| Climate Change is Nothing More than Leftist Lies.27-12-2017 20:18 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
We have gone over every point that the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming have tried to use as "proof" that there is runaway heating that will kill the world.
Not one single point holds any water at all. CO2 has no effect on atmospheric heating and one of the simplest points would be that if CO2 was having an effect the upper troposphere would be expected to gain heat with altitude. And instead it loses heat. And it doesn't lose heat any slower than it did when they first started using weather balloons in the 1800's
Who are the major vocal supporters of man-made global warming? Those without the slightest scientific training. Those whose IQ and hate for their fellow man urges them to spread havoc as far and widely as possible. Those who are so discontented with their own lot in life that they want to believe wholeheartedly that everyone is going to die. That is what gives them a nice warm feeling inside. litebrain and monckton spring to mind. litebrain lives in Everett, WA, and since that is raining 10 months out of the year the sort of depression most people there have is especially extreme in him. monckton (previously posting here as spot) uses that name to try to insult Lord Monckton who gives speeches about how global warming doesn't exist. Leave it to a jackass Brit like spot to do that.
We have seen the postings of the AGW Fascists who think that they can fix it by killing millions upon millions of Indians and Chinese and Africans. This is what you see from middle class white liberals. Racists of the highest class. Margaret Sanger was the same sort and founded Planned Parenthood to make black Americans extinct. To this day 40% of the abortions performed are to black mothers. A level of evil unheard of since the communist empires.
When provided hard data that NASA has doctored the data they proclaim the mathematicians (who simply analyzed the numbers and said that they could not have changed as they did over the time from 1980 until now unless the numbers were manufactured for a purpose) are liars.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
When confronted with the fact that the IPCC lists 2,500 scientists and looking through the list you discover a large portion of them are not scientists but politicians and even statements from the scientists themselves that say that the IPCC has misrepresented their beliefs and would NOT remove their names from the list of True Believers they claim "So what?"
When you show them the Oregon Petition signed by more than 31,000 of the most important scientists in the US they say "These are not climate scientists". In the first place many of them ARE. Including Dr. Roy Spencer who ran the weather satellite program at NASA for many years. Many were NASA scientists that resigned from study programs when NASA began doctoring their data and misrepresenting their research.
What's more there is no such thing as "climate science". This is a self identified field of study. You cannot gain a degree at any university for "climate science". And the sciences that cover the climate are of such varied types that no one could hope to be any sort of expert in even a quarter of them.
If you stick the money being made in "climate change", which uses these True Believers gullibility, in their faces they ignore it. Not wanting to be made to look like fools they simply ignore it. And in so doing look even more like fools.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#ad5f5e97ebbe
This is nothing more than the staggering hatred of the leftists for every other living creature on the planet.
Which one of them doesn't own a car? And probably an SUV of the largest sort. Which one of them turns his own home heating down to the point where he has to wear a jacket? Which one doesn't go out to dinner rather than support his own leftist environmentalist organizations? Which one of them doesn't think it "cool" that entire cities are lit completely up? That the bay bridges in San Francisco and New York have hundreds of thousands of lights on them that light in "oh gee wiz" patterns? When you ask them about it their excuse is that they are LED's and hence don't burn "that much power".
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread |
| 27-12-2017 21:40 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Wake wrote:
We have gone over every point that .... etc., etc.
There is an interesting tidbit of information I thought that I would share with you. Why ? Just being an assh0le, er, myself
In 1950 when Global Warming started so did wide spread surface nuclear testing.
This is where charges around a sphere are detonated in a sequence that will compress the nuclear material inside. This causes protons to penetrate the nuclear material's nucleus. This in effect creates a chain reaction because once a nucleus is penetrated by a proton it becomes unstable.
In 1963 agreement was reached to stop surface detonation of nuclear devices.
Who knows, maybe it wasn't burning fossil fuels after all but just the Nuclear Age making it's first baby steps known ?
And would it be possible for radioactive particles to trap heat in our atmosphere ?
And in climate models do they consider the potential of radioactive particles to effect our atmosphere ?
Not to point out your oversight Wake but the effects of nuclear proliferation and it's effects on our atmosphere and environment haven't been discussed to the best of my knowledge. Could be wrong
p.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off.
Hydrogen bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3y_LUfnRA
Thermonuclear bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEje927dygM
If anyone looks at the EPA's graph that after 2007 it looks like things are trending to a cooler planet. And Wake, we haven't discussed the latest graph by the EPA.
I find your statement lacking in that we have discussed everything.
EPA; attached the graph
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
Attached image:
Edited on 27-12-2017 21:52 |
| 27-12-2017 22:06 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
THE INFAMOUS hole in the ozone layer discovered around 40 years ago is repairing and should have half closed within five years, Nasa has sensationally claimed.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 15:21, Mon, Oct 19, 2015 | UPDATED: 21:33, Mon, Oct 19, 2015
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/613084/Ozone-recovery-shock-Nasa-says-hole-in-Ozone-Layer-should-be-half-closed-by-2020
Watch at the 2:00 minute mark. It shows an increase of ozone. Earlier parts shows ozone depletion (dark blue).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16crK7hDM4Y
From NASA; Their graph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16crK7hDM4Y
Happy New Year everyone !
Attached image:
Edited on 27-12-2017 22:08 |
| 27-12-2017 23:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
We have gone over every point that .... etc., etc.
There is an interesting tidbit of information I thought that I would share with you. Why ? Just being an assh0le, er, myself
In 1950 when Global Warming started so did wide spread surface nuclear testing.
This is where charges around a sphere are detonated in a sequence that will compress the nuclear material inside. This causes protons to penetrate the nuclear material's nucleus. This in effect creates a chain reaction because once a nucleus is penetrated by a proton it becomes unstable.
In 1963 agreement was reached to stop surface detonation of nuclear devices.
Who knows, maybe it wasn't burning fossil fuels after all but just the Nuclear Age making it's first baby steps known ?
And would it be possible for radioactive particles to trap heat in our atmosphere ?
And in climate models do they consider the potential of radioactive particles to effect our atmosphere ?
Not to point out your oversight Wake but the effects of nuclear proliferation and it's effects on our atmosphere and environment haven't been discussed to the best of my knowledge. Could be wrong
p.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off.
Hydrogen bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3y_LUfnRA
Thermonuclear bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEje927dygM
If anyone looks at the EPA's graph that after 2007 it looks like things are trending to a cooler planet. And Wake, we haven't discussed the latest graph by the EPA.
I find your statement lacking in that we have discussed everything.
EPA; attached the graph
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
One of the latest papers I read said that radiation caused small water droplets in the stratosphere or below to coagulate into clouds. The trouble with this is that it causes large scale cooling since these high altitude clouds cause more reflection of incident sunlight. It does not have this effect in the troposphere because of the density of the atmosphere.
They have connected a star that had a supernova in the past to the Maunder Minimum so perhaps this is more than just a tidbit of information.
So if your ideas of bomb testing in the atmosphere had much in the way of value it would probably show up as global cooling. |
| 28-12-2017 01:05 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]James_ wrote.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off. No. From Britannia: .britannica.com/technology/thermonuclear-bombOct 6, 2017 - Thermonuclear bomb, also called hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb....
/////
You're thinking of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. |
|
| 28-12-2017 03:46 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
We have gone over every point that .... etc., etc.
There is an interesting tidbit of information I thought that I would share with you. Why ? Just being an assh0le, er, myself
In 1950 when Global Warming started so did wide spread surface nuclear testing.
This is where charges around a sphere are detonated in a sequence that will compress the nuclear material inside. This causes protons to penetrate the nuclear material's nucleus. This in effect creates a chain reaction because once a nucleus is penetrated by a proton it becomes unstable.
In 1963 agreement was reached to stop surface detonation of nuclear devices.
Who knows, maybe it wasn't burning fossil fuels after all but just the Nuclear Age making it's first baby steps known ?
And would it be possible for radioactive particles to trap heat in our atmosphere ?
And in climate models do they consider the potential of radioactive particles to effect our atmosphere ?
Not to point out your oversight Wake but the effects of nuclear proliferation and it's effects on our atmosphere and environment haven't been discussed to the best of my knowledge. Could be wrong
p.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off.
Hydrogen bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3y_LUfnRA
Thermonuclear bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEje927dygM
If anyone looks at the EPA's graph that after 2007 it looks like things are trending to a cooler planet. And Wake, we haven't discussed the latest graph by the EPA.
I find your statement lacking in that we have discussed everything.
EPA; attached the graph
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
One of the latest papers I read said that radiation caused small water droplets in the stratosphere or below to coagulate into clouds. The trouble with this is that it causes large scale cooling since these high altitude clouds cause more reflection of incident sunlight. It does not have this effect in the troposphere because of the density of the atmosphere.
They have connected a star that had a supernova in the past to the Maunder Minimum so perhaps this is more than just a tidbit of information.
So if your ideas of bomb testing in the atmosphere had much in the way of value it would probably show up as global cooling.
Wake,
After the bomb blasts we had the most consistent temperatures in recorded history (since 1880) for about 20 years. Check the graph.
p.s., I think we are trending towards a cooler palnet. |
| 28-12-2017 03:46 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
litesong wrote:
[b]James_ wrote.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off. No. From Britannia: .britannica.com/technology/thermonuclear-bombOct 6, 2017 - Thermonuclear bomb, also called hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb....
/////
You're thinking of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Thanks for correcting me |
| 28-12-2017 16:42 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
We have gone over every point that .... etc., etc.
There is an interesting tidbit of information I thought that I would share with you. Why ? Just being an assh0le, er, myself
In 1950 when Global Warming started so did wide spread surface nuclear testing.
This is where charges around a sphere are detonated in a sequence that will compress the nuclear material inside. This causes protons to penetrate the nuclear material's nucleus. This in effect creates a chain reaction because once a nucleus is penetrated by a proton it becomes unstable.
In 1963 agreement was reached to stop surface detonation of nuclear devices.
Who knows, maybe it wasn't burning fossil fuels after all but just the Nuclear Age making it's first baby steps known ?
And would it be possible for radioactive particles to trap heat in our atmosphere ?
And in climate models do they consider the potential of radioactive particles to effect our atmosphere ?
Not to point out your oversight Wake but the effects of nuclear proliferation and it's effects on our atmosphere and environment haven't been discussed to the best of my knowledge. Could be wrong
p.s., am aware that hydrogen and thermonuclear bombs are different. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with hydrogen bombs while thermonuclear bombs are like the Sun when they go off.
Hydrogen bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3y_LUfnRA
Thermonuclear bomb detonated;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEje927dygM
If anyone looks at the EPA's graph that after 2007 it looks like things are trending to a cooler planet. And Wake, we haven't discussed the latest graph by the EPA.
I find your statement lacking in that we have discussed everything.
EPA; attached the graph
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
One of the latest papers I read said that radiation caused small water droplets in the stratosphere or below to coagulate into clouds. The trouble with this is that it causes large scale cooling since these high altitude clouds cause more reflection of incident sunlight. It does not have this effect in the troposphere because of the density of the atmosphere.
They have connected a star that had a supernova in the past to the Maunder Minimum so perhaps this is more than just a tidbit of information.
So if your ideas of bomb testing in the atmosphere had much in the way of value it would probably show up as global cooling.
Wake,
After the bomb blasts we had the most consistent temperatures in recorded history (since 1880) for about 20 years. Check the graph.
p.s., I think we are trending towards a cooler palnet.
