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

Incorrect, you cannot distinguish carbon with the ratio from what comes out of volcanoes
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

Methane forcing is about 20% of all GHG forcings. It has increased from about 700 to 1800 parts per billion in the last century or 4 times faster than CO2. Interestingly it decays into CO2 after ten years. So that means it has added CO2 to the atmosphere over the past century about 18000 parts per billion or 18 parts per million. This then accounts for over 20% of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (87ppm).
You can check the numbers above here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gas_emissions
If CO2 from degradation of methane was exactly as light in heavy carbon isotopes as carbon from coal and oil then it would account for 20% of the isotope “signature” i.e. the slightly declining heavy carbon isotopes over the past century as graphed in the OP.
But wait, I also provided links in previous comments establishing the fact that CH4 is twice as light in heavy carbon isotopes as fossil fuel carbon. So it has twice the diluting effect or about 40% of the so-called fossil fuel isotope signature.
This of course raises the question of how much methane is anthropogenic and/or what the heck is driving its rapid increase in the past century. If the increase is either anthropogenic and/or a natural source that can be reduced then, given its residence time in the atmosphere is only 10 years, it appears to be much lower hanging fruit if one’s interest is truly in reducing the ostensibly growing and eventually catastrophic greenhouse effect. If we could bring methane emissions back to pre-industrial level it would reduce anthropogenic global warming by more than ten percent in ten years. There is no way to get such a fast reduction in greenhouse warming by actions taken to reduce CO2 emissions.

Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Incorrect, you cannot distinguish carbon with the ratio from what comes out of volcanoes.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

Yes but is there any reason to believe that volcanic activity increased at the same time the industrial revolution began? If not then it’s a constant factor that can be ignored unlike, say, planetary albedo which is modeled as a constant but is actually known to be a significant variable with very poor understanding of what causes the variation.

Nick Stokes says:
quote
This is an excellent article, which sets out the facts systematically, and makes it easy to understand. Congratulations, Ferdinand.
unquote
Nick, forget the money from sweet Solitaire (I assume you are paid by that pert Poictesme* of an old man’s dreams, because I can imagine no other reason for your blindness) and look at the second graph above.
Ferdinand says that it’s obvious that the change began in 1850. Que? Look carefully. When does the ratio begin to change? Come on, look. Does it really only begin to go down in 1850? If you believe that you need a) an eye test and b) a brain transplant. This is science as delusion, when even a graph which refutes the hypothesis is offered as proof of it.
From the main post:
quote
What we can see, is that the d13C levels as well as in the atmosphere as in the upper oceans start to decrease from 1850 on, that is at the start of the industrial revolution.
unquote
Ferdinand, that is utter tosh. Look at the graph. When does the ratio of 13C/12C start to decrease? Look, please trust your eyes. No, there is no sudden change in 1850. It starts to go down in 1700 (ish). OK, the fall increases in 1850, but it doesn’t start then. Why, my dear chap, does it fall from 1700 to 1850? If you’d like an explanation I’ll do it tomorrow (a hard folkie night tonight with added whisky, but look up diatoms, and silica as a critical resource for these pretty members of the plankton population) and in the meantime please look at that graph and ask yourself how you have got to a state where you can choose 1850 as a significant date.
Interesting that you have made the same error here as you did with the CO2 mass balance — you are confusing an increase in production with a reduction in sink.
JF
*pronounced ‘pwah-temm’, an earthly paradise, an unattainable summit of earthly desire. Aka ‘a yummy mummy’. [waves]

I’m not saying that the ocean determines the partial pressure equilibrium point of atmospheric CO2 but it very well could and that must be falsified in some manner before we can know that any reduction in human emissions will actually reduce CO2 partial pressure. For all we know we could reduce anthropogenic emissions and the ocean, still seeking the same equilibrium point, would just replace the human emission with oceanic emission.

ATTN: Pamela Grey
The short answer is no. In a chemical reaction, molecules containing C-13 react slightly slower than molecules containing C-12. This is called the kinetic isotope effect and is temperature dependent. However, the difference in reaction rates depends on the formula weight of the molecules in some reaction. Carbon dioxide containing C-12 has a formula weight of 44 vs 45 for molecules containing C-13 which would react about 2% slower and have a slightly lower rate of diffusion into plant leaves for example.
BTW, the concentration of CO2 in a local sample of air is reported for purified dry air which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen and the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and CO2. Climates models are fatally flawed because (1) these use the wrong metric for CO2 and (2) there is no uniform distribution of the masses of various constituents of the atmosphere in space and time as shown by daily weather maps. High pressure cells have more mass than do low pressure cells. More importantly there is no uniform distribution of water as vapor and clouds

