tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post6803331547579450472..comments2017-03-20T23:01:05.447-04:00Comments on Home Climate Analysis: Carbon Cycle: The Correlation Between Temperature and CO2Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-32499012399533663352017-03-16T12:15:11.914-04:002017-03-16T12:15:11.914-04:00Your point is well-taken. I had to abandon the abo...Your point is well-taken. I had to abandon the above explanation because the comments would not let me put the symbols I needed into the argument. The explanation you give is also interesting, but does not capture the essence of "e" to my thinking. The number e has the property that the derivative of e^x with respect to x is equal to e^x. That is: the slope of e^x is the same as the value of e^x. For numbers higher than e, the slope is too large, and for numbers lower than e, the slope is too small. In linear systems, we have equations that relate the derivatives of quantities to the quantities themselves, and their higher derivatives as well. In order to have the derivative and the original follow the same shape, the original must vary as e^x or sin(x) or cos(x), but since e^ix (where i is the imaginary number) is equal to cos(x) + i*sin(x), we see that all functions for which the derivatives have the same shape as the original are related to the number e. I like this explanation because I'm an engineer.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-39979265900808733702017-03-16T12:05:49.856-04:002017-03-16T12:05:49.856-04:00Kevan,
While your explanation of how to compute e ...Kevan,<br />While your explanation of how to compute e is mathematically sound this calculation does not explain what e actually is.<br />At school I used to worry where this magic number e came from until I found the following explanation:-<br />Euler's number e is the point on the X-axis where the area under the curve Y=1/X, from X=1 to X=? is equal to 1. The irrational number e is that point ? on the X-axis that satisfies this area = 1 definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-29552307589521702332016-06-06T13:03:24.719-04:002016-06-06T13:03:24.719-04:00Welcome back, Hugh. The carbon cycle investigation...Welcome back, Hugh. The carbon cycle investigation begins back in <a href="http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/carbon-14-origins-and-reservoir.html" rel="nofollow">Carbon-14: Origins and Reservoir</a>. I will welcome your comments.<br />Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-42865061269309341172016-06-05T09:33:45.713-04:002016-06-05T09:33:45.713-04:00Dear Kevan, good to see that you have been pursuin...Dear Kevan, good to see that you have been pursuing a new line of investigation. I'll see if I can follow your argument. Regards, Hugh RoperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-55767369291403478312016-02-08T21:47:29.718-05:002016-02-08T21:47:29.718-05:00I see, so SOx itself reflects sunlight. Interestin...I see, so SOx itself reflects sunlight. Interesting. I could not get that link to work, not sure why, it looks okay. As to CO2 into clouds, no, the rate of dissolving into water does not increase with temperature, see <a href="http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/carbon-cycle-effect-of-temperature.html" rel="nofollow">Effect of Temperature</a>.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-75834529761347852132016-02-08T17:28:23.431-05:002016-02-08T17:28:23.431-05:00From my understanding the SOx reacts with water to...From my understanding the SOx reacts with water to form a sulfuric acid aerosol. If the volcano erupts with enough force, it forces the SOx to the stratosphere, where it stays a lot longer than if the SOx was deposited in the troposphere. <br /><br />This is what I could find in regards to experiments to determine the reflective properties of sulfuric acid aerosols:<br /><br />https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/HITRAN/HITRAN2012/Aerosols/papers/palmer_williams_h2so4_1975.pdf<br /><br />With CO2, if the atmosphere warms does the absorption of C02 into clouds (forming carbonic acid) rate increase? If so, that would be another negative feedback. Hell_Is_Like_Newarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11845488554285075902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-48141817684109854432016-02-08T16:34:35.417-05:002016-02-08T16:34:35.417-05:00Clouds of pure water are close to perfect absorber...Clouds of pure water are close to perfect absorbers and radiators of wavelengths 2-20 um, which are the wavelengths radiated by objects at 200-400 K. At the same time, thick clouds reflect 90% of incoming sunlight. It could be that SOx catalyzes the creation of clouds, but I don't think the SOx clouds would be more reflective than pure-water clouds. Thank you for description of your background. So far, we have not found evidence that carbon emissions are warming the Earth, nor that they are likely to cause significant warming. At today's emission rate, it will take 6,000 years to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration, so it looks like the entire concern, although well-intentioned, was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-5922987116718382372016-02-08T11:13:20.479-05:002016-02-08T11:13:20.479-05:00The carbonic acid formation was something I rememb...The carbonic acid formation was something I remembered from my grade school earth science classes.<br /><br />I have wondered how concentration of carbonic acid affects cloud emissivity and reflective properties. For example, when Mt. Pinatubo has it VEI 6 eruption, it blasted enough SOx into the upper atmosphere than when mixed with water created clouds that reflected enough sunlight back out into space to reduce global temps by about 0.5 oC. I remember a couple cool summers and some great skiing for a few years after. Would carbonic acid have a similar or opposite effects?<br /><br />My background is in mechanical engineering / energy systems. I work a company that specializes in reducing energy consumption for our clients. However, I see a lot of money and effort spent on reducing 'carbon footprints'.. often IMHO, what measures instituted to do so are a vast wast of money and other resources. Hence my interest in wanting to understand what is really going on in much greater detail.Hell_Is_Like_Newarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11845488554285075902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-24059359209417609462016-02-08T10:52:28.151-05:002016-02-08T10:52:28.151-05:00We have not looked at the absorption of CO2 by clo...We have not looked at the absorption of CO2 by clouds. I had not thought of that mechanism before. I just assumed the CO2 was being dissolved at the ocean surface. But the microscopic water droplets in clouds have a vast surface area for dissolving CO2, and it could be that they are the dominant means by which CO2 ends up in the ocean. Thank you for that thought. We'll try to look into it later in this series.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-42248150524664522802016-02-08T10:43:56.445-05:002016-02-08T10:43:56.445-05:00Welcome Hell_Is_Like_Newark. We have looked hard a...Welcome Hell_Is_Like_Newark. We have looked hard at the effect of clouds, even building our own simulation that implements snow, rain, heating, reflection, and absorption by CO2. See here for the summary post at the end of our study:<br /><br />http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/03/anthropogenic-global-warming.html<br /><br />As to the beginning of the story, this blog was not pre-planned, but I think you could start here, and skip all subsequent posts on the temperature record.<br /><br />http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/refutation-of-greenhouse-effect.html<br /><br />There are many posts about how gas cells behave as they rise. But in the end, you can run our simulation program on your own computer pretty easily, to see for yourself. The answer is Yes, clouds absolutely provide negative feedback.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-5620381425511899082016-02-08T10:30:37.384-05:002016-02-08T10:30:37.384-05:00I am new to this blog and I want to thank you for ...I am new to this blog and I want to thank you for all the work you put into it. I am spending what free time I have to read and hopefully fully understand it in total. A frustration of mine has been trying to find an open minded and detailed discussion of the AGW theory. In particular, I have been trying to better understand the effects of CO2 vs. water vapor in regards to long wave radiation absorption.<br /><br />I do have a question (my apologies if this was covered already): Has anyone looked at the possibility of increased clouds being a negative feedback on CO2 atmospheric concentration? As clouds increase, so does the absorption of CO2 by the water in the form of carbonic acid?<br /><br />Hell_Is_Like_Newarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11845488554285075902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-70269586487525722992016-01-20T06:57:44.013-05:002016-01-20T06:57:44.013-05:00Further discourse on this topic is being hampered ...Further discourse on this topic is being hampered by the fact that I cannot post HTML wit superscripts to the comments.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-45538219233355965922016-01-15T12:19:12.053-05:002016-01-15T12:19:12.053-05:00Suppose we have 8,000,000 atoms of carbon-14. One ...Suppose we have 8,000,000 atoms of carbon-14. One out of every 8000 atoms decays every year. The mass of carbon-14 that decays each year is equal to the total mass of carbon-14 that still exists divided 8000. At first, the carbon-14 decays at a rate of 1,000 atoms per year. But after some time, there will be fewer atoms left, and the decay rate, measured in atoms per year, will be less. When there are only 8000 atoms left, only one will decay every year. The graph of the number of carbon-14 atoms remaining plotted versus time will have this property: its downward slope will be proportional to its height above zero. At the start, the graph has height 8,000,000 and downward slope 1,000 atoms/year. Some time later, the graph has height 4,000,000 and downward slope 500 atoms/year. Far later on, the graph has height 8,000 atoms, and downward slope 1 atom/year. Whatever function of time matches this graph, it has to have this property: its slope is proportional to its value.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1639738090545138933.post-51317613988673232392016-01-15T12:01:54.008-05:002016-01-15T12:01:54.008-05:00One of our readers is curious about how the natura...One of our readers is curious about how the natural number, <i>e</i>, keeps cropping up in our calculations. Let's start with the definition of <i>e</i>. We define the <i>factorial</i> of an integer <i>n</i>, denoted <i>n</i>!, to be:<br /><br /><i>n</i>! = <i>n</i> × <i>n</i>−1 × <i>n</i>−2 ... ×1<br /><br />Thus 2! = 2, 3! = 6, 4! = 24. We also define the special cases 1! = 1 and 0! = 1. The <i>natural number</i>, denoted <i>e</i>, is:<br /><br />e = 1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + .. 1/<i>n</i>! + ..<br /><br />You can perform this calculation yourself, to get the value of e. I went up to <i>n</i> = 10 and arrived at e = 2.718280. If I ask my calcualtor what the exact value of e is, it says 2.718281828.Kevan Hashemihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.com