"The Basics: <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C and Fossil Fuels Tracer for Emissions "Carbon-14 (or <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C) is also known as radiocarbon, because it is the only carbon isotope that is radioactive. It is perhaps most famous for its use in radiocarbon dating of archeological artifacts ranging from mummies to cave drawings, and it plays a crucial role in studying fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions as well. "Fossil fuels are, well, fossils, and are millions of years old. Because of this, all of the radiocarbon initially present has decayed away, leaving no <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C in this ancient organic matter. All other atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from young sourcesânamely land-use changes (for example, cutting down a forest in order to create a farm) and exchange with the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. This makes <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C an ideal tracer of carbon dioxide coming from the combustion of fossil fuels. Scientists can use <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C measurements to determine the age of carbon dioxide collected in air samples, and from this can calculate what proportion of the carbon dioxide in the sample comes from fossil fuels. "To learn more about <sup>[size=-2]14[/size]</sup>C radioactivity and its half-life, visit Radioactive Decay. " http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c14tracer.html
Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) â° (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. (IPCC AR4)
atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. but hold the presses, piehole thinks it's normal.
Isotope analysis is perhaps the most promising method we have at present to get a rough estimate of how much of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man. But simply knowing that doesn't take us very far. The problems with using C-14 should be similar to those associated with using C13 as a marker. But C-13 should be better because there is a lot more of it, it's a stable isotope. But now we know that C-13 as a marker for anthro CO2 isn't as reliable as we had thought because there are natural, lower C-13 content sources of CO2 other than just fossil fuels. I would guess that that must be the case for C-14 also. When you subtract two nearly equal numbers you lose the most significant figures, so the number of significant figures left in your result can actually be zero if you don't have enough significant figures in the minuend and subtrahend. And of course when you subtract a small uncertain subtrahend from a large uncertain minuend you can't see any effect of the subtrahend at all. These problems with insufficient numbers of significant figures are going to be major headaches for climate researchers, because the errors in all their numbers are significant and the magnitudes of the numbers very greatly. This is why you should be very cautious of anyone who comes out and says this business of anthro CO2's affect on the climate is a settled issue. We are just barely scratching the surface of a very difficult problem at this point. No one is questioning that we are dumping an awful lot of CO2 into our atmosphere, nor whether CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. We also know we have been in a warming period that corresponds fairly well with modern industrialization. But only a fool would take the leap from there all the way to concluding that anthro CO2 is causing the Earth to heat up. It could be of course, but it may not be. We don't know. CO2's effect can not be considered without also taking into account the other important greenhouse gas, water, and how these two gases work together to regulate the Earth's temperature. And furthermore one also has to take into account changes in thermal energy input. There are many climate models attempting to take all of these factors into account. They all fit past data somewhat well, but none have yet been shown to be reliable going forward. And some even fit past data that is known to be faulty.
First of all C13 is an entirely separate issue. You are confusing two different things in every way. C13 and C14 are completely distinct in this matter. C14 is a uniquely ideal isotope for identifying atmospheric CO2 for reasons already shown. So why exactly are you suggesting subtracting values of C13 from C14? Taking values of chalk away from cheese is a very strange, not to say weird, form of argument.. It is also nothing to do with the topic you raised when essentially stating human emissions in the atmosphere could not be identified and measured well enough to be sure it was due to anthropic emission. That is plain wrong, for it can and is measured at least by C14 quite precisely. Isotope analysis produces highly accurate and precise results that correspond to the most basic and fundamental laws of physics. Suggesting the analysis can produce only rough estimates is frankly absurd. There is no C14 in CO2 produced from fossil fuel. So to put it technically, burning shit loads of it causes the atmosphere to be diluted of C14 concentrations which otherwise occurs naturally. The only way the current levels of dilution can be accounted for is from burned fossil fuel. Nothing else explains it. The only source of burned fossil fuel which can and in fact does account for the dilution, is anthropic CO2. There is nothing else.
Yes we DO know. To a 95% confidence. To call virtually the entire world's science community fools is simply insane. To say 97% of the world's climatologists wrong is breathtakingly absurd. YOU are the fool. That is quite evident. What is your major malfunction? There is no way you are this stupid. Are you a professional denier propagandist? I'm calling you a lying piece of shit asshole. What do you think about that?
interesting you wish to hammer on c-14. I think you need to understand that c-14 nuclear bomb test data pretty much proves the model the IPCC uses to scare us about co2 is incorrect. Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results. Guest essay by Gösta Pettersson The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has shown a steady long-term increase since 1958. Proponents of the antropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis have attributed the increasing carbon dioxide level to human activities such as combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes. Opponents of the AGW hypothesis have argued that this would require that the turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 100 years, which is inconsistent with a multitude of experimental studies indicating that the turnover time is of the order of 10 years. read more: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/...or-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
Continuously visiting a denial website to copy denial text to paste in ignorant denial of every topic, is no more than the unintelligent work of someone in a mindless denial of the facts. Radioactive carbon isotope C14 is measured with very high precision. The measured decline of C14 in the atmosphere was particularly observed to be strong after nuclear testing was halted. As they don't contain C14, the cause for such levels of dilution can only be explained by the anthropic burning of vast amounts of fossil fuels, thinning out normally naturally occurring concentrations in the atmosphere. There is nothing else, no other source, no other reason like nuclear tests, or volcanoes, or anything else to explain it. Carbon-14 analysis enables these things to be known and understood to very high degrees of accuracy and therefore it is somewhat absurd to perversely deny how much CO2 greenhouse gas humans are responsible for dumping in the atmosphere. That denial is more to do with politics, not science and fact.
The funny thing is that jerm actually does believe in AGW. Basically he is arguing the devil's advocate position to support his crazed ant-govt ideological ideology.