Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname

It's the why they are spiking that is the debate

Ok.
How, if the ratio between 14C and 12C is changing, can it be attributed to anything but the burning of fossil fuels?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

 

(BTW, did you check out the Funding sources for your first link? Kinda kills your argument a bit)

Yeah. They started out as AGW skeptics (funding from Koch, actually), and were surprised to find that the skeptics claims about the adjustments were bogus. Koch stopped funding them after that.

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics.

berkeleyearth.org...

That is a good point and one of the things that has been discussed extensively between scientists. An alternative theory to the burning of 'fossil fuels' is as follows:

NSU Old Study

In addition to the changes in the 12C, 13C and 14C content of the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. changes due to other effects have also been found. These include: (1) the marked 14C/12C ratio increase since about 1954 due to nuclear bombs; (2) natural fluctuations in the 14Cj12C ratio over the past 8000 years. the causes for wh,ich there is not yet complete agreement - Damon et a1 (1978) have called this tl;le "deVries effectrr ; and (3) decrease of the 13Cj12c ratio in the atmosphere commencing be- fore the beginning of the fossil fuel burning (as marked by the Suess effect)which Stuiver (1978) ascribes to increased human burning of trees.
Actually the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 over is about half of that expected from the known amount of fossil fuel burning
(Keeling and Bacastow, 1977). The other half then must be stored in the land (and pcssib1y oceanic) biosphere as organic matter and in the ocean as inorganic carbon.
The evidence for the involvement of the ocean 1s most strikingly seen in the increase in the 14C/12C ratio in the surface waters of the oceans due to the addition of nuclear bomb produced 14C since about 1954.

I know, this is old material however, the following is not:

Carbon-14 can also be produced by other neutron reactions, including in particular 13C(n,gamma)14C and 17O(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons, and 15N(n,d)14C and 16O(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons.[16] The most notable routes for 14C production by thermal neutron irradiation of targets (e.g., in a nuclear reactor)

...and...

The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.

One side-effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options (e.g. bomb-pulse dating[21]) for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel,[22][23] or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.[24]

Wiki

So I guess my premise is this, (while completely stating that I am not pro-burning hydrocarbons with abandon) isn't it possible that our foray into nuclear power and weapons usage, a potential cause of some or even much of the 14C? Especially considering that if our planet was devoid of human life, the burning of forests and hydrocarbons would still take place naturally.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: notmyrealname

No it is not. When we burn fossil fuels, we release CO2, this accounts for the excess CO2 we are observing.

It is a pretty simple and obvious connection.

Wow Jrod,

Don't go getting all scientific on me, n'stuff....

originally posted by: Drocms
I love how everyone who denies climate change is just like yeah it couldn't be us! Nope, not the species that alters the landscape across the entire globe. Not us, we can't do it even though we dump insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it clearly can't have any effect. Nature will take care of it. Yeeeaaah. I'm sorry some of you need to be more objective in your research and first I recommend learning what science actually is about. Isn't it kind of embarrassing to be this ill informed?

Science is not making a statement and telling others to prove it for you. Science is making a theory and asking others to dis-prove it.

Your scientific methodology is faulty.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: FamCore

Is that hemp harvested for commercial use, if so it doesn't help much.

You would need hemp that is planted and die, to trap the Co2 in the dirt, or else it would just be released back in the air.

Your claim defies science; Carbon dioxide is converted into sugars in a process called carbon fixation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Getting a bit tired so the only thing I'm going to say is that i am on the side of climate change, no doubt about that.
I believe mankind will more likely getting devastated by an asteroid impact than a rise in co2.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: notmyrealname

No it is not. When we burn fossil fuels, we release CO2, this accounts for the excess CO2 we are observing.

It is a pretty simple and obvious connection.

excess, what excess? What is the norm? Is there a norm?

a reply to: notmyrealname

No it doesn't.

