Climate Science 101

[waldo]

So when do they start taxing each of us individually for the CO2 emissions that come out of our mouths?

A long time ago, to assuage concerns and ease the level of CO2 emissions, I suggested we, as a species, learn ourselves and educate our young to breath every second breath and cut those global emissions of CO2 in half. That would be a better idea than what any government has come up with yet.

Then do us a favour and stop breathing.

It does not matter who or what produces it .. it's all CO2.

silly, there is a difference between the co2 we produce and fossil fuel co2....

carbon comes in three isotopes C12, C13, C14....from that the sources of the CO2 can be identified, fossil fuel CO2 have a different isotope signature ...

wyly has things in hand distinguishing the carbon isotope variants of CO2... let me just add a bit to dispel what I initially read as levity over the (now several) references to human respiration affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a human/animal bodily input, eating plants or eating animals that eat plants... the human/animal bodily output causes no effective net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere - the amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was originally taken out of the CO2 in the air by plants through photosynthesis. Of course, burning fossil fuels is the real (enhanced greenhouse effect) culprit - putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that plants previously removed.

Nonsense. The amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was orignally taken out of the CO2 in the air. Didn't plants previously remove that carbon as well as the carbon from burning fossil fuels?

For the purposes of the discussion there is no difference. CO2 is CO2. Other wise, the distinction would be made that a certain isotope of CO2 is considered to be responsible for global warming and no distinction is made.

Isotopes are simply a means of determining that the CO2 has a different origin. A change in the isotope count means that the origin of the CO2 is different. CO2 is still CO2.

in this case, in regards to distinguishing CO2, the usually observed Pliny deepness... just needs to go... a bit deeper - a bit more granular, to recognize carbon isotope variants of CO2 - hey Pliny?

and while you're addressing a more granular deepness concerning carbon isotope variants of CO2, don't hesitate to step forward and offer something other than your vapid, insignificant and meaningless "nonsense" commentary - hey? You're completely failing to grasp distinctions between closed and open loops and related net impacts... in the case of human/animal respiratory exhalation, a closed loop where no effective net atmospheric CO2 increase results from human/animal respiratory CO2 exhalation.

as for the main, more significant discussion point, deniers (like you) are loath to accept isotopic distinctions within CO2... principally because it strikes at the heart of such denier claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are due to out-gassing of CO2 related to warming oceans. As wyly pointed out in highlighting the 3 relevant isotopes (C12, C13, C14), these carbon isotope variants offer undeniable proof that the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are anthropogenic in nature; specifically:

- fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C13/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

- fossil fuels do not contain C14. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C14/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

so, Pliny... CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

[waldo]

Of course, certain sources call for a demand that the "political will" to do something be stepped up and it is the only thing that can effect the necessary change. In other words governments should force a solution but are they being asked to do something that they are incapable of except in relation to the sustenance or increase in their grasp on an even more centralized power? That is, within the framework of what governments can do which is extract money from the economy and place it in preferred places.

Government relies heavily on the taxation of fossil fuels at the moment. They are not about to cut their throat by regulating their use out of existence. They must first find a source to replace the large portion of revenues they would lose from the replacement of fossil fuels. For this reasons they are a stumbling block in the progress of energy technology. If a workable technology to reduce fossil fuel consumption were developed they would be in dire straights financially so before that happens they must have a system of taxation in place to maintain their revenues.

You could just dismiss that as a conspiracy theory but it has no less validity than the conspiracy some hold that oil companies are responsible for all and any anti-AGW findings in research and can thus be thoroughly and entirely discounted leaving by default AGW as the only plausible theory for why the global mean temperature could have risen 1.5 degrees in a century.

are you naive or purposely obtuse? Without political will, nothing significant will occur and CO2 emission levels will continue to increase... the phased lessening on fossil fuel reliance can and must start with the political will - industry has shown that it will not significantly shift on its own.

your described "anti-AGW" research findings are not discounted simply based on your suggested oil company influence - how could they be? That would presume a world-wide conspiracy of scientists... you've already stated you accept there is no such conspiracy of scientists. Any, as you describe, "anti-AGW" research findings (regardless of origin/influence) are evaluated on the strength of the findings - on how well they either compliment existing scientific understanding, or on how well they counter existing scientific understanding, or on how well they introduce new scientific understanding - the science... is the science.

