Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

C12 concentrations in the atmosphere

To those of you who are not convinced that climate change is happening and/or do not feel that anthropometric sources of green house gases are responsible for the changes, how do you explain the elevated amounts of C12 (relative to C13) in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

 
Dr.Donna

Asked by Dr.Donna at 11:23 AM on May. 12, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 26 (26,309 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (11)
  • the worldwide increase in the planting of grasses.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:32 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • I have no idea. I just remember reading something awhile ago that tried to explain how grasses absorp different types of Carbon or Carbon Dioxide and different levels of c12 and c13 are detected at different times in history based on what was on Earth at the time.
    Some say the usage of fossil fuels causes different levels to increase or decrease and some say the changes in vegetation caused the changes.
    You tell us Dr. Donna.
    It seemed logical to me with the increase in populations and residences, the grasses would make a difference over plants like trees and brush.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:38 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • what does anthropomorphic mean?
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:38 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • Basically Iremember it stating at the end of the article that c13 had more pathways to changing into co2 than just the burning of fossil fuels.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:42 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • Hello? Anyone home?
    I gotta go, but basically it's this from what I remember.
    populations got larger and they planted more grasses versus trees and brush, The differences between the vegetations caused c12 and c13 levels to fluctuate and made it look like c13( co2) levels were increasing. Then man blamed the increase on fossil fuel burning because fossil fuels were organic in nature at one time. Basically blaming man for the increase via fuels. When it could have been the increase in grasses all along just by how they metabolise what they breathe. But still, man plants grasses. And man can be blamed I guess.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:49 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • i firmly believe in anthropomorphic causation of present global warming as the scientific evidence is overwhelming and incontestable , so I take no notice of the sneers of deniers .

    i am not sufficiently educated in the sciences to get into the chemistry of carbon , but carbon is not the only gas involved , I gather that there is concern over increasing methane levels as the arctic continues its fast melt and also higher levels of atmospheric nitrogen .
    janet116

    Answer by janet116 at 8:22 PM on May. 12, 2011

  • Okay - but how isn't that anthropomorphic in origin?
    Dr.Donna

    Comment by Dr.Donna (original poster) at 11:34 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • Also, if you could share the data related to the amount of C12 produced by planted grass, I'd love to see it.
    Dr.Donna

    Comment by Dr.Donna (original poster) at 11:35 AM on May. 12, 2011

  • Sorry - I'm at work and only get breaks now and then.

    Grasses take up C12 preferentially over C13 - which would leave the atmosphere depleted, with an expectation of elevated C13 levels. However, C12 levels in the atmosphere are currently much HIGHER than would be expected if the CO2 were coming solely from volcanic sources - in other words, it has a signature of being enriched with carbon that was derived from a plant source (i.e., the burning of fossil fuels, since these are originally derived from concentrations of plants that metabolically select the lighter form of carbon (C12) when growing). The elevated C12 is also counter to more grasses being present.

    Anthropomorphic means "caused by humans".
    Dr.Donna

    Comment by Dr.Donna (original poster) at 12:07 PM on May. 12, 2011


  • Either we learn to control our pollution or it will control us.
    Here's an article I read a while back places to see before they dissapear:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/22/earth-day-2011-21-places-_n_852425.html
    CHarlan

    Answer by CHarlan at 12:18 PM on May. 12, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN