Is man made co2 11.8 ppm or not?
tunderbar
atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
information that the amount of man made co2 in the atmosphere is not
11.8 ppm, please post a link. Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu."
stfu? NOPE!
erschro...@gmail.com
Isotopic analysis.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human
activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ?
carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the
atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants
have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising
atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling.
Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio
correlates with the trend in global emissions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Ghosh:
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
with 3 scientific journal references.
bw
"tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f73090f9-b99a-49ac...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
> Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
Simple carbon cycle accounting shows that atmospheric CO2 is rapidly
absorbed into oceans and land biomass by AT LEASR a 10 to 1 ratio. the
slower geologic carbon pool is thousands of times greater than the
atmospheric pool. Biologic respiration and bio-decomposition are faster.
The most rapid carbon sequestration is oceanic surface water via Henry's
law. But that has uncertain net effect.
Since total atmospheric turnover is about 5 to 10 years, then every year the
atmosphere loses 10 to 20 percent of all CO2 to the surface. So the known
anthropogenic CO2 addition will equilibrate at about 10 percent of the
natural CO2 flux. Since the atmosphere CO2 has increased from 280 to 380
during the 20th century, then about 10 percent of the man-made CO2 will
remain in the atmosphere.
10 percent of that 100ppm increase is about 10ppm.
http://nov55.com/crunch.html
http://www.co2web.info/
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
Giga2
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> > atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
> > Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
>
> Isotopic analysis.
>
> Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human
> activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ?
> carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the
> atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants
> have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising
> atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling.
> Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio
> correlates with the trend in global emissions.
>
>
> Ghosh:http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-...
>
> with 3 scientific journal references.
But don't the carbon in fossil fuels come from plants as well?
tunderbar
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> > atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
> > Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
>
> Isotopic analysis.
>
> Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human
> activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ?
> carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the
> atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants
> have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising
> atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling.
> Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio
> correlates with the trend in global emissions.
>
>
> Ghosh:http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-...
>
siiiigghhhhhhhh.... Do I sound like Al Gore yet? LOL.
Ok moron, Read through those FOUR links, find out where they say
exactly how much man made co2 really is in the atmosphere, then give
us the one link and the exact amount in parts per million. D'uh.
erschro...@gmail.com
> "tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, the conclusion is not logical. There is no other souece for
old carbon other than fossil fuels. Your 10% is turnover, not
sequestration. Yes, 10% of the carbon in the atmosphere goes into
sinks, but 10% of the carbon in the sinks comes out. Sequestration --
removal of the CO2 from the atmosphere -- takes decades. I guess I'm
not surprised you do not know the difference.
erschro...@gmail.com
That carbon has been removed from the biosphere for millions of years,
so an equilibrium has been established without it. Adding it now
upsets the equilibrium.
erschro...@gmail.com
Actually all of it. As Ghosh says, "current
annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of carbon. About half
of this amount is observed as an
increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The
other half is sequestered by other compartments. Currently,
both the oceans and the terrestrial system show
a net uptake of carbon."
So half of the carbon from fossil fuel burning goes into sinks; the
rest into the atmosphere. So your question is backwards; there's not
a % of the added CO2 in the atmosphere that's from fossil fuels (well,
there is, 100%) but instead a % of CO2 from fossil fuels that goes
into the atmosphere.
selaboc
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > siiiigghhhhhhhh.... Do I sound like Al Gore yet? LOL.
>
> > Ok moron, Read through those FOUR links, find out where they say
> > exactly how much man made co2 really is in the atmosphere, then give
> > us the one link and the exact amount in parts per million. D'uh.
>
> Actually all of it. As Ghosh says, "current
> annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of carbon. About half
> of this amount is observed as an
> increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The
> other half is sequestered by other compartments. Currently,
> both the oceans and the terrestrial system show
> a net uptake of carbon."
>
> So half of the carbon from fossil fuel burning goes into sinks; the
> rest into the atmosphere. So your question is backwards; there's not
> a % of the added CO2 in the atmosphere that's from fossil fuels (well,
> there is, 100%) but instead a % of CO2 from fossil fuels that goes
All of it? so you are saying if man was not buring fossil fuels, there
would be 0 ppm of CO2 in the atmopshere? seriously? Nope, sorry,
that's nonsense. For millions of years before man there was CO2 in the
atmosphere, and there will continue to be long after man has faded
away. So clearly some amount of the 387 ppm (as of 2009) in the
atmosphere is due to natural causes and some due to man.
The OP is asking how much of that 387 ppm is due to man and you've
spectacularily failed to given him an real answer but that's not
surprising as it is a question that noone honestly has a real answer
to. According to a quick google, 1832 antarctic ice core levels show
284ppm, meaning since 1832 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has
increased by 103 ppm - but it would be stupid and naive to think that
all 103 ppm is due entirely to man because 284 ppm is not a magic
number. the amount has been higher and it's been lower over the course
of history.
selaboc
>
> > Ok moron, Read through those FOUR links, find out where they say
> > exactly how much man made co2 really is in the atmosphere, then give
> > us the one link and the exact amount in parts per million. D'uh.
>
> Actually all of it. As Ghosh says, "current
> annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of carbon. About half
> of this amount is observed as an
> increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Oh, and you do realize that earth's atmosphers is about 5,000,000 gt,
so half of 6gt (that would be 3gt) is .00006% of the entire
atmosphere. All of it would be .00012% of the atmosphere. So we are
talking 0.6 (half) to 1.2 ppm (all) annually, that's a drop in the
bucket.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Mar 10, 11:12 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > siiiigghhhhhhhh.... Do I sound like Al Gore yet? LOL.
>
> > > Ok moron, Read through those FOUR links, find out where they say
> > > exactly how much man made co2 really is in the atmosphere, then give
> > > us the one link and the exact amount in parts per million. D'uh.
>
> > Actually all of it. As Ghosh says, "current
> > annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of carbon. About half
> > of this amount is observed as an
> > increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The
> > other half is sequestered by other compartments. Currently,
> > both the oceans and the terrestrial system show
> > a net uptake of carbon."
>
> > So half of the carbon from fossil fuel burning goes into sinks; the
> > rest into the atmosphere. So your question is backwards; there's not
> > a % of the added CO2 in the atmosphere that's from fossil fuels (well,
> > there is, 100%) but instead a % of CO2 from fossil fuels that goes
> > into the atmosphere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> All of it? so you are saying if man was not buring fossil fuels, there
> would be 0 ppm of CO2 in the atmopshere?
No, I said all of the ADDED 110 ppm is from fossil fuels. "Added" --
look it up.
>seriously? Nope, sorry,
> that's nonsense. For millions of years before man there was CO2 in the
> atmosphere, and there will continue to be long after man has faded
> away. So clearly some amount of the 387 ppm (as of 2009) in the
> atmosphere is due to natural causes and some due to man.
Since it was 280 ppm for a few million years, until fossil fuel
burning started in earnest, I think it's easy to see how much.
>
> The OP is asking how much of that 387 ppm is due to man and you've
> spectacularily failed to given him an real answer but that's not
> surprising as it is a question that noone honestly has a real answer
> to. According to a quick google, 1832 antarctic ice core levels show
> 284ppm, meaning since 1832 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has
> increased by 103 ppm - but it would be stupid and naive to think that
> all 103 ppm is due entirely to man because 284 ppm is not a magic
> number. the amount has been higher and it's been lower over the course
> of history.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
"Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago,
Scientists Report"
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Mar 10, 11:12 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > siiiigghhhhhhhh.... Do I sound like Al Gore yet? LOL.
>
> > > Ok moron, Read through those FOUR links, find out where they say
> > > exactly how much man made co2 really is in the atmosphere, then give
> > > us the one link and the exact amount in parts per million. D'uh.
>
> > Actually all of it. As Ghosh says, "current
> > annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of carbon. About half
> > of this amount is observed as an
> > increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>
> Oh, and you do realize that earth's atmosphers is about 5,000,000 gt,
> so half of 6gt (that would be 3gt) is .00006% of the entire
> atmosphere.
We're talking CO2, not N2, O2, etc.
>All of it would be .00012% of the atmosphere. So we are
> talking 0.6 (half) to 1.2 ppm (all) annually, that's a drop in the
> bucket.
A few nanograms of ricin is fatal, and that's an even smaller
proportion of your body mass. Where do you get the crazy idea the
concentration of something is all that's needed to determine its
effect?
Tom P
In that case, you have to come up with a pretty good explanation of two
things. First, why should the CO2 suddenly - meaning in 150 years -
increase by 40% ? Don't tell us it's volcanoes, unless you can explain
why the world's volcanoes should suddenly become active in the last 150
years and not in the centuries before. And don't tell us it's coming
from the oceans unless you can come up with a good reason for that as well.
Secondly, we know pretty well how much fossil fuel man is burning every
year, and therefore how much CO2 we are producing, and we know this
matches the atmospheric increase minus what gets absorbed by natural
sinks. Now try coming up with a good story why the CO2 from fossil fuel
is not adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere, if at the same time, the CO2
concentration is supposedly increasing for natural reasons??????
T.
Flaps_50!
Mass action? Oh sorry I forgot you don't know any science.
Bwhahhahahahhah
erschro...@gmail.com
Did you just read that off a cereal box? What do you think "mass
action" means?
kdt...@earthlink.net
> > "tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> > > atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
> Sorry, the conclusion is not logical. There is no other souece for
> old carbon other than fossil fuels.
For you to dismiss any other possible source of the carbon dioxide
increase is nonsense
It is not the C-12, C-13 ratio that is different in old carbon, it is
the C-15 which has a half life of 5280 yrs.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Look at this paper. It is pro AGW and I got it from Roger Coppock, in
trying to do the same thing of proving that increase in the air is
principly human CO2. Alkthough laced with unsupported greenie
statements, this paper also has many basic facts.
This paper says that there are 38,100Gtc of carbon in the deep ocean.
This is plenty of carbon dioxide to which anthropogenic carbon dioxide
is negligible.
