By Jim Goodridge – former California State Climatologist
Photosynthesis simply stated is 6CO2 + 6H2O + photons = C6H12O6+6O2.
It is suggested by the relative abundances of atmospheric CO2 and O2,
That CO2 is a quite active material and it is always in short supply.
Plant growth is basically the chemical reaction of storing solar energy.
Chemical reactions generally double with an increase of 10°F.
Rising temperatures cause CO2 to boil out of ocean water.
Rising temperature and CO2 concentration both stimulate plant growth.
Our atmosphere originally contained about 30 percent CO2.
The era of chlorophyll dominance is referred to as the Great Oxidation.
This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron.
Rusted out, producing our planets iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
Chlorophyll is still the mechanism controlling the CO2 and O2 abundance.
All life forms basically originated by a photosynthesis process.
Chemically our hemoglobin and chlorophyll are quite similar.
Suggesting a common origin, that is supported by common DNA code.
Where as animals do not photosynthesize, their plant foods do.
Beef, chicken or fish feed off photosynthetic products.
It is mainly trace minerals that supplement photo-source.
CO2 is literally the gas of life for all macro life forms we encounter.
The existence of extremophiles suggests very early non-solar energy sources.
Demonizing CO2 started with the plan for peaceful use of atomic bombs.
The big dream in 1946 that was that atomic energy would be so cheap,
That electricity would never again need to be metered.
The attribution of increased CO2 to fossil fuel burning was born here.
Atomic energy advocates wanted to save Earth from runaway GH heating like Venus.
A conservation ethic developed to conserve the finite petroleum for the future and
Anti-pollution and anti-growth advocates added voices to the anti- CO2 theme.
All earthly macro life forms are photosynthically derived from CO2,
Either directly or indirectly by chlorophyll that absorbs solar photons.
We are not here not at the whim of a deity but by evolution of CO2 derivatives.
================================================================
Note: Jim’s line, The attribution of increased CO2 to fossil fuel burning was born here.
There’s a tremendous backstory to this which I have been chasing for awhile. See this post from the earlier days of WUWT in 2008. If anyone can help find it, I’d be appreciative.
This is a wonderful short synopsis of the CO2 situation. Thanks for this post!
Moderators etal of Watts Up With That
over on http://www.hotair.com
Post there on a poll about 2/3’s of Americans belive AGW is real.
317 post so far, a poster with nic,,,
trible,,,
is calling out the $44,000.00 from Heartland
He was chalanged to come on here and tell Anthony how unethical that Anthony is.
Watch for that poster, you might check out his post, his posting style will clue you if he comes under another nic.
The whole thing is a natural self-regulating system. As temperatures rise, oceans slowly warm generating additional CO2 into the atmosphere because warm weather favors plants which need the extra CO2. When temperatures decline, oceans slowly cool and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere because cool weather means less plant growth hence lower CO2 requirements. This system is not by accident.
History will look back in amazement at the Carbon Dioxide Demonisation Era.
I’m not sure *inviting* trolls here is the best policy.
HA is and always has been dominated by the trolls – one shows up, and *everything* discussed is about *them*. Nothing useful survives.
The behavior should be discouraged, not spread.
Merovign,
Your correct, just wanted to shut him up on calling Anthony names.
Not worth the time.
…yet another example of how leftists hate life.
“Atomic energy advocates wanted to save Earth from runaway GH heating like Venus”.
Which is a BSB (Bad Science Based) argument.
Alan Love says we’ll look back in amazement….true, and how soon?
In a few years, decades maybe, we will also realize that higher levels of
CO2 in the atmos are truly beneficial..! We’ll use this to help feed our
seven billion and growing population. Many studies show up on
http://Www.CO2science.org
And how about temperature, too? Beneficial, if it’s up…!
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to the rate of ukariote metabolism which is directly related to temperature. Soda-pop fizz is just part of the relationship.
And with the CO2 scare thrown under the bus now we’re ready for the next scare which will be introduced by planting the UN flag on the bottom of our oceans.
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Full Story
The World Oceans Summit in Singapore is the latest platform for United Nations World Bank to announce its latest assault on sovereign economic decisions and freedom. The oceans are suddenly very sick and “we need coordinated global action to restore our oceans to health,” says World Bank president Robert Zoellick.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44945
APACHEWHOKNOWS –
Careful with the commas. Somebody might mistake you for Gleick.
There was a study recently that strongly indicated that trees, and presumably all plants, grow taller to access more CO2, rather than more sunlight as was believed.
always thought the gas of life was…methane….. between me, my five brothers, my father and my son, my life is never short of methane
Sorry for the OT.
But can anyone explain to this lay-person what the sun is doing? SSN is now down to around 50 in February, and solar flux is dropping too. Aren’t we supposed to be still rising to cycle 24 peak?
http://www.solen.info/solar/
And on a side note, the burning of hydrocarbons produces slightly more water than carbon dioxide.
If you’re worried about the so-called “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide, then your concern may be misplaced.
Could someone with more scientific knowledge than I have (pretty much everyone) please re-write this paragraph:
“This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron.
Rusted out, producing our planets iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.”
Should it be: This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron
rusted out, producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
(I had to read it a few times to figure out whether “dissolved” was a verb (and the possessive in “ocean’s” didn’t belong) or adjectival on “iron”.)
There are a few others. The word processing program used seems to have decided that this piece should be rendered as free verse, with every line starting with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.
As an observation, people can broadly be split into two groups — arty and scientificky. Those of us who fall into the arty camp have real trouble following the argument when the scientificky types don’t pay due attention to the arty, i.e language, aspects when presenting their case.
Actually, as I have a warmist journalist lined up to send it to, I’d like the whole thing rewritten, with all the quirky punctuation and capitalisation fixed . . . and “where as” compressed into one word.
“Plant growth is basically the chemical reaction of storing solar energy.”
___________________________________________________________________________
So how much of this solar energy is stored without EVER manifesting itself as atmospheric heat?
If the right answer is anything other than zero, it would open up an enormous can of worms…….
Jim Goodridge says:
Rising temperatures cause CO2 to boil out of ocean water.
pyeatte says: February 29, 2012 at 3:35 pm
The whole thing is a natural self-regulating system. As temperatures rise, oceans slowly warm generating additional CO2 into the atmosphere because warm weather favors plants which need the extra CO2. When temperatures decline, oceans slowly cool and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere because cool weather means less plant growth hence lower CO2 requirements. This system is not by accident.
DesertYote says: February 29, 2012 at 4:11 pm
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to the rate of eukariote metabolism which is directly related to temperature. Soda-pop fizz is just part of the relationship.
___________________________________
Keep it up guys… … as the children say, when you get closer and closer to your objective:
“You’re getting warmer…”
Remember – CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
@Anything is possible
“So how much of this solar energy is stored without EVER manifesting itself as atmospheric heat?”
I tried to do that calc a while back and came up with ~0.14w/m^2/yr (spreading the energy over the area of the earth) Can’t guarantee the math or unit conversions. If someone else wants to double check I’d appreciate it. Here’s the starting variables w/ref.
110 kcal/moleCO2 used in photosynthesis, avg of two references
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm#1.2.1%20photosynthetic%20efficiency
http://biosensitivefutures.org.au/overviews/principles/photosynthesis
210×10^9 tons CO2 fixed by earths plants per year http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00125.x/abstract
Graphite says:
February 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Could someone with more scientific knowledge than I have (pretty much everyone) please re-write this paragraph:
“This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron.
Rusted out, producing our planets iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.”
Should it be: This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron
rusted out, producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
——————————————————————————————————
Seems that you are more concerned about the grammar than the science Graphite. You introduced the apostrophe to planet’s correctly, but left in the incorrect apostrophe in Ocean’s. So it should be…
This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The oceans dissolved iron rusted out, producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
However, even with this corrected, I don;t know what he means.but I think ‘rusted out’ must mean ‘precipitated out of solution’ .
So perhaps,,,,
This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The oceans dissolved iron precipitated out, producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
I often wonder how all the “climate scientists” energy balance calculations account for an ever increasing Biomass – or do they just ignore it ?
I got that wrong. On re-reading oceans should be ocean’s. So….
The ocean’s dissolved iron precipitated out producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
Forget the soda-pop fizz, CO2 is the cabonation in BEER.
Richdo says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I just tried to answer my own question by doing a back-of-an-envelope calculation assuming each human being consumes 2500 calories per day, based on the idea that all that energy ultimately had to have come from the Sun.
It came out at 1.11 x 10^-8 watts/metre^2 !!
That was a salutatory reminder of how insignificant we truly are in the great scheme of things (:-
When iron rusts it becomes iron oxide (Fe2O3). Wouldn’t that bind up oxygen rather than release it? Or is he trying to say that the iron oxide changed into some other form and released oxygen in the process. The way it is worded doesn’t make sense. Can the author help us understand what was really meant here?
Bomber_the_Cat says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I got that wrong. On re-reading oceans should be ocean’s. So….
The ocean’s dissolved iron precipitated out producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
Lettuce continue trying to resolve the long debate between engineering majors and the liberal arts ….. 8<)
"The oceans' dissolved iron precipitated out producing our planet’s iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen."
However written, that sentence said in that manner allows us more than one "ocean" on a single "planet." But … I've always been taught that the irons in our most common deposits were not "dissolved out" – dissolving being the practice of a material going into solution into a liquid. Rather, precipitation is the deposition of a formerly dissolved material from a solution onto a substrate.
However, the iron oxides are understood to be deposited from ancient biologics pulling them from ??? and combining them with oxygen already in the air.
That free oxygen came from even older biologics that pulled CO2 from the air and releasing oxygen by photosynthesis as a free gas. Prior to that radical "tipping point", earth's atmosphere more resembled Venus as a hot, cloudy poisonous gas of CO2 and nitrogen. Therefore, one should say that CO2 is the basis for not just life, but our metals and ALL plant and animal life since the oceans were laid down.
Philip Bradley says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Since CO2 is heavier than most gasses in the atmosphere, I thought it was deeper roots that took advantage of that aspect.
The grammar:
“The oceans’ dissolved iron rusted out….”
The CO2 gas of Life science: I have specifically studied Origin of Life. The biochemistry of life began on the ocean floor, specifically the vents. It involved the reduction of CO2 at the very start–apparently with sulfur metabolism, but in any case NOT photosynthesis. CO2 is and always has been, the gas of Life.
As to when the hysteria will stop: it will stop when we move beyond plants to examine the role of CO2 in ANIMAL metabolism, including humans. It is not relevant whether there is a God behind any of this, nor whether there is more to Man than an animal. We are looking at health, longevity and animal biodiversity.
From the beginning of Life, metabolism has functioned/evolved in the presence of CO2. Nearly all of paleontological history, concentrations of CO2 were much higher than today, which means that animals as well as plants are likeliest to function better as a result of the human releases of fossil carbon back into the atmosphere.
GOE (Great Oxygenation Event), it’s a very interesting period in the history of our planet. Photoshynthesis was already around for about 1 to 1,2 billion years, but 2.4 billion years ago the great oxygenation event marks the point at which minerals and iron became saturated and free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
It lead to the first extinction event, and quite possible also the largest extinction event ever when anareobic lifeforms started to die off in large numbers due to the rising oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
Abundant atmospheric methane that was oxidised to form CO2 and that plunged the Earth into a global claciation period that lasted some 300 to 400 million years and started right after the GOE.
Methane was a waste product of those anareobic lifeforms also known as methanogens wich dominated the Archean timeperiod wich ended with the GOE.
Very interesting.
I sometimes wonder if the watermelons have become so enraptured of their dark malthusian dreams that , as long as humanity suffers and civilization declines , they would not care one whit if the biosphere itself started shrinking and dying . What else can explain Their perverse loathing of the building block of life itself , or their strange yearning for the icecaps and glaciers that covered so much of our world to start growing again ?
Bomber_the_Cat says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Seems that you are more concerned about the grammar than the science Graphite.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, I am not more concerned about the grammar. The grammar is of trifling importance when compared with the overall debate.
However, without the correct grammar it is difficult to follow an argument.
And by the way, you were no help at all. I’m sticking with my original translation.
My main point is that it annoys me to have to go through these contortions. The odd typo or misplaced apostrophe can be forgiven (in my journalistic career we’d use the phrase “mistakes happen, it’s why pencils have erasers”) but Goodridge’s piece has been mangled to the point of needing repair. If the message is to get through, accuracy is needed .
Lady Life Grows says:
February 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm
The grammar:
“The oceans’ dissolved iron rusted out….”
The CO2 gas of Life science: I have specifically studied Origin of Life. The biochemistry of life began on the ocean floor, specifically the vents. It involved the reduction of CO2 at the very start–apparently with sulfur metabolism, but in any case NOT photosynthesis. CO2 is and always has been, the gas of Life.
Keep explaining the chemistry and exchanges behind that concept: I have not heard it before.
What people should be marveling at is the fact that a gas (CO2) at such a very low concentration would be able, through photosynthesis, to maintain our atmosphere at about 20% oxygen. That is an incredible feat and anybody with half a brain would be wanting to feed our photosynthetic benefactors all of the support (CO2) we can give them.
With global cooling a serious problem for years to come, we should be wanting as much CO2 as we can get to maximize our food supply. Higher CO2 increases plant temperature tolerance and effectively extends the growing season and the growing day. It’s a win-win as they also utilize water and nutrients more efficiently. There is no downside to CO2.
Of course, the Agenda 21 and AGW crowd really want starvation to take out billions, so they are not at all interested in maintaining our food supply. After all, starving to death is natural, eh?
Way [too] much carbonated bubbles (excluding the beer) not enough scavenge…… Toss us a hint Anthony… were you reading Popular Science type magazines or your Mum’s magazines circa those years? (just thinking if it was about propaganda it would be best placed in front of the ladies. Ladies, please don’t get mad at me, I think you are superior to men at least 51% of the time!)
peace
Anthony,
Not sure that Dr Teller was the first to demonise coal as suggested in your archived link.
This article:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/printArticlePdf/27160940/3?print=n
suggests that Dr Gilbert Plass was banging that particular drum way back in 1953.
Rosco: “I often wonder how all the “climate scientists” energy balance calculations account for an ever increasing Biomass – or do they just ignore it ?”
Very good point, Rosco. My recollection of AR3 and 4 is that they are very weak on carbon sinks. They assume that because the increase in atmospheric CO2 is in rough correspondence with human total emissions that there has been no increase in carbon sink.
The part about the iron is hopelessly confused. Iron (0) is quite soluble in water, and on the ancient Earth, prior to the onset of photosynthesis, the world’s oceans were full of it. When the first organisms started producing oxygen, this oxygen reacted with the reducing agents in both the atmosphere and the oceans, and in the case of iron, produced the fairly water insoluble oxides which precipitated out, probably over the course of millions of years, but, eventually, the iron (0) and the other reducing agents were oxidized and it then that O2 could accumulate in the atmosphere. I think it is this event to which the author is referring.
Philip Bradley at 4:26 pm said: There was a study recently that strongly indicated that trees … grow taller to access more CO2, rather than more sunlight as was believed.
I am slightly skeptical, but ever willing to change my mind in the light of evidence. Any chance you can remember something about the study? or better yet, a URL?
“Rising temperatures cause CO2 to boil out of ocean water.”
Very poor choice of words, since “boil” indicates phase change from liquid to gas. More accurately, rising temperatures cause CO2 to desorb from sea water, a different process.
Isn’t it ironic that the green’s favorite color comes from chlorophyll which runs on CO2?
Anything is possible says: “I just tried to answer my own question by doing a back-of-an-envelope calculation assuming each human being consumes 2500 calories per day, based on the idea that all that energy ultimately had to have come from the Sun…”
Dietary “calories” are kilocalories. Your calculations are way off unless you corrected for that. .
You will find this in millions of biology text books throughout high schools around the world. About ten chapters before the one on GLOBAL WARMING CALAMITY. Hmmmm.
Yancey Ward says:
February 29, 2012 at 9:30 pm
The way I learned it also. Interesting. Mars.
The chemical reaction rate will approximately double with every 10°C rise in temperature—not 10°F.
Dale says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Sorry for the OT.
But can anyone explain to this lay-person what the sun is doing? SSN is now down to around 50 in February, and solar flux is dropping too. Aren’t we supposed to be still rising to cycle 24 peak?
http://www.solen.info/solar/
———————————
Hmmm,
interesting… verified it at Leif’s site… 10.7 polynomial trend going down…
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
Cheers,
Bill
Photosynthesis is basically a way to catch and store energy.