[GostHacked]

these carbon isotope variants offer undeniable proof that the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are anthropogenic in nature; specifically:

fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere.

Alright. So what is lower in the ratio C12 or C13? Since you are using the / .. that would indicate the C13 is lower than the C12 in this ratio. Correct?

The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C13/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

A decline in the plants (or it has remained steady) and there is an increase in the atmopshere?

- fossil fuels do not contain C14. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C14/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2[/indent]

How are you using the ratio?

What about the ratio between C14/C13 ?

Just want some clarification here because your post is a little confusing.

[waldo]

... principally because it strikes at the heart of such denier claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are due to out-gassing of CO2 related to warming oceans. As wyly pointed out in highlighting the 3 relevant isotopes (C12, C13, C14), these carbon isotope variants offer undeniable proof that the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are anthropogenic in nature; specifically:

- fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C13/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

- fossil fuels do not contain C14. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C14/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

so, Pliny... CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

Alright. So what is lower in the ratio C12 or C13? Since you are using the / .. that would indicate the C13 is lower than the C12 in this ratio. Correct?

A decline in the plants (or it has remained steady) and there is an increase in the atmopshere?

How are you using the ratio?

What about the ratio between C14/C13 ?

Just want some clarification here because your post is a little confusing.

not confusing at all... couldn't be any more straightforward. Ratios are simply for comparison purpose, as one looks to a changing influence with the increased burning of fossil fuels introducing lower levels of the C13 and C14 isotopes into the atmosphere due to, as I stated: "fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon" & "fossil fuels do not contain C14"... resulting in a narrowing, parallel decline, of the comparative ratio differences between the respective C13/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio) and C14/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio).

is there a particular C14/C13 ratio relevance you're proposing?

[GostHacked]

not confusing at all... couldn't be any more straightforward. Ratios are simply for comparison purpose, as one looks to a changing influence with the increased burning of fossil fuels introducing lower levels of the C13 and C14 isotopes into the atmosphere due to, as I stated: "fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon" & "fossil fuels do not contain C14"... resulting in a narrowing, parallel decline, of the comparative ratio differences between the respective C13/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio) and C14/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio).

is there a particular C14/C13 ratio relevance you're proposing?

I am still confused.. So which isotope of Carbon is rising? Because when you talk about decline in your post, it's hard to see where the increase actually is. Is C13 rising compared to C12? So previously (for sake of argument) the ratio was 1 C13:1 C12 ... has this increased to 2 C13:1 C12 Or is it the other way around?

It probably makes sense in your head, but in mine, I am just not understanding what you are trying to say here.

[waldo]

... principally because it strikes at the heart of such denier claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are due to out-gassing of CO2 related to warming oceans. As wyly pointed out in highlighting the 3 relevant isotopes (C12, C13, C14), these carbon isotope variants offer undeniable proof that the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are anthropogenic in nature; specifically:

- fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C13/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

- fossil fuels do not contain C14. The recent (since 1850 on) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has resulted in an observed parallel decline in the C14/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2

not confusing at all... couldn't be any more straightforward. Ratios are simply for comparison purpose, as one looks to a changing influence with the increased burning of fossil fuels introducing lower levels of the C13 and C14 isotopes into the atmosphere due to, as I stated: "fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon derive from the strongly depleted C13 photosynthetic carbon" & "fossil fuels do not contain C14"... resulting in a narrowing, parallel decline, of the comparative ratio differences between the respective C13/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio) and C14/C12 ratio (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio).

is there a particular C14/C13 ratio relevance you're proposing?

I am still confused.. So which isotope of Carbon is rising? Because when you talk about decline in your post, it's hard to see where the increase actually is. Is C13 rising compared to C12? So previously (for sake of argument) the ratio was 1 C13:1 C12 ... has this increased to 2 C13:1 C12 Or is it the other way around?

