That was my initial thought but, if it's a typo, there are an awful lot of typos, since the rest of that paragraph and all of the next paragraph are talking about carbon 12-13 ratios. Whatever, it doesn't look as if whoever wrote it read what they had written very carefully before publishing it!
John, it reads: re, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios.
I think that's rather quibbling, since they are obviously talking about 'a release' as a possible cause of the change (over time).
I'm not sure what sort of evidence you'd be looking for, but even if none is known, that doesn't mean that it's not happening. It's certainly one of the 'unknown unknowns' I was considering.
Polite?
Not at all.
But the analysis of the isotope information shows only one of these is happening.
Not to me it doesn't!
Yes, that would make more sense, but it still doesn't say much for their proof-reading!
As I've just written that would make more sense to me. If plants prefer 12C over 13C, then the 13C:12C ratio would, indeed, be lower in plants than in the atmosphere.
And reflected in the balance of isotopes in the atmosphere, proving that co2 is coming from fossil fuels
They are attempting to present several independent pieces of evidence to support their conclusion - but you are now using one of them to support another.
I think it's more than a hypothesis. As far as I am aware, that was demonstrated experimentally decades ago - and is, indeed, is assumed to be one of the ways in which the biological part of the carbon cycle strives to regulate atmospheric CO2 levels.
I thought we were talking about possible 'unknown unknowns' which, by definition, are 'unproven'.
Three of the known factors, but there are plenty. Rainfall is another major factor in relation to land-based photosynthesis. Nutritional factors and toxins, both potentially pollution-related are another. ... and that, of course, is before we start talking about 'chopping down trees'!
Indeed. Like your post earlier, I was confused by their reference to C-14.
I wish you would stop using the word "proving" - "supporting", "suggesting" (or maybe even "strongly suggesting") would be more honest, and more scientific!
I think less emphasis is put on that now, since those were the days before it was realised/discovered that, in terms of the big picture of photosynthesis, the rain forests are much less important than that which floats about on our oceans.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
