Global warming physics again
 

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

Global warming physics again
 

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:48:12 -0700, Gordon wrote:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

You're kidding, right?

Global warming physics again
 

* Gordon wrote, On 6/21/2007 6:48 PM:
If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28),

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

Global warming physics again
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* Gordon wrote, On 6/21/2007 6:48 PM:
If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28),

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his bottled
O2..

Wilbur Hubbard

Global warming physics again
 

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:52:04 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:48:12 -0700, Gordon wrote:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

You're kidding, right?

Sorry..
For gasses that have no significant sources or sinks in the
atmosphere, they are completely mixed and in fixed proportions in the
atmosphere. Water vapour though has considerable structure, since the
maximum mixing ratio is controlled by temperature. In the tropics and
at the surface the temperatures are higher than at the poles and
tropopause.

The reduction of oxygen with height is due to the reduction in air
pressure with height.

The CO2 greenhouse effect is less in the stratosphere than in the
troposphere where there is more air.

The stratopause maximum temperature around 50km is due to ozone
absoption of sunlight at short wavelengths 300nm.

Global warming physics again
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his
bottled
O2..

Ah, another candidate to sit in the corner with the pointed hat on his
head.

Now, get out your science book and look up "partial pressure."

OK, OK. You're right for once. I looked it up and the relative
percentages of the atmospheric gasses remain the same with altitude
until you get very very high up like in the ionosphere.

But, for example, the atmosphere atop Mt. Everest is about 1/3 the
pressure as at sea level. And, even though the oxygen content remains
about 23%, the available oxygen molecules to breathe are only about
1/3rd as many. So, my Mt. Everest example still holds true because 1/3rd
of 23% of oxygen (the standard amount at sea level) is still only 1/3rd
enough.

http://www.adlers.com.au/oxygen.php

Wilbur Hubbard

Global warming physics again
 

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 6/21/2007 8:54 PM:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his bottled
O2..

Ah, another candidate to sit in the corner with the pointed hat on his
head.

Now, get out your science book and look up "partial pressure."

OK, OK. You're right for once. I looked it up and the relative
percentages of the atmospheric gasses remain the same with altitude
until you get very very high up like in the ionosphere.

But, for example, the atmosphere atop Mt. Everest is about 1/3 the
pressure as at sea level. And, even though the oxygen content remains
about 23%, the available oxygen molecules to breathe are only about
1/3rd as many. So, my Mt. Everest example still holds true because 1/3rd
of 23% of oxygen (the standard amount at sea level) is still only 1/3rd
enough.


That's about what we'd expect from an English major.

Global warming physics again
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his bottled
O2..

Ah, another candidate to sit in the corner with the pointed hat on his
head.

Now, get out your science book and look up "partial pressure."

OK, OK. You're right for once. I looked it up and the relative
percentages of the atmospheric gasses remain the same with altitude
until you get very very high up like in the ionosphere.

But, for example, the atmosphere atop Mt. Everest is about 1/3 the
pressure as at sea level. And, even though the oxygen content remains
about 23%, the available oxygen molecules to breathe are only about
1/3rd as many. So, my Mt. Everest example still holds true because 1/3rd
of 23% of oxygen (the standard amount at sea level) is still only 1/3rd
enough.

http://www.adlers.com.au/oxygen.php

Wilbur Hubbard


The first teams to get to the Everest summit didn't have the benefit of
bottled Oxygen.

Global warming physics again
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
snipolus maximus
You're kidding, right?
no he's not...and that's because he's as dumb as a post.
The only thing more annoying than a dumbass troll is _feeding_ a dumbass troll.

Global warming physics again
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his bottled
O2..

Ah, another candidate to sit in the corner with the pointed hat on his
head.

Now, get out your science book and look up "partial pressure."


Ahahahaaaa... good one Dave.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming physics again
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:48:12 -0700, Gordon said:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?

I think you should stay out of any discussion with "physics" in the
subject
line. Your premise is wrong.

If you do wish some enlightenment, I'd suggest starting with a search on
the
term "partial pressure."


He could participate if the discussion involved his cedar bucket crapper.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming physics again
 

Gordon wrote in news:137lvudl5u0aq37
@corp.supernews.com:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon


Now, now, don't be askin' a bunch o' em bare assin' questions! There's
way too many global warmin' scientists and institutions sucking at the
taxpayers' tits makin' themselves powerful rich creating panic.

Remember in the 70's when it was COOLING because of CO/CO2 emissions
(since 1940) and the panic they created to get money thrown at a non-
existent problem was "The Coming Ice Age".....until 1975 when the sun
started to warm the planet up again?

It's all a big lie...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
Watch all 8 parts on Youtube....


Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

Global warming physics again
 

In article ,
Gordon wrote:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

Obviously, you have never heard of airplanes that fly above 25K Feet.....
and significant Updraftings like Torandos, Cyclones, ect.....

Global warming physics again
 

In article ,
Cal Vanize wrote:

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

And what makes you think this is true? The concentration of oxygen
remain essentially unchanged with altitude, at about 21%.

Tell that to a Mt. Everest summiteer who'd pass out without his bottled
O2..

Ah, another candidate to sit in the corner with the pointed hat on his
head.

Now, get out your science book and look up "partial pressure."

OK, OK. You're right for once. I looked it up and the relative
percentages of the atmospheric gasses remain the same with altitude
until you get very very high up like in the ionosphere.

But, for example, the atmosphere atop Mt. Everest is about 1/3 the
pressure as at sea level. And, even though the oxygen content remains
about 23%, the available oxygen molecules to breathe are only about
1/3rd as many. So, my Mt. Everest example still holds true because 1/3rd
of 23% of oxygen (the standard amount at sea level) is still only 1/3rd
enough.

http://www.adlers.com.au/oxygen.php

Wilbur Hubbard


The first teams to get to the Everest summit didn't have the benefit of
bottled Oxygen.


and neither did Larry Nielson, the first american to accomplish
that feat...

Global warming physics again
 

Gordon wrote:
If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon
Big problem for mountaineers is when they break through the top O2 layer
finding nothing but helium up there.

Global warming physics again
 

On Jun 21, 3:48 pm, Gordon wrote:
If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

Before this gets into a brawl regarding the definitions of PPO2 and
PPCO2 I'd like to step back a bit and add........ this should not be a
discussion about "...global warming...." That was a term used initally
by the press when some scientest discovered a climatic anomoly that
just happendend to be an increase in temprature. The idea is simply
not the whole place getting hot. Thats just part of the picture as we
know it now............. its more accuarte to say "global climate
change" or "climate change" cause its getting dryer, hotter, colder,
wetter, longer, shorter in all sorts of places. But some think even
after the death groans the earth will eventially just be cooked.

Why is everyone calling it Global Warming? The press called it that
when the reporter couldnt understand the scientific's explination an
dfigured nowbody else could either. Thats pretty typicall. And thats
why ya see seminars titled: How to give technical informatin to non-
technical audiences. Then the Republicans grabed it and started
beatting that drum and would not change for fear of confusing the
squak boxes at Fox Network. Cause now there is all sorts of newer info
that says we just aint cooking uniformilly. SOme places are getting
colder. Ahh, now we can use that as support to counter the Global
Warming claim. See, if the the world is suppose to be geting warmer
and I find an exception, every normal scientest and country in the
world is wrong! See, I can use an exception to build an argument. So
we should never change the term to Global Climate Change. That would
neuter the Republican's rant.

A rose by anyother name..........................
Mass Media Bob

Try some of this for an interesting read, Marshall McLuhan: "The
Medium is the Message"

Global warming physics again
 

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:48:12 -0700, Gordon wrote:

If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

If white is black, what color is newsprint?
That was a similar question.

Atmospheric gases stay remarkably well mixed.
But the higher you go, the lower the pressure
(of all components - including oxygen)

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Global warming physics again
 

Bob wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:48 pm, Gordon wrote:
If you have to wear an oxygen mask at high altitudes because oxygen
(32) is heavier than other gases that make up our air (28), then how
does co2 get into the stratosphere and cause a warming blanket when co2
(44) is much heavier than oxygen?
Gordon

Before this gets into a brawl regarding the definitions of PPO2 and
PPCO2 I'd like to step back a bit and add........ this should not be a
discussion about "...global warming...." That was a term used initally
by the press when some scientest discovered a climatic anomoly that
just happendend to be an increase in temprature. The idea is simply
not the whole place getting hot. Thats just part of the picture as we
know it now............. its more accuarte to say "global climate
change" or "climate change" cause its getting dryer, hotter, colder,
wetter, longer, shorter in all sorts of places. But some think even
after the death groans the earth will eventially just be cooked.

Why is everyone calling it Global Warming? The press called it that
when the reporter couldnt understand the scientific's explination an
dfigured nowbody else could either. Thats pretty typicall. And thats
why ya see seminars titled: How to give technical informatin to non-
technical audiences. Then the Republicans grabed it and started
beatting that drum and would not change for fear of confusing the
squak boxes at Fox Network. Cause now there is all sorts of newer info
that says we just aint cooking uniformilly. SOme places are getting
colder. Ahh, now we can use that as support to counter the Global
Warming claim. See, if the the world is suppose to be geting warmer
and I find an exception, every normal scientest and country in the
world is wrong! See, I can use an exception to build an argument. So
we should never change the term to Global Climate Change. That would
neuter the Republican's rant.

A rose by anyother name..........................
Mass Media Bob

Try some of this for an interesting read, Marshall McLuhan: "The
Medium is the Message"




When did Al Gore become a republican?