It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CranialSponge



The C13/C12 ratio is NOT a clear and definitive signature of human fossil fuel burning, specifically.

That's what I said.
Now explain the reduction of 14C levels.


More plants growing than before would reduce the C14 levels. There is a lot of agriculture in regions that were previously desert in the United States due to government water projects like dams and canals.

Water management in general causes more water to be dosed constantly to plant life, which previously got only rainfall, and no additional water during sunny weather.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate




More plants growing than before would reduce the C14 levels.

Why? Are plants particularly fond of 14C? Do they absorb more of it than other carbon isotopes?
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising.
The ratio of 12C to 13C is rising. This tells us the source of the CO2 is plant material.
The ratio of 14C to 12C is falling. This tells us that the plant material is very, very old. Fossil fuels.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 4/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The C14 concentration is an admirably logical argument. A good starting point (among others) for finding real evidence about climate change. I always suspect the data when political power is involved.

The rate of C14 production is fixed, where as the amount of organic growth is possibly increasing planet wide, due to agriculture and forestry and the water, chemicals, and management applied to them. All of the C14 captured by farming and logging would be in people, animals and plywood-cardboard. Organisms take in the C14 at the same rate but since there is more plant growth, more Carbon of all kinds, including C14, is removed. Perhaps the increased atomic weight of C14 favors its movement down to lower altitudes that C12. Not all C14 moves down, but a higher percentage than the lighter isotopes.

And there could be a normal downward fluctuation in C14 production since the sun has been claimed to be cooler than some other times.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

From the post I quoted:

"CranialSponge Q: Neverending wars and uranium enriched weapons blasting everyone to Timbuktu ?

Phage A: Wouldn't that increase the amount of 14C? "



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I see.

You jumped straight to nuclear.

I am pretty sure CranialSponge mixed up Depleted Uranium with Uranium enriched since DU is used for AP rounds.

And

I am pretty sure Phage glossed over the Uranium discrepancy and addressed the never ending war part which wars generally result in burning down things and the vehicles used burn fossil fuels so 14C would be affected but not by "depleted or enriched uranium".



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Seems like the denial faithful don't have a rebuttal for the C14 data, so they are just throwing wild ideas out there in hopes something will stick, or at least sound good.

I am amazed how passionate some are to defend the notion that climate change cannot be caused by human activity.

I am passionate about this topic because I care about this little blue planet want my ancestors to inherit a better world. Currently we are giving our offspring a trashed planet to work with. I believe we can do better.



edit on 29-4-2015 by jrod because: v



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Can you explain other uses for enriched uranium besides nuclear technologies?

Both Phage and CranialSponge, are not shy in pointing out discrepancies or unsubstantiated claims, from what I've seen of their postings.

Let them speak in their own voice, that is why I asked for clarification from Phage.

If I ask a question on this website I am trying to understand something, not looking to get a 3rd parties opinion on what was said.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I am just sick of the obstruction to renewable energy sources and how people continuously use carbon credits as an excuse to not support them.

In 2013 subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to US$548 billion, while subsidies for renewable energy amounted to US$121 billion. In Britan for every dollar spent to subsidise renewables seven dollars was spent to subsidize fossil fuels while they also benefit from exemptions of price controls. Yet people still claim renewables are a scam.

Renewables do not have a high return on investment in the short-term, but in the long term they far surpass that of fossil fuels. We are so short-sighted as a populace that we are screwing ourselves. The current paradigm only encourages our short-sightedness. We have the technology to be carbon neutral and ensure a successful future for us yet there are those that fight it with all they can for a payout today.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme




Can you explain other uses for enriched uranium besides nuclear technologies?


Why?

Uranium has "no" carbon signature it is not carbon based so burning, detonating it, nor using it in a reactor will raise or lower the carbon count that includes carbon14.

Understanding this should tell you that Uranium in any form will not change the C14 data or levels.

You can look all that up to confirm.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually what I find is that it is low but exists.

www.researchgate.net...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Actually they are talking about background minerals and bubbles found in the clusters while mining or prospecting for Uranium.

If you read the whole paper you will see the 14c samples were taken from the trapped carbon within the clusters.

