Remember me
▼ Content

THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.



Page 3 of 4<1234>
RE: I am happy to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry.26-03-2022 02:56
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I am happy to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry.

The offer still stands.

The claims about radon as a gamma emitter are not my own.

It would be silly to defend them.

They are not in dispute.

If they are in dispute, it is only among the tiniest contrarian minority.

Nobody could learn anything if it is just a constant circle of denial..

I hope I still have at least another month before my target audience arrives.

I've got a lot of work to do still before my library is ready.

There is no reason for me to answer stupid questions from someone who never stopped insulting me from the first interaction.

Genuine questions about biogeochemistry relevant to global environmental change with be answered with respect equal to that displayed in the question.

The offer still stands.

I'm more than happy to ignore you.

I can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to define my terms for the troll who defiles my science-based thread related to climate change.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


































































IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon is a Noble gas. Like all Noble gases, radon is chemically inert.

I totally understand the hype and fear and panic that I am supposed to feel when I read the word RADON!. I certainly get it. It's frightening. Terrifying. I see what you mean.

Since you are the biogeoastrochemist, how much gamma radiation are you claiming that radon emits?

sealover wrote:Those hydrocarbons yield a lot of energy if you combine them with oxygen and a spark. BOOM! BURN BABY BURN!

I totally understand the hype and fear and panic that I am supposed to feel when I read the word "hydrocarbons.". I certainly get it. It's frightening. Terrifying. I see what you mean. All I can think about is "BOOM! BURN BABY BURN!"

sealover wrote:But those hydrocarbons, like the ethyl groups on the tetra ethyl lead are pretty inert as chemicals otherwise. Hydrocarbons don't play well with others in chemistry.

What does it mean to "play well" with others in chemistry? Are hydrocarbons like IBDaMann, i.e they don't play well with others, BOOM! BURN BABY BURN, leave a bad taste in your mouth, etc ...?

sealover wrote:Mostly because they don't play at all.

How does BOOM! BURN BABY BURN become "they don't play at all." Did I miss something?

sealover wrote:Pure hydrocarbons don't do much spontaneously.

Does water? Does plastic? Does a baseball? How about a "pure" baseball?

sealover wrote:All 4 of these C-C bonds are identical in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

Your layman audience will appreciate you bringing the conversation down to their level.

sealover wrote:It's a good way to calibrate NMR.

Not when you are simply building the constructor, closing a device or clearing the buffer.
26-03-2022 03:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
It rained last night and all the grass has gone green.I am very alarmed because this keeps happening all the time.every year even.If I walk to work and stop using 2 litres of petrol a week on my petrol powered pushbike maybe it will never rain again
26-03-2022 04:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:I am happy to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry. The offer still stands.
...

The claims about radon as a gamma emitter are not my own. It would be silly [to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry]. They are not in dispute [even if you claim to be disputing them]

I totally understand. So your totally insincere offer ... still stands. I see what you did there.

sealover wrote:If they are in dispute, it is only among the tiniest contrarian minority.

Of course this presumes that you speak for the vast majority of the world's population.

Oh wait! Guess what I just discovered. You don't speak for the vast majority of the world's population. In fact, there isn't a rational adult alive who would have you speak for him. In fact, you only speak for yourself, it turns out. Wow, that kind of puts "vast majority of the world's population" just a tad out of reach.

It looks like we're back to you needing to define your terms and to answer the questions put to you. The first question is "Why are you totally incapable of answering the questions put to you?" The second question, of course, is why you aren't able to define any of your terms that appear to be just gibber-babble copied from Wikipedia or some other leftist rag. The third question is why you can't reword your gibber-babble so that the lay audience (that you insist you have) can discern and understand some sort of point.

sealover wrote:Nobody could learn anything if it is just a constant circle of denial..I hope I still have at least another month before my target audience arrives. I've got a lot of work to do still before my library is ready.

Have you ever heard of "Selling Short"?

My money is on there being only one member of your target audience: yourself. You are DESPERATE to maintain the delusion that you were somehow transformed into a thmart perthon when you were indoctrinated into the Global Warming cult. Now that your fellow church members no longer find you useful, you are alone and frightened. The only reason you are here on this site is that this is one of the very few places that you know is not crawling with your fellow church members who abandoned you. You are hoping that we will fill in as your cheering section.

I hope you are ready for that splash of cold water.

sealover wrote:There is no reason for me to answer [genuine] questions [and fulfill my promise].

At this point, I think it is completely obvious to everyone that you don't understand any of what you speak. It's gibber-babble, after all, that has always worked for you and you don't understand why it isn't working for you now that your church doesn't need you anymore.

sealover wrote:Genuine questions about biogeochemistry relevant to global environmental change [will NOT] be answered [because I don't know anything beyond the pointless gibber-babble I have memorized]. The [disingenuous] offer still stands.

You have refused to answer extremely polite requests for clarification and to define terms that you have used.

Who refuses to explain his own commentary?
Answer: He who doesn't understand what he said/wrote.

sealover wrote:I'm more than happy to ignore you.

That is what we can expect.

sealover wrote:I can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to define my terms for the troll who defiles my science-based thread related to climate change.

You can certainly be held in contempt of court for refusing to define your terms for the court.

Nothing of yours is based in any science. You won't define any of your terms.

Cheers!
26-03-2022 04:18
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
It is very easy to say the climate is changing. From what to what exactly. It is easy to claim its warming. From what to what? This is a question to be answered geo chemo boy.
26-03-2022 05:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
I am happy to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry.
...deleted excess noise...

Buzzword fallacies. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.


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
RE: "Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced." - Ignoramus26-03-2022 07:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced." - Ignoramus

Where biogeochemistry is deeply connected to climate change.

Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are a falsifiable hypothesis.

Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are CONTRARIAN, in contradiction of prevailing scientific opinion considered to have passed the test of "reproducibility" as per the Scientific Method.

If the two assertions are correct, that means a WHOLE LOT of scientists are wrong.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary.

HEREBY PROCLAIMED FOR THIS DEBATE THREAD

No more radon isn't a gamma emitter or lead does not cause brain damage.

THIS IS CLIMATE DEBATE.

Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction are big players in the big picture.

This is the biogeochemistry specialist thread for climate debate.

Unsupported contrarian assertions were made.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

Perhaps they can argue a more complete case.

Meanwhile, I am going to put all the science lessons about how sulfate CAN be reduced and how nitrate CAN be reduced on THIS thread.

I will put those science lessons in the form of debate rebuttal to the assertions that sulfate cannot be reduced and nitrate cannot be reduced.

Many important points about generation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas about 200 time more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Many important points can be made about the generation of alkalinity.

About the generation of sun blocking sulfide gases.

About the generation of ozone destroying NOxs and SOxs.

About the generation of "acid rain" as sulfides, NOxs and SOxs become sulfuric acid and nitric acid.

Yeah, just sticking to those two assertions (non existence of sulfate or nitrate reduction) will give me plenty to debate about.

For a long time.

Whether or not any additional argument is ever made beyond the simple contrarian denial.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

YES THEY CAN! And it's pretty important in environmental science.

Don't bother finding your references about lead and brains or radon and gamma.

Just prove you know what sulfate and nitrate reduction are, and then prove why such things do not exist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I am happy to answer genuine questions about biogeochemistry.
...deleted excess noise...

Buzzword fallacies. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.
26-03-2022 07:58
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
duncan61 wrote:
It rained last night and all the grass has gone green.I am very alarmed because this keeps happening all the time.every year even.If I walk to work and stop using 2 litres of petrol a week on my petrol powered pushbike maybe it will never rain again


Not only does the grass grow after it rains, but you have to mow the yard. The more you mow it, the faster it grows. Lawnmower CO2 is probably the most concentrated CO2, mankind ever created...
26-03-2022 17:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced." - Ignoramus

Where biogeochemistry is deeply connected to climate change.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing to change.
sealover wrote:
Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are a falsifiable hypothesis.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a falsifiable hypothesis.
sealover wrote:
Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are CONTRARIAN, in contradiction of prevailing scientific opinion considered to have passed the test of "reproducibility" as per the Scientific Method.

