Warming is Heating Up!

Just something to consider. Possibly OT. When Chris Columbus headed West to look for the North West passage did he have a dream one night, or was he following the path of old maps and stories about open water to Asia? Stories of open water at the North Pole have been around for almost ever indicating world wide heating and cooling cycles, without help from humans.

http://www.therebel.media/greenpeace_co_founder_patrick_moore_should_we_celebrate_carbon_dioxide_co_founder_patrick_moore_should_we_celebrate_carbon_dioxide

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/

Here are a couple of links that should be of interest. The Patrick Moore talk at the climate warming forum is long at 42 minutes but interesting and revealing. Patrick Moore is the founder of Greenpeace.
Add in the growing evidence of out-gassing of CO2 from the Oceans and then add in the solar activity evidence and you will recognize we do not have a chance in hell abating global warming. It is politicians and vested scientists vying for money from tax payers. Oh and lets not forget the funding requests from affected countries. I do not deny global warming but I do deny the affects of man and our ability to stop natural processes.

Sigh. Mankind's effect on the CO2 levels is not an extrapolated or predicted effect. It is a measured effect named after the chemist that measured it fifty years ago. The Seuss effect is the name.

There is a preferential uptake of carbon heavy carbon isotopes to dissolve in the oceans and there is the preferential evaporation of lighter carbon isotopes. The fact that the oceans will evaporate carbon 12 easier means we have more carbon 12 in the atmosphere than the heavier isotopes associated with biomass. It does not mean that fossil fuels are the culprit all the time but it does mean there is a problem with the assumptions made with so many models.

That said, I do believe humans are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and that likely will account for some of the modern increases in CO2 we measure. We should also realize there is a horizontal as well as a vertical variation in the distribution of dissolved carbon dioxide. One due to temperature and the other due to pressure. I am not an oceanographer but have attended lectures on the subject. Most of the heavier isotopes are sinking and will be found at higher concentrations at depth. As I stated I am not a denier but I am a full skeptic of the climate science presented by IPCC. I suggest that you Listen to all of Patrick Moore's speech to the forum on global warming. He will acknowledge some human input but not all. He also believes that ocean out gassing is a major contributor of CO2. Others are speaking out because the science is still flawed. The fact that one speaks out does not justify a patronizing sigh from anyone. Humans are a part of nature.

Isotope isolation by dissolving in the ocean.

You can't be serious!

There is an absolute differential distribution of CO2 isotopes. The largest volume of carbon 12 will be found at depth with a higher C-13 at the surface due to photosynthesises. So the bottom of the oceans will be dominated by carbon 12. These are then distributed by the ocean conveyor systems. But an uneven distribution.

Well if you're going to try and pretend to be serious, then you should include some citations. I tried to find a scholarly or any article on your Carbon isotope oceanic level stratification but could not find any reference. Then I remembered the burden should be yours to present and not mine to find a reference.

You are also off the mark in your isotope selection. The Seuss effect is about the long half life (8000 years) but unstable isotope C-14, not the stable isotopes of C-12 & C-13. You may remember that I cited the Suess effect with an earlier Wikipedia citation to avoid confusion and support my statement. I do like also the simple letter from 1979 in the journal, Nature.

CR4 is an engineering blog. We should be use to the idea that details matter.

My mistake. C-14 has a half life of 5730 years ± 40 years.

I feel no obligation or burden but here anyway:

One

Two

I would also point out that there is also an empirical sampling of both ocean CO2 and the air above the sampling point. Thousands of tests were done and support the horizontal distribution of CO2 out-gassing from the warmer oceans and less from the colder polar areas. I had a brief look but could not relocate that study. If I find it I will forward or post. Details matter but I think I am getting too old to care. However, I do not feel alone in that regard.

My objective was to provide support of other scientists who reject the notion of AGW and not a denier. Patrick Moore does acknowledge Human CO2 contribution but it seems less than the IPCC would like us all to believe. The global warming is not going to stop because we think we can stop it. The natural processes will continue and global warming will continue even if we shut down every exhaust of every vehicle and every other source. It seems to be more about money from both a sector of the science family and of course politicians who step up to the same trough. We can still regulate discharges and abate air contamination. That is simply my opinion and others have their own agenda. Most are not based on anything but media hype.

Both of these papers refer to stratification of the carbon in mud layers that settled at the bottom of the ocean during the Pleistocene era, not a stratification of isotopes in the ocean waters or the concentration of 14C found in the atmosphere that Seuss studied. The Pleistocene era is ten times longer than Homosapiensapiens have existed but does include a little of our existence. The Pleistocene era ended decades of millennia before anyone in recorded history drilled for oil.

This is a "red herring" or meaningless truth with no bearing on the point I was making that we have measured our effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Ironically your second citation propose what conditions will be like when CO2 levels rise and are not the refutation of AGW you claim they are.

"The wealth of published foraminiferal carbon isotope records from several Paleocene and Eocene ocean basins provides a unique opportunity to interpret the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle under conditions that could represent the future in a "greenhouse" world."

Laziness leads to ignorance.

You seem to think there is no vertical stratification of carbon isotopes but contrary to that there are many articles on the same distribution. I am sorry if I posted some red herring articles and I hope you were not too distracted. A lot of the Carbon 13 taken up by some microbes (SO4 reducers) will release CO2 enriched in carbon 12 not carbon 13. It is not my job to prove such enriched areas of the oceans can provide carbon 12 into the atmosphere. However, if the ocean carbon pump is awry, some things can happen. There is evidence of an increase in 13B isotope in the atmosphere. Can one explain all the CO2 increase on man with isotope hypothesis; I doubt it and there is a real history of inefficiency in the carbon pump.

My whole point is not to have a war but to be careful on how one interprets the ratios and then making the assumptions of man made CO2. The models do indicate we are influencing the atmosphere but we still fall short on explaining the totals. Does the boron isotope increase reflect fossil fuel burning or is it out gassing from the oceans. Evidence suggest oceans. You can search that one out.

Hawaii

"In the ocean, there is an inverse relationship between the vertical distribution of ΣCO2 and the stable carbon isotope ratio 13C/12C of ΣCO2 (δ13CΣCO2)."

I did look at a few scientific studies on the 12C and 13C vertical concentration levels in sediments. All the studies I found implied that this was somehow an indication in the activity of the biomass during these epochs. Unfortunately none of the studies I found spell out clearly which condition implied more or less biomass activity. In all cases that gave me a quantitative number on the concentration change the magnitude of the change was tiny, just a few PPM. The variation was so small that I wondered if this was within just a standard deviation of a normal sampling distribution or not.

However, all of the studies relied on the idea that the vertical layers were time marks. The isotopes were not redistributing themselves to make vertical layers. The vertical layers indicated the condition at that time.