Andy33:
You described a high-school science experiment which proves only that CO2 is heavier than air. You then extended it to "prove" that all CO2 is absorbed into the ground. (That's what I got out of it, anyway.) Hence my example.
You came to a false conclusion, and I called you on it. You then start going on about different states of matter, as if that's even related to the discussion.
So, to pull it back a little bit, my initial mention of CO2 was in relation to Bachmann. But if you really want to go into climate change, where do you have an issue with it? (1) Do you not believe that dumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere might have an effect on things like the absorbtion of sunlight by plants (remember, it isn't just CO2 being put out by those smokestacks), or (2) do you believe that a giant international cabal of scientists is counterfeiting their evidence for some nefarious purpose? Why are the scientists all wrong, and the right-wing talk-show hosts and politicians right?
Here's how I replied:
Now CO2 mixes in air as a suspension much like salt water. When you add salt to the water. it will dissolve to a point then once you go over that point the salt will no longer dissolves in water. How can I prove this with CO2 you ask? Very easily. CO2 is much heavier and more dense than air which is a mixture of CO2, O2, and many other trace elements. It stands to reason that if the amount of CO2 were rising there would be a simple way of measuring it. The amount of weight air exerts on a person is barometric pressure. It has been measured by sailors for generations. If CO2 is increasing, why has the average barometric pressure at sea level no increased since readings were first measured? A good example of runaway CO2 greenhouse effect is Venus The average Barometric pressure on Venus would crush me or you.
So here we are comparing air to water which every scientist I have ever heard will do, and we have shown that despite adding a heavier compound to the water, the water or air is not getting heavier or more dense.That shos strong evidence to me that the heavier compound being added to the solution is not dissolving into that solution.
I also have problems with the forecasting models used to predict long term climate change. A dirty little secret about the numerical "climate" model share the same architecture with their short term weather forecasting cousins like the GFS, NAM, ECMHWRF, etc. These local models are not accurate 24 hours out, much less 2 weeks out so how can models using similar foundational architecture that are inaccurate 2 weeks out be dependable 50 years out
also have a problem with the so called scientists you mention. They have all been educated under a system that pushed Global warming as fact. Bo back 400 years and the majority of scientists believed the Earth is flat and the Sun rotated around the Earth. All arguments against these beliefs were squashed much like those pushing Global warming are trying to do now. When I was half my age, we were in cold oceanic cycle known as the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and the prevailing thoguth was that we were nearing an "Ice Age". I still have the 1970's nat geo magazine that stated most prevailing scientists believed we were entering an Ice age. This is because water has many properties of a battery. It is slow to warm, stores energy as heat, and is slow to cool. Land is the opposite generally and when the Atlantic Ocean was cooler, it led to cooler weather patterns over the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe. This pattern Changed in 95 and now we are in a warn AMO cycle. This is leading to generally warmer weather inn the same areas. I believe that this pattern is cyclical in nature and is either related to the "thermohaline conveyor" which is differences in density between warmer, cooler, saltier and fresher water on a planetary scale causing great rivers in the oceans( it is called the Gulf stream and Loop Current where I live) or solar cycles or a combination of both.
My point is that I have made a strong case in layman's terms that CO2 levels are not increasing atmospherically. I have also proven that there is not enough data to say "case closed" as AlGore and his friends have but what really makes me believe I am right is that Gore, Pelosi, Waxman and Markey all have invested in companies that intend to speculate in the "Carbon Credits" markets which is an absolute conflict of interest. Also, where do the majority of scientists get their money from? Generally government grants through universities who get their money from taxpayers so do I think scientists would skew their answers to get more grants and keep their jobs..well what do you think?
My point with the CO2 filled beaker was to demonstrate that CO2 does not go up into the atmosphere as the green folks say, but downward and you still have not proven me wrong. Water does the exact same thing in the atmosphere as clouds and then rain. I demonstrated how if CO2 was rising so would the measurement of weight of the atmosphere. I think I have proven my point but would love to debate you further. You did not disprove my rudimentary method to prove the nature of CO2 in relation to air, but I do give you credit for at least putting yourself out there in the arena of debate, but as I have said before, I am undefeated in the Climate Change debate (although I have debated to a draw before, I don't see that as a defeat) and living where I do, I get to interact with some at the top of the "food chain"on this subject. I hope to debate you further on this, but to be fair keep it in terms that the other readers here can understand. (I believe that is the way to separate those who truly understand the subject from those who are simply reciting texbooks)
I hope I made an argument that both the average folks can understand and is "academic enough" to satisfy "Nameless"