SOURCE

During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere. As you may know, plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 (from the air) and water (from the soil) into sugars. This is called photosynthesis.Plants use some of these sugars as food to stay alive, and some of them to build new stems and leaves so they can grow. When plants burn their sugars for food, CO2 is produced as a waste product, just like the CO2 that we exhale is a waste product from the food we burn for energy.

a reply to: cuckooold

What a load of crap. The Oceans cause climate change. If we stopped producing Coal Power and stopped all the Oil Refineries...guess what...climate change would still be happening. Just because some "Scientist" says so doesn't make it so. The planet will never stop changing no matter what we do.

a reply to: notmyrealname

So I guess my premise is this, (while completely stating that I am not pro-burning hydrocarbons with abandon) isn't it possible that our foray into nuclear power and weapons usage, a potential cause of some or even much of the 14C? Especially considering that if our planet was devoid of human life, the burning of forests and hydrocarbons would still take place naturally.

You do not seem to understand. The issue is not an increase in 14C. The issue is a decrease in the ratio between 14C and 12C. That decrease is occurring at a rate much greater than can be accounted for by the decay rate of 14C. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are rising. The 14C component of that concentration is declining. Atmospheric 14C is being diluted by the burning of fossil fuels which contain no appreciable levels of 14C. Please read the more in depth explanation I provided in the thread I linked.

Burning forests are carbon neutral for the most part. Fires and biological decomposition return carbon to the atmosphere which was relatively recently taken from the atmosphere, the carbon cycle. Burning fossil fuels adds billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere. Carbon which was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago.

Without the extraction by humans of coal and oil, how would the burning hydrocarbons take place naturally on anything near the scale at which it is being done by humans? By the billions of tons annually?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Getting a bit tired so the only thing I'm going to say is that i am on the side of climate change, no doubt about that.
I believe mankind will more likely getting devastated by an asteroid impact than a rise in co2.

Forget about the chances for a second. You and I both know that dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't good for humans nor the rest of the lifeforms on this planet. You and I may not agree on the severity of this, but if we both acknowledge the risk then we should acknowledge that there should be something done about it.

originally posted by: BLee8127
a reply to: cuckooold

What a load of crap. The Oceans cause climate change. If we stopped producing Coal Power and stopped all the Oil Refineries...guess what...climate change would still be happening. Just because some "Scientist" says so doesn't make it so. The planet will never stop changing no matter what we do.

Man made climate change happens in ADDITION to natural climate change. Thus no one is saying that without us burning coal and dumping carbon into the atmosphere climate won't change. We are saying that we are altering the natural processes away from what they are supposed to be doing at this point (which is actually making the world cooler not hotter). I wish you deniers would attempt to understand this point so we can stop correcting this lazy strawman.

a reply to: Mianeye

if you make hempcrete blocks they have a negative carbon footprint - buildings account for 38% of CO2 emissions in the US - that sounds like a help to me inhabitat.com...

a reply to: Mianeye

Oh please, now you say that plants are also polluting out atmosphere?

NASA satellites tell us there has been no global warming for the last 19 years, well, that's what my daily inbox news feeds tell me, I bet I'm reading the wrong news feeds.
Anyway, until I start sweating while eating my breakfast, I'll stick with global cooling, as that what it seems to me over the last four years, what with snow in Israel, Egypt, Namibia desert, ( glad I have an atlas, could not remember the name of it, cannot google something you cannot remember the name of) New Zealand, Christchurch I think it was, snow for the first time in 75 years.
Yes I know all freaks of nature, just like rain storms and lightening strikes...

With science were in the age of experts. You either believe them or oyu don’t sort of like the experts in a jury trial where the jury aren’t experts but have to believe one of the two

Hopefully the experts on this are wrong or for according to many of them we have a bad future ahead of us.

Climate change deniers are ruling the US of America through the US congress

a reply to: notmyrealname

It's called natural emission.

The whole thing was about using hemp as carbon sinks.

a reply to: pikestaff

They haven't said that at all... And just because there is snow in places doesn't mean there isnt warming, the changing climate is part of it all.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Harte

No, that's simply not "true," as is easily confirmed online.

Over a period of 5.000 year, yes, 80% of the worlds forest have been cut down or destroyed, the left over is 10% old growth( untouched forest) and 10 % regrowth.
SOURCE

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. Brazil and Indonesia, which contain the world’s two largest surviving regions of rain forest, are being stripped at an alarming rate by logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and cattle-grazing.

