|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 8, 2023 20:00:50 GMT
We don't know that Y is greater than X - for the umpteenth time. It's never been measured. Unless you can show me the figures. We know Y roughly, but not X. And you're again assuming that the correlation between C2 and global temperature is established when it's not. As I've pointed out often, there has been a period of warming that occurred between 1920 and 1940 that almost exactly matches the current warming - but there was very little increase in CO2. In science, Zanygame, your theories have to match the data and they don't. And the models based on the assumption that CO2 causes warming don't work. We do know that X and Y kept the earths temperature at 14 c ave for a thousand years. We know X increases temperature and Y decreases it. We know X is increasing and Y isn't. Join the dots. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 9, 2023 8:49:39 GMT
We don't know that Y is greater than X - for the umpteenth time. It's never been measured. Unless you can show me the figures. We know Y roughly, but not X. And you're again assuming that the correlation between C2 and global temperature is established when it's not. As I've pointed out often, there has been a period of warming that occurred between 1920 and 1940 that almost exactly matches the current warming - but there was very little increase in CO2. In science, Zanygame, your theories have to match the data and they don't. And the models based on the assumption that CO2 causes warming don't work. We do know that X and Y kept the earths temperature at 14 c ave for a thousand years. We know X increases temperature and Y decreases it. We know X is increasing and Y isn't. Join the dots. Very confusing, Zanygame. You have previously said: " So Photosynthesis causes X amount of cooling, Atmospheric Co2 causes Y amount of warming. Y is greater than X to the planet warms". You now seem to have switched the meaning of X and Y. Never mind. But you're making a lot of assumptions that are unproved - and not even measured. The amount of warming caused by CO2 is increasing slightly - that's accepted and has been understood for years. In fact it's one of the few things that we know about climate that is relatively simple, which is probably why the politicians have weaponised it. And it has been shown to be true by experiment. However you need to recognise that the greenhouse effect is not linear - it rapidly diminishes as concentrations get higher. You say that the other factor - the cooling effect of photosynthesis - is not increasing. Where's your evidence for this? I'm not aware that it has ever been measured (cue for BvL to find some irrelevant link). We're certainly chopping down trees and concreting over large areas, but remember that photosynthesis is known to increase when CO2 concentrations rise. In fact CO2 may be the limiting factor in photosynthesis. So we don't have proof of your theory that Y-X is the predominant factor in warming. In fact it may be pretty irrelevant compared to other much bigger natural effects. We don't know. But we do know that the ETCW period of about 20 years is very similar to the current period of warming but happened without any significant rise in CO2. But, with the passing of nearly 100 years it is now not even a blip on the graph. It's all been smoothed out by selective filtering. Why do you think the current warming is different? The graph posted a few posts earlier also looks interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 9, 2023 20:44:37 GMT
We do know that X and Y kept the earths temperature at 14 c ave for a thousand years. We know X increases temperature and Y decreases it. We know X is increasing and Y isn't. Join the dots. Sorry all those X's and Y's, so confusing. I think you have to understand the amount of energy needed to raise the whole planets temperature by 1 degree. That you think politicians have weaponised it shows your true belief, not that it is unproven and you require explanations, but that its all a big conspiracy. The greenhouse effect requires constant topping up, but that's what its getting. There have been several studies looking at whether increased co2 concentrations increase photosynthesis. They show it doesn't because the defining factor in increased plant growth is not Co2 but sunlight. There is already more Co2 present than plants need. Why don't you know this stuff before you made your mind up? Such as? What are these unknown factors we haven't allowed for? Again, what is the thing causing enough energy to warm the entire planet? Its Co2 concentrations, that's what. Your argument is that even though we know that Co2 causes warming and the earth is warming something else is mitigating that effect and something else again is warming the planet. Curiouser and curiouser. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 9, 2023 22:04:52 GMT
Not really because you do it by weight. To many other factors. You could average it, but the deniers would never accept that. The energy used to produce a certain amount of plant material is well-known. Plants have a very similar biology so it will work for any plant. It is exact as well in that it takes so many photons to make each molecule. In fact plants photosynthesis better with red light because red photons are a lower energy. As you should know the process is quantised. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 9, 2023 22:11:00 GMT