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect. |
| 28-12-2017 20:39 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) wake-me-up" wiffed: ....untrained people.... "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) wake-me-up" is trained to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1). |
| 28-12-2017 20:53 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) wake-me-up" wiffed: Coincidence.... It is NOT coincidence that while the solar TSI has been languid for many decades & LOW for 11+ years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low), Earth temperatures are also RISING due to increasing man-made infra-red energy absorbing GHGs. It is also NOT coincidence that AGW denier liar whiners, after noting the low solar TSI for over a decade, MUST foist off the wrong idea that Earth biosphere is now cooling.
Edited on 28-12-2017 21:00 |
| 28-12-2017 21:21 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
Edited on 28-12-2017 21:31 |
| 28-12-2017 23:39 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
James, you really have to explain yourself here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nitrogen 18 is an extremely rare isotope of nitrogen composing almost NONE of the nitrogen. It can only be formed with 4 thermalized neutrons all hitting a single nitrogen 14 atom all at once. Believe me - this doesn't happen outside of a thermonuclear fission. It has a half life of something like a half second meaning that whatever forces a molecule to form is GONE in a half second. This is the ONLY isotope that can be forced to degrade to Carbon 14 and that only something like 10% of the time.
How do we have any C14? Because a cosmic ray hits N14 which composes most of the nitrogen in the atmosphere this can convert N14 to C14 simply by knocking a proton off of the Nitrogen atom. So C14 is continuously being generated in extremely small quantities through the actions NOT of the Sun but from exploding stars that can be millions of light years away. We can treat this self generation of C14 as a steady process but it isn't since it is reliant upon high energy particles in the form of Cosmic rays that most assuredly are not a constant.
Otherwise there is NO connection between nitrogen and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is BARELY radioactive with a half life of 6,000 years. This is how they can theorize the age of something since C14 is gone from most terrestrial sources. They can only detect these sorts of extremely minor components by isotope ratio mass spectometry. Got a mass spec in your back pocket? You ought to be able to pick one up used for 10 grand or so. And then it will only take you a couple of years to learn how to use it.
You seem to continue to try to use these oddball effects that never occur to explain mass effects that do. Please remember what I said about coincidence not meaning cause and effect.
Happy New Year.
Edited on 29-12-2017 00:28 |
| 29-12-2017 02:53 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: .... have to explain yourself here. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" explains itself by being an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener. |
| 29-12-2017 17:24 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
James, you really have to explain yourself here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nitrogen 18 is an extremely rare isotope of nitrogen composing almost NONE of the nitrogen. It can only be formed with 4 thermalized neutrons all hitting a single nitrogen 14 atom all at once. Believe me - this doesn't happen outside of a thermonuclear fission. It has a half life of something like a half second meaning that whatever forces a molecule to form is GONE in a half second. This is the ONLY isotope that can be forced to degrade to Carbon 14 and that only something like 10% of the time.
How do we have any C14? Because a cosmic ray hits N14 which composes most of the nitrogen in the atmosphere this can convert N14 to C14 simply by knocking a proton off of the Nitrogen atom. So C14 is continuously being generated in extremely small quantities through the actions NOT of the Sun but from exploding stars that can be millions of light years away. We can treat this self generation of C14 as a steady process but it isn't since it is reliant upon high energy particles in the form of Cosmic rays that most assuredly are not a constant.
Otherwise there is NO connection between nitrogen and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is BARELY radioactive with a half life of 6,000 years. This is how they can theorize the age of something since C14 is gone from most terrestrial sources. They can only detect these sorts of extremely minor components by isotope ratio mass spectometry. Got a mass spec in your back pocket? You ought to be able to pick one up used for 10 grand or so. And then it will only take you a couple of years to learn how to use it.
You seem to continue to try to use these oddball effects that never occur to explain mass effects that do. Please remember what I said about coincidence not meaning cause and effect.
Happy New Year.
Wake,
There is a simple connection. N14 simply ha one proton absorb an electronic. Much simpler than a cosmic Ray creating an energetic proton. Then we have N14 + hv > C14. Solar radiation can more easily form an electronic than an energetic neutron. Of course that might be what they mean but aren't saying.
And when a proton absorbs an electronic it becomes a neutron.
Am working on my other project |
| 29-12-2017 19:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
James, you really have to explain yourself here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nitrogen 18 is an extremely rare isotope of nitrogen composing almost NONE of the nitrogen. It can only be formed with 4 thermalized neutrons all hitting a single nitrogen 14 atom all at once. Believe me - this doesn't happen outside of a thermonuclear fission. It has a half life of something like a half second meaning that whatever forces a molecule to form is GONE in a half second. This is the ONLY isotope that can be forced to degrade to Carbon 14 and that only something like 10% of the time.
How do we have any C14? Because a cosmic ray hits N14 which composes most of the nitrogen in the atmosphere this can convert N14 to C14 simply by knocking a proton off of the Nitrogen atom. So C14 is continuously being generated in extremely small quantities through the actions NOT of the Sun but from exploding stars that can be millions of light years away. We can treat this self generation of C14 as a steady process but it isn't since it is reliant upon high energy particles in the form of Cosmic rays that most assuredly are not a constant.
Otherwise there is NO connection between nitrogen and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is BARELY radioactive with a half life of 6,000 years. This is how they can theorize the age of something since C14 is gone from most terrestrial sources. They can only detect these sorts of extremely minor components by isotope ratio mass spectometry. Got a mass spec in your back pocket? You ought to be able to pick one up used for 10 grand or so. And then it will only take you a couple of years to learn how to use it.
You seem to continue to try to use these oddball effects that never occur to explain mass effects that do. Please remember what I said about coincidence not meaning cause and effect.
Happy New Year.
Wake,
There is a simple connection. N14 simply ha one proton absorb an electronic. Much simpler than a cosmic Ray creating an energetic proton. Then we have N14 + hv > C14. Solar radiation can more easily form an electronic than an energetic neutron. Of course that might be what they mean but aren't saying.
And when a proton absorbs an electronic it becomes a neutron.
Am working on my other project
Let me repeat: the radiation from the Sun does not generate the sort of cosmic rays that can cause nitrogen to break down into carbon - otherwise we would have no nitrogen left after billions of years.
These super-energetic particles come from super-Nova or even more dramatic events far far away and long long ago. |
|
| 29-12-2017 20:52 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
James, you really have to explain yourself here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nitrogen 18 is an extremely rare isotope of nitrogen composing almost NONE of the nitrogen. It can only be formed with 4 thermalized neutrons all hitting a single nitrogen 14 atom all at once. Believe me - this doesn't happen outside of a thermonuclear fission. It has a half life of something like a half second meaning that whatever forces a molecule to form is GONE in a half second. This is the ONLY isotope that can be forced to degrade to Carbon 14 and that only something like 10% of the time.
How do we have any C14? Because a cosmic ray hits N14 which composes most of the nitrogen in the atmosphere this can convert N14 to C14 simply by knocking a proton off of the Nitrogen atom. So C14 is continuously being generated in extremely small quantities through the actions NOT of the Sun but from exploding stars that can be millions of light years away. We can treat this self generation of C14 as a steady process but it isn't since it is reliant upon high energy particles in the form of Cosmic rays that most assuredly are not a constant.
Otherwise there is NO connection between nitrogen and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is BARELY radioactive with a half life of 6,000 years. This is how they can theorize the age of something since C14 is gone from most terrestrial sources. They can only detect these sorts of extremely minor components by isotope ratio mass spectometry. Got a mass spec in your back pocket? You ought to be able to pick one up used for 10 grand or so. And then it will only take you a couple of years to learn how to use it.
You seem to continue to try to use these oddball effects that never occur to explain mass effects that do. Please remember what I said about coincidence not meaning cause and effect.
Happy New Year.
Wake,
There is a simple connection. N14 simply ha one proton absorb an electronic. Much simpler than a cosmic Ray creating an energetic proton. Then we have N14 + hv > C14. Solar radiation can more easily form an electronic than an energetic neutron. Of course that might be what they mean but aren't saying.
And when a proton absorbs an electronic it becomes a neutron.