It is not possible to reduce a sulfate or a nitrate. They are already reduced. Science isn't an opinion. There is test of reproducibility. You cannot prove any theory True. Science isn't a method or procedure.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

sealover wrote:
If the two assertions are correct, that means a WHOLE LOT of scientists are wrong.

You don't get to speak for a whole lot of scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary.

HEREBY PROCLAIMED FOR THIS DEBATE THREAD

No more radon isn't a gamma emitter or lead does not cause brain damage.

You brought it up, dude. You have only yourself to blame. All you showed by doing so is that you don't know anything about radiation, radon, or lead. They are nowhere as dangerous as you think they are.
sealover wrote:
THIS IS CLIMATE DEBATE.

So when are you going discuss climate?
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction are big players in the big picture.

You cannot reduce a sulfate or a nitrate. They are already reduced.
sealover wrote:
This is the biogeochemistry specialist thread for climate debate.

Buzzword fallacy. No such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
Unsupported contrarian assertions were made.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

Perhaps they can argue a more complete case.

RQAA.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile, I am going to put all the science lessons about how sulfate CAN be reduced and how nitrate CAN be reduced on THIS thread.

So you are going to spam. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
I will put those science lessons in the form of debate rebuttal to the assertions that sulfate cannot be reduced and nitrate cannot be reduced.

So you are going to spam. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
Many important points about generation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas about 200 time more powerful than carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Many important points can be made about the generation of alkalinity.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of sun blocking sulfide gases.

There is no such thing as a sulfide gas. Sulfide isn't a chemical.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of ozone destroying NOxs and SOxs.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Now you are denying the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of "acid rain" as sulfides, NOxs and SOxs become sulfuric acid and nitric acid.

What NOx's or SOx's?
sealover wrote:
Yeah, just sticking to those two assertions (non existence of sulfate or nitrate reduction) will give me plenty to debate about.

For a long time.

Whether or not any additional argument is ever made beyond the simple contrarian denial.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

YES THEY CAN! And it's pretty important in environmental science.

There is no such thing as environmental science. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Don't bother finding your references about lead and brains or radon and gamma.

You already said this. Spamming.
sealover wrote:
Just prove you know what sulfate and nitrate reduction are, and then prove why such things do not exist.

Sulfates and nitrates are already reduced. RQAA.


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
26-03-2022 17:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
It rained last night and all the grass has gone green.I am very alarmed because this keeps happening all the time.every year even.If I walk to work and stop using 2 litres of petrol a week on my petrol powered pushbike maybe it will never rain again


Not only does the grass grow after it rains, but you have to mow the yard. The more you mow it, the faster it grows. Lawnmower CO2 is probably the most concentrated CO2, mankind ever created...

Nah. Welding, soda, guns, and fire extinguishers.

You HAVE seen a CO2 bottle, right? How do you think they put that stuff in there?


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
Edited on 26-03-2022 17:27
RE: "What NOx's or SOx's"?26-03-2022 19:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

Enquiring minds want to know.

And it is actually a valuable and relevant question to the discussion of biogeochemistry related to Anthropogenic Global Change (AGC).

"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.

HNO3, nitric acid. The -NO3 in HNO3 is NOx.

H2SO4, nitric acid. The -SO4 in H2SO4 is SOx.

Admittedly, people usually mean GASES with the "x"s, but I thought I'd start with the two strong acids that are NOx or SOx.

But even in the category of acids you have nitrous acid, HNO2. Doesn't occur naturally. Weak and unstable compared to nitric acid.

You have sulfurous acid, H2SO3. Probably only important as an intermediary during gas phase transformations of SOx's.

Sulfur monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and sulfur trioxide. All SOx's. All form acid.
One of them, sulfur trioxide, becomes sulfuric acid as soon as it touches water.

You have nitrous oxide, nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen trioxide...
All NOx's in the gas phase.

So, it saves a lot of time to just say SOx or NOx. The list of individual species is very long.

Sometimes it is a very specific NOx, like nitrous oxide, or SOx, like sulfur trioxide, that needs to be addressed. Calling nitrous oxide just an NOx doesn't make clear that it is the big bad one for being the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:

"What NOx's or SOx's"?

But you DID ask, at least.

You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

That is an improvement.

Maybe you are not as unteachable as I thought.

It is good to know what NOx's or SOx's are.

It allows for a more informed discussion.

People rarely become LESS smart when they acquire MORE information.

This might not have been intended as a genuine question.

But it was a good one for the people who want to get less smart with more info.

"What NOx's or SOx's"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------





















































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced." - Ignoramus

Where biogeochemistry is deeply connected to climate change.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing to change.
sealover wrote:
Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are a falsifiable hypothesis.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a falsifiable hypothesis.
sealover wrote:
Each of the two assertions regarding sulfate and nitrate reduction are CONTRARIAN, in contradiction of prevailing scientific opinion considered to have passed the test of "reproducibility" as per the Scientific Method.

It is not possible to reduce a sulfate or a nitrate. They are already reduced. Science isn't an opinion. There is test of reproducibility. You cannot prove any theory True. Science isn't a method or procedure.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

sealover wrote:
If the two assertions are correct, that means a WHOLE LOT of scientists are wrong.

You don't get to speak for a whole lot of scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary.

HEREBY PROCLAIMED FOR THIS DEBATE THREAD

No more radon isn't a gamma emitter or lead does not cause brain damage.

You brought it up, dude. You have only yourself to blame. All you showed by doing so is that you don't know anything about radiation, radon, or lead. They are nowhere as dangerous as you think they are.
sealover wrote:
THIS IS CLIMATE DEBATE.

So when are you going discuss climate?
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction are big players in the big picture.

You cannot reduce a sulfate or a nitrate. They are already reduced.
sealover wrote:
This is the biogeochemistry specialist thread for climate debate.

Buzzword fallacy. No such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
Unsupported contrarian assertions were made.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

Perhaps they can argue a more complete case.

RQAA.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile, I am going to put all the science lessons about how sulfate CAN be reduced and how nitrate CAN be reduced on THIS thread.

So you are going to spam. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
I will put those science lessons in the form of debate rebuttal to the assertions that sulfate cannot be reduced and nitrate cannot be reduced.

So you are going to spam. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
Many important points about generation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas about 200 time more powerful than carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Many important points can be made about the generation of alkalinity.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of sun blocking sulfide gases.

There is no such thing as a sulfide gas. Sulfide isn't a chemical.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of ozone destroying NOxs and SOxs.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Now you are denying the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
About the generation of "acid rain" as sulfides, NOxs and SOxs become sulfuric acid and nitric acid.

What NOx's or SOx's?
sealover wrote:
Yeah, just sticking to those two assertions (non existence of sulfate or nitrate reduction) will give me plenty to debate about.

For a long time.

Whether or not any additional argument is ever made beyond the simple contrarian denial.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. Nitrate cannot be reduced."

YES THEY CAN! And it's pretty important in environmental science.

There is no such thing as environmental science. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Don't bother finding your references about lead and brains or radon and gamma.

You already said this. Spamming.
sealover wrote:
Just prove you know what sulfate and nitrate reduction are, and then prove why such things do not exist.

Sulfates and nitrates are already reduced. RQAA.
26-03-2022 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
...deleted numerous buzzwords...
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

What NOX's or SOx's?

sealover wrote:
The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

They don't. The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Denial of the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.
...deleted excess noise...
I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What NOx's or SOx's?
[quote]sealover wrote:
But you DID ask, at least.

