Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

1750 - 287 ppm

2015 - 400 ppm

100*(400-287)/287 = 39.4%

39.4% increase in atmospheric CO2 which, using carbon isotope analysis, is directly linked to burning fossil fuels.

Math is not hard.

Gee had to go back to 1750 to make the math work. There was no measurable AGW before 1950 ish.

That carbon isotope analysis thingy can't tell the difference from a forest fire caused by lightning and joe smo driving his F150. It seems fossil fuels have the same carbon isotopes as trees, within about 6% anyway.

What is interesting is there is roughly 9 billion acres a year world wide burned by forest fire. 10% of that is just in the usa. So just forest fires create 38 billion tons of co2. (I used Canada figures for the tons per acre) That 38 GT reads exactly like fossil fuel with isotope analysis.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Gee had to go back to 1750 to make the math work. There was no measurable AGW before 1950 ish.

That carbon isotope analysis thingy can't tell the difference from a forest fire caused by lightning and joe smo driving his F150. It seems fossil fuels have the same carbon isotopes as trees, within about 6% anyway.

Carbon emissions from 1751 - 2011 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems

Warming prior to 1950, from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)



Actually carbon isotope analysis can tell the difference.

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Carbon emissions from 1751 - 2011 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems

Warming prior to 1950, from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)



Actually carbon isotope analysis can tell the difference.

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

An amazing, mystical, magical machine which can tell the difference between CO2 released by a piece of wood burning inside a fireplace to keep us lowly humans warm back in 1751, and the CO2 released by a piece of wood burning outdoors as the result of a forest fire.

It must run off pixie dust.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

An amazing, mystical, magical machine which can tell the difference between CO2 released by a piece of wood burning inside a fireplace to keep us lowly humans warm back in 1751, and the CO2 released by a piece of wood burning outdoors as the result of a forest fire.

It must run off pixie dust.

Not pixie dust - science.

Did you bother to read the link?

So we know the added carbon in the atmosphere is coming from plants, but which plants? To answer that question, we use another isotope of carbon: C14. it is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon should have lowered the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere—and it has, as the charts below show.

This chart, based on measurements of C14 from tree rings, shows how its relative abundance among the carbon isotopes was declining with the advance of the Industrial Revolution until about 1950, when it suddenly shot up. The reasons is because C14 is a byproduct of atomic bomb explosions.

This chart picks up the story after 1950. C14 continued to build up until the ban on above-ground atomic bomb tests went into effect in the 1960s. Then C14 began to decline again.The only conclusion from these two slides is that if we take away the C14 produced by atomic explosions, some process has been diluting the carbon in the atmosphere with C14-free carbon. That means ancient carbon, and the only known source of ancient carbon in the amounts required to explain the data is fossil fuel combustion.

The two animated charts below show how closely the isotope trends follow the overall amount of carbon dioxide emitted. Download the charts here or try that link if they do not work in Firefox.

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/C13vsCO2.m4v

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/C14vsCO2.mp4

CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a different carbon isotope signature.

BTW - CO2 released from from a forest fire is part of the natural carbon as it would be released through decomposition.

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Yes I did read it.

And you actually believe that the climate scientists have a magical isotope machine that can tell the difference between the carbon released by a stick of firewood burning inside a fireplace to keep humans warm back in 1751, and the carbon released by a stick of wood burning in the forest due to a forest fire?

Two pieces of wood burning in different locations, each for a different reason.... back in 1751?

Do you believe everything you read, provided that it was written by a GW "scientist?"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Yes I did read it.

And you actually believe that the climate scientists have a magical isotope machine that can tell the difference between the carbon released by a stick of firewood burning inside a fireplace to keep humans warm back in 1751, and the carbon released by a stick of wood burning in the forest due to a forest fire?

Two pieces of wood burning in different locations, each for a different reason.... back in 1751?

Do you believe everything you read, provided that it was written by a GW "scientist?"

Not two different sticks of wood. Fossil fuels have a different carbon isotope signature.

Why do you reject science?



Magnetic sector mass spectrometer used in isotope ratio analysis, through thermal ionization.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not two different sticks of wood. Fossil fuels have a different carbon isotope signature.

Why do you reject science?

Magnetic sector mass spectrometer used in isotope ratio analysis, through thermal ionization.

I reject science when it begins to sound and look more like a religion as opposed to objective science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I reject science when it begins to sound and look more like a religion as opposed to objective science.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And wouldn't the "being" using it be God?

[fryewe]

Jack, Jack, Jack...a picture of a mass spectrometer? Did you forget the /sarc tag? Because C14 is a trace element no matter whether it's bound in biological mass or in the atmosphere, isn't it detected using sensitive radiometric devices?

Your post #1444 raises a couple of questions for me that perhaps you can answer since you seem to have studied these issues in depth...

First, the plot showing the C14 spike due to nuclear weapon testing shows a non-equilibrium level of C14 for the roughly 125 year study of tree ring data. I expected the C14 in those trees would decline at the natural rate of decay of C14, which is about 5700 years. However, the plot shows a decline of about 25 percent in 125 years, which, when I solve C=(C original)x(1/2) to the -t/t1/2 power, yields a t1/2 of about 300 years. Why the inconsistency?

Second, the second plot shows a 700 percent spike in C14 due to nuclear testing, and begins at 0 percent. Since the background atmospheric C14 level prior to the testing should, I think, have been in equilibrium at some value of radioactivity, why does the plot begin at zero (does that even make sense...700 percent of zero is zero.)? And why is it not consistent with the activity spike shown in other sources, which spike at around 60 percent of the equilibrium level in the Southern Hemisphere and about 100 percent in the Northern Hemisphere? Also, the slope of your second plot shows a half life of about 15 years, which is approximately the half life of C14 in the atmosphere due to uptake by biological sources and ocean waters, and seems to be inconsistent with rapid buildup of non-testing sources due to fossil fuel burning, which should cause dilution of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Can you clarify these inconsistencies? What am I missing?

[newhaul]

Then there is that the mauna loa lab measuring the c14 is on a volcano which they admit does affect the measurements. ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not pixie dust - science.

Did you bother to read the link?













http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/C13vsCO2.m4v

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/C14vsCO2.mp4

CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a different carbon isotope signature.

BTW - CO2 released from from a forest fire is part of the natural carbon as it would be released through decomposition.

Classic alarmist cherry picking of the start date and ignoring longer term data that shows there is nothing unusual about recent events.

NCDC/NOAA themselves tell us that 14C has been declining steadily over the last 40,000 years from a combination of changes in the earth's magnetic field, the release of 14C depleted CO2 from the deep ocean, and the coupling of atmospheric 14C-CO2 uptake by plants and old C release from soils that occurred during glacial retreat from 12ky ago to present.


See NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Hughen et al. Cariaco Basin Radiocarbon data





Interesting to notice the last uptick in C14 which appears to be around the time of the LIA

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I reject science when it begins to sound and look more like a religion as opposed to objective science.

Interesting - since many of the deniers, like the Cornwall Alliance and Inhofe, make Biblical references.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Then there is that the mauna loa lab measuring the c14 is on a volcano which they admit does affect the measurements. ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:

The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
-All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
-Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

The Mauna Loa measurements match those taken at numerous other sites around the world.




Atmospheric CO2 Research | Scripps CO2 Program

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

What am I missing?

Try How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate