0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which would make the graph all the more mysterious. As the amount of sunlight increases, so does the amount of CO2!
Quote from: alancalverd on 04/07/2013 09:45:03Reverting 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: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINIf 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.
henry@alananyway, as I had been saying all along, more carbon is OK, in fact it is better.......sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Oh come on, BC! There's a huge difference between 400 ppm and 40,000 ppm
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.
henry saysI wonder why you keep saying that I make unqualified statements.
Just to quote a bit of the article that MCOK referenced:QuoteIn 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.
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.
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.
henry saysI am not serious?
true, I don't know much about computer scienceand I do think you and me are good chemists, both of us qualifying in that direction.I am afraid you lack my knowledge on statisticswhich includes probability theory. Stats 1 is reasonably simple, stats 2 is difficult, stats 3 is more complicatedespecially 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
Smokers do not die (immediately) from inhaling near 100% CO2
from henry (moreCarbonOK):QuoteClifford,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).
I am afraid you lack my knowledge on statisticswhich includes probability theory. Stats 1 is reasonably simple, stats 2 is difficult, stats 3 is more complicatedespecially on sampling techniques, where you have to be sure of randomness and representative-ness,
Henry@damoclesclearly 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 CO2so 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.
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