2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by TCassa89, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to clarify some things.

    14C has a half life of about 5750 years. Since fossil formed many millions of years ago and they are almost entirely depleted in 14C.

    14C is formed naturally in the upper atmosphere. This is why atmospheric 14C remains relatively stable. And since 14C is absorbed by the ocean it remains stable there as well.

    However, from about 1850 to 1950 the amount of 14C-to-12C/13C in both the atmosphere and biosphere began declining. Then around 1950 14C spiked up quickly. This is known as the bomb spike because 14C is byproduct of nuclear explosions. So the anthroprogenic signal in regards to 14C is apparent only in the early stages of the industrial revolution. After WWII nuclear bomb testing swamped the signal. The rate at which the 14C-to-12C/13C ratio changed prior to the bomb spike is a near perfect match to the accelerating rate of fossil fuel burning.

    Photosynthesis is preferential to 12C vs 13C especially in fossil fuel remains because those were the result of the high CO2 species of C3 carbon fixation than even today's C3 or C4 species. So not only are fossil fuels depleted in 14C, but they are partially depleted in 13C as well. So when fossil fuels are burned they release lower 13C-to-12C molecules into the atmosphere. This lowers the 13C-to-12C ratio. The rate at which the 13C-to-12C ratio changes is a near perfect match to the accelerating rate of fossil fuel burning.

    When fossil fuels are burned they release C molecules. These are then chemically bonded with O2 molecules during the burning process. Since O2 is decreasing in the atmosphere that means the increase in CO2 is due to burning of a C rich source. And the rate at which O2 is declining is a near perfect match to the rate at which fossil fuels have burned.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that about 2000 Gt of carbon has been added to the carbon cycle. 1000 Gt went into the atmosphere and 1000 Gt went into the ocean. Atmospheric concentrations and oceanic pH confirm this rate of uptake. Not only is 2000 Gt nearly the exact amount of carbon released from burning fossil fuels over the last 200 years, but the accumulation curves in both the atmosphere and ocean are a near perfect match to the burn rate of the fossil fuel.

    We know without a shadow of doubt that the 130 ppm that has been added to the atmosphere is caused by humans. Most AGW skeptics even acknowledge this.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We also know that CO2 captures infrared radiation and reemits it in all directions. This happens because the molecule is tuned to activate its bending vibrational mode when it is hit by a 14um photon. The photon disappears and its quantized energy is thus converted into thermal energy via the vibration of the O2 molecules. And since CO2 has a dipole moment this cause the entire molecule to accelerate thus increasing the overall kinetic energy. This energy is then spread out via conduction when the molecule collides with other molecules in the atmosphere. This process is fully explained by molecular physics and quantum mechanics. And there is nothing special about CO2. It happens with all polyatomic molecules regardless of whether it is H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. They only difference is the vibrational models and the frequency at which they are activated as determined by quantum mechanics. This effect has been demonstrated over and over again in a laboratory since the 1860's using a wildly different techniques and experimental setups.

    We know without a shadow of doubt that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Most AGW skeptics even acknowledge this.
     
  3. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My set of studies claim there is 97% consensus that all of the CO2 increase has been done by mankind.

    Fossil fuels.... hardly got ANY C14 to begin with. It's absence is even used to determine the age of it!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#In_fossil_fuels

    You are parroting a scam from a fake news site! lol
     
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is not so well known is how sensitive the climate system is to CO2. The range is about 0.5C to 3.0C per W/m^2. Different eras have different sensitivities. Scientists believe the sensitivity is low during period of relatively stable temperatures. This partly explains why interglacials can stay stable for thousands of years. However, once a sufficient perturbation develops in the climate system it is believe that the sensitivity increases. Right now scientists estimate that the current era has a sensitivity of about 0.75C to 1.00C per W/m^2. It could be as low as 0.5C or as high as 3.0C though. This is where most of the debate lies right now. Alarmists say it is closer to 3.0C while skeptics say it is closer to 0.5C. The consensus (like that which is used by the IPCC) tends to fall in the middle of the two extremes. Eruptions of Tambora, Pinatubo, etc. in addition to observation records of oceanic heat uptake and lower troposphere temperatures provide supporting evidence that a middle-of-the-road estimate is likely to be closest to reality, but the IPCC does provide the caveat that high sensitivities cannot be ruled out especially if tipping points, which are largely ignored by the IPCC, activate sooner rather than later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not true since it comes from the natural production in the atmosphere. lol
    The C14 would be depleting in plants regardless where they are or what form.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fossil fuels are not exposed to the atmosphere. And even if they were there is no mechanism by which to separate the C atom and have it incorporated since photosynthesis doesn't work in dead plants that got crushed under enormous pressure for long periods of time. That means the only 14C found in fossil fuels is what was there at the time of photosynthesis or when they were living...millions of years ago. This is why fossil fuels are almost entirely depleted of the isotope. This means that with a typical coal seam from about 300 million years there has been over 50,000 halvings of 14C. That makes the probability of finding even a single 14C molecule astronomically unlikely.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  7. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    C14 will deplete no matter what. You can't stop it. Hence it's irrelevant if it's trapped in a plant, as oil, or whatever.
    It's also hardly there in the atmosphere where it's formed. It's just totally irrelevant.
     
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's definitely relevant because it's a marker (or lack of it) that can be used to help identify the source of carbon in the atmosphere. It just so happens that 14C is definitive proof that the 130 ppm of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is not from a source that would have naturally occurred had humans not been involved.
     
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    7,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry these are too advanced for you. I'll note for future conversations.
     
  10. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am supporter of the theory that humans caused that 130 ppm increase. That 14C is a bull story to bring up from the denialists.
     
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There really was a decline in 14C prior to the post WWII bomb testing. There is a gradual decline up to about 1900 when coal burning accelerated thus causing an acceleration in the 14C decline in the atmosphere as well.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So sorry you can't accept a world wide as good as a full consensus by scientists that humans are the cause of global warming.
     
  13. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    19,941
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good lord... how about you go respond to what I write? lol
     
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure what you mean here. My only intent is to point out that a discussion of 14C isn't meaningless. It is definitely relevant to the question of whether the increase in CO2 is mad made or not.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They have an effect, but it's an insignificant effect, being that volcanic CO2 emission are so small compared to human emissions.

    Let's get back to what you were trying to evade. Why did you bring up the issue of volcanic CO2?

    As you won't answer, I'll have to do it for you. You were trying to push a bogus point that volcanoes were responsible for the measured CO2 increase, and now you don't want to admit it.

    That's not correct. The interglacial doesn't explain why the rate of sea level increase, which was declining towards zero, suddenly started spiking the other way. That's not normal. The data says your "It's normal!" theory is wrong, therefore your theory is wrong.

    I don't know if you were saying that. But then, it's nearly impossible to figure out what you're saying, as it shifts so often. Trying to pin down your beliefs is like trying to nail jello to the table.

    Which has zilch to do with the current sudden spike in temperature that has no natural explanation. Waving your hands around and yelling "But it's natural!" is an evasion, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes. If you can't name the specific cause of this supposed "hot cycle", you're invoking fairy magic, as opposed to talking about science.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    iamanonman likes this.
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a variation of the "Our knowledge isn't perfect, so our knowledge is totally wrong!" fallacy which is so beloved by conspiracy cultists. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

    By your logic, we shouldn't launch rockets, because we don't perfectly understand gravity, and therefore we know nothing about gravity.

    In this world, there's little that we have perfect knowledge of. Rational people recognize that perfect knowledge is not a necessity for action. There comes a point when knowledge is good enough to take action on. Gravity and climate science are two such examples.

    Pointing out that you don't understand the basics of an equilibrium system is a statement of fact. You didn't understand why "demonstrate why man made CO2 is more impactful" was a dumb statement. It was a strawman on your part, being how nobody (except you) ever said or implied man-made CO2 was more powerful. I can't say it was a dishonest strawman, being you lack the knowledge necessary to understand why it was a dumb statement.

    If all the world's experts on a topic say I'm wrong, I conclude that it's very likely that I really am wrong, and that I need to research the topic more. I don't assume they disagree with me because of a global political conspiracy, and that I clearly know more than those eggheads because of what I read on my favorite conspiracy blog. That's because I'm not consumed by paranoia and narcissism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    iamanonman likes this.
  17. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    23,158
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess scientists are still having trouble distinguishing climate from weather.
     
  18. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    23,158
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can someone explain to me how the dinosaurs thrived in the Triassic period when CO2 was 3000 ppm, but CO2 going from 180 ppm to 400 ppm is the end of civilization?
     
  19. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    7,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you can force folks to give you money to make them feel better about their contributions if they actually have an impact.... There are several scientific reasons that we perhaps don't need to be nearly as hypersensitive as the green folks might want us to be. So, end of the story is that many of us are gullible, and wiling to be guilted into forking over real money to "absolve" us of our actions...
     
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Relative to today forcing of 3000 ppm of CO2 is 5.35 * ln(3000/400) = +10.8 W/m^2 and the solar forcing was 340 * (1 - (1 / (1 + 0.4 * (1 - 4.35/4.60)))) = -7.2 W/m^2 for a net force of +3.8 W/m^2. So 3000 ppm of CO2 back then is roughly equivalent to having about 560 ppm of CO2 today. 400 ppm or even 560 ppm of CO2 will not be civilization ending.
     

Share This Page