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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
It's the why they are spiking that is the debate
How, if the ratio between 14C and 12C is changing, can it be attributed to anything but the burning of fossil fuels?
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.
(BTW, did you check out the Funding sources for your first link? Kinda kills your argument a bit)
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics.
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.
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. The most notable routes for 14C production by thermal neutron irradiation of targets (e.g., in a nuclear reactor)
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) for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel, or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.