SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: HPilot who wrote (31557)1/5/2011 1:48:34 PM
From: Jacques Chitte1 Recommendation  Respond to of 36917
 
The nice thing about isotope ratios is that they tell you the age of the carbon source. Fossil sources (coal, oil and volcanic vent gas) have a C14 content of zero, since C14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Biospheric carbon has a "normal" c14 content, because it was made entirely from atmospheric carbon dioxide during the plant's lifetime, and animals eat fresh plant matter (carnivores do so indirectly). The mechanism for making carbon radioactive (cosmic rays hitting nitrogen) occurs at a fixed rate. C14 ratios can be measured precisely, and the drop gives a proportion of "extra" fossil carbon. So, how much of this is volcanic, and how much of it has been burned in the quest for modern living?

The USGS has produced numbers on total volcanic carbon dioxide emissions (both on land and in the ocean) at about 2% of the current CO2 production from burning fossil fuels.

Forest and other biospheric CO2 from fires and decay has most of the C14 that it drew from the atmosphere. C14 proportion was fairly constant before 1800, when the fossil carbon contribution is generally considered to begin being potentially important.

So even with generous error bars it seems safe to say that most of the 110 ppm rise in CO2 can be ascribed to burning fossil fuel.

That is why I would be fascinated to know where that 4% figure came from. Atmospheric carbon science has become politicized, which is good for neither politics nor science. Interested parties on both sides of the divide would be well-advised to check the goodness of their numbers. Current climate science is a noisy messy thing, and the soapboxers are NOT helping. Sweating the science, like putting firm boundaries on isotope data, will help make climate science less noisy. cheers js