John Cuthber

You are right, they are not the same thing, but the numbers are the same. It's a bit like saying that a size 5 shoe is the same as a size 5 mango.

It's a straw man because there was never any doubt that volcanoes and such produce CO2. I don't have to "concede" it because nobody said otherwise did they? And it may be the status quo; that's no reason to make it worse. the important fact is that we are adding more CO2 than the volcanoes. (image from here) https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Which side is the cult?

That's one of those experiments that's perfectly simple and not even expensive, but I don't think anyone wants to do.

Renovating a planet would be expensive. So perhaps it's better not to wreck it in the first place.

There is more to life than money. And you didn't address my point.

Imagine paying for the energy needed to launch that fleet.

A grain of sand or whatever on the surface of the earth doesn't know id it is night or day. it radiates according to its temperature so the bit about ", this energy is reradiated by the shadow side of the planet," is misleading. The sunward side of the planet also re-radiates. With respect to you assertion "One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. " there are a couple of points. The first is that the IPCC has a well documented view that one way to improve the efficiency of re-radiation is not to put so much CO2 in the way. Another issue is that, while it's perfectly simple to make the earth a better radiator- you just paint it black, there are problems with that. The first is that it isn't practical. the second is that it also makes the world a better absorber so the effect on temperature isn't what you hoped it would be. You get bigger night vs day variation, rather than overall cooling. Of course, you could in principle, have two groups of painters one of whom paints the surface white at dawn and another who paints it black at dusk. the ones near the equator would need to work particularly quickly. Is that what you had in mind, and can you think of a reason why the IPCC wouldn't suggests it?

It often helps to start by writing an equation. Can you do that here? (Since you don't know anything about the acid you will have to make up a dummy formula for it. The "traditional" one is HxA where x is the number of protons that acid can give up.

What?

Then why resurrect a thread to use a strawman to do it in the wrong forum. Don't answer that; it''s rhetorical. Trashing the earth creates poverty for most people and wealth for a few however, if you want to discuss that, please choose the right forum.

presumably, by the same argument you also believe in unicorns, the FSM; monsters under the bed; honest politicians, and a whole lot of other things. I'm not a football fan, but quite a few of my friends are. Unfortunately for me, they insist on discussing it where I want them to or not and they seem to think it's important. As it happens none of us is a fan of kabaddi so we don't waste time discussing it. The irony is that people say (wrongly) that atheism is a religion but those same people wouldn't try to say that I'm a sports fan who supports "Absolutelynobody united" or "NoKabaddiTeam". (For those who don't know of it, kabaddi is another team game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi

Why does the fact that he's an alien make any difference?

In many places, the rain is cleaner than the water in which the clothes are washed. It makes sense to think of the rain as just another rinse.

In order to tell you how to solve the problem we need to know how well you understand it. The easiest way for us to do that is for you to show us how far you have got so far with answering it. The significance of the homework help area is that, when you post stuff there, it makes it clear that you will get help; but not the answer. "Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed."

In reactions like this the bromine doesn't replace the methyl group, it replaces one of the hydrogens of that group. The kink in the line to the Br is a methylene group. unhelpfully, they also flipped the molecule right to left which makes it less clear.

The last analysis I saw of of that assertion showed it to not be true. Have vast numbers of climatologists recently changed sides? That's not a "claim" it's an observation. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The equivalent weight is one of the few things you can calculate from the information given, so I think it probably is what they want to know. However, it looks like a homework question.so I think it should be here http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/35-homework-help/ and follow the rules for that section.

Is this homework help?

Page 80 of this https://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/NBS/NBS%2069.pdf says that (way back in 1959 when standards were generally less stringent) the maximum permitted concentration of 223 Ra in air was about 10^-9 µCi per cc I think that's 10^-6 µCi per litre so the 100 or so µCi you are talking about could render 100,000 cubic metres of air unbreathable- or it might stick to the floor and never get within striking distance of any human. It's impossible to say which. What you need to do is ensure that, if it gets spilled, there is a suitable clean-up procedure in place. Looking on the bright side, radium chloride is likely to act like barium chloride which is hygroscopic. It will absorb water from the air so it will tend to stay slightly damp (It's difficult to assign bulk properties like that when you are only talking about micrograms of material.) so it's less likely to forma a dust.

It would be less dangerous to the human body than, for example, submerging the human in the ocean. Samarium will react with water and produce hydrogen. Hydrogen isn't toxic, but it forms an explosive mixture with air. Why do you ask?

Which part of " (ignoring wire resistance, battery capacity, etc)?" did you not understand?

Volatility isn't an issue. Dust is.

Of course, the other advantage to using adaptive optics is that you can use image manipulation as well.

Jet packs are easy; it's the fireproof trousers that are the problem.