Are you sure about this? I thought that petroleum and coal were notoriously hard to carbon date.
Radiodate is a poor description. What we can do is analyze the isotopic mixture of atmospheric carbon dioxide and compare it to the same mixture in fossil fuels. As it turns out, fossil fuels are relatively rich in 13C compared to normal atmospheric pools. What we have seen over the last 100 years is a sharp increase in the relative amount of 13C in the atmosphere which is a clear indication that the increase is due to fossil fuels.
My point is that the co2 levels were rising consistently for the last 15k yrs or so without our help.
Yes, they were. But now they're rising a lot faster and to a far higher concentration than has been reached in the last half a million years, at least. The graph below is based on modern records and ice cores, from wikipedia
As we grow in population what effect do we have on carbon sequestration? I think of slash and burn agriculture practices in less developed countries, deforestation for lumber ect... add in pollution of the ocean and I wonder how much of an impact on the Earths natural carbon sink we have made.
I have looked into this a bit today, if anyone has any good info then please share. Stats???
Edited by fearandloathing, : spelling
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury
As we grow in population what effect do we have on carbon sequestration? I think of slash and burn agriculture practices in less developed countries, deforestation for lumber ect... add in pollution of the ocean and I wonder how much of an impact on the Earths natural carbon sink we have made.
I am most concerned with permafrost. These are major carbon sinks. They contain massive amounts of frozen plant and animal material that is just sitting there. When it thaws that organic material is attacked by soil bacteria which release the carbon into the atmosphere. With permafrost we are actually releasing thousands of years of stored carbon.
Part of the global warming scam has been fueled by folks like michael mann and his famous hockey stick. The following is a spoof of him and climate gate and how he hid the decline in temps over the last few years.
For those of you who can only conclude that carbon dioxide is the only possible reason for the increase in temperatures since 1950, consider increasing ocean heat and surface temperatures in particular as the culprit. I know what you are thinking. Trapped heat from carbon dioxide is what made the oceans warmer. Right? Wrong. Reflected long wave radiation only penetrates the surface of the ocean. High energy short wave radiation penetrates to great depths in the ocean. Try heating an indoor olympic sized swimming pool from 1 degree centigrade to 25 degree centigrade where the inside air temperature is maintained at 30 degrees centigrade. Record the time to reach that temperature. Now, let direct sunlight heat that swimming pool from 1 degree centigrade to 25 degrees centigrade in the arizona desert. Keep a record of the air temperature around the pool at all hours. Keep a record of the water temperature at all hours. Make a calculation of the average change in water temperature per hour. Calculate the average heat conduction between air and water per hour. With this data, you should be able to subtract the heat gained by the water in the outdoor pool due to conduction and long wave radiation from the total. The idea is to find out how much heat from each source was involved in heating the indoor and outdoor pool. The next step is to calculate how fast the temperature should have risen in the outdoor pool if you assume longwave radiation heats water just as quickly as shortwave radiation. Compare that figure to how fast the outdoor pool actually heated up. You will find the calculated value is much lower than the actual value.
Now, with that in mind, since shortwave radiation is much more effective in heating large bodies of water, it would be instructive see if there has been any difference in shortwave radiation that has penetrated the oceans over long periods of time. Changes in Cloud cover over tropical regions would achieve that affect. There are ways to cause that to happen too. An extended period of time of decreasing cloud cover over the tropics would heat the oceans to a significant degree. That is what happened since the end of the little ice age. This has given us more frequent and stonger el ninos since 1950 than there were before. Another another cause for the increase in air temperatures since 1950 is a weaker drop in air temperatures during la ninas since 1950. This is indeed caused by the greenhouse effect, but not carbon dioxide driven. It was driven by an increase in atmospheric water vapor without an concomitant increase in cloud cover. This lack of increase in cloud cover is the same we saw that caused the increase in ocean temperature due to more shortwave radiation penetration. This time the decreased cloud cover simply allowed the water vapor concentration to increase unchecked. The decrease in tropospheric cloud cover since the end of the little ice age was cause by an increase in sunspot activity since then. The little ice age was cause by three seperate low sunspot activity eras called minimas. One was the maunder minima. There has been vigorous sunspot activity since the little ice age and therefore there has been an increase in temperatures since then. The spike we have seen since 1950 is due to higher water vapor concentration caused by higher oceanic evaporation cause by higher sea surface temperatures that finally got here due to a time lag from the slow initial shortwave radiation increases that started at the end of the little ice age.
Foreveryoung, is there a reason, do you think, why you always put yourself on the wrong side of the evidence?
