Finally

[Nick]

[Scott777]

Gosh, I do hope we get to net zero before 2000, or it will be a disaster, and I don't much like disasters.  🤣

[Nick]

Brownian Motion, Nick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

Not sure about that Barry, a random motion that always has a force pulling it down? A cup of tea doesn't do it for me.

[Borchester]

You had me going for a minute there brownian motions

No one can doubt that both sides are talking no end of the brown stuff and are more interested in getting media coverage than what is actually happening.

Shame really, because it ( the climate, not the other stuff) would be fun to study.

[cromwell]

Brownian Motion, Nick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

You had me going for a minute there brownian motions 

[Sheepy]

Anybody fixed the Sun yet? no? stunning day here. just like a hot summers day. Damn that reminds me, that DEFRA approved log burner was a waste of money. 

[johnofgwent]

That's a point nobody ever questions Mr B. How does a gas that's 25% heavier than the other gasses get 70 miles up in the atmosphere?

Well, the bullshitters want you to believe it gets up there by diffusion, by molecules bouncing off each other, on the grounds the open air is not a stable environment.

[Barry]

That's a point nobody ever questions Mr B. How does a gas that's 25% heavier than the other gasses get 70 miles up in the atmosphere?

Brownian Motion, Nick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

[Nick]

Actually, what I would like to know is where the CO2 is concentrated. If it is a few hundred feet off the ground then all is well. The more CO2 the more photosynthesis the more crops and the better fed we are. So that is a plus. And if we ain't we are well buggered.

Dunno how it works higher up

That's a point nobody ever questions Mr B. How does a gas that's 25% heavier than the other gasses get 70 miles up in the atmosphere?

[johnofgwent]

Actually, what I would like to know is where the CO2 is concentrated. If it is a few hundred feet off the ground then all is well. The more CO2 the more photosynthesis the more crops and the better fed we are. So that is a plus. And if we ain't we are well buggered.

Dunno how it works higher up

It's a VERY good point. I also pointed out the fact that water vapour at low altitude over ocean regions will capture significant amounts of such C02 and if that then gets amalgamated into the ocean as carbonic acid it will eventually aggregate as an insoluble carbonate on the sea bed ... 

There was a report some time ago suggesting the concentration at higher altitudes was indeed lower than the mathematical models predicted / required for their Armageddon scenarios, but finding it with the current hysteria that such information is fake news is no longer feasible. I've tried.

[johnofgwent]

We are talking percentages of greenhouse gasses, not the whole atmosphere, I would have thought that was obvious seeing as we are talking the greenhouse effect.

Sorry Nick, but it wasn't obvious, at least to me. Now I've got that extra clarification, I don't think it helps much because as I'm sure you know a mole of methane has a much greater impact than a mole of carbon dioxide. So now I'm off to do some sums.

I do welcome some hard questioning of climate scientists, not least because as a user of mathematical models for my own scientific research a good forty years ago I was cautioned by peers and mentors alike about the stupidity of unknowingly and blindly "following an equation with enough configurable parameters to draw a donkey with my data and then adding another enabling one to pin a tail on it" and every week we were encouraged to take a published paper of our choosing and reverse engineer it so as to shoot down the data.

Some of today's so called scientific snowflakes wouldn't last ten minutes in that caustic atmosphere which is why such things are actively discouraged today if the horrific expression on my nephew's face is anything to go by when I did a number on one of his mouse ovarian tumour research papers to show him the publishing environment we worked in ...

 and that's a shame... 

The climate science zombies are of course having a mutual wank-fest comparing the style of a GB News reporter to the state propagandist in Don't Look Up. Which is about as helpful to the cause as an ashtray on a motorbike.

[Sampanviking]

 I might think the NRA were right all along and we should have the right to bear arms.

Sadly Cromwell it might be getting a bit too late for even that to matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SemFKpeeMnM

[Borchester]

We are talking percentages of greenhouse gasses, not the whole atmosphere, I would have thought that was obvious seeing as we are talking the greenhouse effect.

Actually, what I would like to know is where the CO2 is concentrated. If it is a few hundred feet off the ground then all is well. The more CO2 the more photosynthesis the more crops and the better fed we are. So that is a plus. And if we ain't we are well buggered.

Dunno how it works higher up

[Barry]

We are talking percentages of greenhouse gasses, not the whole atmosphere, I would have thought that was obvious seeing as we are talking the greenhouse effect.

Sorry, I didn't have my low carbon silica crystal ball with me and the thread is called "Finally" and no mention of greenhouse gases in the OP.

[Nick]

I don't want to be rude, but the figures in this post are absolute nonsense.
There is not 3.62% of CO2 in our atmosphere. There is 400 parts per million, about 0.04%.

And what is the 95% water vapour? Where does this non scientific crud come from?

We are talking percentages of greenhouse gasses, not the whole atmosphere, I would have thought that was obvious seeing as we are talking the greenhouse effect.