From the Fail Blog, a reminder that some people think CO2 is lighter than air:
Source here
This reminds me of the failed Alliance for Climate Protection advert video, also showing CO2 as lighter than air with the help of black balloons:
From the Fail Blog, a reminder that some people think CO2 is lighter than air:
Source here
This reminds me of the failed Alliance for Climate Protection advert video, also showing CO2 as lighter than air with the help of black balloons:
Has anyone been following Roy Spencer’s back yard experiment? http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It is quite interesting.
Henry chance says:
August 18, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Isn’t CO2 the black/grey stuff coming out of smoke stacks? Every one knows it is coming out and going up.
CO2 is colorless, odorless, has a slight acid taste in mouth at higher concentrations, is heavier than air (unlike CO), and simply replaces oxygen in the air as it’s level increases. Soot is Carbon Black particles.
You can easily be in an atmosphere of 10,000 ppm all day working, and scarcely notice it.
If you are in a burning building and there is thick smoke, the safest path out is as close to the floor as you can manage.
CO2 is heavier, you can tolerate tens of thousands of ppm of it, but the CO that rises will destroy you at 1,000ppm in a matter of minutes.
2 deep exhales will rid your lungs of C02 out in the fresh air, but you’ll need a blood transfusion to get the CO out of your system before you succumb to it’s deadly effects. The CO will attach itself to your hemoglobin, prevent you from absorbing oxygen, and you suffocate while still breathing.
So, you see, C02 is not a toxic gas, but C0 is highly toxic. Lisa Jackson is full of it.
But Aaron Stonebeat,
More energy use means more CO2 in the air, and because it’s a greenhouse gas, it helps warm the planet, hence…it IS the problem.
Although, yes…it is an exaggeration
The CO2 in the balloons warms by stopping the outgoing IR radiation and so expands, reduces in density and so floats the balloons upwards. Simple physics;>)
Ah hump day afternoons…
I wonder how many balloons are made resulting from the Brett Favre coverage. Oh, it’s too mind-boggling.
Someone should make a similar video of someone talking with the narrator saying “Everytime you talk, you emit more CO2 than a mime. Please…stop talking.”
Good thing Balloon Boy wasn’t charged with global warming violations.
@ur momisugly Jimmy once more
As far as I am aware the CO2 already present in the atmosphere absorbs all outgoing infrared in the 15 micrometer region; about 10 meters of air apparently do the trick. Any additional CO2 won’t cause any extra absorption in that spectrum.
To me that means more CO2 will not cause more warming. Hence my point of view.
“There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, ”
Greenhouse EFFECT. Greenhouse gases are those that absorb the IR radiation given off by the earth, but don’t absorb the visible light of the sun. Hence, they allow energy in, but not out. They may not trap ALL of it, but the more molecules of GHGs there are, the less heat is released.
——————————
Actually the poster who said there is “no such thing as a ‘Greenhouse’ effect is CORRECT.
I’d suggest this write up:
Wood, R. W. (1909). “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. 17, pp. 319-320.
Where Dr. Woods shows BY EXPERIMENT that the action of a greenhouse has to do with the “convective boundary”, not the “valve” effect of the glass on the IR.
Thus, even in my ’50’s, ’60’s and ’70’s meteorology texts, the “Greenhouse effect” is APPROPRIATELY referred to as the “Atmospheric Effect”.
I would implore us “skeptics” to use the term “Atmospheric Effect”, for reasons of intellectual integrity.
Max
More CO2 balloon fun here (red ones this time) – and there’s an explanation here.
Jimmy says:
August 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Oh yeah…black balloons are a representation, an analogy, not the physical perfect likeness. I think they were trying to make people connect energy use to adding CO2 to the atmosphere, not give them a full-fledged science lecture.
If it were a representation, or an analogy, then it would have to show a great many of the carbon dioxide molecules going into the atmosphere and subsequently becoming parts of sugar molecules, protein molecules,DNA molecules, etc. In other words, most of the black balloons would absorb into plants, butterfly wings, fish, and baby duckies(since this seems to be directed at school children).
So as a representation it is even more of an abject FAILure. Atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules have the potential to become part of any one of countless millions of different life forms.
son of mulder says:
August 18, 2010 at 3:08 pm
“The CO2 in the balloons warms by stopping the outgoing IR radiation and so expands,”
I didn’t notice any expanding balloons! Odd!
Jimmy says:
August 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“They may not trap ALL of it, but the more molecules of GHGs there are, the less heat is released.”
Greenhouses do not work this way but the atmosphere does to some extent. Thus, we ought to call it the “atmospheric effect” and then try to understand it and speak of it correctly. Search on the word ‘extinction’ in the following:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
António Gaito says:
August 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Wich is the flammable gas? CO2 or helium? Hã?!
____________________________________________________
It is hydrogen that goes BOOOoommm!
“As far as I am aware the CO2 already present in the atmosphere absorbs all outgoing infrared in the 15 micrometer region; about 10 meters of air apparently do the trick. Any additional CO2 won’t cause any extra absorption in that spectrum.
To me that means more CO2 will not cause more warming. Hence my point of view.”
Aaron…fair enough. If that is true (and I don’t know whether it is or isn’t) I understand
To Max – agreed, the mechanism is different. Unfortunately, convention usually reigns supreme, so we’ll be calling it the greenhouse effect for quite a while. Kind of like the theory of relativity (even though it’s been tested and tested and verified and verified, so it’s really more of a law now)…or…dare I say…theory of evolution or the big bang theory?
It would have to be a really big balloon to fuse helium into carbon!
Consider Why Stars Explode
“Initially, the star fuses hydrogen into helium. Like ash in a fire, the helium builds up in the core, but it does not fuse because helium takes a lot more pressure and heat than hydrogen does to fuse. If the star is massive enough, though, it can ignite helium fusion in its core. The helium fuses into carbon, which then starts to pile up in the core. In very massive stars this process repeats again and again, fusing lighter elements into heavier ones: hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, carbon to neon, neon to oxygen, oxygen to silicon, silicon to iron. The star’s core starts to look like an onion, with layers nested inside one another. “
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm
…..ABC News (US), recent reporting on the seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. They had on experts, who were saying that they haven’t found any oil in the samples they’ve tested, but the warning was given that long-term exposure to hydrocarbons, even in low doses, can cause cancer. Guess this means that to be safe, I have to stop any intake of vegetable oils.
_____________________________________________________________
I suggest all the greenies immediately quit all intake of hydrocarbons…… I wonder how long it will take Al Gore, Mann and the rest to starve to death?
ALL food, veggies, meat or fruit, is made of hydrocarbons…. ALL of it.
You know, if they filled a sufficiently robust balloon with lead gas at a high enough temperature, I suspect they could get it to be lighter than air. Then you could say their assertions went over like a lead balloon.
Actually this could be a boon for the warmists. If the balloon is filled with a mix of Helium and CO2, it could help with their hyperventilation problem while making them talk funny (er ).
Jimmy says:
August 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“They may not trap ALL of it but, with decreasing potency, the more molecules of GHGs there are, the more slowly heat is released, until a new equilibrium is established.”
A great many people are now convinced that CO2 is a toxic gas .
When I try to explain in my simplistic way that it is an inert gas in terms of human respiration,
I am deemed “Anti-Science”. Then I just get mad.
tarpon says:
August 18, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“Is public understanding of science this bad.[?]”
I think it goes even deeper than that. It isn’t so much “understanding science”, it is either the willingness to blindly accept statements or the lack of ability to learn that is astounding.
Before this CAGW lunacy, my science was confined to the physics and geometry of shooting pool(snooker for others here) and making ethanol. The alarmists, I thought were ridiculous, but when I noticed them gaining traction in the public concern I sought to arm myself with knowledge against the obvious socialistic totalitarian under and overtones. For quite some time, I thought I was alone in this world. One day while arguing the issue on a techy blog, I found a reference to CA and was quite pleased to see I wasn’t alone, but the topics of conversation there were a bit technical for me. Happily, I found WUWT referenced at CA. I became a frequent reader here and many other places. Oddly, because of that frequency I’m now learning about CRAP LIKE Brownian Motion pseudo-proxies!!
ARRGGHH!!!! Curse you Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts!!!!!
Obviously, I say that in jest, but I can’t help but think where this world would be if it hadn’t been for those people, those alleged alarmists that seek nothing but power, money and control. To be wrenched from the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, all for the common good. Have I mentioned that I loathe those Socialist totalitarians? Obviously, I need another run at that happy elixir of hops and barely.
Preposterous propaganda masqerading as a scientific public announcment. Frightening.
Apparently critical of such simple and essential labor-saving devices as houshold appliances. I cannot find words for such a foolish and destructive message seemingly directed against whom exactly? Well I guess all of us. I mean a coffee maker spewing a black baloon – really?
How about the same message, but staged in one of Al Gore’s mansions instead of directed at us common folk with our horrible Gaia destroying kitchens and laundry rooms.
I am so disgusted by these hypocrites I really can’t find words…
Regarding the black balloon advert – this was (and perhaps still is) part of a Victorian (Australia) government campaign to save energy. See
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/component/mymedia/?task=media&media_id=161
although, interestingly, this ad was also run in the neighbouring state of NSW. I’m not sure who funded the ad time, probably me (the taxpayer).
Hopefully they used all sorts of video trickery to simulate balloons flying off into the environment otherwise they may, rightly, be viewed poorly by these people
http://www.ukrivers.net/balloon_fact.html
and many other conservationists. A case of the ends justifying the means?
There once was a stickler named Mann
CO2 gas he wanted to ban
his papers went out
but they lost all their clout
when cold weather came back without doubt.
Random thought – hot air balloons are filled with CO2 and water vapor (and all that other stuff). In addition to CO2 balloons, they could offer water vapor balloons. Since water vapor is lighter than air, it would be a cheap substitute for Helium and a lot safer than Hydrogen.
“Education” persists as NASA funnels taxpayers’ dollars to propagandists and as self-promotion.