It probably makes sense in your head, but in mine, I am just not understanding what you are trying to say here.

neither isotope (C13 or C14) is rising... both are decreasing in the atmosphere, representative of fossil fuel burning and increased CO2 emissions. As I said, the decline (one in parallel to the decreasing isotopes), is a parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons of C13/C12 (fossil fuel ratio) as compared to C13/C12 (the atmosphere ratio) & C14/C12 (fossil fuel ratio) as compared to C14/C12 (the atmosphere ratio)... lower the values of C13 and C14 within the respective atmosphere ratios => you will see a resulting, "parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons" (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio). Possibly what's throwing you off is the ratio comparison reference (which really is simply offered as a reference point back to the source ratio of fossil fuels). One could quite simply state the average C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios of the atmosphere are decreasing... better?

(ahem - note to Michael Hardner... please observe the calming waldo response pattern)

[GostHacked]

neither isotope (C13 or C14) is rising... both are decreasing in the atmosphere, representative of fossil fuel burning and increased CO2 emissions. As I said, the decline (one in parallel to the decreasing isotopes), is a parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons of C13/C12 (fossil fuel ratio) as compared to C13/C12 (the atmosphere ratio) & C14/C12 (fossil fuel ratio) as compared to C14/C12 (the atmosphere ratio)... lower the values of C13 and C14 within the respective atmosphere ratios => you will see a resulting, "parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons" (fossil fuel ratio as compared to the atmosphere ratio). Possibly what's throwing you off is the ratio comparison reference (which really is simply offered as a reference point back to the source ratio of fossil fuels). One could quite simply state the average C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios of the atmosphere are decreasing... better?

(ahem - note to Michael Hardner... please observe the calming waldo response pattern)

So in a nutshell, you are saying that both C14 and C13 levels are dropping. While C12 is increasing. Correct?

[dre]

What did you think of the Kyoto Accord? Is there any difference in what you thought of it ten years ago and what you think of it today? Maybe you thought it was a good idea but proved unworkable. That's the best one could give it. Actually it was a piece of political tripe that is an indicator of a more serious problem with the information provided that brought it into being.

Thats only true if you dont read between the lines. Kyoto had a bunch of emissions reductions targets that most countries failed to meet. So based on that you could call it a failure.

But the reality is those targets are not the end game... they are just a mechanism to stimulate energy investment. In that context it was hugely successfull.

[dre]

So in a nutshell, you are saying that both C14 and C13 levels are dropping. While C12 is increasing. Correct?

Quick thing.... I agree that CO2 emissions are a huge part of the problem. But another thing that has been happening during the same period, is deforestation. When you cut down forests for urban or industrial development or for agriculture then not only do you unlock a lot of the carbon sequestered in the trees and soil, but that land will no longer absorb atmospheric CO2 at the same level.

So one thing we can do that will make a big difference is to increase population density and decrease the ammount of the eco-system that has to be trashed for each person... end urban sprawl and suburbitzation.

If we can increase the ammount of photosynthesis happening then we can emmit more CO2 without throwing our ecosystem out of whack.

So we have these two behaviors colliding... not only are we producing more atmospheric CO2 but we have crippled the ecosystems natural system for dealing with it.

[GostHacked]

Quick thing.... I agree that CO2 emissions are a huge part of the problem. But another thing that has been happening during the same period, is deforestation. When you cut down forests for urban or industrial development or for agriculture then not only do you unlock a lot of the carbon sequestered in the trees and soil, but that land will no longer absorb atmospheric CO2 at the same level.

So one thing we can do that will make a big difference is to increase population density and decrease the ammount of the eco-system that has to be trashed for each person... end urban sprawl and suburbitzation.

If we can increase the ammount of photosynthesis happening then we can emmit more CO2 without throwing our ecosystem out of whack.

So we have these two behaviors colliding... not only are we producing more atmospheric CO2 but we have crippled the ecosystems natural system for dealing with it.

I went down the 'let's plant some trees' bit in this very thread. It got poo poo'd.

[dre]

I went down the 'let's plant some trees' bit in this very thread. It got poo poo'd.

Not by me! In any case it goes beyond just planting trees... its about population density, and how we design cities and neighborhoods, and what type of agricultural practices we use and a zillion other things.

[Slim]

I went down the 'let's plant some trees' bit in this very thread. It got poo poo'd.

Heh, got 'poo poo'd'. I'm going to use that phrase in my day-to-day life, I think.

Anyway, while you were jumped on pretty severely for the 'tree-planting' idea, I think that was only in the context of using it as a primary method of reducing CO2. In that sense reforestation isn't really feasible, simply due to the massive scale involved to make a difference.

A better solution would be taking steps to eliminate and reduce current sources of major emitters (coal power being the primary) and dealing with reforestation at a later date.

[RNG]

If I could I would smack you for keeping this bullshit alive. I'm going to say this once in the 70's the scientific consensus was warming.

David Suzuki. Own it.

[wyly]

David Suzuki. Own it.

you got owned last time you made the Suzuk/cooling claim, you couldn't produce one piece of evidence to back it up, not one...

[dre]

Heh, got 'poo poo'd'. I'm going to use that phrase in my day-to-day life, I think.

Anyway, while you were jumped on pretty severely for the 'tree-planting' idea, I think that was only in the context of using it as a primary method of reducing CO2. In that sense reforestation isn't really feasible, simply due to the massive scale involved to make a difference.

A better solution would be taking steps to eliminate and reduce current sources of major emitters (coal power being the primary) and dealing with reforestation at a later date.

No a better solution is to do both those things and everything else we can. If we keep depleting the natural mechanisms our ecosphere uses to manage carbon, then we could could cut our emissions to ZERO and STILL not solve the problem.

[Guest TrueMetis]

David Suzuki. Own it.

WTF are you talking about?

[wyly]

WTF are you talking about?

he made a claim that David Suzuki was part of the 70's media frenzy that the earth was cooling...

soon I expect he'll claim Margret Thatcher and her secret lover Al Gore were part of the world wide socialist conspiracy to steal our money...

Edited October 28, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I dug up RNG's exact quote-

The first time I ever heard the name David Suzuki was in the '70's I think where he was warning us that we were all going to freeze to death because of particulates in the atmosphere. Guess he was wrong there too.

I challenged RNG to find the evidence of this Suzuki claim but here we are a month later and still no verification and he's still making the same claim...

[RNG]

you got owned last time you made the Suzuk/cooling claim, you couldn't produce one piece of evidence to back it up, not one...

Actually I did give you a link. Bugger off.

[wyly]

Actually I did give you a link. Bugger off.

none...you gave a wiki link to the global cooling, nothing on Suzuki...here's the entire conversation...

Posted 29 September 2010 - 10:32 PM

View PostRNG, on 29 September 2010 - 08:22 PM, said:

The first time I ever heard the name David Suzuki was in the '70's I think where he was warning us that we were all going to freeze to death because of particulates in the atmosphere. Guess he was wrong there too.

wyly-then you'll have no problem finding a link to that little known Suzuki fact...

Posted 29 September 2010 - 11:11 PM

View PostRNG, on 29 September 2010 - 11:07 PM, said:

Not sure if this here interwebz thingy carries data from that far back, but I am about to bust a gut to prove you wrong.

wyly-prove me wrong? I asked you to verify a wild accusation...

Posted 29 September 2010 - 11:32 PM

View PostRNG, on 29 September 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

http://wapedia.mobi/...al_cooling?t=4.

Best I could do. It doesn't nail his butt to this cross but trust me, he was there.

wyly-he wasn't there...verify it or withdraw it...

I'm not withdrawing, i may have to actually go to a real library and get real paper shit, scan it and then post the pdf's, but I'm right on this one.

Been busy but here you are.

http://en.wikipedia..../Global_cooling

yup here we are, again nothing on Suzuki, Edited October 28, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

yup here we are, again nothing on Suzuki,

yes, wyly... just more of the same from RNG - a couple of links, both of which confirm the media generated aspect behind the 70's global cooling myth... both of which fail to state anything about Suzuki.

I also took the liberty of looking back at that past exchange as I was sure it was one where I had also made (yet another) reference to that Peterson et al study that presents the authoritative account of what the scientific consensus of the 70's day, actually was... I've also bold-highlighted the self-expressed rationale that RNG used in continuing to perpetuate this media driven myth. A rationale that simply confirms the earlier suggestions within this very thread, (as confirmed by statements within this very thread), intended to cast the denier doubt cloud in the form of the, "if they were wrong then, might they be wrong today", meme.

Been busy but here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

The Wiki article does admit that the scientific community wasn't solidly behind it, but it was sensationalized in the MSM of the time as Wiki says. Just as I think the media are sensationalizing things now. That's how they make their money.

The 'Ice Age' scare is one of the weakest planks that extreme skeptics, read deniers, have in their arguments... it's been disproven time and time again...

Yes it has been, but that it was a concern, at least in the public's eye during the '70's is a fact.

other than your desire to foster, to help perpetuate the 70's global cooling myth... what's your point... what's your end game in continuing to beat the drum for global cooling? Oh... right? Carry on.

I'm not beating the drum for global cooling, I'm using this and the mandating of lean-burn car engines in the '70's as an indication that current thinking can be wrong, and premature over reaction can be harmful.

[waldo]

I went down the 'let's plant some trees' bit in this very thread. It got poo poo'd.

Heh, got 'poo poo'd'. I'm going to use that phrase in my day-to-day life, I think.

Anyway, while you were jumped on pretty severely for the 'tree-planting' idea, I think that was only in the context of using it as a primary method of reducing CO2. In that sense reforestation isn't really feasible, simply due to the massive scale involved to make a difference.

A better solution would be taking steps to eliminate and reduce current sources of major emitters (coal power being the primary) and dealing with reforestation at a later date.

... just so it's clear what constitutes (from my perspective/input), "poo poo"

Over 40 years of regreening Sudbury is a prime example of my claim.

You want evidence? Go read my link.

yes, evidence of reclamation/regreening on a most isolated regional level... in a most northerly temperate climate. Nothing in your link speaks to mitigation effect/impact on global CO2 emissions. Since you suggest I didn't bother to look at your link I'll make the same suggestion towards you and offer you another opportunity to read a targeted extract; specifically:

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

Wait, my link says nothing about C02, when you did not even read it? After reading most of it, you are correct. I am now looking for any studies related to carbon dioxide and the reclamation project in Sudbury.

I'll let you go back to your chicken little rants then and won't offer any more suggestions. Continue with the logging.

wow - progress! Although considering your quite liberal use of the 'mitigation' reference, one would have thought you actually had in mind... what you thought was being mitigated - huh! Obviously, you still can't be bothered to read what's presented to you now for the 3rd time. While you're looking for some fanciful imaginary projection of an isolated most regional northerly temperate zoned reclamation project to some global application, have a look for those studies that, as I keep pointing out to you, speak to the northern/temperate latitude implications of changing albedo impacts and the CO2 aspects of a slow/shortened growth period that exist in northern/temperate latitudes... the studies that basically conclude that trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate - one outweighing their carbon sink abilities. Read the last few sentences again... and then beak-off about chicken little rants again while you keep puffing up your Sudbury re-greening example.

[GostHacked]

Heh, got 'poo poo'd'. I'm going to use that phrase in my day-to-day life, I think.

I've been using it for some time. Enjoy!

Anyway, while you were jumped on pretty severely for the 'tree-planting' idea, I think that was only in the context of using it as a primary method of reducing CO2. In that sense reforestation isn't really feasible, simply due to the massive scale involved to make a difference.

We do clear cutting and deforestation on a massive scale.

A better solution would be taking steps to eliminate and reduce current sources of major emitters (coal power being the primary) and dealing with reforestation at a later date.

I think the reforestation needs to be dealt with 20 years ago. But that's just me.

[GostHacked]

Still waiting for the explanation on the ratios of carbon isotopes.

[waldo]

Still waiting for the explanation on the ratios of carbon isotopes.

I really didn't think you were purposely playing dense... if you have something to say, do so... or in the just recently uttered enduring words of RNG:

Bugger off.