We all know the story about the king who paraded with no clothes, as though everyone watching on was oblivious to the mistake. Parallels can be drawn with sources of CO2, I mean CO2 from factories versus CO2 from natural sources. There is no definitive distinguishing feature, yet in this case we are expected to be able to know the difference.
To be clear, the so-called experts claim to know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or something else. When there is not necessarily any difference.
The bottom line is, the processes that created the isotopic signatures found in carbon from different fossil fuels are much the same processes at work today, especially in alpine plants, even fish in the sea.
I will be discussing all of this on Thursday 19th June @ 2pm Edinburgh time with geoscientist Philip Mulholland. This will be the sixth Zoom discussion in my series Towards a New Theory of Climate Resilience. You will need to register if you want to listen in for the first hour, and then in the second hour, there will be opportunity to join the discussion.
In order to register for this single session that will be at 11pm Brisbane time, ClICK HERE.
Philip Mulholland is a geophysicist who once worked with the British Geological Survey, that was long ago. He has a profile on ResearchGate (click here), where he is noted for interests spanning botany, meteorology, geology, and geophysics. He has published important research focused on geological and geophysical topics, and also more controversial work on Earth’s energy budget.
I am including a photograph of Bosham Harbour, West Sussex, that is one of Philip's favourite places. Also following is a photograph of a felled walnut tree stump in Elgin from the North of Scotland representing his ecological Masters of Science which involved a mathematical study of tree rings from dead trees in Epping Forest, Essex.
Bosham Harbour in West Sussex, Philip Mulholland has an interest in its beauty, history and geophysics.
Philip has suggested the title for this Zoom webinar be: Carbon Isotopic Fractionation Processes. There are three distinct processes:
1. Kinetic fractionation in methane formation, where microbes preferentially use ¹²C, leading to very negative δ¹³C (e.g., -60.00‰ in methane seep aragonite, citing Buckman et al., 2020).
2. Equilibrium fractionation in carbonate precipitation, where inorganic processes produce less negative or positive δ¹³C (e.g., +4.17‰ to +4.86‰ in Bahamian ooids, citing Geyman et al., 2022).
3. Biological fractionation in plants, with C3 plants (-33.00‰ to -24.00‰) showing stronger fractionation than C4 (-16.00‰ to -10.00‰) or CAM plants (-28.70‰ to -11.60‰).
A felled walnut tree stump in Elgin from the North of Scotland representing Philip's ecological MSc which involved a mathematical study of tree rings.
The feature image is AI art from Adobe Express. How much do most of us understand about photosynthesis that is fundamental to life on Earth and only after that can we perhaps hope to understand something about biological fractionation in plants.
****
This post was edited several times within the first 12 hours, as I added clarifications and also changed and added photographs.
Noel Degrassi,
FYI, recent 14C data (2014-2021) are shown in the following link to the Scripps CO2 Program:
https://www.scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/isotopic_data/c14_trends_going_backwards_in_time.html
Note that these data are preliminary and still subject to quality control. As such, they appear to indicate a flattening of the trend of Δ14C decline rate to near zero since 2018/2019. If correct, this would be a significant deviation from most scenario-based forecasts as published by Graven et al, 2020, for example: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GB006170).
https://www.facebook.com/reel/488558650276290/?s=fb_shorts_tab&stack_idx=0
Well done karen. You'll be quoting the ABC next.
Enjoy the next 3 years of darkness.
The Politics of Climate Denial
Daniel J Soeder
Energy Futures: The Story of Fossil Fuel, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change, 71-96, 2025
Nearly all scientists not associated with the fossil fuel industry agree that the greenhouse gas anomaly in the Earth’s atmosphere was caused by the human burning of fossil fuels, trapping heat, warming the atmosphere, and causing climate change. Despite the preponderance of evidence supporting this phenomenon, including physical principles that have been well-understood since the nineteenth century, the fossil energy industry has steadfastly denied the reality of anthropogenic climate change. By claiming that climate data are “controversial” or “unsettled,” the industry has injected a note of uncertainty into whether or not climate action should be taken. Combined with their substantial financial support of climate-denying politicians, no action has in fact been undertaken in the ensuing 40 years since the issue was first raised, and our society is now more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 marks the first official attempt by the U.S. government to address climate change. The acceptance versus denial of climate change has evolved into a tribal issue that has become entrenched in blue versus red American politics.
"What does that have to do with climate change and CO2?"
Exactly Karen.
"And wasn’t NASA preoccupied with DEI?"
What does that have to do with climate change and CO2?
You quote Ferdy well Karen: the old isotopic proof.
2.0 Calculated Estimates: Glorified Guesswork
https://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
And wasn't NASA preoccupied with DEI?
"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 17502. This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere." - NASA
"Unlike climate deniers, who are backed up (read funded) by the fossil the fuel industry."
What a lazy cliché.
Following on from a typical exchange with Ferdy on a previous post for instance: climate alarmists can't even prove the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions; so even if you are a useful idiot gullible enough to believe in global boiling and that CO2 increase causes climate catastrophes (none of which are happening) humans are not causing the increase in CO2!
Karen the folly is coming to a close.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/05/23/nz-abandon-net-zero-push/