What if the CO2 was for nothing in the warming?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79318
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11040

What if the CO2 was for nothing in the warming?




by Christophe » 17/06/08, 18:30

A little thought to think about, to correct and if necessary to diffuse...but beware that it does not do much to overconsumption!

The author should also explain, according to him, where does the current warming ... what methane?

THE LEVITATION OF HEAVY GASES

Levitation, in general, is a fantastic phenomenon that makes it possible to get rid of gravity. It is an Indian specialty like the fakir nail board. Europe, too, possesses this genius of the marvelous inherited from its Indo-European ethnic origins. The divinatory sciences have long been gathered in the science of astrology, the first divinatory discipline, based on a poetic relation between the position of the stars and the inevitable future. The temptation was great to give a scientific gloss to these divinatory sciences practiced by our modern astrologers qualified as meteorologists or climatologists. Evil spirits have gone so far as to find a rich rhyme of a single sylabe to qualify these fantastic disciplines.

To justify this levitation, independent of the density, one uses the currents of convection, the jet-streams in altitude, and the currents of air a little lower. It seems perfectly acceptable that gases, four times heavier than air, levitate to the stratospheric zones, even in the interstellar spaces.

How much are the gases involved generating greenhouse effects?

We can make an inventory from the lightest to the heaviest:

HYDROGEN is the lightest, airborne density of 0,07
methane 0,55
Carbon monoxide CO 0,966

There we arrive at the ideal conditions of mixing and levitation

Nitric oxide NO 1,036
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 1,588
Carbon dioxide CO2 1,52
O3 1,66 Ozone
Sulfurous gas SO2 2,21
Chlorine Cl 2,45
Freon CCl2F2 4,42

That the lightest go up to heaven that is understandable. It is with them that we inflate the balloons of balloon, and the balloons-probes meteorologists and other astrologers. But what happens to heaven? Since the earth produces them, the atmosphere should be enveloped. Nature does things well, because the lighter ones are powerful reducers. So sensitive that they oxidize on contact with the air to turn into heavy gases that will return to the ground. There is no risk of them exploding in the upper atmosphere that they will not have time to reach.

So? The heaviest, how will they go up to suspend an ozone layer, more or less perforated, attacked by the "even heavier" that are the chlorine and the freon of our refrigerators and our aerosol cans?

RESPONSE from our "scientists": by convection and air currents, for some, by turbulence, Brownian motion and dilution for others. They did not dare to say "by levitation", but it amounts to the same thing, in more knowledge.

EXPLANATION: it is summed up in a military thought popularized by the media: "to seek to understand is to begin to disobey". To oppose this negationism to official media thought is scandalous: it is the negation of poetry. You have no shame! Men of little faith.

To challenge this levitation is as "politically" incorrect as to deny the miracle of the heat pump. All our politicians, fantastic monuments of scientific and technical ignorance, sing the same song, "sure of themselves and domineering", armored in the beautiful ignorance that they share with the most qualified of their electorate.

Don't they go so far as to cry over the disappearance of the Pacific corals eaten away by the carbonic acid of which they are nevertheless made up? Do they not see these coral islands submerged by the rising waters dilated and raised by the melting ice cubes of the Arctic Ocean? Too bad that, moreover, new islands appear on the occasion of underwater volcanic eruptions. These are perhaps the famous exceptions that confirm the rule.
So, our President of the Republic, finds the solution, the ultimate solution, the remedy for all evils: a consumption tax: "Thank you, we have already given"

It does not matter. Continue, vote for them ... Amen.

F. Tatard
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/06/08, 18:34

Uh ... : Shock:

What is the relationship with the title of the post?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79318
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11040




by Christophe » 17/06/08, 18:39

The report is this:

Carbon dioxide CO2 1,52


So according to the author it is not possible that CO2 is responsible for global warming because it remains "down".

Moreover at the plant and plankton level it is rather favorable that the CO2 is the most concentrated at low altitude?

Now a greenhouse that makes 1 m high will heat faster than a greenhouse that makes 10 m ... so ... is the reflection really relevant?
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2

Re: What if the CO2 was for nothing in the warming?




by Woodcutter » 17/06/08, 18:44

Christophe wrote:
F.Tatard wrote:Do they not go so far as to cry over the disappearance of the Pacific corals eaten up by the carbonic acid of which they are nevertheless constituted?
Whatever ! : roll:
Are corals made of "carbonic acid"? Corals have a limestone skeleton that is calcium carbonate, and it seems to me that they are much more disturbed by the increase in temperature than by the acidification of the oceans.

Christophe wrote:
F.Tatard wrote:Do they not see these coral islands submerged by the rising waters dilated and raised by the melting ice of the Arctic Ocean? Too bad that, moreover, appear new islands during submarine volcanic eruptions. These are perhaps the famous exceptions that confirm the rule.
And so ? The increase in the volume of oceans, responsible for the submersion of entire states such as Vanuatu, is due to volcanic eruptions?
What's this bullshit of bullshit? :frown:



Christophe wrote:
F.Tatard wrote:So, our President of the Republic, finds the solution, the ultimate solution, the remedy for all evils: a consumption tax: "Thank you, we have already given"

It does not matter. Continue, vote for them ... Amen.

F. Tatard
This gentleman does not like the carbon tax on vehicles? And although it moderates its consumption!



Christophe, why do you relay this kind of hogwash? :|
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79318
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11040




by Christophe » 17/06/08, 18:49

I relay to stir the debate and prepare a possible parade;) ...

1) For the corals it is the acidity that eats them ... but not directly the carbonic acid, only the CO2 lowers the pH of the water. The temperature can kill them but what eats them is the acidity ...

2) You have read wrong I think ... or is it me ???

3) + 1
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/06/08, 18:49

Christophe wrote:The report is this:

Carbon dioxide CO2 1,52


So according to the author it is not possible that CO2 is responsible for global warming because it remains "down".
Yes ... it is not the first who releases this kind of nonsense ...


Christophe wrote:so ... is the reflection really relevant?
For my part, the answer is NO !! : Lol:
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79318
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11040




by Christophe » 17/06/08, 18:54

I forward this subject to the author, we will see if he will intervene directly :) here is an excerpt from one of his email:

I have seen people try, with the wind from powerful blowers, to drive CO2 out of wineries. It is too heavy to fly without falling very quickly. I calculated how much the fermentations produced, and I installed centrifugal aspirators with low flow but good depression. With minimal powers the problem was solved. Heavy gases, beyond a low solubility in air, cannot rise to heaven, and "decant" as shown by the half-lit candle experiment. Again, only experience can confirm the hypothesis. I'd rather discuss it with you than with theoreticians like Jancovici.

Image
Image
Last edited by Christophe the 17 / 06 / 08, 19: 12, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/06/08, 19:11

Christophe wrote:[...] 1) For the corals it is the acidity that eats them ... but not directly the carbonic acid, only the CO2 lowers the pH of the water. The temperature can kill them but what eats them is the acidity ...
Checks done, it's the temperature that kills them.
Ocean acidification (in the order of 0.2 to 0.3 pH unit to 2100) will be problematic for all marine organisms with a carbon skeleton, since the equilibrium C reaction in water will tend to reduce carbonates in favor of hydrogen carbonates. So a calcium carbonate manufacturing much more difficult.
But no "eating" of limestone from marine organisms in sight ... at least not immediately!
Image


Christophe wrote:[...] 2) You have read wrong I think ... or is it me ???
I do not know ... Or misunderstood, it's not really clear ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79318
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11040




by Christophe » 17/06/08, 19:14

Nice curve but I do not understand anything : Mrgreen:

Otherwise I put the 2 scans in the previous post.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/06/08, 19:23

Christophe wrote:The report is this:

Carbon dioxide CO2 1,52
So according to the author it is not possible that CO2 is responsible for global warming because it remains "down".
One small question to the'author : how is it that we can measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, when it is at an altitude of 4200 m? According to his brilliant theories, that "heavy" gas should never be able to rise that far, right? : roll:

It always makes me laugh these people who, because they "observed (in their cellar, their garden, or elsewhere ...) that it did not work ", believe themselves to be holders of a truth going against the current consensus ...
Note, with examples like Allègre, they have nice days in front of them (maybe not long ... : Cry: )
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 143 guests