coby -

1. Nonsense pre figures manipulated by the son of Keeling. Surely you don't still put your trust in any 'numbers' produced under AGW auspices? What, even after the incontrovertible proof that the temperature data has been systematically altered by design? Shrug.

2. There's not as much difference in weight between Nitrogen and Oxygen, nitrogen around 3% lighter than air, oxygen 1.1 times heavier, but they do separate out in the right conditions, high up in the atmosphere for example. But the problem here seems to be again you're thinking in ideal gas terms where gases are not real and not subject to real world conditions such as gravity and pressure.

Because you're not in the real world you think in terms of layers forming in our troposphere, as if we're sitting in beaker on a lab table. Life is a cycle, the Carbon Life Cycle is not a beaker on a lab table. When the heavier carbon dioxide molecules displace the considerably lighter air to reach the ground, they don't all pile up with nothing to do... Plants eat them, turn them into sugars for growth in photosynthesis, in the sunlight, in doing so the oxygen is separated out and breathed out into our atmosphere, for us to breathe in. All our oxygen in our atmosphere comes from plants taking in carbon dioxide.

Only those who believe that real gases act like ideal gases without weight, volume, interactions and not subject to gravity and pressure, can think in such artificial terms about carbon dioxide in the real world around us.

A layered cake, why don't we suffocate at the dead sea if CO2 is heavier, and so on... tsk. And even more ridiculous, to think of plant life as 'sinks' somewhere to store CO2. You really need to get a grip on real gases in the real world, our actual real life. Plants eat carbon dioxide. It is the basic foodstuff of our carbon life forms. Carbon dioxide is essential to our breathing, to our own growth, our bodies are around 20% carbon.

3.There are plenty around, the satellite data shows it's not well mixed, that it's clumpy, various measurements of it around the world show it varies. I'll post a couple of examples tomorrow.

Gases in the real world move in the atmosphere subject to pressure, gravity, and locally produced carbon dioxide will vary depending on what is producing it. Forests eat it during the day for growth, breathe it out at night as we do, and as it's heavier than air it will tend to stay in the area. It takes winds to move it and certainly some winds strong enough can carry it large distances from its actual source even in the denser air of the lower troposphere.

So answer my question. What is wind?

Talk about not being in the real world...

A mechanism that I don't think was stressed enough is convection.

CO2 and the other gases that come out of a tail pipe, chimney or smoke stack are always much warmer than the surrounding air, and as we all know (half expecting some half wit to come along shortly who does not), warm air is less dense and thus rises, defying gravity, taking those emitted gases with it.

And it's not just combustion gases that rise, ordinary near surface air is always warming and then rising, every where, replaced by cooler air, thereby keeping gases of different molecular weights well mixed in the atmosphere. Despite gravity and Myrr's incoherent rants.

I would like to settle this oxygen debate once and for all (i hope this post beats Mandas to Canberra).

Lets get a few facts out of the way first.

The composition of the atmosphere consists mainly of N2 at 78.1%, O2 at 20.9% CO2 at 0.03% and 0.97% of other gases. These figures remain stable at whatever altitude.

At mean sea level

When we inhale we breath in the follow:

N2 @ 78%
O2 @ 20.9%
CO2 @ 0.03%

When we exhale we exhale the following:

N2 @ 74%
O2 @ 15%
CO2 @ 4.2%

Therefore we only require 6% of the available oxygen in the air to function normally.

When we are at 8850 meters the reduced pressure means there is less air, whilst the air still comprises 20% oxygen there is LESS oxygen. If you take a breath of air at 8850 meters you are inhaling 20.9% of oxygen but you have LESS oxygen to begin with. In fact inhaling at 8850 meters means you only get about the equivilent of 6.6% of oxygen that you get at sea level which coincedentally is all you need which is why some people can climb everest without assistance. Obviously to climb any further would be fatal.

Now you can call me names, you can pretend to be worldly experts, you can even chime in with a post and yet fail to give an opinion on the issue or you can simply just read between the lines but the info i have just given is straight out of the Aviation Medicine for Aircrew manual.

I am sure some of you will claim to have a far greater knowledge in line with your delusions of grandeur.

Well Jim, life is not as you know it, it's the AGW scenario which is incoherent. When gases warm they rise, they become less dense therefore lighter, they also cool and sink. And carbon dioxide is still one and half times heavier than air and displaces it to sink ground-wards whenever there isn't anything moving it along. And so, therefore, being so much heavier than air, it is not going to rise up again unless moved by a.n.other force.

That's where the plants live that need it to grow and live, as well as us animal life. Coincidence or what?

Corby

Satellite data: "Significant Findings from AIRS Data

# Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed

# The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latititude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere

#There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models

# Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/

Life produces carbon dioxide and life needs carbon dioxide to live. There seems to be some weird idea that the 'Greens' where the first to think of recycling..

..odd that they now exclude life recycling.

Anyway, studies such as the following show carbon dioxide measurements vary in the local conditions.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

Take a look at the second one first, scroll down to "Observed variations of CO2 in the atmosphere."

There's a couple of graphs on the measurements in a Wisconsin forest, a week in July 1999 and a week in January 2000.

The measurements come from a tower 396 metres high for the top collection point of six, down to 11 metres for the bottom one. Note the greater variations in the growing season, more CO2 is being produced and the amount ppm goes down the higher up the tower the measurement is made, the tower is around 1300 feet. The measurement from the highest point is consistently lower than the measurements taken nearer the ground.

"During the night the ground cools and the atmosphere becomes stable, with little vertical mixing because the coldest (densest) air is near the ground. The respired CO2 is trapped in the stable boundary layer near the ground which may have a thickness of only tens of meters. The buildup of respiratory CO2 near the ground is more strongly dependent on the atmospheric stability, driven by the weather, than on the rate of respiration."

I think this is the Wisconsin forest which is mixed, so evergreens also.

Some of the blurb appears to be taken from this report, http://cheas.psu.edu/data/documents/webpaper/Yi_dryness.DOC

Which says "The region immediately surrounding the WL tower is a mixture of upland and wetland forest including maple, aspen, fir, red pine and alder.

It then goes on to say [second link still], "It is more difficult to quantify emission/removals of CO2 over the continent than at background sites like Mauna Loa.."

Oh really? (I've just had a discussion on Mauna Loa so won't go into it here, but there is no way that they can separate the vast locally produced CO2 from anything they claim is 'background'.) If the mythical 'background global' is taken out of the picture in the Wisconsin forest, that would be a dead forest, (since it wouldn't be producing any significant amounts of CO2 of its own).

Oh, God . . . I canât stand it anymore.

Crakar, I am sorry. Let me try this. I might end up making this a missionâto see you just once admit that you made an *asinine* argument.

You said, in various posts:

i would go with your [Mandas] alternate theory that CO2 levels are higher the closer you get to the surface therefore i suppose you could say CO2 was a mixed gas but not a well mixed gas.

Same goes for oxygen, there is a reason why you cannot fly above 10,000 feet in an unpressurized cabin without oxygen . . . Therefore Oxygen is hardly a well mixed gas either.

The examples i gave where intended to highlight that even oxygen varies in density the higher you ascend . . . So by my definition oxygen is also not a well mixed gas . . .

You then began to *switch* the subject to the exact percentages of physiologically âavailableâ oxygen. Which is a tangent from the issue of whether *CO2* is a mixed gas!

[Mandas, Ian, et al.] ignore everything i have written and continue on with their[sic] diatribe about how stupid i am, of course they donât[sic] comment on the math or should i say the evidence they just continue ranting and raving about what they believe . . . For example did i or anyone else for that matter ever state that the atmosphere is multi layered?

In fairness, no. You said,

my point is that a gas that is not consistant [sic] throughout the atmosphere is not well mixed.

And later that

20% can represent any value depending on the size of the whole.

Coby finally put it succinctly:

You [Crakar] then demonstrate that there are fewer molecules of O2/CO2/whatever at higher altitudes, therefore they are not well mixed. That is just wrong.

Crakar. Cobyâs assessment is beyond charitable. Youâre not just âwrongâ. You are embarrassingly, pathetically, abjectly, completely, unequivocally, stunningly, and grotesquely wrong.

Maybe we only need four percent . . . or six percent . . . or a teaspoon, or a firkin, or a *whatever the fuck* of oxygen at altitude X. It doesnât save your preposterous claim that âCO2 is not a well mixed gasâ!

Now, after 77 posts, what do you finally tell us:

Lets get a few facts out of the way first.

The composition of the atmosphere consists mainly of N2 at 78.1%, O2 at 20.9% CO2 at 0.03% and 0.97% of other gases.

Followed by (drum roll . . .)

These figures remain stable at whatever altitude.

(âOh, by the way, fellows, Iâll be a bloke and make the conversation easier for you by first setting forth the basics of atmospheric composition.â)

This is of course what everyone was trying to tell you.

Crakar, what you *mean* to say, I think, is this:

*All* the constituent gases of the atmosphere--even if their *proportions* are relatively uniform regardless of altitude, are unevenly *distributed* because of *variations in pressure*. This makes sense of this earlier statement that everyone forgot (including me):

If CO2 is not well mixed ie there is more on the surface than in the atmosphere it will be absorbed quicker (by plants etc)therefore the residency time of CO2 will be vastly smaller than the much touted 1000 years.

You pulled this completely out of your ass of course. Climate scientists are aware of variations of density of CO2 and its effects on residency time, so your argument is obviously ad hoc, but like Coby said, slow down, think through your posts, and use your terms with *care*.

You'll piss a lot fewer people off and cause yourself less frustration in the long run.

Oh so the big dog goes away and the little yapper appears from nowhere to step up to the plate, isnt that sweet.

So even you acknowledge (in a rare moment of offering an opinion) that the higher you go the less O2 there is even though the % remains the same.

That appears to be the only scrap of info you have offered as a contribution to the debate, the rest is simply more jibberish Skip style.

By the way i could not give a hoot if i piss you off, you go out of your to piss me off so why should i care.

crakar24 @77

When we exhale we exhale the following:
N2 @ 74%
O2 @ 15%
CO2 @ 4.2%

It's all explained now, your statements are vacuous because you exhale vacuum.

Its your turn is it robert? Either post something constructive or sit in the corner with Skip pulling pud until called upon

Actually it was Skip's turn but we decided I had a half decent pun, and it was unlikely anyone would notice my skipping in the queue. Now that you brought it up I'm going to have to file for a god damn variance. Nice going jackass.

Humor aside, please google and then try and understand things such as partial pressure, molarity, molecular concentration, homogeneous, and the term mixed. This will help you use terms the way everyone else does and therefore minimize misunderstandings. Since you are acting like an overcaffinated 12 year old with access to Wikipedia this is unlikely to help much, but it will be easier on everyone else here when they have to read your stupid.

Big dog here.
Looks like nothing has changed. Crakar acts the fool. Gets called on it. All he can do is bluster, name call and change the subject. Glad to see he read an authorative document for once though. If only he did that before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.

Crakar.

There is only value in "offering opinions" is if you have a bloody *clue* what you're talking about. You offer yours (CO2 is not "well mixed", by which you *mean* it is concentrated by density in the lower atmosphere where it can be absorbed by plants, reducing "residency time", which is simply non-scientific, ad hoc horse*shit*).

Yes, you offered an opinion--one that was terminologically absurd and even *scientifically* absurd even after the absurd terminology was deciphered.

This sort of opining is not virtuous, Crakar. Its ignorant, and you're absolutely right; I don't do it.

What Myrr seems to be incapable of comprehending is that there is ***always*** force moving CO2 (and O2 and N2, etc.) along, which is why it is well mixed in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not a parcel of still air in a bell jar in the dark.
And he presumes to rant on about there being no ideal gas????

"That's where the plants live that need it to grow and live, as well as us animal life. Coincidence or what?"

Priceless.

Never mind the fact that ground level is where the atmosphere is most dense, and thus the amount of CO2 (and O2, N2, etc) per unit volume is highest.

Or that ground level is where the soil and liquid water are.

crakar24 @ 77:

At mean sea level

When we inhale we breath in the follow:

N2 @ 78%

O2 @ 20.9%

CO2 @ 0.03%

When we exhale we exhale the following:

N2 @ 74%

O2 @ 15%

CO2 @ 4.2%

Therefore we only require 6% of the available oxygen in the air to function normally.

I think what you mean is that we are only able to extract about 28% of the oxygen available at sea level. This is significantly different from what you actually wrote in terms of the consequences.

From reading your posts, I have been amazed that someone could be so confused about volumes, masses and percentages of gases at different pressures, and yet so convinced that they are correct and everyone else is so stupid. Next time you write something, think carefully about the units, in particular, percentage of what?

Just to be clear on what Richard says here: that's ~6% of the total gas absorbed in the form of oxygen not "6% of the available oxygen". An easy mistake to make, subtracting 15 from 20.9 and forgetting they are both percentages of volume.

Less forgivable is the response crakar has had to anyone who has tried to point this (and other) error(s) out.

@cracker24: Either youâve changed your position, or youâve been obtusely agreeing with your opponents. Still there are two things you are wrong about.

1.) The implications the density change has for âwell-mixednessâ
2) The meaning of your 6.6% figure

On the first issue â a gas does not need to be uniformly dense to be well mixed. Gases are called well-mixed when turbulence dominates over gravity, and layers do not form. As you have now stated, oxygen is uniformly 21% of the atmosphere by volume. That is all that needs to be true for oxygen to be called âwell mixedâ as a part of air. Our mental models here are the same, itâs simply a matter of terminology. (Note: the atmosphere is only well mixed up to around 100km. Also, there are two main non-uniformities within this range: terrestrial gas sources & sinks, and the ozone layer. Neither of these disrupt the turbulent mixing, so neither stop the atmosphere from being well mixed) (BTW: after 100km, the atmosphere stops being well mixed)

On the second issue. Your 6.6% figure might be right, but definitely not in the way you are using it:

Our body cares about how much oxygen we get, not how big the oxygen is. Litres are a measure of sizeâ¦Â but we should really talk about mass. Air is 21% oxygen by volume, but 18.9% oxygen by mass. (none of this changes the point, but it makes things a whole lot less clunky.)

At sea level, air density is 1.225kg per cubic metre. The lungs are 0.004 cubic metres (AKA 4 litres) in usable volume. Each breath of sea level air is 1.225*0.004 kg = 4.9 g. On top of mount everest, air density is 0.4758kg/m^3. Lungs stay the same. Each breath of Mt Everest air is 1.903 g.

This means we get 4.9*18.9%=0.9261g of oxygen per sea level breath, and 1.903*18.9%=0.359667g of oxygen per mountain breath.

You posit that we only need 6.6% of the oxygen that we get at sea level in order to function normally? 6.6% or 0.9261g is 0.061126g per breath.

The air density *20km* above sea level is 0.0889 kilograms per cubic metre. One 20km high breath is 0.06721 grams of oxygen. According to your figures, thatâs close to not âfunctioning normallyâ, but not quite. Cruising altitude for commercial aircraft is around 12km. If we only needed 6.6% of the oxygen that we get at sea level, weâd be fine in an unpressurised cabin. I think we both can agree this is absurd.

I think youâve misread your source. I donât think it means we only 6.6% of the oxygen we get at sea-level. I think it means that if we breathe in the same mass of air as we do at sea level, only 6.6% of it needs to be oxygen for us to survive. What does this mean for us?

At sea level, you get 4.9g of air in a breath. if 6.6% of it were oxygen, youâd get 0.3234g of oxygen in that breath. This is slightly less than how much oxygen you get at the top of everest. So my interpretation says that everest is near the peak of what humans can endure. Seems about right then.

Also,

âWhen we inhale we breathe in the follow: N2 @ 78%; O2 @ 20.9%; CO2 @ 0.03%
When we exhale we exhale the following: N2 @ 74%; O2 @ 15%; CO2 @ 4.2%
Therefore we only need 6% of the available oxygen in the [sea level] airâ

Your conclusion does not follow from premises. Firstly, the oxygen content goes down from 20.9% to 15%. The missing oxygen makes up 6% of the air you breathed in, but itâs 28% of the oxygen you breathed in.

A better inference to make from this data would be that we only need 28% of the oxygen in sea level air, or that, when air is at sea level density, we only need 6% of the air to be oxygen.

Even then, Youâre assuming that the body is able to filter out oxygen with 100% efficiency, and assuming that it exhales *all* excess oxygen. But itâs a start.

Interesting

I'm ignorant about this area...

Can someone please recommend ONE recent book putting the case for global warming caused by human activity

Be good if it also discussed the various strategies for correction ("green" versus nuclear power for example)

Cheers

Nightjar: Spencer Weart's the Discovery of Global Warming is free and a good starter text. (Google it).

