Declining C14/C12, C13/C12 ratios strong indicator of AGW

[nemesis9]

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere. The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings.

* There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
* There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

* There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
* The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.

...Complete article here
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html

[forfi]

In 1950 a scientist named Suess

yes I remember him,had a cat as I recall.

[forfi]

You made that website up yourself ,you naughty boy.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by forfi

You made that website up yourself ,you naughty boy.

Keep on dreaming, the bibliography is listed at the bottom. Go read some of them, might do you good.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by forfi

You made that website up yourself ,you naughty boy.

I've never heard of Pantaloonia, I was wondering if residents there are called Pantalunatics?

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

I've never heard of Pantaloonia, I was wondering if residents there are called Pantalunatics?

Pantanloonies is more affectionate though

[forfi]

Naughty boy,you just can't go around making up web-sites,people do take notice and its not nice to waste their time.
I remember Uncle Walt did it with Fantasia ,but that was when folks were gullible.

[Gerbil Rebellion]

Interesting article but they are omitting to tell you one thing and that is where C13 and C14 are produced, and that is in the atmosphere as a result of the interactions of cosmic rays and particles in the upper atmosphere, the same as Be10. So to make a claim that C13 and C14 are declining at present would be completely true because when the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field) from the sun is weak the cosmic rays get through and create these isotopes, yet when it is strong like it is at the moment then they are not produced as the cosmic rays are deflected before they get too far into the solar system. There is always another side to the things some of these articles tell you and they nearly always miss them out due to them not fitting with what they want you to think.

Take the IPCC WGI report, there were less than 60 words on C14 and Be10 even the natural production of them and the cause of high or low amounts and yet as a scientific report in which they are used to show reasoning for the current warming, it should cover the way in which they are produced to allow cross referencing to the explanation they give, yet in that section like many others they have only finished it by saying "not understood so more study needed" or something like when in reality when you read the correct papers you will find Be10 and C14 production is fully understood in the interactions that occur and why they are found in certain places.

[nemesis9]

[quote="forfi"]Naughty boy,you just can't go around making up web-sites,people do take notice and its not nice to waste their time.
I remember Uncle Walt did it with Fantasia ,but that was when folks were gullible.[/quote

As you know, I did not make up this website. Your fascist propaganda techniques wont work. And, even if I did, like I said, Pantaloonie bin, the references for the article are there. It is based on scientific studies.
As an engineer, I rely on data. When I worked at Intel corporation, we met unfounded claims such as yours with "Show me the data".
So, if you think this is my website, I say, show me the data.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Gerbil Rebellion

Interesting article but they are omitting to tell you one thing and that is where C13 and C14 are produced, and that is in the atmosphere as a result of the interactions of cosmic rays and particles in the upper atmosphere, the same as Be10. So to make a claim that C13 and C14 are declining at present would be completely true because when the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field) from the sun is weak the cosmic rays get through and create these isotopes, yet when it is strong like it is at the moment then they are not produced as the cosmic rays are deflected before they get too far into the solar system. There is always another side to the things some of these articles tell you and they nearly always miss them out due to them not fitting with what they want you to think.

Take the IPCC WGI report, there were less than 60 words on C14 and Be10 even the natural production of them and the cause of high or low amounts and yet as a scientific report in which they are used to show reasoning for the current warming, it should cover the way in which they are produced to allow cross referencing to the explanation they give, yet in that section like many others they have only finished it by saying "not understood so more study needed" or something like when in reality when you read the correct papers you will find Be10 and C14 production is fully understood in the interactions that occur and why they are found in certain places.

Do you know of any reports available that I might look at for more information?
Thanks