Am working on my other project
Let me repeat: the radiation from the Sun does not generate the sort of cosmic rays that can cause nitrogen to break down into carbon - otherwise we would have no nitrogen left after billions of years.
These super-energetic particles come from super-Nova or even more dramatic events far far away and long long ago.
They come from the Force.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-12-2017 21:13 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Coincidence does not mean they are connected. NASA changed the temperature record purposely so that they met the rise in CO2 because untrained people are so easy to convince that if something happens at the same time they are cause and effect.
Not to be technical but radiocarbon 14 forms from nitrogen + nitrogen, etc. + hv in our upper atmosphere. It then bonds with O2 which allows for CO2 to occur. Radiocarbon 14 levels increased as a direct result of nuclear explosions.
And when CO2 occurs in the upper atmosphere that is atmospheric forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Occurrence
James, you really have to explain yourself here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nitrogen 18 is an extremely rare isotope of nitrogen composing almost NONE of the nitrogen. It can only be formed with 4 thermalized neutrons all hitting a single nitrogen 14 atom all at once. Believe me - this doesn't happen outside of a thermonuclear fission. It has a half life of something like a half second meaning that whatever forces a molecule to form is GONE in a half second. This is the ONLY isotope that can be forced to degrade to Carbon 14 and that only something like 10% of the time.
How do we have any C14? Because a cosmic ray hits N14 which composes most of the nitrogen in the atmosphere this can convert N14 to C14 simply by knocking a proton off of the Nitrogen atom. So C14 is continuously being generated in extremely small quantities through the actions NOT of the Sun but from exploding stars that can be millions of light years away. We can treat this self generation of C14 as a steady process but it isn't since it is reliant upon high energy particles in the form of Cosmic rays that most assuredly are not a constant.
Otherwise there is NO connection between nitrogen and carbon 14. Carbon 14 is BARELY radioactive with a half life of 6,000 years. This is how they can theorize the age of something since C14 is gone from most terrestrial sources. They can only detect these sorts of extremely minor components by isotope ratio mass spectometry. Got a mass spec in your back pocket? You ought to be able to pick one up used for 10 grand or so. And then it will only take you a couple of years to learn how to use it.
You seem to continue to try to use these oddball effects that never occur to explain mass effects that do. Please remember what I said about coincidence not meaning cause and effect.
Happy New Year.
Wake,
There is a simple connection. N14 simply ha one proton absorb an electronic. Much simpler than a cosmic Ray creating an energetic proton. Then we have N14 + hv > C14. Solar radiation can more easily form an electronic than an energetic neutron. Of course that might be what they mean but aren't saying.
And when a proton absorbs an electronic it becomes a neutron.
Am working on my other project
Let me repeat: the radiation from the Sun does not generate the sort of cosmic rays that can cause nitrogen to break down into carbon - otherwise we would have no nitrogen left after billions of years.
These super-energetic particles come from super-Nova or even more dramatic events far far away and long long ago.
They come from the Force.
The Earth is presently undergoing a bombardment of a type of metal molecule. This particular form of radiation occurred from a supernova between 1 and 2 million years ago. That means that it's been traveling for about 3-4 or more million years. This is causing stratospheric water molecules to form into high altitude clouds which in turn causes more sunlight reflections and causes less than usual sunlight to reach the Earth. Perhaps you've seen that a large portion of the Earth is presently under colder than normal patterns. This is unlikely to last a long time but then it is impossible to know how long this could continue.
I would suggest you become a member of the American Association of Scientists but you don't believe that anyone can actually know anything other than yourself. |
| 30-12-2017 04:05 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]Wake wrote: Please remember what I said about coincidence.... It is NOT coincidence that while the solar TSI has been languid for many decades & LOW for 11+ years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low), Earth temperatures are also RISING due to increasing man-made infra-red energy absorbing GHGs. It is also NOT coincidence that AGW denier liar whiners, after noting the low solar TSI for over a decade, MUST foist off the wrong idea that Earth biosphere is now cooling. |
| 30-12-2017 18:00 |
James_★★★★★
(2222) |
Wake wrote:
Perhaps you've seen that a large portion of the Earth is presently under colder than normal patterns. This is unlikely to last a long time but then it is impossible to know how long this could continue.
