Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > General off-topic  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1961  
Old 11.04.2020, 20:46
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Risch
Posts: 726
Groaned at 35 Times in 21 Posts
Thanked 786 Times in 401 Posts
KiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

They are not the only people on holiday
Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 11.04.2020, 20:50
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,858
Groaned at 434 Times in 375 Posts
Thanked 18,196 Times in 9,678 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Hopefully not. I'm keeping outdoor shoes, clothes and bags in the keller and getting changed there. Trying to semi-shield my OH. Just read the advice that heat alone might not be killing the virus. I knew cold and freezing just suspended it, but wasn't sure about heat.
The general opinion is that 70C / 75C is enough to kill the virus; which is more than your usual washing machine will give you.
As posted before, Tumble dryers on hot do the job.
Reply With Quote
  #1963  
Old 11.04.2020, 20:51
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
They are not the only people on holiday
This thread is for people asking scientist questions. As you don't have a question - what is your scientific specialty ?
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 11.04.2020, 23:30
Castro's Avatar
à la mod
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ZG
Posts: 5,487
Groaned at 116 Times in 94 Posts
Thanked 16,341 Times in 5,205 Posts
Castro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
The sites shows data from 2016 onwards - the rising trend is clear.
As far as I could see there was no eruptions who could explain.

Apparently the climatologists of this forum are still on holiday.
The answer seems to be here, basically we could need to have a year of this for it to show up in observatories.

Quote:
Keeling estimated that global fossil fuel use would have to decline by 10% for a full year to show up in carbon dioxide concentrations. Even then, it would be a difference of only about 0.5 parts per million.
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 11.04.2020, 23:50
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ZH
Posts: 7,519
Groaned at 74 Times in 60 Posts
Thanked 11,076 Times in 4,507 Posts
doropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Thank you, Castro.

Quote:
View Post
On the site to which you linked, Pashosh, I found these numbers as "Recent Global CO2 Trend": https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html

Unfortunately, in the green block there, it shows only the values from 6th April to 10th April 2020. I could't see how to look at the dates pre-6th April. Can you see how to show those?

I think it would be interesting to see, for example, the value they define as the "Global CO2 Trend" over the past year or 18 months, and particularly the past three months, in some detail.
Quote:
View Post
The sites shows data from 2016 onwards - the rising trend is clear.
Yes, Pashosh, I saw that trend. Precisely because it is depicted from 2016 onwards, the graphs span too great a time to look at the detailed numbers, such as are listed (at the link above) specifically for the 6 days of 6th to 10th April. I'd like to see the numbers, in that kind of detail, for the past year or more. Could you see them anywhere? It's be interesting to follow those into Summer 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #1966  
Old 12.04.2020, 12:06
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
The answer seems to be here, basically we could need to have a year of this for it to show up in observatories.
Thanks Castro.

However - there is no explanation why we need to wait a year. The same source says that there was a global drop of 6% a month ago. probably much more since then. air quality improved drastically - yet CO2 is still the highest it's ever been.

It would be good to see the model Prof. Keeling is using to make his predication.

@Doropfiz: click on the Data or Recent Trend tabs to get the info you need.
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 12.04.2020, 16:15
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,288
Groaned at 403 Times in 304 Posts
Thanked 10,796 Times in 5,685 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Thanks Castro.

However - there is no explanation why we need to wait a year. The same source says that there was a global drop of 6% a month ago. probably much more since then. air quality improved drastically - yet CO2 is still the highest it's ever been.
It looks like an issue of precision of measurement. Or a difference that's big enough in absolute terms to be measurable, to present it that way round.

