- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,544
- Reaction score
- 22,186
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Their is no way raising co2 levels would lower temp. I would be very skeptical of any data set that claims they do.I never really thought much about the debate of how much man made CO2 remains in the atmosphere, but I just had an epiphany... Something I never heard mentioned before.
I don't think anyone disagree that carbon 13 level percentages have decreased in atmospheric CO2 If we use Böhm et. al 2002, the levels have changed from about 0.495% to 0.38% (extrapolated) during the assessment timeframe of the AR4. However, 278 ppm in 1750 means 1,376 ppb was CO2 with 13C and it rose to 1,440 in 2005. Since we have a net increase in CO2, we do with 13C as well. Since forcing is on a log curve, and if we assess the RE (radiative efficiency) separately, we get 0.00303 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000151 for CO2 with 12C for the 1750 levels and 0.0029 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000111 for CO2 with 12C for the 2005 levels. What this amounts to, if we take the stated 1.66 W/m^2 warming is that 0.21 W/m^2 of it was from CO2 with 13C and 1.45 W/m^2 from CO2 with 12C, or if the 1.66 W/m^2 is calculated for just the CO2 with 12C, then we can add another 0.24 W/m^2 for 13C increases.
Now what this means, can be important. I haven't looked at other studies, only this one for the values. However, if the values are wrong, and 13C is diminishing less than previously thought, and if the 1.66 W/m^2 is based only on CO2 with 12C, the individual forcing of CO2 made with 13C could possible cool the atmosphere more than the increasing 12C warms it. For example, since the RE of 13C is 200 times greater than the RE of 12C, if the atmospherics percentages of 13C actually dropped from about 0.5%, in half, to about 0.25%, then all the increased CO2 would provide a net cooling of about 0.2 W/m^2. This is because 13C would actually drop to 948 ppb, and it's radiative efficiency is so much higher.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 13C percentages have halved, or close, but this is food for thought.
What do you guys think, or do you have different 13C values in mind?
Look into what radiative efficiency is first. It's not the 12C increasing that causes a possible cooling if the change in isotopic ratios are enough, but the lowering of the 13C in the atmosphere. Each isotopic molecular mix has its own forcing value. They should be individually plotted on a log curve. An equal change in CO2 molecules with 13C has 200 times the forcing change as CO2 with 12C. Therefore, if we were to increase CO2 by 1 ppb, and at the same time, decrease CO2 with 13C by 1 ppb, the net effect is cooling. The drop in 13C would have to be maintained as CO2 levels increase for this to be a net cooling by CO2. My point is, this is possible if 13C levels are dropped by enough.Their is no way raising co2 levels would lower temp. I would be very skeptical of any data set that claims they do.
Furthermore adding co2 to the atmosphere is ill-advised not only because of heating, but also because of ocean acidification.
I know what radiative efficiency is. I'm just bad at math lol (not that bad tho...)Look into what radiative efficiency is first. It's not the 12C increasing that causes a possible cooling if the change in isotopic ratios are enough, but the lowering of the 13C in the atmosphere. Each isotopic molecular mix has its own forcing value. They should be individually plotted on a log curve. An equal change in CO2 molecules with 13C has 200 times the forcing change as CO2 with 12C. Therefore, if we were to increase CO2 by 1 ppb, and at the same time, decrease CO2 with 13C by 1 ppb, the net effect is cooling. The drop in 13C would have to be maintained as CO2 levels increase for this to be a net cooling by CO2. My point is, this is possible if 13C levels are dropped by enough.
Look into what radiative efficiency is first. It's not the 12C increasing that causes a possible cooling if the change in isotopic ratios are enough, but the lowering of the 13C in the atmosphere. Each isotopic molecular mix has its own forcing value. They should be individually plotted on a log curve. An equal change in CO2 molecules with 13C has 200 times the forcing change as CO2 with 12C. Therefore, if we were to increase CO2 by 1 ppb, and at the same time, decrease CO2 with 13C by 1 ppb, the net effect is cooling. The drop in 13C would have to be maintained as CO2 levels increase for this to be a net cooling by CO2. My point is, this is possible if 13C levels are dropped by enough.
Fossil fuels have far lower 13C than what is already in the atmosphere. Therefore, as we burn oil, the ratios of the atmosphere change.How exactly would we be able to change the naturally occurring ratio of isotopic carbons?
Fossil fuels have far lower 13C than what is already in the atmosphere. Therefore, as we burn oil, the ratios of the atmosphere change.
OK, consider this.Ok but you just posted that the C13 molecules have a 200X effect over the C12 molecules so if the 12 has less than the 13 I'm not following your argument unless you are proposing that there will be a lowering of the overall climate. If this is the case your argument is contrary to the empirical evidence,
OK, consider this.
If I decrease CO2 with C13 by 1 ppb, and increase CO2 with C12 by 100 ppb, then my (200 RE x 1 ppb) > (1 RE x 100 ppb ). The effect would be similar as if I decreased CO2 by the 100 ppb.
How does the chemical reaction of burning CO2 relate to the nuclear decomposition of carbon 13 to carbon 12?
I think the carbon in fossil fuel has less C13 in it because it was last exposed to the Sun a long time ago.
I don't understand why C12 and C13 have different radiative characteristics though. My limited science.
I think the carbon in fossil fuel has less C13 in it because it was last exposed to the Sun a long time ago.
I don't understand why C12 and C13 have different radiative characteristics though. My limited science.
Give me a little time, and I will plot it in excel for everyone.I think the carbon in fossil fuel has less C13 in it because it was last exposed to the Sun a long time ago.
I don't understand why C12 and C13 have different radiative characteristics though. My limited science.
He was asking why the half-life would be different in the atmosphere I believe...
Give me a little time, and I will plot it in excel for everyone.
It wouldn't be that since they are both stable.
The theory is since fossil fuels are made from long decayed life, and vegetation prefers 12C over 13C in the photosynthesis process, that the oil in the earth has almost no 13C. There may be other reasons, but the fact remains that fossil fuels have almost no 13C in their composition. Maybe at one time there was no 13C in the earth, and something triggered the making of 13C.
I don't really know, other than the fact that crude oil has almost no 13C.
The mass might make a minor change in forcing of equal quantities, but I don't expect it to be significant. I would expect CO2 with 12C and CO2 with 13C to fall close enough on the same log curve.You might have to explain how carbon emits IR differently due to it's mass..... although does a chromatic spectrometer use that....???
Good luck explaining it to us all.
The mass might make a minor change in forcing of equal quantities, but I don't expect it to be significant. I would expect CO2 with 12C and CO2 with 13C to fall close enough on the same log curve.
If there is no difference between the 2 why all the fuss?
Probably different masses or molecular makeups due to lack of sun exposure...Oh ok I get it thanks. Not sure why C12 and C13 have different radiative characteristics either.
There is a difference. They respond to different spectral lines, hence they deserve individual calculations.
I think I get it, the carbon in the middle of the CO2 has a higher atomic weightThere is a difference. They respond to different spectral lines, hence they deserve individual calculations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?