Guest Post by Barry Woods
All too often the ‘simple physics of CO2’ argument is presented to the public by the media, politicians, climate scientists and environmental advocacy groups, in a way that grossly simplifies the issue of the response in global temperature to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
An excellent response to the simple physics argument is to be found in the comments at Climate Etc (Professor Judith Curry’s blog)
In reality my feather blew up into a tree
“….. which is that since CO2 is a GHG it follows that increasing CO2 must increase the temperature (of something). No matter how many times we say that the climate is a system with complex non-linear feedbacks they still love this simple principle of physics.
This is because physics works by isolating simple situations from reality. That was the great discovery of physics, that if you simplified reality you could find simple laws. So far so good.
But as every engineer knows, these simple laws often do not work when reality gets messy, as it usually is. Simple physics says that if I drop a ball and a feather they will fall at the same rate.
In reality my feather blew up into a tree.
It is not that the simple law is false, just that there are a number of other simple laws opposing it. In the case of climate we don’t even know what some of these other laws are, so we can’t explain what we see. That is where we should be looking.”
The ‘do you deny the simple GHG physics’ argument is also often an attempt to portray anyone that asks reasonable scientific questions about AGW and the complexity of climate science, as some sort of an ‘anti-science’, ‘flat earther’ denier.
The realities and complexities and unknowns of climate science are described in the IPCC working Group 1 reports, but somehow get ‘lost in translation’ into the Summary for Policymakers, for example (and everyone knows very few politicians even read beyond the executive summary of anything).
IPCC (Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis)
Third Assessment Report: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Time and time again the media and environment groups ignore this IPCC fact that the climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system and that the worst case scenarios of the computer model ‘projections’ or scenarios (because they know they cannot use the word prediction) latest example, 4C by 2060, are just one result of computer model ‘runs’ programmed with various extreme values of these assumptions.
The low-end ‘projections’ of temperature by model runs with other values and assumptions are ignored completely by CAGW advocates, the data output or projection of a computer model transmorphs into a scientific fact, the data output of a computer model becomes evidence of CAGW.
Climate Science is often portrayed to the public in simplistic terms as a mature science, narrowed down and focussed onto one primary factor – CO2, assuming all else to be equal, and not the possibilities in this type of system that varying one parameter alone, may vary other parameters in non-linear ways, even potentially flipping some from positive to negative feedback (or vice versa)
At the time of the Copenhagen Cop 15 Climate Conference, stunts on TV, rather than the discussion of uncertainties of ‘climate science’ were the order of the day.
The classic demonstration of the ‘do you deny the simple physics of CO2’ argument is a glass tube filled with CO2, heated and then the TV presenter or preferably a senior government scientist says ‘look it has warmed!’ –
As demonstrated by the BBC in their Newsnight program, Copenhagen Climate Conference time, the BBC’s apparent intellectual response to the climategate emails and documents. Watts Up With That, gave a critique of this particular type of TV experiment and CAGW PR.
I wonder what would have happened if a member of the audience had been able to question their methodology, or even ask simple questions like:
What is the percentage of CO2 in the jar?
ie total atmospheric is ~0.038%, what percentage is in the glass jar – 50% plus perhaps, or more?
[Corrected typo spotted in comments – 0.038% / 380 ppm]
If you were to mention that the CO2 effect is logarithmic, then you are likely to be labelled a ‘climate change sceptic’ or worse a ‘climate change denier’ by any passing MSM media TV presenter, environmentalist group or AGW consensus minded politician, and then they will simply stop listening, because you are obviously a fossil fuel funded denier, such has been the CAGW consensus PR.
I wonder if for a sceptical joke, someone could produce a spoof YouTube video of a feather and a cannon ball in a glass jar experiment (non evacuated) and the TV presenter could say to the audience:
“Proof – The Cannon Ball FALLS faster that the feather – Simple Physics clearly show this”
Someone in the audience could then ask, but you have air in the jar? and then get ridiculed by the group as an ‘anti-science’ denier, the scientist/presenter could even bring out the ‘No Pressure’ red button to use!
The simple and not so simple physics of a number of climate parameters, are programmed into the climate computer models. Many of these parameters, it is acknowledged, are not completely understood or that there is serious contentious debate about in the scientific literature. ie aerosols, clouds, solar pacific and atlantic oscillations, volcanoes, etc,etc
Engineers (or economists now, perhaps) will advice climate scientists, model are not reality, reality is often more complicated than any computer model. Take a step back, view with hindsight with respect to risk in the financial markets. At the trouble the cream of the last few decades of science graduates – turned computer modellers – left the world’s economy in, following the modelling of credit risk amongst many other economic assumptions.
Next time anyone starts on about the simple physics of CO2, remember the feather and a cannon ball in a very large glass jar analogy, or for the classically motivated, atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Politicians could lay trillion-dollar bets, and dozens of competing scientific groups (publically funded) could even attempt to write a computer models to predict when and where the feather would land…………
Thanks again to Anthony for the opportunity to write at Watts Up With That again. There is a little more about me here.
Or maybe you could stop by at my new blog, I hope that the Watts Up With That regulars like the name.
Mike Haseler says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:47 am
“…I find a better analogy to be that of double glazing. Simple physics says that the wider the gap, the better the double glazing. So why don’t we see 100mm (4″) double glazing?…”
Hey, here’s an idea. Since CO2 absorbs and radiates so much energy and even a few ppm is going to cause the earth to cook, how about filling that 4″ gap with CO2? I know most efficient windows use Argon because of low thermal conductivity but CO2 will actually be like installing heaters in those windows! /sarc off
Bryan says:
December 29, 2010 at 1:14 am
Your the first to comment it was a typo. The others who read my unclear text appeared to simply misread it.
No one commented on my (unchecked, by the way) note about killing plants. Perhaps thats what leads you to think my comment doesn’t make much sense. My understated point there was to get people to think that perhaps 380 ppm makes CO2 as something more than just a trace gas. It’s a vital nutrient and source of most of the mass in plants. (CO2 is combined with H2 from H2O during photosythesis. The O from H20 is released as waste product or used in respiration outside of chloroplasts.)
Perhaps you can explain in better detail what doesn’t make sense to you and I’ll try to make it more clear for you.
Also, please note that “Ric” is not a typo, it is short for “Eric.” Call me what you want, it will reduce the chance that Google will offer your comments when people look for negative stuff on me.
[Note typo in my last post in the line that mentions typo. Your -> You’re, of course]
Joel Shore says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I don’t think it does either. Diffusion is part (a small part) of the answer, and I don’t think that’s really part of the ideal gas law, especially since diffusion works in liquids too.
The bigger causes are mixing due to wind combined with viscosity that make for very slow settling times.
Molecular weight is important when flammable vapors flow across the cellar floor to the pilot lights on the furnace and water heater. Wind isn’t involved until after the explosion that scatters the walls and roof across the neighborhood. Then the wind scours out the CO2 from the cellar hole, at least that part that didn’t rise because it was a fireball.
Several people have criticized Barry for the “ball and feather” story, but I am the actual author of it. One can follow the link to see the context of my original comment on Curry’s great blog. Critics are welcome to engage me on my Yahoo! group: http://www.climatechangedebate.org .
For example, LazyTeenager (!) argues above that “Barry, every physicist knows that feathers will be affected by air resistance. They wrote the book on the subject after all. So stop trying to deceive people into believing that physicists are simple minded.”
Barry did not say that bit about feathers, rather I did. But you have missed the entire point of the story, which is that the fact that CO2 is a GHG is the starting point for the scientific debate, not the end point. Many people take this simple fact as decisive, which is wrong.
Sorry to be so subtle, Lazy.
David
The most pertinent comment I have seen on this thread so far is the one by John of Kent on how the greenhouse gas theory defies the basic laws of physics. Considering the impact it has had, this theory must be the most bizarre pseudoscientific theory every concocted. CO2 molecules and other so-called GHG gases must have magical properties if they can add to the energy budget of the Earth. A CO2 molecule is heated by outgoing IR radiation from the Earth. It then imparts this heat. Even if some of this is downwelling radiation, it cannot make the Earth hotter than it already is – it got its energy from the Earth in the first place. All it can do is slow down radiative cooling. Or have the laws of thermodynamics been abolished by Al Gore?
