Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: palmer
The nearly equal is an assumption, and their magnitudes are not well understood either.

It's not an assumption, it's an estimate, with the requisite error bars. But the estimate is based on analysis of data -- sometimes direct measurements, other times "economic" analysis. The air-sea flux is VERY well constrained by thousands of at-sea measurements, for example.

The trouble is, I have yet to see any isotope analysis that yields any numbers for the human component.

I found a few papers that allude to it, but its wrapped up in a bigger picture presentation and its complex. I'll keep looking. Looking...

I assume you found/saw this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm (can't wait to see the corresponding section in the new report!)

Here's a couple of references to peruse:

A model simulation of carbon dioxide and stable carbon isotope exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere: Is the terrestrial d13C discrimination effect decreasing?

Isotopic Simple Global Carbon Model: the Use of Carbon Isotopes for Model Development (real interesting conclusion in this!)

Science reference, sorry, but maybe you can get it:

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence (April 3 1992 issue)

Global Carbon Cycle (this is real simple, but the data in the lower-right hand corner of Figure 7.02 might be what you're looking for)

http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-032.pdf (neat poster -- actual number, del13C decreased 0.44 per mil from 1979-2000, annual rate 0.0021, similar to Quay et al. referenced above)

Gotta keep this one in my pocket for drrocket: δ13C in CO2 at Mawson, Antarctica (wow, now I know how to do the del symbol!)

That's a start.

54 posted on 02/02/2007 5:45:01 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator

Some good links, although I would like to know Quay's assumption for carbon cycle time or seawater diffusion constant. I noticed in the PDF poster there is typo in your post: 0.021 decrease per year, not 0.002 like you and I thought. That's a lot more than the anthro contribution that I calculated (0.004 per year) from the NASA carbon numbers (quite simply, 6 parts anthro into 1560 parts seawater/atmosphere). This reversal means that seawater is absorbing a lot more anthro CO2 than I outlined in post 7.


71 posted on 02/02/2007 7:31:02 AM PST by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson