Northwest Passage

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

my specific question is how much of the actual June 2019 418 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere is provably from from burning of ancient plant matter?

About 40% of the current 400+ ppm of CO2 to date has been added from human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels, but also removal of CO2-absorbing forests, etc.

Unless you can prove with equal or higher confidence that the increase came from other "natural" sources.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

About 40% of the current 400+ ppm of CO2 to date has been added from human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels, but also removal of CO2-absorbing forests, etc.

Unless you can prove with equal or higher confidence that the increase came from other "natural" sources.

Also >
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Primarily because of your previous defense of such consumptions and apparent opposition to any meaningful action to change that behaviour.

Not sure where the source of this consistent disconnect from you derives when it comes to misrepresenting my positions. My "theory" () is that it is more often than not from your strong inclination to stereotype people and lump them all together, maybe as a result of . . . well, I really don't know. Kinda hard to believe -- and I'd prefer not to believe actually -- that it's all purposeful. It has been a huge time-waster over the years, to say nothing of increasing the acrimony. I'm OK with your disagreeing with me all day/week/year long (I'm used to it ), but please be mindful what you're disagreeing with me about. (Maybe ask?). Us skeptics are an independent lot who often don't always think alike and, believe it or not, sometimes our opinions change! Ditto for those hopeless denier-types like Newhaul, that louse! OK-Doke?

Moving on , I don't recall ever "defending" high consumption and can't imagine why I would, unless it was in some other context we're not discussing here, or it was clearly tongue-in-cheek. It's often an indicator of stronger economic activity which is also a good thing for a lot of people (and their retirement portfolios), but I don't recall assigning value to it in its own right. And my opposition was never grounded in any disagreement that reduction is not a worthy goal, only that your proposed ways of getting it done were ineffective, and the inevitable costs unduly burdensome. That was and is my opinion, backed up by quite a bit of research in the underlying economics on the subject. You had a different opinion, equally backed up by your own sources, but it suggested you may not have taken all such relevant economic factors into account. Unlike you, I have never believed that merely doing "something," no matter how unproductive or harmful, is better than not doing anything. So we'll just have to disagree on that one too. Both of our points of view were and are credible imo, certainly sufficiently "aired," and maybe we each learned something in the process. Or maybe not, and it's time for nachos. But it begs the question, what exactly more are you looking for in these online discussions?

I don't too much mind if others refuse to believe like I do. I mind very much the attacks on science and the scientific process, and people not being sincere about the partisan underpinnings of their position.

Do your protestations apply only to those who have opinions and political orientations different from yours, or are you also applying your high standards to yourself and to those on your side as well? Or do you really believe you can divorce your own partisanship from the CC issue?? We all have our biases but man-oh-man are some of you guys steeped in your own politics & dogma!! Please, introduce yourself to a different environment with people who think differently once in awhile! Along with perhaps one step down off your pedestal. Angels only exist, after all, in religion, mythology, and fantasy. Fwiw, I don't think your partisan underpinnings make your positions insincere, but I do think they make you unable to see any other side (think NDZs). This makes you (and anyone else) less not more effective as someone who claims an interest in policy. Again, in my opinion that is.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Yes, water vapor is more potent than CO2, but it is not considered a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, instead the amount of water vapor is mostly in the lower atmosphere and the amount changes with temperature. As the atmosphere warms, more water vapor which causes more warming. Of course at some point it saturates and you get clouds and rain. So atmospheric system warms from co2, you get more water vapor which heats the atmosphere more (positive feedback). Nobody in the field of climate science ignores water vapor.
That said some believe that the water vapor might cause dramatically more clouds which may mitagate CO2 warming but I think most researchers are not that optimistic. Much of the variation in the models comes from uncertainty of how much positive feedback water vapor will cause.
Finally the water vapor from burning fossil fuels is very small as compared to that from evaporation. In contrast, 40% of the CO2 is from human sources and it is going to stay in the atmosphere for 100s of years unless we figure out some magical way to get it back out and into the ground.

If trees could talk, if you asked them where they want the CO2, they would tell you "in the air." If the animal/plant life dependent on trees and vegetation were asked the same question, they would provide the same answer.

The most cogent argument against planet warming alarmism is that it's self-serving to humans and stuff a few feet from sea level...really, an exceedingly small percentage of the biomass. This basic observation/position accepts whatever of the gazillion end-is-near graphs alarmist post up and accepts them readily. From this reference frame, any debate on the legitimacy of this or that graph is rather pointless...the debate itself is only self-serving to the people in the debate who don't have a more interesting hobby (or bogey man to worry about).

Regarding vapor, I mean to refer to the heat trapping. It's ignored in the discussion here but is otherwise entirely problematic. I try to avoid dialogs on this subject, but when I see one and the subject isn't prominent, it strongly suggests to me that an a$$ kicking contest for one-legged men is afoot, devoid of more intriguing aspects of the subject matter.

[Sand crab]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ts-ncna1032846


This is not the hottest July but the hottest month...ever!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

About 40% of the current 400+ ppm of CO2 to date has been added from human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels, but also removal of CO2-absorbing forests, etc.

Unless you can prove with equal or higher confidence that the increase came from other "natural" sources.

so what you are saying is that approximately 180ppm is from the burning of ancient rotten plant matter.

And the clearing of old forests is not detrimental to the carbon uptake we all know that the younger new growth torrents are up taking much higher levels of co2 than older more mature trees . I have posted the studies several times in the past but I can dig them up again if you really desire it.
The biggest human inducement of climate change happened thousands of years ago when humans started clearing lands for farming when they shifted from hunter gathers to farming .

Now lets see the exact numbers from you .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ts-ncna1032846


This is not the hottest July but the hottest month...ever!

bob I really doubt this one considering all of the low temperature records that are being set all over the planet.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

my specific question is how much of the actual June 2019 418 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere is provably from from burning of ancient plant matter?

Before we burned fossil fuel, the co2 levels were pretty stable, plants absorbed co2, decay generated co2 these annual amounts are much larger than human sources, but the key is the generation and consumption was balanced.

Man started to burn fossil fuels and that upset the balance. About 40% of the CO2 that humans cause goes into the atmosphere, most of the rest is into the ocean. The total amount of CO2 generated by humans can be calculated from the amount of oil, coal, concrete etc we use. The numbers match pretty well to the increased atmospheric concentration. Attached graph shows the last 10k years showing pretty consistent trend till 150 years ago.

Of Exiles long list of skeptics I doubt you will find many that dispute this part of the climate change issue because it is mostly just math of things that are measured.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Before we burned fossil fuel, the co2 levels were pretty stable, plants absorbed co2, decay generated co2 these annual amounts are much larger than human sources, but the key is the generation and consumption was balanced.

Man started to burn fossil fuels and that upset the balance. About 40% of the CO2 that humans cause goes into the atmosphere, most of the rest is into the ocean. The total amount of CO2 generated by humans can be calculated from the amount of oil, coal, concrete etc we use. The numbers match pretty well to the increased atmospheric concentration. Attached graph shows the last 10k years showing pretty consistent trend till 150 years ago.

Of Exiles long list of skeptics I doubt you will find many that dispute this part of the climate change issue because it is mostly just math of things that are measured.Attachment 196463

none of you can actually answer the question directly can you

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Now lets see the exact numbers from you.

Ok.



from over 1 million years ago to around 1900: < 300 ppm
now: > 400 ppm

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by newhaul

bob I really doubt this one considering all of the low temperature records that are being set all over the planet.

Here ya go. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201707


I'm gonna love that steak you buy me at the end of the year.
FWIW Newhaul and I know each other and actually went sailing for a day. We have a bet on something or other and the winner buys the loser a staek dinner.

I guess that will be from the last cow before genetically grown beef-in-a petri dish comes out next year.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok.



over 1 million years ago to around 1900: < 300 ppm
now: > 400 ppm

that reads more like 25% now how much of that additional co2 is from sources other than fossil fuels that register the same
How about volcanic activity . It does put out a heck of a lot of co2 with the same atomic signature of fossil fuels . Raikoke Volcano which erupted in the end of June discharged as much co2 in 4 days as Sweden does in a full year.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

Here ya go. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201707


I'm gonna love that steak you buy me at the end of the year.
FWIW Newhaul and I know each other and actually went sailing for a day. We have a bet on something or other and the winner buys the loser a staek dinner.

I guess that will be from the last cow before genetically grown beef-in-a petri dish comes out next year.

yep a steak dinner
Now that fa is meat is already out and Crap .
We will have to figure out where to go cheers is gone .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Before we burned fossil fuel, the co2 levels were pretty stable, plants absorbed co2, decay generated co2 these annual amounts are much larger than human sources, but the key is the generation and consumption was balanced.

Man started to burn fossil fuels and that upset the balance. About 40% of the CO2 that humans cause goes into the atmosphere, most of the rest is into the ocean. The total amount of CO2 generated by humans can be calculated from the amount of oil, coal, concrete etc we use. The numbers match pretty well to the increased atmospheric concentration. Attached graph shows the last 10k years showing pretty consistent trend till 150 years ago.

Of Exiles long list of skeptics I doubt you will find many that dispute this part of the climate change issue because it is mostly just math of things that are measured.Attachment 196463

Yes, this does seem to be one of the areas of CC where there's more consensus. Then again, I don't think it's quite as linear as you describe, mainly because the land & ocean "sinks" that absorb (and later release) CO2 aren't well understood.

I don't think the connection between added CO2 and some level of added warming is all that disputed either, but the issue of how much warming is occurring as a result is probably one of the core controversies. Even here amongst our strongest advocates, there seems to be controversy whether the added CO2 is responsible for all the warming or just a part of it. And if it's the latter how much? These aren't just quibbles for they go directly to what sorts of remedies/policies we may want to adopt in mitigation, and what the obvious downsides are that would necessarily accompany such imposed or induced reductions in fossil fuel consumption.

And to save some people some Google-time, we already know there is long-established, published/peer-reviewed evidence to support most theories from "we'd be in a cooling trend right now but for," to "we'd still be warming but not as much," to the Spencer/skeptic/minority position that the human CO2 is contributing to warming but it's not consequential (this one may not be peer-reviewed per prior discussions). I could be wrong, but I believe the official IPCC position states that the added CO2 is a "significant" cause of the warming but doesn't say that without it we'd be cooling. Ditto for NASA & NOAA as far as I recall. So another volley of scientific papers, charts & graphs probably won't help since mustering a return volley is likely only a quick Google search away. Happy to stand corrected on any of this.

[newhaul]

Here is something to consider
https://youtu.be/CUnlPiYUbAo