The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited

[RollingThunder]

Greenhouse Gas Levels Set Record...

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says
NOV. 10, 2015 - Global concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million this past spring for the first time, breaching a symbolic barrier set by climate scientists and policy makers, according to a report released Monday.

Concentrations of other greenhouse gases produced from human activities, such as methane and nitrous oxide, also reached records in 2014, the World Meteorological Organization announced in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report is one of several measurements made by different climate agencies to address the state of greenhouse gases in advance of the Paris Climate Summit. “This evidence shows us that the concentrations are increasing, and they are increasing with increasing rates,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the W.M.O.’s Atmospheric Environment Research Division. “This calls for urgent and very strong actions to limit the emission of those greenhouse gasses.”

A coal burning power plant in Colstrip, Mont.​

In 2014, the average global atmospheric carbon dioxide level rose to 397.7 parts per million, substantially higher than the 278 parts per million floating in the atmosphere during preindustrial time, or before 1750. The researchers reported that the annual average is expected to pass 400 parts per million in 2016. But Dr. Tarasova noted that exceeding the 400 mark does not denote an immediate catastrophe. “There is nothing magic about 400, it’s nothing better than 399 or 401,” she said. “This is like our obligation to ourselves, we’d like to not go over 400. It’s symbolic.” She said that surpassing the threshold “only shows that our commitments are not there.”

In 2014, methane in the air increased by nine parts per billion over 2013, which represented two and a half times its preindustrial levels. Nitrous oxide reached 1.1 parts per billion more than its levels in 2013, an increase of 20 percent from its preindustrial levels, according to the findings. The report also noted interactions between greenhouse gas emissions and water vapor in the atmosphere. Humans produce carbon dioxide that heats up Earth’s surface, which then heats up the atmosphere.

MORE

Are any of those factories are located in the equatorial rain forest?

Are you really so clueless that you don't realize that EVERYBODY KNOWS that the yearly cycle of natural carbon dioxide emissions and uptake involves much more total CO2 than humananity's emissions? So what? The natural emissions are all balanced and offset by the uptake and sequestration processes. No net total increase. Natural pre-industrial CO2 levels were pretty stable at about 280ppm over the entire Holocene.

Excess CO2, beyond what can be removed by natural processes, lingers a long time and accumulates in the atmosphere.

It is the un-natural emissions, hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 that mankind has produced by burning fossil fuels, that are disrupting the natural balance and increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels (atmospheric levels are up to over 400ppm now, which is 43% higher just so far over the natural, normal pre-industrial levels, and still rising fast).

You make it sound like the oceans NEVER eat Man Made CO2 -- only NATURAL CO2. Like they're some kind of annoying vegan..

Nope! I didn't do that at all. I never said anything about that at all. You are very delusional. The oceans absorb CO2 from any source. So what? You have no point.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We've been cooling now for 14 years and 4 months from precisely this effect.

The rest of your post is just Dunning-Kruger Effect inspired silly nonsense.....but this part here is out-and-out reality-denying insanity!

These studies were done in 2014, before they were totally sure that it would wind up being the hottest year on record...which it did...and way before anyone realized that 2015 would end up being even hotter. But even then in 2014 they knew that....

14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, UN says

It's even hotter this year and it may be even hotter than that next year, scientists are saying. At the end of this December, the experts will announce that three of hottest years on record since at least 1880 have now occured in just the last five years.

Oh you silly person.... THE UN SAYS is all that needs to be stated to show that it is purely politically motivated bull shit.

Then we have facts in the UAH and RSS satellite data sets which show NO WARMING FOR OVER 18 YEARS 8 MONTHS and cooling now for over 14 years.

Tell me how you defend the divergence from these data sets by the HCN, which has been adjusted some 26 times in the last 9 years alone and always upward, because they wanted to hide the cooling trend that has formed.

A denier cult lie. The satellite data does show warming. Your myth is bogus.

Figure 1: UAH satellite data (red) compared to RSS satellite data (green) and surface measurements (blue). Image courtesy of Global Warming Art.

Nope.. I see your posting the SKS boys lies...

Here is a little fact for you...

Dam those pesky unaltered data sets showing your BS..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Greenhouse Gas Levels Set Record...

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says
NOV. 10, 2015 - Global concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million this past spring for the first time, breaching a symbolic barrier set by climate scientists and policy makers, according to a report released Monday.

Concentrations of other greenhouse gases produced from human activities, such as methane and nitrous oxide, also reached records in 2014, the World Meteorological Organization announced in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report is one of several measurements made by different climate agencies to address the state of greenhouse gases in advance of the Paris Climate Summit. “This evidence shows us that the concentrations are increasing, and they are increasing with increasing rates,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the W.M.O.’s Atmospheric Environment Research Division. “This calls for urgent and very strong actions to limit the emission of those greenhouse gasses.”

A coal burning power plant in Colstrip, Mont.​

In 2014, the average global atmospheric carbon dioxide level rose to 397.7 parts per million, substantially higher than the 278 parts per million floating in the atmosphere during preindustrial time, or before 1750. The researchers reported that the annual average is expected to pass 400 parts per million in 2016. But Dr. Tarasova noted that exceeding the 400 mark does not denote an immediate catastrophe. “There is nothing magic about 400, it’s nothing better than 399 or 401,” she said. “This is like our obligation to ourselves, we’d like to not go over 400. It’s symbolic.” She said that surpassing the threshold “only shows that our commitments are not there.”

In 2014, methane in the air increased by nine parts per billion over 2013, which represented two and a half times its preindustrial levels. Nitrous oxide reached 1.1 parts per billion more than its levels in 2013, an increase of 20 percent from its preindustrial levels, according to the findings. The report also noted interactions between greenhouse gas emissions and water vapor in the atmosphere. Humans produce carbon dioxide that heats up Earth’s surface, which then heats up the atmosphere.

MORE

Are any of those factories are located in the equatorial rain forest?

Are you really so clueless that you don't realize that EVERYBODY KNOWS that the yearly cycle of natural carbon dioxide emissions and uptake involves much more total CO2 than humananity's emissions? So what? The natural emissions are all balanced and offset by the uptake and sequestration processes. No net total increase. Natural pre-industrial CO2 levels were pretty stable at about 280ppm over the entire Holocene.

Excess CO2, beyond what can be removed by natural processes, lingers a long time and accumulates in the atmosphere.

It is the un-natural emissions, hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 that mankind has produced by burning fossil fuels, that are disrupting the natural balance and increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels (atmospheric levels are up to over 400ppm now, which is 43% higher just so far over the natural, normal pre-industrial levels, and still rising fast).

Well you're right about the seasonal snapshot, but your religion is getting in the way of understanding the Carbon cycle. You make it sound like the oceans NEVER eat Man Made CO2 -- only NATURAL CO2. Like they're some kind of annoying vegan..

Fact is -- a lot of the carbon that's stored in the oceans is "VINTAGE". And by it's age -- nearly indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions when the oceans belch it back up.. .

I was wondering how they distinguish the "belched up" CO2 from the currently made CO2 when its fingerprint in Radioactive dating is exactly the same? Is there some thing on the molecule saying "NEW CO2"?

 

[RollingThunder]

Greenhouse Gas Levels Set Record...

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says
NOV. 10, 2015 - Global concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million this past spring for the first time, breaching a symbolic barrier set by climate scientists and policy makers, according to a report released Monday.

Concentrations of other greenhouse gases produced from human activities, such as methane and nitrous oxide, also reached records in 2014, the World Meteorological Organization announced in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report is one of several measurements made by different climate agencies to address the state of greenhouse gases in advance of the Paris Climate Summit. “This evidence shows us that the concentrations are increasing, and they are increasing with increasing rates,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the W.M.O.’s Atmospheric Environment Research Division. “This calls for urgent and very strong actions to limit the emission of those greenhouse gasses.”