80-of-earths-forests-have-been -destroyed-who-is-clear-cutting-the-most

I come from a country that once was covered with forest from coast to coast, now the biggest forest we have takes less than an hour to traverse.

Do you not find it odd that NatGeo's source (WRI) doesn't have that info on their webpage?

And your other source makes the claim from WRI as well, without linking to it.
The PDF they linked has nothing to do with this, but does show the extent of forest loss due to insects.

Note that neither of your sources attribute this presumed loss to humans chopping trees down, and the WRI is talking about "intact" forests (neither of your links make the claim about "old growth" vs. "new growth.")

Forests that once were intact ecosystems are no longer intact ecosystems, though there are plenty of large parts of them left.

I'd like to see the scientific methodology that was applied to calculate the forest cover of North America 5,000 years ago. Sadly, neither of your sources (one of which is a rabid environmentalist group) supply this, nor do they link to it.

The claim that "humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest" is utterly and completely baseless. Like I said.

Harte

There are some things that ought not be denied, nor matter how unpalatable they are, it is simple crass stupidity to do so. The argument (or debate if you wish) on whether or not man's fossil fuel burning activities are causal to climate change is pretty much an unverified proof where the public are concerned (if not causal, they are certainly contributive), but one thing the public can very much perceive without requiring a scientist to verify it for them is that the world's moderately stable climates are undergoing climate swings from one extreme to the other. Each of us have noticed how our local climates have been throwing brief surprise weather patterns and shifts, we have all, by now, experienced them, and to such an extent that we notice them and think of them as 'odd'.

One-off occurrences of these shifts in our local weather patterns can be seen simply as 'one-offs' and not given too much thought, but when they repeat year on year with a little more intensity, inwardly we all begin to take notice and intuitively understand that the climate is undergoing some kind of change.

Some might think it merely semantics, but rather than declare that climate change is ongoing and leading to the catastrophes the alarmists are warning about, I would say that what we are currently seeing (perhaps as precursors) are climate swings, that is to say, climate swings across the globe at local level and not happening all at the same time. We are currently experiencing disruption to what were moderately stable weather systems that ticked by year-on-year like a clockwork mechanism, with only rare swings into the extreme. Now the extreme is becoming repeatedly familiar. Now, around the globe, local climates are careering around like drugged up drunken revellers, bumbling around from one side of the road to the other.

CO2 is not being pumped into the atmosphere simply by our fossil fuel burning, we are also breathing it into the atmosphere, as are billions of other lifeforms, including aerobic bacteria. Remember how the oxygen spread around the globe? Tiny organisms emitted oxygen as a waste product and over time, oxygenated the planet. Of course, earth has a number of forms of carbon sinks, oceans and seas, and flora and fauna, and trees, but our activities over the last 300 years has decimated the capacity of these natural carbon sinks to take in CO2 without a feedback reaction occurring.

Many of these sinks have passed saturation point and that is when CO2 becomes both a trigger for a number of feedback reactions, and a pollutant, and this is the stage we are in now. To have 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere tells you that the earth's natural carbon sinks cannot take in any more CO2, as do the acidification of the oceans and seas, we are simply adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and it is going nowhere else, because it cannot go anywhere else. We have overcome the planet-size scale of self-regulation and made the earth's immune system deficient. We have literally intoxicated the planet like a virus with our waste.

It's irrelevant whether or not you accept this. You can keep denying it until the seas rise up to the bottom lip of your mouth, but by then, the only thing you'll do at that point is to pray and wish such misfortune on someone else, and don't worry, it probably will already have affected at least 3 to 4 billion by then, so you'll be in good company.

As the earth reacts to greater amounts of CO2 and other gases (methane clathrate meltings) pouring into the atmosphere, we are going to be in for an uncomfortable ride over the next 100 years or so, and our populations will be decimated, mostly through conflict as countries seek to maintain their grip on their resources, particularly fresh water.

This is sad and proves that more must be done to stop pollution and deforestation. Chemical and nuclear waste dumping needs to be monitored more and enforced by huge penalties. The fact that most of the forests have been cut down doesn't look better either as thanks to that more CO2 will pollute in the air instead of being converted to oxygen.