Reply With QuoteThere are a lot of Planks still left in the MMGW camp
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities - The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio « Watts Up With That?
No answers to his question yet. Another plank in the "Man did it" theory evaporating away.BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
mkpdavies no longer posts on this forum
There are a lot of Planks still left in the MMGW camp
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ
Well that is the first time I have seen anyone look at isotopes. Thank goodness there are some real scientists still around. Actually I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of doing that myself. It's a pretty obvious thing to do once you know the deal with isotopes, and you should know about that if you do carbon dating. Excellent work and I'll have to say to the greens get out of that one if you can!
We're pilgrims in an unholy land
A very poor article he says :-
"From what I can find digging around on the Internet, some people think this is the signature of anthropogenic emissions."
So he has disproved what some people (no reference to who these people are) but not the majority believe is proof of man made CO2 emissions.
Seems like a classic strawman arguement.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you answer his final question then John?
mkpdavies no longer posts on this forum
There is no valid scientific retort to his method as far as I can see. The isotopes in carbon are like date stamps and burning coal and oil is burning organic matter that is very old and carbon dating is one of the best tools scientists have in establishing the date of any previously organic material. It's pretty accurate as well; at the very least it is way beyond the accuracy needed to differentiate between something millions of years old and something produced in the current year.
We're pilgrims in an unholy land
Of course not it is based on a false hypothesis namelyOriginally Posted by mkpdavies
There is no proof that people believe this. Why does he not provide a link ?some people think this is the signature of anthropogenic emissions
Also if you wanted to prove that carbon dioxide is not from fossil fuels you would look at C14 as it has a short life.
He provides no references at all in this "paper".
Last edited by John Cooper; 31-01-2008 at 01:45 PM. Reason: grammar
carbon dating does not use C13 but C14.
Also of course he does not prove that burning fossil fuels always give the same ratio of C13/C14 does gas from the North sea give the same as oil ?
Yes I know it uses C14 but as far as I'm aware the same principle applies, i.e. that of radioactive decay, which gives a different ratio as the exponential decay curve acts on it. Each kind of decay is defined wholly by its half-life since it is always an exact exponential. For reasons of accuracy it is preferred that the half-life is of the order of the time being measures or else your error is multiplied. So other than that the same principle applies and this is established fact. Now maybe he has not proved every detail in the path of reasoning in this piece of text but that's fair enough as he is just communicating this particular finding so other scientists reading it will be looking into it as well. It's not intended as political propaganda but as scientist-to-scientist and much like work in progress. It's the technique that is the key point and others can expand on it.
We're pilgrims in an unholy land
BVL wrote:-
Doh ! - Where u bin boy ? Who's the self exposed plank then ?Well that is the first time I have seen anyone look at isotopes. Thank goodness there are some real scientists still around. Actually I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of doing that myself. It's a pretty obvious thing to do once you know the deal with isotopes, and you should know about that if you do carbon dating. Excellent work and I'll have to say to the greens get out of that one if you can!
Creep back into your slimy sceptic pits boys – the logical absurdity of Spencer’s crackpot ideas were debunked some time ago.
(& just to annoy mpkdavies, if he thought is was so good, why didn’t he publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. ):
I think recent estimates are that mankind is emitting nearly 50 billion tons of CO per year into the atmosphere.
How do we know that ? - from basic chemistry of combustion and the known consumption of fossil fuels.
From :-
Stoat: Spencer is totally off his rocker
For the technical detail of isotopic evidence in complete support for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, see"To believe this (Spencer’s arguments – my insert) , you have to believe that CO2 and other GHG's were stable at pre-industrial concentrations for thousands of years, then suddenly, just as humans started emitting them, some natural process started emitting them, while at the same time removing from the atmosphere an equivalent quantity of the man-made GHGs".
RealClimate
Pathetic try from Spencer, apparently a Creationist who therefore by definition does believe in the concept of isotopic half lives.
Bookmarks