A coal burning power plant in Colstrip, Mont.​

In 2014, the average global atmospheric carbon dioxide level rose to 397.7 parts per million, substantially higher than the 278 parts per million floating in the atmosphere during preindustrial time, or before 1750. The researchers reported that the annual average is expected to pass 400 parts per million in 2016. But Dr. Tarasova noted that exceeding the 400 mark does not denote an immediate catastrophe. “There is nothing magic about 400, it’s nothing better than 399 or 401,” she said. “This is like our obligation to ourselves, we’d like to not go over 400. It’s symbolic.” She said that surpassing the threshold “only shows that our commitments are not there.”

In 2014, methane in the air increased by nine parts per billion over 2013, which represented two and a half times its preindustrial levels. Nitrous oxide reached 1.1 parts per billion more than its levels in 2013, an increase of 20 percent from its preindustrial levels, according to the findings. The report also noted interactions between greenhouse gas emissions and water vapor in the atmosphere. Humans produce carbon dioxide that heats up Earth’s surface, which then heats up the atmosphere.

MORE

Are any of those factories are located in the equatorial rain forest?

Are you really so clueless that you don't realize that EVERYBODY KNOWS that the yearly cycle of natural carbon dioxide emissions and uptake involves much more total CO2 than humananity's emissions? So what? The natural emissions are all balanced and offset by the uptake and sequestration processes. No net total increase. Natural pre-industrial CO2 levels were pretty stable at about 280ppm over the entire Holocene.

Excess CO2, beyond what can be removed by natural processes, lingers a long time and accumulates in the atmosphere.

It is the un-natural emissions, hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 that mankind has produced by burning fossil fuels, that are disrupting the natural balance and increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels (atmospheric levels are up to over 400ppm now, which is 43% higher just so far over the natural, normal pre-industrial levels, and still rising fast).

Well you're right about the seasonal snapshot, but your religion is getting in the way of understanding the Carbon cycle. You make it sound like the oceans NEVER eat Man Made CO2 -- only NATURAL CO2. Like they're some kind of annoying vegan..

Fact is -- a lot of the carbon that's stored in the oceans is "VINTAGE". And by it's age -- nearly indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions when the oceans belch it back up.. .

I was wondering how they distinguish the "belched up" CO2 from the currently made CO2 when its fingerprint in Radioactive dating is exactly the same? Is there some thing on the molecule saying "NEW CO2"?

You're "wondering" because you are not only very ignorant about science, you are very misinformed and misled....and you are ignorant, misinformed and misled because you refuse to investigate for yourself....you just swallow the bullcrap propaganda that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your head without checking the actual science from the real scientists.

Isotopes are the Key
How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellites are DENIERS!!! They simply refuse to report manmade global climate warming change

 

[RollingThunder]

The satellites are DENIERS!!! They simply refuse to report manmade global climate warming change

As I said before....

A denier cult lie. The satellite data does show warming. Your myth is bogus.

Figure 1: UAH satellite data (red) compared to RSS satellite data (green) and surface measurements (blue). Image courtesy of Global Warming Art.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The satellites are DENIERS!!! They simply refuse to report manmade global climate warming change

As I said before....

A denier cult lie. The satellite data does show warming. Your myth is bogus.

Figure 1: UAH satellite data (red) compared to RSS satellite data (green) and surface measurements (blue). Image courtesy of Global Warming Art.

Your site "GLOBAL WARMING ART"..... Now that's funny. Not a lick of real data on that site. THEN, You use adhomenin to bolster your assertions... Just more SKS (Nuttercellie) BS..

 

[flacaltenn]

Well you're right about the seasonal snapshot, but your religion is getting in the way of understanding the Carbon cycle. You make it sound like the oceans NEVER eat Man Made CO2 -- only NATURAL CO2. Like they're some kind of annoying vegan..

Fact is -- a lot of the carbon that's stored in the oceans is "VINTAGE". And by it's age -- nearly indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions when the oceans belch it back up.. .

I was wondering how they distinguish the "belched up" CO2 from the currently made CO2 when its fingerprint in Radioactive dating is exactly the same? Is there some thing on the molecule saying "NEW CO2"?

You're "wondering" because you are not only very ignorant about science, you are very misinformed and misled....and you are ignorant, misinformed and misled because you refuse to investigate for yourself....you just swallow the bullcrap propaganda that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your head without checking the actual science from the real scientists.

