Remember me
▼ Content

Corrections


Corrections19-02-2017 23:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
You should remember that I calculated the level of CO2 increase using the actual growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. I came up with a level of three orders of magnitude than what was claimed elsewhere.

So I mailed Dr. David Crisp at JPL at Cal Tech who was the author of one of these papers. Although this isn't really clear to me he said that the American "gigaton" is 10^9 while the European gigaton is 10^12.

And that is a source of many misunderstandings.

So with that in mind, my calculations agree with Dr. Crisp's within 30%.

But his papers are saying that this growth is entirely man-made and I disagree with that.

You can read even in Wikipedia that the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is 20-200 years. Most of the other greenhouse gases are very short term - methane rapidly decomposes though chemical reactions with seawater. The others through other means but they are short term problems.

However, the truth is that a SPECIFIC man-made CO2 molecule is quite short term. They rapidly go through the process of photosynthesis and are broken up into their constituent components of carbon in the plants and oxygen released into the atmosphere.

It is the LEVELS of CO2 that are long term.

Since man generated CO2 is detectable because it has much lower levels of 14C this would mean that MOST of these man-made sources are on land measured by air samples to be the highest on the east coast of the USA. The west coast has the mountains and a large portion of their energy needs met by hydroelectric sources.

So what we know is that CO2 molecules themselves are short lived. And yet we are having claims of high levels of man-made CO2 as shown by lower levels of 14C.

This leaves the inevitable question: If we have lower levels of 14C in a measureable part of the atmosphere that cannot be actually attributed to man - what is the process that is going on that constructs such molecules?
20-02-2017 00:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Although this isn't really clear to me he said that the American "gigaton" is 10^9 while the European gigaton is 10^12.

While the different units used by the US and most of the rest of the world have indeed been a source of problems in the past (see Mars Climate Orbiter), this is not the case here. The giga- prefix means 10^9 everywhere. A gigaton is 10^9 tons in Europe, America and everywhere else.

Perhaps the Dr. is thinking of the difference between an American billion (10^9) and the old UK billion (10^12), which is rarely used nowadays?
20-02-2017 00:42
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:

So I mailed Dr. David Crisp at JPL at Cal Tech who was the author of one of these papers. Although this isn't really clear to me he said that the American "gigaton" is 10^9 while the European gigaton is 10^12.

And that is a source of many misunderstandings.



10^9 what? 10^12 what?

By the usual meaning, an American customary/SAE ordinary (short) ton is 2000 pounds of something.
I think that the usual meaning in the rest of the world a tonne or metric ton is 1000 kilograms of something. Converting to pounds, about 2205 pounds.

A shade over 10% difference between an SAE ton and a metric ton or tonne.

In standard usage the prefix "giga" refers to a billion of something, as in gigabyte or gigahertz. 10^9 of something.

A gigatonne of carbon dioxide would be 10^9 tonnes or 10^12 kilograms or 10^15 grams or 1 petagram of CO2.

A gigaton (American customary) of CO2 would be a billion tons or 10^9 tons or 2000 billion pounds or 2*10^12 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Using http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_all.htm that 1 petagram of CO2 weighs 2,204,622,621, 800 pounds.

Gotta keep the units straight.

Gotta get the words right. Spelling sometimes matters too.

Be easier if we used metric here in the US for everyday things. I've learned, over time, to convert in my head from SAE to metric and vice-versa reasonably well, but still it can be a headache. Holding on to American customary/SAE here in the US is silly. In my opinion. Bring back metrication.
Edited on 20-02-2017 01:09
20-02-2017 01:19
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:

You can read even in Wikipedia that the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is 20-200 years. Most of the other greenhouse gases are very short term - methane rapidly decomposes though chemical reactions with seawater. T


Methane decomposes through chemical reactions with seawater?

That's not what I've read elsewhere.

Quoting from Wikipedia:
"Reaction with the hydroxyl radical – The major removal mechanism of methane from the atmosphere involves radical chemistry; it reacts with the hydroxyl radical (·OH) in the troposphere or stratosphere to create the CH·3 radical and water vapor. In addition to being the largest known sink for atmospheric methane, this reaction is one of the most important sources of water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
CH4 + ·OH → ·CH3 + H2O
This reaction in the troposphere gives a methane lifetime of 9.6 years. Two more minor sinks are soil sinks (160 year lifetime) and stratospheric loss by reaction with ·OH, ·Cl and ·O1D in the stratosphere (120 year lifetime), giving a net lifetime of 8.4 years.[22] Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere (beginning at pressure levels around 10 kPa).