To many other factors. You could average it, but the deniers would never accept that. The energy used to produce a certain amount of plant material is well-known. Plants have a very similar biology so it will work for any plant. It is exact as well in that it takes so many photons to make each molecule. In fact plants photosynthesis better with red light because red photons are a lower energy. As you should know the process is quantised. But take up is dependent on sunshine, water, minerals, each vary from site to site. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 9, 2023 23:00:10 GMT
The energy used to produce a certain amount of plant material is well-known. Plants have a very similar biology so it will work for any plant. It is exact as well in that it takes so many photons to make each molecule. In fact plants photosynthesis better with red light because red photons are a lower energy. As you should know the process is quantised. But take up is dependent on sunshine, water, minerals, each vary from site to site. Yes the supply of water would be an issue for them. As you increase the light level so water and nutrient uptake increases. If they are lacking then they will grow longer roots. If there is a severe lack the plant will stress out and go into survival mode. Plants are actually bloody clever things. You should find a plant in its natural environment though has all it needs. If this is the case then weight grown is a linear function of the amount of light, i.e. the integral of light intensity with respect to time |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 9, 2023 23:11:10 GMT
But take up is dependent on sunshine, water, minerals, each vary from site to site. Yes the supply of water would be an issue for them. As you increase the light level so water and nutrient uptake increases. If they are lacking then they will grow longer roots. If there is a severe lack the plant will stress out and go into survival mode. Plants are actually bloody clever things. You should find a plant in its natural environment though has all it needs. If this is the case then weight grown is a linear function of the amount of light, i.e. the integral of light intensity with respect to time Indeed. But you can see that all these variables make your suggested calculation impracticable. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 10, 2023 0:50:51 GMT
Yes the supply of water would be an issue for them. As you increase the light level so water and nutrient uptake increases. If they are lacking then they will grow longer roots. If there is a severe lack the plant will stress out and go into survival mode. Plants are actually bloody clever things. You should find a plant in its natural environment though has all it needs. If this is the case then weight grown is a linear function of the amount of light, i.e. the integral of light intensity with respect to time Indeed. But you can see that all these variables make your suggested calculation impracticable. I don't think so. I think people on here lack the skills to take a problem and work through it, like I have been doing. It's a matter of practice. Scientists do it all the time and use all sorts of clever tricks to get an accurate answer where in first impressions it looks tricky. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 10, 2023 7:57:28 GMT
Indeed. But you can see that all these variables make your suggested calculation impracticable. I don't think so. I think people on here lack the skills to take a problem and work through it, like I have been doing. It's a matter of practice. Scientists do it all the time and use all sorts of clever tricks to get an accurate answer where in first impressions it looks tricky. It's the way you tell 'em BvL. Nobody has the skills to take this problem and work through it for the simple reason that we don't have the equations and we don't have the data. Your problem is that you don't understand enough about science to realise this. And the fact that you think you do just proves it. The "scientists" have built vastly complicated models to try to simulate the Earth's system and they don't work. As for zanygame, you're back to making stuff up again and pointless waffle. So you disagree with NASA (and many, many others) who say unequivocally that the increasing CO2 causes more photosynthesis. Why don't YOU look it up before spouting nonsense. You can't keep on asserting that it's CO2 that's causing the warming when data that we already have disproves this (like the ETCW where identical warming occurred with NO increase in CO2). As for the other factors that may be causing warming there are too many to mention. As the links that SP provided showed, there's a considerable body of scientists who think that the warming can be explained by the Sun. Then there's El Nino that we also know causes considerable warming. And then there's the massive repurposing of the land area of the planet (75%) that has occurred since the baseline time for