Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

Michael, your graph (from NASA) is good evidence that industrialized (coal burning) man has created a serious and growing problem, but by itself, is not likely to make Earth uninhabitable everywhere for mammals, like man. Certainly not for the tiny ones like mice, which have much higher surface to volume ratios for dumping their metabolic heat.

This "By-product" of the rapid increase in rate of CO2 release is probably much more serious in the long run
As currently each gram of CH4 released does more damage (global warming / radiative forcing) than 100 grams of CO2 during the decade after a puff of CH4 is released.

CH4 in the air is mainly destroyed by the OH radical which is produced at essentially a constant rate by the harsh solar UV at high altitude. The CH4 and OH mutually destroy each other with H2O and CO2 as the main final reaction products. The release rate of CH4 for 800,000 +? years was significantly smaller than the rate UV could generate the destroying OH- radical, but now that has reversed - CH4 is rapidly lower the OH- concentration and its own concentration is rapidly climbing, as seen in the right edge of the long period graph below.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This reduction in the concentration of destroying OH- radical is permitting the half-life of CH4 in the air to increases, currently by about 0.3 years annually {from measured data I have posted earlier}. It will not be "decades" before CH4 half life is increasing annually by 0.4 years each year. Then in the first decade after a puff of CH4 is released it will do more radiative forcing than 150 times its mass of CO2, and will always do at least as much as as CO2 does, as it becomes CO2 as it is destroyed; Plus the destruction also makes water vapor, up high - a terrible green house gas where there is very little due to sub freezing temperatures.

There is an awful lot of "methane ice" that continued global warming can release. Probably more carbon in that stored CH4 than in all they coal ever mined, or could be economically mined (IE with EROEI >1) It is stored in the relatively shallow Arctic Ocean and on land as frozen tundra. A small part of the gulf stream, is now entering the Arctic Ocean and flowing along the shallow bottom, north coast of Siberia. Kilometer diameter columns of CH4 are "bubbling up" now, and their number will only grow with time. Arctic tundra is decomposing as it warms, releasing ever more CH4 annually. What may be even worse is the organic matter in the tundra is being biologically converted to both CO2 and CH4, but unfortunately the fraction converted into CH4 in a moist environment dominates the CO2.

The future for large mammals, like man, which need to perspire to cool, looks bleak if no drastic changes are made. Humans need to dump about 100W to the environment. They can not do that when the "wet bulb" temperature is 35C (96F). Thermal over heat deaths will obviously be a large (in the millions) first in the tropics and may never occur in the polar regions. There the food supply is largely dependent up there being larger than algae life in the sea, but that may not exist due to the CO2 acidifying the oceans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Math and science disagree with you - even if www.AlGoreSucks.com claims that it's all a big lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, "they" weren't.

And you are in the wrong thread: Your supposed example, which is silly anyway, has nothing to do with the data establishing the concentration and source of the CO2 in the air. That's just basic physics, a fairly straightforward measurement of the concentration and isotope composition of some physical stuff in the air which has been done regularly for decades now. Nothing about climate is involved in this measurement - that all comes much later.

The isotope analysis of the carbon and other constituent elements in the air has implications for a lot of people doing a lot of different things:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-7-2015-12-42-32

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If so then how accurate is the c14 within 50 years to make proyection

 

What are you talking about?

 

Well according to what was pointed out , As more fossil fuel will be burned more stable carbon is produced , since the amount of carbon 14 is relatively limited the ratio of C14/C12 will be changed so the accuracy will change also , example the XC14/XC12 let say is 20 years but as the ratio XC14/YC12 might be 50 0r what ever.

 

Accuracy of what? Carbon dating? Estimations of rates of neural regeneration?

 

Friend I asked for accuracy and your reply was question to my question , that I will take you don't have an answer.

 

In less complex terms:
99% of earth's carbon is the 12C isotope and 1% is the 13C isotope, but plants take up the common 12C more than they incorporate the 13C. Thus if you release more carbon from plants (coal once was a plant) into the air than was naturally done prior to man burning coal (or to some extent decrease the net biomass as larger forests fires now are doing, etc.), you lower the 13C isotope fraction even lower than ~ 1%. - not by much, but easily measured.

In fact tree rings have recorded this change for scientist to track for more than 10,000 years. There was no significant trend / changes in the tree ring 13C to 12C ratio, until ~ 1850 when man's burning of coal became significant and as expected, with relatively more than normal 12C being released by man, the 13C to 12C ratios measure in tree ring (and other ways like ratio in bubbles, long trapped in ice cores, calcium carbonate sea shells, etc.) ALL began to decline about 1850.

SUMMARY: Several very different types of measurements ALL tell the same story - Man burning fossil fuel caused the both the isotope ratio to change AND the total atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase dramatically (double) from their pre-1850 values.

ONLY ignorant people can claim other wise, against many different but fully agreeing observations. Time to face the facts and ACT.

BTW, an update of the post 20 graph of CO2 concentration shows it is more than 400ppm often now, but I can't find one that will post here.

 

You are confusing radiocarbon DATING with radiocarbon RATIO calculations. One is to determine how old something is; the other is to determine the percentage of a source of carbon. Asking if the ratio is within 50 years is like asking if you are six feet old.

 

Is Billvon correct in what you are asking about?

 

iceaura

This notion of Human cause of global warming and also the " climate change " because of the CO2 IS NON-SENSE.

End of this story.

 

That attitude will be the end of the story for a great deal of life on earth!

No one claims GW is man-made, the sientists claim that man contributes in no small part to the speed and severity of climate change, RESULTING from his contribution to GW.

And that makes BIG-SENSE !!!

Wake up and open your eyes! It has already started!!

 

20 years, 50 years, a 100 years..., to complete imbalance of the ecosphere and the onset of Major Global Disruptions? What are you quibbling about?

 

Yes. He almost always is.*
Iceaura gave a link** in his post 23 concerned ONLY with 14C radio isotopic dating, commonly called: Carbon dating."
Timojin, seems to think it has something to do with the Global Warming and asked how accurate it is, but 14C dating is of no more of interest to the question of how the CO2 concentration in the air has changed that the price of beef's changes are.

It is the declining 13C / 12C ratio that tells how the CO2 has been increasing as more carbon, that was once in plants (coal was once a plant) is released. Plants "prefer" or contain more of the common (99%) 12C than the 13C isotope, which is 1% of earth's carbon. So when they (or coal) are burned there is very slight, but measurable, reduction in the 13C fraction in the air. To make this clear with an invented example:

Assume that before man started large scale release of carbon from plants and coal, the 13C percent was 1.00,000% but as 12C is being preferentially released the 13C percent has fallen to: 0.99,997%. This is one way to know how much coal and reduction of bio-mass has occurred between the times of these two measurements. A some what more accurate measure than simply adding up the tons of coal burned and estimating how much of large forests have been burned.

Knowing when the 13C concentration was present, has nothing to do with "Carbon Dating." We have well known dates, accurate to a year for the last 10,000 years at least, in tree rings. IE, one can take material from a tree ring that grew in 7,467 BC and measure the 13C/12C ratio of that material. We find it is slightly higher ratio than in a tree ring grown in 1,999. In fact we find the 13C/12C ratio of ALL tree rings before about 1850 is essentially the same higher than current values. IE beginning in about 1850, man started to burn significant amounts of coal in which the 13C/12C ratio was much less than 1% - IE mainly 12C was being released.

There are several other things that allow us to know the ancient concentration of CO2 also - up to about 800,000 BP via bubbles trapped in ice and also the 13C/12C ratio of the carbon found in ancient shells. - It all is telling the same undeniable (except by ignorant idiots) story: That man has enriched the CO2 content of the air by about a factor of 2 (From ~200 to 400ppm now) and continues to increase the CO2 concentrations.

* My occasional arguments with Billvon are rarely, if ever, about the facts. He tends to assume that mankind will "muddle thru" / survive / as he always has and thru prior conditions that are more destructive than are likely to occur in the foreseeable future. He may be correct, but I am concerned by the unprecedented RATE of CO2 release and the many positive feed backs it drives (at least 24 now known). This is thus far from linear problem and thus extrapolation or projections from prior conditions can be drastically wrong. I think the real long-term threat to human existence, is the increasing CH4 release as its half life in the air is also growing (by 0.3 years annually now but soon by 0.4 years annually, etc.) as well as the annual release. On a time scale of interest to those now living, CH4 does much more global warming than same mass of CO2.

I don't think "global warming" by itself can make the polar regions too hot to sustain humans, but am concerned that the bulk of the food in that area comes from the sea which is being "acidified" by the CO2 it is absorbing. Perhaps only tiny algae will be able to adapt fast enough to live in the increasingly acidified water? It is a risk, (extinction) man should not be taking, mainly for current economic gains.

** BTW, the link's argument that a 50 year old shirt can not be distinguished from an ancient one, is nonsense. The Shroud of Turin has been "Carbon Dated" quite well - less than 100 year uncertainty, as I recall.

 

Even if it provided a balanced diet, I think collection by simple means gives a negative EROEI. Baleen whales seem to get positive EROEI but I don't think man can. Also I think most of their positive EROEI is due to the krill they collect, not algae.

I doubt krill can adapt to the changing pH, much more rapidly than tuna etc. can.

 

We need about 5 or 7 so called essential amino acid , the rest our body produces them , I believe algae produces fat and carbohydrates. and we don't know if algae produces the essential , if it does so you can change your position.

 

Sir for your information : check out the amino acids composition of different algae. Look into the green bocks as an example.

https://www.google.com/search?q=alg...0CEEQsARqFQoTCODb79mR1scCFZQRkgodKosAqg&dpr=1

 

As I noted in post 37, no need of any position change even if algae supplies all amino acids needed if the EROEI < 0.