Reply With QuoteLooks like Ferdinand is already taking him on successfully.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
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
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?
mpkdavies wrote:-
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.Why don't you go and take him on then?
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
The same principle does not apply C13 is not radioactive so its percentage remains constant.Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov
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.
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.
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.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%.
We're pilgrims in an unholy land
I was talking about C13 and C12. When you burn something created from plants the ratio would be slightly different depending on the plant.
Sadly he does not get a link.
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
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.
Well, suitably exposed as an intellectually arrogant prima-donna, BVL seeks to justify his sloppy thinking by putting the onus on to me to prove Spencer wrong.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.
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.
Bookmarks