It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Now explain the reduction of 14C levels.
Yeah "Should be going" as in rising or declining. Seems you understood exactly what I mean so there should be no issue.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22
"Should be going?" That doesn't mean much but since solar irradiance (the primary driver of climate) has been stable (or slightly declining) global temperatures should be be stable (or slightly declining). With that in mind, in lieu of other observed radiative forcing factors than CO2 levels, it is appropriate that temperatures are rising.
That's nice. The data is readily available.
If you can answer those questions with data and sound reasoning, then I'll listen to what you have to say.
IMO the global warming initiative is a diversion from something else. Just to let you know where I stand.
So "we have a window"? Is this the new mantra? Global warming, then climate change and someone else just told me of a new one, climate disruption. Seems that's what Phage was suggesting in his response to me. "The climate should be warming but something is disrupting it. Must be man made." Maybe the chemtrails are working.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: tkwasny
The reason for the argument is that we have a window, well a now closing window to decrease the impact of our ignorance... yes, prepare but let's lessen the thing we're preparing for.
an article about fiddled numbers which over the years has been widely reported.
It is so bad now that anyone who denies climate change (changes all the time with warming and cooling treads if anyone looks at the history but seems to want to be ignored this time around) is considered right along with some terrorist outfit
I just read both sides of an argument
originally posted by: CranialSponge
Except that the isotopic C13/C12 ratio can change, not just by the decrease of C13, but also by the increase of C12. And since there is no way to know which is the predominent factor, there is no way to know how much is human caused and how much is nature caused.
And why is there no way to determine which is the predominent factor ?
Because inter-annual natural variability of C13/C12 is exactly the same as the trends are.
Therefore, we have no bloody clue how much of the signature is human and how much is nature.
It's nothing but speculation at best.
Just this week, data was released saying that the largest effusive volcanic eruption since 1783, the Holuhraun lava field in Iceland, emitted 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide — that sounds like a lot until you realize its only ~1% of the total emissions of the US passenger car fleet.
There is really no way around it. Since the dawn of the industrial age, humans have taken carbon locked in organic material and released it into the atmosphere. That burning added huge volumes of carbon dioxide (in 2014, 44 billion tonnes) that all has highly negative carbon isotopic composition. Carbon dioxide goes up, the carbon isotopic composition goes down, all recoded in the ice at the poles.
Are you sure about that? Looks to me like satellite data indicates that it has gone up about 0.4º since 2000. That seems like a significant "budge." A "budge" that would result in an increase of more than 2º by the end of the century, if it continues at that rate.
Satellite information says that for the last 16 years, the earth's mean temperature has not budged
All continental states cold last winter? Are you sure? Yes, part of North America was cold. So were a couple of other places. So what?
North America's shocking winters, all continental states COLD last winter, "Oh there just blips" really? 3 years in a row?
Are you sure about that?
Both poles with above 'average' sea ice? year on year?
Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006.
Air temperatures reached record high levels at two Antarctic stations last week, setting a new mark for the warmest conditions ever measured anywhere on the continent. On March 23, at Argentina’s base Marambio, a temperature of 17.4° Celsius (63.3° Fahrenheit) was reached, surpassing a previous record set in 1961 at a nearby base, Esperanza. The old record was 17.1° Celsius (62.8° Fahrenheit). However, Esperanza quickly reclaimed the record a few hours later on March 24, reaching a temperature of 17.5° Celsius (63.5° Fahrenheit).
I'm not quite sure what your asking...
Any evidence for that? But I thought you said that the increase in CO2 was due to plants. How does volcanic activity account for the change in 12C/13C?
More volcanic activity ?
Any evidence for that?
Less cosmic rays ?
Wouldn't that increase the amount of 14C?
Neverending wars and uranium enriched weapons blasting everyone to Timbuktu ?
We know. It is because fossil fuels (plant material) are depleted of 14C because they are millions of years old. When fossil fuels are burned they do not release 14C because they do not contain 14C. When modern plants decay they release 14C because they contain 14C. When modern plants decay they do not change the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere because they are release the same 14C they absorbed from the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned they decrease the ratio of 14C to 13C because they are releasing mostly 12C, no 14C. This has been known since before warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) became an issue.