So explain it to me again. The ratio between lighter and heavier CO2 is getting smaller. And the overall CO2 amount in the air is increasing. So we are putting more of the lighter isotope CO2 into the air because of fossil fuel, animal life, and decaying vegetation emits this isotope thus decreasing the ratio of lighter to heavier CO2. If what we breath out has 4 times more CO2 than what we breath in, with an average -0.5 ratio in human breath, with population growth of 6 billion since the start of the industrial age, and growing exponentially, wouldn’t that affect the ratio as well? If you say plants are using it, fine, but we still keep pumping out more CO2 than we breath in. And we are doing it in exponentially greater amounts.
So who has the calculation? I’ve included a graph and reference to population growth. It has quite a hockey stick shape to it. Looks a lot like the growth in CO2. I wonder where the population explosion is taking place? In countries with a car in every driveway? Hardly.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/18/1387/0641
I am not stuck on this but I fail to see the closed system here regarding human breath if what we are talking about is the increasing measurement of CO2 in the air and asking where the CO2 increase is coming from. It has to be readily available and robust to downturns in fossil fuel burning.
It just seems to me that the population boom might match CO2 growth much better than standard of living growth for those countries involved in the explosion (which by definition includes having energy to make your new cars and gadgets go).

Dave Springer says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm
How can you argue that nature sucks up 98.5% of total emissions but only 50% of anthropogenic emissions? An increase in the natural source-rate/sink-rate ratio can just as easily explain the the rate of accumulation. The rate of accumulation has been relatively constant for around thirty years while the rate of anthropogenic emissions has been increasing. It would take only 1.5% change in the natural ratio to decrease the accumulation rate to zero or double it. A natural “dynamic equilbrium” is one of the bad assumptions made by climate modelers that leads to the 98.5% figure that we know varies seasonally by well more than 1.5%.

Sorry, Pamela, but I think you seriously mis-understand some of the science here.
Pamela Gray says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm
If what we breath out has 4 times more CO2 than what we breath in, with an average -0.5 ratio in human breath, with population growth of 6 billion since the start of the industrial age, and growing exponentially, wouldn’t that affect the ratio as well?

and
The ratio of 12 to 13 is -.5%.
reference http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7818/32/11/A08
The paper speaks of “respiratory tests and preparations enriched with the stable 13C isotope” so this is a situation where they are intentionally changing the C13 ratios to study what happens. And the “-0.5%” is actually “~0.5%: and that is the “accuracy of carbon isotope ratio measurements in CO2 of exhaled air performed with the TDL”. So after they intentionally enhance the C13 ratio, they can measure the ratio in the exhaled air to within 0.5%.

Anthony, I am getting tired. I have been reading these CO2 exegeses too many times. Not your fault. Post certainly gets lots of hits (apparently) and comments. And not my business, but I would greatly appreciate if some of the regulars who seem to have important and valid arguments could act as “peer reviewers” to a poster like Englebeen so that he could present his material and add his answers to the questions or points of other scientists. I feel like the wheels are spinning; too many of the same excellent comments over and over again, but little scientific rigor in getting them together. At the same time I greatly appreciate (almost) all comments and thank those who have the time and energy to continue to post. At this point I think I have “had it” with CO2. Let it continue to grow in the environment and maybe we might remain a little warmer and somewhat more prosperous (or less poor, lots of plants, not as much dependence on rainfall, more efficient energy resources, and maybe we can hold the next glaciation at bay for a longer time).

From wikipedia so take with a grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing
“The air we inhale is roughly 78% by volume nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.96% argon and 0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases. In addition to air, underwater divers often breathe oxygen-rich or helium-rich gas mixes. Oxygen and analgesic gases are sometimes given to patients under medical care. The atmosphere in space suits is pure oxygen. Also our reliance on this relatively small amount of oxygen can cause over activity or euphoria in pure or oxygen rich environments.
The permanent gases in gas we exhale are roughly 4% to 5% more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% less oxygen than was inhaled. Additionally vapors and trace gases are present: 5% water vapor, several parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, 1 part per million (ppm) of ammonia and less than 1 ppm of acetone, methanol, ethanol (unless ethanol has been ingested, in which case much higher concentrations would occur in the breath, cf. Breathalyzer) and other volatile organic compounds. The exact amount of exhaled oxygen and carbon dioxide varies according to the fitness, energy expenditure and diet of that particular person.”
This change in (there is an increase as well as a change in isotope ratio compared to the air we take in) CO2 is an immediate source of additional CO2, and especially when plants are dormant. You are trying to tell me that this additional and immediate source of CO2 cannot contribute ANYTHING to the measured increasing CO2 at our monitoring stations? Plants take it up immediately? Even in the winter? I still don’t get it. And to reiterate, I’m not talking about any other measurement than the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly amount of CO2 being measured in the atmosphere. I’m not talking about a model that says this is a closed, balanced system between eating veggies and exhaling.