Global Warming Cont...

[Guisslapp]

randerizer, 2 additional facts for you.

(1) ten kilograms of C14 are produced each year in the atmosphere by the action of particle radiation, half of this will decay into nitrogen over a period of 5,370 years (the half life of C14).

(2) fossil fuel has zero C14.

BTW, C12 makes up 98.9% of all carbon. C13 is in 1.1%

Your point? I don't believe anyone is saying that no CO2 from fossil fuels end up in the atmosphere. If the combustion of fossil fuels is relatively new, you would expect to see a greater representative portion of these type of CO2 molecules than what you would have seen 50,000 years ago. So what? It is still a miniscule quantity and does not cause any measurable impact on the climate.

[randerizer]

randerizer, 2 additional facts for you.

(1) ten kilograms of C14 are produced each year in the atmosphere by the action of particle radiation, half of this will decay into nitrogen over a period of 5,370 years (the half life of C14).

(2) fossil fuel has zero C14.

BTW, C12 makes up 98.9% of all carbon. C13 is in 1.1%

And these numbers don't really improve your case. C14 exists as well as a NATURAL isotope, meaning it is in ALL sources of carbon. My point is that you cannot use C14 to "date" and "source" CO2 at the same time. You've got 2+ unknowns, and 1 independent variable.

[saltydawg]

Which means you agree that the planet has been going through natural temperature cycles for at least the last 400,000 years and that these temperature cycles are FOLLOWED by corresponding increases/decreases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

The largest increase in temperature in "recent history" (10 deg C) started approximately 15,000 years ago, well before man-made CO2 emissions.

Yes.

The last ice age ended 20,000 years ago and the natural global warming that occurred then reached its peak 11,000 years ago. Temperatures and atmospheric Co2 levels were declining for 3,000 years (11,000 BC to 8000 BC) when human civilization started the deforestation and agricultural practices that prevented further global cooling.

[saltydawg]

And these numbers don't really improve your case. C14 exists as well as a NATURAL isotope, meaning it is in ALL sources of carbon. My point is that you cannot use C14 to "date" and "source" CO2 at the same time. You've got 2+ unknowns, and 1 independent variable.

Wrong. C14 has a finite life-span.

[Guisslapp]

So, which one is it for you?

An opiate for the masses.

[Guisslapp]

Yes.

The last ice age ended 20,000 years ago and the natural global warming that occurred then reached its peak 11,000 years ago. Temperatures and atmospheric Co2 levels were declining for 3,000 years (11,000 BC to 8000 BC) when human civilization started the deforestation and agricultural practices that prevented further global cooling.

The Kool-aid tastes so good, so sweet. But then there is that sugar rush...

[randerizer]

Wrong. C14 has a finite life-span.

Correct - a finite life-span on the order of the entire carbon cycle. Still exists at some concentration in all sources of emitted CO2.

You can use it to "date," although this still is not quite a closed problem. You cannot, however, use it to distinguish ACO2 from volcanous CO2 from CO2 emitted from surface water evaporation from anything else.

As a separate issue, I fully understand that carbon-dating is a primary technique used to establish a date for ice core samples. However, the fundamental assumption in carbon-dating that I question is that once an ice sample is frozen, the mass transfer of carbon stops. In other words, you are locking the system in place, so the total molar quantity of CO2 stays the same, and only the ratio of the carbon isotopes changes. If you take CO2 from 60000 years ago, and mix it with a collection of CO2 from 50000, 40000, 30000, and 20000 years ago, and what date will it tell you? Your dates get skewed. This is likely to occur in ice samples, as the content of water in ice (and therefore the mass transfer properties) should theoretically INCREASE with pressure (and therefore depth), and this water will in general flow down due to density differences. Add to this the pressures caused in a drilling process. Hence, the accuracy of the dating is still in question.

Simultaneously, water can "wash" CO2 out of the "sample," which is why the magnitude of CO2 in each ice core sample is in serious question.

And I should add, Guisslap presented the evidence for the last case from Jawoworski several days ago. In light of that, the only real thing we can see from the ice core data is that CO2 cycles in a period of roughly 100k years. Your only refutations of these points have been that he's a "polish scientist" and that the "consensus" disagrees. Care to get back to the heart of the discussion?

[saltydawg]

The amount of water vapor that can be held in the air is a function of pressure and temperature. Henry's law affects how much CO2 goes into the ocean and Clausius-Clapeyron relation is the most pertinent law relating to phase transition of aqueous water to water vapor. I have spent more time working with these principles in undergrad than I care to remember. There are many other laws involved because the environment involves many different thermodynamic systems. The aforementioned principles focus on the ocean/atmosphere interface.

Neither of these principles refute the argument that water vapor could create a positive feedback loop without the assistance of CO2.

Tell me how water vapor can increase the atmospheric temperature since the air is saturated with water vapor it turns into liquid? It is well established that once water vapor reaches saturation point it no longer can increase its greenhouse effect.