And of course, you didn't answer. You completely evaded the question.
sealover wrote:
You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

I do know the meaning. What NOx's and what SOx's?

Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now. They sell the resulting sulfur to industry.

Car engines have EGR systems in them now. They put out very little or no NOx's now.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.

NOx's + ozone + unburned fuel produce smog. Ozone is generated by burning fuel. Cars produce ozone when they run.


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
RE: How dare you cite Chapman about ozone thinning!26-03-2022 20:55
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
How dare you cite Chapman about ozone thinning?

Berkeley is one of my alma maters.

Okay, I'd love to hear you clarify the "science" about ozone thinning.

"Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now."

Only in wealthy countries.

And only in very recent decades.

Just as they can't afford to test and certify every well used for drinking water in the backwaters of the Ganges and Mekong deltas, Nations such as India and Viet Nam are too poor to put "scrubbers" on old coal-fired power plants.

Too poor to replace them with low emissions power plants.

The amount of sulfur compounds emitted from coal-burning power plants is INCREASING AS WE SPEAK.

Vietnam signed a contract to build 20 HUGE NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS.

Do you think that they are concerned about meeting EPA standards for sulfur emissions?

Or lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and all the other lovely stuff in coal.

Would it be so wrong to offer them a better price for our natural gas, so they wouldn't have to keep burning coal.

But if you have a scientific argument to prove Chapman all wrong about the ozone layer.

Let's talk ozone.

"Denitrification" is a term invented by soil scientists and usurped a century later by atmospheric chemists.

For biogeochemists, "denitrification" means nitrate reduction by a bacteria resulting in emission of nitrogen gas and some NOx by product.

For atmospheric chemists, "denitrification" is when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth.

During "denitrification", as the nitric acid freezes and falls, it takes some of the ozone layer destroying free radicals (bromides, chlorides, etc.) with it.

Most of the nitric acid in the stratosphere came from human activity.

"Denitrification" in the stratosphere, the fallout of manmade chemicals, protects the ozone layer from OTHER manmade chemicals.

Kind of like how anthropogenic global dimming counterbalances anthropogenic global warming.

The good news is that the ozone layer has a pretty good shot at making a full recovery if we give it a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------























































Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
...deleted numerous buzzwords...
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

What NOX's or SOx's?

sealover wrote:
The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

They don't. The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Denial of the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.
...deleted excess noise...
I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What NOx's or SOx's?
[quote]sealover wrote:
But you DID ask, at least.

And of course, you didn't answer. You completely evaded the question.
sealover wrote:
You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

I do know the meaning. What NOx's and what SOx's?

Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now. They sell the resulting sulfur to industry.

Car engines have EGR systems in them now. They put out very little or no NOx's now.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.

NOx's + ozone + unburned fuel produce smog. Ozone is generated by burning fuel. Cars produce ozone when they run.
RE: I once presented at a "Chapman Conference"26-03-2022 21:03
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I once presented at a "Chapman Conference".

I got off on the fact that such conferences are VERY prestigious.

This one was about nitrogen cycling.

When some scientifically illiterate troll disses Chapman, I take it personally.

But I don't take it SERIOUSLY.

How could I take ANY of the troll's shit SERIOUSLY?
------------------------------------------------------------------




































Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
...deleted numerous buzzwords...
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

What NOX's or SOx's?

sealover wrote:
The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

They don't. The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Denial of the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.
...deleted excess noise...
I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What NOx's or SOx's?
[quote]sealover wrote:
But you DID ask, at least.

And of course, you didn't answer. You completely evaded the question.
sealover wrote:
You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

I do know the meaning. What NOx's and what SOx's?

Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now. They sell the resulting sulfur to industry.

Car engines have EGR systems in them now. They put out very little or no NOx's now.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.

NOx's + ozone + unburned fuel produce smog. Ozone is generated by burning fuel. Cars produce ozone when they run.
26-03-2022 22:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:I once presented at a "Chapman Conference".

That is prestigious. Congratulations.

Could you provide a link to the video. I'd like to watch and learn because that's some prestigious stuff you got going there.

sealover wrote:I got off on the fact that such conferences are VERY prestigious.

Tell me about it! Could you provide a link to the thesis so I can read it. I was just thinking about boning up on nitrogen cycling and your timing couldn't be better.

sealover wrote:This one was about nitrogen cycling.

After this, I'm going to review water cycling in Lake Tahoe.

sealover wrote:When some scientifically illiterate troll disses Chapman, I take it personally.

Those illiterate trolls ... how could you possibly take one seriously?
Attached image:

RE: Correction: No liquid nitrogen freezing in stratosphere.26-03-2022 23:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Correction: No liquid nitrogen freezing in the stratosphere.

In the dyslexic, unedited first draft, it says something about "..when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth."

Oops!

Fortunately, no part of the stratosphere is cold enough for nitrogen to be liquid, let alone freezing.

It was supposed to say LIQUID NITRIC ACID in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth. That is what atmospheric scientists call "denitrification".

I still think "denitrification" is nitrate reduction generating nitrous oxide, and I'm sticking to that as MY unambiguous definition for the term.

WE HAD IT FIRST AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT!

Welcome to the definition wars of science.

I also wrote NITRIC acid instead SULFURIC acid in at least one place.

My errors should be glaringly obvious in context.

Well, this is how I roll and this is how I write.

I'll try to fess up when I notice the mistakes later.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
How dare you cite Chapman about ozone thinning?

Berkeley is one of my alma maters.

Okay, I'd love to hear you clarify the "science" about ozone thinning.

"Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now."

Only in wealthy countries.

And only in very recent decades.

Just as they can't afford to test and certify every well used for drinking water in the backwaters of the Ganges and Mekong deltas, Nations such as India and Viet Nam are too poor to put "scrubbers" on old coal-fired power plants.

Too poor to replace them with low emissions power plants.

The amount of sulfur compounds emitted from coal-burning power plants is INCREASING AS WE SPEAK.

Vietnam signed a contract to build 20 HUGE NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS.

Do you think that they are concerned about meeting EPA standards for sulfur emissions?

Or lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and all the other lovely stuff in coal.

Would it be so wrong to offer them a better price for our natural gas, so they wouldn't have to keep burning coal.

But if you have a scientific argument to prove Chapman all wrong about the ozone layer.

Let's talk ozone.

"Denitrification" is a term invented by soil scientists and usurped a century later by atmospheric chemists.

For biogeochemists, "denitrification" means nitrate reduction by a bacteria resulting in emission of nitrogen gas and some NOx by product.

For atmospheric chemists, "denitrification" is when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth.

During "denitrification", as the nitric acid freezes and falls, it takes some of the ozone layer destroying free radicals (bromides, chlorides, etc.) with it.

Most of the nitric acid in the stratosphere came from human activity.

"Denitrification" in the stratosphere, the fallout of manmade chemicals, protects the ozone layer from OTHER manmade chemicals.

Kind of like how anthropogenic global dimming counterbalances anthropogenic global warming.

The good news is that the ozone layer has a pretty good shot at making a full recovery if we give it a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------























































Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
...deleted numerous buzzwords...
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

What NOX's or SOx's?

sealover wrote:
The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

They don't. The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Denial of the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.
...deleted excess noise...
I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What NOx's or SOx's?
[quote]sealover wrote:
But you DID ask, at least.

And of course, you didn't answer. You completely evaded the question.
sealover wrote:
You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

I do know the meaning. What NOx's and what SOx's?

Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now. They sell the resulting sulfur to industry.

Car engines have EGR systems in them now. They put out very little or no NOx's now.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.

NOx's + ozone + unburned fuel produce smog. Ozone is generated by burning fuel. Cars produce ozone when they run.
RE: Your posts can be found in "sealover" library too!27-03-2022 03:27
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Your posts can be found in "sealover" library too!