Isotopes are the Key
How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes.

The issue is about this "conclusion" to your clip..

By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes

What are the sources of "old carbon"? On land -- it's pretty well determined what's been dug up and used by man as a fossil fuel. BUT -- in the oceans --- that's not clear at all. They are reservoirs of load of "old" carbon. And the ocean floors are subject to fractures and movements and natural seeps of "old carbon". The upwelling colder deeper waters are LOADED with "old carbon". And the oceans put 10 times the amount of CO2 into the atmos that man does in a year.

Second problem is the markers for C12/13/14 are highly overlapped. So these are crude estimates, and not clearly defined measurements. There is a large statistical uncertainty in the detection criteria..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well you're right about the seasonal snapshot, but your religion is getting in the way of understanding the Carbon cycle. You make it sound like the oceans NEVER eat Man Made CO2 -- only NATURAL CO2. Like they're some kind of annoying vegan..

Fact is -- a lot of the carbon that's stored in the oceans is "VINTAGE". And by it's age -- nearly indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions when the oceans belch it back up.. .

I was wondering how they distinguish the "belched up" CO2 from the currently made CO2 when its fingerprint in Radioactive dating is exactly the same? Is there some thing on the molecule saying "NEW CO2"?

You're "wondering" because you are not only very ignorant about science, you are very misinformed and misled....and you are ignorant, misinformed and misled because you refuse to investigate for yourself....you just swallow the bullcrap propaganda that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your head without checking the actual science from the real scientists.

Isotopes are the Key
How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes.

The issue is about this "conclusion" to your clip..

By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes

What are the sources of "old carbon"? On land -- it's pretty well determined what's been dug up and used by man as a fossil fuel. BUT -- in the oceans --- that's not clear at all. They are reservoirs of load of "old" carbon. And the ocean floors are subject to fractures and movements and natural seeps of "old carbon". The upwelling colder deeper waters are LOADED with "old carbon". And the oceans put 10 times the amount of CO2 into the atmos that man does in a year.

Second problem is the markers for C12/13/14 are highly overlapped. So these are crude estimates, and not clearly defined measurements. There is a large statistical uncertainty in the detection criteria..

Were looking at a smudge and not a clear finger print, so there is no certainty in what is old and what is new. Crude is putting it nicely.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're "wondering" because you are not only very ignorant about science, you are very misinformed and misled....and you are ignorant, misinformed and misled because you refuse to investigate for yourself....you just swallow the bullcrap propaganda that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your head without checking the actual science from the real scientists.

Isotopes are the Key
How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes.

The issue is about this "conclusion" to your clip..

By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes

What are the sources of "old carbon"? On land -- it's pretty well determined what's been dug up and used by man as a fossil fuel. BUT -- in the oceans --- that's not clear at all. They are reservoirs of load of "old" carbon. And the ocean floors are subject to fractures and movements and natural seeps of "old carbon". The upwelling colder deeper waters are LOADED with "old carbon". And the oceans put 10 times the amount of CO2 into the atmos that man does in a year.

Second problem is the markers for C12/13/14 are highly overlapped. So these are crude estimates, and not clearly defined measurements. There is a large statistical uncertainty in the detection criteria..

Were looking at a smudge and not a clear finger print, so there is no certainty in what is old and what is new. Crude is putting it nicely.

LOLOLOLOL....hilarious....two scientifically ignorant denier cultists, who have no idea what they are talking about, try to deny the validity of scientific techniques and methods of analysis that are understood and supported by real scientists.....by just making up totally delusional bullcrap. You loons are a hoot!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're "wondering" because you are not only very ignorant about science, you are very misinformed and misled....and you are ignorant, misinformed and misled because you refuse to investigate for yourself....you just swallow the bullcrap propaganda that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your head without checking the actual science from the real scientists.

Isotopes are the Key
How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

As an example of these isotopic fingerprints, and how they can help scientists, consider this: fossil fuels do not contain 14C. By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes.

The issue is about this "conclusion" to your clip..

By studying how the concentration of 14C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions. While terrestrial plants “dislike” 13C, ocean exchange does not prefer 12C or 13C. This creates a difference in the relative ratio of terrestrial versus oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide isotopes

What are the sources of "old carbon"? On land -- it's pretty well determined what's been dug up and used by man as a fossil fuel. BUT -- in the oceans --- that's not clear at all. They are reservoirs of load of "old" carbon. And the ocean floors are subject to fractures and movements and natural seeps of "old carbon". The upwelling colder deeper waters are LOADED with "old carbon". And the oceans put 10 times the amount of CO2 into the atmos that man does in a year.

Second problem is the markers for C12/13/14 are highly overlapped. So these are crude estimates, and not clearly defined measurements. There is a large statistical uncertainty in the detection criteria..

Were looking at a smudge and not a clear finger print, so there is no certainty in what is old and what is new. Crude is putting it nicely.

LOLOLOLOL....hilarious....two scientifically ignorant denier cultists, who have no idea what they are talking about, try to deny the validity of scientific techniques and methods of analysis that are understood and supported by real scientists.....by just making up totally delusional bullcrap. You loons are a hoot!

You really dont have a clue, do you?

let me help you --> Carbon Dating

 

[RollingThunder]

You really dont have a clue, do you?

let me help you --> Carbon Dating

LOLOLOLOL.....you poor fucking moron....'carbon dating' uses only carbon14 to determine the age of organic matter, and the technique has nothing whatsoever to do with the entirely different technique of 'isotope analysis', that determines the source of the carbon in the CO2 by looking at the balance of three different carbon isotopes in various CO2 samples. LOL. Talk about CLUELESS. And what makes it particularly hilarious is that you obviously really believe that you know more about all this than everybody else, including all of the real scientists who have studied the climate and physics their whole lives. That is so pathetic.....and such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

It seems that not only is CO2 not a major driver, its effect is far less than predicted 1-1.3 degree temp rise is far to high still..

 

[Crick]

Principia Scientific? Are you fucking stupid?

July, 2013

Principia Scientific International (PSI) offers to host a sacked Australian climate skeptic professor, Dr Murry Salby, for speaking engagements in London. [13]

PSI says it has secured funding from publisher Stairway Press for the trip. A later website entry made during Salby's trip says that Ken Coffman, of Stairway Press, had donated a four figure sum to cover expenses for the Salby trip, which consisted (PDF) of two speeches in London, one in Cambridgeshire, and two more in Edinburgh. [14], [15]

A speech given in the UK parliament was sponsored by British Labour Party MP Graham Stringer and attended by PSImembership officer Terri Jackson. A speech given in the Scottish Parliament was hosted by Scottish Conservative Party MSPMurdo Fraser. [16], [17]

May, 2013

In April and May 2013, PSI chief executive John O'Sullivan became embroiled in a public row with prominent climate science denier Lord Christopher Monckton.

O'Sullivan wrote a letter to Monckton, saying he should not accept the basic physics showing carbon dioxide was a “greenhouse gas.” [18]

O'Sullivan wrote: “Greenhouse gas predictions (and thus the science) are shown to be wrong.”

Monckton wrote back, describing O'Sullivan as “confused and scientifically illiterate.” O'Sullivan responded, saying Monckton's “belief in the greenhouse gas 'theory' is premised on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and half truths.”[19], [20]

May, 2013

The Australian newspaper's environment editor Graham Lloyd cites Principia Scientific International in a news article suggesting there was a debate among scientists about the possibility of a coming ice age. The story cited an interview with Dr Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov published on the PSI website. The interview had actually been published more than five years earlier on the Canadian National Post website. [21]

Dr Abdussamatov “resigned” his membership of PSI soon after.

January, 2011

John O'Sullivan launches a crowd-funding campaign to raise cash for PSI. As of December 2013, the campaign had raised just $450 of its stated $15,000 goal. The plea for funds said: [22]

Give generously for this good cause knowing you can help to counter the creeping folly of misguided societies that appear to have been commandeered by political lobbyists and shills serving self-interested corporations or misguided national governments.


Christophere Monckton called PSI "confused and scientifically illiterate".