Climate Science 101

[waldo]

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

you mean... in those tropical climates/latitudes where it would actually have an impact, right?

btw, I assume there isn't any progress on your pursuit, where, as you stated, "I am now looking for any studies related to carbon dioxide and the reclamation project in Sudbury"

[GostHacked]

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:

I am not purposefully being dense. The way you present it the reason I can't seem to wrap my head around it. I am interested in these ratios, because I still do not understand it. If you are willing to be patient with me, then we can work this out. I know I might be frustrating to you, but seriously, I am not telling you to bugger off. I would have buggered off myself long time ago.

If you feel I am trolling you , or playing with you , simply hit that report button and be done with it.

And for the Sudbury bit, there does not seem to have been any studies done on C02 emissions. I admitted to that, but you can still bring it up if you want. However, one should not dismiss the fact that regreening has done more for the environment in Sudbury than I or anyone previously thought. Wildlife has returned to many of the areas, providing the chance for an ecosystem to return. Along with the sever cuts in emissions from the mining corporations (you have no idea how polluted the city and area and the air was). Logically if you reduce toxic emissions and have an environment that can be effective in the C02 reduction. The pollutants in the air also affect all wildlife and the air we breathe, which is the same air the trees breathe. Polluting the air will degrade the tree's and the oceans ability to filter out the C02 in the air.

It simply astounds me that people understand this, but yet think that replacing the forests are futile. Here I was thinking I was the most pessimistic person I know.

Anyways back to the isotopes ratio.

We have three types according to you. Three variants in isotopes. C12, C13, and C14. One of these is the bad one. So to show me and make me understand, what is the previous ratios between all 3 before, and what are they now?

C12/C13 ... is this before 1:1 ? or 1/1 ? and now it is 1:2? or 1/2? (indicating that the C12 is dropping compared to the C13.

Then I'd like to see comparisons like this for before and after..

C12/C13 then .. and C12/C13 now

C13/C13 then and C13/C14 now

C12/C14 then and C12/C14 now

You've indicated that two isotopes are declining, without showing me how the other is rising in terms of these ratios you are talking about.

[wyly]

I am not purposefully being dense. The way you present it the reason I can't seem to wrap my head around it. I am interested in these ratios, because I still do not understand it. If you are willing to be patient with me, then we can work this out. I know I might be frustrating to you, but seriously, I am not telling you to bugger off. I would have buggered off myself long time ago.

If you feel I am trolling you , or playing with you , simply hit that report button and be done with it.

I can agree with you on that it can be confusing we're not all chemistry experts what's obvious for some is not for others, I'll look for a site that may explain it in a different manner...

And for the Sudbury bit, there does not seem to have been any studies done on C02 emissions. I admitted to that, but you can still bring it up if you want. However, one should not dismiss the fact that regreening has done more for the environment in Sudbury than I or anyone previously thought. Wildlife has returned to many of the areas, providing the chance for an ecosystem to return. Along with the sever cuts in emissions from the mining corporations (you have no idea how polluted the city and area and the air was). Logically if you reduce toxic emissions and have an environment that can be effective in the C02 reduction. The pollutants in the air also affect all wildlife and the air we breathe, which is the same air the trees breathe. Polluting the air will degrade the tree's and the oceans ability to filter out the C02 in the air.

It simply astounds me that people understand this, but yet think that replacing the forests are futile. Here I was thinking I was the most pessimistic person I know.

but ultimately sudbury is a very small area and northern forests are not a great carbon sink, to make a difference it's the tropical rainforests that need replanting to make a difference... and there are enormous local social problems to overcome before that becomes possible, unless the 1st world is willing to hand out trillions to get those 3rd world populations on their feet reforestation isn't going to happen...

[waldo]

It simply astounds me that people understand this, but yet think that replacing the forests are futile. Here I was thinking I was the most pessimistic person I know.

futile? Was that said? Reforestation has many (other) value-add purposes, obviously; however, from the standpoint of this discussion centered on carbon sink impacts, there is a most significant difference between the positive major impacts that can be realized in a tropical climate/latitude, than what can be seen from trees within northern/temperate latitudes... repeating again, for the umpteenth time, "changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains.

Anyways back to the isotopes ratio.

We have three types according to you. Three variants in isotopes. C12, C13, and C14. One of these is the bad one.

