Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)

RW,
“And that is precisely what we see in the map. The colour scale ranges from about 365 to 385ppm – a global variation of no more than 3% either side of the mean. This is of no consequence to any climate argument.”
No consequence? Let’s look at the increase in radiative forcing that would occur by going from 365 to 385 ppm. Using the IPCC as source, dF = 5.85Ln (C1/C0).
Calculating the respective dF for 385 and 365 ppm and deriving the ratio, we get
Ln(385/280) / Ln(365/280)
= (Ln385- Ln365) / (Ln365 – Ln280)
=0.318/0.264
=1.2
In other words, that teensy weensy 3% translates to a forcing increase of 20% more as we go from 365 to 385ppm. It sometimes pays to do some basic checking before shooting from the hip.

RW says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:29 am
[….]And that is precisely what we see in the map. The colour scale ranges from about 365 to 385ppm – a global variation of no more than 3% either side of the mean. This is of no consequence to any climate argument.

The IPCC and other Alarmists claim anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion is responsible for about 4 to 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year of which only 1.5 gigatons remains unsequestered by the environment that sequesters the other 110 gigatons of natural carbon dioxide emissions. So, if you believe that a 3% variance in the global carbon dioxide concentrations is too insignificant to take notice, why should you believe an approximate 1.5% to 3% increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, according to the IPCC bookkeeping, is supposeed to be Alarming?

From the paper referenced by Engelbeen above: “But in contrast with what happens during photosynthesis, in the process of calcite precipitation into shells of marine organisms there is no isotopic discrimination with respect to the ratio 13C/12C of marine waters.”
Yes, photosynthesis does discriminate 13C and 12C, which is the basis for this thread. But just as marine animal shell production does no isotopic discrimination, I found no reference to animal (or human-only) isotopic discrimination in oxidative metabolic processes. I would be interested in seeing such a discussion.

This reaction is exothermic:
CO2+GWR=BS

Congrats Ferdinand.
I’ve enjoyed every one of your patient logical explanations.
I’m still waiting for someone to offer any evidence that burning fossil fuels will cause
a net decrease in C02.

F.E.
Thank you for your comment inducing Part 3. You obviously spent a significant amount of time on it. You do know how to stimulate discussion.
I have no position on whether man has caused the industrial age increase in atmospheric CO2. This is because I am waiting for sufficient or even partial significant evidence of it.
I do not see any significant evidence in your Part 3 with respect to whether man has caused the industrial age increase in atmospheric CO2.
You said in the final paragraph of Part 3,

This doesn’t directly prove that all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is from fossil fuel burning, but as both the oceans and vegetation are not the cause, and even show a net uptake, and other sources are much slower and/or smaller (rock weathering, volcanic outgassing,…), there is only one fast possible source: fossil fuel burning.

Another thing it does not prove (directly or indirectly) is that industrial era atmospheric CO2 conc net increases must be caused (in whole or in part) by our fossil fuel CO2 emissions; in spite of no one denying that man put increased amounts of CO2 yearly into the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions during the whole industrial age. In other words, as Paul Birch more simply said in a comment to your Part 1 on August 5, 2010 at 12:06 pm ;

“We simply do not know how much CO2 there would have been in the atmosphere at this time in the absence of anthropogenic emission. CO2 levels might have risen at the same rate, or stayed constant, or even gone down. They might even have risen faster!”

I sincerely hope there will be a Part 4 where you provide evidence showing proof that the industrial era CO2 atmospheric conc increase has been caused by man’s undeniable increases in yearly CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
I also note that your part Part 1 & Part 2 contained similar issues as this Part 3. For reference those posts were:

Part 1 – Why you think the CO2 increase is man-made based on interpretation of Ice Core CO2 Proxies
Part 2 – Why the CO2 increase is man-made based on simplistic CO2 atmospheric mass balance equation

F.E., in closure, thank you again, these past posts are interesting but I think most of us would rather like to see evidence showing proof of how CO2 increases in the atmosphere cause warming or other effects. We are looking forward to that.
John