Nightjar

You might want to start from David MacKay's Without The Hot Air: http://withouthotair.com/

Another way to approach it is in reverse, like I did. Read three books recommended by AGW skeptics and then research and verify their claims. You'll come back as convinced as possible of the reality of global warming. My three "skeptic" books were *Red Hot Lies*, by Chris Horner, *The Deniers*, by Lawrence Solomon, and *Cool It*, by Bjorn Lomborg.

When you realize, through investigation, how utterly absurd sources such as these are in their "defense" of the denial position, you understand the mentality we're dealing with in global warming denial.

Skip, i get it you read 3 books made up your mind and since then have been unmoved.

Back to "well mixed gases", we know that the higher you ascend the less oxygen there is but lets ignore this fact for a moment. Lets look at the fact that no matter what geographical location you measure oxygen you will get 20.9% and no matter what altitude you measure oxygen you get 20.9%, this figure does not change and is constant. So based on % value you have decided to label it a well mixed gas. Fair enough lets consider it one.

Now lets look at CO2, if we measure CO2 at the surface across the globe the concentration will change from one location to another, not only that the concentration will change over a 24 hour period and mot only that the concentration will change from season to season, year to year. At altitude the concentration of CO2 will vary day, to day etc also.

If we consider oxygen to be a well mixed gas then are we correct in calling CO2 a well mixed gas? Please explain how you can come to this conclusion or are you just being sloppy with your definition of "well mixed".

To Paul,

Thats pretty close to what i am saying, we dont require all 20.9% of available oxygen at sea level to function we exhale 15% of it, a good example is when people hyperventilate they breath into a bag. You can take quite a few breaths doing this because we only need about 6% of oxygen not 20.9% of air at sea level.

Therefore we can ascend above sea level for quite a distance, however at some point there is not enough oxygen for us to breath regardless of the fact that it still makes up 20.9%. Now we can argue about what the actual figure is (6.6% etc) but the fact remains there is less oxygen the higher you go so from this perspective it is not WELL MIXED which was the point i was trying to make a long time ago but the pedantic idiots here cant help them selves.

By the way here are the altitudes and its effects on the human body from my trusty book.

Indifferent stage-sea level to 10000 feet you get a decrease in night vision at 4000 feet.

Compensatory stage 10K to 15K feet-heart rate and blood pressure increase to compensate for reduced oxygen (resting body dont forget to mountain climber).

12K to 15K after 10- 15 minutes effects of hypoxia can be observed.

Disturbance stage 15K to 20K feet- The effects of hypoxia are showing Judgement is impaired , cognitive processing impaired etc. Unconsciousness will occur after 30 to 45 minutes.

Critical stage above 20K feet- Effects of hypoxia onset rapidly (3 to 5 minutes)

Some more useless info in regards to time of usefull consciousness (TUC)
50K feet 9-12 seconds
43K 9-12 seconds
40K 15-20 sec
35K 30-60 sec
30K 1-2 minutes
25K 3-5 minutes
18K 20-30 minutes

More utter rubbish from crackar. His level of scientific understanding is less than a grade five elementary student. crackar, why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again? People who understand science will not be convinced by your continual repetition of rubbish, it only makes you look stupider and stupider, if that is possible.

Why do you hate science and scientists so much that you continue to insult them with your scientific rubbish?

IPF,

I like it when you post because you take the heat of Skip.

Why do you keep repeating the same rubbish your self, Instead explain how two gases which behave quite differently in the atmosphere can both be considered as well mixed?

By the way "stupider" now matter how many times you repeat it is not a word it just makes you look more stupid than previously thought.

By the way Skip did you bother to read Al Gore's AIT and his follow up novel "Earth in the balance", how about a couple from Tim Flannery "The weather makers" and "How man is changing the climate...".

To be fair you should read 3 books of opposing views and apply the same science trained critical eye on those as well otherwise all you have is a biased view of things.

But that was the whole point wasnt it. Ah narratives what a wonderful subject.

Air at sea level is 78% N2. Molecular weight of N2 is 28, of O2 32, of CO2 44. so how is it possible that most of the gas at sea level in N2, when it is the lightest of these three molecules? Why isn't there a layer of CO2, then a layer of O2 and an top layer of N2? Can the explanation be found in the gas laws?

The fact that at the surface across the globe the concentration of CO2 will change from one location to another, will change over a 24 hour period, and will change from season to season is because it is ***continuously*** being added to and withdrawn from the atmosphere as it cycles between the atmosphere, the biosphere and the ocean, and because we humans are continuously adding to the atmosphere CO2 made from fossil carbon that has until now been locked out of that cycle for milliuons of years, and finally, because almost all of that cycling and adding takes place.... wait for it, at the surface.

Which brings us back around to the swimming pool analogy.

Stop peeing in the pool, craker.

crackar now shows that his knowledge of the English language is as lacking as his knowledge of science.

stu·pid
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless

Good description of Crackar, yes?

but the fact remains there is less oxygen the higher you go so from this perspective it is not WELL MIXED

1. Is it even possible for a gas to be well-mixed from your perspective?

2. Does anyone else, anywhere in the world, share your definition of "well-mixed"?

By the way Skip did you bother to read Al Gore's AIT and his follow up novel "Earth in the balance", how about a couple from Tim Flannery "The weather makers" and "How man is changing the climate...".

No. Did you? (A foolish question, I know. You don't even read the links you post; at best you plagiarize them.)

I base nothing I believe on Al Gore.

So I'm ignorant because I didn't read something by a non-expert that essentially agrees with me?

Crakar, your ability to construct new and intricate layers of delusion continues to amaze.

Pough i am still trying to understand your or anyone elses definition of well mixed. If o2 is well mixed then how can CO2 be.

So your answer is that you have not read a book published by a warmista, that in itself speaks volumes of your blatant bias brought on by a need to believe in something........anything. You may as well be a religious nut as the only difference between science and religion is evidence.

So your answer is that you have not read a book published by a warmista, that in itself speaks volumes of your blatant bias brought on by a need to believe in something........anything.

Some things are so absurd its difficult to respond.

So, the fact that I read *the other side's* arguments (and wrote a detailed essay explaining my rejection) proves "blatant bias".

Crakar, Crakar. I thought "CO2 is not well mixed" was the nadir of your absurdity. On that point I admit I was definitely "biased", and just plain wrong.

the only difference between science and religion is evidence.

Agreed. And I have never plagiarized fraud in the hope of providing evidence to support any of my positions.

Can you make the same claim?

Hang on Skip,

In an effort to figure out whether AGW is real or not you decided to read 3 books recomended to you by skeptics.

After reading the 3 books and applying some type of assessment based on who knows what, you came to the conclusion that the authors where wrong inferring you where right and AGW is as real as apple pie.

Would it not be appropriate for you to read 3 books written in support of AGW, apply the same rigorous assessment and then form a conclusion?

The fact that you have not means that you have simply exercised your confirmation bias towards an unjustifiable belief system. As i said narratives is a fascinating subject.

By the way you said

Agreed. And I have never plagiarized fraud in the hope of providing evidence to support any of my positions.

No you have not Skip but then again you have never even tried to support any of your positions, thats what makes you a pathetic individual.

You badgered me into picking up the CO2 residency debate again so when i finally said OK lets debate it i offered you to go first, state your case, explain why the IPCC 1000 year timeline is correct.

But what happened Skip? You shit your pants thats what happened. Suddenly you had to actually offer an opinion on something but instead of beinga man and having a go you ran away like a little girl, went all quite for a while and then snuck back in with your usual drivel.

So go away Skip, go back to your boring little existence in your arse hole of a country.

skip and crakar need a time out! Insulting the man's homeland, what a low blow ;)

crakar, answer pough: by your definition of well-mixed, is it possible for any gas in the atmosphere to be well mixed? Since the answer is no, you have choosen a useless definition just to be argumentative.

Re: small variations in CO2 in time and space: nothing is perfect. Due to the existence of short time scale sources and sinks there will be some variation, but eventually the CO2 that comes out of your countries brown coal reserves does find its way to the south pole, the north pole and the stratosphere. Note the term is "well-mixed" not "perfectly mixed"

Arse hole of a country is strong, although in fairness right now the Australia;s economy is still vibrant and their national budget solvent. I can't really deal a retort to that.

Crakar, "confirmation bias" is where you select information sources based on what you already believe--sort of like plagiarizing Monckton on residence time (which is what you did). You're using this term exactly as well as "well mixed gas".

We have in fact already discussed this--about a year ago on a thread I forgot. I will have to revisit that discussion, although the peer-reviewed literature on the residence time on of the individual carbon molecule as opposed to atmospheric concentrations thereof was your downfall, as I recall.

Coby,

There have been many, many lower blows than what i said, strangely i thought i was being quite restrained in my responses especially towards the constant swearing from Mandas.

Skip,

Yes your dollar is fast approaching the equivalent value of a handful of Amazonian colored beads primarily caused by the actions of your government, this was not the inspiration for the term "arse hole of a country". You dont need to be an educated man to figure it out i am sure. Regardless the reasons why are not related to this site so i will withdraw that statement (Coby can you remove the wording or post please?).

I was of the understanding that plagiarism was when you took someone else's work and claimed it as your own. Is this your definition Skip?

I am asking because if i read something whether it be by Monckton or Hansen or whomever and then relay that info (in my own words) to a site like this to either support or denounce a position, is that plagarism because if it is then i suspect we are all guilty in some form.

Re confirmation bias, why have you not selected 3 warmista books and then applied the same critical eye? Is it because you feel there is no point because you know the books will merely confirm what you already believe?

Or is it like the IPCC that only selects studies which support its pre ordained agenda and ignores studies which cast a shadow of doubt over the expected and anticipated outcomes?

Feel free to offer your opinion on CO2 residency times when you think you are up to it, without plagarism of course.

Crakar:

Re: CO2 residence time.

The particular moncktonian link you pulled this from has long since been removed, probably because Monckton or one of his cronies at SPPI realized it made them look like fools, but youâve already admitted months ago in a half-ass apology that you plagiarized it, so we need not belabor the point.

The peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in finding that the residence-time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years. The UNâs climate panel, however, chooses a complex and unsatisfactory definition of residence-time that allows it to pretend that the residence time is in fact 100 years. This is one of many respects in which the climate panel, while claiming to represent the âconsensusâ of scientific opinion, is in fact entirely at odds with the peer-reviewed literature. Crakar, Hockey Stick Open #11, Oct 19th, 2009

This isnât even the best part, Crakar. Right after you plagiarized this argument which you never yourself understoodâyou just plagiarized it, *blindly believing* and *without any critical investigation*, with the purest and most child-like faith--you triumphantly chastised us thus:

I could go on but what would be the point. I understand that many of you fall into the two catagories of faith and belief . . .

Incredible. Right after mindlessly plagiarizing this Moncktonian fraud, you had the gall to accuse *us* of being the uncritical believers.

Just over one year to the date, Crakar, youâre celebrating the anniversary of your colossal blunder by digging up the same embarrassing incident. Are you *trying* to look foolish?

My theory: I can't prove it, but I suspect that you invested so little thought into this originally that you *forgot* that the residency time argument is a loser. Here you are again bringing it up again!

And oh, Crakar: What three *Skeptic* books have *you* read and independently verified? We both know its zero. You read neither side. You just cut and paste links (at best) or plagiarize (at worst).

I do believe it was you Skip that wished to re ignite the residency debate, i merely agreed to allow you the opportunity to do so. I strongly suspect your post 112 was written quite some time ago waiting to be posted at the appropriate time.

So now that you have that out of your system do you wish to actually debate this topic or do you have nothing of any substance to contribute?

I like this

"And oh, Crakar: What three *Skeptic* books have *you* read and independently verified? We both know its zero. You read neither side. You just cut and paste links (at best) or plagiarize (at worst)."

So we have a situation where you once again make assumptions about me and create an argument based on those assumptions. What a wonderful reality you live in.

Let me continue arguing in your reality for a moment, you read three skeptic books and decide by some unknown reason that all 3 books are bullshit so you then form an opinion that all anti AGW science is bullshit, i on the other hand choose not to read a book written by self indulging quacks from either side of the debate so as not to sway me in either direction.

Now of the two of us who would have the unbiased opinion?

I suggest you read Tim Flannery's book called the weather makers and pay particular attention to all the predictions he makes that have been proven wrong (among other absurdities) then maybe, just maybe you can claim to have the unbiased opinion you so dearly cling to.

Jim said: "What Myrr seems to be incapable of comprehending is that there is ***always*** force moving CO2 (and O2 and N2, etc.) along, which is why it is well mixed in the atmosphere."

Here's the problem I'm having with this - I keep asking you (generic y'all), to tell me what this force is.

I still haven't got a reply.

Why are you avoiding answering this question? This is fundamental to your claim that "CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere", and so fundamental to your claims for CO2 as the basis of your beliefs in AGW. So, please, answer the question.

What is the force which is constantly moving these molecules around to make the atmosphere "well-mixed"? Aka, What is wind?

If you can't answer that, then your claim that the atmosphere is well-mixed is based on nothing but a figment of your imaginations.

Re some discussion here about CO2 and length of time in the atmosphere:

http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warm…

And a question from it: "if CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last hundred years?"

myrhh is either very stupid or very dishonest. He makes claims about "real gases" not being "ideal gases". Of course, what he doesn't tell us is that the "real gas" he is talking about is water vapour. As anyone who has even a smattering of chemistry knows only too well, water molecules have a rather unique property. It is called "hydrogen bonding" which makes them much stickier than normal gaseous molecules.

He also talks about deviation from "ideal gas" behaviour at high pressures. He is being very dishonest in his attacks on the behaviour of gases.

Diffusion rates of gases have been measured for aprox. 200 years, firstly by Thomas Graham. Graham's law showed that diffusion is proportional to the square root of the density (molecular weight) without talking about ideal gases but using real gases.

myrhh, please take your anti-science rubbish to another site, it is not welcome here.

As for your question about "What is the force which is constantly moving these molecules around?" Well that is molecular motion and depends on the temperature of the gas. The energy for this motion comes from solar radiation. If you approach absolute zero then all molecular motion ceases. Simple science that anyone should be able to understand.

All gases, including some of the heaviest such as CFC's completely mix with air. They will not "un-mix" and fall to the earth as a layer of concentrated gas.

Just to dispell any confusion.

O2 is well mixed to 20.9% of atmosphere by wind? but its content is subject to pressure? (why we die above 1000 ft).

CO2 is well mixed by wind? Is it also subject to pressure as oxygen is?

N2 is well mixed by wind? is it also subject to pressure as O2 is?

Is O3 well mixed? if so is it because of wind? If not why is it not well mixed by the wind like all other gases?

Skip do you have any opinion on this subject?

Ian,

In my trusty "aviation medicine for aircrew" manual i can find the following laws:

Charles law
Boyles law
Dry and wet expansion lawHenry law
Dalton law
and "Law of gaseous diffusion" whic i assume is the law you are refering to.

This may be an incomplete description as it only pertains to flight etc but from what i have read the static diffusion law talks about two closed pockets of O2 with different pressures seperated by a membrane will over time be equal in pressure, depending on the type of membrane etc. EG one pocket being 100mmHg and the other 50mmHg will both equilise at 75mmHg.

Dynamic diffusion is a little different using the same, figures as above but one pocket being held at a constant 100mmHg both pockets will both equalise at 100mmHg.

Now are we talking about the same thing? If so can you please explain in a little more detail how grahams law works?

What force? Pick one: diffusion, wind (which is the movement of air caused by differential heating and the resulting pressure differential), convection, the coriolis effect.

As for CO2 residence time, as usual the discussion at your link focuses on the relatively short residence time of a random individual molecule of CO2 and completely ignores the very much longer duration time of a large increase in atmospheric CO2, such as the measured 39% increase since the industrial revolution began.

Since CO2 continuously cycles among the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean, all three now contain more carbon than before the industrial revolution and will continue to do so until marine carbonate deposition and silicate rock weathering reduce the total store of carbon in all three, which will take millennia.

So now that you have that out of your system do you wish to actually debate this topic or do you have nothing of any substance to contribute?

Debate it with you--again? Not really; your further humiliation is an unfortunate side effect of our continued interactions on this forum. Let us say I am *more than willing* to debate it. I'll even give you a pass on saying

the residency time of CO2 will be vastly smaller than the much touted 1000 years.

which I will graciously attribute to a typo.

That being said, Crakar, I will sportingly ask the rhetorical question,

Do you dispute the IPCC's conclusions based on the residence time of CO2? If so, why?

crackar asks:

If so can you please explain in a little more detail how grahams law works?

You are indeed a lazy SOB. Try reading elementary chemistry or physics texts, visit a library or even use Google. I will not waste any of my time on your stupidity and willful dishonesty. You will only claim that I have it wrong, you are pathetic.

i on the other hand choose not to read a book written by self indulging quacks from either side of the debate so as not to sway me in either direction.