This is the basis for more than 99% of the life on Earth.
We feed on that Sun energy trough eating indirectly sun energy that has been harvested from plants or plankton.
This energy has its origin from the Sun.
So we are Sun based creature.
Coal, oil and gas is therefore fossil sun energy.
Good post thanks.
The claims that Venus suffered runaway global warming is simplistic and does not explain things. The one thing that Venus lacks that we have in abundance is water. Without water there can be no life and as pointed out above life changes atmospheres. Water is also a mechanism for transporting heat from the surface to high in the atmosphere, through latent heat of evapouration and condensation, to more easily escape to space. The surface atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90-100 times that of Earth due to the high CO2 content and this pressure alone is quite capable of raising the temperature at the surface to that of Venus without any GHG theory. Venus also gets twice the solar radiation received by Earth.
Nope, chlorophyll harvest photons, not CO2.
The molecule that “captures” CO2 is called RuBIsCo and it is part of the Calvin cycle.
Well, technically atmospheric O2 comes from the photolysis of water produced in the light dependent part of photosynthesis. It is true, though, that during the light independent part of photosynthesis a molecule of water is formed per molecule of CO2 that enters into the Calvin cycle.
I also want to point out that the mean atmospheric oxygen concentration during the carboniferous was about 32 % (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/201/8/1043.abstract) and the mean CO2 levels were 800 p.p.m. (more than twice as nowadays) The mean temperature during the carboniferous was the same as nowadays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
“interesting… verified it at Leif’s site… 10.7 polynomial trend going down…
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png”
umm, sorry, but anyone who thinks that anything in nature follows a polynomial curve, needs to go back to secondary school. Just like anyone who thinks linear trends are the go.
Maybe for short-term data, you might be able to fit either to a set, but the result is meaningless, and serves no purpose.
AndyG55 says:
March 1, 2012 at 3:47 am
Maybe for short-term data, you might be able to fit either to a set, but the result is meaningless, and serves no purpose.
The polynomial fits are only for ‘entertainment’ or indicating the short-term behavior. In weak cycles solar activity goes up and down repeatedly, compare http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png so expect activity to go up again, then down, then up, etc. for several years to come.
Jim Goodridge,
While I liked your essay it does contain a “Schoolboy Howler”:
“This happened 2.5 billion years ago. The ocean’s dissolved iron.
Rusted out, producing our planets iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.”
Actually, the iron deposits were created by the oxidation of iron dissolved in the oceans. Until the Iron had precipitated out the oxygen content of the atmosphere was depressed. Once dissolved iron was reduced to traces, oxygen could build up in the atmosphere thanks to primitive life forms.
I am sure the carbon cycle used to be in the grade 10 curriculum, if you study the carbon cycle and the Krebb’s cycle and still think of C02 as a pollutant, you fail.
The author is assuming the reader has basic understanding of chemistry and skips over some details.
See if this makes more sense to you:
About 2.5 billion years ago the development of photosynthesis changed our planet’s chemistry. Prior to that time, our atmosphere was rich in CO2 and almost devoid of free oxygen. Once photosynthesis developed, it changed this chemical composition over time by releasing free oxygen and consuming CO2 as it formed complex molecules rich in carbon. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 began to drop while the free Oxygen released was used up almost as fast as it was created by binding to minerals that were prone to oxidation such as iron dissolved in the oceans. Once most of the minerals that were reactive to oxygen were converted to their oxides, and precipitated out of the ocean, the oxygen was free to began accumulating in the atmosphere.
This opened the door for the development of organisms that used oxygen.
At first the free iron and other dissolved metals in the ocean, which actively combined with oxygen, were an oxygen sink (consumed any free oxygen released by photosynthesis). Only after they were mostly converted to their oxides did oxygen accumulate in any significant quantity.
Larry
Clandestine horticulturists have known for a long time that dumping some CO2 into ones grow room greatly increases yield.
Thanks Larry, but it’s not what I was after.
The Goodridge piece is a concise summation of carbon’s place in “life on Earth”, for want of a better term.
