Climate Change - on Mars

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

No, it's settled science, inasmuch as the change in this ratio is due to human activity. You are wrong, and you are misrepresenting sientists and their work.

And you telling anyone to "go for it" is a joke, except it's at your expense. You are invited to "go for it" and publish science and present your ideas to scientists. You will get laughed out of the room.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

The point I was making was that we go into space, we can predict things very accurately, when it comes to the weather we're guessing. Do we want to guess whether we die out or not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

The point I was making was that we go into space, we can predict things very accurately, when it comes to the weather we're guessing. Do we want to guess whether we die out or not?

Weather is not climate. And, as it turns out, we keep getting better at guessing the weather.

But, if I am correct to take your point to mean that "not knowing for sure" is not a good reason not to prepare...then agreed...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

The point I was making was that we go into space, we can predict things very accurately, when it comes to the weather we're guessing. Do we want to guess whether we die out or not?

Weather is not climate. And, as it turns out, we keep getting better at guessing the weather.

But, if I am correct to take your point to mean that "not knowing for sure" is not a good reason not to prepare...then agreed...

Yes, basically if you're going to jump off a high cliff and you don't know what's at the bottom, are you going to jump?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

The point I was making was that we go into space, we can predict things very accurately, when it comes to the weather we're guessing. Do we want to guess whether we die out or not?

Weather is not climate. And, as it turns out, we keep getting better at guessing the weather.

But, if I am correct to take your point to mean that "not knowing for sure" is not a good reason not to prepare...then agreed...

Yes, basically if you're going to jump off a high cliff and you don't know what's at the bottom, are you going to jump?

Right. We could start runaway global warming, or we might just get "comfortably warm", right? But because we aren't sure, we need to curb emissions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I've never been in a Hurricane or Typhoon, but once one was coming straight for us and they predicted where it would go, then it turned.

Generally they say "it might hit this area, or that area", really they can't predict much other than looking at history and saying, "well... they've usually done this in the past."

"Improved yes, but the reality is they can just guess. I"

And some guesses are much better than others. Like, a guess based on scientific models, as opposed to how sore Pappy's knees are.

.

The point I was making was that we go into space, we can predict things very accurately, when it comes to the weather we're guessing. Do we want to guess whether we die out or not?

Weather is not climate. And, as it turns out, we keep getting better at guessing the weather.

But, if I am correct to take your point to mean that "not knowing for sure" is not a good reason not to prepare...then agreed...

Yes, basically if you're going to jump off a high cliff and you don't know what's at the bottom, are you going to jump?

Right. We could start runaway global warming, or we might just get "comfortably warm", right? But because we aren't sure, we need to curb emissions.

Yes. The reality is the sooner we develop renewable energy to the point where non-renewable energy is not so much of a consequence and we get more in tune with our planet the better.

It's like living in a house and throwing crap everywhere, what we're doing right now.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

My, my, first of all, you are obviously another ignorant fuck that gets his science from 'Conservative' talking points. You want math, OK, here is math from 1981 with some very accurate predictions.

I'm sorry... Did I miss the polar bears habitat vanishing as predicted by your high priest of global warming consensus Al Gore? I don't think so I believe it's still there.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Full article at the link. Those predictions for the 21st Century have already taken place. And the article has supporting math for those predictions. From a real scientist, not a fake British Lord, or obese junkie on the AM radio.[/QUOTE]

I can buy that the climate changes. However a 0.4°C increase over a century is not something I'm going to worry about. Are we going to be able to plant grape vines across most of Greenland by the end of this century? I doubt it. Mankind maybe increases the overall CO2 content by 5%. Which is really somewhat negligible in the first place. Out of that we might be able to cut the output by a quarter to a half. Which means your only changing the CO2 increase by 1-3% if you cut carbon emissions mankind creates. Mother nature can sneeze that in a heartbeat.

The facts are that there are no qualified planetologists who can create an accurate model of what the earth will be like in a thousand years, a hundred years, ten years, or even next year. One major volcanic eruption like Krakatoa blowing it's top, which no one can accurately predict, will change the climate in both hemispheres for decades. So go back to your holy alter of scientific consensus and tell your ignorant as fuck followers I'm not buying into your holy consensus of Armageddon. Hey! Maybe you should print up a Holy Manuscript Of Global Warming so we can all read the passages and know when this cataclysmic event will happen.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Polar bear populations (while still decreasing, as is their habitat) are as strong as they are currently precisely because of conservation efforts of a bunch of global warming believing scientists and conservationists. How dare an uneducated, anti-science slob like you use their own accomplishments as a cudgel against them and try to misappropriate the credit they deserve for your own denier bullshit?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

Hmmmm? Human activity like geo-engineering using stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*cuckoo*
.
.
.
.
*cuckoo*

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

Funny.. This is just part of the mystery surrounding the use of those "markers" to fingerprint MODERN emissions. Can't even agree on theories on WHY that ratio has been tweaked by NATURE long before man drove SUVs. This is all 55Mill or greater years ago. What's your point? How does that do anything but corroborate with what I told you?

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

Funny.. This is just part of the mystery surrounding the use of those "markers" to fingerprint MODERN emissions. Can't even agree on theories on WHY that ratio has been tweaked by NATURE long before man drove SUVs. This is all 55Mill or greater years ago. What's your point? How does that do anything but corroborate with what I told you?

Anywhere from 14 to 30 percent of all fuel is wasted due to inefficient carburetors and anyone that tries to push through a patent or offers it to a car manufacturer is shut down.....bet you can guess as to why.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

Funny.. This is just part of the mystery surrounding the use of those "markers" to fingerprint MODERN emissions. Can't even agree on theories on WHY that ratio has been tweaked by NATURE long before man drove SUVs. This is all 55Mill or greater years ago. What's your point? How does that do anything but corroborate with what I told you?

Anywhere from 14 to 30 percent of all fuel is wasted due to inefficient carburetors and anyone that tries to push through a patent or offers it to a car manufacturer is shut down.....bet you can guess as to why.

I can guess! Because they are shitty designs? Carmakers go to great lengths to squeeze fuel economy out of vehicles. But, in Dale's world...they hate carburetors.

 

[Dale Smith]

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

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..

Letters to Nature

Nature 401, 775-778 (21 October 1999) | doi:10.1038/44545; Received 3 May 1999; Accepted 14 September 1999



Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
Richard D Norris1 & Ursula Röhl2

1. MS-23, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02540-1541, USA
2. Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany

Correspondence to: Richard D Norris1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.D.N. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
Current models of the global carbon cycle lack natural mechanisms to explain known large, transient shifts in past records of the stable carbon-isotope ratio (

13C) of carbon reservoirs1, 2. The injection into the atmosphere of

1,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a

13C anomaly3, 4 associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine5, 6, 7 and terrestrial8 biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. These events may thus be considered as a natural 'experiment' on the effects of transient greenhouse warming. Here we use physical, chemical and spectral analyses of a sediment core from the western North Atlantic Ocean to show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. Both the

13C anomaly and biotic changes began between 54.93 and 54.98 million years ago, and are synchronous in oceans and on land. The longevity of the

13C anomaly suggests that the residence time of carbon in the Palaeocene global carbon cycle was

120 thousand years, which is similar to the modelled response after a massive input of methane3, 4. Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition : Abstract : Nature

#1

Funny.. This is just part of the mystery surrounding the use of those "markers" to fingerprint MODERN emissions. Can't even agree on theories on WHY that ratio has been tweaked by NATURE long before man drove SUVs. This is all 55Mill or greater years ago. What's your point? How does that do anything but corroborate with what I told you?

Anywhere from 14 to 30 percent of all fuel is wasted due to inefficient carburetors and anyone that tries to push through a patent or offers it to a car manufacturer is shut down.....bet you can guess as to why.

I can guess! Because they are shitty designs? Carmakers go to great lengths to squeeze fuel economy out of vehicles. But, in Dale's world...they hate carburetors.

You really are an idiot.....a tree-hugging liberal parrot idiot that only looks at slanted points of view that fits the leftard agenda.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thread just going off in too many directions that don't lead to Mars. Topic is depleted. Closed.