You've indicated that two isotopes are declining, without showing me how the other is rising in terms of these ratios you are talking about.

ok, ok... I'll assume you didn't get anything from the linked article wyly provided earlier (or the linked articles that branched off that initial linked article)... and that google is not your friend:

for the purposes of this discussion, those 3 carbon isotopes are relevant - as was already stated, processes in nature can discriminate against the heavier C13 atom... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere; CO2 derived from the burning of fossil fuels has a lower C13/12 ratio than carbon in the oceans or as emitted by volcanoes. As was also stated, fossil fuels do not contain the C14 atom; i.e., fossil fuels have a lower C14/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere. As fossil fuels are burned the CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, correspondingly, have an impact on the relative ratios of C13/C12 and C14/C12… as CO2 from fossil fuels mixes with atmospheric CO2, the average C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios of the atmosphere decreases. Or, as was previously stated, results in a parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons … comparative ratios – before and after, where differences (changes) in these ratios can be measured via ‘mass spectrometry’. C12 is common throughout all sources of CO2… as CO2 increases, it increases.

you inquire to ‘good and bad’ isotopes… in the context of identifying fossil fuels as the source of the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, C13 and C14 could be considered ‘good’… they allow source identification within the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration. From the perspective of AGW deniers, in the context of identifying fossil fuels as the source of the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, C13 and C14 would be considered ‘bad’… they allow fossil fuel source identification within the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration.

[TimG]

You've indicated that two isotopes are declining, without showing me how the other is rising in terms of these ratios you are talking about.

Here is a good reference on the CO2 issue: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

The majority of the recent uptick in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Humans are not the first living organism to change the atomosphere nor will we be the last.

[waldo]

The majority of the recent uptick in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Humans are not the first living organism to change the atomosphere nor will we be the last.

woot! Ah... so it's onto challenging the greenhouse effect then - hey?

[GostHacked]

futile? Was that said? Reforestation has many (other) value-add purposes, obviously; however, from the standpoint of this discussion centered on carbon sink impacts, there is a most significant difference between the positive major impacts that can be realized in a tropical climate/latitude, than what can be seen from trees within northern/temperate latitudes... repeating again, for the umpteenth time, "changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains.

You called it impractical.

for the purposes of this discussion, those 3 carbon isotopes are relevant - as was already stated, processes in nature can discriminate against the heavier C13 atom... plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere;

So, The ratio of C13/C12 in plants is less than the ratio of the C13/C12 in the atmosphere. This indicated (if I am getting this) that the C 13 is the higher component in this ratio... correct?

CO2 derived from the burning of fossil fuels has a lower C13/12 ratio than carbon in the oceans or as emitted by volcanoes.

Alright, so this still indicated that the C13 is higher of the two, so

As was also stated, fossil fuels do not contain the C14 atom; i.e., fossil fuels have a lower C14/C12 ratio than that found in the atmosphere.

This is confusing, there is no C14 in fossil fuels but fossil fuels have a lower rate of C14 compared to C12 compared to the atmosphere. If fossil fuels do not contain the C14 isotope, how does it even get into the ratio? Where does the C14 come from, what process?

As fossil fuels are burned the CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, correspondingly, have an impact on the relative ratios of C13/C12 and C14/C12… as CO2 from fossil fuels mixes with atmospheric CO2, the average C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios of the atmosphere decreases. Or, as was previously stated, results in a parallel decline in the relative ratio comparisons … comparative ratios – before and after, where differences (changes) in these ratios can be measured via ‘mass spectrometry’. C12 is common throughout all sources of CO2… as CO2 increases, it increases.

you inquire to ‘good and bad’ isotopes… in the context of identifying fossil fuels as the source of the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, C13 and C14 could be considered ‘good’… they allow source identification within the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration. From the perspective of AGW deniers, in the context of identifying fossil fuels as the source of the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, C13 and C14 would be considered ‘bad’… they allow fossil fuel source identification within the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration.

Alright so in the end there is a higher concentration of C12 compared to any other isotope correct?

Edited October 28, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Alright, reading that article Dre posted, clears things up about C14.

This may be clear to some here, and it's still confusing to me. I'll do what I can to understand it all, but if something is glaringly confusing, I'll point it out.

Hang in there Waldo, we'll get through this!