Consequently, water vapor needs an external force to raise the atmospheric temperature such as solar or another greenhouse gas.

I'm sure you agree with the above.

[saltydawg]

Correct - a finite life-span on the order of the entire carbon cycle. Still exists at some concentration in all sources of emitted CO2.

You can use it to "date," although this still is not quite a closed problem. You cannot, however, use it to distinguish ACO2 from volcanous CO2 from CO2 emitted from surface water evaporation from anything else.

As a separate issue, I fully understand that carbon-dating is a primary technique used to establish a date for ice core samples. However, the fundamental assumption in carbon-dating that I question is that once an ice sample is frozen, the mass transfer of carbon stops. In other words, you are locking the system in place, so the total molar quantity of CO2 stays the same, and only the ratio of the carbon isotopes changes. If you take CO2 from 60000 years ago, and mix it with a collection of CO2 from 50000, 40000, 30000, and 20000 years ago, and what date will it tell you? Your dates get skewed. This is likely to occur in ice samples, as the content of water in ice (and therefore the mass transfer properties) should theoretically INCREASE with pressure (and therefore depth), and this water will in general flow down due to density differences. Add to this the pressures caused in a drilling process. Hence, the accuracy of the dating is still in question.

Simultaneously, water can "wash" CO2 out of the "sample," which is why the magnitude of CO2 in each ice core sample is in serious question.

And I should add, Guisslap presented the evidence for the last case from Jawoworski several days ago. In light of that, the only real thing we can see from the ice core data is that CO2 cycles in a period of roughly 100k years. Your only refutations of these points have been that he's a "polish scientist" and that the "consensus" disagrees. Care to get back to the heart of the discussion?

randerizer, this has nothing to do with carbon dating since carbon dating is only good for the last 50k years. It has to do with the ratios of the carbon isotopes in the ocean, atmosphere, ice cores, and tree rings.

For you and Guiss to dispute the scientific validity of the ice core readings you are going against the leading scientists in the world. it's just not credible. Point me in the direction of a peer-reviewed article that asserts that the ice core readings are wrong.

[saltydawg]

The Kool-aid tastes so good, so sweet. But then there is that sugar rush...

Keep sipping....

[saltydawg]

Your point? I don't believe anyone is saying that no CO2 from fossil fuels end up in the atmosphere. If the combustion of fossil fuels is relatively new, you would expect to see a greater representative portion of these type of CO2 molecules than what you would have seen 50,000 years ago. So what? It is still a miniscule quantity and does not cause any measurable impact on the climate.

Guiss, you are missing the whole point.. 7.5 gigatons is not a miniscule amount.:bigcry:

[randerizer]

randerizer, this has nothing to do with carbon dating since carbon dating is only good for the last 50k years. It has to do with the ratios of the carbon isotopes in the ocean, atmosphere, ice cores, and tree rings.

For you and Guiss to dispute the scientific validity of the ice core readings you are going against the leading scientists in the world. it's just not credible. Point me in the direction of a peer-reviewed article that asserts that the ice core readings are wrong.

Zbigniew Jaworowski (1994), Ancient atmosphere - the validity of ice records, Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 1(3): p. 161-171.

Jaworowski, Z.; Segalstad, T. V.; Ono, N. Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric carbon dioxide story? Science of the Total Environment (1992), 114 227-84. CODEN: STENDL ISSN:0048-9697. CAN 116:261505 AN 1992:261505 CAPLUS (peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier)

Should add - his background is in the transport of heavy metals and heavy metal ions in soil, ice, etc. He's published over 50 papers on these subjects in the past 15 years, as found with a quick SciFinder search. I just didn't feel like providing all of that.

[randerizer]

And if you want more evidence to show just how silly the assumption is that ice "traps" CO2, just look at CNN.com today:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...eut/index.html

So all of that water moving around under/through ice can't conceivably wash out CO2 that was previously confined?

Yeah right.

And I can almost guarantee that the issues that have been raised on this board will not be considered when looking at this new evidence. Ice core data are considered "signed, sealed, and delivered," and frankly, it's just not something that the global warming experts want to go back and question now.

[Guisslapp]

Tell me how water vapor can increase the atmospheric temperature since the air is saturated with water vapor it turns into liquid? It is well established that once water vapor reaches saturation point it no longer can increase its greenhouse effect.

Consequently, water vapor needs an external force to raise the atmospheric temperature such as solar or another greenhouse gas.

I'm sure you agree with the above.

That is the whole point of the greenhouse effect and is at the heart of the CGW - greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) trap heat from the sun which make the world hotter (without the greenhouse gases we could not live here). Thus water vapor increases temperature (via greenhouse effect) allowing for higher water vapor concentrations in the air (because the air is now hotter). It is a simple positive feedback loop. This seems so basic, what am I missing?

Post No. 100. Woo hoo!

[altadawg]

The data is in for this Jan. Warmest ever. Shocking, I know.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm