+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: More CO2 Peculiarities: The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio

  1. #11
    Trusted Member mkpdavies is just really nice mkpdavies is just really nice mkpdavies is just really nice mkpdavies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    38,605

    Why don't you go and take him on then?

    Ah that's right, you get your **** kicked every single time.
    mkpdavies no longer posts on this forum

  2. #12
    Uber Member Akria has some supporters Akria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Grimsby, NELincs
    Posts
    2,578

    Looks like Ferdinand is already taking him on successfully.
    I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly.
    Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using.


    http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

    The commonality of mankind:
    If you prick us, do we not bleed?
    If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
    If you poison us, do we not die?

  3. #13
    Uber Member Clippo is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    3,395

    mpkdavies wrote:-
    Why don't you go and take him on then?
    I don't have to - as Akria pointed out, - others, who are far closer to the silly expositions of this nutter than I, can do it so much better.

  4. #14
    Trusted Member Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,043

    There are two types of 'taking someone on', the first type is what Clippo did a few posts back and start getting personal with anyone who does not follow the standard line on GW and the second way is to use science. That does not mean posting a link; it means you have to actually explain why you think it is wrong in your own words. (Or else it would be the link doing the 'taking on' rather than the person posing the link!). So can we hear it without all this slander about people being silly, stupid and hear the why bit.
    We're pilgrims in an unholy land

  5. #15
    Member John Cooper is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    333

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov View Post
    Yes I know it uses C14 but as far as I'm aware the same principle applies, i.e. that of radioactive decay, which gives a different ratio as the exponential decay curve acts on it. Each kind of decay is defined wholly by its half-life since it is always an exact exponential. For reasons of accuracy it is preferred that the half-life is of the order of the time being measures or else your error is multiplied. So other than that the same principle applies and this is established fact. Now maybe he has not proved every detail in the path of reasoning in this piece of text but that's fair enough as he is just communicating this particular finding so other scientists reading it will be looking into it as well. It's not intended as political propaganda but as scientist-to-scientist and much like work in progress. It's the technique that is the key point and others can expand on it.
    The same principle does not apply C13 is not radioactive so its percentage remains constant.

    The ratio of C13/C14 in fossil fuel or biomass depends on what type of plant (if it uses C3 or C4 photosynthesis) that made it up. It would not be constant so really this article is not relevant.

    For those who are interested in science (not just looking for anything that suports there view) here is a link
    C3 carbon fixation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    BTW I have an open mind on Global warming but this article is rubbish particulary as he is disproving something which he says "some people believe" but without saying who these people are or referring to their work.
    Classic strawman very dishonest.

  6. #16
    Trusted Member Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,043

    Right I see what you are saying now. I admit I only took a cursory glance the first time around and assumed C13 had some long-term radioactive decay, maybe a lot longer than C14, which is about 5700 years. However on double-checking it appears C13 is an entirely stable isotope. I thought that was a bit weird since I had never heard that C13 had decay but there you go.

    Incidentally it has nothing to do with what plants do to the C14 other than they simply store it since your link talks about chemical synthesis which is quite distinct from its nuclear counterpart. To create C14 needs high-energy cosmic rays, so nothing changes it in the actual plant itself. You can burn it or freeze it and the half-life remains exact since the nuclear process is on an entirely different energy level.

    So this is what I'm now wondering about.
    The “natural” C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%. In contrast, the C13 content of the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is claimed to be slightly smaller - just under 1.1%.
    So I agree this is odd and other than nuclear decay I can't see how this is claimed so maybe someone should ask him. However I still find it an interesting line to see if isotopes can give us some date information on atmospheric carbon. It's a valid line of enquiry.
    We're pilgrims in an unholy land

  7. #17
    Member John Cooper is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    333

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov View Post

    Incidentally it has nothing to do with what plants do to the C14 other than they simply store it since your link talks about chemical synthesis which is quite distinct from its nuclear counterpart. To create C14 needs high-energy cosmic rays, so nothing changes it in the actual plant itself. You can burn it or freeze it and the half-life remains exact since the nuclear process is on an entirely different energy level.
    I was talking about C13 and C12. When you burn something created from plants the ratio would be slightly different depending on the plant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov View Post


    So I agree this is odd and other than nuclear decay I can't see how this is claimed so maybe someone should ask him. However I still find it an interesting line to see if isotopes can give us some date information on atmospheric carbon. It's a valid line of enquiry.
    Sadly he does not get a link.

  8. #18
    Trusted Member Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough Baron von Lotsov is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,043

    Yes, well looking at it in terms of the differences between C12 and C13 I'd say the only thing that could cause much difference in their behaviour is the atomic weight, although it might be the case that the extra neutron shifts the electron energy levels slightly, although I'd have to check that one. So there maybe some mechanism where burning it can differentiate between the two, so it's unfair to call him a strawman at this stage.

    Normally a paper is published and the paper will always contain references to the basis of the postulate, as is normal scientific protocol. So if he does not publish such a paper then maybe he might be one and it would not be the first time someone has done this, although to be fair this claim appears to be more for the purpose of communicating with other scientists, and this is a good thing since the more heads you have working on something often the better the results.
    We're pilgrims in an unholy land

  9. #19
    Member John Cooper is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    333

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov View Post
    So there maybe some mechanism where burning it can differentiate between the two, so it's unfair to call him a strawman at this stage.
    I disagree his paper is refuting something other people has said. However he does not say who said this if anyone did.

    A classic strawman arguement - you do know what I mean by this don't you.

  10. #20
    Uber Member Clippo is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    3,395

    Well, suitably exposed as an intellectually arrogant prima-donna
    Well that is the first time I have seen anyone look at isotopes. Thank goodness there are some real scientists still around. Actually I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of doing that myself.
    , BVL seeks to justify his sloppy thinking by putting the onus on to me to prove Spencer wrong.

    Not so, - in this forum it is a favourite technique of AGW sceptics to post links, usually to anti- AGW articles, and then very often add no comment or ones that show they haven’t read or understand the detail of the argument in the link. (I raised this very point in ‘complaints’ a year to 18 months ago).

    This thread is a classic example of this – with mpkdavies adding his usual prattish comments, - but which showed that he had no idea of the detail of the argument therein.

    This has happened so many times, & the same old topics re-raised from the dead, that I really haven’t the time or interest to pander to closed-minded sceptics.

    The technical debate over GW (Is it real ?) and ( what causes it /) is over – dead in the water for many years – and with AGW the clear winner. Any debate now should be about how quickly and how we need to reduce CO2 emissions and capture as much CO2 as we can from the atmosphere.

    I have just read the book “6 Degrees “ by UK’s Mark Lynas – and as I said in a post somewhere else, ‘It frightened the **** out of me’ even tho’ I probably won’t be around to suffer the effects..

    Just be grateful I gave you the links when I did – before you had gone down the road of further humiliation.

    I think, from previous posts, you have some claims to being a scientist or interested in science. I suggest you read around the whole GW subject before you pontificate (I think I’ve said that to you before – if I did, obviously you haven’t followed my suggestion ).
    A good intellectual starting point would be:-

    1. Do I agree, or not, that GW now is real ? – if yes, goto 2.
    a} if not sure try to seek out evidence from books / internet / media / political sources or wherever supporting both sides of the debate. Then, if you conclude the evidence is in favour of GW, then goto 2 If you think No,
    b) Visit, say, Alex Jones’s conspiracy website and/or bone up on conspiracy theories

    2. Work your way thro’ reliable scientific sources – such as the Realclimate link I gave, and see what conclusions the expert, independent scientists have come to, and the reasons why.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts