Science from the other side of Climate Change
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
Define 'long period'. What kind of weather is a 'rich climate'? What kind of weather is a 'marine climate'? What kind of weather is an 'economic climate'?
Daylight63
Verified User
Reference. Cite your sources.
I'm talking about stable isotope fractionation.
Given that I have spent the last 30+ years working as a chemist I think I know what an isotope is.
Isotope fractionation isn't related to the age of the mud on the bottom of the ocean. And what on earth does this article have to do with the topic under discussion about the isotope ratio in atmospheric carbon? Please quote the most applicable part.
That's all you seem to be doing. You CLEARLY don't understand even the BASICS of this topic.
So far you have shown no real scientific capability other than random word selection.
Into the Night
Verified User
What's changing? Climate cannot change.
The Church of Global Warming denies several theories of science as a matter of routine.
Reminds me of some drivers I come across on the road.
Into the Night
Verified User
Holy Links are not a proof, Sybil.
CO2 does not have any identifiers. Go learn what an isotope is.
You are no chemist, Sybil. Stop pretending. Go learn what an isotope is.
No such thing, Sybil.
Carbon dioxide isn't mud.
Go learn what an isotope is. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. There is no atmospheric carbon (other than temporarily, as soot).
You are describing yourself, Sybil. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So you don't know? This comes as no surprise.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Isotope - Wikipedia
Carbon - Wikipedia
Isotopes of carbon - Wikipedia
Conditional sentence - Wikipedia
Isotope fractionation != isoptope ratio.
Isotope fractionation - Wikipedia
Isotope ratios can in some cases inform us of the origin of an element in a substance. That is the only claim you could reasonably have been making with regard to atmospheric carbon dioxide "chemistry".
Ah, but you're so keen on references.
Here you go again:
Isotope - Wikipedia
Isotope ratios are, and given that many things may have been different in the past the fractionation in the past may have produced different results.
In fact the production of isotopes from neutron bombardment varies through time. In other words age matters for everything about isotopes.
And now the part I've been waiting for, please imagine a shit eating grin on my face:
I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to follow the debate with you, but you will NEED to become more familiar with the actual science.
I, on the other hand, have provided countless links and detailed explanations supported by other references. That means I actually HAVE data in support of the proposition. All you seem to have is buzzwords and the hope that it is all to confusing to understand.
That's why I provided links and references. So you could check my points out for yourself.
Have fun reading, it will be on the test.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Wikipedia is a non-authoritative source, awash in errors. Any yahoo can post shit on it.
Why can't you tell what you believe?
Daylight63
Verified User
Isotope - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Carbon - Wikipedia
Isotopes of carbon - Wikipedia
Conditional sentence - Wikipedia
Isotope fractionation != isoptope ratio.
Isotope fractionation - Wikipedia
Isotope ratios can in some cases inform us of the origin of an element in a substance. That is the only claim you could reasonably have been making with regard to atmospheric carbon dioxide "chemistry".
Ah, but you're so keen on references.
Here you go again:
Isotope - Wikipedia
Isotope ratios are, and given that many things may have been different in the past the fractionation in the past may have produced different results.
In fact the production of isotopes from neutron bombardment varies through time. In other words age matters for everything about isotopes.
And now the part I've been waiting for, please imagine a shit eating grin on my face:
I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to follow the debate with you, but you will NEED to become more familiar with the actual science.
I, on the other hand, have provided countless links and detailed explanations supported by other references. That means I actually HAVE data in support of the proposition. All you seem to have is buzzwords and the hope that it is all to confusing to understand.
That's why I provided links and references. So you could check my points out for yourself.
Have fun reading, it will be on the test.
Ummmm, you are telling me what an isotope is. I'm a fucking CHEMIST. I already know this.
I've even taken a class in ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY which covers isotope fractionation.
NOW PLEASE TRY TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS USING ACTUAL SCIENCE now that you know what an isotope is.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
One doesn't believe in science.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Damn. I honestly thought you might know SOMETHING about science. I apologize for wasting my time. Yikes!
Daylight63
Verified User
DUDE! What do you think you are proving?
YOu have not even COME CLOSE to discussing the isotope fractionation. All you've done is repeatedly post information about what an isotope is.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
ZenMode
Well-known member
Those questions are separate from the claim that climate doesn't exist (or at least you're baffled by what is meant by climate) and/or can't change.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Since you continue to play dumb....
An ice age is a long period of time when the Earth's average temperature is lower than normal, and large areas of the Earth are covered by glaciers and ice sheets.
Into the Night
Verified User
You can't use Wikipedia as a source, dummy. Wikipedia defines no word.Isotope - Wikipedia
Carbon - Wikipedia
Isotopes of carbon - Wikipedia
Conditional sentence - Wikipedia
Isotope fractionation != isoptope ratio.
Isotope fractionation - Wikipedia
No such thing.
There is no 'atmospheric carbon dioxide chemistry'. Carbon dioxide is not a chemical reaction.
You can't use Wikipedia. Wikipedia defines no word. Dismissed on sight.
What 'neutron bombardment'?? What does this have to do with age?
You are not discussing any theory of science. Science is not Wikipedia or any other website.
Science isn't data. Random numbers aren't 'data' either. All the buzzwords here so far are from YOU. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!
Wikipedia not not a reference. Holy Links are not a reference either. Science is not a Holy Link, Wikipedia, or website.
What 'test'?
Into the Night
Verified User
Many discard theories of science, including you. Science is not a religion. It is not a 'belief'.
Into the Night
Verified User
It is obvious that NEITHER of you know what 'science' is.
Very well...
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
That's it. That's all.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as 'isotope fractionation'. Go learn what an isotope is. He never posted what an isotope is either.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no data on a buzzword.