The ice cores show clearly that there is no casual link to increased
CO2 and temperature. However, increased tempertures cause increased
CO2 about 900 yrs later. A logical reason for a least part of the
cause of this CO2 rise is increased circulation in the oceans which
brings more carbon to the surface. The medieaval warm period was
between 900-1100, meaning we are now about 1000 yrs out from this very
warm period which was much warmer than present.
7.8 billion tons is 1ppm in the atmosphere, therefore,
7.8 x 380ppm = 2,964 billion tons, or nearly 3 trillion tons in the
atmosphere, or
about 8 Gtc.
So according to the chart here stating that in the deep ocean resides
38,100 Gtc, there is
140,970 billion tons of CO2, which is,
140 trillion tons
Human input is now about 0.030 trillion tons.
It claims the exhange of the phytoplankton is 50 Gtc which is 185
billion tons. This is more than half of the exchange with the
atmosphere due to normal vapor pressure of 90 Gtc.
Human output only reached 3 or 4 billion tons per year by the 50's,
and has since risen exponentially which is not reflected in the linear
increase in CO2 since 1970 as indicated in the antartica station data.
The yearly exchange between plants and atmosphere, and between the
ocean and the atmosphere is about 210 Gtc per yr according to this
article, which amounts to 777 billion tons per yr.
Below 2 or 3 biilion tons per year, human input to this system is
negligible, and no effect from human CO2 on temperatures can be
surmised before the rise of significant emissions of the 50's.
This is why Phil Jones and company had the great need to falsify the
world temperature statistics by depressing the actual temperatures of
the 30's and 40's, and to falsify particulary the Briffa tree ring
study which shows a decline in temperatures from this period to
present.
It does not suit at all, the postulations on CO2's affect on climate
the real truth being that no discernable effect of the great increase
in anthropogenic CO2 can be detected in temperature statistics. So the
complete falsification of the temperature record, and the
falsification of the proxies to fit the falsified temperature record
has been done as the major framework of this science, which is the
basis of the IPCC theoretical assessment that they are 9/10's sure
that that they might have a valid scientific statement to base policy
decisions upon.
They should particulary review their 90% probablity that they are
correct.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHA
The effect of the burning of the jungles is not negligible on CO2
uptake.
These jungles have massive rivers which remove large amount of organic
material and carbon into the ocean. The loss of the vegetation is a
critical loss of a very important and active means that CO2 is removed
from the atmophere and sequestered to the bottom of the ocean.
But is not no suit the sadistic pleasure of controling peoples use of
energy to acknowledge the scientific facts which suggest that the
plant life and phytoplankton increase their growth with increases in
the trace gas of CO2, and the loss of the dense vegetation of the
jungle is more responsible for the increase in CO2.
And that the probabilty is that the most draconian actions of even the
genocide of most the worlds population and the elimination of their
carbon dioxide output would to nothing or little to change the natural
fluctuations of CO2 and therfore are a completely useless attempt to
modify climate, even if the false scientific theory propounded of the
effect of minute changes in CO2 could have on temperatures had any
validity either.
KD
Your 10% is turnover, not
> sequestration. Yes, 10% of the carbon in the atmosphere goes into
> sinks, but 10% of the carbon in the sinks comes out. Sequestration --
> removal of the CO2 from the atmosphere -- takes decades. I guess I'm
> not surprised you do not know the difference.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
selaboc
CO2 levels were static at 280 ppm for millions of years?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You are in the wrong group, this
isn't alt.comedy.
selaboc
CO2 = ricin. BWahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh man, you're a comic
genius. a Scientific moron, but a comic genius.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
gosh that was a stupid statement, think about concentrations.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118652807/abstract
Concentrations and d13C values of atmospheric CO2 from oceanic
atmosphere through time: polluted and non-polluted areas
tunderbar
And 5 to 10 grams of ascorbic acid daily is very good for you. And
that is a much larger proportion of your body mass. Where do you get
the crazy idea the concentration of something is all that's needed to
determine its effect?
Fucking moron.
Tom P
Your numbers are not quite correct. The current carbon fuel consumption
is 8.9 gigatons/year, meaning the CO2 production is 8.9 * 44/12 = about
32.6 gt/yr.
T
Tom P
Much warmer? Where's the evidence?
The reason why this claim is extremely doubtful is shown by the
fortuitous discovery of a 5,000 year old mummy in the Alps in 1991. The
body had evidently completely frozen for over 5,000 years, meaning that
the climate cannot have been warmer than in 1991 for any length of time.
T.
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:07 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 4:32 pm, "bw" <bweg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> > > > atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry, the conclusion is not logical. There is no other souece for
> > old carbon other than fossil fuels.
>
> For you to dismiss any other possible source of the carbon dioxide
> increase is nonsense
>
> It is not the C-12, C-13 ratio that is different in old carbon, it is
> the C-15 which has a half life of 5280 yrs.
>
Uh, that's C-14. Carbon has no C-15 isotope.
> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
> Look at this paper. It is pro AGW and I got it from Roger Coppock, in
> trying to do the same thing of proving that increase in the air is
> principly human CO2. Alkthough laced with unsupported greenie
> statements, this paper also has many basic facts.
>
> This paper says that there are 38,100Gtc of carbon in the deep ocean.
> This is plenty of carbon dioxide to which anthropogenic carbon dioxide
> is negligible.
So?
>
> The ice cores show clearly that there is no casual link to increased
> CO2 and temperature.
There is now.
>However, increased tempertures cause increased
> CO2 about 900 yrs later.
But both started increasing about 150 years ago.
>A logical reason for a least part of the
> cause of this CO2 rise is increased circulation in the oceans which
> brings more carbon to the surface. The medieaval warm period was
> between 900-1100, meaning we are now about 1000 yrs out from this very
> warm period which was much warmer than present.
But the oceans are gaining CO2, not losing it. Read some the
articles.
>
> 7.8 billion tons is 1ppm in the atmosphere, therefore,
> 7.8 x 380ppm = 2,964 billion tons, or nearly 3 trillion tons in the
> atmosphere, or
> about 8 Gtc.
>
> So according to the chart here stating that in the deep ocean resides
> 38,100 Gtc, there is
> 140,970 billion tons of CO2, which is,
> 140 trillion tons
> Human input is now about 0.030 trillion tons.
>
> It claims the exhange of the phytoplankton is 50 Gtc which is 185
> billion tons. This is more than half of the exchange with the
> atmosphere due to normal vapor pressure of 90 Gtc.
>
> Human output only reached 3 or 4 billion tons per year by the 50's,
> and has since risen exponentially which is not reflected in the linear
> increase in CO2 since 1970 as indicated in the antartica station data.
>
> The yearly exchange between plants and atmosphere, and between the
> ocean and the atmosphere is about 210 Gtc per yr according to this
> article, which amounts to 777 billion tons per yr.
Irrelevant.
>
> Below 2 or 3 biilion tons per year, human input to this system is
> negligible,
False. When you take a system at equilibrium and add one of the
substances, what happens?
>and no effect from human CO2 on temperatures can be
> surmised before the rise of significant emissions of the 50's.
>
Not so.
> This is why Phil Jones and company had the great need to falsify the
> world temperature statistics by depressing the actual temperatures of
> the 30's and 40's, and to falsify particulary the Briffa tree ring
> study which shows a decline in temperatures from this period to
> present.
OK, you're a pissant little liar and right-wing smearer. Happy?
>
> It does not suit at all, the postulations on CO2's affect on climate
> the real truth being that no discernable effect of the great increase
> in anthropogenic CO2 can be detected in temperature statistics. So the
> complete falsification of the temperature record, and the
> falsification of the proxies to fit the falsified temperature record
> has been done as the major framework of this science, which is the
> basis of the IPCC theoretical assessment that they are 9/10's sure
> that that they might have a valid scientific statement to base policy
> decisions upon.
>
> They should particulary review their 90% probablity that they are
> correct.
> HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHA
>
You are a liar and an idiot.
erschro...@gmail.com
Yes. Read the article.
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You are in the wrong group, this
> isn't alt.comedy.
You are an idiot. Read the article.
tunderbar
> If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
I still haven't seen one cite or reference that shows that it is not
11.8 ppm..
erschro...@gmail.com
Sure you have, but people with you're acting exactly like someone
suffering from mental illnesses would.
tunderbar
Again. Ad hominem. Do you have the answer or not? Stupid question. Of
course you don't. A simple "I don't know" would suffice.
erschro...@gmail.com
I've pointed you to numerous references with the answer. I must
conclude you're either too biased to bother reading them or too stupid
to understand them. In either case, it indicates mental illness.
tunderbar
No you did not point me to a single reference that specifically says
that man made CO2 accounts for X ppm of the atmosphere. You pointed me
to a half dozen sites that propagandized about everything around that
particular point, but failed to actually address it.
Give me one link. And tell me which paragraph specifically says "X ppm
is man made".
One.
Otherwise stfu and let someone else have a go at it.
tunderbar
Or better yet. Just answer the question. How many ppm of the existing
CO2 in the atmosphere can be directly attributed to man made sources.
Place your answer below.
______ parts per million.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
he is kind of like the belligerent drunk
Giga2
>
> > > with 3 scientific journal references.
>
> > But don't the carbon in fossil fuels come from plants as well?
>
> That carbon has been removed from the biosphere for millions of years,
> so an equilibrium has been established without it. Adding it now
> upsets the equilibrium.
But if plant co2 has the ration of carbon 12 and 13 then so will the
stuff from fossil fuels because it is also from plants.
dr yacub
You're kind of like the shit-eating-imbecile.
Roving rabbit
> If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
> atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>
> Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
GO HOME YOU SERIAL LIAR, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG TOWN.
Q
--
Who is general failure and why does he need my attention?
Sirius
> On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
>> atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>>
>> Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
>
> Isotopic analysis.
>
> Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity
> comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms
> with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12
> has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12
> ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil
> fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring
> (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global
> emissions.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-
emissions.htm
>
> Ghosh:
> http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-
that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
>
> with 3 scientific journal references.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/graphics/cga_c13co2.jpg
These values are consistent with Keeling et al. (1989) 1988 atmospheric
mesurement : 7.0807 permil, reported by Segalstadt.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm
CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have delta -13-C values of (-26
permil).
Natural CO2 has a delta-13-C value of( -7 permil).
Keeling (1989) reported a 1988-measured atmospheric delta-13-C value of
(-7.807permil).
Using a simple isotopic mass balance equation of [26X +7(1-X) = 7.807]
produces an X value of 0.042.
*fossil fuel C02 in atmosphere/total atmospheric C02 4,2%*.
Sirius
I understand from his previous posts, that Erschroedinger believes that
the atmosphere is a system with a strong positive feedback, and thus
unstable. He thinks it is at the verge of tipping.
If he is right, there is nothing to be done to prevent it. Humanity won't
stop instantly its use of fossil fuels.
If he is wrong, there is nothing to be done either.
The current C12/C13 isotopic composition of the atmosphere is less than
-8 permil far from the -11 permil that would confirm the IPCC hypothesis
on CO2 residence time.
bw
"Sirius" <Sir...@provider.net> wrote in message
news:4b9be5c7$0$10637$426a...@news.free.fr...
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:27:55 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote :
>
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-
> emissions.htm
>>
>> Ghosh:
>> http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-
> that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
>>
>> with 3 scientific journal references.
>
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/graphics/cga_c13co2.jpg
>
> These values are consistent with Keeling et al. (1989) 1988 atmospheric
> mesurement : 7.0807 permil, reported by Segalstadt.
> http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm
His name is Tom V. Segastad
> CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have delta -13-C values of (-26
> permil).
> Natural CO2 has a delta-13-C value of( -7 permil).
> Keeling (1989) reported a 1988-measured atmospheric delta-13-C value of
> (-7.807permil).
>
> Using a simple isotopic mass balance equation of [26X +7(1-X) = 7.807]
> produces an X value of 0.042.
> *fossil fuel C02 in atmosphere/total atmospheric C02 4,2%*.
.042 times 390 ppm equals about 16 ppm CO2 anthropogenic
Consistent with atmospheric carbon pool with 5 year averaged turnover
Sirius
>> The OP is asking how much of that 387 ppm is due to man and you've
>> spectacularily failed to given him an real answer but that's not
>> surprising as it is a question that noone honestly has a real answer
>> to. According to a quick google, 1832 antarctic ice core levels show
>> 284ppm, meaning since 1832 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has
>> increased by 103 ppm - but it would be stupid and naive to think that
>> all 103 ppm is due entirely to man because 284 ppm is not a magic
>> number. the amount has been higher and it's been lower over the course
>> of history.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
>
> "Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago,
> Scientists Report"
But direct mesurements from XIX. and XX. century scientific papers don't
confirm. See for example figure 4 (1939-1941 Kreutz at Giessen) 310 to
550 ppm seasonal variations, or figure 5 ( 1863-1864 Schultze at Rostock)
320 to 400 ppm seasonal variations.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Sirius
> In that case, you have to come up with a pretty good explanation of two
> things. First, why should the CO2 suddenly - meaning in 150 years -
> increase by 40% ? Don't tell us it's volcanoes, unless you can explain
> why the world's volcanoes should suddenly become active in the last 150
> years and not in the centuries before. And don't tell us it's coming
> from the oceans unless you can come up with a good reason for that as
> well.
>
> Secondly, we know pretty well how much fossil fuel man is burning every
> year, and therefore how much CO2 we are producing, and we know this
> matches the atmospheric increase minus what gets absorbed by natural
> sinks. Now try coming up with a good story why the CO2 from fossil fuel
> is not adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere, if at the same time, the CO2
> concentration is supposedly increasing for natural reasons??????
Henry's law ?
Sirius
>> between 900-1100, meaning we are now about 1000 yrs out from this very
>> warm period which was much warmer than present.
>
> Much warmer? Where's the evidence?
> The reason why this claim is extremely doubtful is shown by the
> fortuitous discovery of a 5,000 year old mummy in the Alps in 1991. The
> body had evidently completely frozen for over 5,000 years, meaning that
> the climate cannot have been warmer than in 1991 for any length of time.
It shows that the climate was localy warmer 5000 years ago.
It is an indication that since then the snow was thick enough so it had
not the time to melt. It can result from local temperatures being
slightly lower, or for the ice cap to be thicker.
Sirius
>> > > I still haven't seen one cite or reference that shows that it is
>> > > not 11.8 ppm..
>>
>> > Sure you have, but people with you're acting exactly like someone
>> > suffering from mental illnesses would.
>>
>> Again. Ad hominem. Do you have the answer or not? Stupid question. Of
>> course you don't. A simple "I don't know" would suffice.
>
> I've pointed you to numerous references with the answer. I must
> conclude you're either too biased to bother reading them or too stupid
> to understand them. In either case, it indicates mental illness.
I read the 3 references.
Here is a quote from your answer :
<quote>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-
emissions.htm
Ghosh:
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-
recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
with 3 scientific journal references.
</quote>
Only the second can be qualified "a scientific paper" and contains usable
informations.
figure 8b on page 14 shows a 13 C of atmospheric CO2 from 1977 to 1994
varying around -7.5 / -7.7 permil, an indication that fossil fuel CO2
atmospheric content is around 14 ppm (IPCC -11 permil, ~80 ppm).
Sirius
> tunderbar wrote:
>> If you have information that the amount of man made co2 in the
>> atmosphere is not 11.8 ppm, please post a link.
>>
>> Show us the science. Otherwise, stfu.
>
> GO HOME YOU SERIAL LIAR, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG TOWN.
Up to now, I supposed that the global warmists' thesis was :
1- The man kind is putting back huge amounts of previously sequestrated
fossil carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
2- This CO2 stays for long in the atmosphere.
3- Atmospheric CO2 absorbs the a part of the IR spectrum causing the
earth to increase its temperature to stay in equilibrium.
4- This effect would be small by itself, but computer models show that it
is amplified at least 6 times leading to a potential 3C temperature
increase.
5- Such a warming is assumed to be a bad thing because it disturbs mother
nature.
6- If humanity stops to burn fossil fuels it can effectively curb the
temperature increase.
Every poster that propose a subject discussing one of those points is
obviously on topic.
So, why do you oppose to this discussion about the actual proportion of
previously fossil CO2 in the atmosphere ? Because you don't like the
11.8ppm value ?
>
> Q
Roving rabbit
I think you are a serial liar who is trying to manipulate the facts.
Since the industrial revolution a total of 100 ppm was added to the
atmosphere. This is a well established number, your number is wrong.
Currently we are at 390 ppm, in 1800 it was 280 ppm
The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
Sirius
We have been recently presented with two scientific references from
AGWers that show that delta 13C is around -7.8 permil. This value is
totally incompatible with what you pretend to be a well established
number.
Reference given by Erschroedinger :
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
figure 8 page 14
Fossil fuel -26 permil
Natural CO2 -7 permil
Atmospheric CO2 -7.8 permil
26.t + 7.(1-t) = 7.8 t ?
then just multiply t by 390 and give us the result.
Sirius
>> So, why do you oppose to this discussion about the actual proportion of
>> previously fossil CO2 in the atmosphere ? Because you don't like the
>> 11.8ppm value ?
>
> I think you are a serial liar who is trying to manipulate the facts.
Hey ! Roving Rabbit, what is a lie in what I stated ? Point 1, 2, ... 6 ?
Or the fact that discussing anyone of them is on topic ?
To help you I repeat what I stated :
Up to now, I supposed that the global warmists' thesis was :
1- The man kind is putting back huge amounts of previously sequestrated
fossil carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
2- This CO2 stays for long in the atmosphere.
3- Atmospheric CO2 absorbs the a part of the IR spectrum
causing the earth to increase its temperature to stay in equilibrium.
4-This effect would be small by itself, but computer models show that it
is amplified at least 6 times leading to a potential 3C temperature
increase.
5- Such a warming is assumed to be a bad thing because it disturbs mother
nature.
6- If humanity stops to burn fossil fuels it can effectively curb the
temperature increase.
Every poster that propose a subject discussing one of those points is
obviously on topic.
If what you are discussing is the 11.8 ppm value, then don't loose your
time with allegations like 'it is a lie', just provide a scientific
reference in favor of your 110 ppm belief, for example that delta 13C is
currently -12.3 permil (Erschroedinger and Colombia recently presented
papers with values around -7.8 permil).
kdt...@earthlink.net
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The medieaval warm period was
>
> > between 900-1100, meaning we are now about 1000 yrs out from this very
> > warm period which was much warmer than present.
>
> Much warmer? Where's the evidence?
> The reason why this claim is extremely doubtful is shown by the
> fortuitous discovery of a 5,000 year old mummy in the Alps in 1991. The
> body had evidently completely frozen for over 5,000 years, meaning that
> the climate cannot have been warmer than in 1991 for any length of time.
>
> T.
Ice takes a long time to melt, even in warm temperatures.
Carbon 14 dating under the glaciers in greenland, show that plants
lived there during the MWP when these glaciers were retreated from the
shore.
There is great evidence of this warm period. Although it may have been
mainly in the north atlantic. The Viking settlers on Greenland grew
both grapes and wheat, and sailed easily to Canada, which has been
confirmed by discovery of one of their winter hovels and artifacts
such as iron nails just as they made.
The 'conveyor' of ocean currents, runs out of the Indian ocean to the
north atlantic, which the Gulf Stream is a part. This means that it
could be very natural for there to be great fluctuations in this
current which carries heat energy to the north atlantic and makes
Europe habitable.
A valid analysis of current temperture statistics, shows that the
warming trend depicted in the supposed world statistics, occurs mainly
in European temperatures, which increases the world average. There are
many, many stations and whole continents, such as N America, which do
not show the warming trend at all when statistics from the 20's are
reviewed.
This particular warming of Europe which depends upon the gulf stream,
and it's effect upon world temperature averages, is only part of the
continuing scientific fraud of the petulant, psychologically disturbed
and paranoid fools who pretend to be scientists as they move
inexorably into the sights of humanity's gunsights.
There is no justification in Greenhouse theory for warming only
occuring in particular regions, which the actual fact clearly show.
Good luck in hell.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:28 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > This paper says that there are 38,100Gtc of carbon in the deep ocean.
> > This is plenty of carbon dioxide to which anthropogenic carbon dioxide
> > is negligible.
>
> So?
Let's see a valid reading of C-13 and C-14 of oceanic carbon.
> > The ice cores show clearly that there is no casual link to increased
> > CO2 and temperature.
>
> There is now.
>
> >However, increased tempertures cause increased
> > CO2 about 900 yrs later.
>
> But both started increasing about 150 years ago.
>
> >A logical reason for a least part of the
> > cause of this CO2 rise is increased circulation in the oceans which
> > brings more carbon to the surface. The medieaval warm period was
> > between 900-1100, meaning we are now about 1000 yrs out from this very
> > warm period which was much warmer than present.
>
'> But the oceans are gaining CO2, not losing it. Read some the
> articles.
This shows that you do not understand the concept of vapor pressure
from chemistry.
A liguid in a room with gases, will absorb gas molecules which strike
it's surface. These gas molecules when in the gas, will also come to
the surface and leave the gas. This concept has actually nothing to do
with pressure of the gases, as is confused by the great charlatan,
Dancin Hansen.
In any situation in which a liquid and a gas exist therefore, an
equilibrium will eventually be established between the number of
molecules being absorbed, and the number of molecules leaving the
liquid.
This occurs with the ocean and carbon dioxide. 90Gtc of carbon dioxide
are absorbed, and 90Gtc of carbon dioxide are released at equilibrium.
If the atmospheric concentrations were increased, the number of
molecules being absorbed would increase above that being released. If
the oceanic concentrations were increased, the number of molecules
leaving the liquid would increase until the atmospheric concentration
reached the level in which the rate of molecules striking the surface
of the liquid and being absorbed again matched that leaving the
surface.
So if oceanic concentrations are increased at this time more than
atmospheric concentrations, the increase in the atmosphere is due to
increased oceanic levels for which humans cannot be responsible, since
our emissions of CO2 are into the atmosphere and it would take a very
long time to increase oceanic levels with the increased atmospheric
levels.
So do your own science, dweezzleshitsucker. What ever kind of
dweezzleshit Jones, Trenberth and Hansen put out, you are more than
willing to suck it.
Just don't be expecting anyone but yourself and demented comrades to
be believing your lies and propaganda and partial and invalid science.
The politicians that believe your lies do so at their own risk.
> > 7.8 billion tons is 1ppm in the atmosphere, therefore,
> > 7.8 x 380ppm = 2,964 billion tons, or nearly 3 trillion tons in the
> > atmosphere, or
> > about 8 Gtc.
>
> > So according to the chart here stating that in the deep ocean resides
> > 38,100 Gtc, there is
> > 140,970 billion tons of CO2, which is,
> > 140 trillion tons
> > Human input is now about 0.030 trillion tons.
>
>
> > This is why Phil Jones and company had the great need to falsify the
> > world temperature statistics by depressing the actual temperatures of
> > the 30's and 40's, and to falsify particulary the Briffa tree ring
> > study which shows a decline in temperatures from this period to
> > present.
>
> > They should particulary review their 90% probablity that they are
> > correct.
> > HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHA
>
> You are a liar and an idiot.
You call me a liar. What I say does not matter. It is only the
collection of the empirical evidence of these proxies that matters to
settle the matter in a criminal court. But you are duly welcome to
ignore this fact and the fact that the IPCC must reduce it's
probablitiy of being scientifically correct in their postualations and
estimations. Actual science does not operate with 90% probabilities,
duffushit.
KD
>
kdt...@earthlink.net
> Since the industrial revolution a total of 100 ppm was added to the
> atmosphere. This is a well established number, your number is wrong.
> Currently we are at 390 ppm, in 1800 it was 280 ppm
>
> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>
> Q
False science.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Here is an article written by one of the foremost experts in ice cores
and their chemical analysis.
His credentials are not questionable, and the claim that he works for
vested interest in creating false science cannot be supported.
He wrote this to the US government. If he is falsifying his
statements, he could be held accountable. But he is not. He has
written about 200 papers about how CO2 concentrations are reduced in
ice core samples from actual atmospheric concentrations.
A clear inverse relationship to depth and concentrations exists. This
means as more pressure is put on the layers, the CO2 concentration
goes down. One reason for this is the formation of calthrites.
The fraudists of AGW, shift this reading of the CO2 levels being
depressed by greater pressure to the 1950's to be comensurate with the
rise of significant human emissions.
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THIS FALSIFICATION OF THE YEARS OF
THE LAYERS IN READING THE CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.
Without direct scientific study to confirm this with recent years and
newer reading which are available, this is falsified science and ANY
scientists or politician using this false picture of CO2 levels
increasing due to humans is guilty of a level of fraud for which they
should be held accountable.
It is clear that there is no scientific justification for shifting the
years of the ice cores which are clearly marked by the layers. The ice
is no permeable 30 layers down which is approx. 100ft,
Jawoworski clearly proves that pre-industrial levels of CO2 are not
what is pictured as the steady 280ppm reiterated by the cult of the
psuedo science and religion of AGW.
But peer review in the science of climate scaremongering has very
little interest in actual science, or in supporting basics of their
religous postulations by actual scientific work.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>
> Q
Explain this statement.
A Watt is 1 Joule per second. In reference to radiation, this term is
actually,
5.67E-8 Joules,,, sec-1, meters-2, degK-4
Radiation recieved from the sun is 1370Wm-2
This means that a piece of steel, 1 sq meter in space at earth's
radius to the sun, will recieve 1370 Joules per second of radiation
energy of all wavelengths. This energy travels from the sun at the
velocity of light.
So 1.5Wm-2 of retained energy for earth's surface area of a sphere
would be a quantity of energy according to the time interval
specified. Just as electricity is quantified by Watt/hours etc.
The heat capacity of the mass of the atmosphere is a quantity. 1Wm-2
over 117 days, is the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
atmosphere for 1 degC.
So 117/1.5 gives the number of days that this rate of energy retention
will accrue the quantity of energy of the heat capacity for the mass
of the atmosphere for 1degC.
This is 78 days.or 4.7 degC per yr.
Any empirical evidence of this?
Any explanation then for what the hell you mean by 1.5Wm-2 except that
it was derived by the meister charlatan Hansen and his petulant
corrupt and inept followers as they dragged this theory from the trash
heap of classical theory?
Your thermodynamic theory is so bogus, no one knows how to argue with
you duffus shits. The first law of thermodynamics is the Law of the
Conservation of Energy.
Something that has been abandoned by the theoretical idiots who
support and believe in AGW.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
Roving rabbit
And suddenly I see that you switch to a specific isotope.
Carbon my dear, the C in CO2 has more isotopes than just 13C, what about
12C and 14C?
If you measure all carbon then we went up from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.
You are trying to manipulate the discussion.
Q
> totally incompatible with what you pretend to be a well established
> number.
>
> Reference given by Erschroedinger :
> http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
> figure 8 page 14
>
> Fossil fuel -26 permil
> Natural CO2 -7 permil
> Atmospheric CO2 -7.8 permil
> 26.t + 7.(1-t) = 7.8 t ?
> then just multiply t by 390 and give us the result.
Roving rabbit
>
>> This is a well established number, your number is wrong.
>> Currently we are at 390 ppm, in 1800 it was 280 ppm
>
>
>> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
>> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>>
>> Q
>
Peter Muehlbauer is a serial liar who behaves even worse than the most
ingrained creationist I've ever seen.
Where in the hell do you collect all you lies and disinformation mister
Peter Muehlbauer?
Do you just fabricate them yourselves or is a somewhere a central
collection point?
Nobody believes you any longer.
Roving rabbit
> On Mar 14, 3:05 am, Roving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
>> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>>
>> Q
> Explain this statement.
> A Watt is 1 Joule per second. In reference to radiation, this term is
> actually,
> 5.67E-8 Joules,,, sec-1, meters-2, degK-4
>
> Radiation recieved from the sun is 1370Wm-2
Stop here,
The 1370 watt/m^2 is a constant value, if you work out the math then it
is distributed over day night cycles, and seasonal cycles. In the end no
more then 1/4 or so of the 1370 W/m^2 reaches an average point on the
planet.
> This means that a piece of steel, 1 sq meter in space at earth's
> radius to the sun, will recieve 1370 Joules per second of radiation
> energy of all wavelengths. This energy travels from the sun at the
> velocity of light.
Yeah, and the fun part is yet to come, the piece of steel gets hot and
starts to radiate itself. So there is a Planck radiation curve from the
sun at 6000K and a Planck radiation curve of the piece of steel which
gets up to a certain equilibrium temperature. Flux in matches flux out.
>
> So 1.5Wm-2 of retained energy for earth's surface area of a sphere
> would be a quantity of energy according to the time interval
> specified. Just as electricity is quantified by Watt/hours etc.
The 1.5 W/m^2 is averaged over at least a year, it reflects to what
stays behind in the atmosphere because of the increased IR absorption by
greenhouse gases.
>
> The heat capacity of the mass of the atmosphere is a quantity. 1Wm-2
> over 117 days, is the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
> atmosphere for 1 degC.
Where in the hell do your 117 days come from, why is this relevant? It
is not only the atmosphere that heats up, also the rest of the system
receives the flux.
>
> So 117/1.5 gives the number of days that this rate of energy retention
> will accrue the quantity of energy of the heat capacity for the mass
> of the atmosphere for 1degC.
>
> This is 78 days.or 4.7 degC per yr.
>
> Any empirical evidence of this?
There is no empirical evidence for your fabricated values where you
attribute everything to the atmosphere.
The hard evidence there is to support the claim 1,5 W/m^2 for CO2 going
from 280 to 390 ppm comes from:
1) radiative transfer modeling, there are satellites with radiometers
that precisely confirm the behavior of the earth's atmosphere which you
can measure independently
2) climate sensitivity from ice core records which retrieve paleo CO2
and paleo temperature, they get steady state values of about 3/4
C/(W/m^2) for geologic periods when the earth had the similar tectonic
setting as today.
3) recent CO2 and temperature records.
4) climate inertia observed in paleo ice core records.
>
> Any explanation then for what the hell you mean by 1.5Wm-2 except that
> it was derived by the meister charlatan Hansen and his petulant
> corrupt and inept followers as they dragged this theory from the trash
> heap of classical theory?
Hate towards an opponent does not solve a scientific debate. Just think
about it. I do not believe that Hansen is a charletan, but I do see a
lot of evidence that you denier guys hate him.
The beauty of science is, you can always find plenty of other scientists
who will say the same, who are unaffiliated or unaffected by Hansen.
>
> Your thermodynamic theory is so bogus, no one knows how to argue with
> you duffus shits. The first law of thermodynamics is the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy.
> Something that has been abandoned by the theoretical idiots who
> support and believe in AGW.
>
> KD
I'm afraid you lack a lot of knowledge on the science, so do not try to
behave like an expert if you are not one. At least include a reference
to material which is credible if you make a statement.
All what I wrote can be read in IPCC's AR4 volume, you can also check
other sources on the internet, I'm happy to provide them if you need
them, otherwise Sam Wormley will.
I mean, when are you denier guys going to admit that bigotry and
cheating does not solve your problem?
What is your problem in the first place? Do you not like the taxes, etc.
If that is your concern then focus the discussion on where your problem
is, and seek support.
Are you perhaps so close to the breadline that you can not handle a
change in the system, or do you just pretend that you could not handle
the change?
Greetings,
Sirius
>>> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
>>> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>>>
>>> Q
>>
>> Three lies in a row.
>
> Peter Muehlbauer is a serial liar who behaves even worse than the most
> ingrained creationist I've ever seen.
>
> Where in the hell do you collect all you lies and disinformation mister
> Peter Muehlbauer?
>
> Do you just fabricate them yourselves or is a somewhere a central
> collection point?
>
> Nobody believes you any longer.
Scientific data don't agree with you.
The (-7.8 / -7.9 permil) delta 13C value publied in the peer reviewed
Erschroedinger reference is utmostly incompatible with your 110 ppm
hypothesis (and quite compatible with a value around 12).
P. Ghosh, W.A. Brand / International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228
(2003) 1–33
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
The article says that repeated analysis can be made with a precision of
about 0.1 permil for delta 13C. The -12.3 permil value that would justify
your own hypothesis differs from the actual value of 45 times the
estimated error. It is utmostly impossible, even if you find a warmist
friend to adjust the value.
And the reference given by Colombia is consistent with this Ghosh paper.
Sirius
>>>> So, why do you oppose to this discussion about the actual proportion
>>>> of previously fossil CO2 in the atmosphere ? Because you don't like
>>>> the 11.8ppm value ?
>>> I think you are a serial liar who is trying to manipulate the facts.
>>>
>>> Since the industrial revolution a total of 100 ppm was added to the
>>> atmosphere. This is a well established number, your number is wrong.
>>> Currently we are at 390 ppm, in 1800 it was 280 ppm
>>>
>>> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
>>> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>>>
>>> Q
>>
>> We have been recently presented with two scientific references from
>> AGWers that show that delta 13C is around -7.8 permil. This value is
>
> And suddenly I see that you switch to a specific isotope.
Those are facts. Stupid facts.
If those facts permit to conclude that you 110ppm hypothesis is false,
why should we ignore them.
As far as I know mesures based on 14-C or 222-Ra give compatible, as it
could be obviously expected, compatible results.
All those results invalidate you 110 ppm hypothesis.
Facts, just facts, simple unbiased unadjusted facts.
Roving rabbit
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:28:50 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>>>>> So, why do you oppose to this discussion about the actual proportion
>>>>> of previously fossil CO2 in the atmosphere ? Because you don't like
>>>>> the 11.8ppm value ?
>>>> I think you are a serial liar who is trying to manipulate the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Since the industrial revolution a total of 100 ppm was added to the
>>>> atmosphere. This is a well established number, your number is wrong.
>>>> Currently we are at 390 ppm, in 1800 it was 280 ppm
>>>>
>>>> The forcing associated with the 110 ppm is about 1,5 Watt per square
>>>> meter, this is the number that counts for modeling climate change.
>>>>
>>>> Q
>>> We have been recently presented with two scientific references from
>>> AGWers that show that delta 13C is around -7.8 permil. This value is
>> And suddenly I see that you switch to a specific isotope.
>
> Those are facts. Stupid facts.
>
> If those facts permit to conclude that you 110ppm hypothesis is false,
> why should we ignore them.
> As far as I know mesures based on 14-C or 222-Ra give compatible, as it
> could be obviously expected, compatible results.
>
> All those results invalidate you 110 ppm hypothesis.
>
> Facts, just facts, simple unbiased unadjusted facts.
Apparently you have never heard about the Suess effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
Fossil fuels are depleted in both 13C and 14C, so what we pump into the
atmosphere is mostly 12C. No wonder the abundance ratio decays.
Your observation of delta 13C decay is therefore a perfect confirmation
of the fact that we burn fossil fuels.
And don't worry about the 110 ppm, this is the only fact that counts for
climate change, see:
http://www.oneclimate.net/imagelib/posts/20080115/Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration.jpg
>
>> Carbon my dear, the C in CO2 has more isotopes than just 13C, what about
>> 12C and 14C?
>>
>> If you measure all carbon then we went up from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.
>>
>> You are trying to manipulate the discussion.
>
Denier Sirius is exposed as a nitwit,
Q
Roving rabbit
Apparently you have never heard about the Suess effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
Fossil fuels are depleted in both 13C and 14C, so what we pump into the
atmosphere is mostly 12C. No wonder the abundance ratio decays.
Your observation of delta 13C decay is therefore a perfect confirmation
of the fact that we burn fossil fuels.
And don't worry about the 110 ppm, this is the only fact that counts for
climate change, see:
http://www.oneclimate.net/imagelib/posts/20080115/Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration.jpg
Denier Sirius is exposed as a nitwit,
Q
Sirius
> Apparently you have never heard about the Suess effect:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
Apparently you have not been aware that I have been discussing the Suess
effect with you.
If you take a little time to make the required computations, you will
obviously discover that your 110 ppm hypothesis is flawed.
Delta 13C values :
Natural atmospheric CO2 : (-7 permil)
Fossil fuel CO2 : (-36 permil)
Atmosphere value 1978 : -7.7489 permil
Atmosphere value 1998 : -7.807 permil
Recent values : -7.8 -7.9 permil
110 ppm value : -15.2 permil
10.8 ppm value : -7.8 permil
The order of the error margin is 0.1 permil.
The Suess effect disproves your hypothesis.
Roving rabbit
Yawn.
Sirius
You are an asshole. A brain washed idiot. A mad global warmist pitbull. A
crook.
And you actually know you are telling lies. But you try anyway, an
asshole characteristic. And your friends use the same disgusting tactic.
They lie battantly, just as you did in this tread.
Will you, at least, try a rational argument, something scientific. Will
you show that you have a brain bigger than a pea ?
This 11 or 110 ppm debate may seem esoteric. It is not.
The -7.8 permil delta 13C value is a proof that CO2 does not accumulate
for centuries in the atmosphere. And a proof that the IPCC theories are
flawed.
>
> Q
Sirius
>>> Carbon my dear, the C in CO2 has more isotopes than just 13C, what
>>> about 12C and 14C?
>>>
>>> If you measure all carbon then we went up from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.
>>>
>>> You are trying to manipulate the discussion.
>>
>>
> Denier Sirius is exposed as a nitwit,
>
> Q
How do you feel when you ask for something (how the Suess law confirm or
infirm the supposed proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere)
when have been given the details just in the previous post ?
An idiot.
Some values for the Suess law again :
Delta 13C values :
Natural atmospheric CO2 : (-7 permil) Fossil fuel CO2 : (-36 permil)
Atmosphere value 1978 : -7.7489 permil Atmosphere value 1998 : -7.807
permil Recent values : -7.8 -7.9 permil
110 ppm value : -15.2 permil
10.8 ppm value : -7.8 permil
The order of the error margin is 0.1 permil.
The Suess effect disproves your 110 ppm hypothesis.
CO2 does not accumulate for long in the atmosphere.
Roving rabbit
Again, a very big yawn if you know just a little bit about isotopes.
Your original claim was (see subject) that we humans only put 11.8 ppm
into the atmosphere which is a flagrant lie.
I discovered that you were looking at delta C13, and that C13 is not a
measure for the total CO2 content.
In reality there is the Suess effect and different pathway preferences
for C13 in C3 and C4 photosynthesis loops, good luck finding that out
the exact effect is on observed atmospheric C13/C12 abundance ratio.
But the Suess effect explains why there is a C13 depletion in fossil
fuels which the reason that the C13 present day atmosphere decreases by
putting geologic C12 into the atmosphere.
Take a jar with a few red and many blue balls, add a few dozen blue
balls to it, and guess what, the concentration of red to blue decreases
in the jar. The latter is what we observe.
And guess what, the ad hominems followed soon afterwards. You behave
like bully in the schoolyard, the typical AGW denier attitude backed
with a lot of noise but little substance. I didn't buy it and exposed
your lies.
Sirius
>> How do you feel when you ask for something (how the Suess law confirm
>> or infirm the supposed proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the
>> atmosphere) when have been given the details just in the previous post
>> ? An idiot.
>>
>> Some values for the Suess law again :
>>
>> Delta 13C values :
>> Natural atmospheric CO2 : (-7 permil) Fossil fuel CO2 : (-36 permil)
>> Atmosphere value 1978 : -7.7489 permil Atmosphere value 1998 : -7.807
>> permil Recent values : -7.8 -7.9 permil
>>
>> 110 ppm value : -15.2 permil
>> 10.8 ppm value : -7.8 permil
>>
>> The order of the error margin is 0.1 permil.
>>
>> The Suess effect disproves your 110 ppm hypothesis. CO2 does not
>> accumulate for long in the atmosphere.
>
> Again, a very big yawn if you know just a little bit about isotopes.
Apparently much more than you do, Rabid Rabbit.
