What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?

  • 245 Replies
  • 68327 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #200 on: 07/07/2013 12:53:30 »
The 400ppm or so of CO2 in air should be referred to as a mixing ratio, rather than a  concentration.
The units are wrong for a concentration which would be in mass (or moles) per unit volume.
It's a terminology thing, familiar enough to those who study atmospheric physics.

"That would explain a decrease in CO2 level. It doesn't explain an increase. Plants do not exhale carbon dioxide."
Actually, they do.
When there's not much sunlight about they metabolise differently and produce CO2.



Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #201 on: 07/07/2013 23:56:41 »
Which would make the graph all the more mysterious. As the amount of sunlight increases, so does the amount of CO2!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #202 on: 08/07/2013 07:09:58 »
From Alancalverd (#201)
Quote
Which would make the graph all the more mysterious. As the amount of sunlight increases, so does the amount of CO2!

***

From damocles (#183)
Quote
Quote from: alancalverd on 04/07/2013 09:45:03
Reverting to Mauna Loa, they do publish an annual CO2 cycle with the underlying trend removed.  I'm baffled as to why the CO2 level rises whilst the trees are growing, reaches a peak in summer, and decreases as photosynthesis shuts down.  When I was a lad, we were taught that photosynthesis extracts CO2 from the atmosphere, so I'd expect exactly the opposite behaviour if your model is correct (and they haven't moved Hawaii!). Where does the summer CO2 come from? Certainly not human activity, unless you Aussies have found some way of exporting your winter barbie smoke across the equator and halfway round the world.


Alan please check this diagram and tell me if that is the graph you are referring to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

If so, then you must appreciate two things:
firstly that the maximum and minimum are in May and October respectively, not June and December.
secondly that the amount of photosynthetic activity is reflected in the rate of change (slope) of the mixing ratio graph rather than the mixing ratio per se.

The months of maximum negative gradient (high photosynthetic activity) are June and July -- summer months -- while those of maximum negative gradient (low photosynthetic activity) are December, January, and February, the winter months.

***
Been there , done that, not really up for another lap!
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #203 on: 08/07/2013 09:34:51 »
OK, let's make it simple.

Long before humans evolved, plants extracted CO2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is finite, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere sometimes increased and certainly never decreased to the extent that the plants died.

What mechanism recycled the carbon, previously extracted by plants, back into the atmosphere?

(Hint: all animals generate energy by converting carbon componds to carbon dioxide.)
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #204 on: 08/07/2013 10:30:28 »
Hint to you alan: If animals generate energy by converting carbon to CO2, what about plants and microorganisms?

http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_organic_carbon-cycle

plants ~50%, microorganisms ~45%, animals ~5%
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #205 on: 08/07/2013 13:50:42 »
Intriguing thought that living plants lose half of the carbon they acquire - I thought it was less than 10%. Nevertheless, the loss is a "business expense" and the overall tendency is for plants to sink carbon when the sun shines, as evidenced by the fact that trees start small and get bigger every year until they die.

So as far as I am concerned, the point is proved. Microorganisms that convert plant material to CO2 count as "animals by definition" in the simple scheme of things, so as the temperature rises, so the wee beasties become more active and recycle carbon to the atmosphere, completely explaining the shape of the seasonal curve.   

I'll concede a free kick on yeasts. Neither plants nor animals, but they metabolise plant sugars. That said, they do not need sunlight to do so, and are temperature-sensitive, so the mechanism stands: in the absence of volcanic or human activity, the concentration, mixing ratio or whatever you want to call it of CO2 in the atmosphere depends on the competitive balance between plant and non-plant metabolism, which is determined by temperature and insolation. This gives us a plausible relationship between cause and effect that consists with observation: long-term, the CO2 graph lags behind the temperature curve, and short-term [CO2] increases as the temperature rises, until plant activity catches up.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2013 17:27:54 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #206 on: 08/07/2013 17:59:22 »
henry@alan

anyway, as I had been saying all along, more carbon is OK, in fact it is better....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #207 on: 08/07/2013 19:15:06 »
Nothing new here, then. Local market gardeners burn diesel fuel to increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses (they sell the electricity as a byproduct - the profit margin is in the salad!) and have to ventilate the greenhouse before it's safe for humans to harvest.

There is however an upper limit beyond which it seems that plants shut down, but in answer to the original question, it's well above 400 ppm, and 40,000 ppm is considered long-term tolerable for humans.

So we can expect the jungle to flourish for a while.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #208 on: 08/07/2013 20:08:51 »
henry@alan

anyway, as I had been saying all along, more carbon is OK, in fact it is better....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/
Most people don't live in deserts so greening them is of marginal benefit to people
On the other hand, a lot of people live on coastlines.
Sea level rises are bad for them.

I think Alan has shown the falsehood of your idea when he said
"...have to ventilate the greenhouse before it's safe for humans to harvest. "

Anyway, the point is easy to settle.
If you think more CO2 is better- just sit in a room full of it for a while.
Until you have done that, please don't make the false statement again.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #209 on: 08/07/2013 20:49:58 »
Oh come on, BC!

There's a huge difference between 400 ppm and 40,000 ppm, and the mammalian breathing reflex doesn't work in the complete absence of CO2 (which is why we have re-breathing bags on oxygen supplies).

The Israeli economy was built on greening deserts. The US economy nearly collapsed when overcultivation turned parts of the Midwest into a dustbowl. History suggests that the Sahara was largely manmade: its fringes certainly support a fair number of people, and anything we can do to keep it in check, or even reverse desertification, would be welcome. 

Not that I have any sympathy with "most people". The world would be a much nicer place with a smaller human population. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #210 on: 08/07/2013 21:08:21 »
Oh come on, BC!

There's a huge difference between 400 ppm and 40,000 ppm

Yes, there is.
Which is why the unqualified statement that "more is better" is obviously nonsense.
So, it's a shame that he keeps saying it- but he does.
Perhaps you can persuade him to stop. I have tried several times but he keeps on saying it even though it has been explained repeatedly, and at length, that it's not true.

Also, whatever the merits of wiping out a few billion people (and I can think of some who we could start with) it would be impossible to do it without killing a lot of innocent animals and that's not fair.


Also, things like
"The US economy nearly collapsed when overcultivation turned parts of the Midwest into a dustbowl."
Suggest that trying to grow too much, without regard for the other resources available is a bad thing.
If you raise the CO2 but not the supply of fixed nitrogen or the potassium or and (most importantly of all) the water, how long will this greening last? Perhaps as long as the early Midwestern corn belt.

Perturbing balanced systems is inherently risky; why advocate doing more of it on the biggest scale in history.
As you say, the Sahara, the Midwest and Israel are examples of what happens if you get it wrong. At least those were localised.
You seem to think it's a good idea to mess with the whole world in that way.
Are you sure that's a good idea?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #211 on: 08/07/2013 23:50:45 »
AFAIK, Israel continues to export fruit and vegetables from a greened desert. At least the stuff I bought last week. The recent CO2-greening of the Australian desert and other areas appears to be entirely in equilibrium: I don't see massive changes in agriculture over the entire planet, just natural vegetation being its opportunistic self. And IIRC, increased vegetation tends to increase rainfall and wild forests incorporate their own nitrogen fixers.

Curious, isn't it, that any time anyone mentions reducing the human population, someone starts talking about killing. Seems to be an inherent defect in the human brain. Killing is a pointless, ethically complicated, and ludicrously expensive way of doing it. People die, quite naturally, at the rate of about 1.5% per annum. Now if we simply reduce our birthrate, the one ecological variable over which we have absolute and orthogonal control, we can reduce the population and make the world a better place by doing nothing at all! (As I recall, making babies involves doing quite a bit.) 
« Last Edit: 09/07/2013 09:20:41 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #212 on: 09/07/2013 10:22:48 »
Alan, the "recent CO2 greening of the Australian  Desert" is no such thing. It is a water greening based around a few successive seasons of exceptional rainfall in the centre. It is an extreme form of a phenomenon that is not unprecedented, and can probably be attributed to climate change, which may or may not be an indirect consequence of CO2 mixing ratio change.

There is a form of farming in Australia called "opportunity cropping". When there is an inland flood a lot of the lakes fill up. The soil becomes waterlogged around the lakes. But there is a significant zone in a ring around any lake where the soil has just the right moisture content to support a crop and not to bog the farm machinery. The following year that ring will be a little smaller, and it will gradually shrink in towards the lake until the soil becomes too salty. At that stage cropping is abandoned until the next flood.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #213 on: 09/07/2013 14:42:10 »
Just to quote a bit of the article that MCOK referenced:

Quote
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” Dr Donohue said. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.
 

Doesn't sound like opportunity cropping to me, unless that Yanks and everyone else have had exceptional rainfall every year since 1982 - which rather questions the meaning of "exceptional"! And I wouldn't class CSIRO and ANU among the evil atheistic capitalist deniers of AGW. I smell science rearing its sceptical head.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #214 on: 09/07/2013 18:26:09 »
BC says
Which is why the unqualified statement that "more is better" is obviously nonsense
henry says
I wonder why you keep saying that I make unqualified statements.
I did my own research because clearly I cannot trust anyone of you here?
FYI I will repeat it to you again
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. 

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

Having found no evidence of CO2 induced global warming, and finding only benefits, of more CO2 causing more greenery and increased crops (remember in the dutch greenhouses where they add CO2 to 1500 ppm?)

I say more CO2 is better,

Now who does not understand that?

If you BC, want to maintain your current viewpoint, you must qualify why you say that more CO2 is not better?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #215 on: 09/07/2013 19:36:43 »

henry says
I wonder why you keep saying that I make unqualified statements.
Because you said
"more carbon is OK, in fact it is better."
without qualifying it. In doing so, you made an unqualified statement.
Evidence that, in some cases more CO2 may be beneficial to some things is utterly beside the point.
And repeating it by saying "I say more CO2 is better, " just shows that you don't even understand why you are wrong.


I wonder why you don't find out what the phrase means.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #216 on: 09/07/2013 20:08:29 »
henry@BC
to be able to make qualified statements you have to do your own research.

which is where?

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #217 on: 09/07/2013 22:45:24 »
From alancalverd:(reply #213, following on from 211 and 212)
Quote
Just to quote a bit of the article that MCOK referenced:

Quote
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” Dr Donohue said. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.

11% hardly represents "greening of the Australian desert", especially compared to a 200+% greening associated with a few seasonal floods! The headline on the article henry linked is a blatant overstatement, and might well cause confusion in readers other than myself!
Especially in the light of a few nature documentaries that have recorded the spectacular blossoming of the Australian desert in response to recent floods.

11% greening in response to 15% CO2 increase over the same period is hardly unexpected in desert plants that are not water-limited in their photosynthetic response. Fact is that most plants, including over 90% of food crops, are water-limited.
 
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #218 on: 10/07/2013 18:13:48 »
Never mind the article - I have little respect for journalism. I'm interested in the numbers quoted from CSIRO and ANU. 11% increased foliage over 18 years is a significant change in arid vegetation, and it's not just flood cropping in Austraila that they studied, but arid regions worldwide. If the figures are honestly reported, that looks to me like a signficant and unsurprising trend, in keeping with all we know about plant growth.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #219 on: 11/07/2013 20:05:22 »
I don't know about the other members of this forum, but I'm not a plant.
What's good for plants in some arid areas may well not be good for me, or for the planet as a whole.
Rapid changes in climate are generally bad for people- whichever direction the change takes.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #220 on: 11/07/2013 22:30:52 »
You may not be a plant, but as you can't synthesise sugars or proteins, your life depends on plants. The Irish potato famine, the Oklahoma dustbowl, Lysenkoism....killed millions of people, and the same stories recur every year throughout Africa and Asia: Bihar,the Sahel....

True, most of these disasters have been caused by a failure of the water supply or seriously bad science, but it's difficult to imagine how a few percent more foliage could be a Bad Thing. 400 ppm CO2 won't do you any harm, and it may just help to avert then next major agricultural catastrophe.

Rapid changes in climate are inevitable, as the historical record shows. For the first time since life began, one species  is able to anticipate and mitigate its effect, but most people prefer to argue about its cause. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #221 on: 12/07/2013 02:16:37 »
From alancalverd (reply #220):
Quote
True, most of these disasters have been caused by a failure of the water supply or seriously bad science, but it's difficult to imagine how a few percent more foliage could be a Bad Thing. 400 ppm CO2 won't do you any harm, and it may just help to avert then next major agricultural catastrophe.

True, but it is also hard to imagine how it could be a good thing:

From damocles (reply #217):
Quote
11% greening in response to 15% CO2 increase over the same period is hardly unexpected in desert plants that are not water-limited in their photosynthetic response. Fact is that most plants, including over 90% of food crops, are water-limited.

Meanwhile there is an argument that more CO2 will lead to global warming, rising sea levels, and more erratic weather, which definitely is a bad thing. It is not an overwhelming argument, but it is a position supported by over 90% of the serious scientists working in the area, which at least means that it must be seriously considered by any rational person.

1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #222 on: 12/07/2013 11:22:21 »
There are very good, logical, scientific and political reasons for limiting and eventually abolishing the emission of CO2 from fossil fuels. Global warming is not one of them.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #223 on: 13/07/2013 15:38:22 »
"it's difficult to imagine how a few percent more foliage could be a Bad Thing. "
If anyone had said that it was, then that wouldn't be a strawman.

"There are very good, logical, scientific and political reasons for limiting and eventually abolishing the emission of CO2 from fossil fuels. Global warming is not one of them."
Says you, but the experts disagree; and they have actual evidence.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #224 on: 14/07/2013 17:57:44 »
damocles says
Meanwhile there is an argument that more CO2 will lead to global warming, rising sea levels, and more erratic weather, which definitely is a bad thing. It is not an overwhelming argument, but it is a position supported by over 90% of the serious scientists
bored chemist says
Says you, but the experts disagree; and they have actual evidence.

henry says

I am not serious? what evidence are you guys referring to? I am interested to hear from you which information you find convincing for this type of reasoning of those in the 90%?

Truth is that most data sets including my own, i.e.  both my global set and my set for South Africa,
show that we have dropped by about 0.2K, on average over the last 12 years.

That is the reality. It is not an "opinion". It is a figure. We, on earth, are almost a quarter degree cooler now as it was 12 years ago.

it does not yet sound like a lot. but I know we are further accelerating downwards, simply because I cannot find another best fit for my data, other than the one reported here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/



*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #225 on: 14/07/2013 18:41:19 »



henry says

I am not serious?

No.
A serious researcher wouldn't try to fit a sine wave through the data like you did.
They would look at scientific evidence, like the stuff cited here.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html#.UeLiTY3_l7g

or here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #226 on: 14/07/2013 19:20:14 »
BC quotes
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html#.UeLiTY3_l7g

henry says
come on BC?
we were talking about post 2000,
nothing to do with 1940-1970
(which btw had a lot of atomic bombs going off, especially in the Pacific, causing widespread de-foliation,
a tell-tale sign....)

anyway, show me your best fit, on, e.g. the end results of my first table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

i.e. drop in T in K/annum versus time?

« Last Edit: 14/07/2013 19:51:14 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #227 on: 14/07/2013 19:48:50 »
I am so amused now.
Over the past year, I have pursued everyone in the south african media who claimed "global warming" due to CO2 increase, to provide me with proof of that, showing them my own results (of SA weather stations) since 2000.....
(on the threat of going to the broadcasting complaints commission)

I have not heard about "global warming" for a long time here in the media...
LOL

how backwards they still are in Britain

You only need one man to stand up....

like we had Mandela...


« Last Edit: 14/07/2013 19:52:04 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #228 on: 14/07/2013 21:24:44 »
Sorry, I had forgotten that you didn't listen when told this earlier
"That's weather, not climate, and it's local weather; we already covered that."

So,  I'd not bother fitting anything to that small a data set.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #229 on: 15/07/2013 15:00:40 »
henry@BC
and I told you a few hundred times now that most major data sets agree with my own
here you can see this, where I put this into a graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend
namely that the trend is NEGATIVE from about 12 years ago.

Now here you can see the average trend from 1980
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2012/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/to:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2012/trend

we  discussed this in detail, and in this discussion I agreed with you, that, on average, we rose by between 0.3 and 0.4 degrees C since 1980.

now go back to "my little, insignificant data set" and in the 2nd table (on means) you will see that I determined an average warming rate of ca. 0.013K/annum since 1980.
That also works out to 0.4 degrees C since 1980.

Did you see how accurate my small data set was?

Now, the reason I asked you to look again at the first table and do that fit, is because, stupid enough, nobody in the data sets is looking at maxima and minima, yet there is where you can learn most. "Means"  is earthly chaotic, but, eventually, it follows the "maxima".  Based on that maxima trend, which such high correlation (99.7%) , I can easily predict correctly that warming has stopped and that cooling has started. Unfortunately, putting more CO2 in the air will not stop that trend.
 I hope somebody learned something here today...


« Last Edit: 15/07/2013 15:06:56 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #230 on: 15/07/2013 21:06:04 »
"and I told you a few hundred times now that most major data sets agree with my own"
Indeed.
Now, remind me why yours is the only one that's marching in step.
And I'm going to stop reading your posts until you sort out the mess your links make of
the site formatting because your posts don't seem worth the trouble of reading.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #231 on: 16/07/2013 18:14:33 »
...>>>....BC says

And I'm going to stop reading your posts until you sort out the mess your links make of...

henry says
true, I don't know much about computer science

and I do think you and me are good chemists, both of us qualifying in that direction.

I am afraid you lack my knowledge on statistics
which includes probability theory. Stats 1 is reasonably simple, stats 2 is difficult, stats 3 is more complicated
especially on sampling techniques, where you have to be sure of randomness and representative-ness,

but if you just grasped stats 1,  you would understand what I am saying

the problem is: you want to follow a certain line of thinking (politics? majority rules?) instead of use your own brains.

You have to stop that line of thinking.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2013 19:10:13 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #232 on: 16/07/2013 22:02:32 »
Trust me, I'm not the one who needs to learn stats here.
Having a computer that can plot a sine wave through the data doesn't mean the data follow a sine wave.
The fact that you chose that function (rather than, for example a polynomial)
means that you are the one who " want(s) to follow a certain line of thinking ".
A sine wave goes back to where it starts from so your choice absolutely ruled out the idea of any long term change.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #233 on: 17/07/2013 02:00:15 »
from MoreCarbonOK:
Quote
true, I don't know much about computer science

and I do think you and me are good chemists, both of us qualifying in that direction.

I am afraid you lack my knowledge on statistics
which includes probability theory. Stats 1 is reasonably simple, stats 2 is difficult, stats 3 is more complicated
especially on sampling techniques, where you have to be sure of randomness and representative-ness,

but if you just grasped stats 1,  you would understand what I am saying

(1) As a good scientist, I believe in dispassionately following the evidence. The evidence that MCOK is a good chemist is totally belied by the fact that in earlier posts in this lengthy interchange MoreCarbonOK posted as follows:
Quote
Smokers do not die (immediately) from inhaling  near 100% CO2
The air which smokers inhale is roughly 15% CO2 at most. The point that BC was making in his next post, which would be transparent to a good chemist, was that the nitrogen component of air, 78%, is not involved in the combustion reaction. It is also a fact that oxygen continues to be necessary to support the smokers' lives.

Quote
from henry (moreCarbonOK):
Quote
Clifford,
are you a chemisdt?
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that.


Henry are you a chemist? Any (good) chemist knows that there must be a stoichiometric balance in an equation system like the one you have been quoting so frequently to justify your simplistic assumption.

If the equation that you are relying on to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 as the result of increasing temperature, then the alkalinity of sea water would be rising in accordance with the increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact it has been falling. This is more in line with the conventional explanation of a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 in line with human activity, with approximately one third of the additional CO2 burden being taken up by the world's oceans. An analysis of the global sources and sinks of CO2 also matches the conventional explanation: CO2 is mostly generated over land, and much more over populated industrialized land, and is mostly absorbed in the oceans. The models now have a fine enough resolution to pick out specific areas of ocean, e.g. the Behring Strait, where CO2 is being released to the atmosphere. But they are more than compensated for by the overall effect of the oceans in absorbing CO2. (By the way this has been confirmed by direct measurement).
Any good chemist should be able to do a simple calculation to show that the equation itself is far from correct as quoted:
HCO3(aq) + heat --> CO2(g) + OH(aq)
It should read:
HCO3(aq) <==> CO2(g) + OH(aq) + heat
Moreover it is closely linked with another step:
OH(aq) + HCO3(aq) <==> CO32–(aq) + H2O(l) + a little more heat
to provide an overall result of:
2 HCO3(aq) <==> CO2(g) + CO32–(aq) + H2O(l) + even more heat.

Provision of more heat should, on the face of it, result in the absorption of atmospheric CO2, although this will depend on the availability of aqueous carbonate.

(2) MCOK's claim to be well versed in statistics also appears, on the evidence, to be rather optimistic.
He says:
Quote
I am afraid you lack my knowledge on statistics
which includes probability theory. Stats 1 is reasonably simple, stats 2 is difficult, stats 3 is more complicated
especially on sampling techniques, where you have to be sure of randomness and representative-ness,
His sampling techniques might be spatially representative, but they are certainly temporally unfortunate, to say the least. Why? Because they are based on a cooling from a peak in 2002-3 to a trough in 2010-12. But the peak corresponds to an El Niño event in 2002-2003 declining to two consecutive La Niña events in 2011 and 2012. The corresponding ENSO indices can be found at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml.
When the ENSO influence is removed from the (Australian) data, it is found that there is still a warming trend:
http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #234 on: 17/07/2013 07:10:43 »
Henry@damocles
clearly you are no chemist at all,
otherwise, you would have known that to make a standard solution of, say,  0.1 n NaOH,  you need to boil the DI water for 10 minutes to remove all CO2
so the reaction
HCO3 - (bi carbonate) +heat => CO2 (g) + OH-
is therefore quite correct, to describe what we are doing in the lab..
Since there are giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans it follows clearly that (more) CO2 follows (more) warming.
As I have shown to you before from the records.
(if you were worried how the OH- is balanced out, in my standard solution, we know that as we boil the water, H2CO3 + H2O=> HCO3- + H3O+ which precedes the quoted reaction)


BC says
The fact that you chose that function (rather than, for example a polynomial)
means that you are the one who " want(s) to follow a certain line of thinking ".
A sine wave goes back to where it starts from so your choice absolutely ruled out the idea of any long term change.

Henry says
The truth is that on the last 4 figures in Table 1, I did do a binomial fit and it gave me an incredible correlation coefficient of 0.997.
(if you put the speed of warming out against time)
After obtaining this result, I did not bother to take more samples (i.e. weather stations), because it simply would not matter:
in statistics you simply cannot get things better than that, to prove a relationship, from a sample.


However,  if you use that binomial fit to predict the future, even just a few years ahead, where will we end up? Can you tell me?

FYI the data (MAXIMA) are

0.036 - LAST 38 YEARS
0.028 - LAST 32 YEARS
0.015 - LAST 22 YEARS
-0.013 - LAST 12 YEARS

just check it out...
please.

« Last Edit: 17/07/2013 11:39:05 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4316
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #235 on: 17/07/2013 10:39:34 »
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the use of a binomial fit to climate data. Please clarify.

I regularly use the Binomial Distribution, but I don't see how this relates to climate prediction.

Please provide some more information about how this curve fitting was done. The Binomial Distribution can provide a few curve shapes, based on it two input parameters:
  • Declining towards zero
  • Increasing towards one
  • A bell-shaped curve, which starts at zero and ends at zero, with a peak in the middle

Please describe:
  • which of these curve shapes best fitted your climate data?
  • How did you map the two input parameters onto the climate data?
  • what was the probability parameter which produced the best fit?
  • what is the climate-relevant significance of this probability parameter?
  • how did you map the binomial probability distribution (range 0-1) onto the climate data to make future climate predictions?

 
« Last Edit: 17/07/2013 11:58:40 by evan_au »

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #236 on: 17/07/2013 12:34:18 »
From Henry (reply #234):
Quote
Henry@damocles
clearly you are no chemist at all,
otherwise, you would have known that to make a standard solution of, say,  0.1 n NaOH,  you need to boil the DI water for 10 minutes to remove all CO2
so the reaction
HCO3 - (bi carbonate) +heat => CO2 (g) + OH-
is therefore quite correct, to describe what we are doing in the lab..
Since there are giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans it follows clearly that (more) CO2 follows (more) warming.

umm... No, Henry! You are confusing two thermodynamic quantities here -- whether a reaction takes in or gives out heat (∆Hrxn = enthalpy of reaction) , and the direction of spontaneity of a reaction (∆Grxn = gibbs free energy of reaction). In most cases the reaction that gives out heat is the spontaneous one, but in this case the situation is reversed, and especially if you want to involve hydroxyl and bicarbonate! For the reaction that I described for solution/release of CO2(g) the ∆H°rxn is around -36 kJ/mol (i.e. energy released), but the ∆G°rxn is around +8 kJ/mol. Of course the activities of the various substances come into play in deciding the direction of spontaneity, but they have no part in the enthalpy change (and this post provides even more empirical evidence that you are not seriously a chemist).

From evan-au (reply #235):
Quote
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the use of a binomial fit to climate data. Please clarify.

I regularly use the Binomial Distribution, but I don't see how this relates to climate prediction.

