Earth will die from LACK of CO2!

[itfitzme]

I always find myself cracking up when posting this gem............

CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube

Why does anyone believe that this video has any relevance, what so ever. Tbe world is full of things that, in the most minute amounts, have huge effects.

 

[Boss]

"Again, CO2 is an element, not a gas."

It is not either/or. Still, CO2 is not an element. Carbon is an element. Oxygen is an element. CO2 is a compound. It can exists in all three phases, as a solid, liquid, or gas. The phase is dependent on the pressure and temperature. So, at high enough temperature and low enough pressure CO2 is both a compound and a gas. It is always a compound. It is never an element. It is sometimes a solid, sometimes a liquid, and sometimes a gas.

Google CO2 phase diagram and CO2 compound. You gave me reason to check it out. It appears that, at 1 atm., CO2 falls short of existing as a liquid.

Yes, dimwit, that is what Steven_R just pointed out and I concurred with. It can also be referred to as "compound elements" like H2O. I sometimes say things that are incorrect, and then, people like Steven come along and correct me, and I have no problem admitting my error and correcting my statement. It's how we grow and learn. None of this has beans to do with the erroneous assertion that CO2 is a "gas," nor does it have to do with debunked AGW theory.

One thing I am grateful for, is the fact that it seems this thread has prompted some of you dimwits to Google carbon dioxide and learn a little more about it. As you have likely discovered by now, it is not a man-made pollutant of the atmosphere. It's presence in our atmosphere is relatively small, as is it's presence as a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 produced by man, is even smaller and more insignificant. The one vital thing it does, is provide nutrition for plant life. Without it, all the plants die, then we die.

The AGW hypothesis argued that CO2 acted as an amplifier of the greenhouse effect, and this is partially true, but the main amplifier of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. In fact, it makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gas. It's not possible for us to control water vapor in the atmosphere, it will be present as long as we have oceans. However, the AGW theory was based on manipulated data which made the amplification seem much worse than it actually is. Since this was discovered, the proponents of the theory have been running around making the point that it does act as an amplifier, but so does water vapor.

 

[Boss]

I always find myself cracking up when posting this gem............

CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube

Why does anyone believe that this video has any relevance, what so ever. Tbe world is full of things that, in the most minute amounts, have huge effects.

No it's not. The Earth has proven to be remarkably resilient. It is "self cleaning." Millions of metric tons of gases are released when a volcano erupts, some of them are actually toxic, unlike CO2. But volcanoes also produce large quantities of CO2 and water vapor, as well as pure carbon in the form of ash. It can even effect the weather, as in the Year Without Summer, or acid rain. Man made disasters, like oil well and tanker spills, dump billions of gallons of raw crude into the ocean, and it recovers. Always has, always will.

So "minute" changes, are simply not going to affect the planet in any significant way. Humongous changes that happen all at once, MAY affect the planet temporarily, but she always bounces back. The video clearly shows you the insignificance of man-made carbon dioxide. The sky is simply not falling, Chicken Little!

 

[Boss]

"Anthropogenic Global Warming was a hypothesis that has been discredited"

Yeah, now there is a revelation. Better get that memo out to like...everyone...because it seems like...everyone is still clear that AWG is a fact. I could go down the list, UN, national govts, US state and gov agencies, scientists, private companies... Maybe in a couple of years, if something dramatic changes.

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

 

[itfitzme]

"Anthropogenic Global Warming was a hypothesis that has been discredited"

Yeah, now there is a revelation. Better get that memo out to like...everyone...because it seems like...everyone is still clear that AWG is a fact. I could go down the list, UN, national govts, US state and gov agencies, scientists, private companies... Maybe in a couple of years, if something dramatic changes.

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Anthropogenic Global Warming was a hypothesis that has been discredited"

Yeah, now there is a revelation. Better get that memo out to like...everyone...because it seems like...everyone is still clear that AWG is a fact. I could go down the list, UN, national govts, US state and gov agencies, scientists, private companies... Maybe in a couple of years, if something dramatic changes.

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

So what will the Mean Global Surface Temp be in 2050? Assume current growth of CO2.

When your science answers THAT -- and it isn't accompanied with coulds, mights, and mays, ----- and when the number is more exact than +/- 2degC ---- and ALL the mighty institutions you invoke AGREE to that number...

THEN you "might" have some street cred..

 

[Boss]

"Anthropogenic Global Warming was a hypothesis that has been discredited"

Yeah, now there is a revelation. Better get that memo out to like...everyone...because it seems like...everyone is still clear that AWG is a fact. I could go down the list, UN, national govts, US state and gov agencies, scientists, private companies... Maybe in a couple of years, if something dramatic changes.

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

So this is now what you've resorted to? You will happily take an error I made, which I immediately admitted and corrected, and you'll continue to ridicule me for the error, because you think it makes you appear smarter than me. The fact that I made an error, even though I admitted the error, means that you are infallible and I am a moron. Everything I have to say, henceforth, can be taken to be equally erroneous, and everything you say is sheer genius. Is that where you're coming from here? Appears that way!

As I stated earlier, I am no "science genius" and never claimed to be. My science degree is in the field of Psychology, which did require me to have some understanding of basic science. The needed intelligence to understand that AGW was a sham, came from science I learned in high school. I said it was a sham when they first came out with it, and by golly, I was proven correct when it was discovered they manipulated data to support the theory. Now, while I am an easygoing person who can admit when he is wrong about something (as exampled above), I am also fairly tenacious when it comes to things I am right about. In fact, I am downright stubborn about it, until someone proves me wrong. You haven't.

 

[itfitzme]

"Again, CO2 is an element, not a gas."

It is not either/or. Still, CO2 is not an element. Carbon is an element. Oxygen is an element. CO2 is a compound. It can exists in all three phases, as a solid, liquid, or gas. The phase is dependent on the pressure and temperature. So, at high enough temperature and low enough pressure CO2 is both a compound and a gas. It is always a compound. It is never an element. It is sometimes a solid, sometimes a liquid, and sometimes a gas.

Google CO2 phase diagram and CO2 compound. You gave me reason to check it out. It appears that, at 1 atm., CO2 falls short of existing as a liquid.

Yes, dimwit, that is what Steven_R just pointed out and I concurred with. It can also be referred to as "compound elements" like H2O. I sometimes say things that are incorrect, and then, people like Steven come along and correct me, and I have no problem admitting my error and correcting my statement. It's how we grow and learn. None of this has beans to do with the erroneous assertion that CO2 is a "gas," nor does it have to do with debunked AGW theory.

One thing I am grateful for, is the fact that it seems this thread has prompted some of you dimwits to Google carbon dioxide and learn a little more about it. As you have likely discovered by now, it is not a man-made pollutant of the atmosphere. It's presence in our atmosphere is relatively small, as is it's presence as a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 produced by man, is even smaller and more insignificant. The one vital thing it does, is provide nutrition for plant life. Without it, all the plants die, then we die.

The AGW hypothesis argued that CO2 acted as an amplifier of the greenhouse effect, and this is partially true, but the main amplifier of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. In fact, it makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gas. It's not possible for us to control water vapor in the atmosphere, it will be present as long as we have oceans. However, the AGW theory was based on manipulated data which made the amplification seem much worse than it actually is. Since this was discovered, the proponents of the theory have been running around making the point that it does act as an amplifier, but so does water vapor.

I was being nice, asshole. I've got two degrees and more miscellaneous education and experience than you've even imagined existed.

There is a reason it is called the Periodic Table Of Elements. Because they are all Elements. It isn't the periodic table of compounds.

Why would anyone, even you, think you have a clue about AWG. You just blurt shit out and don't know the difference between an element and a compound.

Arrogant putz.

 

[itfitzme]

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

So this is now what you've resorted to? You will happily take an error I made, which I immediately admitted and corrected, and you'll continue to ridicule me for the error, because you think it makes you appear smarter than me. The fact that I made an error, even though I admitted the error, means that you are infallible and I am a moron. Everything I have to say, henceforth, can be taken to be equally erroneous, and everything you say is sheer genius. Is that where you're coming from here? Appears that way!

As I stated earlier, I am no "science genius" and never claimed to be. My science degree is in the field of Psychology, which did require me to have some understanding of basic science. The needed intelligence to understand that AGW was a sham, came from science I learned in high school. I said it was a sham when they first came out with it, and by golly, I was proven correct when it was discovered they manipulated data to support the theory. Now, while I am an easygoing person who can admit when he is wrong about something (as exampled above), I am also fairly tenacious when it comes to things I am right about. In fact, I am downright stubborn about it, until someone proves me wrong. You haven't.