And in doing so are free to invent whatever reality you wish. Bravo, Crakar.

The question begged is, How do you know they are "self-indulging quacks" if you've not read them?

Well done Ian you constantly claim expertise on wide and far reaching subjects, in your post 115 you berate Myrhh by stating a gas law but not actually explaining its relevance in any detail.

I actually try to engage you on this subject in more detail and all you can do is foul mouth me as well. I suspect your response is due to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. You throw out key words as if they actual have meaning to you but when we attempt to delve below the vaneer thin surface you crumble like a WTC tower.

One can only surmise from your behaviour that you are not a scientist but a fake, if you are in fact a scientist then are not a very good one.

To Skip,

Post 119, you contradict yourself in the space of one sentence but i will assume you do want to debate this again simply because you cant stop talking about it.

Naturally you require me to kick off the debate god forgive you would be willing to offer up an opinion. So i will say something and you will drag up a post from the past and say AHA your latest sentence differs from an old one ever so slightly you are a plagarist (accusation comes complete with cross made from both index fingers).

I am a wake up to Skip i suggest you explain to me the reasoning behind the IPCC figure first we can then progress from there.

Post 121

The quote you took out of context is not reality, remember i was describing YOUR reality, i turned your reality around on you in an effort to show just how biased you really are.

Obviously you are stuck in your own reality and struggle to seperate it from the real world.

you contradict yourself in the space of one sentence

How?

but i will assume you do want to debate this again simply because you cant stop talking about it.

I'll stop talking about it when you admit you have no idea what *you're* talking about in regards to it. (Jim E. stole my thunder but read his post and just face facts, Crakar.)

Naturally you require me to kick off the debate

I am offering you the more-than-generous olive branch of avoiding it. Do you really want to do this to yourself?

god forgive you would be willing to offer up an opinion.

I offer this one: CO2 residence time is (yet another) point of humiliation for you, Crakar. Pursue it and look stupid (which is sad because despite all I admit you are not).

. . . drag up a post from the past and say AHA your latest sentence differs from an old one ever so slightly you are a plagarist.

No.

Your sentence(s) differed not at all from the source you plagiarized them from; *thats* what makes you a plagiarist--which would be far less of a problem if you'd plagiarized something *true*.

i turned your reality around on you in an effort to show just how biased you really are.

By bragging of your illiteracy:

i on the other hand choose not to read a book written by self indulging quacks from either side of the debate so as not to sway me in either direction . . .

Obviously you are stuck in your own reality and struggle to seperate [sic] it from the real world.

There is no distinction between the two. I know; I've never had to plagiarize fraud to create one.

But all that being said, I will leave you the last word and for the evening, my dear Crakar.

I'm a trailer park white boy by both heritage and inclination, but I do enjoy my occasional hip hop rhymes from time to time, and will quote Black Sheep as my departing shot:

but now I'm just bullshittin'
now is time for quitin'
there's money to be made
and there's booty to be hittin'

adieu Crakar (till tomorrow morning, Pacific Standard Time . . .)

Contradiction

Debate it with you--again? Not really (this means you do not want to debate); your further humiliation is an unfortunate side effect of our continued interactions on this forum. Let us say I am *more than willing* (but here you say you wish to)to debate it. I'll even give you a pass on saying

Anyway lets move as this is fun.

Did Jim steal your thunder? I doubt it Jim has offered an opinion you do not have the capacity to do such a thing.

So now after all your slander and assumptions i am supposed to be greatful to you because you dont want to debate this issue in an effort to save me from making a fool of myself. Jesus fucking wept Skip, if you have an opinion on this subject then speak up now ( "I am a wake up to Skip i suggest you explain to me the reasoning behind the IPCC figure first, we can then progress from there")or never mention it again. Thats how simple it is.

"By bragging of your illiteracy"

So the assumption is now that you have read more books which makes me illiterate and of course you more smarter, more learned and more intelligent, no wonder all your posts are a crock.

And once again like the broken record you are you throw in the word plagiarise what a complete tosser you are.

At the airport and bored. Read crakar's quote from the avmed manual about TUC. Tell me crakar, if TUC at 30,000 ft is 1-2 minutes, how can a human climb Everest without supplemental oxygen.?

By the way as you have seen fit to accuse me of plagiarism, here is the definition of the word, i have included both forms so as there is no mistake.

"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source" (transitive)

Right of reply:

I have never consciously and knowingly taken ones work and passed it off as my own.

"to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source" (intransitive)

Right of reply:

I have never consciously and knowingly committed literary theft, nor have i presented as new an original idea or product as my own.

Skip if you feel i have committed the crime plagiarism that falls within the bounds of the above definitions then please explain to me how i have committed such crimes.

Jesus you must be bored.

I am not sure Mandas i can say that 30000 feet is 9144 meters which is slightly higher than Everest at 8850 m.

Maybe you should talk to someone who has climbed the thing without oxy? Or do you have your own theory?

Mandas,

Just had a thought (yes i know insert funny punchline here) the figures i am quoting are for someone who is flying a plane, therefore they do not have the luxury of acclimatisation. Whereas mountineers do have the luxury, do you think this will allow them a longer TUC?

It's not often that linkspam perfectly encapsulates the absurdity of certain commentators arguments!

[Oops, just deleted it, sorry for your orphaned thought! - coby ]

So crakar has posted here, he's brought up another long dead thread to talk about the Murray Basin & he's still steering clear of this one: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/sea-level-in-arctic-is-fa…

Mind you seeing as I never got a proper response on his claims about the IPCC CO2 & temperature projections I'm not surprised.

Maybe I missed your answers, but it can't hurt to ask my questions again.

1. Is it even possible for a gas to be well-mixed from your perspective?

2. Does anyone else, anywhere in the world, share your definition of "well-mixed"?

"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source" (transitive)

What was this--your own work?

The peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in finding that the residence-time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years. The UNâs climate panel, however, chooses a complex and unsatisfactory definition of residence-time that allows it to pretend that the residence time is in fact 100 years. This is one of many respects in which the climate panel, while claiming to represent the âconsensusâ of scientific opinion, is in fact entirely at odds with the peer-reviewed literature.
-- Crakar, Hockey Stick Open #11, Oct 19th, 2009

The link you lifted this nonsense from no longer exists, probably *because* its authors realized how stupid it makes them look.

But you already *admitted* you plagiarized it, so what's the point?

Plagiarism is bad enough, but you plagiarized something utterly *absurd*.

Go ahead and *lie*, Crakar. Change your story now and claim this was your own original work. If so, it then you merely concocted an absurdity instead of just cutting and pasting it.

And the reason I believe the IPCC's time line for the residence time of the *concentration* of atmospheric CO2--which is longer than that of an individual molecule (on average)? Because carbon dioxide is a *well-mixed gas*--as your own link on the topic proves. This *concentration* will remain abnormally high for far longer than the *average* residence time of *individual* molecules. The distinction is mundane; even sophomoric.

But I'm not offering "an opinion" on the matter. Its a basic, simple, easily grasped principle of science. And I know it isn't beyond you to understand it. You're just embarrassed right now and as usual your response to humiliation is to perversely humiliate yourself further.

craker: "Jim has offered an opinion"

No, I offered a factual explanation of physical reality.

Your problem is you can't tell the difference.

132, Pough is this question directed at me?

133, Sorry Skip but you are an idiot, lets step through your post to confirm it.

I read some material, formed an opinion based on that material and then expressed that opinion here. If i DID NOT provide a link to the original material and IF i claimed this opinion to be mine and only mine then i would be guilty of plagiarism as you claim.

However you have stated quite clearly that this material was from Monckton, you know this because I TOLD YOU. I even provided you WITH A LINK to the source material which apparently no longer works. Does this sound like the work of a plagiarist? Of course not, how could you possibly accuse me of plagiarism when i informed you of who wrote the original material and even supplied a link to the source.

The only question left to ask is why would you continue with this line of accusation when you yourself know it not to be true.

Would you like me to explain why you do such things?

Ok. Maybe I am coming into this debate late, but I am confused by all this discussion about residence time and how it is supposedly relevant to the debate.

Residence time in the atmosphere - for CO2 or any other substance for that matter - is just a measure of the average time that a molecule of that substance will stay in the atmosphere before it is absorbed or recycled by some process. So why is that relevant to anything?

An individual CO2 molecule may stay in the atmosphere for a few minutes (if, for example, I breathe on a plant and the plant absorbs some of my breathe straight away), or for millenia (if the molecule is trapped in an area where there is little prospect for it to move or be absorbed, such as in a pocket of rock). But so what?

CO2 - and other substances - are being continually emitted and absorbed all the time. Its called the carbon cycle (or nitrogen cycle, or water cycle, etc). The only relevant issue is the rate of emission and absorbsion. If the rate of emission is higher than the rate of absorbsion, the concentration in the atmosphere goes up, and vice versa. Right now, the rate of emission IS higher than the rate of absorbsion, because we are creating more, and reducing the prospect for the environment to absorb it (cutting down rainforests etc). This is why we need to reduce our emission rate. Residence time is only relevant if we actually reduce the rate of emission below the rate of absorbsion, because residence time will then become a measure of how quickly the total concentration in the atmosphere will stabilise at a lower level. And that simply is not happening, nor is it likely to happen for the foreseeable future.

So someone tell me - why is CO2 residence time in any way relevant to this debate? Since it is such an issue for crakar, maybe you could enlighten us all please.

--crakar24 Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads
#180 | January 14, 2010 5:33 PM

However you have stated quite clearly that this material was from Monckton, you know this because I TOLD YOU.

False.

Another poster caught you. I verified it by checking the then existing link.

I even provided you WITH A LINK to the source material which apparently no longer works.

False.

Your post contained no such link.

You were once even willing to admit it:

I, crakar24 would like to sincerely apologise to Skip for plagarising[sic] certain aspects of my comments in regards to CO2 residency time (HSOT). My actions, though not intentional[as if . . . no one "accidentally" plagiarizes]have hurt Skip very deeply.[hilarious]

But in the end it doesn't even matter. Because whether you plagiarized it or not (and you did; the evidence is overwhelming), it *only matters* as a demonstration of *your* ability to believe *anything*, not matter how absurd, if it tells you what you want to believe about the science of global warming.

That is mindless belief, Crakar. And its not "offering an opinion"; its slavish belief in pseudo science that conforms to your ideology.

You were caught. You even *admitted* you were caught. Yet here you are trying to invent an entirely new reality--just as you have always done regarding anthropogenic climate change.

My only hope is that any observer sees the depraved lengths to which a committed climate denier must sink in order to sustain his denial.

Ian said: "myrhh is either very stupid or dishonest. He makes claims about "real gases" not being "ideal gases". Of course, what he doesn't tell us is that the "real gas" he is talking about is water vapour. As anyone who has even a smattering of chemistry knows only too well, water molecules have a rather unique property. It is called "hydrogen bonding" which makes them much stickier than normal gaseous molecules.

He also talks about deviation from "ideal gas" behaviour at high pressures. He is being very dishonest in his attacks on the the behaviour of gases."

An ideal gas is a figment of the imagination, just as average is, it isn't real. That's why the term "real gases" came into being, to differentiate between the imaginary concept of "an ideal gas" and real life gases. Just as "average" can be useful in a variety of applications and used mathematically to solve problems so too can using the concept "ideal gas" and the various "ideal gas laws". The ideal gas laws are not laws of nature. The various ones apply to different scenarios, and, to approximate nature, to the world of real gases, a combination of them would have to be used.

What happens in AGW arguments is a misapplication of something from an ideal gas scenario to a context not applicable.

So, we get descriptions of CO2 in the atmosphere rapidly diffusing through the atmosphere to mix with it and staying mixed and claims that CO2 having pooled at ground level will rise spontaneously and diffuse into the atmosphere.

But, that doesn't happen in real life life, why? Because CO2 is a real gas and has real weight and volume etc. and is subject to pressure and gravity; the descriptions applied to it in AGW are not applicable to it, because these come from the out of context ideal gas laws.

Examples of describing the difference:

http://www.citycollegiate.com/gases.htm

"An ideal gas is a hypothetical (imaginary) gas, which has no existence. Ideal gas obeys all gas laws at all temperatures and pressures. There is no force of attraction or repulsion between the molecules of an ideal gas. Molecules of ideal gas occupy no space.

Gases that exist are real gases such as Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, He, Ne, F2, CO2, CO etc. Real gases do not obey gas laws at all temperatures and pressures. Real gases deviate from ideal behavioor at high pressure and low temperature. There exists small force of attraction between the molecules of real gases."

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-iii/matter-states…

"An ideal gas is one, which obeys the general gas equation of PV=nRT and other gas laws at all temperatures and pressures. A real gas, does not obey the general gas equation and other gas laws at all conditions of temperature and pressure."

OK? I'm not making this up, this is standard science. Look up a few more to get familiar with the differences.

So, when we get a description from AGW that CO2 'moves at great speed through empty space, knocking into other molecules and thoroughly mixing in the atmosphere and staying mixed', and arguments that 'even though CO2 is heavier than air it doesn't make any difference, it will simply travel rise up and rapidly diffuse through the atmosphere until it is thoroughly mixed and doesn't separate out, that it only sinks because there are large amounts', and so on, we can now spot where this information comes from. From imaginary gas properties and laws.

In the real world then, real gases are subject to pressure, to gravity, have weight, have volume, attraction. When we hear that CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, it actually means something in the real gas world, in our real atmosphere. It means that CO2 will sink down through air regardless of volume, it doesn't suddenly become heavier because there is more of it, but, because it is heavier than air it will always be sinking down through air to the ground unless it is being acted on by a.n.other force.

I don't know who first began saying that the real gas CO2 acted like an ideal gas in our real atmosphere, but it has produced this unrealistic picture of our atmosphere, that is not real. The real CO2 cannot stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, thousands of years, accumulating. Until you begin to appreciate this difference you won't be able to see why AGWScience is not real and why it makes these strange claims which are not real science. It uses ideal gas laws out of context.

Jim, thank you, now we're getting somewhere. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

Mandas 136,

It bears no relevance, you are witnessing a little game played by Skip.

137,

Skip, you failed to mention that you stalked me for many months with your accusations, in fact i did then and do now find it rather creepy. The mere fact that we live in different countries is the only reason why i feel safe.

Lets look at the events which lead up to my statement which you referred to post 137.

In post 118 someone by the name of "scottar"made thier first post.

Post 119 DW accused me of posting under another name

Post 120 You Skip with all the stupidity of an Al Gore follower claimed it was i as well.

In post 121 unsure of exactly who you are talking to you ask,

1) Have you ever posted here before--perhaps under a different identity?

crakar-You then accuse this "scottar" of plagiarism.

(2) Is all the material you posted above your *own*--nothing plagiarized?

Let us just say its idle curiosity.

Skip

crakar-Idle curiousity? Sounds like a mental deficiency to me.

post 123 DW asked again "are you a sock puppet?"

Post 124 Skip writes "I donât know for sure its Crakar but all the indicators are thereârepetition of talking points that have been addressed again and again, use of straw men, patronizing admonitions, rank plagiarism, even the colloquialisms (Savey mate!). Maybe our boy has come home but just hasnât made it official yet."

crakar-So now he is accusing me of plagiarism even though i did not write the post.

post 126 Scottar declares "I'm not Crakar" but alas his declaration falls on deaf ears.

Skip in post 129 address scottar as "I'll ask again, Crattar:"

crakar-Does this seem like the actions of a sane man?

again post 131 Skip address scottar as "Scrakar:"

crakar-By post 137 all pretences were dropped and scottar was being addressed as crakar

Post 141 the first post by me for quite sometime where is state "Skip the infatuation you have with me is starting to get a little freaky, so just to make it easier for you any post that is from crakar24 is from me any post that is not from crakar24 is not from me."

crakar-The next few posts are rather embarrassing for Skip and DW as they finally come to the realisation that scottar and crakar are two people. At this point i ask for an apology from Skip which was not forthcoming.

As usual Skip then launches into another bewildering tirade driven by his own stupidity, instead of apologising for being an arsehole to scottar and to myself he suddenly switches tactics and reignites his campaign of accusations of plagiarism in post 171.

This is my response "re post 171, thats a tempting offer Skip, one simple apology for plagiarism and i get my triple A rating back. Hmm......what to do.....OK its a deal as long as you publicly acknowledge that Scottar and i are not the same person (for DW's sake)."

So the deal was done, i aplogised to Skip so he would shutup and Skip would acknowledge that i was not scottar.

Post 181 contains Skips response "I don't think I was really "hurt"--deeply or otherwise--I would say I was getting exasperated. But thank you for that, and yes I acknowledge you are not Scottar and apologize for suggesting as much and for any damage this might have caused to either."

Now you would think this would be the end of it....wouldnt you? Well i would but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO the pathetic Skip with nothing else to say as his bag of tricks is now empty wants to return to this long dead argument.

You are an idiot, moron, spastic, retard.......(running out of names).....nincompoop what else could one say?

135 crakar

Pough is this question directed at me?

Obviously. I've asked you once before and Coby also asked you to answer it. If you're not sure about stuff like that you can select the text, press Ctrl-C to copy it to the clipboard, then Ctrl-F to open the find-in-page function. Ctrl-V will paste it into the search box. Just do a search that way to find the original.

Although, considering the context, I don't know whom else it could have been addressed to.

You've avoided answering the questions even though they have been posed three times. Would it help to ask again, or shall we just all agree that it's not possible for a gas to be well-mixed according to your definition and also that you're the only person on the face of the planet who uses that definition? (For obvious reasons.)

I only asked because Myrhh has stated similar things to me albeit in a much better fashion so your questions could have been directed to him/her.

1. Is it even possible for a gas to be well-mixed from your perspective?

It depends on your definition and the environment the gas finds itself in i suppose but yes i would say it is possible.

2. Does anyone else, anywhere in the world, share your definition of "well-mixed"?

If o2 is considered well mixed then co2 cannot be, i would accept mixed but not wel mixed. I would think there would be some people that share my definition Pough.

Do these answers suffice?

More lies and distortions by myrrh. He is proving that dishonesty rather than stupidity and ignorance is the dominant factor in his spewing of utter rubbish.

If "real gases" refuse to behave as "ideal gases" then how were the early chemists able to formulate the gas laws? Sure there are exceptions, mostly under conditions which are far removed from what is described as "NTP" (normal temperature and pressure) or "STP" (standard temperature and pressure). But to insist, as myrrh does, that AGW is somehow falsified because of it is a preposterous distortion of the truth and facts of gas behaviour.

Anyone who thinks, as myrrh does, is not being honest with the science.

You are an idiot, moron, spastic, retard.......(running out of names).....nincompoop what else could one say?

You forgot "thick as pig shit", "tosser", "little girl" and a few others I could document.(Poor dresser, musically and artistically untalented, occasional drunkard, and a few more would probably apply.)

Now you would think this would be the end of it . . .

It would have, but you have continually attempted to accuse myself and other participants in this forum of mindless belief. Your history of plagiarizing nonsense divests you of any standing from which to do so, and I will continually remind you of it as long as you make the hypocritical accusation of dogmatism.

[CO2 residence time] bears no relevance, you are witnessing a little game played by Skip.

Really?

You badgered me into picking up the CO2 residency debate again so when i finally said OK lets debate . . . But what happened Skip? You shit your pants thats what happened.

What I really said:

We need fire no salvos if you're past CO2 residence time as a refutation of AGW. Hence I'm asking what your current position is.

--skip in Through the Looking Glass #19 September 30, 2010

You could have walked, Crakar. Now look at the furor you've whipped yourself into.

Like I said, Crakar, your humiliation (and now seething rage) is an unfortunate side effect of my participation on this forum. You could spare yourself all of it by simply recognizing the impoverishment of your position and argumentation tactics.

I suspect you are no longer claiming:

this material was from Monckton, you know this because I TOLD YOU.

or that

I even provided you WITH A LINK to the source material which apparently no longer works.

First you try to deny it. Then you switch to arguing that it happened but you have been a victim of unfair harassment.

Which is it, Crakar?

141 crakar

1. Please explain how the same amount of gas per volume is possible in varying pressures.

2. That's not your definition.

BTW, here is a real definition:

Constituents will tend to become well mixed over a great depth of the atmosphere if they are created or destroyed slowly, if at all, relative to the characteristic time required for mixing. In the Earthâs atmosphere, the mixing ratio of oxygen to nitrogen is virtually constant up to about 80km above the surface. The mixing ratio of carbon dioxide in air can vary considerably in the vicinity of sources at the surface, such as urban areas where much fuel is burned, or under forest canopies when photosynthesis is active. Away from the surface, however, the carbon dioxide mixing ratio varies little. Variations of a few parts per million can be detected in the relatively slowly mixed stratosphere, associated with the industrial-era upward trend in fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions. Small seasonal and interhemispheric fluctuations in the tropospheric mixing ratio, associated with variations in the surface sources, can also be detected. For most purposes, though, carbon dioxide can be regarded as well mixed throughout the atmosphere. In contrast, water vapor has a strong internal sink in Earthâs atmosphere, because it is condensable there; hence its mixing ratio shows considerable vertical and horizontal variations. Carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia are not condensable on Earth at present, but their condensation can become significant in colder planetary atmospheres.

I found it at a site that was also claiming CO2 isn't well-mixed. In trying to demonstrate it, they showed a map of the Earth with CO2 concentrations. The amounts varied all the way from 382ppm to 389ppm! It's a great illustration on how to either be fooled by or lie with an image. The variance of concentration is shown in colours. It looks impressive, but it's less than 1% variation.

Ian

I wouldn't bother answering myrrh - he is a troll and an idiot. You're right though, he won't even attempt to explain why his moronice repetition of his claims re CO2 sinking invalidate AGW - it's just a mantra he repeats over and over again as if it somehow proves something.

Indeed, if he even gave it a millisecond's thought, he would realise - as I asked him but he refused to respond - that if CO2 did tend to sink in the atmosphere, then the radiative emissions resulting from LWR absorbsion would INCREASE the GH effects of CO2, because there would be less radiation escaping into space (because there would be less CO2 in the upper atmosphere).

If, as he claims, CO2 sinks, then CO2 would be a worse GHG, and far from invalidating AGW, the climate would be more sensitive to change in response to increasing CO2. But you can't explain simple principles to idiots - all they can do is cut and paste. They can't analyse.

I think we can give Myrrh credit for one of the most ironic arguments I've seen. His theory is climate scientists are drawing incorrect conclusions about "real gases" from theory of "ideal gases" therefore getting reality wrong, yet reality is at complete odds with his theory!

As I posted to him in the HTTTACS open thread thread, the links he finally provided of course contradict his assertion that CO2 does not mix in the troposphere.

Answering his disingenuous question "How can CO2 be well mixed in the atmosphere when it's heavier than air?" using his links:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html

As you can read in the abstract, wind velocity in general, and specifically convection caused by warm surface temperatures carry CO2 away from its sources and into the general atmosphere.

Also check here: http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/ for interesting studies using satellite readings on tropospheric variations in the actual mixing ratios of CO2, apparently caused by large scale wind patterns and their relationships to sources and sinks of CO2. It shows two things: first is that even though there are some differences in absolute levels, the overall cycles and trends match land based background measurements very closely and two: CO2 mixing ratios do not correlate with altitude which one would expect if CO2 sank due to its heavier than air molecular weight.

So seriously, whose "theory" is at odds with physical reality?

Myrrh: "Jim, thank you, now we're getting somewhere."

You're welcome Myrrh. Here are a few more means by which CO2 remains well mixed in Earth's atmosphere:

The Hadley Cells, mid-latitude cells, and polar cells (two each):
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/glossary.php?&word=Hadley%20Cell
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

Crakar:

I just read on the other thread where you told Chris you don't just hang out at the screen awaiting a chance to participate on this forum, that you have life outside, etc., and that not answering is not avoidance.

Ok then. Let's assume you're not avoiding. I believe you owe me some closure on this issue of plagiarism/dishonesty that you've been dragged kicking and screaming into addressing. I recently posed you these simple questions:

I suspect you are no longer claiming:

"this material was from Monckton, you know this because I TOLD YOU."

or that

"I even provided you WITH A LINK to the source material which apparently no longer works."

What were these statements if not flat out *lies*, Crakar? Delusions? Honest errors?

First you try to deny it. Then you switch to arguing that it happened but you have been a victim of unfair harassment.

Which is it, Crakar?

I've had a chance to see self-deception in a number of people. I think the key is that when you've so thoroughly deceived yourself you instinctively assume everyone else is so easily fooled. If its not self deception, then its just flat out dishonesty wedded to stubbornness. But it isn't the truth, either way.

So what's the story here, Crakar? And yes, it is important.

Skip, because he has not responded you must assume he (finally) agrees with you.

Crakar logic.

Skip you were given your closure sometime ago remember when you accused me of posting as scottar.

Yu dont want closure skip you want an argument so why dont you fuck off with your closure

Hm.

Well, at least you didn't call me a nincompoop again.

And crakar has the temerity to complain about my swearing and to suggest that my intemperent language means I lose respect.

Hello pot!!

Carbon dioxide is playing a key role in today's climate change. If we are to live on this Earth, then we must Check the carbon dioxide emission.
http://renadexwarning.com/

Carbon Dioxide has become a big health hazard for all of us. We need to cultivate such methods so as to lower its emission and hence save this planet Earth.
http://celtrixasite.com/

It's amusing that "coby" claims CO2 is 'well mixed' but then immediately contradicts that:
QUOTE:
"CO2 spreads very evenly throughout the global atmosphere, all theory or prediction aside. We can even see that CO2 rise in the southern hemisphere lags behind CO2 rise in the northern hemisphere by a few years"

Ok, which is it? Is it evenly mixed or does it lag between hemispheres? Actually NASA claims there is little mixing between hemispheres.

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/nature-run-co2-visualization/

Hi Bob,

It's not an either or proposition, evenly mixed or lags beween hemispheres, as the rest of the sentence you truncated makes clear:

"We can even see that CO2 rise in the southern hemisphere lags behind CO2 rise in the northern hemisphere by a few years as most anthropogenic CO2 is produced in the north where the majority of fossil fuel combustion takes place and it takes some time to spread around. "

The NASA visualization is about the details of how CO2 mixes and by showing it is not instantaneous does not show that it does not happen.

Thanks for stopping by and sorry for the delay in moderation.

"Ok, which is it? Is it evenly mixed or does it lag between hemispheres?"

Both. Duh. Why do they mean differently? Well mixed is not 100% even. Even if you "think" this is somehow devastating to the case.

But go ahead, tell us what devastating revelation this proves about the CO2 theory?

Or did you not think that through too well?

Wow granny, easy answer to your question "harm to your CO2 speculation"? Before I give you some enlightment on your mistakes and mental malfunctions re CO2 speculation and the total insignificance of human warming of the air. I give you some education to improve your awful weakness in mastering the English language, as you express yourself almost always ambiguously: "..... bla bla ... bla bla ..... well mxed .... 100% ... bla bla...."

2nd: when will that fluid in your skull grasp that CO2 is no theory, but a molecule, you moron. Warming of the air is not a theory, granny, but a pure speculation by science-free climate clowns, currently flooding hostile Paris. I like les parisiennes et les parisiens (that's french, you monolingual retard) parce que ils n'aiment pas les idiots du climat venu de tout le monde. Toi tu es un véritable imbécile sans honneur et rafinesse. J'emmerde tes abracadabrentesques calomnies autour des citoyens françaises.

I predict that you, wow granny, will again fail to try to explain in own words, why your wording of "CO theory" is utter nonsense.

kaiborisfreddie, thank you for proving how dumb you are that you can't even see how wrong that claim is.

I predict that instead of showing that you understand your mistake you will insist that I've proven your asinine claim!

Oh, and for the love of god, get that ballsack out of your mouth.

wowtrolo, the morbid climate hysteria watchdog have lost now their job (after COP21) as politclowns have taken all power from "climate science": as eco-socialist agitpolitics have 100% followed the green hysteria climatologists, these guy are not needed any longer, they will therefore soon disappear from the public as their message is so boring and primitive "it's getting warmer, stop it". So nobody needs crooks like wowbrat and other warm blatherers. Therefore my prediction is 100% correct that climate pseudochange deniers are 5:0 in the lead against the mentally impaired climate hallucinists like wowass.

Are you medicated?

wowchild, you adhere to the most primitive speculation: "it will be warmer". That's all what you and your hallucinist peers celebrate as sensational rocket science. Your intellectual malfunction does not allow more: therefore your BELIEF: "it will be warmer". What a primitive stupid you are: it will be warmer!

What the hell are you blithering on about now, you shitmouthed retard?

November 2015 warmest on record | Earth | EarthSky
earthsky.org/earth/november-2015-warmest-on-record-noaa

3 days ago ... Also, hottest January-November in the 136-year NOAA record. ... the seventh consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been ...
This October Was the Hottest Ever Recorded, Marking Six Months of ...
europe.newsweek.com/october-was-hottest-ever-recorded-marking-six-months-record-breaking-heat-noaa-395915

This October Was the Hottest Ever Recorded, Marking Six Months of Record- Breaking Heat. By Zoë Schlanger On 11/18/15 at 1:08 PM. October Obliterated Heat ...

2015 Hottest Year Ever Recorded ... Until 2016, UN Weather Agency ...
ecowatch.com/2015/11/25/2015-hottest-year-on-record/

Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief | November 25, 2015 11:19 am | Comments ... With two full months still to add in, the global average surface temperature for January to October in 2015 ... 2015 set to be hottest year on record: UN, by @nina_larson ...

and, just in case you were thinking of trying your conspiracy theory:

October was hottest ever by long shot | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../11/.../october-was-hottest-month-on-record-by-long-…

20 Nov 2015 ... That's the hottest October on record by a third of a degree over the old ... on record, along with the hottest consecutive 12 months on record.
Global Temperature Report: October 2015: Warmest October in the ...
wattsupwiththat.com/.../11/.../global-temperature-report-october-2015-warmest-october-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/

3 Nov 2015 ... ... month satellite temperature record, making it the third “warmest” month in ..... + 1 °C for 11 consecutive weeks, equalling the previous record.

"Belief"????

wow moron, repetitive copy pasting from green activists is no scientific method. Try better next time, idiot!

BTW how was mean global temperature 385 before Christ??

So, still unhinged, then. If you visit reality, send note.

Cheers.

wowtrollo, as always you are completely unable to understand even very simple statements "how was mean global temperature 385 before Christ??"? instead you blather idiocies like "unhinge", "send note". I give you a next chance to try a coherent answer to the examinations you were subjected. Don't evade with your usual poor.

kaifreddieboris, I completely understand the garbage you spout.

You must get the ballsack out of your mouth.

wowtrollo, you should start facing facts late in your life, so you are given knowledge to digest now:

What is “climate science”? From what I have read and observed, most of the climate scientists who perpetuate the AGW hoax are anything but scientists. Pre-eminent among them is Michael Mann, who refuses to release his data and methodology. Mann has no problem suing those who disagree with him, but refuses to answer interrogatories from those he is suing. And rather than debate the merits of their science and findings, the AGW proponents resort to name calling, personal attacks and attempt to stifle debate on the subject through legislative and governmental decree. So to me, “climate science” is on par with astrology and phrenology. In other words, it’s not science. This the first lesson for you , wowtrollo. Try to digest this, but don't spit and grunt.

wowtroll, the truth is a beautiful thing to most scientists. Not to the climate alarmist crowd. They hate what the truth is telling them, because it threatens their easy money, and their endless all expenses paid jaunts to holiday venues, and their undeserved rock star treatment by a fawning media (they were dweebs and nerds before the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare came along, and they’re not going to easily give up that unexpected and fun lifestyle, and being ‘Mr. Popularity’ for something they consider unimportant, like telling the truth).

I predict that you will again fail to understand what was explained to you.

HAH! You have proved once and for all you don't know why my comment was relevant and needed to be actioned by you!

Get that ballsack out of your mouth.

And my point is proven.

It would appear a new Moderation policy is in order - very few of the last dozen-or-two posts should be published.

one is in place.

Its not like the date Jan 22nd is before this:

Unmoderated Post on Moderation
Posted by coby on January 20, 2016

So I wonder why Craig wanted to complain.

Actually, I don't. I know why.

I also understand why Craig is complaining and welcome of course the new moderation policy of Coby.

So do I, as I have already said, freddykaiboris.

The speculations of laymen like wow, eli et al. of human CO2 warming can be traced to Arrhenius in 1906 when he published a paper proposing that a reduction in atmospheric CO2 caused the ice ages, but instead of offering proof, he expected his critics to disprove it by showing that a reduction in CO2 would not cause the 4-5 Kelvin drop in temperature. This is pseudoscience of the “I am right until you prove me wrong” logic favoured by charlatans and the religious fundamentalists.

"The speculations of laymen like wow"

Are far more acceptable since they accord and are supported by eperts like Gavin Schmidt.

Unlike freddykaiboris whose "speculations" are supported by the likes of Mad Lord Monckfish...

Oh, and I know you neither care nor know the difference, but reality is far different from your claims. The history of climate change science is here:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Your assertions are 100% faked claims, freddyboriskai.