Please provide some more information about how this curve fitting was done. The Binomial Distribution can provide a few curve shapes, based on a single probability parameter:
   •   Declining towards zero
   •   Increasing towards one
   •   A bell-shaped curve, which starts at zero and ends at zero, with a peak in the middle

Evan I think that what Henry means by "binomial fit" is a 2nd order polynomial fit (which guarantees a catastrophe in one direction or the other!) -- but I cannot be sure. Notice though how everything is expressed in terms of "last x years" so that his data remains firmly anchored on the last two years, which have both been La Niña years.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #237 on: 17/07/2013 19:08:11 »
henry@damocles

I am sure I told you before.
You have rain, there in AU, right?  Where did it come from? how did it form?


heat is an outlet for bicarbonate from the seas
HCO3- => CO2 g + OH-

cold is a sinc for CO2

CO2 + 2H2O => HCO3- + H3O+

that this happens is provable from measurements at cold and warm places.

Damocles says
Notice though how everything is expressed in terms of "last x years" so that his data remains
firmly anchored on the last two years, which have both been La Niña years

Henry says
 how misleading this statement is, which really makes me doubt your honesty and integrity
clearly you can see the falling speed in maximum temperature from 38 years ago to now?
(i.e. from 38 years ago, and NOT two years)

Henry@all

pity there is no one here who understands stats, even if it were just first year.


If you have a set of data from a sample, like the one quoted to you
you can first try a linear fit
(which, on maxima, gave me correlation of 0.96)
then you can try a polynomial fit, first 2nd order (0.995), than higher order
lastly you can try something like a sine wave fit
Thankful to God, I decided on the last option, giving me the least upheaval,
although some problems will be coming up when we reach the bottom of the sine wave.


I don't know how I can help you, if don't understand that.

Either fit will show that we changed sign from warming to cooling around 1995....
just looking at energy coming in.


*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #238 on: 17/07/2013 20:02:31 »
perhaps I should again explain what you are looking at in the tables
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/


The (black) figures you are looking at  represent the average change in degrees Celsius (or Kelvin) per annum,
from the average temperatures measured during the period indicated.
These are the slopes of the least square fit equations or “ linear trendlines” for the periods indicated, as calculated, i.e. the value before the x.

The average temperature data from the stations were obtained from http://www.tutiempo.net
I tried to avoid stations with many missing data. Nevertheless, it is very difficult finding weather stations that have no missing data at all.
If a month’s data was found missing or if I found that the average for a month was based on less than 15 days of that month’s data,
I looked at the average temperatures of that month of the preceding- and following year, averaged these,
and in this way estimated the temperatures of that particular month’s missing data.
The last point is important:in normal stats, one is inclined to fill in long term averages for missing databut here that would be wrong,
if you want to study the change in temp. / weather over time

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #239 on: 17/07/2013 20:06:43 »
OK, seconds out.
Both of you are wrong about CO2 water, bicarbonate, hydroxide etc.

Henry's assertion that
HCO3 - (bi carbonate) +heat => CO2 (g) + OH-
is wrong.
And so is this
2 HCO3–(aq) <==> CO2(g) + CO32–(aq) + H2O(l) + even more heat.

I invite you both to go to the kitchen, get some bicarbonate of soda and stir it into a cup full of boiling hot water.
That way you can both verify that
2 NaHCO3  --> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2

Heating drives the equilibrium to the right (because of the large delta S term)
You don't get carbonates decomposing to hydroxides in aqueous solution.
The reaction
2 NaOH + CO2  --> Na2CO3  + H2O
goes essentially to completion
So does the reaction
NaOH + NaHCO3 --> Na2CO3 + H2O

There's very little OH- in sea water.

Now, perhaps Henry could answer my point that his choice of a sine wave 
(which will never show a long term trend) is anything other than a,
possibly unconscious, attempt to ensure that his "model" agrees with his beliefs.
Then, having chosen a model which forces the conclusion that there is no change
(in the long term), he claims I'm not open minded.
Why is that?
Why choose a model which excludes the possibility of what is widely thought to be the right answer?
Had you (with your asserted understanding of Stats 3) not realised that?
« Last Edit: 17/07/2013 20:09:33 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #240 on: 18/07/2013 15:04:46 »
Henry@BC

I think there is nothing wrong with my first reaction
to show how CO2 came from the oceans to become part of the life cycle,
There is also nothing wrong with my reaction showing how the carbondioxide dissolves in cold water

this is a quote from wikipedia

The solubility pump is driven by the coincidence of two processes in the ocean :
The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water)
The thermohaline circulation is driven by the formation of deep water at high latitudes where seawater is usually cooler and denser
Since deep water (that is, seawater in the ocean's interior) is formed under the same surface conditions that promote carbon dioxide solubility, it contains a higher concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon than one might otherwise expect. Consequently, these two processes act together to pump carbon from the atmosphere into the ocean's interior.
One consequence of this is that when deep water upwells in warmer, equatorial latitudes, it strongly outgasses carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of the reduced solubility of the gas.

end quote

the quote shows exactly what I have been trying say......
This sinc-ing of CO2 becomes a problem of course during an ice age where the CO2 in the atmosphere falls below 200 ppm and life ends.
There is no vegetation or life when the CO2 drops below 180.

That shows you how intricate creation is. So more carbon dioxide is ok.
CO2 and H2O are like your father and mother: cursing either is like cursing your own life
A bit more warmth is good as well (although I do not believe that more CO2 causes more warmth, unfortunately)

As to your other question: I did mention in my previous post as to why I chose the sine wave fit for the drop in the speed of warming (maxima).

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #241 on: 18/07/2013 21:09:11 »
There is nothing wrong with this reaction
HCO3 - (bi carbonate) +heat => CO2 (g) + OH-

apart from the fact that it doesn't happen.
It's just wrong.
Nothing you can post will change that.


Now, about that sine wave, and the fact that it means
you have chosen a model which is predestined to disagree with all the experts in the field.
Was that deliberate, or did you not know what you were doing?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #242 on: 19/07/2013 18:30:01 »
henry says\

There is nothing wrong with this reaction
HCO3 - (bi carbonate) +heat => CO2 (g) + OH-

BC says
apart from the fact that it doesn't happen.
It's just wrong.
Nothing you can post will change that.

Henry says

wow
I thought you believed in wikipedia


clearly, some hydroxyl ions are left in the oceans when CO2 escapes,
and some hydronium ions are added in the oceans when CO2 sincs,
which, btw, is part of another claim by most environmentalists,
that more CO2 adds to  the acidification of the seas,
which, in its turn, btw, I think is more due to human manufacturing rather than CO2,
but all of that would be a different discussion on another thread, OK?

Suffice to say, that the chemical reactions I quoted are just all ok.






« Last Edit: 19/07/2013 20:51:21 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #243 on: 19/07/2013 19:17:33 »
BC says
Now, about that sine wave, and the fact that it means
you have chosen a model which is predestined to disagree with all the experts in the field.
Was that deliberate, or did you not know what you were doing?\

henry says
First thing to learn in life:
don't believe everything the experts tell you

Just believe in your own science, and ability to understand.

Unfortunately< if you do not understand stats, you will not be able to follow me...
Nevertheless, I will try again
1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data
2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren't)
a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter)
b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,
so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a "perfect" sample)
d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats)
e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all other data sets, but also at maxima and minima...
3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded,
over  the period indicated.
4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
 clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every
other period I looked//...
5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps,
ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling
6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
y= -0.000049x2 + 0.004267x - 0.056745
r2=0.995
That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the traject of somebody throwing a ball...
7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?) showed a curve:
happening around 40 years ago,
8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom...

Now, what is not to understand about that?



 

« Last Edit: 20/07/2013 05:20:36 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #244 on: 19/07/2013 21:16:31 »
This is an interesting point: what happens when we reach the bottom of the sine wave:?
...well I did not get any answer to that question here <Removed>
<External link to a scientifically unsupported site, where the comment you make then links to you own blog
 - flying in the face of previous multiple warnings by the moderators.>

and I wonder if anyone of you would like to give it a try?
« Last Edit: 20/07/2013 12:11:30 by peppercorn »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8865
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #245 on: 20/07/2013 12:17:31 »
"This is an interesting point: what happens when we reach the bottom of the sine wave:?"
It turns round and goes back up again.
That's why it's an implausible model.
Now, rather than trying to evade the issue, can you please answer the question.
Why did you choose to fit the data to a function which will not permit a trend?

BTW, this
" ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom..."
is plainly bollocks, you could have used a higher order polynomial rather than a sine wave.
Or you could have accepted that you are trying to "model" the noise in the system.
That's what happens if you fail to distinguish between weather and climate.
Please disregard all previous signatures.