The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

[SpidermanTuba]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

This is factually inaccurate old fraud

Wrong again

http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/publi/Le_Quere_et_al_Science_reprint_2007.pdf

Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the
Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade
relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is
attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and
projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction of the efficiency of the
Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of
stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multi-century time-scale.

 

[RollingThunder]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

This is factually inaccurate old fraud....once again you have strayed into my realm.

LOL...and what "realm" would that be, walleyed? 'Wonderland'? 'Cloud-Cookoo-Land'? 'Oz'? Or just your usual dimwitted delusional fantasyland for science poseurs?

The oceans are the biggest processor of CO2 when the plant life can no longer handle the overflow (and that hasn't happened in 5 million years or so BTW) and the result is the creation of limestone. 5 million years ago is the last time there was an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans processed it into dolomite (a form of limestone) in shallow seas all over the globe.

If this is your "realm", then you're in trouble 'cause you're just as full of shit here as you are with everything else scientific. Dolomite, or calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3), is not a form of limestone, or calcium carbonate: CaCO3. Dolomite is another sedimentary rock that sometimes replaces limestone and becomes part of limestone formations. Limestone is a sedimentary rock usually composed of grains that are mostly formed from the skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. The oceans don't "process" CO2 directly into limestone magically as you seem to assume. The limestone is formed from the skeletal parts of countless minute marine organisms falling as sediment and collecting on the sea floor for millions of years and getting compressed into stone. That is a form of natural carbon sequestration but it has almost nothing to do with what OldRocks was saying. Nor is it dependent on a really high CO2 level in the atmosphere. You are being totally irrelevant and off the wall, walleyed.

I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution. No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years. Quit peddling nonsense. Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.

You are never more pathetic, walleyed, than when you are pretending to know more than you actually do. Of course in your case, that is pretty much all the time.

OldRocks' points that you imagined you were disputing:
"the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future." This is true and you didn't even come close to refuting it.

"The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer", also quite true.

"they could become net emitters as the warming continues", warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 so this is also true.

"And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide." - Indisputable

So another epic fail for you, walleyed, as you fail to refute anything in that post but only make yourself look like an lying deluded idiot, again.

 

[westwall]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

This is factually inaccurate old fraud....once again you have strayed into my realm.

LOL...and what "realm" would that be, walleyed? 'Wonderland'? 'Cloud-Cookoo-Land'? 'Oz'? Or just your usual dimwitted delusional fantasyland for science poseurs?

The oceans are the biggest processor of CO2 when the plant life can no longer handle the overflow (and that hasn't happened in 5 million years or so BTW) and the result is the creation of limestone. 5 million years ago is the last time there was an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans processed it into dolomite (a form of limestone) in shallow seas all over the globe.

If this is your "realm", then you're in trouble 'cause you're just as full of shit here as you are with everything else scientific. Dolomite, or calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3), is not a form of limestone, or calcium carbonate: CaCO3. Dolomite is another sedimentary rock that sometimes replaces limestone and becomes part of limestone formations. Limestone is a sedimentary rock usually composed of grains that are mostly formed from the skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. The oceans don't "process" CO2 directly into limestone magically as you seem to assume. The limestone is formed from the skeletal parts of countless minute marine organisms falling as sediment and collecting on the sea floor for millions of years and getting compressed into stone. That is a form of natural carbon sequestration but it has almost nothing to do with what OldRocks was saying. Nor is it dependent on a really high CO2 level in the atmosphere. You are being totally irrelevant and off the wall, walleyed.

I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution. No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years. Quit peddling nonsense. Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.

You are never more pathetic, walleyed, than when you are pretending to know more than you actually do. Of course in your case, that is pretty much all the time.

OldRocks' points that you imagined you were disputing:
"the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future." This is true and you didn't even come close to refuting it.

"The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer", also quite true.

"they could become net emitters as the warming continues", warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 so this is also true.

"And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide." - Indisputable

So another epic fail for you, walleyed, as you fail to refute anything in that post but only make yourself look like an lying deluded idiot, again.

The only part of this that is factual is that yes indeed the forests are being destroyed as I have stated many imes in the past. All of the rest is garbage. Congrats you have done nothing but let people know how limited your vocabulary is.