The methyl radical formed in the above reaction will, during normal daytime conditions in the troposphere, usually react with another hydroxyl radical to form formaldehyde. Note that this is not strictly oxidative pyrolysis as described previously. Formaldehyde can react again with a hydroxyl radical to form carbon dioxide and more water vapor. Sidechains in these reactions may interact with nitrogen compounds that will likely produce ozone, thus supplanting radicals required in the initial reaction.[64]"

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
20-02-2017 03:20
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:

It is the LEVELS of CO2 that are long term.



True.

Looking at the sort of diagram shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#/media/File:Carbon_cycle.jpg

You can see that with a total atmospheric inventory of about 800 gigatons (metric, I think, tonnes) of carbon (not CO2) and a total removal of about 215 gigatons to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere that the average residence time of an individual carbon atom will be less than four years.

The increase is long term though. The amount of carbon addition to the atmosphere is about 210 gigatons and a human addition of 9 gigatons.

219 into the atmosphere, 215 out.

So, if somebody seems to claim that a molecule of fossil fuel CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades, they're wrong. They've oversimplified to the point of being wrong. The increase does stay though.
20-02-2017 03:56
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:

Since man generated CO2 is detectable because it has much lower levels of 14C this would mean that MOST of these man-made sources are on land measured by air samples to be the highest on the east coast of the USA. The west coast has the mountains and a large portion of their energy needs met by hydroelectric sources.

So what we know is that CO2 molecules themselves are short lived. And yet we are having claims of high levels of man-made CO2 as shown by lower levels of 14C.

This leaves the inevitable question: If we have lower levels of 14C in a measureable part of the atmosphere that cannot be actually attributed to man - what is the process that is going on that constructs such molecules?


I didn't know that atmospheric C14 was used to show that the atmospheric increase of CO2 came from human sources.

I thought there were several lines of thought on attributing the atmospheric CO2 increase to humans.
One had to do with adding up the known and estimated amounts of fossil fuel burned. Fossil fuels are taxed by pretty much all nations and records are kept, so adding up the tonnages involved is reasonable. High-school level chemistry knowledge then allows an estimation of the amount of CO2 necessarily produced when the fossil fuels are burned.

Stable isotope ratios can help too, C12 and C13 ratios.
See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html

Another line of thought is just that there is no known natural increase of CO2 emissions. No known natural decrease in natural CO2 removal processes.
Edited on 20-02-2017 03:59
20-02-2017 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

So I mailed Dr. David Crisp at JPL at Cal Tech who was the author of one of these papers. Although this isn't really clear to me he said that the American "gigaton" is 10^9 while the European gigaton is 10^12.

And that is a source of many misunderstandings.



10^9 what? 10^12 what?

By the usual meaning, an American customary/SAE ordinary (short) ton is 2000 pounds of something.
I think that the usual meaning in the rest of the world a tonne or metric ton is 1000 kilograms of something. Converting to pounds, about 2205 pounds.

A shade over 10% difference between an SAE ton and a metric ton or tonne.

In standard usage the prefix "giga" refers to a billion of something, as in gigabyte or gigahertz. 10^9 of something.

A gigatonne of carbon dioxide would be 10^9 tonnes or 10^12 kilograms or 10^15 grams or 1 petagram of CO2.

A gigaton (American customary) of CO2 would be a billion tons or 10^9 tons or 2000 billion pounds or 2*10^12 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Using http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_all.htm that 1 petagram of CO2 weighs 2,204,622,621, 800 pounds.

Gotta keep the units straight.

Gotta get the words right. Spelling sometimes matters too.

Be easier if we used metric here in the US for everyday things. I've learned, over time, to convert in my head from SAE to metric and vice-versa reasonably well, but still it can be a headache. Holding on to American customary/SAE here in the US is silly. In my opinion. Bring back metrication.


Perhaps you do not read well? In my previous postings on this I have shown the math I did in simple terms and tonnes were converted to tons properly.

The matters of designation have to do with a paper he wrote and I questioned.

With his clarification of what he meant our math worked out very similar with him working from a position of the amount of fossil fuel consumed and me from a position of the growth in atmospheric CO2.

Dr. David Crisp: "You may be simply confusing the U.S. "Billion" which is 10^9, with the European "Billion" which is 10^12."

This is entirely different from my understanding so WHY are you arguing with me?
20-02-2017 17:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since man generated CO2 is detectable because it has much lower levels of 14C this would mean that MOST of these man-made sources are on land measured by air samples to be the highest on the east coast of the USA. The west coast has the mountains and a large portion of their energy needs met by hydroelectric sources.

So what we know is that CO2 molecules themselves are short lived. And yet we are having claims of high levels of man-made CO2 as shown by lower levels of 14C.

This leaves the inevitable question: If we have lower levels of 14C in a measureable part of the atmosphere that cannot be actually attributed to man - what is the process that is going on that constructs such molecules?


I didn't know that atmospheric C14 was used to show that the atmospheric increase of CO2 came from human sources.

I thought there were several lines of thought on attributing the atmospheric CO2 increase to humans.
One had to do with adding up the known and estimated amounts of fossil fuel burned. Fossil fuels are taxed by pretty much all nations and records are kept, so adding up the tonnages involved is reasonable. High-school level chemistry knowledge then allows an estimation of the amount of CO2 necessarily produced when the fossil fuels are burned.

Stable isotope ratios can help too, C12 and C13 ratios.
See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html

Another line of thought is just that there is no known natural increase of CO2 emissions. No known natural decrease in natural CO2 removal processes.


The original research paper had to do with monitoring the atmospheric CO2 near the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This had the advantage of being so far away from CO2 sources that undistorted levels could be measured.

They distinguished man-made CO2 from the natural sources by the fact that fossil fuel was formed millions of years ago in the Cretaceous period and the normal levels of 14C had already decayed to 14N,

14C is produced by cosmic rays on 14N and so naturally formed CO2 has a known level of it.

These levels are very accurately measured using Mass Spectroscopy.
20-02-2017 17:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since man generated CO2 is detectable because it has much lower levels of 14C this would mean that MOST of these man-made sources are on land measured by air samples to be the highest on the east coast of the USA. The west coast has the mountains and a large portion of their energy needs met by hydroelectric sources.

So what we know is that CO2 molecules themselves are short lived. And yet we are having claims of high levels of man-made CO2 as shown by lower levels of 14C.

This leaves the inevitable question: If we have lower levels of 14C in a measureable part of the atmosphere that cannot be actually attributed to man - what is the process that is going on that constructs such molecules?


I didn't know that atmospheric C14 was used to show that the atmospheric increase of CO2 came from human sources.

I thought there were several lines of thought on attributing the atmospheric CO2 increase to humans.
One had to do with adding up the known and estimated amounts of fossil fuel burned. Fossil fuels are taxed by pretty much all nations and records are kept, so adding up the tonnages involved is reasonable. High-school level chemistry knowledge then allows an estimation of the amount of CO2 necessarily produced when the fossil fuels are burned.

Stable isotope ratios can help too, C12 and C13 ratios.
See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html

Another line of thought is just that there is no known natural increase of CO2 emissions. No known natural decrease in natural CO2 removal processes.


The original research paper had to do with monitoring the atmospheric CO2 near the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This had the advantage of being so far away from CO2 sources that undistorted levels could be measured.

They distinguished man-made CO2 from the natural sources by the fact that fossil fuel was formed millions of years ago in the Cretaceous period and the normal levels of 14C had already decayed to 14N,

14C is produced by cosmic rays on 14N and so naturally formed CO2 has a known level of it.

These levels are very accurately measured using Mass Spectroscopy.

Which research paper?
20-02-2017 19:17
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since .... molecules?


I didn't know that atmospheric C14 was used to show......processes.


The original research paper ....These levels are very accurately measured using Mass Spectroscopy.




Did you mean Keeling's 1960 paper?

Visible here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1960.tb01300.x/epdf

Nothing about C14 in that Keeling paper that I see. Did use mass spectrometer to to come up with changes in atmospheric CO2 C12 to C13 ratios.

It's my understanding that atmospheric nuclear bomb testing introduced enough C14 into the atmosphere to mess up the utility of C14 measurements of things exposed to the atmosphere, including the atmosphere itself. Some mention of bomb testing C14 in the Wikipedia radiocarbon dating aticle here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
20-02-2017 21:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since .... molecules?


I didn't know that atmospheric C14 was used to show......processes.


The original research paper ....These levels are very accurately measured using Mass Spectroscopy.




Did you mean Keeling's 1960 paper?

Visible here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1960.tb01300.x/epdf

Nothing about C14 in that Keeling paper that I see. Did use mass spectrometer to to come up with changes in atmospheric CO2 C12 to C13 ratios.

It's my understanding that atmospheric nuclear bomb testing introduced enough C14 into the atmosphere to mess up the utility of C14 measurements of things exposed to the atmosphere, including the atmosphere itself. Some mention of bomb testing C14 in the Wikipedia radiocarbon dating aticle here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


This paper and several others were generally only measuring the absolute levels of CO2 probably using a spectrometer since CO2 is easy to distinguish from other gases in this manner.

Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

If you look at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1960.tb01300.x/epdf

There are several charts and if you look at Fig 4 you can see that the RATIOS of man-made CO2 and those considered natural appear to be normal.

However there are many other areas of interest to learn WHERE this increase in CO2 is coming from.

As I noted earlier my calculations and those of Dr. Crisp came out fairly close. And his were calculated strictly from man-made sources - the use of fossil fuel and the out-gassing of CO2 from setting concrete which man is using a HUGE amount of.

But I still have serious doubts about the real sources of additional CO2. Latest research concerning the Earth's mantle shows that the mantle is cooling and consequently shrinking and compressing faster than ever thought. This means among other things that we can have cracks between the mantle and the outer core which could outgas serious amounts of CO2 and since it has been held in the outer core since the birth of the planet also has no 14C components.

And indeed we are discovering more and more volcanic activity along the mid-oceanic ridges.

We are seeing people FAR too ready to see a single paper which is almost entirely hypothetical and to take those opinions as fact. And science doesn't work that way.
20-02-2017 23:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

Given that only about 1 in a trillion (10^12) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere is a C14 atom, I think it is pretty unlikely that it is possible to detect its distribution remotely!
20-02-2017 23:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

Given that only about 1 in a trillion (10^12) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere is a C14 atom, I think it is pretty unlikely that it is possible to detect its distribution remotely!


Given that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm and it is supposedly doubled by man from 200 ppm I would expect you to say something like that.

What is C14? Do you mean 14C?
21-02-2017 00:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

Given that only about 1 in a trillion (10^12) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere is a C14 atom, I think it is pretty unlikely that it is possible to detect its distribution remotely!


Given that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm and it is supposedly doubled by man from 200 ppm I would expect you to say something like that.

What is C14? Do you mean 14C?

C14 is a common informal abbreviation of Carbon-14. You can write 14C if you like, but it looks a bit odd when you can't write the number as a superscript. I don't mind though. We both know what we mean.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. Wouldn't you agree that it is very unlikely that any instrument could remotely detect a C14 CO2 spectrum that is one trillionth as bright as a very similar C12 CO2 spectrum?
21-02-2017 02:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

Given that only about 1 in a trillion (10^12) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere is a C14 atom, I think it is pretty unlikely that it is possible to detect its distribution remotely!


Given that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm and it is supposedly doubled by man from 200 ppm I would expect you to say something like that.

What is C14? Do you mean 14C?

C14 is a common informal abbreviation of Carbon-14. You can write 14C if you like, but it looks a bit odd when you can't write the number as a superscript. I don't mind though. We both know what we mean.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. Wouldn't you agree that it is very unlikely that any instrument could remotely detect a C14 CO2 spectrum that is one trillionth as bright as a very similar C12 CO2 spectrum?


But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.
21-02-2017 12:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Newer spectrometers such as that in the orbiting carbon observatory probably have the ability to distinguish between 12C and 14C weights and hence the relative levels of man-made and natural CO2.

Given that only about 1 in a trillion (10^12) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere is a C14 atom, I think it is pretty unlikely that it is possible to detect its distribution remotely!


Given that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm and it is supposedly doubled by man from 200 ppm I would expect you to say something like that.

What is C14? Do you mean 14C?

C14 is a common informal abbreviation of Carbon-14. You can write 14C if you like, but it looks a bit odd when you can't write the number as a superscript. I don't mind though. We both know what we mean.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. Wouldn't you agree that it is very unlikely that any instrument could remotely detect a C14 CO2 spectrum that is one trillionth as bright as a very similar C12 CO2 spectrum?


But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.
21-02-2017 17:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.[/quote]

That's pretty funny. You want ME to prove YOU correct. Sorry stupid but it doesn't work that way. I made a statement and you have to prove me wrong.
21-02-2017 17:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.

That's pretty funny. You want ME to prove YOU correct. Sorry stupid but it doesn't work that way. I made a statement and you have to prove me wrong.

Eh? No, I am bowing to your claimed expertise in this area. You say you know all about gas spectrometers, and I'm keen to learn. Is it really possible to to detect such tiny (one in a trillion CO2 atoms) amounts of C14 CO2 remotely? If so, how is it done?
21-02-2017 18:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.

That's pretty funny. You want ME to prove YOU correct. Sorry stupid but it doesn't work that way. I made a statement and you have to prove me wrong.

Eh? No, I am bowing to your claimed expertise in this area. You say you know all about gas spectrometers, and I'm keen to learn. Is it really possible to to detect such tiny (one in a trillion CO2 atoms) amounts of C14 CO2 remotely? If so, how is it done?


I just got a job offer from General Dynamics if I want to move across the US to where it's freezing cold. If you think that you could fill the job I could place your name up for consideration since I could gain a large bit of money if you could qualify for such a position. All that is necessary is to do Avionics Module Design. What with your grasp of the precise length of a day on Venus you should have no problems with that at all.
21-02-2017 20:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.

That's pretty funny. You want ME to prove YOU correct. Sorry stupid but it doesn't work that way. I made a statement and you have to prove me wrong.

Eh? No, I am bowing to your claimed expertise in this area. You say you know all about gas spectrometers, and I'm keen to learn. Is it really possible to to detect such tiny (one in a trillion CO2 atoms) amounts of C14 CO2 remotely? If so, how is it done?


I just got a job offer from General Dynamics if I want to move across the US to where it's freezing cold. If you think that you could fill the job I could place your name up for consideration since I could gain a large bit of money if you could qualify for such a position. All that is necessary is to do Avionics Module Design. What with your grasp of the precise length of a day on Venus you should have no problems with that at all.

Given your irrelevant reply, I take it that you don't actually know anything about spectrometers. It's just your usual bullshit. How disappointing.
21-02-2017 20:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But then I've designed and manufactured gas spectrometers and you don't even know what they are.

Then I'm sure you'll be happy to either confirm my suspicions that it would be impossible for a satellite-borne instrument to detect an atmospheric C14 CO2 spectrum or explain how it is possible.

That's pretty funny. You want ME to prove YOU correct. Sorry stupid but it doesn't work that way. I made a statement and you have to prove me wrong.

Eh? No, I am bowing to your claimed expertise in this area. You say you know all about gas spectrometers, and I'm keen to learn. Is it really possible to to detect such tiny (one in a trillion CO2 atoms) amounts of C14 CO2 remotely? If so, how is it done?


I just got a job offer from General Dynamics if I want to move across the US to where it's freezing cold. If you think that you could fill the job I could place your name up for consideration since I could gain a large bit of money if you could qualify for such a position. All that is necessary is to do Avionics Module Design. What with your grasp of the precise length of a day on Venus you should have no problems with that at all.

Given your irrelevant reply, I take it that you don't actually know anything about spectrometers. It's just your usual bullshit. How disappointing.


What happened to your claim that spectroscopy couldn't be used to detect the amount of 14C in the atmosphere? Trying to change the subject since it's pretty well known in the literature?
22-02-2017 08:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Anne Frank Community Center, in response to D.Trump's supposed "defense" of Jews:
Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect
MR. PRESIDENT, YOUR TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF #Antisemitism TODAY IS NOT ENOUGH.
Statement of Steven Goldstein, Executive Director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, on President Trump's acknowledgment of Antisemitism today:
"The President's sudden acknowledgement is a Band-Aid on the cancer of Antisemitism that has infected his own Administration. His statement today is a pathetic asterisk of condescension after weeks in which he and his staff have committed grotesque acts and omissions reflecting Antisemitism, yet day after day have refused to apologize and correct the record. Make no mistake: The Antisemitism coming out of this Administration is the worst we have ever seen from any Administration. The White House repeatedly refused to mention Jews in its Holocaust remembrance, and had the audacity to take offense when the world pointed out the ramifications of Holocaust denial. And it was only yesterday, President's Day, that Jewish Community Centers across the nation received bomb threats, and the President said absolutely nothing. When President Trump responds to Antisemitism proactively and in real time, and without pleas and pressure, that's when we'll be able to say this President has turned a corner. This is not that moment."
////////
From the statement: "When President Trump responds to Antisemitism proactively and in real time, and without pleas and pressure, that's when we'll be able to say this President has turned a corner".
///////
"Don'T rump" knows NOT the word, "corrections", nor can he turn corners. Increasing statements question his mental health. It has been surmised that he is the most mentally sick a person can be & still be elected President. Any sicker & citizens would have seen his INCAPACITY to be President. As his mental sickness worsens, we shall find out whether re-pubic-lick-uns have the mental & humane CAPABILITY to remove him from office..... or not.




Join the debate Corrections:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact