Posted on 03/21/2007 10:31:06 AM PDT by rrr51
Is he implying then that the CO2 produced by man is somehow worse than that produced by nature? Seems like a sophistry to seperate the man made CO2 from that produced by nature and end the debate over man made vs natural CO2.
Before the volcano comment about 'heavy' volcano CO2 precipitating out, he said that scientists can tell the difference between 'natural' and 'manmade' CO2.
-PJ
Was that before or after he flunked out of Divinity School?
Does he mean a CO2 molecule with carbon-14???
That would be unstable and would break down shortly anyway.
Ping.
I looked it up. C-13 makes up about 1% of naturally occurring carbon. C-14 is negligible. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/carbon14.pdf
I have no idea what the heck Gore is thinking.
The only possible thing that would make any sense to (and it doesn't make much sense) is that since the exhaled C02 or the industrial C02 (product of combustion) is relatively warm it may be less dense than c02 that is at ambient temperature.
That discounts the fact that "natural" C02 from our animal friends is also warm on exhalation. Moreover, C02 should have cooled long before it reach any sensitive portion of the atmosphere climatologically.
So, I am back to the clear fact that he is full of it.
Isn't that a bit like asking which weighs more: 100 pounds of feathers or 100 pounds of cement?
May be Professor Gore can explain to us if man made CO2 has a molecular weight MW greater than 44 (extreme sarcasm).
I think he actually is correct, BUT, big BUT, it is irrelevant. I seem to remember the isotopic form of oxygen in the surface hydrosphere (processed by biological organisms) is enriched in the lighter varient, whereas the oxygen from earth's interior has more of the heavy isotopic form of oxygen. It is a useful phenomena to "fingerprint" where CO2 comes from, but it has ZERO influence on its greenhouse gas properties.
Animal Farm....
Four Neutrons good, two neutrons bad!
If its Carbon-14 then we can radio-carbon date algores carbon footprint.
That must be it...but wouldn't such compounds have a very short half-life?
Carbon has an atomic number of 6, meaning all carbon atoms have 6 protons in their nucleus.
Neutrons are the glue that hold the positively-charged protons together. Most carbon atoms have 6 neutrons for an atomic mass of 12, but some carbon atoms have 7 neutrons for an atomic mass of 13.
Whatever the amount of carbon-13 atoms in volcano gases, it's not much. Carbon-13 has less than 1% of the abundance of carbon-12, so in the real world it doesn't mean a thing.
It says the basis premise is wrong, CO2 does not cause global warming, that global warming increases CO2.
I hope I understood that correctly.
I keep forgetting that part....humans...bad...maybe we should all just go out and buy some black Nikes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.