I would suggest you become a member of the American Association of Scientists but you don't believe that anyone can actually know anything other than yourself.
Wake,
The 2 attached graphs shows cooling occurred during the peak of radiocarbon 14. This suggests that atmospheric forcing which helped to cool the planet could've been taking place. Just as earthquakes can be measured from remote locations because they literally shake the earth, it's possible that surface detonations could've had the same effect.
The warming afterward could be related to both surface detonations and ozone depletion. The link is to an article on ozone depletion causing warming. And ozone depletion is AGW. And if surface detonations caused fissures to open, that too is AGW.
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
And when you say "I'm the only one who knows anything", you seem to be ignoring the fact that I usually reference scientific research. I am just looking at or using their information a little differently than they are.
As for the polar vortex, it does shift and pressure systems can stall. What's happening now might be entirely normal. The period from 1945 to 1975 was not normal. The weather was simply too predictable. And atomic testing started on July 16, 1945.
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/world-overview/
What was observed after July 16, 1945 might be a confluence of different factors.
relating earthquakes to atomic and nuclear detonation https://qz.com/1068659/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-its-latest-claims/
Attached image:
Edited on 30-12-2017 18:26 |
| 05-01-2018 20:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Perhaps you've seen that a large portion of the Earth is presently under colder than normal patterns. This is unlikely to last a long time but then it is impossible to know how long this could continue.
I would suggest you become a member of the American Association of Scientists but you don't believe that anyone can actually know anything other than yourself.
Wake,
The 2 attached graphs shows cooling occurred during the peak of radiocarbon 14.
Your graphs are made up of random numbers. They don't mean anything.
James_ wrote:
This suggests that atmospheric forcing The atmosphere does not force temperatures.
James_ wrote:
which helped to cool the planet could've been taking place.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
Just as earthquakes can be measured from remote locations because they literally shake the earth, it's possible that surface detonations could've had the same effect.
Earthquakes are not temperature.
James_ wrote:
The warming afterward
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
could be related to both surface detonations
Nuclear testing involved a few sites in Nevada and New Mexico. While a nuclear explosion is impressive, it pales in significance to what nature can do.
James_ wrote:
and ozone depletion.
The ozone is not being depleted. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.
James_ wrote:
The link is to an article on ozone depletion causing warming.
...deleted Holy Link...
The ozone cycle does not warm or cool the Earth. The most it does is cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.
James_ wrote:
And ozone depletion is AGW.
No, it isn't. It has nothing to do with Earth's temperature.
James_ wrote:
And if surface detonations caused fissures to open, that too is AGW.
Surface testing did not open fissures. These devices were exploded above ground.
Underground testing caused cratering and sometimes breached the surface, but that's all.
James_ wrote:
And when you say "I'm the only one who knows anything", you seem to be ignoring the fact that I usually reference scientific research.
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research. There is research, or there is not. Science isn't a research program.
James_ wrote:
I am just looking at or using their information a little differently than they are.
And just what information are you using? Random numbers!
James_ wrote:
As for the polar vortex,
News media term. Most people simply call it the polar high.
James_ wrote:
it does shift and pressure systems can stall.
It doesn't really shift much. It is a high pressure area that centers over the poles. It is ALWAYS stalled. It's why the poles are so dry.
James_ wrote:
What's happening now might be entirely normal.
What do you think is happening?
James_ wrote:
The period from 1945 to 1975 was not normal.
What do you think is abnormal?
James_ wrote:
The weather was simply too predictable.
Weather in high pressure areas is generally pretty predictable. Storms CAN arrive at the poles though.
James_ wrote:
And atomic testing started on July 16, 1945.
...deleted redundant link...
What was observed after July 16, 1945 might be a confluence of different factors.
...deleted unrelated link...
Nothing was observed. It is not possible to measure the Earth's temperature.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |