A challenge to Climate Change believers

a reply to: daskakik

The science is there and there is not any C atoms floating around solo. CO andCO2 will be floating around but all other carborns will be in long chains. but trapped in the lower atmosphere because they are so heavy. There are CO molecules and CO2. Or there are long chains with C atoms all mixed in. So the science is that Carbon is heavier in its natural forms than any gas of O2 or N2. Just carbon would be way to heavy as it will not exist as a single atom molecule because it is so reactive and the atom demands its orbitals be filled with electrons from another atom. We spend years studying every bit of this for our Chemistry degrees.

That is the way it is.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: chr0naut

The meme claiming there was no sea level rise at the Sydney station was, unsuprisingly, a complete lie.

The actual historical data from the Sydney Harbour (Fort Denison) tidal guage station is available here and shows linear increase rise in low tide of ~0.76mm/yr and more recently upto 0.82mm/yr

Sydney harbour historical tidal guage data

Sydney Hardbour (Fort Denison) historical tidal guage data.

Even ignoring the raw data - the old black and white photo shows the tide being a couple of brick widths lower than the modern one in the meme and controls for things lie paralax, pressure, temperature, storms, waxing/waning of tides etc...would all have to be accounted for and controlled for the meme to be considered evidence of anything.

So why are the elected officials world wide apparently buying up coastal properties if they believe the property will be gone in 10 years?

originally posted by: Justoneman
The science is there and there is not any C atoms floating around solo.

I didn't see chr0naut claim there were anywhere in his original post.

Now I might be wrong but I think the point being made was that things don't just float out into space in masse based on density since that was the question that was asked.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Tolkien
No.
Read the thread, slower

No, you need to understand context.

A question was asked and answered as to why greenhouse gasses don't just escape the atmosphere. Nothing more, nothing less.

Chr)naut has zero understanding of basic science.
I corrected him with facts.

Actually they said:
The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements)

There was nothing to correct there. Instead you literally said :

You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

That was you adding something, O2, that was never said to try to have a gotcha moment.

Still NO !!

You have just proven you are just as ignorant6 as Chr0naut
Actually they said:

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

CARBON ATOMS ARE NOT LIGHTER THAN NITROGEN.
Gross misunderstanding of the perioic table and basic science like density

The reason why some materials "float above others" is due to density - lower density elements float on top of higher ensity elements.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon.

Carbon NEVER "floats on top of nitrogen atoms"

QED

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

ITs a Bitc# When You can't Blame Each Other - Question those who do


New study shows mysterious solar particle blasts can devastate the ozone layer, bathing Earth in radiation for years

Records show that around every thousand years Earth gets hit by an extreme solar particle event, which could cause severe damage to the ozone layer and increase levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the surface.

We analyzed what happens during such an extreme event in a paper published July 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We also show that at times when Earth's magnetic field is weak, these events could have a dramatic effect on life across the planet.

Narratives a plenty
In The END We are all Just Witness's

As the World Turns ...

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

No, not true just because of the atomic number and weight.

I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that. Carbon is not a gas like O2 or N2 anyway. It is found in a solid attached to a chain of other atoms and likes to have other carbon atoms in its molecules. The Carbon Atom is ready to react to other atoms and most molecules known to man. We use it to purify things for one example because it will absorb a lot of things. CO2 is a gas and it is heavier than N2 and it can combine in plants to make solids again.

As a grad student I taught this type of thing to the freshman in lab class experiments.

originally posted by: Tolkien
Still NO !!

You have just proven you are just as ignorant6 as Chr0naut
Actually they said:

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

CARBON ATOMS ARE NOT LIGHTER THAN NITROGEN.
Gross misunderstanding of the perioic table and basic science like density

The reason why some materials "float above others" is due to density - lower density elements float on top of higher ensity elements.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon.

Carbon NEVER "floats on top of nitrogen atoms"

Did you get the rage out?

I see you had to pull the densities in solid state, but these two molecules don't exist in solid state in earth's atmosphere.

So you first tried to have a gotcha moment with CO2 and now you are trying to have it with solid state but the question originally asked had nothing to do with anything in particular.

What was asked was "why greenhouse gasses don't just escape the atmosphere", not C or even CO2.

The answer that Chr0naut gave was that very little escapes regardless of density.

If you can give us a better answer, please do so.

originally posted by: Justoneman
I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that.

Just because it readily bonds to something to make a heavier molecule doesn't mean that the carbon atom isn't lighter.

2nd line.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

No, not true just because of the atomic number and weight.

I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that. Carbon is not a gas like O2 or N2 anyway. It is found in a solid attached to a chain of other atoms and likes to have other carbon atoms in its molecules. The Carbon Atom is ready to react to other atoms and most molecules known to man. We use it to purify things for one example because it will absorb a lot of things. CO2 is a gas and it is heavier than N2 and it can combine in plants to make solids again.

As a grad student I taught this type of thing to the freshman in lab class experiments.

I specifically referenced atomic carbon and atomic nitrogen from my second post in this thread.

I often wondered what "geeking out" looked like. Now it's no longer a mystery.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

No, not true just because of the atomic number and weight.

I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that. Carbon is not a gas like O2 or N2 anyway. It is found in a solid attached to a chain of other atoms and likes to have other carbon atoms in its molecules. The Carbon Atom is ready to react to other atoms and most molecules known to man. We use it to purify things for one example because it will absorb a lot of things. CO2 is a gas and it is heavier than N2 and it can combine in plants to make solids again.

As a grad student I taught this type of thing to the freshman in lab class experiments.

CO2 is NOT the only molecule that is in gaseous phase at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and that is also based upon at least one carbon atom.

Methane gas consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (16.043 g/mol) than N2 gas (28.014 g/mol).

Acetylene gas consists of two carbon atoms and two hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (26.038 g/mol) than N2 gas.

Carbon Monoxide gas consists of a carbon atom and an oxygen atom and is a slightly lighter gas (28.010 g/mol) than N2 gas.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: chr0naut

The meme claiming there was no sea level rise at the Sydney station was, unsuprisingly, a complete lie.

The actual historical data from the Sydney Harbour (Fort Denison) tidal guage station is available here and shows linear increase rise in low tide of ~0.76mm/yr and more recently upto 0.82mm/yr

Sydney harbour historical tidal guage data

Sydney Hardbour (Fort Denison) historical tidal guage data.

Even ignoring the raw data - the old black and white photo shows the tide being a couple of brick widths lower than the modern one in the meme and controls for things lie paralax, pressure, temperature, storms, waxing/waning of tides etc...would all have to be accounted for and controlled for the meme to be considered evidence of anything.

So why are the elected officials world wide apparently buying up coastal properties if they believe the property will be gone in 10 years?

You'd have to ask them, though politicians rarely understand basic science let alone specific models.

The sea level rise is certainly happening but it's not yet at a rate where a significant number of coastal cities are under threat.

The rate of melting land ice has started rapidly accelerating in recent years with greenland melting at 7 times the rate is was in the 90s and arctic land ice melting 5 times 90s levels so it's predicted to rise just over 2ft by 2100 at current rates but that is under the assumption to drop in salinity levels of the sea wont cause the gulf stream to close off and cause an ice age in Europe.

I live near the coast myself and the coastal road floods a few more days per year than it used to - this year there were 'evacuate to higher ground' warnings for the local area and main hospital but that was due to a combination of neep tide, major storm and loads of rainfall in the months prior that was already causing issues.

It's easy to see the effect of it rising since the 1850s ish here as the land is very flat and the old railway tracks and dumping ground for slag from iron foundary around 1850 is now underwater apart from during low tide.

It used to be commong for people to cross the bay to another peninsular in victorian times but nowadays there's only two dates per year when it can be done and there's a special guide appointed by the royal family to conduct the walks.

a reply to: bastion

Logic says they do it because they rigged the game so they can have the land cheaper. No one buys a ship sinking outside the harbor accept for an opportunity at bargain prices. No one wants to buy land that is going under water. Yet even though supposedly in each of the last 10 years since about 1990, it was supposed to be the end of snow and sea levels will swallow NY etc. Still, it is all there and the sea levels and Ice levels are dynamic as they where since the beginning of the Solar system.

a reply to: bastion

So with regard to my question/challenge in the OP, in my understanding of physics, if a vessel of water gains more water, the level will change. That level can be measured by the edges where the water stops. If that's wrong, please explain.

So assuming that's correct, then if there was a stone structure built partially in the ocean, like a jettie, a light house, or even an island, the edges where the water stops should no longer be visible, and the water line should have increased. My reasoning for making this thread is in another thread our resident expert on all subjects posted a picture of a fort in the Sydney harbor at it's inception, then a modern picture with the water level well above the earlier photo. As if the sea level had risen enough to make the previous tide line gone. I saw it as dishonest when I was able to find a modern picture showing the tide line the exact same as it was 100 years ago.

I get that tides change, storms have surges, beaches erode, and even buildings made on poor foundations can sink. But should there be a graphical representation of the increase in water level? I'm told it's half a foot. 6 inches should totally submerge a shore line that was at sea level 100 years ago right?

I admitted in the OP I have an opinion that this is mostly made up fear mongering. So it's all biased. But the only way to change the mind of someone like me is to offer some form of proof that I can see and verify for myself. I live a little over an hour from the coast, and go often. I don't expect to see any of the changes in my short lifespan and shorter span of time going to the NC coast, but photographs of things that existed then, and still exist today should offer that visual proof in my mind. If that's not how it works, I can accept that, but I'll need more than the word of a google pro, and climate activists. I need to see it, or at least understand why it can't be seen.

a reply to: network dude

Understand why it can't be seen because they can't explain that. It is being seen they will say. My eyes are lying to me? Nope...I am data driven and the data just hasn't been there. The folks bringing us the false data are backed by MSN BSBC's, not by actual data that can corroborate those lies. It is that simple for a data driven scientist. I argue with my peers on this, and a lot of them are seeing it similarly to me who were not seeing it at all at 1st. You can't BS a room full of Scientist we are a bunch of Debbie downers on trusting things we cannot verify.

The big gov Scientist are BS's. Those of us peon non Gov ones do get to "yell" at them as I like to call it, about being dumbasses because normally we hold the data they are shredding for the narrative. Scientific work requires repeatable data, and they are leftist shills when they stomp on facts for the DS narrative as I believe it to be.

a reply to: Justoneman

I'm a computer nerd, so not a scientist at all. That's why I'm asking for proof I can see and verify. I do appreciate your input, and that of anyone who is in the fields of science.

And to all others, I don't mean to be adversarial on this, I don't have the answers, I'm trying to find them. But being an ass is hard to turn off once it's on.

a reply to: network dude

For the first part, yes the water level would indeed increase and is one of the main reasons for rising sea level. Pictures can be misleading which is why scientists use tidal guages to measure these things.

I'm not sure what pictures you're refering to as I don't remember such posts but I posted the graphical data of the tidal data from the Sydney harbour post earlier in the thread (last page) which shows it rising.

The reason you can't see it is it is very slow and only a few inches rather than a dramatic rise like 2m which would flood a lot of coastal cities.

If pictures are used as a form of evidence then a lot of vvariables need to be controled or removed in order to create an accurate measure and produce reasonable reliable data - unless the picture in taken at the exact same place and height it wont be an accurate measure and the data would be incorrect and lead to a misleading conclusion.

EDIT:
Personally if I was doing an analysis and/or creating a mathematical model I'd use the tidal guage data as it provides accurate data and introduces minimal variables then compare all the data to history of storm, wind speeds, sea temperature to account for the variables that effect sea level and create reliable data.

I'm biased as I'm terrible at taking pictures but I don't think I've ever read a paper using pictures as data - tidal guages and sea temperature is what is currently used to analyse sea level

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Justoneman

I'm a computer nerd, so not a scientist at all. That's why I'm asking for proof I can see and verify. I do appreciate your input, and that of anyone who is in the fields of science.

And to all others, I don't mean to be adversarial on this, I don't have the answers, I'm trying to find them. But being an ass is hard to turn off once it's on.

Well computer nerds are different kind of Scientist in my experience. Maybe not into the intricacies of one aspect of science, but a good nerd will get into another aspect. That is what makes this whole thing fun to do for a living. Nerds coming together do wonderful things with a decent budget. I refer to my boss as to him being a well paid "nerd herder". His job is to get the nerds to do their part of the work at a high level of competence.


This very topic gets the blood boiling for some people and we have to share the facts to those at a slower rate. Work them up to what they can handle, then drop bigger ones on them that are true they wouldn't have given the time of day before.