Article on measuring the rising CO2 at Mauna Loa

[stellarfun]

Prediction the level will cross 400 ppm in 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?hp

[Hambone]

Another puff piece for the AGW crowd. No discussion (through the first 2 pages.. I couldn't read any further) of the breakdown by isotope of the CO2, manmade being different from ocean generated. No discussion about the role the PDO plays in the release of oceanic CO2. No mention of Roy Spencer Joe D'Aleo and their studies that show the oceans as the main driver of atmospheric CO2.

This is exactly the stuff that reinforces the Skeptics. It's clear there's a political agenda at play here. There is no fair and balanced coverage coming from the left.

It's disgusting.

[salbers]

CO2 levels are sharply rising and are at their highest in more than 800000 years. Hard to believe this isn't anthropogenic (fossil fuels + deforestation).

Oceans are absorbing about 25% of emitted CO2 from fossil fuels. It's true the percentage can fluctuate.There is still a net absorption going on though, as we can see from the acidification.

[skierinvermont]

Another puff piece for the AGW crowd. No discussion (through the first 2 pages.. I couldn't read any further) of the breakdown by isotope of the CO2, manmade being different from ocean generated. No discussion about the role the PDO plays in the release of oceanic CO2. No mention of Roy Spencer Joe D'Aleo and their studies that show the oceans as the main driver of atmospheric CO2.

This is exactly the stuff that reinforces the Skeptics. It's clear there's a political agenda at play here. There is no fair and balanced coverage coming from the left.

It's disgusting.

CO2 oscillated below 290ppm the last 100,000 years, and in the last 150 years it has spiked to 400ppm. I guess it's all just a big coincidence. In fact you can go back millions of years and CO2 has never been above ~300ppm.

I've read D"Aleo's and Spencer's stuff on this.. it's complete garbage. Human isotopes of CO2 don't remain in the atmosphere long because they are quickly recycled. The problem is the earth as a whole emits more CO2 than it takes in now, because of human emissions. In other words, humans have offset the balance and even though the earth is constantly taking in and emitting CO2 at a rapid rate over and over throughout the year, on NET more is emitted (when including human emissions) than absorbed, and thus CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

[beneficii]

CO2 oscillated below 290ppm the last 100,000 years, and in the last 150 years it has spiked to 400ppm. I guess it's all just a big coincidence. In fact you can go back millions of years and CO2 has never been above ~300ppm.

I've read D"Aleo's and Spencer's stuff on this.. it's complete garbage. Human isotopes of CO2 don't remain in the atmosphere long because they are quickly recycled. The problem is the earth as a whole emits more CO2 than it takes in now, because of human emissions. In other words, humans have offset the balance and even though the earth is constantly taking in and emitting CO2 at a rapid rate over and over throughout the year, on NET more is emitted (when including human emissions) than absorbed, and thus CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

My understanding is that Carbon-12, which is the isotope emitted by humans, is preferred by plants over Carbon-13, which is the naturally occurring C02. Nevertheless, when one measures the ratio of the 2 in various areas, such as the atmosphere or in coral reefs or elsewhere, one can show a declining Carbon-13/Carbon-12 ratio, suggesting a proportional increase in the production of Carbon-12. This mentioned here as one of the many human footprints for climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

[skierinvermont]

My understanding is that Carbon-12, which is the isotope emitted by humans, is preferred by plants over Carbon-13, which is the naturally occurring C02. Nevertheless, when one measures the ratio of the 2 in various areas, such as the atmosphere or in coral reefs or elsewhere, one can show a declining Carbon-13/Carbon-12 ratio, suggesting a proportional increase in the production of Carbon-12. This mentioned here as one of the many human footprints for climate change:

http://www.skeptical..._Skepticism.pdf

Right.. the problem is skeptics seem to think that since CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm.. 120ppm should be "anthropogenic" and thus have a high C-12 ratio. This is not the case however, because the CO2 we emit is constantly recycled by the earth. And yet ultimately we are responsible for the increase in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm because the earth overall now emits more than it can take in.

[beneficii]

Right.. the problem is skeptics seem to think that since CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm.. 120ppm should be "anthropogenic" and thus have a high C-12 ratio. This is not the case however, because the CO2 we emit is constantly recycled by the earth. And yet ultimately we are responsible for the increase in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm because the earth overall now emits more than it can take in.

That is true. Also to clarify, as reading back over my posts I see it wasn't very clear, Carbon-12 or Carbon-13 by my post refers to the isotope of carbon in a molecule of CO2.

[Hambone]

Right.. the problem is skeptics seem to think that since CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm.. 120ppm should be "anthropogenic" and thus have a high C-12 ratio. This is not the case however, because the CO2 we emit is constantly recycled by the earth. And yet ultimately we are responsible for the increase in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm because the earth overall now emits more than it can take in.

Hey man, have you responded to my question in the Hansen thread?