It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 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.
OK
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut
How about read the papers that Physicists have recently published before making those accusations?
Real Scientists that have a published paper on these matters is what my peers demand and there they are.
And here once again you defend the altered data team. Why do that when the data is always available that you gloss over? Is it just for that SJW agenda mouthpiece job and feeding your children, I can forgive you. But can you?
Please present the data, and the papers (and note that preprints and non-peer reviewed papers don't have the credibility that I would expect to be a minimum standard).
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
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm sorry I'm such a dumb ass, it's just me, I can't change that. But the question I asked is for a visual reference. If you took from my OP that I needed to see entire towns submerged in order to believe in AGW, you may be the one you referenced in your first paragraph.
So you asked to see some building, some structure that has existed for many years, that used to be above water, and now is not. I gave you a source saying sea level has risen about 0.3 meters in the last 150 years. If you're not metric, that's about one foot. So yes, your question asking to see some building or some structure submerged by sea level rise of one foot in the last 150 years, does not seem logical at all. If you had another source citing some higher number, you failed to post it in your opening post to indicate where your thought process is coming from.
originally posted by: network dude
So the challenge is to show something, some building, some structure that has existed for many years, that used to be above water, and now is not.
Show me.
I posted that video by Tony Heller, and he refers to "lies", but I think that wording is a bit strong. He points out things like, they deleted all the old data where it doesn't support the narrative they are trying to sell us. That's kind of like if you get sworn in to tell the truth and the whole truth, omitting the data that doesn't support your narrative is not telling the whole truth, and it's a very shady thing to do, but it's not exactly the same thing as a lie.
I admit, I approach this from a non-believer aspect. I'm jaded, mostly because being lied to, over and over again makes me not trust those who lied to me. You may enjoy that, it's not for me to decide what creams your twinkie.
Source for your claim? The source I posted infers that the sea could rise 10 meters, like happened in the past when temperatures were 1 degree C higher than they are now and we are trending toward that 1 degree C temperature rise so it appears we will get to the same temperature.
originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The problem with that theory is there isn't that much Ice left to melt from the 10000 years of melting that happened before 'Merica happened. Those sea level raises are limited to the available water and it is way more available now thus making the future rise of an all ice free Earth less dramatic.
We examined data from the last interglacial, which occurred 125,000 to 118,000 years ago. Temperatures were up to 1°C higher than today - similar to those projected for the near future.
Our research reveals that ice melt in the last interglacial period caused global seas to rise about 10 metres above the present level. The ice melted first in Antarctica, then a few thousand years later in Greenland.
Sea levels rose at up to 3 metres per century, far exceeding the roughly 0.3-metre rise observed over the past 150 years.
originally posted by: Justoneman
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
He can't read a CRC if I had my guess? I do think that one prefers "rabbit lookie there" on us here. I appreciate your accuracy. You remind me of a professor I loved who wrote the Graduate level Textbook "Inorganic Chemical Principals" then taught us from it. "More energetic the further the right and down on the Periodic Chart" was the answer to one of the final's questions. Good to have another someone here that isn't willing to ignore the actual science and appears logical.