Climate Science 101

[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™.

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.

Mr. Wizard should really know when to fold em... instead... Mr. Wizard dives deeper - ever deeper - even deeper than Pliny Deep™. I dealt with your self-expressed drive for "technical preciseness" in the quote above... the same statements, repeatedly quoted back to you - over and over. Look up... just a little bit up... there it is - hey... that "technical preciseness" you so yearned for... in all it's "technically precise", size/bold/red colour highlighted detail. You truly are an idiot.

[Pliny]

You truly are an idiot.

You always believe you have dealt with something when you haven't.

CO2 is CO2.

The more you spout on waldo, the more it is apparent you are just spouting on.

If you want someone to understand something, waldo you don't make things more and more complicated, you make them simpler. The fact you make things more and more complicated means you lack understanding yourself.

If Gosthacked wishes to understand isotopes he just has to know that the atomic number of Carbon is 12.

It has twelve protons or neutrons in the nucleus of the atom. So it's most stable form is when there are twelve electrons in the atom outside the nucleus. Add another electron outside the nucleus and you have C13 a less stable, but still fairly stable, form of Carbon but still elementally Carbon because the nucleus is still twelve. The further away from the atomic number the less stable the isotope. C14, C15, C16, C17 are all carbon isotopes and C17 would probably not last long at all as the atom is becoming very unstable and tends toward stabilizing at it's atomic number of 12.

The ratios of C13 and C12 have varied over the last century or so and the variation is theorized to be a result of increased burning of fossil fuels.

It is easy to see from that information that CO2 is CO2 and carbon isotopes in CO2 are merely signatures of origin.

Now that's fairly simple and I think your inclination, waldo is to ensure it's too complicated to understand so you can speciously bloviate your way to getting what you want. Do you have close links to some politician?

Edited November 10, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

ah ha! Mr. Wizard returns... it's actually you that has nonsensically elevated the simplistic to something 'Pliny complex'. Your failed crusade in the name of "technical preciseness" was foiled by simply pointing out to you the glaring in your face references to "carbon isotope variants of CO2" in the initial/earliest posts. Of course, you weren't deterred and felt emboldened enough to go after a couple of the subsequent references where carbon wasn't mentioned (but implicitly inferred given the preceding references)... "where's the carbon?", bleated Pliny... "where's the carbon?" How many times have you had that sequence of posts re-quoted back to you - hey?

and yet, and still... you continued! You shifted into Pliny-drive, attempting to make a distinction over "of CO2" versus "in CO2". But it became clearer to me... you were setting up for something special - you're clever Pliny, sneaky clever! I researched the Clinton tapes and expected... no... relished, the thought of you invoking more Pliny nonsense ala the, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Dammit, Pliny... you were there, but didn't take it home! But, wait now... Pliny, just how would your technical preciseness tribunal have ruled? Can you really have more than a single isotope variant within a single molecule of the compound... how "technically precise" can it be when you speak of isotope variants (plural) "in" - hey, Mr Wizard?

as I said, Pliny - you truly are an idiot!

[GostHacked]

as I said, Pliny - you truly are an idiot!

You are not going to get anyone to listen to you when you act like this.

[Michael Hardner]

You are not going to get anyone to listen to you when you act like this.

I agree. It isn't helpful, and reflects arguing from a desire to inflate one's ego, rather than arguing to learn or to teach.

Not helpful.

[waldo]

I agree. It isn't helpful, and reflects arguing from a desire to inflate one's ego, rather than arguing to learn or to teach.

Not helpful.

you again! FWIW, I trust you read me purposely pointing out (to you) my significant patience in hand-holding GostHacked during his recent 2-thread missive... in this case, the ridiculous exchange should have long been over; unfortunately, Pliny feels he has a point to make and keeps repeating, ad nauseam, the same failed and ridiculous statements. Each and every time he decides to keep this running, he will be greeted with the same disdain, ridicule and dismissive response... because, in doing so, he truly is... an idiot. Uhhh... just curious... how does one actually inflate an anonymous ego?

[Michael Hardner]

Uhhh... just curious... how does one actually inflate an anonymous ego?

You aren't anonymous. You have a name: waldo. Small 'w'...

[wyly]

You are not going to get anyone to listen to you when you act like this.

Pliny will never listen he doesn't debate honestly so there's point...waldo has his methods and I being less tolerant than have mine (the ignore list)...

[Guest TrueMetis]

You are not going to get anyone to listen to you when you act like this.

I wasn't aware he had people listening to him. This is... disturbing.

[Keepitsimple]

You aren't anonymous. You have a name: waldo. Small 'w'...

Hubris: extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities

[waldo]

feckless, fatuous, epistemological nihilist: Simple, is thy name

[GostHacked]

feckless, fatuous, epistemological nihilist: Simple, is thy name

Insulting, bearish, abrasive believer, Waldo is thy name. This IS a fun game.

Next time use the 72 pt font for real attention grabbing results.

Edited November 11, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

This IS a fun game.

and yet... you chose to selectively apply your 'fun'... in your own hubris, I note there was an initial commentary you glossed right over.

[GostHacked]

and yet... you chose to selectively apply your 'fun'... in your own hubris, I note there was an initial commentary you glossed right over.

I was trying out what it was like to be BC_2004 for a little while. I've gotta admit, it is kind of fun and liberating.

[Pliny]

ah ha! Mr. Wizard returns... it's actually you that has nonsensically elevated the simplistic to something 'Pliny complex'. Your failed crusade in the name of "technical preciseness" was foiled by simply pointing out to you the glaring in your face references to "carbon isotope variants of CO2" in the initial/earliest posts. Of course, you weren't deterred and felt emboldened enough to go after a couple of the subsequent references where carbon wasn't mentioned (but implicitly inferred given the preceding references)... "where's the carbon?", bleated Pliny... "where's the carbon?" How many times have you had that sequence of posts re-quoted back to you - hey?

and yet, and still... you continued! You shifted into Pliny-drive, attempting to make a distinction over "of CO2" versus "in CO2". But it became clearer to me... you were setting up for something special - you're clever Pliny, sneaky clever! I researched the Clinton tapes and expected... no... relished, the thought of you invoking more Pliny nonsense ala the, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Dammit, Pliny... you were there, but didn't take it home! But, wait now... Pliny, just how would your technical preciseness tribunal have ruled? Can you really have more than a single isotope variant within a single molecule of the compound... how "technically precise" can it be when you speak of isotope variants (plural) "in" - hey, Mr Wizard?

as I said, Pliny - you truly are an idiot!

Well, CO2 is CO2.

Clever and idiot are different.

Can you really have more than a single isotope variant within a single molecule of the compound..

Sounds like you are beginning to get an elementary understanding of what an isotope is.

Gosthacked could probably tell you that a single molecule of CO2 contains only one atom of carbon. So no, you can't have more than a single isotope variant in a single molecule of CO2. Different molecules of CO2 can have different isotopes of carbon and, interestingly enough, all the molecules with different isotopes are called CO2. Once again telling us that CO2 is CO2.

I'm not trying to snow you here, waldo. It's true. CO2 is CO2!

Edited November 12, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Pliny will never listen he doesn't debate honestly so there's point...waldo has his methods and I being less tolerant than have mine (the ignore list)...

Yours is called the "plug your ears, la,la,la,la,la....I can't hear you" method.

