I remember a good few xmases ago you excelled at the complicated maths questions I posted here for a bit of fun. You knocked them out of the park, head and shoulders above everyone else. But I'm seeing none of that brilliance in any other sphere of knowledge you comment on here. You're clearly just a one-trick pony. Thank god I didn't waste time on explanations you would never be able to get your head around.
I need a break from this BS of yours; I never thought I'd have to do this to you of all people.
. <*PLONK*>
Which suggests lessons have been learnt and of course how the incorrect value for the viscosity of air was used. Nevertheless the error was still less than 1%. CD's numbers are more than 60% higher than multiple sources of evidence.
Parodying your link, this might be closer to the truth, "When Tim Streater got a number that was too low below CD's, they thought something must be wrong......."
Wow, are you suggesting that when peer reviewed figures are compared with hearsay we should believe the hearsay?
All I have asked CD for is evidence to backup his words.
On the other hand because you think his hearsay conforms to your misguided beliefs your world is paradise and bliss. Most would call it ignorant bliss. YMMV
Was that necessary all because I asked for evidence of your claims and when I checked found there wasn't any.
You're quite right, I'm appalling at tricks like pulling rabbits out of a hat. Give me some numbers and their sources any day.
If repeating a request for evidence we both know doesn't exist makes me a troll then so be it.
I'm saying that something being peer-reviewed doesn't make it right.
You managed to focus on the wrong part of what I pointed you at. The salient part id that Millikan used, in effect, a measuring stick that was wrongly calibrated. And yet his "peer-reviewers" assumed that his result was correct.
We don't know that this lesson has been learnt in the context that we're talking about, and you shouldn't assume that it has.
Yes, I was being disingenuous to your post. However the traits associated with Millikan are now well known and often cited. This was a perhaps a poor experiment where the setup was critical. There are now more accurate ways of measuring charge on an electron.
The point of my posts is we are comparing peer reviewed measurements of ice core samples, with vindication from real independent atmospheric measurements vs *pure hearsay*.
At every time I have asked for evidence of these 1900 measurements I am met with derision. I guess the Millikan experiment lives on, where, to some, there is an accepted bound to the CO2 levels and if anyone dare question the origin of these claims and hearsay they are called a troll.
In short even if the ice core samples represent a significant error in CO2 levels, they're still not going to give a level of 400+ppm of CO2 in
1900.
Measurements cannot be 'peer reviewed'! you are talking out of your bottom
Google.
The likes of the Tim Squeaker Goblin has gone that way as well. Used to be a sensible / reasonable / restrained sort of chap, now he's just a crazy goblin. ;-(
He probably likes 'kicking' ponies. Frustrated he's not allowed to kill them for the pleasure he gets from doing so.
Plus loads.
I'd put it down to a massive deficiency in B12 because he *assumes* he's getting sufficient from the animal flesh he's given to eat, even with the animals being supplemented with most of the B12 we make in the world (crazy supports crazy of course).
I bet he also yearns for an easily absorbed B12 supplement because he's denied them by his mum "Come on Freddy, eat your raw offal, you know you are Mommy's big Lion ...", and of course he obeys.
Obviously too late for him now. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
And 70 *Billion* livestock eating it and releasing the captured C02 as methane ... plus how many trees have been felled and burned to 'grow' feed for them.
Assuming there are any that aren't in a dead zone produced by livestock waste runoff.
Cheers, T i m
No doubt as viewed through the fog of a B12-deficient over-active right-brain hemisphere.
What does that have anything to do with the science of the experiment?
You might have better said it was an experiment that broke entirely new ground.
Don't be silly. This was a measurement made for the very first time. History will show that any similar measurements, such as the speed of light, produced an inaccurate figure, but the breakthrough was getting a ball-park measurement in the first place. Subsequent researchers, having this data to hand, could then improve on the accuracy. Even then, a 'council of the wise' might meet to decide what the 'official' number might be.
Silly question but, if CO2 is heavier than air, does this not impact on things like ice core measurements: gas trapped near sea level?
Not if all (subsequent) measures are also taken at sea level at the same locations (eg, away from summer / winter grass or urban activity etc).
Cheers, T i m
Since CO2 is miscible with air, I suspect that diffusion would overcome any tendency for CO2 is "settle out" (if that's your concern), not to mention mixing due to temperature differences. IOW, if you had a carefully insulated vessel in which you managed to arrange a layer of CO2 at the bottom with air on top, would that separation be maintained?
Perhaps in the real world there would be more CO2 at sea level due to temperature difference with altitude, but then again winds will causes mixing.
Atmospheric mixing will defeat that as an experimental approach.
There are places where the ground forms a natural bowl, and under the right conditions it can fill with CO2 from e.g. emissions from the ground. Animals that stray into this layer of CO2 collapse within a few seconds, and usually die, the clue being the skeletons lying about. But that's Nature.
Indeed. I don't know if the ice cores came from solidified snow, frozen water or whatever. I just vaguely thought there would be no *wind* in loose fallen snow and the lighter elements might migrate upwards before final solidification and entrapment.
Occasional deaths in agricultural locations are due to CO2 being trapped in an enclosed chamber.
>
Air is pretty evenly mixed. Diffusion and turbulence means that apart from REALLY heavy gases like radon, and really light ones like hydrogen and helium, in isn't noticeably stratified. It is however quite localised - as per e.g. high NOx levels alongside major roads and so on.
That is why places like Hawaiian volcanoes and Greenland ice cores tend to be trusted more than a measurement done in an urban lab.
I think by the time the snow is compacted to become ice, that layer gets whatever the (local) atmosphere was just before it got compacted.
My BIL does geology and always prefaces in discussion on the subject of similar issues - stuff found in rocks - with plenty of caveats.
He is totally against CAGW by the way "If their assumptions were correct, earth would never have had the climate it had for life to develop"
Indeed. I out my head in a open topped fermentation tank of wurt once and nearly died. breathing neat CO2 is an experience.
But that was where CO? was being actively produced. Only that condition or a closed tank, can actually cause concentrations to get high enough.
Somewhere in IIRC Africa there was an eruption that generated enough CO2 in a local low area round a lake and killed everything animal
"On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.
The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000?300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources) of carbon dioxide (CO
2).[1][2] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph) and then, being heavier than air, descended onto nearby villages, displacing all the air and suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake"(wiki)
So the picture is not simple. In time gas concentraions level out but even on a fairly global scale CO2 is not evenly spread. Satllites monitoring it via I presume spectral emissions, give very intersing maps.
Although that is a late summer snapshot, so is not necessarily true for all year.
Of course such blatant disproving of 'man made CO2' being an issue is simply airbrushed out of ClimateScience?
A fair percentage of the intended deaths of 70+ *BILLION* animals every year also involve CO2 in an enclosed chamber (fish are allowed to suffocate in air, taking up to 15 minutes).
Not a humane way to go, if use the term 'humane' as:
"Having or showing compassion or benevolence" ... 2.5 minutes in a CO2 chamber?
I love the way they have to password protect the machines so operators can't speed it up when they get busy.
More 'compassion' I'm guessing.
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.