>
> Your original claim was (see subject) that we humans only put 11.8 ppm
> into the atmosphere which is a flagrant lie.
The claim is not that humanity put 11.8 in the atmosphere. The claim is
that, nowadays, only 11.8 ppm present in the atmosphere comes from
burning fossl fuels.
And that is what is objectively proven by the current delta 13C ratio of
-7.8 permil, whether you like it or not.
>
> I discovered that you were looking at delta C13, and that C13 is not a
> measure for the total CO2 content.
>
> In reality there is the Suess effect and different pathway preferences
> for C13 in C3 and C4 photosynthesis loops, good luck finding that out
> the exact effect is on observed atmospheric C13/C12 abundance ratio.
>
> But the Suess effect explains why there is a C13 depletion in fossil
> fuels which the reason that the C13 present day atmosphere decreases by
> putting geologic C12 into the atmosphere.
That is exactly what is expressed in the fact that the 13C ration of
'natural carbon' is -7 permil and the current atmospheric ration -7.8
permil.
If all the carbon in the atmosphere came from burning fossil fuel, the
ratio would be -36 permil. If 110 ppm out of 390 came from burning fossil
fuels, the ratio should be -15.2 permil. It is not.
And that is a clear proof that your supposition that all the carbon
burned stays in the atmosphere is false.
>
> Take a jar with a few red and many blue balls, add a few dozen blue
> balls to it, and guess what, the concentration of red to blue decreases
> in the jar. The latter is what we observe.
Yawn !!!
Take 110 balls with a weight of 26 and 280 with a weight of seven, and
compute the average weight of a ball :
(26*110+7*280)/390 = 12.3
value from effective mesures : 7.8
>
> And guess what, the ad hominems followed soon afterwards. You behave
> like bully in the schoolyard, the typical AGW denier attitude backed
> with a lot of noise but little substance. I didn't buy it and exposed
> your lies.
You are a nitwit, and a liar.
>
> Q
Roving rabbit
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:18:26 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>>> How do you feel when you ask for something (how the Suess law confirm
>>> or infirm the supposed proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the
>>> atmosphere) when have been given the details just in the previous post
>>> ? An idiot.
>>>
>>> Some values for the Suess law again :
>>>
>>> Delta 13C values :
>>> Natural atmospheric CO2 : (-7 permil) Fossil fuel CO2 : (-36 permil)
>>> Atmosphere value 1978 : -7.7489 permil Atmosphere value 1998 : -7.807
>>> permil Recent values : -7.8 -7.9 permil
>>>
>>> 110 ppm value : -15.2 permil
>>> 10.8 ppm value : -7.8 permil
>>>
>>> The order of the error margin is 0.1 permil.
>>>
>>> The Suess effect disproves your 110 ppm hypothesis. CO2 does not
>>> accumulate for long in the atmosphere.
>> Again, a very big yawn if you know just a little bit about isotopes.
>
> Apparently much more than you do, Rabid Rabbit.
>
>> Your original claim was (see subject) that we humans only put 11.8 ppm
>> into the atmosphere which is a flagrant lie.
>
> The claim is not that humanity put 11.8 in the atmosphere. The claim is
> that, nowadays, only 11.8 ppm present in the atmosphere comes from
> burning fossl fuels.
That is a flagrant lie that you can not defend.
> And that is what is objectively proven by the current delta 13C ratio of
> -7.8 permil, whether you like it or not.
>
>
>> I discovered that you were looking at delta C13, and that C13 is not a
>> measure for the total CO2 content.
>>
>> In reality there is the Suess effect and different pathway preferences
>> for C13 in C3 and C4 photosynthesis loops, good luck finding that out
>> the exact effect is on observed atmospheric C13/C12 abundance ratio.
>>
>> But the Suess effect explains why there is a C13 depletion in fossil
>> fuels which the reason that the C13 present day atmosphere decreases by
>> putting geologic C12 into the atmosphere.
>
> That is exactly what is expressed in the fact that the 13C ration of
> 'natural carbon' is -7 permil and the current atmospheric ration -7.8
> permil.
>
> If all the carbon in the atmosphere came from burning fossil fuel, the
> ratio would be -36 permil. If 110 ppm out of 390 came from burning fossil
> fuels, the ratio should be -15.2 permil. It is not.
Man, you are really a nitwit.
Either you have a language problem or you don't understand what science
is about, or both. If you had done your homework or just apply a little
bit of logical thinking then you would directly have discovered where
your error is.
Fossil fuels are depleted in C13, what does that exactly mean? Does it
mean that there is no C13 in fossil fuel, or does it perhaps mean that
there is less C13 in fossil fuel compared to what you would expect from
the current C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere.
You suffer from extreme black white thinking, and probably you have no
scientific background. I call it typical AGW denier nitwit behavior.
Q
> And that is a clear proof that your supposition that all the carbon
> burned stays in the atmosphere is false.
>
>> Take a jar with a few red and many blue balls, add a few dozen blue
>> balls to it, and guess what, the concentration of red to blue decreases
>> in the jar. The latter is what we observe.
>
> Yawn !!!
> Take 110 balls with a weight of 26 and 280 with a weight of seven, and
> compute the average weight of a ball :
> (26*110+7*280)/390 = 12.3
> value from effective mesures : 7.8
>
>
>> And guess what, the ad hominems followed soon afterwards. You behave
>> like bully in the schoolyard, the typical AGW denier attitude backed
>> with a lot of noise but little substance. I didn't buy it and exposed
>> your lies.
> You are a nitwit, and a liar.
>
>> Q
>
Sirius
>> That is exactly what is expressed in the fact that the 13C ration of
>> 'natural carbon' is -7 permil and the current atmospheric ration -7.8
>> permil.
>>
>> If all the carbon in the atmosphere came from burning fossil fuel, the
>> ratio would be -36 permil. If 110 ppm out of 390 came from burning
>> fossil fuels, the ratio should be -15.2 permil. It is not.
>
> Man, you are really a nitwit.
>
> Either you have a language problem or you don't understand what science
> is about, or both. If you had done your homework or just apply a little
> bit of logical thinking then you would directly have discovered where
> your error is.
Did you did the computation yourself. Here are the numbers again :
Delta 13C values :
Natural atmospheric CO2 : (-7 permil) Fossil fuel CO2 : (-36 permil)
Atmosphere value 1978 : -7.7489 permil Atmosphere value 1998 : -7.807
permil Recent values : -7.8 -7.9 permil
Just note now that standard-36 < standard-7. The concentration of fossil
fuel is depleted in 13C isoptope. And if there is a great proportion of
fossil fuel in the atmosphere, its 13C concentration will show this.
Now let return to the basics.
Just tell how you compute the delta 13C of an atmosphere with 110ppm of
fossil fuel CO2 and 280 ppm of 'natural' CO2. Write this here :
________________________________________________________
result 110 ppm is _______ permil
concentration from actual mesures is __7.8 permil.
Does the result from the 110 ppm hypothesis match the actual value within
the measure error margin, yes or no :
Answer : ____________
Your conclusion is :
________________________________________________________
>
> Fossil fuels are depleted in C13, what does that exactly mean? Does it
> mean that there is no C13 in fossil fuel, or does it perhaps mean that
> there is less C13 in fossil fuel compared to what you would expect from
> the current C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere.
It is exactly what I repeat over and over again.
And I add that the actual concentration measured is a proof that only
around 12ppm out of 390 ppm and cannot, in any case, be the 110 ppm you
pretend.
So :
1- Only 11.8 ppm out of the 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere come from
burning fossil fuel -or vegetals depleted in 13C-.
2- As man injected more CO2 in the atmosphere, it prooves the injected
CO2 is consummed by some mechanism.
3- The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a source that is not
depleted in 13C.
And this makes a BIG difference.
>
> You suffer from extreme black white thinking, and probably you have no
> scientific background. I call it typical AGW denier nitwit behavior.
If you actually did the small computation exercice on 12C/13C ratios, you
see that, if Suess was clever when he devised it, it is of a completely
straightforward use.
Your rethorical denials to quite simple numeric arguments, are senseless.
Don't just ask for the hue for the mix of blue and red spheres in the
jar : just compute it and check with reality.
Not only did you exhibit in this thread that you are nearly
scientifically illiterate, but you proved to be completely brainwashed
and arrogant.
I will stop answering you on that point unless you come with some sound
arguments AND adopt a less unpleasant behaviour.
>
> Q
Roving rabbit
The only observed fact remains, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased
in the last 160 years by 110 ppm to 390 ppm presently.
These are well established numbers and it is your job to find out there
the error in your method is.
The other observed fact is that atmospheric C13 concentrations are
decreasing because carbon depleted in C13 is added.
You were looking at the C13/C12 ratio in fossil fuel, and concluded that
this could only yield 11.8 ppm which I believe has two major flaws:
1) Not all that emitted carbon adds to the atmosphere as you've assumed,
the airborne fraction is 40%, but you forgot the include that in your
considerations.
2) Furthermore you are confusing the concentration of C relative to CO2
in a mixture with O2 and N2 and other trace gases. The concentration of
carbon only is therefore less than CO2 in the atmosphere.
How to do this properly:
The actual atmospheric C concentration in the present day is 390 ppm,
because the molecule CO2 contains twice an oxygen value we should apply
the scaling 12/(12+2*16) = 0.27. Multiply 0.27 * 390 and you get 106
ppm for carbon only.
The observed change in the 106 ppm is proportional to 110/390 since the
industrial revolution. The carbon only change is therefore 29,9 ppm.
To compare the 29.9 ppm we should furthermore scale by the airborne
fraction (see the latest paper of Knorr in GRL) which is 0.4, so in that
case I'm arriving at 11.96 ppm.
And in this way I'm getting close to your original value of 11.8 which
was apparently based on the C13/C12 mass ratio in fossil fuel improperly
scaled to the 390 ppm in the atmosphere.
So good luck with the review of your paper in the next science journal,
if it appears then let us know.
Sirius
> The only observed fact remains, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased
> in the last 160 years by 110 ppm to 390 ppm presently.
No. Another observed fact, published in a lot of peer-reviewed scientific
publication is that the current atmospheric C13/C12 balance is -7.8
permil (relative to the PDB reference).
For 'natural' atmospheric CO2 it is -7 permil
For 'fossil fuel' CO2 it is -36 permil (thus depleted in C13).
If t is the current fossil CO2/total CO2, we get :
36.t + 7.(1-t)= 7.8
Equivalent to
t=0.8/29
t=0.00276
In other words 97.2 % of the atmospheric *carbon* is 'natural' ;
2.76% comes from fossil fuel.
The fact that is combined with 02 has absolutely no influence in the
result.
Now we multiply by 390 ppm -total CO2 atmospheric concentration-.
0.00276*390=10.76
Fossil fuel part made CO2 *is* 10.8 ppm.
Sirius
> How to do this properly:
>
> The actual atmospheric C concentration in the present day is 390 ppm,
> because the molecule CO2 contains twice an oxygen value we should apply
> the scaling 12/(12+2*16) = 0.27. Multiply 0.27 * 390 and you get 106
> ppm for carbon only.
>
> The observed change in the 106 ppm is proportional to 110/390 since the
> industrial revolution. The carbon only change is therefore 29,9 ppm.
>
> To compare the 29.9 ppm we should furthermore scale by the airborne
> fraction (see the latest paper of Knorr in GRL) which is 0.4, so in that
> case I'm arriving at 11.96 ppm.
>
> And in this way I'm getting close to your original value of 11.8 which
> was apparently based on the C13/C12 mass ratio in fossil fuel improperly
> scaled to the 390 ppm in the atmosphere.
I could see no justification of the -7.8 permil C13/C12 ratio.
And why do you need to introduce the O2 when the Suess effect directly
the fossil/total carbon ratio. If you have a method that the counts
sheeps directly, why count the feet add the tails and divide by five.
Roving rabbit
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:11:04 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>> The only observed fact remains, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased
>> in the last 160 years by 110 ppm to 390 ppm presently.
>
> No. Another observed fact, published in a lot of peer-reviewed scientific
> publication is that the current atmospheric C13/C12 balance is -7.8
> permil (relative to the PDB reference).
>
> For 'natural' atmospheric CO2 it is -7 permil
> For 'fossil fuel' CO2 it is -36 permil (thus depleted in C13).
>
> If t is the current fossil CO2/total CO2, we get :
> 36.t + 7.(1-t)= 7.8
> Equivalent to
> t=0.8/29
> t=0.00276
> In other words 97.2 % of the atmospheric *carbon* is 'natural' ;
> 2.76% comes from fossil fuel.
In your world where you live with significant scaling errors this is
apparently the truth.
> The fact that is combined with 02 has absolutely no influence in the
> result.
>
> Now we multiply by 390 ppm -total CO2 atmospheric concentration-.
> 0.00276*390=10.76
>
> Fossil fuel part made CO2 *is* 10.8 ppm.
Again, in your world where ... please read the above sentence.
Sirius
> Sirius wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:11:04 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>>
>>> The only observed fact remains, atmospheric CO2 concentrations
>>> increased in the last 160 years by 110 ppm to 390 ppm presently.
>>
>> No. Another observed fact, published in a lot of peer-reviewed
>> scientific publication is that the current atmospheric C13/C12 balance
>> is -7.8 permil (relative to the PDB reference).
>>
>> For 'natural' atmospheric CO2 it is -7 permil For 'fossil fuel' CO2 it
>> is -36 permil (thus depleted in C13).
>>
>> If t is the current fossil CO2/total CO2, we get : 36.t + 7.(1-t)= 7.8
>> Equivalent to
>> t=0.8/29
>> t=0.00276
>> In other words 97.2 % of the atmospheric *carbon* is 'natural' ; 2.76%
>> comes from fossil fuel.
>
> In your world where you live with significant scaling errors this is
> apparently the truth.
There is *no* scaling error.
It is not *apparently true* it is the obvious consequence of facts.
Unless you present a clear objection instead of your pseudo-scientific
gribberish.
One of the many flaws in your previous 'reasoning' is there :
"The observed change in the 106 ppm is proportional to 110/390 since the
industrial revolution. The carbon only change is therefore 29,9 ppm."
You suppose that all the increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is
the result of human actions. You spend 2 or 3 paragraphs triturating the
numbers. And you conclude that your initial supposition is true because
you supposed it to be true in the first place. It is a nice example of
circular pseudo-scientific reasonning.
>
>> The fact that is combined with 02 has absolutely no influence in the
>> result.
>>
>> Now we multiply by 390 ppm -total CO2 atmospheric concentration-.
>> 0.00276*390=10.76
>>
>> Fossil fuel part made CO2 *is* 10.8 ppm.
>
> Again, in your world where ... please read the above sentence.
In my world you have :
'natural' atmospheric CO2 delta 13C : -7 permil
'fossil fuel' CO2 delta 13C -36 permil.
Current atmosphere delta 13C : -7.8 permil
36.t + 7.(1-t)= 7.8
thus ratio depleted (-36 permil delta 13C, fossil fuel) carbon in the
atmosphere versus total carbon.
t=0.8/29=0.00276
So if the total represents 390 ppm once oxydized in CO2, the fossil
fuel fractions represents 0.00276*390=10.76 ~ 10.8 ppm.
And you could find no valid objection, because my world is the real word.
Your world, with its imaginary and unexplainable 'scaling factor', is a
fantasy world. A world were preconceived hypothesis must be proclaimed
true, even if facts prove them false.
>
> Q
Sirius
> How to do this properly:
I read it again very slowly and tried to fully appreciate the reasonning.
It is as beautiful as if it had been written by Lewis Caroll.
>
> The actual atmospheric C concentration in the present day is 390 ppm,
> because the molecule CO2 contains twice an oxygen value we should apply
> the scaling 12/(12+2*16) = 0.27. Multiply 0.27 * 390 and you get 106
> ppm for carbon only.
OK you pretend that what you want to know is the proportion of Carbon in
the atmosphere. From the beginning of the thread, see the subject, we
were talking of the CO2 proportion, not C from CO2.
In the case you consider, you should scale the 11.8 value down too :
11.8*0.27 ~ 3.2
The man made *carbon* fraction )in the atmosphere announced in the
subject is '3.2ppm of man made C in the atmosphere' (for a 11.8ppm CO2
fraction).
>
> The observed change in the 106 ppm is proportional to 110/390 since the
> industrial revolution. The carbon only change is therefore 29,9 ppm.
>
> To compare the 29.9 ppm we should furthermore scale by the airborne
> fraction (see the latest paper of Knorr in GRL) which is 0.4, so in that
> case I'm arriving at 11.96 ppm.
Didn't you claim previously that the atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel
origin was 110 ppm ? Now, you only pretend to show that it is 11.96/0.27
= 44.3 ppm. Why such a sudden change in your objectives ?
>
> And in this way I'm getting close to your original value of 11.8 which
> was apparently based on the C13/C12 mass ratio in fossil fuel improperly
> scaled to the 390 ppm in the atmosphere.
Conclusions :
- Your now only pretend that the fossil fuel CO2 content of the
atmosphere is only 44.3 ppm when you claimed 110 ppm initially.
- And you pretend that 44.3 ppm of CO2 is roughly equivalent to 11.8 ppm
of CO2 ( or conversely that 11.96 ppm is roughly equivalent to 3.2),
still a 4 to 1 discrepancy.
- And your 'reasonning' gives no valid reason to disbelieve the 11.8ppm
value obtained from the C13/C12 ratio resulting from mesures from actual
atmospheric air samples.
- By the same kind of "reasonning" you could have divided 110ppm by "pi"
and "e", found 12.9 and announced that it proved you were right. It is
strictly as relevant as what you did.
I consider this obvious try to smoke me out with arbitrary computations
and funny nonsense as a joke.
I will answer to any of your post in this thread *only if* you clearly
explain why you don't accept the atmospheric CO2 11.8 ppm value resulting
from the actual mesures of the 12C/13C ratio.
Unless you can do that, the evidence is that nobody could invalidate what
the OP said : man made CO2 is about 11.8 out of 390 ppm, with all the
known adverse consequences on the AWG hypothesis. Thank you for your help
in showing that.
Roving rabbit
I already explained you that you've made two scaling errors, one is on
the 40% atmospheric fraction, the other is on the C to CO2 mass ratio in
the Earth's atmosphere. After I applied both corrections I get the right
answer. The myth is therefore busted.
Q
>
> 36.t + 7.(1-t)= 7.8
> thus ratio depleted (-36 permil delta 13C, fossil fuel) carbon in the
> atmosphere versus total carbon.
> t=0.8/29=0.00276
> So if the total represents 390 ppm once oxydized in CO2, the fossil
> fuel fractions represents 0.00276*390=10.76 ~ 10.8 ppm.
>
> And you could find no valid objection, because my world is the real word.
> Your world, with its imaginary and unexplainable 'scaling factor', is a
> fantasy world. A world were preconceived hypothesis must be proclaimed
> true, even if facts prove them false.
>
>> Q
>
Roving rabbit
>
> In AGWers world, for every fact there is a n+1 backdoor to escape or lie about
> the fact.
Too bad the Peter Mulehead has nothing meaningful to add to the debate.
Roving rabbit
That is the whole problem, you are not taking care of the proper
scalings, and therefor things look like a joke.
Q
>
> I will answer to any of your post in this thread *only if* you clearly
> explain why you don't accept the atmospheric CO2 11.8 ppm value resulting
> from the actual mesures of the 12C/13C ratio.
>
> Unless you can do that, the evidence is that nobody could invalidate what
> the OP said : man made CO2 is about 11.8 out of 390 ppm, with all the
> known adverse consequences on the AWG hypothesis. Thank you for your help
> in showing that.
>
>
>> So good luck with the review of your paper in the next science journal,
>> if it appears then let us know.
>
Sirius
> I already explained you that you've made two scaling errors, one is on
> the 40% atmospheric fraction, the other is on the C to CO2 mass ratio in
> the Earth's atmosphere. After I applied both corrections I get the right
> answer. The myth is therefore busted.
I already explained that your invented those supposed scaling errors.
Be serious. You cannot compare CO2 concentrations in ppm with C
concentrations adjusted by an irrelevant factor, mister Nonsense.
You busted just the wall of ridicule.
Sirius
>> Conclusions :
>> - Your now only pretend that the fossil fuel CO2 content of the
>> atmosphere is only 44.3 ppm when you claimed 110 ppm initially. - And
>> you pretend that 44.3 ppm of CO2 is roughly equivalent to 11.8 ppm of
>> CO2 ( or conversely that 11.96 ppm is roughly equivalent to 3.2), still
>> a 4 to 1 discrepancy.
>> - And your 'reasonning' gives no valid reason to disbelieve the 11.8ppm
>> value obtained from the C13/C12 ratio resulting from mesures from
>> actual atmospheric air samples.
>> - By the same kind of "reasonning" you could have divided 110ppm by
>> "pi" and "e", found 12.9 and announced that it proved you were right.
>> It is strictly as relevant as what you did.
>>
>> I consider this obvious try to smoke me out with arbitrary computations
>> and funny nonsense as a joke.
>
> That is the whole problem, you are not taking care of the proper
> scalings, and therefor things look like a joke.
You are kidding, aren't you ?
Can you better expose why you choose those 0.27 and 0.4 factor and what
physical reason let you suppose that they apply to the 11.8 result of a
13C/12C balance.
Or better, ask the advice of some physicist first, and reply when you
really understand what you write. Because I am really tired to try to
understand your phantasmagories.
Roving rabbit
Here is the evidence of the scaling factor of 0.4:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
This GRL paper is rather easy to verify, or at least, I found it rather
easy to verify. Perhaps try it also yourself.
And the other scaling 0.27 is 12/(12+16+16) for which I recommend a
physics book.
No jokes here,
Q
Sirius
> Here is the evidence of the scaling factor of 0.4:
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
It says "only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere".
For this first so called 'scaling factor', you say you multiply 110 ppm
by 0.4 because only 40% of the fossil fuel carbon is airborne. Is not
100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere airborne ? Where is located the
atmospheric CO2 that is not airborne ? That is quite puzzeling. So here
you owe us a much clearer explanation.
>
> This GRL paper is rather easy to verify, or at least, I found it rather
> easy to verify. Perhaps try it also yourself.
>
> And the other scaling 0.27 is 12/(12+16+16) for which I recommend a
> physics book.
I do not need a physics book, I have been knowing for decades that when
you burn one mole (12g) of C you need two moles (32g) of O and get 1 mole
(44g) of C02.
The problem is that *in this case* it makes *no sense*, because the two
quantities you are comparing are *already both CO2 concentrations*
expressed in ppm.
Why do you need to convert the bigger number into the concentration of
its C only content. How does it makes sense to compare a CO2
concentration with a C only concentration ? What are the physics and the
logic behind that ?
>
> No jokes here,
So it is pure nonsense.
Roving rabbit
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:21:44 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>> Here is the evidence of the scaling factor of 0.4:
>>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
> It says "only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere".
>
> For this first so called 'scaling factor', you say you multiply 110 ppm
> by 0.4 because only 40% of the fossil fuel carbon is airborne. Is not
> 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere airborne ? Where is located the
> atmospheric CO2 that is not airborne ? That is quite puzzeling. So here
> you owe us a much clearer explanation.
The remaining 60% is absorbed in the biosphere and the oceans of course,
if you keep on your big denial hat then everything is a puzzle for you.
>> This GRL paper is rather easy to verify, or at least, I found it rather
>> easy to verify. Perhaps try it also yourself.
>>
>> And the other scaling 0.27 is 12/(12+16+16) for which I recommend a
>> physics book.
>
> I do not need a physics book, I have been knowing for decades that when
> you burn one mole (12g) of C you need two moles (32g) of O and get 1 mole
> (44g) of C02.
So you already found the conversion from Carbon weight to Carbon dioxide
weight yourself, great man.
It also means that you've found the proper scaling factor to convert
carbon dioxide ppm's to carbon only ppm's in the atmosphere, and that
was the 0.27.
You are making progress my dear.
>
> The problem is that *in this case* it makes *no sense*, because the two
> quantities you are comparing are *already both CO2 concentrations*
> expressed in ppm.
My suspicion is that this was not the case. The fossil fuel carbon ratio
was on carbon only, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide was on the weight
of carbon dioxide.
> Why do you need to convert the bigger number into the concentration of
> its C only content. How does it makes sense to compare a CO2
> concentration with a C only concentration ? What are the physics and the
> logic behind that ?
The logic is the interpretation of the ppm's, I believe you were
comparing apples and oranges.
>
>> No jokes here,
> So it is pure nonsense.
Get used to the fact that 110 ppm we added is ENTIRELY caused by human
activities, the GRL article above is a living proof already.
Now good day, and don't forget to get your carbon footprint down because
in the next few hundred years everybody has to enjoy the 40% of all
carbon that you put in the atmosphere.
Sirius
>> For this first so called 'scaling factor', you say you multiply 110 ppm
>> by 0.4 because only 40% of the fossil fuel carbon is airborne. Is not
>> 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere airborne ? Where is located the
>> atmospheric CO2 that is not airborne ? That is quite puzzeling. So here
>> you owe us a much clearer explanation.
>
> The remaining 60% is absorbed in the biosphere and the oceans of course,
> if you keep on your big denial hat then everything is a puzzle for you.
Fine so from your own admission, this carbon is NOT in the atmosphere.
And so your assertion that 110 ppm of the atmospheric CO2 comes from
fossil fuel is false. For you only 44 ppm of atmospheric CO2 comes from
fossil fuel.
That is still much bigger than the 11.8 value derived from 13C isotope.
>
>>> This GRL paper is rather easy to verify, or at least, I found it
>>> rather easy to verify. Perhaps try it also yourself.
>>>
>>> And the other scaling 0.27 is 12/(12+16+16) for which I recommend a
>>> physics book.
>>
>> I do not need a physics book, I have been knowing for decades that when
>> you burn one mole (12g) of C you need two moles (32g) of O and get 1
>> mole (44g) of C02.
>
> So you already found the conversion from Carbon weight to Carbon dioxide
> weight yourself, great man.
I was writing to someone that is not ashamed to compare Carbon ppm
directly with CO2 ppm without asking himself if it has a physical meaning.
So excuse me, but I felt the need to be extremely explicit.
I wonder how people can do such nonsensical comparisons.
>
> It also means that you've found the proper scaling factor to convert
> carbon dioxide ppm's to carbon only ppm's in the atmosphere, and that
> was the 0.27.
>
> You are making progress my dear.
Not really, it was transparent from the first place.
>
>
>> The problem is that *in this case* it makes *no sense*, because the two
>> quantities you are comparing are *already both CO2 concentrations*
>> expressed in ppm.
>
> My suspicion is that this was not the case. The fossil fuel carbon ratio
> was on carbon only, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide was on the weight
> of carbon dioxide.
What you suspect is wrong.
If you multiply something by a dimensionless coefficient you don't change
its unit.
390 is the concentration of *CO2* expressed in ppm ; 0.03 is a
dimensionless coefficient, thus result 11.8 ppm is a CO2 concentration
expressed in ppm.
So the result was already expressed in CO2 ppm and needed no scaling.
>
>> Why do you need to convert the bigger number into the concentration of
>> its C only content. How does it makes sense to compare a CO2
>> concentration with a C only concentration ? What are the physics and
>> the logic behind that ?
>
> The logic is the interpretation of the ppm's, I believe you were
> comparing apples and oranges.
I am really sorry that you did that yourself.
And you are so brainwashed by your AGW creed that you did not detect it
by yourself, because AGWers suppose that physic laws flow out of their
mind without even the need to think.
>
>
>>> No jokes here,
>> So it is pure nonsense.
>
> Get used to the fact that 110 ppm we added is ENTIRELY caused by human
> activities, the GRL article above is a living proof already.
So get used to the fact that the laws of radioactive decay show that your
110 ppm hypothesis is completely wrong.
The increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is most likely the
result of a slight increase in the temperature of the ocean.
Roving rabbit
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:57:27 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote :
>
>>> For this first so called 'scaling factor', you say you multiply 110 ppm
>>> by 0.4 because only 40% of the fossil fuel carbon is airborne. Is not
>>> 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere airborne ? Where is located the
>>> atmospheric CO2 that is not airborne ? That is quite puzzeling. So here
>>> you owe us a much clearer explanation.
>> The remaining 60% is absorbed in the biosphere and the oceans of course,
>> if you keep on your big denial hat then everything is a puzzle for you.
>
> Fine so from your own admission, this carbon is NOT in the atmosphere.
> And so your assertion that 110 ppm of the atmospheric CO2 comes from
> fossil fuel is false. For you only 44 ppm of atmospheric CO2 comes from
> fossil fuel.
Nope, that is a misinterpretation of the Knorr paper (which you are
apparently not able to verify)
This is plain old fashioned denial not in agreement with the results
that science found.
> The increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is most likely the
> result of a slight increase in the temperature of the ocean.
Please, for once, verify the Knorr paper yourself, and insert the proper
scaling factors in your carbon-13 dating method.
Sirius
>>> Get used to the fact that 110 ppm we added is ENTIRELY caused by human
>>> activities, the GRL article above is a living proof already.
>>
>> So get used to the fact that the laws of radioactive decay show that
>> your 110 ppm hypothesis is completely wrong.
>
> This is plain old fashioned denial not in agreement with the results
> that science found.
That you tell, not that science found.
What science found is that 11.8 ppm of the atmospheric CO2 is coming from
fossil fuel carbon.
Until your fourth attempt to find some new "scaling factor", and your
next ass kicking.
> Please, for once, verify the Knorr paper yourself, and insert the proper
> scaling factors in your carbon-13 dating method.
Could you read the detailed explanation : both your proposed scaling
factors are a irrelevant not to say completely stupid.
Please compute the fossil CO2 ratio in the current atmosphere using the
13C/12C ration given by Erschroeding scientific reference and verify that
the only answer is 11.8 ppm.