Where Is the CO2 Coming From?

Here is a graph of three data sources; marine samples of 14C from the Canary Islands, atmospheric samples of 14C from Heidelberg, and CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels in Heidelberg. I have added a line which represents the natural decay rate of 14C. In the twenty years shown in the graph, that decay rate would result in a decrease of 14C of about 0.2% (from 340 to 339.5). There are several things of note which can be seen with a comparison of these data.


1) In 1978 there were still relatively high levels of 14C in the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1960s.

2) A long term decline in atmospheric CO2 in Heidelberg corresponds with a long term decline found in marine samples.

3) The long term decline in both atmospheric and marine 14C far exceeds that of the decay rate.

4) Seasonal spikes in CO2 production correspond with seasonal declines in 14C.

5) While there is little long term trend in the production of CO2 in Heidelberg, the long term declining trend in 14C is readily apparent.


What does this comparison say?
From #2 we can see that the amount of 14C in the atmosphere and in the ocean has been declining since the peak in the 1960s.

From #3 we can see that the reduction of 14C has nothing to do with the natural decay rate of 14C.

From #4 we can see that at a localized level there a clear relationship between 14C levels and the combustion of fossil fuels.

From #5 we can see that, apart from localized effects, there has been a long term decrease in both atmospheric and marine 14C levels.

What overall point do these observations make? We know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. This data demonstrates that because fossil fuels contain virtually no 14C (due to millions of years of radioactive decay), the combustion of those fuels leads to a dilution of the 14C/12C ratio found in the atmosphere. It's like putting water in whiskey. Put water (containing no whiskey) in a glass of whiskey and the ratio of whiskey to water goes down.

What does this tell us (besides putting water in whiskey is bad)? It tells us that the primary cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. Pretty simple, actually.


archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de...

Learning here... when was 14C discovered... just trying to get a base point for diving into your query...

a reply to: Phage

I agree though I can think of another possibility as well c 14 is created by the suns interactions with our atmosphere. We assume that rate to not change to much but if the earths magnetic field were to increase you would see your decline as well.Basically less new c 14 is created while decay continues. Havnt checked but seems plausible to me.

PS anyone that adds water to whiskey deserves at minimum jail time lol.

a reply to: JacKatMtn
I can't tell you that offhand but I can tell you that the study of 14C levels in the atmosphere has been of interest since before AGW became an issue. Because it is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating.

a reply to: dragonridr

We assume that rate to not change to much but if the earths magnetic field were to increase you would see your decline as well.

No. Because the rate of decay is much lower than the rate of change observed in 14C.

But guess what? The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has been declining.

a reply to: Phage

thanks...

Is this proven or theoretical? still learning here...

a reply to: JacKatMtn
More specific, please?

a reply to: Phage

What does this tell us (besides putting water in whiskey is bad)? It tells us that the primary cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. Pretty simple, actually.

^^ I thought you pretty much explained the theory/proof yourself in your OP...

Did I miss something?

a reply to: Phage

Help me out here? In the 80's a volcano went off in Iceland I think. It supposedly emitted so much gasses.. that it eroded the Ozone. It was said to be the reason for the big hole in the Ozone. And I would assume the process continues with the eruptions of all volcanos..

Second if I had to guess.. ( not scientifically good at this at all ) is methane..

Thanks in advance.. felt I needed to jump in so I can watch this thread easier!

My device does not do downloads like the source provided .. but I'm sure I will find it elsewhere..

a reply to: JacKatMtn
The data is data, it is neither theory nor proof.
I suppose you could say the interpretation of the data is theory. Feel free to provide an alternate.

a reply to: Bigburgh
Destruction of ozone is a separate issue from CO2. But there also are "fingerprints" on the CO2 which is produced by volcanoes. Those fingerprints are different from those we see in the atmosphere. The increasing CO2 in the atmosphere comes from plant material. Modern plant material contains 14C, old plant material (fossil fuels) does not.

a reply to: Phage

Or I could say it's much ado about nothing and move on......

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Yup. You can stick your head in the sand. Just as many do.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks. I found resources online. I will read. I did read that right? 14c the radio carbon?

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Did I miss something?

Ya, trying to have a Layman's coversation with him is the same as asking a Hooker to show some emotion...ain't gonna happen.

We've had a lot of forest fires the last three or four years. They should contain the 14c. The one in Canada in the east was pretty darn big. Also they have been doing burning in the rainforest and the exposed decayed matter is oozing this out.

a reply to: Phage


The primary problem with getting anyone to really care is because nothing reasonable will be done about it.

Solutions for carbon sequester have been provided by many brilliant people but nothing will be done except the implementation of a "Carbon Credit Scam".

This "carbon trading", which is nothing more than a wall street trading scam, will enrich the "right" people at the cost of the citizens paying more for energy for no damned reason other than a transferring of any remainder of wealth from the common people to the "Establishment".


Alarmist have also falsified data and none of the fear porn computer models and predictions came to pass in an attempt to "panic pass" carbon credit legislation.

Now, I and many others are all for "common sense" solutions but a "Get Rich Scheme" for the elite is not a solution and we will fight it tooth and nail.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Yes. Carbon 14. A carbon isotope which is radioactive.

a reply to: rickymouse
Yup. But both are vastly overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

a reply to: infolurker

Solutions for carbon sequester have been provided by many brilliant people but nothing will be done except the implementation of a "Carbon Credit Scam" which is nothing more than a wall street trading scam which will enrich the "right" people at the cost of the people paying more for energy for no damned reason other than a transfer of wealth from the common people to the "Establishment".

Carbon sequestration is also expensive but using the claim that someone wants to make money off of reduction of emissions is a strawman argument. People have always attempted to make money from bad situations. Money can be a good motivator. But, for the record, I don't think carbon credits would be very effective. There isn't much impetus for them, in the US anyway.

Alarmist have also falsified data and none of the fear porn computer models and predictions came to pass.

Can you be more specific about falsified data? What predictions are you referring to? Worst case scenarios?

Now, I and many others are all for "common sense" solutions but a "Get Rich Scheme" for the elite is not a solution and we will fight it tooth and nail.

Even if it works? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.