You're really a moron if you think everyone is just waiting bey their computer so they can reply to your posts as soon as they pop up.

 

[itfitzme]

Actually, we only need to get the memo to a few people, those of you who worship at the Church of Al Gore, the climatologists who rely on big government grants, and third-world diplomats looking for a handout from the US, through the UN. If we can get you people to realize the theory has been debunked and discredited, we can move on. What few kooks remain, are insignificant.

AGW is not a "fact" and wouldn't be a "fact" even if the theory had not been discredited, it was always a theory based on hypothesis. You need to Google "science" now, and see how that works, because you are making ignorant statements.

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

So this is now what you've resorted to? You will happily take an error I made, which I immediately admitted and corrected, and you'll continue to ridicule me for the error, because you think it makes you appear smarter than me. The fact that I made an error, even though I admitted the error, means that you are infallible and I am a moron. Everything I have to say, henceforth, can be taken to be equally erroneous, and everything you say is sheer genius. Is that where you're coming from here? Appears that way!

As I stated earlier, I am no "science genius" and never claimed to be. My science degree is in the field of Psychology, which did require me to have some understanding of basic science. The needed intelligence to understand that AGW was a sham, came from science I learned in high school. I said it was a sham when they first came out with it, and by golly, I was proven correct when it was discovered they manipulated data to support the theory. Now, while I am an easygoing person who can admit when he is wrong about something (as exampled above), I am also fairly tenacious when it comes to things I am right about. In fact, I am downright stubborn about it, until someone proves me wrong. You haven't.

The reason it is what I "resorted to", as you put it, is because I was actually stupid enough to bother checking on Wikipedia to see if AWG had been discredited since yesterday. It might possible, like 1 in a million, that something new happened since last I checked.

And, for some strange reason, I find it a bit frustrating when I take people on their word and it turns out they are just pulling shit out of their assets.

 

[westwall]

"Again, CO2 is an element, not a gas."

It is not either/or. Still, CO2 is not an element. Carbon is an element. Oxygen is an element. CO2 is a compound. It can exists in all three phases, as a solid, liquid, or gas. The phase is dependent on the pressure and temperature. So, at high enough temperature and low enough pressure CO2 is both a compound and a gas. It is always a compound. It is never an element. It is sometimes a solid, sometimes a liquid, and sometimes a gas.

Google CO2 phase diagram and CO2 compound. You gave me reason to check it out. It appears that, at 1 atm., CO2 falls short of existing as a liquid.

Yes, dimwit, that is what Steven_R just pointed out and I concurred with. It can also be referred to as "compound elements" like H2O. I sometimes say things that are incorrect, and then, people like Steven come along and correct me, and I have no problem admitting my error and correcting my statement. It's how we grow and learn. None of this has beans to do with the erroneous assertion that CO2 is a "gas," nor does it have to do with debunked AGW theory.

One thing I am grateful for, is the fact that it seems this thread has prompted some of you dimwits to Google carbon dioxide and learn a little more about it. As you have likely discovered by now, it is not a man-made pollutant of the atmosphere. It's presence in our atmosphere is relatively small, as is it's presence as a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 produced by man, is even smaller and more insignificant. The one vital thing it does, is provide nutrition for plant life. Without it, all the plants die, then we die.

The AGW hypothesis argued that CO2 acted as an amplifier of the greenhouse effect, and this is partially true, but the main amplifier of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. In fact, it makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gas. It's not possible for us to control water vapor in the atmosphere, it will be present as long as we have oceans. However, the AGW theory was based on manipulated data which made the amplification seem much worse than it actually is. Since this was discovered, the proponents of the theory have been running around making the point that it does act as an amplifier, but so does water vapor.

I was being nice, asshole. I've got two degrees and more miscellaneous education and experience than you've even imagined existed.

There is a reason it is called the Periodic Table Of Elements. Because they are all Elements. It isn't the periodic table of compounds.

Why would anyone, even you, think you have a clue about AWG. You just blurt shit out and don't know the difference between an element and a compound.

Arrogant putz.

