NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

Says the poster who cannot understand what is said. I guess such off topic dismissals is all you have. Pity...

 

What part of known unknown do you nit understand. Until its a known kbown you cannot say with any confidence that the isotope ratio change is totally anthropogenic.

 

Source is given you can go there and confirm for yourself. Until then zip it. Accusing a poster of posting photoshopped evidence is stretching the rules.

 

Since you apparently didn't read the NOAA page I linked to earlier, I'll try to summarize it for you here. We don't need to know the source of each molecule to determine which source is responsible for an increase. Natural sources of CO2 have quantities of [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C while fossil fuels produce only [SUP]12[/SUP]C. If total CO2 is increasing while the ratios of [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C are decreasing, then the extra CO2 can only come from fossil fuels.

 

Something like 99% of all carbon on Earth is carbon-12. Fossil fuels are not the only source by far.

 

My God. I understand how they do it.

It isn't that easy because you cannot accurately account for all other source variables.

We know far more accurately how much fossil fuel CO2 we put in the atmosphere by keeping inventory of it rather than measuring the atmosphere, which varies naturally anyway.

Do you realize how much ocean sourced CO2 varies?

How do you account for all other variables, accurately enough, to say fossil fuels contributed (x)?

We are already seeing C13 at 1.109% of the atmosphere. Man's sourcing of C13 is at best, 4% of the sourced CO2. Do you realize to what accuracy you have to be able to measure first off? Now the accuracy of measurement is not the problem as much as the accuracy of knowing the natural change of soil CO2, which is more than 7 times greater. Plant respiration is also more than 7 times greater. Ocean sourced CO2 is more than 11 times greater.

Do the math sometime. The errors due to unknown source fluctuations of others far outweigh the end calculations.

Then this question. Why does it matter?

 

That doesn't matter. It's how carbon isotopes are changing, not their absolute value, that tells the story.

Do you think that 33 Gt in human CO2 emissions is enough to explain the extra 15 Gt added to the atmosphere each year? If you make $805 a week and your expenses are $790, could you say that the $33 you make selling things on eBay is the main reason your not going bankrupt?

Do you realize that it is possible to identify patterns in noisy systems such as weather? The easiest way is to average those variables over long enough time periods that the natural variability cancels itself out. You do know that climate is weather averaged over 30 years.

It is also possible to increase the accuracy of readings by averaging multiple measurements. If you're measuring a value of 7.34 with a device that reads to only one decimal place, we would expect it to read 7.3 60% of the time and 7.4 the other 40%.

It matters because if we know how much we're contributing to the problem, we can determine how much we can contribute to the solution. But when you're trying to avoid responsibility, I can see how that would be a problem itself.

 

Absolutely false a similar change in ratio has been seen whenever the earth has warned. You claim is a total lie by the IPCC.

 

The 30 year climate normal has absolutely nothing to do with climate. It was simply the length of time that early climatologists felt they had accurate data.

Ignorant stupid fools have assumed that the 30 year normal means anything. It is absolutely meaningless in present day.

 

Absolutely.

Non Sequitur.

We can model how much we add to the problem far better than other climate models.

Knowing the C13 percentage is more important as part of the C13/C14 ratio for carbon dating. It skews the results, so it needs to be known. In fact Dr. Seuss discovered the changing C13 content as he seeked the reason why carbon dating was incorrect.

I never understood the fascination with C13 in the climate science. I think it's just one more trick pony.

 

Of course it matters. You made the claim that "If total CO2 is increasing while the ratios of 13C and 14C are decreasing, then the extra CO2 can only come from fossil fuels," which is a false statement since fossil fuels are not the only source of carbon-12. The "extra CO2" could have come from several sources.

 

A warmer can say whatever they want to say in their world. Facts are not important or needed, see they base their existence with ignorance and little to no integrity. It is simple to make up lies. It is what they do best.

 

A data manipulator who along with his fellow denier John Christy got caught fudging the UAH satellite data to turn global warming into global cooling by using the opposite sign for diurnal satellite drift, something no "accomplished" satellite expert would ever do, let alone TWO of the foremost satellite data experts, as the deniers called them as the deniers promoted UAH cooked data to discredit the data from more honest scientists.