And here is a link to your supposed ocean CO2 problem. Read it and then report to the class what you learned.

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

 

[westwall]

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.

This is factually inaccurate old fraud

Wrong again

http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/publi/Le_Quere_et_al_Science_reprint_2007.pdf

Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the
Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade
relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is
attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and
projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction of the efficiency of the
Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of
stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multi-century time-scale.

Hi toober,

Maybe you should return back to the garden. Here is the last paragraph of your report. The report basically says they waved their arms around a lot and they really couldn't figure out exactly what they want to say but it must be GW related but in the end they have to admit that the oceans will be able to absorb whatever the atmosphere has to give them. I highlighted the relevant section in big bold letters so that even you could see it.


Observations suggest that the trend in the Southern Ocean winds may be a consequence of the
depletion of stratospheric ozone (26). Models suggest that part of the trend may also be caused by
changes in surface temperature gradients resulting from global warming (27-28). Climate models
project a continued intensification in the Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if
atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (28). The ocean CO2 sink will persist as long as atmospheric
CO2 increases, but (i) the fraction of the CO2 emissions that the ocean is able to absorb may
decrease if the observed intensification of the Southern Ocean winds continues in the future, and
(ii) the level at which atmospheric CO2 will stabilize on a multi-century time-scale may be higher if
natural CO2 is outgassed from the Southern Ocean.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.

YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know.

If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

But AGW happens overnight.

It is so so so so so so so powerful that you cannot duplicate it in a laboratory setting, amiright?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Observations suggest that the trend in the Southern Ocean winds may be a consequence of the
depletion of stratospheric ozone (26). Models suggest that part of the trend may also be caused by
changes in surface temperature gradients resulting from global warming (27-28). Climate models
project a continued intensification in the Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if
atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (28). The ocean CO2 sink will persist as long as atmospheric
CO2 increases, but (i) the fraction of the CO2 emissions that the ocean is able to absorb may
decrease if the observed intensification of the Southern Ocean winds continues in the future, and
(ii) the level at which atmospheric CO2 will stabilize on a multi-century time-scale may be higher if
natural CO2 is outgassed from the Southern Ocean.

Please, continue reading.

The report basically says they waved their arms around a lot and they really couldn't figure out exactly what they want to say....

You didn't even read it, so I fail to see how you can draw those sorts of conclusions.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.

YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know.

If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.

The three stages of AGW denial

1. Global warming ... its not happening ... BUT IF IT IS - we have nothing to do with it!

2. Global warming ... we have nothing to do with it ... BUT IF WE DO - its beneficial!

3. Global warming ... its beneficial ... BUT IF IT ISN'T - its too late to do anything about it anyway!


You're at #2

 

[gslack]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

Now there ya go talkin out yer ass again oldsocks.....

A lot more to it than milankovic cycles troll boy so knock off the bullshit already...

 

[westwall]

Observations suggest that the trend in the Southern Ocean winds may be a consequence of the
depletion of stratospheric ozone (26). Models suggest that part of the trend may also be caused by
changes in surface temperature gradients resulting from global warming (27-28). Climate models
project a continued intensification in the Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if
atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (28). The ocean CO2 sink will persist as long as atmospheric
CO2 increases, but (i) the fraction of the CO2 emissions that the ocean is able to absorb may
decrease if the observed intensification of the Southern Ocean winds continues in the future, and
(ii) the level at which atmospheric CO2 will stabilize on a multi-century time-scale may be higher if
natural CO2 is outgassed from the Southern Ocean.

Please, continue reading.

The report basically says they waved their arms around a lot and they really couldn't figure out exactly what they want to say....

You didn't even read it, so I fail to see how you can draw those sorts of conclusions.

Ahh but I did read it young man. That is why I was able to spot the the only relevant point in the whole mass of drivel. That part you underlined (and I was tempted to do that for you but then figured what the hell let the boy have his fun) merely says we can't figure out how to tell a big enough lie (that will go unnoticed) so we will wave our arms around and use the catchall "may" (frequently used along with the phrases suggest, might, may very well, possibly, perhaps. etc.) that means they have no proof of anything but the dumb folks out there will be scared so we can steal some more of their money. I notice you are now sporting a USC tag....manufacturing a new personna are you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ahh but I did read it young man.

