Hockey Stick Revisited in Brand New Context

[Sir Bandelot]

debate? That's what you yearn for? Really?... here's an easy string quote of the impressive complement of your posts within this thread. Clearly, one can quite readily see what passes for debate in 'jbg world'. You're welcome... carry on!

Lol, was thinking exactly the same thing!

[wyly]

I'm still a little confused about the isotopes ratios.

this may help...

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

* There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

* There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

[wyly]

Lol, was thinking exactly the same thing!

jbg is no different than bc he's a drive by poster and has no intention of actually debating waldo...

[bush_cheney2004]

jbg is no different than bc he's a drive by poster and has no intention of actually debating waldo...

There is no "debating" waldo...it's his way or the highway.

[Sir Bandelot]

jbg is no different than bc he's a drive by poster and has no intention of actually debating waldo...

Indeed.

Considering the sobriety of the opening post (or rather, complete lack thereof...), jbg should reconsider whether there was any serious invitation for debate, whatsoever.

[jbg]

Indeed.

Considering the sobriety of the opening post (or rather, complete lack thereof...), jbg should reconsider whether there was any serious invitation for debate, whatsoever.

My opening post was pure satire. I thought surely you'd figure that out since I don't place you at the bottom of the barrel as I do others on this thread.

[GostHacked]

this may help...

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?

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

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

* There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

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?

* There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

So if I am reading this right,in both these cases it shows that C12 is on the rise while 13C and 14C are declining. Is this correct?

Edited November 5, 2010 by GostHacked

[Sir Bandelot]

My opening post was pure satire. I thought surely you'd figure that out

Well I prefer satire to sarcastic insults,which generally abound in the forums. So I'll concede to your method on this one.

I don't place you at the bottom of the barrel as I do others on this thread.

Thanks, glad to know I'm hovering just ever so slightly above the common detritus...

[waldo]

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]

My opening post was pure satire. I thought surely you'd figure that out since I don't place you at the bottom of the barrel as I do others on this thread.

Well I prefer satire to sarcastic insults,which generally abound in the forums. So I'll concede to your method on this one.

the OP referenced the normal gradual seasonal loss of light, "dramatized" into a fantasy world of 100% darkness... that supposed "satire" was playing off the same, as stated, 'dire consequences' that jbg tagged the so-called 'hockey-stick' with. Standard jbg denier bullshit.

[GostHacked]

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.

[waldo]

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.

[GostHacked]

Alright so C13 is going down. C14 is going down. C12 is going up.

When you are using the ratio style of A/B this is to mean that the A is lower than the B ...

As the concentration of CO2 is going up, the type of ratio used is to show that C12 is going up.

There are much simpler ways to get someone to understand this stuff. I am no climate scientists, but I know a couple things about math. And the math at the start did not make sense because of what style of ratio is being used. You had not clarified that. So it's assumed that when using the / ratio the first component is always lower than second.

Correct? Last time I asked this I got no reply, until pages later I get the same stuff that confused me at the start.

[jbg]

For example, on June 21, 2010 we had the length the day was 15 hours 8 minutes. Ten (10) days later, on July 1, 2010 we had 14 hours, 56 minutes, a drop of 12 minutes. Not too serious.

Alarmingly, between October 10, 2010 and October 20, 2010 we dropped from 11 hours 21 minutes to 10 hours 54 minutes, a loss of 27 minutes.

This means to me that we are on an accelerating course to 100% darkness which, if unchecked, will clog New York Harbor with ice. Musk ox will shortly be pawing the ground in Central Park.

We need drastic action to avoid oblivion!!!

Lately, there seems to have been a slight and probably temporary increase in daylight. Essentially it's just weather; the overall climate of daytime is going to doom us. Edited January 13, 2011 by jbg

[Bonam]

Lately, there seems to have been a slight and probably temporary increast in daylight. Essentially it's just weather; the overal climate of daytime is going to doom us.

I realize this is meant as humour, but I might as well point out that the length of the day actually really is changing on a long time scale. Today, days are 24 hours long. 400 million years ago, days were ~21.8 hours long. This gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation is due to its tidal interaction with the Moon. The days are getting 20 seconds longer every million years.

[jbg]

The days are getting 20 seconds longer every million years.

We need a UN commission to investigate the cause and effect of this alarming development. The U.N., which represents the entire world, is perfectly placed to do this.

[Pliny]

I wonder if waldo's real name is Bob Loblaw?

[waldo]

still smarting Pliny?

[dre]

Dude, you are not winning any arguments or friends here. Calling everyone an idiot and morally bankrupt and whatever. If you want to be civil, you need to drop the insults.

Id normally agree, and certainly a lot of the voices on the other side deserve respect. But theres that just quite frankly dont.

[Pliny]

still smarting Pliny?

From what,Bob?

[waldo]

hey Pliny... is there a particular reason you, out of the blue, posted as you did? Hey, lil' buddy? Why so sore? Still smarting - have you tried anything topical? rimshot!

[jbg]

I wonder if waldo's real name is Bob Loblaw?

I thought it was Jarod Loughney or Robert Pickton. Or Paul Bernardo.

[waldo]

I thought it was Jarod Loughney or Robert Pickton. Or Paul Bernardo.

again, I am truly taken aback, particularly from someone falsely professing to elevated, considered, meritorious discussion! ... especially from someone who continually highlights his lawyerly, scholarly ways!

Quite an elevated, considered discussion of the merits </sarcasm>

I am taken aback, truly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH46oIA6I2c

[jbg]

again, I am truly taken aback, particularly from someone falsely professing to elevated, considered, meritorious discussion! ... especially from someone who continually highlights his lawyerly, scholarly ways!

Great Youtube video.