 

Sure, I know, another accomplished climate scientist and one of the lead authors of one of the sections of the 2001 IPPC report, along with Spencer known for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record both awarded the AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of Earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate" which, of course, is known a the UAH data now. Have there been critics of the UAH and has it improved because of the critics? Sure, that is what science is all about and that is how it improves instead of the way CAGW is being treated by the true believers.

Of course they have been criticized (and called deniers from the less intelligent) for the same thing many other scientists have been criticized for, straying from the established cadre of those heavily invested in CAGW and that is being critical of the now failed climate models.

Maybe people like you should actually do some investigation into the heretics, as you portray them, instead of reading (un)Skeptical Science, a cartoonists CAGW advocacy blog or DeSmogBlog, a list of heretics to the religion. You really do treat this like a religion instead of science.

 

There was no fudging of data they made the correction and thanked the people who found it.

Contrast that with Hansen and the GISS. Hansen barely responds to McIntyre finding a huge error in the GISS and Hansen refuses to this day to mention McIntyre by name.

Now tell me based on how they react who do you trust.

 

Steve McIntyre, a statistics guy, gained some credibility by getting some minor adjustments made in the temperature record. These adjustments, readily accepted by climate science, made no meaningful point as far as AGW or the redundantly demonstrated hockey stick temperature pattern, which he challenged without success. Unfortunately he has parlayed a minor adjustment into being a chronic crank, worshiped by the denialist crowd. To his credit he has criticized both sides but his efforts to cast doubt on much of the scientific climate data have been shot down repeatedly by real scientists. But he stumbles on with his blog climateaudit.org. There is no science in his background as far as I know.

 

Except that all natural CO2 sources produce [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C along with [SUP]12[/SUP]C, so any extra CO2 they emit would increase the ratios. Only the burning of fossil fuels, which is virtually devoid of [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C would decrease the overall ratio.

 

This should give you a feeling for the kind of game McIntyre and co. play. An IPCC adjustment is treated as a deliberate discrepancy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

 

Hah, another scientist labeled by the climategate cabal. His efforts to get the data have been thwarted repeatedly. His education is in mathematics and statistics is his thing.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/centre-of-the-storm/

 

Horse (*)(*)(*)(*). The ratio has changed as it has been doing recently multiple times in the ice core record. We dont know why. But you cannot ignore a known unknown.

 

Im going to give the former cartoonist and taxpayer funded propagandaist any credit why?

"Climate change communication fellow" is a round about way to say government paid propogandists.

 

Minor???

Hansens Y2K error introduced a 0.15C error into the US data. That is about 20% of the claimed trend. That is anything but minor.

And thr issue wasnt McIntyre. its that fir discovering the error Hansen refuses to mention McIntyre be name. Who would trust such a (*)(*)(*)(*) head?

 

There are several reasons why you are wrong. First, any source with a higher concentration of carbon-12 than that contained in the atmosphere would increase the ratio of -12 to -13.

However, that failure of logic on your part doesn't even matter because your premise was false to begin with. Do you know why fossil fuels have a high ratio of C-12:C-13? It's because they came from plant material and plants prefer carbon-12 over -13 so they contain more of it. So, guess what has an almost identical carbon ratio to fossil fuels? That's right! Practically every single plant on the face of the Earth. So there goes your fantastic claim that, "all natural CO2 sources produce 13C and 14C along with 12C...Only the burning of fossil fuels, which is virtually devoid of [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C would decrease the overall ratio." Not only that but if the total plant material on the planet is decreasing constantly and that plant material has been removing carbon-12 from the atmosphere but is steadily removing less and less, what happens to the carbon isotope ratio of the atmosphere?

 

Oh BALONEY!!!
There is no way an "expert" on satellite data would not know what sign to use to calculate diurnal satellite drift, let alone the TWO greatest experts on satellite data. They knew they were using the opposite sign and refused to check their work. Only after their cooked data was used for over a decade to discredit the honest scientists did the honest scientists invest their limited time and resources correcting all of Spencer and Christy's errors. Their errors were so blatant they could not deny them any longer and had no choice but correct them. And now their corrected data matches almost exactly the ground station data that deniers to this day say is manipulated.

 

No you are just ignorant. You have let someone convince you that failure to account for a diurnal shift is the same as getting a sign wrong.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070731133208/http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=60

Must have been skepticalscience those lying (*)(*)(*)(*) heads really work hard on figuring out how to fool the ignorant.

Like hell they do the satalites and the surface stations have been divering since the 90s