Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[sluggish]

In other words, historically,  natural warming released CO2, which then contributed to heating the planet, as the matching curves show a causal relationship.  Although, I may have this wrong, as most climate scientists say CO2 always leads in the deep record....

So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control?  Hmm?

[sluggish]

*repeat post

[Angus]

So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control?  Hmm?

It was either:
- Luck
- entrance into the solar "cool" cycle at the tip of the thing
- running out of carbon
- or..the other aspects related to the "Gaia" theory.

Anyway...I'd like the climate just as it is

[MORAY37]

So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control?  Hmm?

Heat doesn't "form" CO2.  It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH₄, CO₂ or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point.  Eventually, over time the CH₄ gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO₂ (mostly in the deep oceans)  and things come back down.  

And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of ¹²C and ¹³C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal.  There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the  atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so.  These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.

[Angus]

Which in return means that there is a period of VERY violent climate, which then come crashing down, right?

[MORAY37]

So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control?  Hmm?

Heat doesn't "form" CO2.  It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH₄, CO₂ or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point.  Eventually, over time the CH₄ gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO₂ (mostly in the deep oceans)  and things come back down. 

And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of ¹²C and ¹³C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal.  There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the  atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so.  These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.

[Widewing]

And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of ¹²C and ¹³C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal.  There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the  atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so.  These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.

Utter crap!!

Carbon ¹²C and ¹³C are both natural isotopes. In point of fact, Carbon ¹²C constitutes 99% of all carbon found on earth. You sure try to sound authoritative, but people need to stop and smell the stuff you're shoveling.

Do you believe that no one here can research basic chemistry?

You won't mind if I dismiss your posts going forward, will ya?



My regards,

Widewing

[Chalenge]

Why do you think Ive resorted to nonsense replies? Its all nonsense or as The Comedian (Watchmen) put it: Its all a joke.

[sluggish]

Heat doesn't "form" CO2.  It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH₄, CO₂ or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point.  Eventually, over time the CH₄ gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO₂ (mostly in the deep oceans)  and things come back down. 

And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of ¹²C and ¹³C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal.  There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the  atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so.  These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.

You speak with such finality and conviction about things that are mostly unknown; just like a man of the cloth...

[MORAY37]

Utter crap!!

Carbon ¹²C and ¹³C are both natural isotopes. In point of fact, Carbon ¹²C constitutes 99% of all carbon found on earth. You sure try to sound authoritative, but people need to stop and smell the stuff you're shoveling.

Do you believe that no one here can research basic chemistry?

You won't mind if I dismiss your posts going forward, will ya?



My regards,

Widewing

Can you maybe just once read past the initial, and actually research?? C'mon Wide.  Dismiss anything you wish, but at least do the research.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes will track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

[batch]

once again youre citing as proof of your statement something that does not prove your statement.......... I just read your "proof" that 13C and 12C are only formed when fossil fuels are burned....... and it doesnt say that anywhere at all in the article

what it does say is that these isotopes exist in ALL carbon

it goes on to say that these isotopes are reduced in the atmosphere and oceans when fossil fuel is burned

what this article does is tell us something that nobody here is disputing....... it shows us how we can tell there is an increase in CO2 in the last 150 years.........we already know that...... I doubt anybody on the planet would dispute that

you could actually go a bit further and notice that they do not even say that lower isotope counts could only be derived from the burning of fossil fuels...... but that in their opinion its the most likely cause because of the convenience of coincidence....... fossil fuel consumption increased sharply during that period

but other things also increased dramatically that could account for the same thing....... just as an example........ I bet as population increased so did the burning of firewood during that same period........ this would have the exact same effect since youre burning plant material which has a lower 13c/12c isotope count

also smoking tobacco...... and the list could go on forever

as I said we all agree that CO2 has increased.......... that doesnt however cause global warming

ya know I really wonder why they push so hard against CO2 which isnt nearly has harmful to the atmosphere as CH4......... yet methane seemingly gets overlooked

could it be because the vast majority of houses in the developed world uses methane for cooking and heating? the alarmists have to pick on something that would upset fewer people?

push for regulation on using your furnace or stove and see how far the argument gets ya....... the alarmists would suddenly lose all that mooch money

[Motherland]

I think what he said is that certain ratios of Carbon 12 and 13 only exist when fossil fuels are burned... not that they don't exist naturally.
That's what I got out of the original quote. Carbon 12 is the most common isotope as far as I know so it wouldn'tt make sense otherwise.

[Widewing]

I think what he said is that certain ratios of Carbon 12 and 13 only exist when fossil fuels are burned... not that they don't exist naturally.
That's what I got out of the original quote. Carbon 12 is the most common isotope as far as I know so it wouldn'tt make sense otherwise.

What Moray37 wrote is, "These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization."

As I said, this is crap.


My regards,

Widewing

[Motherland]

The first part of his post says
"The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal."
I would think he misspoke in the last sentence

[Widewing]

The first part of his post says
"The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal."
I would think he misspoke in the last sentence

The first sentence is also not completely accurate. The burning (carbonization) of plant material also effects the ratios.


My regards,

Widewing