From global warming, to big physics. Why do you think you know better than all the experts in all fields of study?
Is it perhaps that you suspect a global scientific conspiracy in all of science?
Or maybe you're really annoyed that others have got all the best lines and you want to display your own prowess by disagreeing randomly and in a pseudo-scientific manner. Any ideas?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
It was driven by an increase in atmospheric water vapor without an concomitant increase in cloud cover. This lack of increase in cloud cover is the same we saw that caused the increase in ocean temperature due to more shortwave radiation penetration.
Yes there is an increase in water vapours and its the cause of man
High energy short wave radiation penetrates to great depths in the ocean.
correct why do you think that is because water does not absorb that energy very well
at 100 meter or 350 feet under water you can still see the light
So the sun is heating up a huge amount of water at a time with a value of X amount of energy. But energy emission trapped and re released twords the earth warm the surface of the water only a small % of a % of what the sun is warming with roughly X/100 energy value. What is going to heat up their portion of the water first?
As an example what will heat up first a pool of water 10X10X100 heated by the sun, or a pool of water 10x10x0.01 heated by 100 times less energy fare in the infra read spectre.
and yes water vapour in itself is a greenhouse gas, what people like you dont understand that global warming or climate change is more of a domino effect with our CO2 emission we just tipped the first domino, water vapour is another domino tipped by CO2, the 3d domino will be the tundra releasing a whole shit load of carbon that has been trapped for 1000ds of years .....
The only hope we have is that we pick up the first domino co2 and hope the other dominoes will pick themselves up too because we cant, but if we wait too long they wont be able to pick themselves up.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Now, with that in mind, since shortwave radiation is much more effective in heating large bodies of water, it would be instructive see if there has been any difference in shortwave radiation that has penetrated the oceans over long periods of time. Changes in Cloud cover over tropical regions would achieve that affect.
I don't follow this. Clouds are made of water just like oceans, so if shortwave radiation penetrates even ocean water to great depth, a few hundred feet of diffuse cloud cover isn't likely to have any effect on the amount of shortwave radiation reaching the surface. So whether it's cloudy or not would seem to have no effect on oceanic shortwave insolation.
Now, with that in mind, since shortwave radiation is much more effective in heating large bodies of water, it would be instructive see if there has been any difference in shortwave radiation that has penetrated the oceans over long periods of time. Changes in Cloud cover over tropical regions would achieve that affect.
Because of precipitation, the water vapor in the atmosphere is always at equilibrium. While it's true that the content of water vapor in the atmosphere is a large contributor to the heat retention of the atmosphere, water vapor can't have a forcing effect on heat retention because any "additional" water vapor in the air simply leaves as rain.
Gases like CO2, NO, and methane - greenhouse gases - aren't like that; there's no such thing as "CO2 rain." While the individual contribution of any of those gases may be very small compared to water vapor, those gases have a capacity to force climate change by an increase in atmospheric retained heat because it's very possible to disequilibriate the gas content of the atmosphere over a human time scale. And in doing so, the effect is magnified because a warmer atmosphere retains more water vapor.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is the result of heat retention, not the cause of it.
The decrease in tropospheric cloud cover since the end of the little ice age was cause by an increase in sunspot activity since then.
There's no relationship between climate change and sunspots, because there has been no significant change in any solar aspect since 1950 - with the exception that the Earth's total insolation has fallen. "Skeptics" such as yourself would have us believe that a cooling sun can cause global warming. Nonsensical.
As for the Maunder Minima:
quote:A more interesting question is whether our current understanding of how solar forcing works is sufficient to explain the clearest solar impacts in the record. During the most studied period, the Maunder Minimum (MM) in the late 17th Century, sunspots were very rarely seen and that corresponded to a particularly cool period in the Northern Hemisphere (particularly in Europe as is seen in the speleothem record as well — NB. cooler temperatures are associated with increased isotope ratios). In order to assess that, all other forcings that were operating at the same time need to be considered as well. The MM was also a time of enhanced volcanic activity, and the cooling from this was probably comparable with the cooling due to solar effects (an exact attribution is impossible given the uncertainties in both forcings) .Another important factor is that the records of cooling at the MM are predominantly continental and mainly located in North America and Eurasia. This is consistent with the eveidence for a weak NAO at this time in independent reconstructions.
because carbon dioxide's ability to absorb longwave radiation peters out logarithmically. There is an upper limit to how much carbon dioxide can absorb. when you go beyond that limit, there is no added greenhouse effect.
™ Version 4.2