If the pattern continues, there will be at least five troll responses to every post based on the scientific reality of climate change, ocean acidification, and the whole Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW) the environment is experiencing.

Some of the responses to "sealover" will be EXCELLENT!

Some of the posts in response to sealover will be YOURS, not the trolls.

Sealover will quote them in their entirety, or at least parts most relevant to the immediate discussion.

Sealover will leave the same subject title you used for your post.

Anyone who goes into the "sealover library" will see your posts on the list, with the same name you gave it.

They won't have to go to YOUR library every time they want to find it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
I will include many of your best posts in their entirety, embedded in my response to them.

That way anyone in "sealover" library can find them under same subject title used in yours.

Chances are my part will be one sentence, tops.

Your entire post will be available for all to see in a single library, without any risk of troll exposure.

So, here's how it works. Each member has their own library where all their posts are listed in chronological order, with the option of subject titles.

Clicking the member name by their avatar takes you directly to their library.

You might see the message they left for you, with a subject title telling you that, on the list of their post.

You might see the title of that post you wanted to read without having to scroll through page after page of trolling.

Welcome to the revolution!

We've even got Ignoramus here to offer the rebuttal for a lively debate.

If they are willing to set up a thread to "debate" their position.

Personally, the only post about the counter position that I will respond
to in any way will have to be posted on their own thread.

I hope they have the intellectual honesty and courage in the conviction of their beliefs to set up a counter point thread.

Why not use their biggest library of all as a home for their posts to be located.

There is no missing it. More than 100000 posts!

That must be someone brave enough to submit an original argument of their own if they have stuck their neck out that many times.

If not, what were the 100000 posts about?

Hmm... Maybe there is a word for that.



-----------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.

What if there were two threads strictly limited to climate debate.

On on thread are those who believe that climate change is real and is alarming.

The competing thread can be everyone else.

THIS THREAD can be the position that climate change is real and is alarming.

Anyone who joins the debate to assert that climate change is real and is alarming is welcome to post on this thread.

You can see MY REPLY to your post without seeing any thing the trolls say.

It will be on my list of posts in my "sealover" library.

And I'll know who you are to check out your library for new messages.

If the trolls can create a counter position to debate, they should start their own thread where anyone can even see it.

MEANWHILE LET'S MAKE THIS THREAD OUR ECHO CHAMBER FOR OUR UNIFIED POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALARMING, AND THAT IT IS REALLY ALARMING!

I say "echo chamber" because I guarantee you won't see any troll posts in MY library. I don't I would expect I would find any in your library.

Let's just check exclusively each other's posts in each other's libraries.

Unless anyone REALLY WANTS TO SEE THEM SAY ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF A THREAD DEDICATED TO THE COUNTERPOSITION.

I promise never to post my rebuttal on your thread.

I expect your rebuttal position on YOUR THREAD if you want in the debate at all.
RE: Ozone Depletion - CFCs versus SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc.27-03-2022 04:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Ozone Depletion - CFCs versus SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc.

The ozone layer has had its ups and downs in recent decades.

In the 1980s, the ozone layer was being depleted ("thinning") at an alarming rate.

At least is was alarming to those who understood that the ozone layer was all that stood between life as we know it and a world where the sunlight kills almost anything in a matter of hours.

At least you wouldn't have to wait for skin cancer to kill you if the crops all suddenly failed forever.

At the time, the main anthropogenic culprit was CFCs. Chlorinated fluorocarbons.

They could form free radicals in the stratosphere that would get recycled as the converted one ozone O3 molecule after another into oxygen O2 gas.

They could do it over and over and over and over, with one single CFC molecule destroying THOUSANDS of ozone molecules before being neutralized.

It was a major success for the earth and humanity that voluntary restrictions on CFC production were agreed to by most nations of the world.

So it looked good for ozone recovery for a decade, but then the ozone "hole" started reappearing again on an annual basis at one of the poles.

Then it started thinning again at BOTH POLES.

And CFC production was still going down.

CFCs were the worst of the worst ozone destroying molecules. They recycled thousands of times taking out thousands of ozone with just one CFC.

But there were a lot of other atoms and molecules that could also destroy ozone with a kill ratio of just one to one.

Things like SOx's, NOx's, chloride, bromide, and others.

It only takes one ozone to take them out. But one ozone is lost in the process.

The NEW ozone holes weren't about CFCs any more.

So what does "denitrification" accomplish?

Thanks to human activity, and lesser contributions from Mother Nature, there are droplets of liquid nitric acid in the stratosphere.

As ozone destroying molecules bounce around in the stratosphere, they can get stuck in the droplets of liquid nitric acid.

Given enough time, those molecules of bromide, chloride, SOx, NOx in the droplets of nitric acid can leave the liquid droplet and go back out in the vapor phase to the stratosphere.

"Denitrification" is when those droplets of liquid nitric acid, and the ozone destroying SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc., that are dissolved in the nitric acid, FREEZE and fall to earth as crystals of nitric acid ice.

One anthropogenic chemical is protecting the ozone layer from another another group of anthropogenic chemicals. NON CFC OZONE DESTROYERS.

And the prostitution of the unambiguous definition for DENITRIFICATION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Correction: No liquid nitrogen freezing in the stratosphere.

In the dyslexic, unedited first draft, it says something about "..when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth."

Oops!

Fortunately, no part of the stratosphere is cold enough for nitrogen to be liquid, let alone freezing.

It was supposed to say LIQUID NITRIC ACID in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth. That is what atmospheric scientists call "denitrification".

I still think "denitrification" is nitrate reduction generating nitrous oxide, and I'm sticking to that as MY unambiguous definition for the term.

WE HAD IT FIRST AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT!

Welcome to the definition wars of science.

I also wrote NITRIC acid instead SULFURIC acid in at least one place.

My errors should be glaringly obvious in context.

Well, this is how I roll and this is how I write.

I'll try to fess up when I notice the mistakes later.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
How dare you cite Chapman about ozone thinning?

Berkeley is one of my alma maters.

Okay, I'd love to hear you clarify the "science" about ozone thinning.

"Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now."

Only in wealthy countries.

And only in very recent decades.

Just as they can't afford to test and certify every well used for drinking water in the backwaters of the Ganges and Mekong deltas, Nations such as India and Viet Nam are too poor to put "scrubbers" on old coal-fired power plants.

Too poor to replace them with low emissions power plants.

The amount of sulfur compounds emitted from coal-burning power plants is INCREASING AS WE SPEAK.

Vietnam signed a contract to build 20 HUGE NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS.

Do you think that they are concerned about meeting EPA standards for sulfur emissions?

Or lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and all the other lovely stuff in coal.

Would it be so wrong to offer them a better price for our natural gas, so they wouldn't have to keep burning coal.

But if you have a scientific argument to prove Chapman all wrong about the ozone layer.

Let's talk ozone.

"Denitrification" is a term invented by soil scientists and usurped a century later by atmospheric chemists.

For biogeochemists, "denitrification" means nitrate reduction by a bacteria resulting in emission of nitrogen gas and some NOx by product.

For atmospheric chemists, "denitrification" is when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth.

During "denitrification", as the nitric acid freezes and falls, it takes some of the ozone layer destroying free radicals (bromides, chlorides, etc.) with it.

Most of the nitric acid in the stratosphere came from human activity.

"Denitrification" in the stratosphere, the fallout of manmade chemicals, protects the ozone layer from OTHER manmade chemicals.

Kind of like how anthropogenic global dimming counterbalances anthropogenic global warming.

The good news is that the ozone layer has a pretty good shot at making a full recovery if we give it a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
...deleted numerous buzzwords...
"What NOx's or SOx's"?

The ones that include or transform into nitric acid and sulfuric acid in "acid rain".

What NOX's or SOx's?

sealover wrote:
The ones that participate in ozone-destroying chemical reactions in the sky.

They don't. The ozone layer is not being destroyed. Denial of the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
There are too many to list every time. It's faster to say NOx or SOx.
...deleted excess noise...
I'm sorry that your previous education in climate-change-related chemistry failed to include such basic information that you had to ask ME:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What NOx's or SOx's?
[quote]sealover wrote:
But you DID ask, at least.

And of course, you didn't answer. You completely evaded the question.
sealover wrote:
You didn't just swear that they were meaningless buzzwords, simply because you did not know the meaning.

I do know the meaning. What NOx's and what SOx's?

Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now. They sell the resulting sulfur to industry.

Car engines have EGR systems in them now. They put out very little or no NOx's now.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.

NOx's + ozone + unburned fuel produce smog. Ozone is generated by burning fuel. Cars produce ozone when they run.
27-03-2022 06:36
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
NOx burns real good in car engines as it brings its own oxygen molecules.Sealover I have been following your posts and do not know what you are trying to share. Things rust things grow everything is changing. Could you simplify your point if there is one. Do you see how easy Harvey and I ignore the silly internet insults and stick to the purpose?
27-03-2022 06:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
duncan61 wrote:
Do you see how easy Harvey and I ignore the silly internet insults and stick to the purpose?



I just make shit up- sealover
Attached image:

27-03-2022 07:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote: Ozone Depletion - CFCs versus SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc.

The ozone layer has had its ups and downs in recent decades.

In the 1980s, the ozone layer was being depleted ("thinning") at an alarming rate.

At least is was alarming to those who understood that the ozone layer was all that stood between life as we know it and a world where the sunlight kills almost anything in a matter of hours.

At least you wouldn't have to wait for skin cancer to kill you if the crops all suddenly failed forever.

At the time, the main anthropogenic culprit was CFCs. Chlorinated fluorocarbons.



Nope. You're going to need to have someone teach you about ozone. You apparently don't know anything.

You bombed this one.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-03-2022 09:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
How dare you cite Chapman about ozone thinning?

I didn't.
sealover wrote:
Berkeley is one of my alma maters.

Meh. No wonder you are so ****ed up with understanding anything.
sealover wrote:
Okay, I'd love to hear you clarify the "science" about ozone thinning.

I wasn't claiming any.
sealover wrote:
"Coal plants capture sulfur compounds in the stacks now."
Only in wealthy countries.

Nope. In many nations. Coal plants install scrubbers now. They can make money off of them.
sealover wrote:
And only in very recent decades.

50 years isn't enough for you?
sealover wrote:
Just as they can't afford to test and certify every well used for drinking water in the backwaters of the Ganges and Mekong deltas, Nations such as India and Viet Nam are too poor to put "scrubbers" on old coal-fired power plants.

Yet they do.
sealover wrote:
Too poor to replace them with low emissions power plants.

No, they aren't. It's not expensive.
sealover wrote:
The amount of sulfur compounds emitted from coal-burning power plants is INCREASING AS WE SPEAK.

No, it isn't.
sealover wrote:
Vietnam signed a contract to build 20 HUGE NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS.

Good. They will have energy.
sealover wrote:
Do you think that they are concerned about meeting EPA standards for sulfur emissions?

Irrelevant. Scrubbers make money for a coal plant.
sealover wrote:
Or lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and all the other lovely stuff in coal.

No lead, mercury, arsenic, or cadmium in coal. Coal is carbon.
sealover wrote:
Would it be so wrong to offer them a better price for our natural gas, so they wouldn't have to keep burning coal.

Natural gas is a hydrocarbon, being shut out by Biden and Democrats. Most power plants in the States are already natural gas.
sealover wrote:
But if you have a scientific argument to prove Chapman all wrong about the ozone layer.

I'm not trying to prove Chapman wrong. YOU are.
sealover wrote:
Let's talk ozone.

Okay.
sealover wrote:
"Denitrification" is a term invented by soil scientists and usurped a century later by atmospheric chemists.

For biogeochemists, "denitrification" means nitrate reduction by a bacteria resulting in emission of nitrogen gas and some NOx by product.

For atmospheric chemists, "denitrification" is when liquid nitrogen gas in the stratosphere freezes and falls to earth.

During "denitrification", as the nitric acid freezes and falls, it takes some of the ozone layer destroying free radicals (bromides, chlorides, etc.) with it.

Most of the nitric acid in the stratosphere came from human activity.

"Denitrification" in the stratosphere, the fallout of manmade chemicals, protects the ozone layer from OTHER manmade chemicals.

That's not talking about ozone. That's just a bunch of buzzwords and excess noise.
The ozone layer doesn't need protecting.
sealover wrote:
Kind of like how anthropogenic global dimming counterbalances anthropogenic global warming.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'global dimming'.
sealover wrote:
The good news is that the ozone layer has a pretty good shot at making a full recovery if we give it a chance.

It doesn't need 'recovery'.


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
27-03-2022 09:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
If the pattern continues, there will be at least five troll responses to every post based on the scientific reality of climate change, ocean acidification, and the whole Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW) the environment is experiencing.
...deleted spam...

Science isn't a 'reality'. You don't know what 'reality' means. You haven't yet defined 'climate change'. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change. You can't acidify an alkaline.


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
27-03-2022 09:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Ozone Depletion - CFCs versus SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
sealover wrote:
The ozone layer has had its ups and downs in recent decades.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
sealover wrote:
In the 1980s, the ozone layer was being depleted ("thinning") at an alarming rate.

No, it wasn't. DuPont was losing the patent on R12 refrigerant (CFCs) and started the fear mongering to get everyone to convert to R134a, which is newly patented.

CFC's do not react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
At least is was alarming to those who understood that the ozone layer was all that stood between life as we know it and a world where the sunlight kills almost anything in a matter of hours.

Nope. The atmosphere has oxygen in it.
sealover wrote:
At least you wouldn't have to wait for skin cancer to kill you if the crops all suddenly failed forever.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
sealover wrote:
At the time, the main anthropogenic culprit was CFCs. Chlorinated fluorocarbons.

Nope. CFC's do not react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
They could form free radicals in the stratosphere that would get recycled as the converted one ozone O3 molecule after another into oxygen O2 gas.

Nope. CFC's do not react with ozone. You are again denying the Chapman cycle and the chemistry of ozone.
sealover wrote:
They could do it over and over and over and over, with one single CFC molecule destroying THOUSANDS of ozone molecules before being neutralized.

Ozone doesn't need to be neutralized. CFC's do not react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
It was a major success for the earth and humanity that voluntary restrictions on CFC production were agreed to by most nations of the world.

No. It was very costly. The restrictions were not voluntary.
sealover wrote:
So it looked good for ozone recovery for a decade, but then the ozone "hole" started reappearing again on an annual basis at one of the poles.

The ozone 'hole' has always been there. It's a natural feature of polar regions. Again, you deny the Chapman cycle.
sealover wrote:
Then it started thinning again at BOTH POLES.

No. The 'holes' have always been at both poles.
sealover wrote:
And CFC production was still going down.

CFC's do not react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
CFCs were the worst of the worst ozone destroying molecules. They recycled thousands of times taking out thousands of ozone with just one CFC.

CFC's do not react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
But there were a lot of other atoms and molecules that could also destroy ozone with a kill ratio of just one to one.

The ozone layer is not being depleted and never was.
sealover wrote:
Things like SOx's, NOx's, chloride, bromide, and others.

Nope. The ozone layer is not being depleted.
sealover wrote:
It only takes one ozone to take them out. But one ozone is lost in the process.

Nope. The ozone layer is not being depleted. You are still denying the Chapman cycle.
sealover wrote:
The NEW ozone holes weren't about CFCs any more.

Ozone holes at the poles are not new. They have always been there.
sealover wrote:
So what does "denitrification" accomplish?

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Thanks to human activity, and lesser contributions from Mother Nature, there are droplets of liquid nitric acid in the stratosphere.

No, there isn't.
sealover wrote:
As ozone destroying molecules bounce around in the stratosphere, they can get stuck in the droplets of liquid nitric acid.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.
sealover wrote:
Given enough time, those molecules of bromide, chloride, SOx, NOx in the droplets of nitric acid can leave the liquid droplet and go back out in the vapor phase to the stratosphere.

You are making shit up.
sealover wrote:
"Denitrification" is when those droplets of liquid nitric acid, and the ozone destroying SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, etc., that are dissolved in the nitric acid, FREEZE and fall to earth as crystals of nitric acid ice.

There is no nitric acid ice in the atmosphere.
sealover wrote:
One anthropogenic chemical is protecting the ozone layer from another another group of anthropogenic chemicals. NON CFC OZONE DESTROYERS.

Nothing protects the ozone layer. Ozone is created by sunlight and destroyed by sunlight.
sealover wrote:
And the prostitution of the unambiguous definition for DENITRIFICATION.

Buzzword fallacy.

You obviously have no idea how ozone is created or destroyed. You obviously have no idea of the chemistry of CFC's or the DuPont patent problem and how they solved it by whining to the government.


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
RE: Tetra methyl silane to calibrate NMR. More common use than tetra ethyl lead (TEL).27-03-2022 11:37
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Tetra methyl silane to calibrate NMR. More common use than tetra ethyl lead (TEL)

The only time we ever really used tetra ethyl lead (TEL) to "calibrate" NMR was a part of instruction and introduction to use of nuclear magnetic resonance.

Tetra ethyl lead (TEL) was one of the ones they ran in the introductory lab session.

The one they were more likely to use again was tetra methyl silane. SiC4H12.

Tetra methyl silane. Si(-CH3)4. Twelve identical C-H bonds. Four identical Si-C.

If you want to zero in the NMR on just one kind of C-H bond. No interference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C

sealover wrote:
Tetra Ethyl Lead (TEL) to Calibrate Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR).

HEAVY METAL GAS???

Radon and tetra ethyl lead are two gases that have some things in common.

They are very heavy elements. As heavy as they get.

One is a heavy metal in organic (ethylated) form.

One is a very heavy Noble gas.

They are both hazardous to human health.

One is a carcinogen, teratogen, and mutagen.

One causes brain damage.

They are both VERY HEAVY ELEMENTS, yet they FLOAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

I mean, you don't hear about some chemical form of GOLD that seeps up from underground into your house and makes you rich. GOLD is a HEAVY METAL, present in the earth's crust in a pool more than a million times greater than radon.

Radon is a Noble gas.

A Noble gas like helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon.

Radon is the heaviest Noble gas of them all.

Just about as heavy as lead, radium, or mercury.

Like all Noble gases, radon is chemically inert.

As it collides with other gas molecules or particles in the atmosphere, there is no chemical interaction between radon and anything else. Ever.

As it collides with other gas molecules or particles in the atmosphere, radon does not physically interact through dipole interaction, electric field effects, bond resonance frequency, etc.

Tetra ethyl lead (TEL) is sort of like radon that way.

As TEL collides with other molecules or particles in the atmosphere, its kind of an inert super ball.

The only thing that ever comes into contact are the outermost hydrogen on the four ethyl groups attached to the lead atom.

As organic chemistry students learn in alkane chemistry.

Those hydrocarbons yield a lot of energy if you combine them with oxygen and a spark. BOOM! BURN BABY BURN!

But those hydrocarbons, like the ethyl groups on the tetra ethyl lead are pretty inert as chemicals otherwise.

Hydrocarbons don't play well with others in chemistry.

Mostly because they don't play at all.

It is usually some other part of an organic molecule or complex where the action is, if there is any.

Pure hydrocarbons don't do much spontaneously.

Tetra ethyl lead. TEL. Pb is element symbol for lead. TEL formula PbC8H20

Tetra ethyl lead has 12 hydrogen atoms on its outer 4 METHYL groups.

These hydrogen atoms are in the -CH3 methyl group that comprises the outer part of the "ethyl" in tetra ethyl lead.

All 12 of these C-H bonds are identical in nuclear magnetic resonance.

Tetra ethyl lead has 4 C-C bonds.

All 4 of these C-C bonds are identical in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

Tetra ethyl lead has 8 C-H bonds from the inner part of the "ethyl" in TEL.

All 8 of these C-H bonds are identical in NMR.

Tetra ethyl lead has 4 Pb-C bonds, which make it ORGANIC LEAD.

All 4 Pb-C bonds are equal in NMR.

Tetra ethyl lead has 28 different individual chemical bonds between elements in its large molecular structure.

NMR only sees 4, EXACTLY the same.

It's a good way to calibrate NMR.


-------------------------------------------------



Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Just Lock the Bathroom Door from the Outside! Trolls Only Live in the SEWER!

Trolls have been exiled from the world of sunlight.

They can only live in the sewer now.

Just lock the bathroom door from the outside!

The only way the trolls can break in is to crawl up through the toilet.

We don't have to be in the bathroom to have a rational discussion.


Evasion. He asked you a question. Answer it.
RE: Junk Science, Bunk Science, Punk Science, or FUNK SCIENCE?27-03-2022 13:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Junk Science, Bunk Science, Punk Science, or FUNK SCIENCE?

Everybody gets to make their own science.

Angry science. Scary science. Evil science. The one and only TRUE science.

Everyone is a highly respected expert of no less than equal standing.

Me, I like the science that's FUN!

The kind you don't have to fight just to be allowed to talk about.

Everyone is a scientist, so take your pick.

Junk science, bunk science, punk science, or FUNK SCIENCE? Let's get funky.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------























IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I once presented at a "Chapman Conference".

That is prestigious. Congratulations.

Could you provide a link to the video. I'd like to watch and learn because that's some prestigious stuff you got going there.

sealover wrote:I got off on the fact that such conferences are VERY prestigious.

Tell me about it! Could you provide a link to the thesis so I can read it. I was just thinking about boning up on nitrogen cycling and your timing couldn't be better.

sealover wrote:This one was about nitrogen cycling.

After this, I'm going to review water cycling in Lake Tahoe.

sealover wrote:When some scientifically illiterate troll disses Chapman, I take it personally.

Those illiterate trolls ... how could you possibly take one seriously?
27-03-2022 19:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Tetra methyl silane to calibrate NMR. More common use than tetra ethyl lead (TEL)
...deleted excess noise...


Void argument fallacy. No apparent purpose to your post.


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
Edited on 27-03-2022 19:16
27-03-2022 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Junk Science, Bunk Science, Punk Science, or FUNK SCIENCE?

Everybody gets to make their own science.

Angry science. Scary science. Evil science. The one and only TRUE science.

Everyone is a highly respected expert of no less than equal standing.

Me, I like the science that's FUN!

The kind you don't have to fight just to be allowed to talk about.

Everyone is a scientist, so take your pick.

Junk science, bunk science, punk science, or FUNK SCIENCE? Let's get funky.

You deny science.


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
RE: "No apparent purpose to your post."27-03-2022 21:56
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"No apparent purpose to your post."

No purpose that is apparent to those outside the target audience.

The people who will eventually read will remember that it was asserted that lead could not even exist in the vapor phase.

Lead couldn't possibly have fallen out from the BIG NICKEL plume for hundreds of miles because it is physically impossible for lead to fly like that..

One purpose was to teach what properties tetra ethyl lead has that allows it to float in the air like elemental mercury or radon.

Another purpose was to teach a little about NMR.

The target audience are people who WANT TO LEARN BIOGEOCHEMISTRY.

