Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
* 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 |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
* 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. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT More on Global Warming | General | |||
OT Global Warming Water Shortages | General | |||
Global Warmings Puts Reefs in Peril | General | |||
Huricanes a result of global warming? Part II | General |