Dear Mike: As I responded to you previously, data drives the models, not the other way around. Show me where the carbon went, since airborne concentrations are not increasing as fast has they did in the middle of the last century.
It is not sufficient to argue there are other factors. Point us at the actual data that shows where the carbon went. Or, run a quantitative carbon cycle model and then test it against real world data by measuring the rate of cabon increase in the various sinks. My review of this area suggests that work either does not show where the carbon went, or no one has looked well enough to validate the current carbon cycle assumptions being used by most in their projections of carbon flux. Show me the carbon! Sincerely, David On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Dear David—As I said in a previous note, what matters (among other factors) > is total emissions—so you have to consider the sum of emissions of fossil > and land cover change. You probably also need to consider the amount of > sulfate in the atmosphere, for not only Pinatubo/stratospheric sulfate > scatters radiation, allowing light to reach deeper into the canopy. Then > there are issues relating to the amount and distribution of precipitation > and soil moisture that affect the amount of biospheric growth. And on and > on—you have to look at the carbon cycle as a whole—not just draw a > conclusion from one term. > > Mike > > > > On 12/1/08 1:38 PM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mason, et al: > > Please find attached a graph of the growth rates in CO2 since 1959. I have > plotted the trend in growth rates as linear functions for the first half and > second half of this period. Note, I pulled the two outlier years (1992 & > 1998) one of which was the low outlier and the other the high outlier. > One could leave them in as they balence each other over the second half > of the half-century period. The plots for each period extend over the > entire period only to show how different they are from each other. > > I also note that the second half of the 48 year period is extremely noisy > and the F statistic of that linear estimate is below statistical > significance, while the first half is much more orderly. > > My only point in all this is that we don't have a good handle on the carbon > cycle as a function of carbon emissions. Taking into account the "warming" > earth (air and ocean) and the increasing levels of CO2 emissions in the last > quarter century, the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 should be increasing > at a rate faster than the previous quarter century period, and clearly it is > not. > > That is my only point. To reitterate, I don't have much confidence in the > modeling of the carbon cycle because of this data. > > David. > > > > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
