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.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz
Reading comprehension issues. No-one has said that CO2 will eventually displace nitrogen as the main component of our atmosphere. When we look at worlds like Titan, we see that organic molecules are found in their atmosphere, further evidence that early Earth had a great deal of CO2. Photosynthesis has reduced the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but human activity has been reducing the amount of plant life sequestering CO2 while releasing more by burning "fossil fuels." Models suggest that even a small amount of increase can lead to global temperatures rising. Earth does not care, it is humanity that might suffer as sea levels rise and storms get more intense.
Hardly. Eight thousand years ago it was rising very, very fast. Past 2,000 or so, not so much.
With respect to the rate of sea level rise, pretty much constant for the last 8000 years or so.
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Greven
Read slower.
Heavier/denser gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and lighter gases in the higher atmosphere.
That was the point.
QED
originally posted by: mbkennel
What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01
Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.
Wrong.
Basic fluid physics.
Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.
Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!
Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!
Wrong again.
Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.
What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?
Wrong yet again.
Heavier/denser gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and lighter gases in the higher atmosphere.
But don't let facts get in the way of your virtue-signalling "religion"
originally posted by: bronco73
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: bronco73
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.
wow man..... VEGETATION?
Vegetation also needs oxygen, so it too would be dead. While the green bits get oxygen from photosynthesis (specifically, the splitting of water into H2 and O, as the CO2 part is used for carbohydrates), the roots need oxygen from the air. That's why you can drown plants in water. Some plants have evolved to live in wet conditions, either tolerating the lower oxygen content in water or (like with mangroves) alternative means of getting oxygen to the roots.
If CO2 clustered near the surface like that idiotic article and several people seem to believe in this thread, then there would be no life on this rock.
True but you are thinking backwards. The reason we don't have and can't have 100% CO2 on the surface of the Earth is because vegetation has existed for at least as long as fauna, performing photosynthesis during the entire time. The accusation I replied to was that on Earth if CO2 settles to the surface we would all have suffocated long ago. Flora provides at least a large part of the reason why we would not.
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
originally posted by: Greven
Bit of a chicken and the egg problem with this logic; if the CO2 was already settled near the surface to begin with, the flora wouldn't be able to breathe at that point, so wouldn't have developed.
originally posted by: Greven
Things are slightly more complex than that. The real problem here is that you've decided that you disagree with Climate Change theory (whatever understanding of that you have for whatever reasons), and so latch onto any potential explanation that seems like it could disprove Climate Change theory. The article in the OP is wishful nonsense, but because you agree with the gist of the idea, you're sticking up for it.
originally posted by: Greven
Think about it for a second:
Rock with no life; CO2 must settle to surface, therefore CO2 is at the surface.
Life needs O2; there is no O2 at the surface because of all the CO2 displacing it, therefore no life.
You are inventing absurd scenarios to cling to the ridiculous and observationally disproven idea that CO2 must all sink to the ground because it's denser than most air.
originally posted by: Greven
This is a psychological phenomenon, that diminishes somewhat once you understand it, called the backfire effect. Essentially, when you receive new information that challenges your beliefs, then you reject it and your beliefs become even stronger.
The mind is #ed up. To wit:
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
Don't let the mind trick you. Propagandists know how to exploit its flaws and do so with information that confirms your biases and beliefs.
originally posted by: bronco73
originally posted by: Greven
Bit of a chicken and the egg problem with this logic; if the CO2 was already settled near the surface to begin with, the flora wouldn't be able to breathe at that point, so wouldn't have developed.
Regardless, life did develop. Plants do perform photosynthesis, and they do convert CO2 to oxygen. Your hypothetical situation here has nothing to do with the argument or my reply to the other person that you jumped in on.
originally posted by: Greven
Things are slightly more complex than that. The real problem here is that you've decided that you disagree with Climate Change theory (whatever understanding of that you have for whatever reasons), and so latch onto any potential explanation that seems like it could disprove Climate Change theory. The article in the OP is wishful nonsense, but because you agree with the gist of the idea, you're sticking up for it.
This is absolutely ridiculous and a tactic I've seen you attempt on others as well. You make accusations like this in a vain attempt to discredit people who may disagree with you. It's asinine and dishonest. Climate changes on local levels, it changes on global levels, it changes over short term and it changes over millennia. I'm fully aware of it and believe it with every fiber of my being. I made no claim whatsoever on climate, climate change, or any such thing. I made a claim that flora photosynthesizing would at least partially explain why levels of CO2 at the surface are lower than was claimed.
originally posted by: Greven
Think about it for a second:
Rock with no life; CO2 must settle to surface, therefore CO2 is at the surface.
Life needs O2; there is no O2 at the surface because of all the CO2 displacing it, therefore no life.
You are inventing absurd scenarios to cling to the ridiculous and observationally disproven idea that CO2 must all sink to the ground because it's denser than most air.
Photosynthesis from vegetation is absurd? It is the one and only claim I have made in this thread. I made no claim as to where CO2 sits in the atmosphere, nor did I claim what levels of CO2 reside at the surface level. Try to keep better track of who you are arguing which points with.
originally posted by: Greven
This is a psychological phenomenon, that diminishes somewhat once you understand it, called the backfire effect. Essentially, when you receive new information that challenges your beliefs, then you reject it and your beliefs become even stronger.
The mind is #ed up. To wit:
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
Don't let the mind trick you. Propagandists know how to exploit its flaws and do so with information that confirms your biases and beliefs.
You seriously just typed that? What the hell is wrong with you? It's be like me saying you don't believe plants exist because you are arguing against my post stating that they photosynthesize at least some of the CO2 at the surface level. Absolutely asinine.
originally posted by: bronco73
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.
wow man..... VEGETATION?
I admit I've grown increasingly less tolerant of people spouting nonsense, given the dire outcomes that await us due to our destruction of the Earth's biosphere - including the climate. Feel free to correct any errors I've committed. Otherwise I don't really care.
originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Greven
Articles that challenge your flawed religion. Facts getting in the way of your closed minded thinking!??
originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99
Venus has a atmosphere of 96 percent co2
so the whole idea of it not being lighter than what we call air is irrelevant in that situation
But I can help u a bit with a small experiment
go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem
I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air
originally posted by: flice
originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99
Venus has a atmosphere of 96 percent co2
so the whole idea of it not being lighter than what we call air is irrelevant in that situation
But I can help u a bit with a small experiment
go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem
I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air
I have NEVER... seen a balloon blown up by mouth rise into the air.... never. And I have 800 balloons lying in the closet.
When you take in a breath of fresh air, that air's chemical composition is changed due to a gas exchange, thanks to your alveoli, which are tiny air spaces in your lungs. While the air you exhale is also made up of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, these levels change. Exhaled air is about 78 percent nitrogen, 18 percent oxygen and 4 percent carbon dioxide.
originally posted by: Greven
Life developed because CO2 doesn't cluster at the surface like the article and several people in this thread decided must be true. It has been shown repeatedly that this is not the case. It doesn't happen. The end. It's not my 'hypothetical' as I'm not the one claiming CO2 clusters at the surface. I'm giving a number of logical reasons why that cannot be true.
originally posted by: Greven
You've invented the scenario that plants prevent us from suffocating from ground clustering CO2, and now decided that CO2 is converted into O2. This despite the fact that CO2 clustering at the surface would kill the plants to begin with and kill them now as well.
originally posted by: Greven
Remember how I said before about drowning plants in water? You could drown them in CO2, too... but that doesn't happen, even though underground is where the roots that need O2 are. What about molecular density there? What about the fact that photosynthesis doesn't turn CO2 into O2? Photosynthesis splits water, freeing the Oxygen atoms from the Hydrogen atoms - that's where O2 comes from. Yes, CO2 is part of the reaction, but that CO2 gets turned into carbohydrates when combined with the hydrogen atoms.
I admit I've grown increasingly less tolerant of people spouting nonsense, given the dire outcomes that await us due to our destruction of the Earth's biosphere - including the climate. Feel free to correct any errors I've committed. Otherwise I don't really care.
originally posted by: Greven
No. Photosynthesis would first require the flora to be alive. Life wouldn't exist if carbon dioxide clustered at the surface and displaced the oxygen by stratification like is ridiculously supposed by the article and certain people in this thread. You were trying to invent reasons for nonsense to make sense. Perhaps I jumped a little to conclusions, but I see no other reason for why you would stick up for such a ludicrous notion.
originally posted by: Greven
Oh is that what you're arguing now? It was rather unclear, given the post was:
originally posted by: bronco73
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.
wow man..... VEGETATION?
Lot to go on, there.
Oh yeah, FYI, no photosynthesis happens at night and plants take in oxygen / respire CO2. Just another problem with the idea that flora would prevent high levels of CO2 at the surface. Also the fact that, if the article was correct, the oxygen emitted by the plants during the day would immediately stratify away from the surface, which would lead to virtually 100% CO2 (and also plants dying but let's ignore that I guess since magic thinking).
originally posted by: Greven
e: you might note that this causes a problem with origin - how did flora exist when there wasn't oxygen? Well, it didn't. We're not totally sure what did, but suspect it was microorganisms.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: liejunkie01
I can believe that the earth is changing, I can also believe that we may have an impact on it's climate. But I don't know if we have as much impact as what we are being led to believe.
We definitely have an impact, but I'm in the same boat, I don't believe man-made climate change is as impacting as it is sold as. For every peer reviewed report supporting man-made climate change, there is another peer reviewed report showing the opposite.
It's all about money.