It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.
edit on 1Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:07:20 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Vector99




A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.
So what you are saying is not all CO2 is man made and the Co2 on Venus came from ...?

You would be correct!



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter
Venus does have a stable atmosphere though, it's just a toxic one. It would be nice to be able to send a probe there like we did with Mars for more investigation, but they tend to melt.

I'm not saying CO2 is our doom and man-made pollution will kill Earth, I'm simply asking people to deny ignorance and realize CO2 is indeed a global warming gas and does indeed rise into the upper atmosphere.

When both sides can come to a simple agreement, much more progress can be made into the actual effects. Like I said before, for every report confirming man-made climate change there is an equal and opposite report disproving it.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99

nope but it certainly proves co2 will not reach high altitude it needs to function in the same way it dose on Venus

so unless you have some proof that co2 at ground level effects the temperature of the planet


Wait, you are filling a ballon with CO2 and want it to RISE in an athmosphere with a significant percentage of CO2?

... Like, you fill a ballon with water and put it at the bottom of a lake and think it will rise to the surface? WHY?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
CO2 traps heat ...


i remember in elementary school decades ago they were strict when they taught us the culprit was Monoxide, CO1, and not to get it confused with dioxide, CO2, that we exhale CO2 and its fine, but CO1 comes from exhaust and is the danger.

yet nowadays everyone refers to dioxide as the danger and it just strikes me as alot of people getting confused...


edit on 23-11-2017 by NobodiesNormal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Both CO and CO2 are produced from combustion.

If I am not mistaken CO molecules actually break down when the oxygen molecule joins an O2 molecule forming O3, better known as ozone, and leaving a singular carbon atom. What happens with that carbon atom? No idea. I never asked that question, but I assume it remains in gaseous form and falls to the surface.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

what do you consider a significant percentage

can I fill the balloon on with .04 percent water


yes it dosent just pool on the ground it also dosent pool in the upper atmosphere

I think the problem hear is that is a claim we all have been feed


I don't think anyone got it confused carbon monoxide is not a significant green house gass
The strict learning of the difference might have to do with it being poisonous to humans where as co2 is not



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




hot rocky planet due to runaway global warming fueled by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Runaway global warming on Venus...you don't say.....Which civilization on Venus caused that?

No doubt you have some sort of evidence for us to look at. Define "runaway: while you're at it



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight



Runaway global warming on Venus...you don't say.....Which civilization on Venus caused that?

The Volcanians


No doubt you have some sort of evidence for us to look at.

It is the best estimated theory for Venus' atmosphere currently.


Define "runaway: while you're at it




posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.


I read the article and I extracted the paragraph in which I believe you are referring to.



It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).




I am in no way trying to say this is right or wrong. What I am curious about is that the article says that it pools up in the lower atmosphere then sinks. I didnt see where it says it all sinks at one time or another.

Do we not need CO2 to come closer (sink) to ground level to be absorbed by plants and the ocean?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven




shill site


So we just have to take your word for it? Yeah right.

principia-scientific.org...


5. FOUNDING MEMBERS & SENIOR FELLOWS Team leader and co-founder, John O’Sullivan, pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. By working as a team PSI is succeeding where lone voices had failed. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball was our first appointed Chair of PSI and his reputation endures as a popular figure in the campaign against junk science. In 2013 John Sanderson, Past President of the Royal College of Science Association, took over as Chairman. In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI’s published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the ‘Publications’ section of this website.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01
By sinking, I assume they actually mean circulated via several natural and organic processes resulting in telltale signs of CO2 concentration.

CO2 actually does circulate fairly quickly, it is estimated to last between 10-14 years in the atmosphere before settling and continuing on in its lifetime of constant changes.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

I am not a global warming advocate, but i will say that the oceans are below ground perse, that is all.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Greven




shill site


So we just have to take your word for it? Yeah right.

principia-scientific.org...


5. FOUNDING MEMBERS & SENIOR FELLOWS Team leader and co-founder, John O’Sullivan, pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. By working as a team PSI is succeeding where lone voices had failed. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball was our first appointed Chair of PSI and his reputation endures as a popular figure in the campaign against junk science. In 2013 John Sanderson, Past President of the Royal College of Science Association, took over as Chairman. In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI’s published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the ‘Publications’ section of this website.

You trust them at face value?

Don't take my word for it, take the word of Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts on WUWT:

As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science.
-Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That

'Well-meaning' pseudoscience is still pseudoscience.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.


I read the article and I extracted the paragraph in which I believe you are referring to.



It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).




I am in no way trying to say this is right or wrong. What I am curious about is that the article says that it pools up in the lower atmosphere then sinks. I didnt see where it says it all sinks at one time or another.

Do we not need CO2 to come closer (sink) to ground level to be absorbed by plants and the ocean?

The whole of it is wrong. The mechanisms are not what they describe.

Remember, energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only transferred.

Most loss of surface energy is via radiation, not convection (air is a good insulator, actually - see double pane glass). If convection were the primary means of surface energy loss, we wouldn't be worrying so much about greenhouse gases. Convection does occur of course, but it's a smaller player in this (though quite important for weather).

What CO2 and other greenhouse gases do is absorb and re-emit certain wavelengths of radiation; CO2 happens to be in the infrared range. What happens is, infrared radiation leaving the Earth's surface strikes molecules of CO2, and then goes elsewhere - either inwards (towards the surface) or outwards (towards space).

This absorption and re-emission happens quickly, far quicker than the time it takes for a molecule to rise through the atmosphere via convection. This is why that idea is ridiculous. There is no time for it to do what they describe.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: markovian

It most certainly does.

The concern is that we are pumping way too much CO2 and other gases into the upper atmosphere too quickly for it to be removed and cycled back through to lower it - carbon cycle.

We are pumping too much into the atmosphere at the moment and not enough of it is being removed.

Of course it is in the upper atmosphere, I have no idea why you say it does not pool up there, if it did not this entire planet would be extraordinarily cold.

SMH.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

Hmm.
Skeptical of this source and honestly, when I read the quote from the article it came across as just a bunch of words written by someone attempting to sound 'scientific'.
From what I found out about specific gravity is that it's nothing more than a simple science test to measure density of a substance, from gasses to even wood. It's not specifically for gasses, and the experiments are in controlled lab environments, not the wild atmosphere and open air system floating around earth.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01



Ummm...what you've just described is a pump...

I wonder what effect this CO2 pumping would have on air currents and weather patterns/formations...?

I wonder if this has anything to do with the morning and evening wind direction shift...as the pumping action followed the rotational rise and set of the Sun...?







YouSir



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: ManFromEurope

what do you consider a significant percentage

can I fill the balloon on with .04 percent water

Sure, just add 99.96% air. Doesn't help your example.


yes it dosent just pool on the ground it also dosent pool in the upper atmosphere

Of course it doesn't. My example should have shown so. It dissipates. Doesn't remove its influence on climate. Why should it?



I think the problem hear is that is a claim we all have been feed


I don't think anyone got it confused carbon monoxide is not a significant green house gass

We are speaking of carbon dioxide, right?


The strict learning of the difference might have to do with it being poisonous to humans where as co2 is not

Please don't try to breath (edit)pure(/edit) co2. You ded.
edit on 23 11 2017 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Both CO and CO2 are produced from combustion.

If I am not mistaken CO molecules actually break down when the oxygen molecule joins an O2 molecule forming O3, better known as ozone, and leaving a singular carbon atom. What happens with that carbon atom? No idea. I never asked that question, but I assume it remains in gaseous form and falls to the surface.


The Carbon is an atom. Atoms don't undergo phase changes, so there is no such thing as a gaseous Carbon atom. It is the arrangement of multiple atoms and the heat of that arrangement and the attraction between the molecules that determines whether an element or compound is a solid, liquid, or gas. For instance, H2O is a polar molecule. It looks like a Mickey Mouse head, with the O atom the face, and the Hs the ears. Because of this arrangement, they are loosely attracted and the result is a liquid. Heat is just a word for movement, and if you add enough heat, you get enough movement to overcome the attraction, the molecules fly apart, and you get a gas, or water vapor. Take enough heat away and you reduce the movement, the attraction overcomes the kinetic energy of the molecules and you get condensation. Take more heat away and the polar attraction locks the molecules together in a crystal form and you have ice.
Finally, in the physical chemistry classes I had to take in grad school, I measured the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, and it it unquestionable that it acts as a chemical heater. CO2 absorbs sunlight at one frequency, but emits at a higher frequency. Since energy of a photon equals Planck's constant (6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s) times the frequency of the photon. Higher frequency means higher energy. If you direct energy to a molecule, you increase its movement, and, therefore, its heat. That's why solar cells work. While each photon carries an almost infinitesimal amount of energy, sunlight bombards us with so many photons, it results here in South Florida of over 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. If you want to spend a long time doing it, you could mathematically figure out how many photons it takes to do that. A hint is that there are a lot of zeroes in that number, like 45 or so. A decent approximation is that the average solar photon has an energy of 1 electron volt, or 1.6x10^-19 Joules.

Science doesn't have to be incomprehensible.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join