average temp increase - chopping down trees, building houses, roads infrastructure etc etc. And none of these have been investigated at all. And we haven't even proved that CO2's greenhouse effect is greater than its photosynthesis effect. No experiment has ever been done to show this. But we DO know that no one has EVER demonstrated CO2 warming in any area that has plants. However there's probably no point in discussing this further. The "warmists", like you, are now a cult and "believe" without evidence. Any scientist is aware that the jury's still out on CO2. I'm not a "denier" - I just accept that we don't know the answer to this phenomenon. In fact we don't even know if anything significant is occurring. In a 100 years time this warming period may have disappeared - like the ETCW. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 10, 2023 20:03:42 GMT
Its a shame most of the world is in my cult along with most climatologists. Still you believe what you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 11, 2023 0:53:31 GMT
I don't think so. I think people on here lack the skills to take a problem and work through it, like I have been doing. It's a matter of practice. Scientists do it all the time and use all sorts of clever tricks to get an accurate answer where in first impressions it looks tricky. It's the way you tell 'em BvL. Nobody has the skills to take this problem and work through it for the simple reason that we don't have the equations and we don't have the data. Your problem is that you don't understand enough about science to realise this. And the fact that you think you do just proves it. The "scientists" have built vastly complicated models to try to simulate the Earth's system and they don't work. As for zanygame, you're back to making stuff up again and pointless waffle. So you disagree with NASA (and many, many others) who say unequivocally that the increasing CO2 causes more photosynthesis. Why don't YOU look it up before spouting nonsense. You can't keep on asserting that it's CO2 that's causing the warming when data that we already have disproves this (like the ETCW where identical warming occurred with NO increase in CO2). As for the other factors that may be causing warming there are too many to mention. As the links that SP provided showed, there's a considerable body of scientists who think that the warming can be explained by the Sun. Then there's El Nino that we also know causes considerable warming. And then there's the massive repurposing of the land area of the planet (75%) that has occurred since the baseline time for average temp increase - chopping down trees, building houses, roads infrastructure etc etc. And none of these have been investigated at all. And we haven't even proved that CO2's greenhouse effect is greater than its photosynthesis effect. No experiment has ever been done to show this. But we DO know that no one has EVER demonstrated CO2 warming in any area that has plants. However there's probably no point in discussing this further. The "warmists", like you, are now a cult and "believe" without evidence. Any scientist is aware that the jury's still out on CO2. I'm not a "denier" - I just accept that we don't know the answer to this phenomenon. In fact we don't even know if anything significant is occurring. In a 100 years time this warming period may have disappeared - like the ETCW. Plants do have a cooling effect. I've never denied it. Actually my garden is pretty well designed in that there are quite a few trees and bushes in it so on a hot summer's day the wind can blow through the trees to cool you down whilst still getting the sunshine.
We can actually calculate this effect. With vegetation is is not the volume but the surface area which is important. It's only where the light hits the leaves that photosynthesis takes place, so it does not matter what shape your trees are or how many if you have the whole ground covered in green. The molecular production will be so much per square meter at a particular light level.
I'm just showing you this because it is very common in science that where you may have initially thought you'd have to compute every tree and bush, the solution to the problem actually cancels out the complexity. I've seen examples of this in science many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 11, 2023 7:56:24 GMT
This is probably all true, BvL, and you can certainly make some attempt to calculate the cooling effect of photosynthesis by measuring the weight of growth of plants and the energy required to make it. However in science you always have to TEST your ideas. Remember that? You can make all the calculations you like (if you can get the data) but it proves nothing until you can demonstrate it in the field. The "model" has to make accurate predictions or it's worthless. So where are the experiments that calculate the cooling effect of CO2? The basic fact is, as I said, that no experiment has ever managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in areas that have vegetation.
As for Zanygame, you're still repeating claims for which you have no reputable source (i.e. 97% of scientists etc). Nowadays it's very dangerous to believe stuff from dubious sources.
|
|
