AlGore - Natural CO2 is heavier than man-made CO2. Is this true?

[rrr51]

I was listening to the hearings and just heard AlGore say that natural CO2, such as CO2 produced by volcanos, is heavier than CO2 produced by man. Did I hear right? Is that what he said? Is it true? Does anybody know?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The man is an idiot and this is just more proof!

And yet, there are people out there...many people...who will believe him.

Most unfortunate that I never run into them at cocktail parties. What fun that would be.

The man is an idiot and this is just more proof!

[palmer]

True and true. I think the paper was confusing but I didn't read it as carefully as I should have. The table above figure 7 states "Age of 1cm thick layer" to be 42,000 or 44,000 years. But the table also states that the age at 3325 minus the age at 3120 (205 meters) is 112kabp - 54kabp or 108,000 years. That's 50,000 years / meter or 500 years per cm on average.

I put a placeholder in my essay until I have to correct it. Thanks for that critique and the broader one. If you think I'm still trying to "fool" people in other sections, please point it out. You can also ignore it or write your own. If you want a website to put yours on, I will gladly do that.

[reg45]

There might be subtile differences in the molecular mass due the the variation in isotopic distribution of the carbon in the carbon dioxide. C¹⁴ is about 17% heavier than C¹².

[libsrscum]

Al Gore. What a waste of carbon.

[reg45]

This is basically because plants have a preference for lighter isotopes.

This is because the heavier isotope diffuses through membranes more slowly. Hence, any carbon which is the product of living sources would have more of the lighter isotopes of carbon, than would carbon derived from non-biological sources.

[Diver Dave]

And yet, there are people out there...many people...who will believe him.

Most unfortunate that I never run into them at cocktail parties. What fun that would be.

Keep in mind who his audience was when he presented his theory - Congress. They have proven themselves to be the most gullible in society.

As to your second statement, perhaps you should hang out in the halls of Congress. BYOB and I'm sure you'd be welcomed. :)

[reg45]

Which is it?

Whichever one will cause the most panic in the sheeple.

[tioga]

The sad thing is how stupid Gore and many people in Congress are.

It is only surpassed by the stupidity of the voters who sent them there.

[Phsstpok]

He also said "these CO2 molecules have a particular chemical signature..."

Yeah! It's called CO2! Carbon dioxide! If it has any other chemical signature than that then it ain't CO2, you moron!

Sheesh.

[sport]

You will be ahead of the game not to believe anything al gore says.

[raygun]

Well, for one, natural CO₂ has more quantum mass tightly-coupled with negative spin having precession axis oriented in the Z-vector plane, and as such its clearly obvious why anthropogenic CO₂ has less density than natural (Gia made) CO₂.

Look, evidence that antropogenic substances are lighter than natural substances are to be found where ever one looks. Balloons filled with equal volume of cow fart and Joe-SixPack farts, which one will rise? Anwer: Joe SixPack's fart-balloon.

Compare man made boats and nature-made boats, which are less dense? Clearly man-made boats, as the Titanic (made with all organic steel) didn't actually float so well did it?

What about Boeing airplanes in comparison to all organic airplanes? Which do you actually see in the sky?

O.k., here's another example, man-made food and all-organic food, which is more nutritious? Well, clearly the all organic-food is more nutritous. The reason behind this is that organic-food is more densly packed with nutrients than man-made foodstuffs. Boats made out of organic bread can carry greater payload into higher orbit than man-made boats made out of man-made bread.

How'm I doing so far (and just think, it's only Thursday).

[MarkL]

Of course, the Goracle (I LOVE that!) is right... Carbon atoms have 12 protons and 12 electrons. But "organic" (naturally occuring) protons and electrons have different weights than the protons and electrons in "synthetic" or "man-made" carbon atoms. I know, because I just weighed one. First, I weighed myself on my bathroom scale. Then I extracted a single proton from a carbon atom that I found near a volcano. Then I weighed myself again, and noted the difference in weights. Then I exhaled and took a proton out of a carbon atom that was part of the CO2 molecule.

Next, I did the same thing using the electrons from the same atoms. Boy, those electrons move FAST!

So, I now have the proof that Gore is right!

Mark

[MarkL]

In Al's case, it's extra Par-Mesans....

I luvs them on my fettuccine Alfredo... And some Romano too!

Mark

[MarkL]

Sounds like PERJURY!!! I think we better sick Patrick Fitzgerald on Gore.

That's a very good point! If he was testifying under oath, then HE DID PERJURE HIMSELF! So I want to hear him say either "I lied" or "I'm a dumb$**t!" Either one will work for me.

Mark

[Robert A Cook PE]

There is a minute difference between C12 and C14, and the two have slightly different ratios in wood (plant life) and atmospheric ratios, but :fossil fuel" IS plant life-derived (so we are told by classic chemistry!) but that has no difference in the emissions of burning old plant life or new plant life ...

UNLESS you consider petroleum based oils are NOT from "plant-life" derivatives, in which case they come from ???? (underground biologics and microscopic (non-plant) bacteria and from the natural gases and rock... in which case NEW oil and natural gas IS being formed all the time and we DON'T have a oil-source crisis after all...)

[NewLand]

Isn't that a bit like asking which weighs more: 100 pounds of feathers or 100 pounds of cement?

Actually, the best comparison I could come up with is this;

It would be more like stating that 100 pounds of lumber (trees) that grew in the forest weighs more than 100 pounds of lumber (trees) that grew on my family farm.

[healy61]

What he is saying is that the CO2 that is produced by his mansions then only need setoffs that are about half what you and I should be paying. As in life, CO2 rolls down hill. Sheesh, I have to do all the shilling for Gore /sarc.

[R_Kangel]

According to Gore the man made CO_ 2 has some extra "Floaty" stuff in it. The natural stuff doesn't have it in it.

[Robert A Cook PE]

This nice little overview of C-14 dating is from physicsforums:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

The half-life of an element is constant, and any fluctuation may be due to the experimental method.

The second problem is that the carbon ration fluctuates over time. That is another and different problem, and I was going to get around to that in the discussion with Andre where he cites a different half-life.

Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and animals in turn consume plants. Carbon in plants is in the form of cellulose, sugars, nucleotides, etc, and in animals in proteins, sugars, fats, . . . . etc. When the plant or animal dies, the exchange of the forms of carbon from living processes stops.

Now in nature, carbon is largely C-12 (98.89%), C-13 (~1.11%), both of which are stable, and traces of C-14, which has a half-life of ~5730 years. During each half-life period, half of a radionuclide decays (transforms) into a different element, which in the case of the decay of C-14 is N-14. C-14 is actually produced by the collision of high energy neutron with N-14 nuclei (n,p reaction) high in the atmosphere, and the resulting C-14 diffuses into the atmosphere combining with oxygen to form CO2.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

Let's assume that the half-life of C-14 is well-known and constant, and let us assume that one can measure the C-14/C-12(C-13) ratio with reasonable accuracy. Well, there are two things that can affect the ratio in the earth's biosphere (atmosphere and oceans). One is the production rate of C-14 by cosmic radiation. If the reactions which produce the high energy neutrons, which produce the C-14, increase, then the ratio of C-14 to C-12 will increase. Conversely if the production of high energy neutrons decreases, then C-14 production will decrease. The other factor is the release of CO2 from volcanos or the exchange of carbon from carbonates or carbonic acid in the ground. If the volcano's CO2 or carbonates have been around for 10's millenia, or millions of years, they will have very little C-14 since it will have decayed awayed. After ~57300 yrs (10 half-lives), the C-14 will have been reduced by a factor of 210 or ~1000.

So one has to be careful regarding the environmental conditions in which organic fossils are found, as well as the environment in which the organism (plant or animal) existed, and how the environmental conditions might affect the C-14/C-12 ratio.

The C-14 half-life is experimentally determined quite independently of radiocarbon dating technique and those who use it.

THEREFORE: 99^ of carbon dioxide is C12 or C13, (the trivial C14 is NOT effective in global warming!) and man-made CO2 is NOT related to weight of the carbon and oxygen...

[Robert A Cook PE]

C14 is created from natural bombardment (eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!) (radiation!) of the atnmospheric CO2 by cosmic rays ...

So slight changes in cosmic ray levels will change the amount of C14 created. Slight changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere will change the amount of C12 that is available to get changed into C14. Changes in type of plant affects the amount of C12, C13, and C14 absorbed (which id then later radio-carbon dated.)

So, you're right, radio-carbon dating has errors naturally built in, but they are irrelevant to the effect of CO2 on global warming levels....

But, if CO2 get extremely high in the next 5000 years, radio-carbon dating of items (plants) eaten in the next ten thousand years WILL have different C14/ C12 ratios!