“”” Fred H. Haynie says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:51 am
George E. Smith said on Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)
September 16, 2010 at 9:22 am
There will be some fractionation each time CO2 is emitted from or absorbed by water because of the 45/44 molecular weights ratio. This fractionation process can explain the seasonal cycle just as well or better than seasonal growth cycle of plants. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf “””
Well I suppose it is reasonable for those processes to vary with molecular weight.
So just what are the water/atmosphere ratios (equilibrium) for the following species:-
16O12C16O, 16O13C16O, 16O12C18O,16O13C18O, 18O12C18O, 18O13C18O Just the values at some nominal normal Temperature would be useful; but graphs versus Temperature would be more helpful.
Also what are the take up ratios for each of those species in the growing plants .
I’m sure they are all different; but are they all properly accounted for in the models. And given that the CO2 abundance can vary by 3% over the globe; how to they collect that data for each of the weather measuring stations so they can correlate their Temperature anomalies with their local CO2 abundance to get a global summary.
That was the point of my observation that atmospheric CO2 is not well mixed. Too bad there isn’t a similar color map showing the global amount of seasonal variation in the atmospheric CO2. It may be 6 ppm p-p for ML, but it is 18 ppm p-p for pretty much all of the arctic oceanic region. and at the south pole it is more like -1 ppm p-p; being out of phase with the northern cyclic variations.
That data suggests a lot of rapid transfer between the oceans and the atmosphere, since in the Arctic, that 18 ppm drop happens in just 5 months; so that is hardly time for any deep ocean biologic processes to affect what is most likely a simple segregation coefficient at the water/air interface..
And if the13C/12C take up at the ocean surface is a drmatic as RW suggests, isn’t that interchange causing its own shift in the atmospheric CO2 isotopic ratios.

PeterB in Indianapolis says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:02 am
….Your conclusion assumes that there are no other chemical reactions going on than the one you listed, and that O2 is the “limiting reagent” for the equation you listed. Let me assure you that there are BIG reactions going on all of the time which counterbalance the reaction that you showed, and as such, it is HIGHLY unlikely that O2 is the limiting reagent.
Something truly bizzare would have to happen for the world to run out of Oxygen any time in the next few billion years.
__________________________________________________
Some bizzare thing like idiotic humans managing to sequester CO2 and dropping the atmospheric level below 180PPM – ALL plants would then die.
What I found truly amazing was this plant/CO2 study:
Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source
Think about it a plant can drop the CO2 in its vicinity by 50ppm in minutes!
Another key piece of evidence that we’re living on a planet with CO2 levels currently at the very bottom of the normal range is the whole new group of plants that evolved several million years ago to cope withthe low levels of CO2. They developed a new method of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthesise in higher temperatures at greatly reduced CO2 levels.
An even better adaption called CAM evolved in plants like cacti.
At 200 pm CO2 trees starve http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067
(Since I last looked this reference has been removed from the internet. It does not correlate well with the Ice core data.)
However stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do so the analysis is still valid.
http://www.bio.uu.nl/~palaeo/people/Rike/index.html
Actual Paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf
The whole “official” CO2 historic measurement is called into question by this paper. It looks at the dogma and politics behind the 70 years of CO2 measurement as well as the science. It is a very interesting read. http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
More Info:
Plant Stomata react more accurately to CO2 concentration, as has been determined in experiments. (More CO2 means fewer stomata, as plants exchange CO2 more efficiently) Historical collections of leaves can be used to determine past CO2 levels. In most cases, researchers are bound by the modern paradigm, and get confused by the low stomata counts of the past. Stomata cannot measure very high CO2, but only indicate high C)2. Higher CO2 levels over 325ppm are underestimated. When reading stomata research, you need to filter out the ruling paradigm when the problematical ice-core data is used to calibrate the stomata, when it should be the reverse.
Rapid atmospheric changes are well known from past reconstructions:
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/pdf/pq1902012011.pdf
& http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Late_Holocene_CO2_3000-4300_BP_Jessen_etal_2005.pdf
Changes of close to 100ppm in a century are quite common.

Steven mosher says to Smokey on:
September 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm
1. GHGs warm the planet AND the data show unexplained variability
when you can demonstrate that the above is false or that either side implies the negation of the other side, then you have something.

—————————-
Steven Mosher,
I think your statement is not quite right. It appears to be that you are claiming that GHGs (all of them) combined with all other known and unknown processes involved in the earth system warm the planet. I do not think this has ever been demonstrated scientifically. By themselves in a simplified (non-realistic) scenarios without the total earth system processes included there have been discussions about possibility of GHGs warming the planet, maybe that is what you are thinking . . . . but they are just discussions. Your claim is often assumed / postulated /implied / believed . . . . . all those yes but demonstrated scientifically . . . no. If you can show it scientifically or cite papers that show it then please do so for everyone’s benefit. Then we will provide falsifications. Until then there is nothing for us to falsify.
By just looking at the climate data (temps) there is nothing in it that proves GHGs warm the planet. It needs a theory to be developed and be stated as a hypothesis and be tested against the climate data.
As for natural variability, prior to man’s hypothesized influence , the climate sure did vary widely. The data shows that. No need for a theory and hypothesis to see that climate varied significantly before man’s influence . . . just look at the data. It had to be natural, no man influence. A hypothesis is only needed if you wish to understand why it varied and what natural variability consists of by mechanisms.
John

Steven mosher says:
September 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I’m still waiting for someone to offer any evidence that burning fossil fuels will cause
a net decrease in C02.

Why would anyone in their right mind WANT to “cause a net decrease in CO2″?

Man contributes 3.27% of the CO2, Nature 96.73%. What’s the problem?