Uranium is an element like lead or gold.
edit on 29-4-2015 by Grimpachi because: durp



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

And enriched uranium is an element fiddled with by human hands. With an involved process. Granted a process I do not know or understand. But one that was discussed by other members, that I hope to hear more from.

You keep shifting your stance as I provide links.

At this point it is no longer my job to provide you with proof that you are taking an uninformed response to this topic. It is now your job to to disprove my position or resign the argument.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

That is an error of reasoning on your behalf, a logic fallacy. Burden of Proof.

You have yet to provide any evidence that supports your claim, and frankly I am not even sure what your claim is.

Your link is a bit of a tangent and has no significant connection to the C14/C12 change we are observing today.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I already disproved your argument.

Uranium is an element


You linked a paper to them measuring the c14 trapped inside raw ore samples. Like there can be impurities that are not uranium.

Uranium is not carbon based in any way. That stuff they teach in science class with element tables there is one labeled as "U" which stands for uranium and has the atomic number of 92. There is element labeled as "C" which stands for carbon and it has an atomic number 6.

Carbon-14, 14C, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with a nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons.


I am afraid if you don't get the incompatibility at this point then somewhere in the basic science classes you were left behind. It is not my job to reteach what you should have learned in high school nor do I have the patience. What I have shown is definitive.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The discussion was about enriched uranium.
Please enlighten me where that shows up on the periodic table? Since we are looking to the periodic table can you show me the variables for carbon as they show up there?

You feel you have proved your argument, I feel you have not. And have sourced easily understood sources why I do not.

If you think I am lacking in the sciences, than that is on me. And by all means I deserve all the proof you can show me to that aspect in this regard. So show me, don't tell me.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

My post was only in regard to the C14/C12 debate as to how it pertained to the argument set forth by Phage.
Since then Grimpachi and I have had a tangent going on.

The error may be mine engaging others rather than who I have responded to, but I have seen no proof I am speaking illogically by the individuals who have responded to me.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme




The discussion was about enriched uranium.


Yet you posted a link to unrefined Natural Uranium.



Please enlighten me where that shows up on the periodic table?


Whether it is Enriched Uranium, Natural Uranium, or depleted Uranium it is still Uranium. All would fall under element "U 92"

Natural Uranium contains 0.7% uranium-235. Enriched uranium is a type of uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased through the process of isotope separation. Isotope separation is the process of concentrating specific isotopes of a chemical element by removing other isotopes. Isotopes are variants of a particular chemical element which differ in neutron number.




Since we are looking to the periodic table can you show me the variables for carbon as they show up there?


All carbon falls under "C 6".




You feel you have proved your argument, I feel you have not. And have sourced easily understood sources why I do not.


You didn't even understand your own source even after I explained it to you.



If you think I am lacking in the sciences, than that is on me. And by all means I deserve all the proof you can show me to that aspect in this regard. So show me, don't tell me.


I will provide you with a link you can read up on, but for you to claim you "deserve" it is quite presumptuous of you.

Uranium Enrichment.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Deserve was actually supporting you, as I couldn't be correct with what I have read, right? I was hoping for you to make that home run.

I appreciate your link, but it doesn't support C14 one way or the other which was the onus of this tangent.

as you point out all carbon falls under C 6, so why a debate over C14 at all?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

I appreciate your link, but it doesn't support C14 one way or the other which was the onus of this tangent.

as you point out all carbon falls under C 6, so why a debate over C14 at all?


I'm afraid you are too uneducated to participate meaningfully in this argument, so it's better to learn. 6 is the atomic number, the number of protons in the nucleus and electrons if not ionized. 14 is the isotope, total number of hadrons, neutrons plus protons, in the nucleus. C12 is the most common isotope. C14 is slightly radioactive and decays.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I think you have misunderstood who the onus is on if you believe the decrease in the C14 isotope is due to enriched uranium.




as you point out all carbon falls under C 6, so why a debate over C14 at all?


Because you seemed to think the decrease in nuclear testing and/ or active nuclear power plants had something to do with the decrease in the C14 isotope.

Since C14 is an isotope that belongs to the element of C 6 it seems pretty pertinent.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join