[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?

ah ha! Mr. Wizard returns... it's actually you that has nonsensically elevated the simplistic to something 'Pliny complex'. Your failed crusade in the name of "technical preciseness" was foiled by simply pointing out to you the glaring in your face references to "carbon isotope variants of CO2" in the initial/earliest posts. Of course, you weren't deterred and felt emboldened enough to go after a couple of the subsequent references where carbon wasn't mentioned (but implicitly inferred given the preceding references)... "where's the carbon?", bleated Pliny... "where's the carbon?" How many times have you had that sequence of posts re-quoted back to you - hey?

and yet, and still... you continued! You shifted into Pliny-drive, attempting to make a distinction over "of CO2" versus "in CO2". But it became clearer to me... you were setting up for something special - you're clever Pliny, sneaky clever! I researched the Clinton tapes and expected... no... relished, the thought of you invoking more Pliny nonsense ala the, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Dammit, Pliny... you were there, but didn't take it home! But, wait now... Pliny, just how would your technical preciseness tribunal have ruled? Can you really have more than a single isotope variant within a single molecule of the compound... how "technically precise" can it be when you speak of isotope variants (plural) "in" - hey, Mr Wizard?

as I said, Pliny - you truly are an (boring) idiot!

(on edit: offered qualification to extend upon the degree of Pliny idiocy... boring idiocy)

[jbg]

as I said, Pliny - you truly are an idiot!

Have a mirror handy?

[jbg]

You aren't anonymous. You have a name: waldo. Small 'w'...

When I lived in a New York City apartment building someone had a vicious bassett hound by that name.

[waldo]

don't do it, Pliny... take the high road, Pliny... be the better man, Pliny... don't do it!!!

[Pliny]

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?

(on edit: offered qualification to extend upon the degree of Pliny idiocy... boring idiocy)

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

Good question.

Increased population means increased CO2 being breathed into the atmosphere. Carbon taxes and carbon offsets mean we are already being taxed for it.

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

You left out a little bit of info here, waldo. wyly is implying here that the CO2 we breathe is somehow different and it is silly to think that the CO2 we breathe contributes to global warming because they are different and explains the difference between the CO2 we breathe and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels as being the carbon isotopes. While, it is true the carbon isotopes do tell us the origin of the CO2 and ratios are different than previous ratios, both sources of CO2 contribute to the overall increased level of CO2. Why? Because CO2 is CO2.

Then you attempt to obfuscate things by bringing up granular variants of carbon isotopes, which only occur in artificially created temperature conditions even lower than that of dry ice and are highly unstable so you won't find them under normal conditions. The next obfuscation is open and closed systems for the production of CO2 where the CO2 we breathe is in a closed system and doesn't contribute to increased levels of overall CO2 in the atmosphere. That didn't throw us off track form the fact that CO2 is CO2.

So then we went to my sneaky clever use of "in" and "of" and you weren't falling for it.

how "technically precise" can it be when you speak of isotope variants (plural) "in" - hey, Mr Wizard?

I don't think the use of "in" or "of" are really of much significance regarding technical preciseness.

there are isotope variants in CO2...there are isotope variants of CO2... Which is more precise?

CO2 is CO2, waldo.

[Pliny]

You aren't anonymous. You have a name: waldo. Small 'w'...

Proper nouns are almost always capitalized. A rule I generally follow is that a proper name not capitalized by the user is an indication the user does not consider individuality important. Another reason is that typing a capital letter requires the burdensome pressing of the caps key. It isn't long before I can determine which reason applies to which person.

[Oleg Bach]

The term green is as Orwellian a word as ever invented..If - I took toxic green paint and covered the world with it - I would be hailed and praised as the greatests environmentalist ever.

[waldo]

I told you not to do it Pliny!

If you have a beef with that wyly quote you offer, I expect you should take it up with wyly... notwithstanding your grandiose obtuse, boring, idiot self.

...the difference between the CO2 we breathe and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels

... both sources of CO2 contribute to the overall increased level of CO2.

no, again... they do not. Again, Pliny - just think about open versus closed loops and effective net contribution... sure you can!

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.

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.

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.

[waldo]

Proper nouns are almost always capitalized. A rule I generally follow is that a proper name not capitalized by the user is an indication the user does not consider individuality important. Another reason is that typing a capital letter requires the burdensome pressing of the caps key. It isn't long before I can determine which reason applies to which person.

deep! Pliny Deep™!