No, thank you Piezo, but may I ask , what are you doing? Are you going to be scientific about this or just want to run that confirmatory bias you said you have? You stated in words to the effect that C14 cannot be used to determine anthropic CO2 in the atmosphere. Then you are bowled over by those like Mockton et al who use a measurement of anthropic CO2's C14 diminishing in the atmosphere. You can't have it both ways. On the separate issue of your effusive willingness to run toward Mockten and Salby, that seems to suggest you tend toward AGW denial rather than constructive skepticism. They raise queries (some of them very unsound if not downright ridiculous) which then immediately begs more questions. For instance, the Bern Model brought up (not by you) as a red herring against the main issue of using C14 in the first place, establishes itself as being designed to cover the redistribution of carbon in time scales of decades, through to centuries for the full carbon cycle. Not just for short term periods of decay. I dare say there are adjustments and rethinks on many aspects to do with this so that more knowledge can be brought to it. Doubting the doubters gets to the science also, rather than curve fitting denial into things and trying to overturn the laws of physics that allow for the anthropic measurement of CO2, and facts like AGW.
The bern model a red herring? yet you use it now explicitly as I stated you had to be using it implicitly before. Yes you troll... its the foundation of AGW nutter models and predictions. Piezoe does not deny agw, he states that the science is not in. If the science did show that made made co2 is net warming our planet... you would produce the science right here right now and then you would be the most famous nobel prize winner in the world. its that simple you have no science showing the impact of man made co2 in our dynamic environment. just conjecture based on models which have not worked so far.
You have a good point. I overstated if I said or implied that C-14 could not be used to follow anthro C contribution to the atmosphere. If I did that, I was wrong, and I should have said instead that I have serious questions about the validity of that method. And that was before I read Pettersson. I was basing my opinion at that point on a scientifically informed guess on my part. Then when I read Pettersson (Mockton doesn't enter in here) I found his arguments pretty compelling. Here is the thing, Pettersson has said that the spike in C-14 from the bomb testing furnished the perfect opporunity to determine the turn-over rate of CO2 by following the disappearance of C-14 in the atmosphere. The Bomb testing just about doubled the C-14 content. One knows the radio decay rate and also the rate of disappearance of C14 from the atmosphere. The latter is much in excess of the decay, which is very small over fifty years since the half life is 5700 yrs. But I want to figure out how Pettersson determined that the disappearance is due to CO2 turn-over rather than dilution by anthro-CO2. It seems that the IPCC is assumming a long turnover time. Is that correct however? There must be another observation or assumption to be able to distinguish between dilution and rapid turnover. Maybe it's obvious to you, but it is not to me. I'm looking for that additional assumption or bit of information. I'll let you know if I find it. I'll admit to bias here, as a much shorter turn over than the IPCC has assumed seems intuitively correct to me, considering the uptake by plants and the rough estimates of the natural sinking and sourcing from, I think, mostly satellite data. The rates of natural sinking and sourcing, according to Salby, are close to two orders greater than the anthro-C contribution rate. And Salby is a first-rate atmosphere physicist. Anyone can make a mistake, but there is no question about his training and experience. It seems his personality has created difficulties for him, but he is definitely no armchair scientist.
Pettersson and Salby are both error prone and two of the least respected climate scientists in the world. So I wonder why piehole refers to them with such reverence. For a discussion on Pettersson's errors http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/co2-is-resident-of-atmosphere.html And it is truly flabbergasting that piehole would refer to Salby as a topnotch atmospheric scientist when in fact it's quite the opposite. For a discussion of Salby's stupity http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum It clear that piehole has ZERO interest in actually finding out the truth here and is just another ideologically warped denialist.
With respect piezo I think you are looking for an incorrect thing. I mentioned all this above, but just to recap. In general terms I take it then we are now agreed that basically because of C14, anthropic Co2 can be traced in the atmosphere. It is therefore understood how much anthropic CO2 gets artificially pumped up there. That's important because it is a precise measurement of how much extra CO2 is occurring than would otherwise naturally be. But I see your point . However, the long turnover time is correct. I mentioned above, the Bern Model defines residency time as it applies to all the reservoirs in the Carbon Cycle, not just residency time in only one of them, the atmosphere, which Patterson inaccurately does. Using the Bern Model that way is of course being used as a red-herring. The Bern Model defines CO2 time periods of anything from I think it is 20-50 years (in the atmosphere) to around 500 years (moving through the Carbon Cycle). Using atmosphere alone, Patterson's short residency time for CO2 is being applied to the bomb chart to say IPPC is wrong and there's no problem. That is either intentionally or mistakenly disingenuous. As far as the bomb residue goes, the non depleted bomb source of anthropic CO2 cycles through the Carbon Cycle getting diluted by more and more depleted anthropic CO2 being pumped up there. That's all part of the whole 500 year calculation. Of course you know CO2 of any description, when it leaves the atmosphere, doesn't just conveniently disappear. As I say, because the C14 element of CO2 can be so well measured it is seen how much more there is against naturally occurring CO2. The sum total is bottle-necking Carbon reservoirs with no small help from the enormous amounts being pumped into one of them. The atmosphere. As far as Salby goes well, if you are genuinely that impressed by people using faulty reasoning as validity like the Patterson nonsense for evidence against IPCC, the Bern Model and the Carbon Cycle, then all I can suggest is, at least futurecurrent's links provide some basic common sense as to why people like that are being absurd.