Composed of short sentences with an absence of qualifying clauses, it sets out carbon’s role in an easy-to-follow manner that imposes no strain on the brain for those of us who are more at home in the world of dreamers than the world of doers.
Or it would have been if the typographical gremlins hadn’t got in and buggered it up — every line starting with a capital letter, every line bar three ending with a full stop . . . what’s with that? It looks like it’s been pushed through some sort of “turn your prose into poetry” program.
I correspond from time to time with a prominent Australian newspaper columnist. He admits he knows nothing of science but backs the warmists because “I trust the guys who study this subject every day of their working lives”. Obviously, he’s not writing a science column but every often he will chuck into his column a dig at climate deniers. One of his latest was a claim that CO2 was poison.
For a while now I’ve been looking for something to cut and paste and sent to him. It has to be from a respected name (to counter his “guys who study this subject every day of their working lives” line) and it has to be set out in a manner that a 12-year-old of normal intelligence could follow.
Goodridge’s piece would have fitted the bill perfectly. Except that, were I to send it as is, a reply would come flying straight back, “You expect me to believe this. The guy can’t punctuate, can’t construct a sentence, and you reckon he’s got all the answers. I can’t make head nor tail of it.”
So, what I wanted was not a long-winded replacement.
What I wanted was Goodridge’s original words with all the dopey punctuation and capitalisation taken out.
But thanks for the effort.
@ Leif Svalgaard
“The polynomial fits are only for ‘entertainment’ …..
Then why bother with them. ???? They make you look stupid.. which I know you are not.
Please don’t become another Al Gore or AGW apologist, purely for entertainment.
Stick to the science, and don’t try to add these “lowest commom denominator” touches.
@Leif Svalgaard
Sorry, a bit grumpy this morning… but the fitting of irrelevant curves to data really gets my hackles raised.
Thank you very much Dr. Goodridge, Anthony.
After some editorial work I have published this article at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm#Goodridge
This had to be said; CO2 is the gas of life.
AndyG55 says:
March 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Sorry, a bit grumpy this morning… but the fitting of irrelevant curves to data really gets my hackles raised.
A fit for short-term estimate is quite legit as the Sun operates in ‘episodes’ of ~0.5-1.5 year duration so there is some merit to a short-term fit as there is persistence on that time scale, as long as one does not take it too seriously. I find the fits useful. What does that make me? Stupid? So be it. For example, I’ll predict that the sunspot number tomorrow will not be 200. Any wagers? I’ll pay 20 to 1.
re: Andres Valencia at 2:41
You have significantly revised Goodridge’s text and formatting. Regardless of which version is better, yours or his (and each has its good points and bad points), I think you have overstepped by stating on your web page that your version is
“By Dr. Jim Goodridge – former California State Climatologist.”
Of course, you must give credit; I suggest “inspired by” or “de-poeticized” or something. Even “paraphrased” is too minor — you’ve done more than that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 1, 2012 at 6:46 am
“The polynomial fits are only for ‘entertainment’ or indicating the short-term behavior. In weak cycles solar activity goes up and down repeatedly, compare http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png so expect activity to go up again, then down, then up, etc. for several years to come.”
================
Said weak cycle activity: having no bearing on cloud cover , or type of clouds, or height of clouds, or position of jet streams.
Or would it be improbable.
u.k.(us) says:
March 1, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Said weak cycle activity: having no bearing on cloud cover , or type of clouds, or height of clouds, or position of jet streams. Or would it be improbable.
there are many claims both pro and con. Since activity is now what it was a century ago one could ask if you think the climate now is also the same as back then? Faced with this question, enthusiasts bring in arguments like: the deep ocean has a long time constant, thee is a large lag between cause and effect, other factors [volcanoes, AGW, land use, etc] play a role, etc.
NeedleFactory,
Please point out the bad points in my editorial work.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“Faced with this question, enthusiasts bring in arguments like: the deep ocean has a long time constant, thee is a large lag between cause and effect, other factors [volcanoes, AGW, land use, etc] play a role, etc.”
==========
Do they not play a role ?
Does our variable heat source not play a role ?
Could random releases of energy combine to produce higher peaks/or lack thereof lower lows than our crude (100 years hence, laughable) science had foreseen.
u.k.(us) says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Does our variable heat source not play a role ?
