flacaltenn
Diamond Member
"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"What the fuck is not clear about a measured increase in CO2 and CH4, and the fact that enough of that measured increase has the isotopic signature of old carbon. 280 ppm to 400+ ppm for CO2 is a larger jump than the 180 ppm to 280 ppm that is the difference between and interglacial and an ice age. As for CH4, the difference between 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb is far greater than the difference between interglacial and an ice age for that gas.Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.
Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique
Carbon-14
An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.
Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.
Sorry to interrupt your ad homs with facts, but I've told you before and I'll say it again...
1) A large chunk of the emissions charged to man is agricultural use and specifically domesticated animal farting and breaking down of waste. This is not OLD CARBON -- yet it's charged to man. EVEN THO those herds are REPLACEMENTS for the heavily populated WILD stocks that they replaced.
In addition, the accounting for land use change due to agricultural development is heavily bogus. A cornfield is an EXCELLENT carbon sink. It clears the volume of CO2 every couple hours. YET -- the accounting entry is always primitive and negative. Without reference to what USE that particular man-change replaced.
2) The Earth farts out HUGE amounts of OLD carbon in every annual cycle. So detecting the NATURAL seeps in the Gulf of Mexico from man's use is extremely tricky. In addition, the DEEP OCEAN stores OLD CO2 as far down as they go.. MORE CO2 the deeper you go. And currents cause upwelling in places to make the surface CO2 rich with "old carbon".
3) The "markers" for the isotopes are heavily overlapped in detection leading to LARGE brackets of uncertainty.
It's not as clear as you've been told.
Like hell the earth 'farts' a huge amount of old carbon. The volcanic emissions are now less than 1% of that of mankind of CO2 and CH4. I know of no ocean currents that take 50,000 years to cycle between surface and the depths. Almost all of the old carbon is from the burning of fossil fuels.
The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped. The concept is that plant-based carbons have a minuscule smaller ratio in GENERAL. Thus the "signature" in coal emissions. But the entire SPECTRUM of C13/C12 emissions in any particular fuel varies considerably with respect to this (.5 to 1.5%) dip in the ratio. And it's KNOWN that CO2 from BACTERIA assisted breakdown of carbons looks WAY more anthropogenic than normal burning of coal or gas.
Ocean is FULL of bacteria decomposing CH4. Take you volcano gas and stuff it back up your ass. I don't care about volcanoes.
This 1% diff in C13/C12 ratio is a theory. Not developed with the hard work of cataloguing the spectrum found in the fuels we burn vs what nature produces by various processes.
The ocean is FULL of "old carbon" and is biologically active. The natural CH4 seeps are oxidized into biologically a LOT. And it's virtually indistiguishable and a much larger component of the annual cycle than man-made CO2.
Shameless, ridiculous lie. It is extremely well-supported by several different lines of observation and evidence.
Go for it Genius. Show me where anyone has surveyed the vast number of emission sources and accounted for C13/C12 ratios. It's UNsettled science. It's a THEORY. Not an accepted metric to find a human fingerprint on the CO2 in the atmos.
Can't wait for your usual duck & cover bullying act.. It's so damn funny..