David Wojick Ph.D, the link to the Der Spiegel story on glaciers and forests in your suggested readings is wrong. It should be:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html
In addition to Martin’s post please remember that evil man is responsible for 1% of this 0.0039 % CO2 in the atmosphere. My, we are BAD. It is out of control and the Planet is gonna DIE!
“”””” Richard Smith says:
December 29, 2010 at 8:02 am
The most pertinent comment I have seen on this thread so far is the one by John of Kent on how the greenhouse gas theory defies the basic laws of physics. Considering the impact it has had, this theory must be the most bizarre pseudoscientific theory every concocted. “””””
Well Richard, I believe you are the first to state that the “GHG Theory” claims that CO2 and other GHGs add to the energy budget of the earth.
There’s much wrong with prevailing views of GHGs and how they act; but claiming to add to the earth’s energy budget is NOT one of them.
“”””” All it can do is slow down radiative cooling. “”””” I believe you also said this.
So let’s look at an analagous situation; an ordinary bathtub, or even a kitchen sink, if you don’t have a bathtub.
So you turn on the hot and cold water faucets; or taps if your bathtub doesn’t have faucets; full bore. This is akin to the sun pouring radiant energy onto the earth. But we left the plug out; or the stopper if your bathtub doesn’t have a plug; so as the water rises in the bathtub, some of it starts to flow down the drain and out of the tub. Initially, just a trickle, but as the water gets deeper, and builds up a bigger “head” or driving force, the outflow increases; and the immediate result of this, is that the rate of rise of the water level slows down.
Eventually at a certain water depth, the rate of outflow exactly equals the rate of inflow from the taps, and the water level stops rising; having reached the (dynamic) equilibrium level.
So this is not unlike the earth’s energy where the LWIR radiant outflow basically reaches a balance with the solar spectrum radiant inflow. Yes other thermal processes help transfer energy around; but in the end a radiative balance is required; the drain empties the water as fast as the faucets fill the tub.
So now we need some GHGs to put in our bathtub: “”””” All it can do is slow down radiative cooling. “””””
Howsabout we sink the metal soapdish, and it slides down towards the drain, and ends up blocking half of the drain area.
Now our soap dish may have contained a few drops of water from some splashes; but nobody would accuse the soap dish of ADDING TO THE INFLOW OF WATER TO THE TUB.
All that it did was; “”””” All it can do is slow down radiative cooling. “””””
But given the reduced outflow rate from the constricted drain, the water level must now rise further, to increase the driving head, until the outflow again equals the inflow rate from the taps. There was a short delay, while the taps added more water to raise the water level; but eventually equilibrium is re-established, and the outflow again equals the inflow; BUT NOW THE WATER LEVEL IS HIGHER !!
That is all there is to the claims for the GHG effect; not any addition to the earth’s energy budget; the sun will supply the extra energy needed to raise the mean temperature which in turn increases the LWIR radiation rate, until energy balance (dynamic) is again achieved; but there was a Temperature increase required to drive that LWIR radiation past the gauntlet of GHGs.
Other effects of course interfere with this picture; and that is where the real argument is.
But it is a lonely hill to die on; trying to claim that the “GHG Theory” violates laws of Physics or Thermodynamics; and it is this constant demonstrably false claim, by well meaning “skeptics”, that leads to the warmistas saying that skeptics are a bunch of kooks.
There’s enough good sources of common sense posting here as guest contributors; and stuff dug up by Anthony and people like Chasmod; and the other nicety police, that WUWT should not be rehashing this GHG argument over and over again, every time some new readers drop in.
Yes we know that real green houses do not operate in the manner that the “greenhouse concept” describes; and we all know what climatists, and skeptics too mean, when they talk about GHGs in the strictly climate sense.
But the Climatists are NOT claiming that GHGs add additional energy to the earth energy budget; and we don’t do anything for a sane view, by trying to paint them with that brush. Their transgressions are in other areas; such as getting the cloud picture completely wrong.
“”””” Joel Shore says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Myrrh says:
By the end of that particular discussion I felt as if I had stepped through the looking glass with Alice.
I can pretty much assure you that the person you had the discussion with must have felt likewise.
All models are approximations. However, the ideal gas law is a very good…perhaps even excellent approximation…at atmospheric densities.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that the CO2 is not quite well-mixed in the atmosphere? “””””
Well Joel, I know that you are a lot more up to speed than your post here might indicate.
Actually we do have very good data that shows that CO2 is NOT very well mixed in the atmosphere.
There used to be a graph posted at, http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/Projects/GASES/co2glob.htm
My copy of that graph is dated 9/19/2005 But since then NOAA seems to have taken it down.
In any case it refers to Principal investigators Peter Tans, and Thomas Conway, NOAA CMDL. Carbon Cycle Group. Boulder CO (303)497-6678
So give them a call Joel and ask them for that graph.
It plots data from about 1987 through 1996 from north pole to south pole. In 1987 the CO2 at the north pole had a peak value of about 355 ppm and a trough value of 340 ppm. A private communique from A Scripps Inst CO2 expert tells me that the actual north pole P-P cycle is 18 ppm. Meanwhile at the south pole shows a value around 347 ppm and the p-p cycle is no more than 1 ppm and is opposite in phase from the north pole cycle; and the south polar lack of any significant CO2 cycling is maintained almost up to 30 deg south, while th4e north polar range is about the same as far south as about +30 degrees. And the time for that 18 ppm drop in CO2 in the arctic, is about five months for the drop, and seven months for the subsequent rise.
So the local change in CO2 is quite rapid; much faster than a 200 year residence time would be compatible with; yet there is little interchange between north and south polar CO2 variations.
Now to me that is one of the most striking global assymmetries that I am aware of.
But then as you well know Joel; the real question, is just how much non-mixing, is significant. I don’t know; I think it is of little significance myself. But then I think the absolute amount of CO2 is also of very little significance.
I doubt that there are any “Eureka” discoveries in CO2 variance over the planet, and over time; but knowing something about the causality is worth study I believe.
Of course the Mauna Loa p-p cycle is only 6 ppm; 1/3 of the north polar range.
“”””” Hans Erren says:
December 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm
@george E. Smith
Co2 infrared absorption is logarithmic between 100 and 1000 ppm, the concentrations of interest. This can be calculateted using quatum physics, and was observed in laboratory experiments as early as 1901.
ref: John Koch, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wärmeabsorption in Kohlensäure., Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlinger, 1901. N:o 6 p 475-488
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif “””””
Well Hans “CLIMATE SENSITIVITY” that magical climate sicence equivalent to the velocity of light of ordinary Physics; says that THE MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE changes at a rate of 3DEG C (+/-50%) for a DOUBLING OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2.
Now I don’t see anywhere in there that it says that CO2 infrared absorption goes as the log of the CO2 abundance.
If you have spent ANY time at all here at WUWT or ANY other climate science blog; you will at times have learned that:-
Mean Global Surface Temperature (or lower Troposphere); “Greenhouse Forcing”, in Watts per square meter; and LWIR Infrared absorption by CO2 molecules, ALL vary as the logarithm of the “atmospheric CO2 abundance”.
Oh and just for good measure the radiant emittance of that LWIR Infrared radiation varies as the fourth power of the surface (or lower Troposphere) Temperature; and at any time over the globe that can be a total range of emittance that is more than an order of magnitiude from the hottest to the coldest regions. That covers a range from over 700 W/m^2 for the hottest regions to about 65 W/m^2 for the coldest.
So given that variability; how does your Quantum Physics explain that the Temperature rise, remains proportional to the log of the CO2 abundance; regardless of the fact that the driving emittance that is supposed to power that temperature rise, is itslef a strong function of Temperature.
Does your Quantum Physics expplain why suddenly the relationship ceases to be logarithmic below 100 ppm and then again at above 1000 ppm.
Interestingly NO PERSON or anything Hominid of any kind; has ever experienced global CO2 values as low as 100 ppm; nor as high as 1000 ppm; so how could we possibly have data of a logarithmic relationship over that range.