The target audience believes that the scientific terms have meaning that don't require ME to provide the unambiguous definition for.

The target audience is competent to look up terms, to their own satisfaction.

The target audience does not seek to belittle and dismiss concerns about climate change.

The target audience will see that Ignoramus feels compelled to post more often than I do on my thread.

The target audience will soon discover that there is no point reading any more of the wisdom Ignoramus contributes.

"No apparent purpose to your post." Sums it up nicely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------










































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Tetra methyl silane to calibrate NMR. More common use than tetra ethyl lead (TEL)
...deleted excess noise...


Void argument fallacy. No apparent purpose to your post.
27-03-2022 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"No apparent purpose to your post."

No purpose that is apparent to those outside the target audience.

What 'target audience'?
sealover wrote:
The people who will eventually read will remember that it was asserted that lead could not even exist in the vapor phase.

Never said it couldn't.
sealover wrote:
Lead couldn't possibly have fallen out from the BIG NICKEL plume for hundreds of miles because it is physically impossible for lead to fly like that..

It is.
sealover wrote:
One purpose was to teach what properties tetra ethyl lead has that allows it to float in the air like elemental mercury or radon.

You are not even discussing them at the moment.
TEL is a liquid at room temperature and pressure.
Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and pressure.
Radon is a gas a room temperature and pressure.

So what?
sealover wrote:
Another purpose was to teach a little about NMR.

Why? Nothing to do with weather or climate.
sealover wrote:
The target audience are people who WANT TO LEARN BIOGEOCHEMISTRY.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Neither TEL, mercury, radon, or NMR devices have anything to do with biology, geology, or chemistry. They simply exist.
sealover wrote:
The target audience believes that the scientific terms have meaning that don't require ME to provide the unambiguous definition for.

You deny science. Science isn't buzzwords. Science isn't a government agency, data, observation, website, pamphlet, book, proof, consensus, religion, scientist, or any group of scientists.

You have already shown you don't understand chemistry, as your BS in acid-base chemistry demonstrates, and your lack of knowledge concerning the chemistry of ozone, TEL, radon, or even noble gases demonstrate. Your lack of knowledge of radiation has also been demonstrated. Your misunderstanding of a chemical reactions and the pH scale has also been demonstrated. You have no understanding of what is organic or inorganic.

You deny chemistry.

You have no understanding of plant growth either, since you do not understand the chemistry of photosynthesis.

sealover wrote:
The target audience is competent to look up terms, to their own satisfaction.

Look up your buzzwords???
sealover wrote:
The target audience does not seek to belittle and dismiss concerns about climate change.

I am going to assume at this point that your definition of 'climate change' is a synonym for 'global warming' (which is also not defined by anyone). Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. There is nothing that can change.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

sealover wrote:
The target audience will see that Ignoramus feels compelled to post more often than I do on my thread.

The target audience will soon discover that there is no point reading any more of the wisdom Ignoramus contributes.

"No apparent purpose to your post." Sums it up nicely.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

You a nothing. Spewing buzzwords and copying and pasting BS and random phrases and topics to make yourself look important.

You are a nothing.


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
RE: Polyphenol Terminology. Scientific Vocabulary with Built-in Bias.27-03-2022 23:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Polyphenol Terminology. Scientific Vocabulary with Built-in Bias.

Polyphenols are large molecular weight phenol carboxylic acids, capable of acting as reducing agents, chelating agents, protein-binding agents, free radical scavengers, and undergoing oxidative coupling to form humic acid polymers.

Polyphenols are also called "tannins".

Why? Because people used them to "tan" leather.

Polyphenols would form strong complexes with the proteins in the animal hide.

Reactive sites on the proteins were occluded by polyphenol ligands.

Microorganisms couldn't do anything to degrade the protein in protein-tannin complexes.

The "tanned" leather did not rot nearly as quickly as raw hide.

But once you called polyphenols "tannins", it created built-in bias for the vocabularly.

Instead of naming the chemical compound for what it IS, a name was given based on an assumption of what it DOES.

Polyphenols can tan leather. Yes. They are "tannins".

Polyphenols can do MUCH MORE than tan leather in chemical ecology.

By using the word "tannin", the focus is already on just one of the chemical properties of polyphenols.

Who would think that something that "tans" leather is important as an antioxidant, a metal complexing agent, a metal reducing agent, a precursor for humic acid polymers formed during oxidative coupling, etc., etc.?

What are some other names for polyphenols?

Most times when you see the word "defense" used for a vegetable product, they are referring to polyphenols. No built-in bias there, right?

An assumption regarding their adaptive value is included in the name.

"Immobile defenses", "digestibility reducing compounds", "antiherbivore defenses", "defensive compounds".

None of these terms is a synonym for "polyphenol".

Yet, these are the terms most often evoked to describe polyphenol.

Liz Bernays was a brilliant entomologist at UC Berkeley.

She showed how nobody ever proved that polyphenols were worth a damn to ANY plant as "antiherbivore defenses".

Biogeochemists had to work around the biased vocabulary to get the ecologists to pay attention to what polyphenols do for the plant when they get to the soil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------






































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"No apparent purpose to your post."

No purpose that is apparent to those outside the target audience.

What 'target audience'?
sealover wrote:
The people who will eventually read will remember that it was asserted that lead could not even exist in the vapor phase.

Never said it couldn't.
sealover wrote:
Lead couldn't possibly have fallen out from the BIG NICKEL plume for hundreds of miles because it is physically impossible for lead to fly like that..

It is.
sealover wrote:
One purpose was to teach what properties tetra ethyl lead has that allows it to float in the air like elemental mercury or radon.

You are not even discussing them at the moment.
TEL is a liquid at room temperature and pressure.
Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and pressure.
Radon is a gas a room temperature and pressure.

So what?
sealover wrote:
Another purpose was to teach a little about NMR.

Why? Nothing to do with weather or climate.
sealover wrote:
The target audience are people who WANT TO LEARN BIOGEOCHEMISTRY.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Neither TEL, mercury, radon, or NMR devices have anything to do with biology, geology, or chemistry. They simply exist.
sealover wrote:
The target audience believes that the scientific terms have meaning that don't require ME to provide the unambiguous definition for.

You deny science. Science isn't buzzwords. Science isn't a government agency, data, observation, website, pamphlet, book, proof, consensus, religion, scientist, or any group of scientists.

You have already shown you don't understand chemistry, as your BS in acid-base chemistry demonstrates, and your lack of knowledge concerning the chemistry of ozone, TEL, radon, or even noble gases demonstrate. Your lack of knowledge of radiation has also been demonstrated. Your misunderstanding of a chemical reactions and the pH scale has also been demonstrated. You have no understanding of what is organic or inorganic.

You deny chemistry.

You have no understanding of plant growth either, since you do not understand the chemistry of photosynthesis.

sealover wrote:
The target audience is competent to look up terms, to their own satisfaction.

Look up your buzzwords???
sealover wrote:
The target audience does not seek to belittle and dismiss concerns about climate change.

I am going to assume at this point that your definition of 'climate change' is a synonym for 'global warming' (which is also not defined by anyone). Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. There is nothing that can change.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

sealover wrote:
The target audience will see that Ignoramus feels compelled to post more often than I do on my thread.

The target audience will soon discover that there is no point reading any more of the wisdom Ignoramus contributes.

"No apparent purpose to your post." Sums it up nicely.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

You a nothing. Spewing buzzwords and copying and pasting BS and random phrases and topics to make yourself look important.

You are a nothing.
RE: Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES!28-03-2022 03:46
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

These are not points of controversy.

Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

Either that or there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to cover up the dirty truth about the whole radon hoax.

Do you think that you can unilaterally proclaim that radon is not capable of emitting gamma rays?

Who could possibly doubt your authority?

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

Better still, try Googling "Radon does not emit gamma rays."

See if there is ANYTHING to support such an ABSURDLY IGNORANT ASSERTION.

On the other hand, the artwork is pretty nice.

I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do you see how easy Harvey and I ignore the silly internet insults and stick to the purpose?
[/quote]
28-03-2022 09:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

Radon is not a gamma emitter nor a beta emitter.
sealover wrote:
These are not points of controversy.

Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

Void authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Either that or there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to cover up the dirty truth about the whole radon hoax.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy.
sealover wrote:
Do you think that you can unilaterally proclaim that radon is not capable of emitting gamma rays?

Who could possibly doubt your authority?

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

Void authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Better still, try Googling "Radon does not emit gamma rays."

See if there is ANYTHING to support such an ABSURDLY IGNORANT ASSERTION.

Attempted proof by void.


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
28-03-2022 13:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.





RE: You ALMOST got the radon thing now.28-03-2022 16:58
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
You ALMOST got the radon thing now.

Yes, when RADIUM decays into RADON, it emits an alpha particle.

The gamma ray and beta particle are emitted when RADON decays into WHAT?

"Radium is not radon".

But you ARE getting close.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.





29-03-2022 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
---fixing damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.







You ALMOST got the radon thing now.

Yes, when RADIUM decays into RADON, it emits an alpha particle.

The gamma ray and beta particle are emitted when RADON decays into WHAT?

"Radium is not radon".

But you ARE getting close.



Radon decays in to polonium via alpha radiation.
Polonium decays into lead via alpha radiation.
Then it stops. Lead is stable.


Radon is not a beta or gamma emitter.


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
Edited on 29-03-2022 02:08
RE: US Dept of Energy needs to hire you!29-03-2022 02:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
US Dept. of Energy need to hire you!

They are ALL MIXED UP about the gamma rays from radon thing.

They had me using the Gamma Spec to look for peaks around 609, 1120, and 1764 KeV.

They foolishly believed that these would include radium breakdown products.

As has been clearly shown, radon is a radium decay product.

As radon decays on down to LEAD, look for gamma rays in the energy range close to 609, 1120, and 1764 Kev.

They really need you to straighten them out.

And I owe the taxpayers a lot of money.

They paid me to do something completely meaningless.

Looking for non existent gamma rays from the radon from the radium.

Thinking they even knew the peak energies for the gamma spectrum!

Boy, did they get that one wrong!

Why don't you come up into the real world and teach the people who need this?

They would pay you a LOT to help them figure this one out.

US Dept of Energy needs to hire you!

At least you figured out that radium is not radon.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
---fixing damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.







You ALMOST got the radon thing now.

Yes, when RADIUM decays into RADON, it emits an alpha particle.

The gamma ray and beta particle are emitted when RADON decays into WHAT?

"Radium is not radon".

But you ARE getting close.



Radon decays in to polonium via alpha radiation.
Polonium decays into lead via alpha radiation.
Then it stops. Lead is stable.


Radon is not a beta or gamma emitter.
29-03-2022 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
---fixing damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.







You ALMOST got the radon thing now.

Yes, when RADIUM decays into RADON, it emits an alpha particle.

The gamma ray and beta particle are emitted when RADON decays into WHAT?

"Radium is not radon".

But you ARE getting close.



Radon decays in to polonium via alpha radiation.
Polonium decays into lead via alpha radiation.
Then it stops. Lead is stable.


Radon is not a beta or gamma emitter.


US Dept. of Energy need to hire you!

They are ALL MIXED UP about the gamma rays from radon thing.

They had me using the Gamma Spec to look for peaks around 609, 1120, and 1764 KeV.

They foolishly believed that these would include radium breakdown products.

As has been clearly shown, radon is a radium decay product.

As radon decays on down to LEAD, look for gamma rays in the energy range close to 609, 1120, and 1764 Kev.

They really need you to straighten them out.

And I owe the taxpayers a lot of money.

They paid me to do something completely meaningless.

Looking for non existent gamma rays from the radon from the radium.

Thinking they even knew the peak energies for the gamma spectrum!

Boy, did they get that one wrong!

Why don't you come up into the real world and teach the people who need this?

They would pay you a LOT to help them figure this one out.

US Dept of Energy needs to hire you!

At least you figured out that radium is not radon.


I don't work the government, but I do sell instrumentation to nuclear power plants.

No, the problem is YOU. You have no concept of what radon is or how it decays. You are just repeating EPA crapola without thinking.


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
RE: AND I received "Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor" Award fom UC Berkeley.30-03-2022 05:45
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
AND I received "Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor" Award from UC Berkeley.

I didn't copy paste ANYTHING.

I didn't forget that there were two different isotopes of BISMUTH involved.

And the GAMMA RAYS associated with RADIOACTIVE BISMUTH decay.

And the peak KeV gamma emission spectra for both bismuth isotope's decay.

And it wasn't the EPA that brainwashed me.

IT WAS THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

What YOU should have done was look a little more closely at the decay products that emit BETA particles. Two of those BETA PARTICLE EMITTING REACTIONS ALSO EMIT GAMMA RAYS. Look up what happens to the BISMUTH ISOTOPES.
The ones you failed to list. It's easy to find.

You must have copy pasted the wrong source NOT TO FIND THE BISMUTH ISOTOPES isotopes that EMIT BETA PARTICLES AND GAMMA RAYS during radon decay.

Gamma Spec is real. Gamma ray emission from radium decay products is real.

In 1989 I received an "Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor" award from UC Berkeley.

I was a college science instructor for a time, teaching buzzword science courses like "chemistry", "natural history", and "environmental science".

I'm pretty confident in my competence.

Especially when the competition didn't even show up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------














Into the Night wrote:
---fixing damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Radon IS a Radionuclide, emits GAMMA RAYS and BETA PARTICLES.

You copy-pasted from the wrong source. You should have copy-pasted from one that read "Alpha particles", not "Beta particles"

sealover wrote:These are not points of controversy.

sealover wrote:Anybody can verify in a matter of seconds with a quick Internet search.

sealover wrote:ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.

sealover wrote:I'm making sure that this one gets into the library.







You ALMOST got the radon thing now.

Yes, when RADIUM decays into RADON, it emits an alpha particle.

The gamma ray and beta particle are emitted when RADON decays into WHAT?

"Radium is not radon".

But you ARE getting close.



Radon decays in to polonium via alpha radiation.
Polonium decays into lead via alpha radiation.
Then it stops. Lead is stable.


Radon is not a beta or gamma emitter.
30-03-2022 08:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Gamma Spec is real. Gamma ray emission from radium decay products is real.

The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon.

sealover wrote:I'm pretty confident in my competence.

Good. Confidence is good, when based on good information. It is bad when it is based on manipulative disinformation.

Like I said, you aren't here to learn and you aren't here to teach. You aren't here to discuss science.

"Trolling" is the word I was looking for.
30-03-2022 09:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Gamma Spec is real. Gamma ray emission from radium decay products is real.

The gamma rays are from the radium, not the radon.

Radium decays into radon via alpha radiation. No gamma rays are emitted.
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I'm pretty confident in my competence.

Good. Confidence is good, when based on good information. It is bad when it is based on manipulative disinformation.

Like I said, you aren't here to learn and you aren't here to teach. You aren't here to discuss science.

"Trolling" is the word I was looking for.

Yup. That's the word you are looking for.


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
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate THREAD VERSUS THREAD! A REAL climate debate.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Low temperature breaks record set over 100 years ago, proving climate change is real1225-05-2022 21:56
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry22125-05-2022 21:16
Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?8309-05-2022 07:31
Who is who on Climate-debate.com9603-05-2022 23:04
National Climate Change Is Real Day (sealover please do not read this it is a surprise)529-04-2022 20:08
▲ 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