Where Is the CO2 Coming From?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

CO2 comes from decomposing matter on the forest/jungle floor.

Yes. Some of it does. And, apart from deforestation, is part of a cycle which maintains atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, that which is depleted of 14C does not. It is because the ratio of 12C to 14C is decreasing that we know that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Which is the point.

a reply to: Phage

I though fossil fuels put out CO not CO2?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I though fossil fuels put out CO not CO2?

Yes, they do, some. But they produce plenty of CO2 as well. And that's the problem. CO is easier to deal with and it is not a "greenhouse gas" so much a CO2 is.
www.e-education.psu.edu...

a reply to: Phage

Interesting.

What puts out more diesel fuel or unleaded Gasoline?

I know that diesel fuel destroys the OZONE above the places where it is used.

Does Ethanol cause it to put out more of less CO2?

I also have seen graphs that show higher CO2 when the earth was cooler than it is now and they said it was caused by the lessening of the solar winds and the increase of Cosmic rays upon the planet. Unless I misunderstood what the article was saying.

a reply to: Phage

also why is CO not a green house Gas and why do you say it is easier to deal with?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What puts out more diesel fuel or unleaded Gasoline?

Not much difference.

I know that diesel fuel destroys the OZONE above there places where it is used.

Time to reconsider what you "know."

Does Ethanol cause it to put out more of less CO2?

Not much difference. But the carbon put out by ethanol came out of the atmosphere, not deep under the ground.

Unless I misunderstood what the article was saying.

Sounds like you did.

a reply to: Phage

Its not charcol they put back into the ground its biochar it come from the farmed terra petra soils of the amazon and its origins go back a few thousand years.
Tests have been done in the uk and im sure other places too in which it is shown to help with types of plant growth. It does things to nutrient avaiablity in soils and would guess make very good homes for microbes which are useful to the soil.
If farmers adopted biochar farming it would end the co2 crisis.Put us back to preindustrial levels pretty quick. No need for fancy technology or carbon taxes..

Not really sure of the causes of GW myself but i tend to think its best to be careful when the stakes are so high. Why is it such a problem to keep out air clean.

I like C02. It helps my garden grow. If C02 continues to increase , gardens and plant growth will increase throughout the world. Crop harvests will increase

a reply to: visitedbythem

In some places maybe. In other places, not so much. It depends more upon rainfall distributions than CO2 levels.
Maybe you'll be lucky. Maybe not.

Thanks for your reply Bro. Illl check the rainfall out . There is supposed to be an El Nino forming now

a reply to: visitedbythem
Actually, it's formed.
www.climate.gov...
But that doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels.

DO we know what the C14 levels were before the nuclear testing? Is it possible that the Nukes had artificially inflated the levels of C14 and what we are measuring now is the dilution from CO2?

a reply to: Phage

Hey, Phage. Great topic.
Just checked the posts on this thread and noticed that nobody mentions animal agriculture as a culprit in rising CO2 levels.
The machine age brought about incredibly rapid development in technologies for production (especially to manufacture and transportation), yet as world population grew just as quickly, so did livestock agriculture and its byproducts.
I'm sure you've by now heard of Cowspiracy and I'm curious as to your opinion on their info?
Specifically these points:
- "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation."
- "Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions."
- "Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions."
Source Link

A&E

Pretty cool read, i have not read the whole thing, but book marked it, i will get back to the rest when i can...

Thanks.

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

Animal emission of CO2 matters only to the degree that the carbon in question came from fossilized sources, not biological sources.

If it was biological, i.e. food, which surely most of it is, then the growing of that food brought CO2 in from the atmosphere. It's a net neutral situation---just as it was for thousands of years of human agriculture until the industrial revolution permitted mining and burning of fossil carbon.

Plants grow---animals eat them---animals fart and poop and get eaten. Animal poop makes plants grow. The ecological carbon cycle.

originally posted by: Alchemst7
DO we know what the C14 levels were before the nuclear testing?

Yes, we have wood from times prior to nuclear testing.

Is it possible that the Nukes had artificially inflated the levels of C14 and what we are measuring now is the dilution from CO2?

That signal would be quite noticeable in the data and is surely already considered. You're not the first person to think of nuclear testing in nuclear paleogeology---it's been known and part of the field for decades.

Good read i really like it....

originally posted by: Alchemst7
Is it possible that the Nukes had artificially inflated the levels of C14 and what we are measuring now is the dilution from CO2?

Yeah, pretty much. Nuclear testing in the 50's and 60's doubled the concentration of14C02 in the atmosphere above its natural equilibrium level and started to decline after the 1963 nuclear test-ban treaty. The observations show that the nuclear 14C02 has been removed with a half-life of around 10-14 years and today there's only a few percent left.

The fact that 14CO2 is decreasing is not proof that humans are driving the CO2 increase. The 14C02 observations show that there is more anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and this mainly because of two things i) The atmospheric CO2 mass is increasing which increases residence time and ii) Our emissions are increasing.

Those two things together increase the total amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere, but human CO2 is still removed rapidly. The C12/C13 observations show a permil value of around -8.3 which means there is only about 6% of human CO2 (including any biogenic CO2) in the atmosphere today. The stuff is being absorbed fast.

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL
a reply to: Phage

Hey, Phage. Great topic.
Just checked the posts on this thread and noticed that nobody mentions animal agriculture as a culprit in rising CO2 levels.
The machine age brought about incredibly rapid development in technologies for production (especially to manufacture and transportation), yet as world population grew just as quickly, so did livestock agriculture and its byproducts.
I'm sure you've by now heard of Cowspiracy and I'm curious as to your opinion on their info?
Specifically these points:
- "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation."
- "Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions."
- "Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions."
Source Link

A&E

I would get numbers only from refereed peer-reviewed sources which are accepted by the community.

The professionals certainly look at agricultural impact and that impact hits aspects other than CO2, but other gases and change in albedo as well.

Remember to distinguish fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions from all gas emissions. Without fossil fuel emissions, there is a natural carbon cycle which would result in yearly fluctuations, but not a secular increase.

Plants grow, taking CO2 out of atmosphere, cows eat them, cows fart CO2 and poop decaying material which emits CO2, people eat cows and do the same. Does that contribute to global warming? No. The carbon which goes out came in from the atmosphere. So there are "emissions" but they don't count for long term global warming because these are in equilibrium and have been in rough equilibrium from biological processes for millenia. When the huge herds buffalo roamed the plains, they ate and pooped and emitted CO2. No impact on global warming.

What does contribute? Fossil fuel burning for transportation and processing and production of inorganic fertilizers. Taking out carbon which has been buried for many millions of years and not participated in any physical or biological cycle---far earlier than the Ice Ages and the evolution of advanced mammals, much less people.

It's impossible that agricultural use is 50% of fossil greenhouse emissions. Just see how much diesel farmers and transporters use vs the entire economy as a whole. Same with natural gas.

originally posted by: Phage
What does this tell us (besides putting water in whiskey is bad)?

Not putting water in whisky is sacrilege. Yes, you should always taste it neat first but actually the water aids the taste and 'opens up' the flavours. People who drink single malts without water are Neanderthals.

For the record, it's spelt WHISKY too......unless you're drinking some Irish pish.