As for 1901 lab experiments; well we didn’t have a whole lot of Quantum Physics in 1901, so I presume that your cited link gives data on a lab simulation of the atmospheric LWIR absorptance due to CO2.
So Hans, I checked your link and found a graph.
My German is quite poor to say the least; so I can’t say that I understood exactly what was shown there; I can only see a half dozen data points; and I don’t see any error bars anywhere, to see how good a fit to any curve is.
But the IPCC tells us that the uncertainty in Climate Sensitivity is a 3:1 spread from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2, which is the same thing as 3.0 +/-50%.
I defy anyone given a data set that matches some graph with a slope uncertainty of a 3:1 range, to prove that the relationship is linear, or logarithmic, or exponential or ANY other mathematical function one might choose.
I’m sure I can fit such data to the function y = exp (-1/x^2)
Logarithmic functions do not have “ranges”; they go on forever; not for some 10:1 range of a variable.
On the other hand NON-LINEAR relationships can have any kind of restricted range of applicability.
Global Temperature, radiative warming (forcing) of the atmosphere, and CO2 absorption of LWIR are NOT proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; neither in observed measured real world data; nor in any Physical theory, including Quantum Physics.
By the way; for your 1901 lab experiment to observe CO2’s logarithmic absorption of “INFRARED”, just exactly what source of LWIR emissions did the experimenters use; and what was its nearest equivalent blackbody (or gray body) Temperature, and the wavelength range of its spectrum ? Just asking; it’s helpful to know just WHAT experiments were actually done; that is almost as useful information as the results.
mkelly says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:04 am
Energy has no mass although they are thought to be aspects of each other. Photons are said to have a mass of greater than zero. Both formulas give you the value of the product, in this case E.
Therefore E is not a constant, it’s the value of a constant and a variable.
The Planck constant is h and v is the variable (frequency)
So m c ^2 = h v
Both m and v are notionally infinite, however E=mc^2 limits v to c.
so mc ^2 = hc. :-}
The maximum value of Planck’s equation is E=hc.
or m = (h v) / c^2
Energy has no mass. So E=mc^2 doesn’t lead to m=Ec^-2.
E=mc^2 is potential energy of the mass not actual energy.
I await your enlightened response. 🙂
You’ll wait for ever for a response from Onion.
David Wojick Ph.D. says: (December 29, 2010 at 5:53 am)
” LazyTeenager ……. you have missed the entire point of the story…”
LT has IV’d the kool aid and always misses the point.
Engineers have always been the biggest sceptics. (I prefer the Brit spelling)
They spend decades in efforts to match simple systems to complex environments.
Back in the 80s I used to worry about second order effects (deviations from simple laws) caused by non-linearities of materials. We are now in third order territory with occasional forays into fourth order effects. Climate is like 14th or 40th order stuff. And very non-linear. It is possible (not likely) for 12th order effects to have first order results (chaos).
M.Simon said:
“Climate is like 14th or 40th order stuff. And very non-linear. It is possible (not likely) for 12th order effects to have first order results (chaos).”
No. The problem is that climate does not have second and third order effects, all the effects are typically of the same order of magnitude as the main effect, because there is no small parameter you can expand around and neglect higher terms. This is the problem. The first order effect is the chaos of weather. The solution jumps all over the state space and covers all possible “forcings” and feedbacks” already. Averaging of wildly fluctuating weather along a two-frequency trajectory (diurnal-annual) is a mathematically-difficult thing. Hence all the confusion and controversy.
Thanks to all for the CO2 concentration answers. I wonder how much CO2 a human could absorb knowing the O2 concentration was fixed at 20,000 ppm? Is there an upper limit? Do we need to have Nitrogen in the air? Is CO2 really toxic or is the lack of O2 toxic?
@Phil Cummings. The curtain analogy is a great one. How many curtains are the AGW alarmists hiding behind?
In high school my Physics teacher dropped a ping-pong ball and a steel ball bearing from the same height after asking the class to guess which would land first. Then he showed us an old film of some bridge oscillating uncontrollably in the wind before it crashed into the river. I’m still hooked. Thank God he hadn’t sold out to AGW or I would have become a lawyer.
“MartinGAtkins says:
December 29, 2010 at 11:03 am
The Planck constant is h and v is the variable (frequency)
So m c ^2 = h v
Both m and v are notionally infinite, however E=mc^2 limits v to c.
so mc ^2 = hc. :-}
The maximum value of Planck’s equation is E=hc.”
Martin, you are confusing frequency with velocity. As is stated above, v is frequency in this case. And a frequency is in cycles/s which can never be a speed in m/s. As for the maximum frequency value, gamma rays, one of the highest, goes to 10^24 Hz. In contrast, the speed of light to 3 significant digits in a vacuum is 3.00 x 10^8 m/s.
Joel Shore says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm
re through the looking glass with Alice I can pretty much assure you that the person you had the discussion with must have felt likewise.
Oh yes, that was made quite clear to me… (grin)
..it’s nice to be back…
All models are approximations. However, the ideal gas law is a very good…perhaps even excellent approximation…at atmospheric densities.
How so?
Please look at the table at the bottom of this page tabulating the differences between Real gases and Ideal gases: http://www.tutorvista.com/chemistry/difference-between-ideal-and-real-gases
The atmosphere I live in is Real, Real Science applies there.
The gases on my side of the mirror do not obey gas laws at all standard temperature and pressure, they have volume, have electronic interactions, condense, sublimate, liquefy, interact with others, attraction/repulsion.
The Ideal gases here at your side of the mirror don’t do any of these Real things. Your atmosphere is different.
Here, I was told, by someone who thought he was the other side of the mirror in the Real world where I exist, a Carbon Dioxide molecule obeyed gas laws. He told me that carbon dioxide molecules are in constant, random motion and most of the gas is empty space, that is, see above, the molecule of CO2 is actually so negligable it can be said to have none.
Here on your side of the mirror, he told me, the atmosphere is thus empty space with the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide rushing through it in all directions at great speed, colliding with each other and bouncing off each other and so very quickly mixing thoroughly.
He and his acolytes were quite insistent that this was how Carbon Dioxide acted in the Real world, and I was obviously a total ignoramus who didn’t understand basic physics.
What I was seeking to understand from him was why AGW promoted a description of Carbon Dioxide that was totally at odds with its well known properties.
In this discussion with him I limited this to exploring the weight of CO2, I wanted to understand where AGWScience got its information from to claim that the atmosphere is well mixed and its claim that CO2 can stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds, and even thousands, of years, accumulating. In my Real world on the other side of the mirror, Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it cannot therefore do either of these things without some work being done on it.
I have to say here, that I first of all had to convince him that CO2 was actually heavier than air and would displace air, mainly nitrogen and oxygen molecules, to sink to the ground where it would pool when in sufficient quantities. (Giving examples such as breweries, mines, volcanoes, and vents as quite recently in Cameroon). Having accepted that CO2 actually did this, and wanting to be sure I really understood what he was saying about gases, I suggested a thought experiment, which went like this.
There is a room where a large amount of CO2 has been introduced and it has pooled on the floor. No work is done to change the conditions of the room from that when the CO2 pooled, for example, no fan put on, no window opened.
I said the Carbon Dioxide would remain pooled on the floor because it was heavier than air. He said it would diffuse into the atmosphere acting to gas laws and become thoroughly mixed with all the other molecules of air in the room. To be absolutely sure of what he was saying and so on further questioning, he clarified the point re work. He said that no work at all need be done for the the CO2 to diffuse into the air in the room and mix thoroughly. It would do this because the molecules of CO2 were in constant random motion together with all the other molecules in the air and so would diffuse as per the Ideal gas laws.
So, I read up the differences and saw that he was not in my world, but in the world of imaginary gases, one of any number of possible impossible things one can think of before breakfast. In which there is no concept of gases having weight (it was quite a concession for him to admit CO2 pooled) and volume, no concept of atmospheric pressure, no concept of gravity. AGWScience rules in this world.
AGW Science says a molecule of gas heavier than air can rise through the volume of air above it and rapidly diffuse through it thoroughly mixing with all the other molecules, because AGWScience says air is empty space with molecules at great distances apart from each other zipping at enormous speeds randomly through it. AGWScience says a molecule of gas that is heavier than air can stay up in this its atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years, even though it is heavier than air, because etc.
As I said, AGWScience has no concept of, no feeling for, the reality of what is the atmosphere, the air around us. No understanding of the volume it has, the weight it exerts on us or what the weight of molecules in it means relative to it, nada.
From this comes the problem as Smoking Frog has described it, in this strange AGWScience world ‘if carbon dioxide sinks through air it would make a layer etc.‘ Dead Sea example get’s used here too. In this Ideal gas atmosphere there is no sense of dynamics, of interactions between volumes, no sense of life. Which is why they can dismiss CO2 as a poison, against all argument that it is a non-toxic gas, because that’s all they can imagine CO2 would do, stay put,;they have lost all sense of movement in real life.
Smoking Frog, Carbon Dioxide would not layer because primarily plants would eat it. CO2 is food for them and so for all Carbon Life Forms on earth, we’re about 20% carbon; without CO2 to feed us we would not exist. Plants live at ground level, isn’t it amazing that CO2 being heavier than air comes to them? They can’t go out hunting for it up in the atmosphere. Plants take in Carbon Dioxide as food and together with water for drink and sunlight to cook it, turn it in sugars, carbohydrates etc., and in doing so release the oxygen from this process into the atmosphere, to make the air we breathe. It’s called The Carbon Life Cycle.
Anytime you want to step back through the mirror..
A good description of how to understand our atmosphere if you do step back into it is to imagine what it would be like to be standing at the bottom of a swimming pool with a volume of water ten foot deep above you, then imagine you are in an open field – the volume of air above you is as the water in the swimming pool, it has weight pressing down on you; air is a gas, when you move through it you move through something, not through empty space.
So Joel, not at all a good approximation. Real gases are not ideal. The ideal gas law describes no real gas. The ideal gas is imaginary, that is the principle here. Those who understand the differences can use the ideal gas laws in calculations for real gases with greater or lesser amounts of tweaking. But it is simply wrong to say that real gases obey ideal gas laws. http://library.thinkquest.org/12596/ideal.html
Do you have any evidence for your claim that the CO2 is not quite well-mixed in the atmosphere? ….
The AIRS concluded that CO2 is not at all well-mixed in the atmosphere. All it did was confirm what is common sense if our atmosphere and the properties of CO2 are understood in the real, physical earth. (The AIRS is handily at the moment on the Stomata v Ice Core post). CO2 will be moved by wind and so on, dispersed, but its nature is always to sink through air displacing the lighter oxygen and nitrogen. How far it travels will depend on the weather and it also comes down in rain. But, it will always act according to real gas laws in the real atmosphere; it does not on its own volition diffuse into the air, so where large amounts are produced together they may well stay together in these clumps rising on heat and winds, but always the atmosphere itself will limit what it does and where it goes.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_06_02.html “Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
Mike Borgelt – In the troposphere convection will mix the air pretty thoroughly although not instantly. Above that where there is no bulk transfer ..
I like the distinction made in the link I posted as a p.s., that mixing is going on, but it is not well mixed. He gives really good descriptions of how air moves and how bulk amounts of air can be moving at angles to each other, by relating it to those sports which use this knowledge, such as gliding and ballooning, bird flight.
I think the real problem some have is of not appreciating that air has bulk, is an entity in itself. Wind isn’t something outside of air stirring it around as a wooden spoon stirring soup, but it is volumes of air moving, and it’s not always windy… The best description of how air is as a volume of gas is how sound travels, the air itself doesn’t move very much, (because real gases have volume they’re not moving rapidly through empty space, they may be moving rapidly on the spot so to speak), it’s the sound passing itself through the air to the ear by vibration. It’s the vibration moving through a density of air striking the molecules causing them to move and strike the molecules next to them and so on down the line. Like a wave in the sea, the water itself doesn’t move very far, it’s the energy being passed through it which creates the movement, passing it along through the mass of water to break on a distant shore.
Molecules of CO2 will always be moving as air moves, when it moves, but also in relation to the part it is in will be interacting with the other volumes of molecules, it displaces air.
I really don’t know about CO2 higher than the troposphere, I can’t see how it can be there in any amount if at all, as it has difficulties enough getting off the ground..
Buoyancy does not apply to individual gas molecules in the same way it applies to gases in a hot air balloon for example. If it did, the CFCs would never be in the stratosphere. All gases are well mixed with the exception of water vapor since it condenses if the temperature gets too low.
Myrrh says:
December 29, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Why are you so focused on CO2? If you just look at nitrogen and oxygen, with molecular weights of 14 and 16. Clearly, all the O2 is at the surface of the Earth, and N2 is above. The O2 would run up to about 800 mb, which is about the top of Mt Washington. Of course, Mt Everest is much taller and must be in the pure nitrogen zone, and that’s why people bring oxygen with them.
Water vapor has a molecular weight of only 10 – that explains cirrus clouds. Low level clouds must start from evapoarting water puddles and climbs vertically, until it turns to cloud and it keeps going until it rains out and the process repeats the next day.
Fog and stratus clouds must be something else. Stage smoke generators and low level chemtrails come to mind as obvious sources.
Students – don’t use these answers on your homework! 🙂
Martin, you are confusing frequency with velocity.
We were both being mischievous by comparing apples with oranges. I should have put a smiley on the last line. None the less it’s good that you pointed out the conclusion was flawed logic.
stephen richards Pure CO2 kills animals and Humans and, I think someone has shown that death has occurred at above 7000ppm but the O2 content was not measured.
John Day The concentration of CO2 in your lungs right now is 40,000ppm (i.e. ~4% CO2). You’re not feeling dead, or a bit woozy now are you?
You might start to be, that is a dangerously low level, below that which the lungs require to transport oxygen healthily – you could be heading for an asthma attack at this level which is the lungs response to low levels of CO2. The bronchioles beginning to contract to conserve CO2 making it harder to breathe and panic sets in.
I think that’s the amount, from your link, that is exhaled.
Asthmatics who breathe too quickly are in danger from depleting the CO2 levels:
http://www.correctbreathing.com/asthma.htm
“Over time, this excessive breathing pattern results in an abnormal loss of carbon dioxide (CO2). This precious gas is critical for regulation of many bodily functions such as the acid/alkaline balance of blood. To have optimum oxygenation of tissues and organs the body requires 5.5-6.5% CO2 in the lungs. The body creates most of this amount as the atmosphere contains only 0.035%.”
Read on for Bohr Effect.
Even mercury, that is about 7-fold heavier than air, is fairly well mixed with the latter at least in lower troposphere, and you are taking in no less than 300 billion Hg molecules (atoms actually) per single aspiration (ca. 500 mL air).
Ric Werme says:
December 29, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Myrrh says:December 29, 2010 at 7:06 pm
[……] nitrogen and oxygen, with molecular weights of 14 and 16. [….] Water vapor has a molecular weight of only 10 – [….]
The molecular weights of N2, O2 and H2O are 28, 32 and 18, respectively, although this may not affect the essence of your comment.
Werner Brozek says:
Buoyancy does not apply to individual gas molecules in the same way it applies to gases in a hot air ballon for example. If it did, the CFCs would never be in the stratosphere. All gases are well mixed with the exception of water vapour since it condenses if the temperature gets to low.
The gas in the hot air balloon is air. It is heated which makes it less dense than the air it is in and so rises in air. Water vapour is lighter than air, it rises in air, carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it sinks in air.
The atmosphere is not well-mixed, otherwise we would have temperature equalised everywhere, for example. Some on balloons here:
http://wikidoc.org/index.php/Lighter_than_air
from which: “Determining which gases are lighter than air is relatively straightforward. These gases must have a molecular mass less than 28.97 (the average molecular mass of air) and exist as a gas at atmospheric temperatures and atmospheric pressures.”
Carbon dioxide is 1.5 times heavier than air, it displaces air and sinks to the ground, with or without a container around it. There are some fun experiments to do with dry ice which show how CO2 sinks as it becomes a gas, spilling over the edge of a glass and flowing down.
This is the danger in breweries, or rather in falling asleep in them.., mines, pits and so on, where large amounts can pool on the ground displacing oxygen. Suffocation is silent and quick. Don’t know about CFC’s.