NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

yup, I tried to explain that before...they'll either avoid acknowledging you're correct or they'll be completely dumbfounded by your rocket science wizardry...

 

The isotopes are not in dispute. They matter little anyway.

 

“DiCaprio: ‘Climate Change Is Real’.” Almost convinced, but I’ll still need verification from Clooney.

 

Sometimes the littlest causes can have the greatest effect. If you bring home $771 a week in pay but your weekly expenses are $790, an extra $33 may seem insignificant, but it will mean the difference between solvency and bankruptcy.

 

And you think you know all the transactions taking action?

The isotopes don't go onto deficit either!

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) the ratio has changed maby times I geologic history the assumption that only anthropogenic sources change the ratio is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

They seem to think there is some magic in counting the ever changing isotope ratios. Considering the ocean contains a different ratio than the atmospre, and evaporation is up something like 4%, this alone will change the ratios. I find it a great mental exercise to do such calculations, but in the end, it's just an exercise.

The quantity of CO2 from fossil fuel isn't being disputed, and even if it was, the error of calculations are greater than what we can claim by math. Too many variables that cannot be pinned down close enough.

Besides, the isotopic ratio has no significance in the net sinking.

 

That would be bull(*)(*)(*)(*), but that is not what I said. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

 

Are you saying that for example, we know all the sourcing mass of carbon isotopes, for decades?

 

How about some actual science to back that? Especially some rooted in actual physical reality

 

Not all but we do have a good grasp of the bigger picture

More here

http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

What importance does it have for you?

I would if I was more concerned about it. I'm not going to try to find information I read years ago. Not interested enough to.

I agree anthropogenic emissions change the isotopic ratios. There are several studies that say both they can and cannot determine anything with certainty.

This, along with cosmic rays, has almost no concern to me in the larger issues of climate change. Plants will still take in CO2, the ocean doesn't care what isotope it takes in, all-in-all, these numbers have no significicant effect in the overall AGW debate.

If I were to debate the issue, my position would be decreased ratios of C13 reduce CO2's radiative forcing, and therefore mitigate the added CO2 to a small amount.

Does this make sense:



CO2 using C12 has about 100 times has forcing than CO2 with C13. This means that the radiative efficiency of CO2 with C13 is greater. The more the atmospheric concentration reduces in C13, the less the radiative efficiency of CO2 becomes. Problem is, the change is insignificant. Therefore I don't focus on it.

 

I'm saying that even though the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide samples is from a mixture of sources, we know the unique isotopic fingerprint of each of those sources, so scientists can figure out how much each source contributes to the overall change in atmospheric CO2.

 

LOL...

Are you serious?

A fingerprint?

What you end up with is a mixture of C12, C13, and C14, with very minimal end changes. C13 is at 1.109% of the mix, and varies naturally anyway. There is no fingerprint in the mix. There are still only three isotopes they are looking at. We can measure and see the atmosphere to this four significant digits, but the natural unaccountable changes are greater than what mankind changes it.

 

So the answer I get is a photobucket picture which cold be photoshopped rubbish and a rationalization as to why worldview bias in favour of denialism is acceptable

 

LOL...

Wow.

Amateur conclusions/assumptions.

Go to spectral calc yourself:

http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

Since you didn't understand my dialog, you have a lot to learn if you wish to debate the climate sciences.

 

Oh! I understand when someone is channelling Roy Spencer and trying deliberate obfuscation

 

Yes, yes, we know. An accomplished climatologist that contributed to the IPCC reports is not good enough now that he is an heretic that questioned the now failing predictions.

 

First, I was not channeling Roy Spenser, but thank-you for thinking I'm as smart as he is. I was not trying to obfuscate the issue. Like I said, this issue is insignificant to me, then I said what my position would be if I thought the issue was significant. I would say those using the isotopic ratios are the ones trying to obfuscate the issue. What relevance does it have except to show something we already know? I think we can all agree that the carbon from burning fuels is a growing percentage in the atmosphere.

Do you know how Radiative Efficiency us calculated and what it means?

Did you go to the Spectral Calc link and plug in some numbers?

What flaw was there in my statement and spectralcalc graph? If you're going to claim "it could be photoshopped," please tell us more. Is there any evidence of me ever using deception? Oh... that's from my Photobucket page as well. I uploaded it.

To make such a blanket statement of dismissal without being able to give a scientific answer as to why, doesn't sit well with me.

Are you a denier of science?

 

No we don't! You are assuming we do because you have a religious view of science. You think that we know because science knows everything. Yes we know that fossil fuel changes the ratio but there are other sources that change the ratio and probably many that we dont know. The geologic record shows us that the ratio changes anytime the Earth warms. We may not understand why but we know it does. The assumption that the IPCC has been running with is that sibce we know that fossil fuels are changing the ratio and we dont yet know other sources can change the ratio in the sane way then we can assume that its all anthropogenic. That is argument from ignorance. You cant assume that there are no unknown unknowns or in this case known unknowns.

We know that there exists some poorly understood mechanism that changes the ratio just as burning of fossil fuels should, as the planet warms we just don't know what. That is a known unknown that the IPCC chose to ignore.

 

LOL...

There are known unknowns, unknown knows, unknown unknowns, and known knows, yet the IPCC would make you believe they know the unknowns!

Great documentary, but for a different thread:

[video=youtube;J-NSyMTpkYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NSyMTpkYI[/video]

 

And who is not in agreement with the vast majority of climate scientists - which is OK because it proves the famous "all the research that would have proven AGW is not happening has been suppressed" is a Furphy of the highest order

- - - Updated - - -

So we have gone from photobucket to YouTube - Wow!!! The academic standing is amazing!!!

 

((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))))). I never hear what these mysterious "other reasons or sources" are - all I ever get is wishful thinking

 

Which of course might be because he is not reliant on government money for his income anymore as are most of the critics of the IPCC and methods.

 

Dang, and I agree.