[MoreCarbonOK]

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).

[Bored chemist]

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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

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.

[MoreCarbonOK]

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,
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?



 

[MoreCarbonOK]

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?

[Bored chemist]

"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.