The problem with this graph of reality from the doubling of C14O2 in the air suddenly, is that it decays so quickly and to the old 100% figure. Consider where the Climate industry thinks Carbon goes.
This shows 1.9% of the carbon in the air. 4.9% in plants, alive and dead and in respiration. 93.2% is in the oceans, most in what is labelled the deep ocean. The idea is that the deep ocean takes 1,000 years to exchange water and presumably gases with the top surface.
So where did all the C14 go? Remember it cannot be destroyed, but it is all gone! Where?
If we consider only the top level candidates, the Biosphere on the left and the 'surface' ocean, they are not much bigger than the atmosphere. So the C14 might drop quickly, but not to zero level.
Then consider the biosphere itself. This has a rapid cycle time, except for big trees. Breathing is near instantaneous, whether animal or plant. Leaves and grasses last a year or so. Even dead organic matter is returned to the air in a short time. So even if this took the C14 , it would do less than halve it and this would come roaring back. The problem is the half life of 14 years from the graph. Nothing much except tall trees lasts 14 years, even most life on earth except man, whales and elephants and tortoises. So the biosphere cannot be the final destination of the C14 , simply because it is not final.
Now look at the right hand side. If we are to believe that the deep oceans only do things on a 1,000 year time scale, they are out of the question. The problem is that the surface ocean has only a comparable amount of CO2, so it would halve the concentration. Now look at the graph on log paper.
 |
| Simplified Bern model |
So where did all the C14 go? Remember it cannot be destroyed, but it is all gone! Where?
If we consider only the top level candidates, the Biosphere on the left and the 'surface' ocean, they are not much bigger than the atmosphere. So the C14 might drop quickly, but not to zero level.
Then consider the biosphere itself. This has a rapid cycle time, except for big trees. Breathing is near instantaneous, whether animal or plant. Leaves and grasses last a year or so. Even dead organic matter is returned to the air in a short time. So even if this took the C14 , it would do less than halve it and this would come roaring back. The problem is the half life of 14 years from the graph. Nothing much except tall trees lasts 14 years, even most life on earth except man, whales and elephants and tortoises. So the biosphere cannot be the final destination of the C14 , simply because it is not final.
Now look at the right hand side. If we are to believe that the deep oceans only do things on a 1,000 year time scale, they are out of the question. The problem is that the surface ocean has only a comparable amount of CO2, so it would halve the concentration. Now look at the graph on log paper.
The extraordinary thing here is that it is a straight line. That means there is one place everything is going, one reaction, one equilibrium and all the C14 is going into a huge black hole at a steady pace.
So after exhaustive research we see results like this (Pettersen) for applying the Bern model of mixing of C14 rich CO2 with these places. Of course, they cannot get rid of the C14 completely, as happens in the real world.
You will see that the scientists have tried to match the absorption amounts and rates of CO2 into the sinks, but eventually come to a compound curve where 40% will not be absorbed. This is no surprise. It is little more than the mixing of 1.9/(1,3+2.4). You cannot eliminate C14 completely by mixing with areas which are not much bigger.
So what we need is a single huge place to absorb all the C14 rapidly without a trace. Do we have one one sink as it is called, a single place where all the CO2 can go? Somewhere the C14O2 does go and remember, there is no chemical difference between C14O2 and C12O2 or C13O2. Generally the world cannot tell them apart, except for the very slight difference in weights (44,45,46 amu)
Look at the entire ocean, including the deep oceans. According to the Bern model, they store 93.2% of all free CO2 and if the CO2 goes principally and quickly into the deep oceans, the graph makes sense. You get one decay curve, not a complex curve, one huge reservoir and if CO2 is shared between the air and oceans alone, the C14O2 level will be reduced to 0.07, but how long would it take? According to scientists, thousands of years for the gases in the top surface to mix with the gases in the deep ocean. Is this true? Is it possible that the exchange of gases in the oceans is not as much in layers as the water itself? The evidence is that the speed of exchange of gases from the bottom of the oceans is comparable to that from the top, that gases rise rapidly and sink rapidly, even in the deepest oceans where water does not. This seems to fit our experience with carbonated drinks. Bubbles of CO2 will rise from the bottom even when the liquid is not moving.
So if all the CO2 is in constant and fast equilibrium with the entire ocean, how can you prove it?
Really there is no other explanation for the behaviour of C14 before and immediately after the atmospheric bomb testing.
Look at C14 over time, before and long after the bomb
(C14 was discovered in 1942, so the pre-bomb period needs explanation)
Firstly you can see that C14 was the long term level for 50,000 years as used by scientists for radio carbon dating. It remained constant (despite the massive burning of C14 free fossil fuels) all the way through WWI and WWII and the 1950s. This does not make sense as ancient fossil fuels have no C14. C14 should have decreased.
Then C14 jumps with the bombs after 1955, climbs rapidly to twice the historic level and settles quickly to the old level. Not lower because of fossil fuels and not higher because of slow mixing. It means the C14 of the bombs, the C14O2 of the bombs, all vanished rapidly and quickly in the oceans. It also means that the virgin CO2 from the fossil fuels did not dilute the aerial CO2 and continues to have no effect. As was said, if the 50% increase in CO2 was man made, C14 should be 2/3 of the historic level, but is that the case prior to 1950?
So the case is proven by simple observation of C14 levels. This proves that all the man made CO2 goes into the oceans. It has always done so. Man is insignificant, even with his hydrogen bombs.
However CO2 has gone up with industrialization. If the increase is not due to industrialization, why? In fact the increase in CO2 over the last 150 years has precisely the same explanation, that the largest source of CO2 is the ocean itself, that warming of the oceans by a single degree totally explains the increase in CO2 we have observed.
When two things go up at the same time, either one causes the other or it is a coincidence. The Global Warming argument is that mankind's burning of fossil fuel causes Global Warming. Not only is this clearly not true by plotting temperature and CO2, it is not indicated by the dilution of C14 levels.
However CO2 levels have gone up and this needs explanation. Coincidence does not explain the increase.
However Global Warming of the oceans does. This can easily explain the CO2 increase. The man made global warming, the pretentiously named Anthropogenic Global Warming is ridiculous and does not fit the facts. We have a simple explanation of CO2 increases, but it is ignored. Why?
Postscript:
It is interesting to travel the internet. Once again the tree ring specialists are there, for example.
This is a study of C14 in tree rings. Each ring is a year and you can measure C14 in each year. Simple.
This graph purports to show the expected dilution of aerial CO2 by virgin CO2 from fossil fuel, prior to 1950. This dilution matches what scientists would expect from burning fossil fuels and is one of the few examples where this is discussed, as it needs to be confirmed.
In fact it is one of the few times where C14 has been used to prove that the CO2 increase is entirely from fossil fuel. Otherwise the failure for C14 to indicate fossil fuel input is studiously ignored.
It looks quite conclusive and seems to prove industrial CO2 stays in the air for a very long time. The expected dilution is shown, but you have to wonder about tree rings. They were infamously used to kick off this whole story with Michael Mann's Global Warming from one tree and the fingering of industrial CO2 as the culprit. So could there be another and simple explanation for the drop in C14 in adjagent tree ring?. For example, if the tree was watered from bore water from deep underground sources, say an artesian bore, very old water containing little or no C14. That would fully explain the graph. Many samples from many areas would have to be taken for this to be given credit as it does not fit with other measures of C14 and the subject is not mentioned. I include it because when the evidence is there for the argument of fossil fuel in the air, it is made public. When the evidence is missing or contradictory, nothing is said.
PS, What is interesting is that Dr Suess, the man who alerted the world to the drop in C14 after industrialization in the 1890s and after whom it was named, concluded that the drop in C14 was less than 1% and that this completely disproved the idea that fossil fuel hung around. However even the American Institute of Physics is now arguing there must be a special surface effect in the oceans which overrides the results simple calculations' would give and therefore that most of the fossil fuel CO2 stays in the air. This read like self justification. However the bomb graph a decade after Dr. Seuss showed him to be absolutely right. If the fossil fuel CO2 was still in the air, C14 would drop. If the bomb spike C14 was still in the air, C14 would be much higher for a long time.
PPS. The CO2 in the air is 99% C12, 1% C13 and a tiny 10-12% C14. This is why the doubling of C14 has no health risks but acted as the same sort of tracer as used by doctors, like a Barium Meal or Radioactive Iodine. You can see where everything goes and how fast.
No comments:
Post a Comment