Oh, you're never nice idjit. You're just as arrogant, and ignorant, an asshole as you claim him to be.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, too bad that so few know it has been "discredited".

Good thing your science genius is around to explain thing like this and CO2 being "an element and not a gas". What would we do?

You should call NASA, let them know. After all, it's not rocket science.

Ah, and you should edit Wikipedia. I can't find that "discredited"'on it.

So this is now what you've resorted to? You will happily take an error I made, which I immediately admitted and corrected, and you'll continue to ridicule me for the error, because you think it makes you appear smarter than me. The fact that I made an error, even though I admitted the error, means that you are infallible and I am a moron. Everything I have to say, henceforth, can be taken to be equally erroneous, and everything you say is sheer genius. Is that where you're coming from here? Appears that way!

As I stated earlier, I am no "science genius" and never claimed to be. My science degree is in the field of Psychology, which did require me to have some understanding of basic science. The needed intelligence to understand that AGW was a sham, came from science I learned in high school. I said it was a sham when they first came out with it, and by golly, I was proven correct when it was discovered they manipulated data to support the theory. Now, while I am an easygoing person who can admit when he is wrong about something (as exampled above), I am also fairly tenacious when it comes to things I am right about. In fact, I am downright stubborn about it, until someone proves me wrong. You haven't.

You're really a moron if you think everyone is just waiting bey their computer so they can reply to your posts as soon as they pop up.

And yet, that's EXACTLY what you and the brothers Grimm are constantly doing! Hoist on your own petard are you!

 

[Boss]

"Again, CO2 is an element, not a gas."

It is not either/or. Still, CO2 is not an element. Carbon is an element. Oxygen is an element. CO2 is a compound. It can exists in all three phases, as a solid, liquid, or gas. The phase is dependent on the pressure and temperature. So, at high enough temperature and low enough pressure CO2 is both a compound and a gas. It is always a compound. It is never an element. It is sometimes a solid, sometimes a liquid, and sometimes a gas.

Google CO2 phase diagram and CO2 compound. You gave me reason to check it out. It appears that, at 1 atm., CO2 falls short of existing as a liquid.

Yes, dimwit, that is what Steven_R just pointed out and I concurred with. It can also be referred to as "compound elements" like H2O. I sometimes say things that are incorrect, and then, people like Steven come along and correct me, and I have no problem admitting my error and correcting my statement. It's how we grow and learn. None of this has beans to do with the erroneous assertion that CO2 is a "gas," nor does it have to do with debunked AGW theory.

One thing I am grateful for, is the fact that it seems this thread has prompted some of you dimwits to Google carbon dioxide and learn a little more about it. As you have likely discovered by now, it is not a man-made pollutant of the atmosphere. It's presence in our atmosphere is relatively small, as is it's presence as a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 produced by man, is even smaller and more insignificant. The one vital thing it does, is provide nutrition for plant life. Without it, all the plants die, then we die.

The AGW hypothesis argued that CO2 acted as an amplifier of the greenhouse effect, and this is partially true, but the main amplifier of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. In fact, it makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gas. It's not possible for us to control water vapor in the atmosphere, it will be present as long as we have oceans. However, the AGW theory was based on manipulated data which made the amplification seem much worse than it actually is. Since this was discovered, the proponents of the theory have been running around making the point that it does act as an amplifier, but so does water vapor.

I was being nice, asshole. I've got two degrees and more miscellaneous education and experience than you've even imagined existed.

There is a reason it is called the Periodic Table Of Elements. Because they are all Elements. It isn't the periodic table of compounds.

Why would anyone, even you, think you have a clue about AWG. You just blurt shit out and don't know the difference between an element and a compound.

Arrogant putz.

Well, I also have two degrees, one in the science of psychology, the other in business. I doubt you have more miscellaneous education than me, or else you wouldn't continue acting like a complete moron. I understand the Periodic Table of Elements, that's why I concurred with Steven_R when he corrected my error, but you want to hold that up and parade it around like some kind of trophy, because you lack the intellect to debate the issue here.

Why would anyone think you have a clue about AGW OR SCIENCE, when you state things like "AGW is a FACT!" Hmmm? If you went to the Wiki page on this... which incidentally, is not a peer-reviewed ANYTHING... it does not state AGW is a FACT! It states that many AGW proponents claim there is a consensus. It makes numerous statements about possible human contributions to Global Warming, with a whole lot of [citation needed] to follow... which means, none of this has been confirmed or verified. It also points out, there is a very real controversy about it, in fact, it directs you to a Wiki page regarding the controversy. There, it indicates (no citation needed) that of the many peer-reviewed science papers published on AGW, only 1/3 of the scientists draw the conclusion that man is significantly contributing. The majority of the rest are non-committal. So, no... you simply DON'T have any consensus.

Of course, there IS a consensus that the Earth is warming. The median air temps have increased by 1 degree over the last 100 years. So pretty much anyone with a brain will agree this means the globe IS warming. The question is, whether mankind is contributing significantly to this, or whether it is caused by a myriad of other factors. There is not a consensus on that.... much less, it being determined "FACT!"

 

[ABikerSailor]

A degree in psychology? Nice.................you know how to read people so you can screw them over.

A degree in business? Nice..................because after you figure out how to screw people's minds, you also figure out how to screw them financially.

No wonder you don't agree with climate change................it would fuck up your whole scheme.

I guess that's why you ignore actual science and let others who "know" about it feed you their crap, which you then condense and twist, so you can spew it out to the world to protect your bottom line.

 

[gslack]

All you people with degrees and no jobs?? WTH?

LOL ifitzme has a degree in forum trolling and a minor in BS...

On a serious note.. Put the degrees to work if you have them, don't waste time trolling a web forum..

 

[SSDD]

Look, dummy, salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much can kill you. When you post this kind of crap, you reveal just how absolutely dumb you truly are.

There have been times in the pasts when there were very rapid spikes in the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. These were times of extinction.

Timeline of a mass extinction - MIT News Office

Those spikes in CO2 were the result of temperature spikes, not the cause of those spikes. Eventually, you should wake up and acknowledge what every ice core has shown us or grow old and die in ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

Apparently the climatologists don't know anything about it either....they have been forced to admit that there has been no warming for at least the last 15 years and THEY DON'T KNOW WHY. It violates every tenet of their religi errr, theory.

Hypothesis. AGW hasn't reached the level of theory yet.

 

[editec]

Some of you folks are somewhat misinformed about chemistry.

Limestone is calcuim ..specifically calcium carbonate (CaCO3)

Calcium is an ELEMENT Atomic weight 20 Ca is its chemical symbol

Calcium is NOT an element found in the compound carbon dioxide.

 

[gslack]

Some of you folks are somewhat misinformed about chemistry.

Limestone is calcuim ..specifically calcium carbonate (CaCO3)

Calcium is an ELEMENT Atomic weight 20 Ca is its chemical symbol

Calcium is NOT an element found in the compound carbon dioxide.

I don't see where anyone made that claim... And limestone isn't just calcium.

Limestone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Limestone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Limestone (disambiguation).
Limestone
Sedimentary rock
Limestone Formation In Waitomo.jpg
Limestone in Waitomo District, New Zealand
Composition
Calcium carbonate: inorganic crystalline calcite and/or organic calcareous material
Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Many limestones are composed from skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera.
Limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks. The solubility of limestone in water and weak acid solutions leads to karst landscapes, in which water erodes the limestone over thousands to millions of years. Most cave systems are through limestone bedrock.
Limestone has numerous uses: as a building material, as aggregate for the base of roads, as white pigment or filler in products such as toothpaste or paints, and as a chemical feedstock.
The first geologist to distinguish limestone from dolomite was Belsazar Hacquet in 1778.[1]

Pretty much just as I said previously. It's made up of primarily two types of calcium carbonate.. Carbonate.. Notice the word carbon in it... It's not merely calcium,but a combination calcium and carbon. Again just as I said..

 

[ABikerSailor]

Some of you folks are somewhat misinformed about chemistry.

Limestone is calcuim ..specifically calcium carbonate (CaCO3)

Calcium is an ELEMENT Atomic weight 20 Ca is its chemical symbol

Calcium is NOT an element found in the compound carbon dioxide.

Actually, according to what you've posted, Calcium is NOT an element, but rather a compound.

Why else would Carbon be bound to Oxygen in a form of CaCO3?

But...................keep trying.....................