No you didn't. Seriously, you aren't fooling anyone.

I notice you are now sporting a USC tag....manufacturing a new personna are you?

You obviously know nothing about college football, don't even bother.

 

[westwall]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

Well gee old fraud....you guys have been claiming that the warming would start ten years ago...or was it twenty? And still no joy. Seems to me something is wrong with your theory.

 

[Si modo]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

Well gee old fraud....you guys have been claiming that the warming would start ten years ago...or was it twenty? And still no joy. Seems to me something is wrong with your theory.

Scientific method? Pffft. Just recruit dilettantes to promote your theory and damn the method.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is factually inaccurate old fraud....once again you have strayed into my realm.

LOL...and what "realm" would that be, walleyed? 'Wonderland'? 'Cloud-Cookoo-Land'? 'Oz'? Or just your usual dimwitted delusional fantasyland for science poseurs?



If this is your "realm", then you're in trouble 'cause you're just as full of shit here as you are with everything else scientific. Dolomite, or calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3), is not a form of limestone, or calcium carbonate: CaCO3. Dolomite is another sedimentary rock that sometimes replaces limestone and becomes part of limestone formations. Limestone is a sedimentary rock usually composed of grains that are mostly formed from the skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. The oceans don't "process" CO2 directly into limestone magically as you seem to assume. The limestone is formed from the skeletal parts of countless minute marine organisms falling as sediment and collecting on the sea floor for millions of years and getting compressed into stone. That is a form of natural carbon sequestration but it has almost nothing to do with what OldRocks was saying. Nor is it dependent on a really high CO2 level in the atmosphere. You are being totally irrelevant and off the wall, walleyed.

I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution. No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years. Quit peddling nonsense. Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.

You are never more pathetic, walleyed, than when you are pretending to know more than you actually do. Of course in your case, that is pretty much all the time.

OldRocks' points that you imagined you were disputing:
"the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future." This is true and you didn't even come close to refuting it.

"The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer", also quite true.

"they could become net emitters as the warming continues", warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 so this is also true.

"And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide." - Indisputable

So another epic fail for you, walleyed, as you fail to refute anything in that post but only make yourself look like an lying deluded idiot, again.

The only part of this that is factual is that yes indeed the forests are being destroyed as I have stated many imes in the past. All of the rest is garbage.

LOLOLOL. You still imagine that anyone just takes your word for it on anything? LOL. No, little wallbanger, you have to do better than just saying that it's all garbage. You haven't offered anything to refute the statement that the oceans are now absorbing less CO2 and will absorb even less in the future or the statement that the oceans are becoming warmer and more CO2 saturated or the statement that the oceans will probably become net CO2 emitters as they warm up more. Once again you spew ignorant drivel and lies and can't back them up with any scientific evidence. You are a denier cult troll and your posts are worthless propaganda empty of any substance.

Congrats you have done nothing but let people know how limited your vocabulary is.

LOLOLOLOLOL....my vocabulary??? LOLOLOLOL. You have done nothing but let people know what an ignorant lying denier cult troll you are. You have nothing to back up your delusions but more hot air.

And here is a link to your supposed ocean CO2 problem. Read it and then report to the class what you learned.

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

That's a good article that doesn't support your delusions at all. Just the opposite. I've learned that you are a foolish troll who understands so little about this that you post links to articles that support your debate opponent's position instead of your own.

Here's two excerpts from the article you cited:

"No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities."

"It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.

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.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

* There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
* The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming. "

 

[westwall]

LOL...and what "realm" would that be, walleyed? 'Wonderland'? 'Cloud-Cookoo-Land'? 'Oz'? Or just your usual dimwitted delusional fantasyland for science poseurs?



If this is your "realm", then you're in trouble 'cause you're just as full of shit here as you are with everything else scientific. Dolomite, or calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3), is not a form of limestone, or calcium carbonate: CaCO3. Dolomite is another sedimentary rock that sometimes replaces limestone and becomes part of limestone formations. Limestone is a sedimentary rock usually composed of grains that are mostly formed from the skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. The oceans don't "process" CO2 directly into limestone magically as you seem to assume. The limestone is formed from the skeletal parts of countless minute marine organisms falling as sediment and collecting on the sea floor for millions of years and getting compressed into stone. That is a form of natural carbon sequestration but it has almost nothing to do with what OldRocks was saying. Nor is it dependent on a really high CO2 level in the atmosphere. You are being totally irrelevant and off the wall, walleyed.





You are never more pathetic, walleyed, than when you are pretending to know more than you actually do. Of course in your case, that is pretty much all the time.

OldRocks' points that you imagined you were disputing:
"the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future." This is true and you didn't even come close to refuting it.

"The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer", also quite true.

"they could become net emitters as the warming continues", warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 so this is also true.

"And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide." - Indisputable

So another epic fail for you, walleyed, as you fail to refute anything in that post but only make yourself look like an lying deluded idiot, again.

The only part of this that is factual is that yes indeed the forests are being destroyed as I have stated many imes in the past. All of the rest is garbage.

LOLOLOL. You still imagine that anyone just takes your word for it on anything? LOL. No, little wallbanger, you have to do better than just saying that it's all garbage. You haven't offered anything to refute the statement that the oceans are now absorbing less CO2 and will absorb even less in the future or the statement that the oceans are becoming warmer and more CO2 saturated or the statement that the oceans will probably become net CO2 emitters as they warm up more. Once again you spew ignorant drivel and lies and can't back them up with any scientific evidence. You are a denier cult troll and your posts are worthless propaganda empty of any substance.

Congrats you have done nothing but let people know how limited your vocabulary is.

LOLOLOLOLOL....my vocabulary??? LOLOLOLOL. You have done nothing but let people know what an ignorant lying denier cult troll you are. You have nothing to back up your delusions but more hot air.

And here is a link to your supposed ocean CO2 problem. Read it and then report to the class what you learned.

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

That's a good article that doesn't support your delusions at all. Just the opposite. I've learned that you are a foolish troll who understands so little about this that you post links to articles that support your debate opponent's position instead of your own.

Here's two excerpts from the article you cited:

"No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities."

"It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.

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.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

* There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
* The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming. "

Hey old fraud/trolling blunder/and whoever else you create to support you hysterical screaming, it's over, you lost, go away.

 

[Big Fitz]

If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.

YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know.

If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.

The three stages of AGW denial

1. Global warming ... its not happening ... BUT IF IT IS - we have nothing to do with it!

2. Global warming ... we have nothing to do with it ... BUT IF WE DO - its beneficial!

3. Global warming ... its beneficial ... BUT IF IT ISN'T - its too late to do anything about it anyway!


You're at #2

ooOOOOooo! Look who found new talking points on his 'vacation'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.

Well gee old fraud....you guys have been claiming that the warming would start ten years ago...or was it twenty? And still no joy. Seems to me something is wrong with your theory.

Scientific method? Pffft. Just recruit dilettantes to promote your theory and damn the method.

Yap, yap, yap. What the hell would you know about scientific method, old gal? You have yet to post sites that are peer reviewed and state that AGW is not real.

 

[Old Rocks]

If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.

YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know.

If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.

The three stages of AGW denial

1. Global warming ... its not happening ... BUT IF IT IS - we have nothing to do with it!

2. Global warming ... we have nothing to do with it ... BUT IF WE DO - its beneficial!

3. Global warming ... its beneficial ... BUT IF IT ISN'T - its too late to do anything about it anyway!


You're at #2

ooOOOOooo! Look who found new talking points on his 'vacation'.

Fritz, have you ever considered taking a science course? How about geology? Chemistry? Physics? Any or all would vastly improve your present state of ignorance.

 

[westwall]

The three stages of AGW denial

1. Global warming ... its not happening ... BUT IF IT IS - we have nothing to do with it!

2. Global warming ... we have nothing to do with it ... BUT IF WE DO - its beneficial!

3. Global warming ... its beneficial ... BUT IF IT ISN'T - its too late to do anything about it anyway!


You're at #2

ooOOOOooo! Look who found new talking points on his 'vacation'.

Fritz, have you ever considered taking a science course? How about geology? Chemistry? Physics? Any or all would vastly improve your present state of ignorance.

I think you should follow your advice old fraud.