Of course it does, but it is tiny.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:56 pm
“Of course it does, but it is tiny.”
========
What causes sun spots, and why do they seem to be rather cyclic.
RobRoy says:
March 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Clandestine horticulturists have known for a long time that dumping some CO2 into ones grow room greatly increases yield.
Thats why Shell Netherlands (big oil) pumps that stuff through a pipeline towards the greenhouse farmers in the Westland area just north of the Europort area. That with a lot of watering and assimilation lighting with either mercury-, sodium- or natrium-vapor lamps and you have the key for one of the smallest countries in the world being the third largest exporter of veggies and fruits.
One of the problems they have to tackle though is light-polution, the newest set of regulations state that 98% of the light is not allowed to escape from the greenhouses in 2018.
Thats why Led-lighting is the newest thing in providing the plants with photons (wich is also known as PAR), it uses less electricty and produces less heat and last longer (up to 5 times longer compared to tradional lighting), the disadvantage though is they are are not as efficient for photosynthesis as high pressure sodium vapour lamps wich still wich rules as being the most effective lighting,
If they can increase the PAR per Watt than led-lights will be the lightsource of the future. PAR means “Photosynthetically Active Radiation”, its the difference between energy used and energy produced by the lamp at right wavelenghts. A typical HPS lamp produces about 32 watts of light for every 100 watts its uses.
NeedleFactory says:
March 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm
re: Andres Valencia at 2:41
You have significantly revised Goodridge’s text and formatting. Regardless of which version is better, yours or his (and each has its good points and bad points), I think you have overstepped by stating on your web page that your version is
“By Dr. Jim Goodridge – former California State Climatologist.”
Of course, you must give credit; I suggest “inspired by” or “de-poeticized” or something. Even “paraphrased” is too minor — you’ve done more than that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly what were the “good points” with Goodridge’s formatting? The punctuation? The capitalisation? What?
From what I can see, Andres Valencia has done an excellent job . . . precisely what I’d been seeking and I thank him for it.
u.k.(us) says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:43 pm
What causes sun spots, and why do they seem to be rather cyclic.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2011-3/
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/
Just one comment about iron, oxygen, carbon dioxide etc. etc.
The implication has been made that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was reduced as a result of photosynthesis. If this were correct, atmospheric CO2 could be reduced by growing more plants. It is – but only for a short while until the chemicals (such as sugars) in plant and animal material breaks down to produce CO2 (partly via methane which in turn is oxidised by atmospheric oxygen to CO2). Burying “crops” of trees in old coal mines will only delay the “evil” day.
Large scale reduction in CO2 requires a different process. The carbon cycle has such a process. On the long term rock silicates are weathered by reacting with CO2 to produce calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite) which can then be re-incorporated into the rock cycle. The overall effect is that CO2 is taken “out of circulation” and only returns over huge time periods (multiple millions of years) when the carbonate rocks are subducted by plate tectonics and the CO2 (eventually) returns to the atmosphere via volcanoes.
The effect will be greatest when mountains are present. The early Earth had few, if any, mountains because the surface was so hot and plate tectonics had not started.
The large scale and long term reduction in CO2 appears, therefore, to be geological, not biochemical.
Try Googling carbon dioxide and the rock cycle (or just rock cycle) for more info.
Andres Valencia asked of NeedleFactory: Please point out the bad points in my editorial work.
For better or worse, you lost the visual poetry of the original. Many will prefer your version, but mere popularity does not bestow the right to claim your version (with augmentation and style change) is “by” the original author. Goodridge’s words were source and inspiration for your version, and he must be acknowledged, but your attribution puts your words into his mouth. My (and others’) appreciation of your version is beside the point.
The salient “bad point” in your editorial work is the phrase “By Dr. Jim Goodridge”.
Thanks NeedleFactory, I see [your] point.
I have added “[edited by Andrés Valencia]”.
There is also a Spanish translation at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClimaBW.htm#Goodridge
“El Gas de la Vida”.
Phillip Bradley:
I’m chuckling at your description of trees growing taller, because I’ve seen an apple tree grow to an amazing height to get above other trees.
Not having a fire department ladder truck at my disposal, I couldn’t take the apples. 😉