[Pliny]

e C14/C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2[/indent]

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

CO2 is CO2. You can't deny that the isotopes make no difference in compound or elemental behavior and determining isotope fractionation is used in climate science entirely for the purpose of identifying origin. The element itself, in whatever isotopic variation, behaves in exactly the same manner. So exhaling CO2 does act as a GHG as does any other generation of CO2. Be it 12CO2 or 13CO2 it still behaves as the same compound. Because they have the same behavior there is generally no differentiation noted when talking about CO2. No one says 12CO2 is a green house gas and 13CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they just say CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It would not be scientific at all to say CO2 is a GHG if only 13CO2 were a GHG and 12CO2 was not. The isotope is simply a signature.

wyly seems to be implying that differences in carbon isotope ratios from breathing or burning make CO2 behave differently than CO2 behaves. As far as I know compounds with the same molecular structure behave the same regardless of the isotopes of the elements. You don't seem to have any argument with wyly on his position but if you are going to be the spokespersons for science I believe this point is in error.

You're welcome.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

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?

CO2 is CO2. You can't deny that the isotopes make no difference in compound or elemental behavior and determining isotope fractionation is used in climate science entirely for the purpose of identifying origin. The element itself, in whatever isotopic variation, behaves in exactly the same manner. So exhaling CO2 does act as a GHG as does any other generation of CO2. Be it 12CO2 or 13CO2 it still behaves as the same compound. Because they have the same behavior there is generally no differentiation noted when talking about CO2. No one says 12CO2 is a green house gas and 13CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they just say CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It would not be scientific at all to say CO2 is a GHG if only 13CO2 were a GHG and 12CO2 was not. The isotope is simply a signature.

thanks for the schooling Pliny! This is excellent Pliny - you've taken the necessary step and extended upon what was missing from the typical Pliny deepness we see all too frequently on display... as I noted, you simply needed to go deeper - even deeper than

Pliny deep™... to consider the granularity that isotopic variants bring.

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?

but really, you truly are an idiot - feel free to take that as literally as you appear to pick and choose your other literal 'make noise' targets. The discussion centered on identifying the anthropogenic cause for the relatively recent increase in atmospheric CO2... mass spectrometry puts a real damper into one of the life-bloods of you deniers - hey?... providing definitive proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2.

however; I do note you're still struggling with that exhalation point... you know, the point made that human/animal respiratory CO2 exhalation has no net contributing input to the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - as before, Pliny... just think about open versus closed loops. Do that and it just might click for you... but beware, it'll probably give you denier indigestion.

you're welcome.

[Pliny]

thanks for the schooling Pliny! This is excellent Pliny - you've taken the necessary step and extended upon what was missing from the typical Pliny deepness we see all too frequently on display... as I noted, you simply needed to go deeper - even deeper than

Pliny deep™... to consider the granularity that isotopic variants bring.

but really, you truly are an idiot - feel free to take that as literally as you appear to pick and choose your other literal 'make noise' targets. The discussion centered on identifying the anthropogenic cause for the relatively recent increase in atmospheric CO2... mass spectrometry puts a real damper into one of the life-bloods of you deniers - hey?... providing definitive proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2.

however; I do note you're still struggling with that exhalation point... you know, the point made that human/animal respiratory CO2 exhalation has no net contributing input to the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - as before, Pliny... just think about open versus closed loops. Do that and it just might click for you... but beware, it'll probably give you denier indigestion.

you're welcome.

More bloviating from the expert bloviator.

Well gosh, Waldo...sorry - "waldo".. as per your usual bloviating you don't address the main point; that being, CO2 is CO2.

We produce CO2 when we breathe. I believe you are talking about "carbon" itself and how it circulates in a closed system.

It's your usual bafflegab.

[waldo]

go deeper, Pliny, deeper! Go deeper than Pliny Deep™… reach for them, reach for them – there they are, Pliny! Yes… well done… you’ve found them – you've found a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 – emphasis on the word, variants – hey, Pliny? Which of those is not like the others, hey Mr. Wizard?

[GostHacked]

Let me know when you two are done.

[Pliny]

go deeper, Pliny, deeper! Go deeper than Pliny Deep™… reach for them, reach for them – there they are, Pliny! Yes… well done… you’ve found them – you've found a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 – emphasis on the word, variants – hey, Pliny? Which of those is not like the others, hey Mr. Wizard?

CO2 is CO2. It's a gas. It freezes at -78 degrees C. In it's solid form it is known as dry ice.

Keeping it really simple for you, waldo...avoiding what is your usual intent to speciously obfuscate, isotopes are variants of an element on the periodic scale. Carbon is an element and when one atom of it is combined with two atoms of oxygen it is called CO2.

Atomic numberIt is the atomic number alone that determines the chemical properties of an element; and it is for this reason that an element can be defined as consisting of any mixture of atoms with a given atomic number.

It follows then that isotopes do not determine the chemical properties of an element. The compound CO2 is comprised of the elements Carbon and oxygen and no matter the isotopes have the same chemical properties. CO2 is CO2 and isotopic differences do not alter the chemical properties of an element. They nominally alter the atomic mass but not the chemical properties of the element. The isotopes are noted and only offer information regarding the possible origin of the element.

CO2 is CO2.

I think you are going too deep, waldo. You are drowning.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

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?

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?

This is excellent Pliny - you've taken the necessary step and extended upon what was missing from the typical Pliny deepness we see all too frequently on display... as I noted, you simply needed to go deeper - even deeper than Pliny Deep™... to consider the granularity that isotopic variants bring.

go deeper, Pliny, deeper! Go deeper than Pliny Deep™… reach for them, reach for them – there they are, Pliny! Yes… well done… you’ve found them – you've found a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 – emphasis on the word, variants – hey, Pliny? Which of those is not like the others, hey Mr. Wizard?

although Mr. Wizard has decided to delve deeper... even deeper than Pliny Deep™, Mr. Wizard has still not found the appropriate depth. At one point, it seemed 'his deepness' was there, or almost there... but then, he backed away. One can only gaze in bewilderment as to why 'his deepness' is loath to consider a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 to acknowledge that, CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

[Pliny]

although Mr. Wizard has decided to delve deeper... even deeper than Pliny Deep™, Mr. Wizard has still not found the appropriate depth. At one point, it seemed 'his deepness' was there, or almost there... but then, he backed away. One can only gaze in bewilderment as to why 'his deepness' is loath to consider a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 to acknowledge that, CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

You proclaim to be the representative of science, waldo? Yet you find it too difficult to grasp the concept of an isotope?

[waldo]

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?

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?

This is excellent Pliny - you've taken the necessary step and extended upon what was missing from the typical Pliny deepness we see all too frequently on display... as I noted, you simply needed to go deeper - even deeper than Pliny Deep™... to consider the granularity that isotopic variants bring.

go deeper, Pliny, deeper! Go deeper than Pliny Deep™… reach for them, reach for them – there they are, Pliny! Yes… well done… you’ve found them – you've found a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 – emphasis on the word, variants – hey, Pliny? Which of those is not like the others, hey Mr. Wizard?

although Mr. Wizard has decided to delve deeper... even deeper than Pliny Deep™, Mr. Wizard has still not found the appropriate depth. At one point, it seemed 'his deepness' was there, or almost there... but then, he backed away. One can only gaze in bewilderment as to why 'his deepness' is loath to consider a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 to acknowledge that, CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

You proclaim to be the representative of science, waldo? Yet you find it too difficult to grasp the concept of an isotope?

Was there a proclamation? Doesn't Mr. Wizard have... more? Waiting - bated breath and all!

[Pliny]

Was there a proclamation? Doesn't Mr. Wizard have... more? Waiting - bated breath and all!

The proclamation is that CO2 is CO2. The carbon isotope tells us something of the origin of the CO2 but CO2 is CO2. I hope you and wyly can get that point. It's very simple. There are different isotopes of carbon not different types of CO2. Scientists can find some CO2, any CO2, and determine it's carbon isotope. If you wish to be technically precise in your statement that there is "a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2" then you should say there is a "a granular level of isotopic variants of carbon in CO2. The CO2 does not vary the carbon isotope varies.

CO2 is CO2.

It's another glorious day. Have a good one, waldo.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

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?

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?

This is excellent Pliny - you've taken the necessary step and extended upon what was missing from the typical Pliny deepness we see all too frequently on display... as I noted, you simply needed to go deeper - even deeper than Pliny Deep™... to consider the granularity that isotopic variants bring.

go deeper, Pliny, deeper! Go deeper than Pliny Deep™… reach for them, reach for them – there they are, Pliny! Yes… well done… you’ve found them – you've found a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 – emphasis on the word, variants – hey, Pliny? Which of those is not like the others, hey Mr. Wizard?

although Mr. Wizard has decided to delve deeper... even deeper than Pliny Deep™, Mr. Wizard has still not found the appropriate depth. At one point, it seemed 'his deepness' was there, or almost there... but then, he backed away. One can only gaze in bewilderment as to why 'his deepness' is loath to consider a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 to acknowledge that, CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

You proclaim to be the representative of science, waldo? Yet you find it too difficult to grasp the concept of an isotope?

Was there a proclamation? Doesn't Mr. Wizard have... more? Waiting - bated breath and all!

If you wish to be technically precise in your statement that there is "a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2" then you should say there is a "a granular level of isotopic variants of carbon in CO2. The CO2 does not vary the carbon isotope varies.

CO2 is CO2.

Mr. Wizard... in the above quote-stream, I've size/bold/red colour highlighted the initial post that set you off on your 'mission to restore technical preciseness'. Apparently... you missed the size/bold/red colour highlighted detail (what you're now describing as technical preciseness... somehow lacking???). It's truly a wonder how you missed that size/bold/red colour highlighted detail, as it's been re-quoted to you, numerous times since... perhaps you were preoccupied, delving deeper, deeper even than the depths of Pliny Deep™.

[GostHacked]

You still have yet to explain the ratios and how they are use and what numbers they are using to show the decline or increase... or whatever they are trying to show.

[waldo]

You still have yet to explain the ratios and how they are use and what numbers they are using to show the decline or increase... or whatever they are trying to show.

continuing to presume this isn't a 'silly buggar' act on your part... a reply has been left for you in the other thread where you're asking for similar clarification. If you're still not 'getting it', perhaps spend some time away from MLW investigating further.

[TimG]

You still have yet to explain the ratios and how they are use and what numbers they are using to show the decline or increase... or whatever they are trying to show.

There are lots of things in climate science that are worth questioning. The anthropogenic contribution to CO2 levels is not one of them. The link I gave you earlier was put together by a skeptic.

The simple explaination is this:

C13 decays over time. This means CO2 trapped in fossil fuels for millennia will have less C13 than CO2 trapped in plant matter or in the ocean. If the increase in CO2 levels is coming from fossil fuels we expect the amount of C13 in the atmosphere to decline. That is what we have observed over the last 100 years.

If you wish to propose an alternate mechanism that can explain the decline in C13 levels then go for it. But I don't think you will have much success.

BTW - this mechanism is the same mechanism used for 'carbon dating'. So another way of looking at is: "we have carbon dated the CO2 in the atmosphere and found it is getting older. This means it must have come from fossil fuels".

Edited November 5, 2010 by TimG

[GostHacked]

continuing to presume this isn't a 'silly buggar' act on your part... a reply has been left for you in the other thread where you're asking for similar clarification. If you're still not 'getting it', perhaps spend some time away from MLW investigating further.

And it was just a repost of the info from this thread which I am still confused about. I asked very specific questions you can't seem to answer. All I get is a rehash of the previous quote without any kind of clarification. If you care not to clarify then yes this thread is done and we don't need to converse anymore.

I've asked other questions about it, because there are several different ways to present ratios, and yet you have not clarified any of that. In a A/B ratio which component is higher???? And what was the ratio before and after ?? Was it 1A/1B and now it is 1A/2B or is it before 1A/1B and now 2A/1B. I'll keep throwing this at you until you grasp what I am getting at.

If you want to continue to throw insults, you are only failing yourself and at the same time have not convinced me ONE bit that anything you post is valid. Post with your brain not your emotions.

Thank you.

[waldo]

If you want to continue to throw insults, you are only failing yourself and at the same time have not convinced me ONE bit that anything you post is valid. Post with your brain not your emotions.

no insults provided - no emotion shown/present... I stated I assumed you weren't playing a silly buggar act and that an additional reply was waiting for you in the other thread. You've now dragged this into 2 threads... for completeness, I've brought the most recent exchanges back into this thread. I doubt I'll be inclined for additional follow-up - in either thread. Carry on.

Actually it does not. It's the same thing that was quoted a few pages ago. Most of it means little to me because I don't have any numbers to work with here. What are those ratios?

the ratios have been expressed (many times over now in the other thread)... before and after comparative ratios of C13/C12 & C14/C12. You've been advised of the discriminating aspects of C13 & C14 with respect to fossil-fuels... of the non-discriminating aspect of C12 (i.e., it's common existence throughout all sources). If you're looking for actual (current) numbers, perhaps check with something like Scripps or CDIAC... but, of course, you don't need actual numbers to follow the concepts (expressed now, many times over in the other thread).

So where does this C14 come from? What is the source of that?

cosmic rays. As was mentioned (in the other thread), fossil-fuels don't have C14 as it's been converted to N14 (see beta decay).

If these ratios are being used in the fashion I think they are. For example 14C/12C indicates that the 14C is the lower of the component. So was the ratio of 14C/12C like this? Before 1/2, and now it is 1/3?

as was mentioned (in the other thread), CO2 emissions rising increases the level of C12... a comparative decrease in C13/C12 & C14/C12 ratios provides definitive proof that mankind's burning of fossil-fuels is the source of the increased CO2 emissions... mass spectrometry shows a declining percentage of C13 & C14. This bottom half of this pic from the IPCC AR4 WG1 report shows the decreasing percentage of C13 in relation to increasing global emissions. The top half of that same pic shows something we haven't even discussed... another aspect proof, as oxygen levels are decreasing due to fossil-fuel burning.

Waldo, that graph is completely useless to me.

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

Fractions, Number of Terms, Proportions, Reductions, Dilution Ratio, Odds.

Can you tell me which form of ratios are being used for your quoted article.

given your reply in the other thread, I will be less than the accommodating self presented many times over to you, now (in both threads)... do you plan to "run the numbers"? What part of concentrating on the concept do you have trouble with? You've as much been told to plug your own numbers in - how difficult can it be to realize a comparative ratio decline when you're expressly told (repeatedly, over and over) that aspects of that ratio, C13 & C14 within the respective C13/C12 & C14/C12 ratios, have been discriminated by nature (within fossil-fuels; i.e. C13 reduced and C14 absent), while C12 remains a common reference point increasing with emissions... such that... mankind's burning of fossil-fuels results in a corresponding decline in the respective atmospheric C13/C12 & C14/C12 ratios.

that graph pic tells you all you really need to know... within the atmosphere C13 is decreasing in relation to increased CO2 atmospheric emissions. You've been provided with several links to follow-up with (wyly's link (from RealClimate) branched out into distinct links to cover a basic vs. intermediate vs. (more) advanced technical slant)... certainly, at the basic level of this threads discussion, there is no shortage of easily understandable information available on the interweebs. I believe at least 3 persons now have provided you with varying degrees of detail/explanation... perhaps take a step back and do some further research.

[Pliny]

although Mr. Wizard has decided to delve deeper... even deeper than Pliny Deep™, Mr. Wizard has still not found the appropriate depth. At one point, it seemed 'his deepness' was there, or almost there... but then, he backed away. One can only gaze in bewilderment as to why 'his deepness' is loath to consider a granular level of isotopic variants of CO2 to acknowledge that, CO2 is not just... CO2 - hey?

Mr. Wizard... in the above quote-stream, I've size/bold/red colour highlighted the initial post that set you off on your 'mission to restore technical preciseness'. Apparently... you missed the size/bold/red colour highlighted detail (what you're now describing as technical preciseness... somehow lacking???). It's truly a wonder how you missed that size/bold/red colour highlighted detail, as it's been re-quoted to you, numerous times since... perhaps you were preoccupied, delving deeper, deeper even than the depths of Pliny Deep™.

The initial post that set me off was from wyly where he implied that CO2 that we breathe behaves differently than CO2 that originates from the burning of fossil fuels. As though the CO2 we breathe out was not a GHG.

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

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

What's the implication of that, waldo?

I notice you didn't highlight this though: "granular level of isotopic variants of CO2" when what I said "granular levels of isotopic variants of carbon in CO2" would be more precise if we want to discus this specific point.

And you still fail to acknowledge that CO2 is CO2. The isotopic variants of carbon in CO2 do not make it any less of a GHG.

CO2 is CO2.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Pliny