The total difference created by a drop of 10% takes a full year to be big enough, in absolute terms, to show in measurements. Conversely if fossil fuel consumption dropped by 100% for 1/10 of a year the reductioin in absolute terms would be the same as 10% over a full year, thus a 100% drop should take a bit more than a month to be measurable and actually show in measurements.
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 12.04.2020, 16:26
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

The measurment is very accurate, it should pick up a 6% drop. If it can't - it shouldn't pick up a 1% increase either.
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 12.04.2020, 18:33
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Risch
Posts: 726
Groaned at 35 Times in 21 Posts
Thanked 786 Times in 401 Posts
KiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
The measurment is very accurate, it should pick up a 6% drop. If it can't - it shouldn't pick up a 1% increase either.
I am trying and failing to follow your logic.
Improvement in air quality since the lock-downs is being reported world wide and is very visible in many cities. The poor quality of city air is mainly due to other factors than CO2 levels.
As others have stated, CO2 measurements in the middle of the pacific are not sufficiently responsive to man made CO2 to pick up the effect of the lockdowns.
As for speciality: a PhD in biochemistry and a lifetimes experience in research and development. Yours?
Reply With Quote
  #1970  
Old 12.04.2020, 20:18
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

The current common wisdom is that the increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is due due to man made activity - burning fossile fuel for transport,energy, industry etc.

Covid reduced this activity drastically.

Logically this should show up in measurements, yet the measurements show an increase in CO2.

The explanation Kiwisteve offers - is that even the best equipment used by good scientists can't notice the difference. in this case - it shouldn't pick the difference in the other direction either.

Another suggestion is that there is a gap of months between the actual reduction and the differenet measurement. What is causing the gap ?

Maybe there is an increase in other sources of CO2 ? maybe there is decrease in CO2 absorbants ? maybe the current theory needs to be updated ?

Anybody on the forum with actual scientific background in climatology ?
__________________
"I work abroad, you've gone native, he's an expat"
Reply With Quote
  #1971  
Old 12.04.2020, 20:39
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,734
Groaned at 150 Times in 101 Posts
Thanked 4,680 Times in 1,841 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post

Logically this should show up in measurements, yet the measurements show an increase in CO2.


Did you expect a decrease in CO2? That the PPM numbers would drop?
Reply With Quote
  #1972  
Old 12.04.2020, 20:44
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Did you expect a decrease in CO2? That the PPM numbers would drop?
Yes
Reply With Quote
  #1973  
Old 12.04.2020, 21:21
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Risch
Posts: 726
Groaned at 35 Times in 21 Posts
Thanked 786 Times in 401 Posts
KiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond reputeKiwiSteve has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
The current common wisdom is that the increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is due due to man made activity - burning fossile fuel for transport,energy, industry etc.

Covid reduced this activity drastically.

Logically this should show up in measurements, yet the measurements show an increase in CO2.

The explanation Kiwisteve offers - is that even the best equipment used by good scientists can't notice the difference. in this case - it shouldn't pick the difference in the other direction either.

Another suggestion is that there is a gap of months between the actual reduction and the differenet measurement. What is causing the gap ?

Maybe there is an increase in other sources of CO2 ? maybe there is decrease in CO2 absorbants ? maybe the current theory needs to be updated ?

Anybody on the forum with actual scientific background in climatology ?
Would it make any difference to you ? Whatever you are a specialist in, it is not logical thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #1974  
Old 12.04.2020, 21:33
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Would it make any difference to you ? Whatever you are a specialist in, it is not logical thinking.

I'm not a climatologist, but I do know that scientific argument isn't won by insults.

If Human activity is the cause of CO2 increase than less human activity should result in less CO2 in the atmosphere, right ?
Reply With Quote
  #1975  
Old 12.04.2020, 21:44
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,288
Groaned at 403 Times in 304 Posts
Thanked 10,796 Times in 5,685 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Yes
Why do you expect the athmospheric(!) CO2 level to drop? I honestly don't follow.

The amount of CO2 added to the athmosphere by humn activity is less now than a year ago. Only 90% of last year's amount or whatever, but that's still a huge amount of CO2 that's blown into and added to the athmosphere every day.
Quote:
View Post
If Human activity is the cause of CO2 increase than less human activity should result in less CO2 in the atmosphere, right ?
Nope.
The amount added is smaller, we seem to agree on that. But by adding to what's already there you/we still keep increasing the resulting amount.

A + x is always more than A (as long as A and x are bigger than zero, which is the case here).
Reply With Quote
  #1976  
Old 12.04.2020, 22:24
3Wishes's Avatar
Moderately Amused
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bern area
Posts: 10,929
Groaned at 82 Times in 78 Posts
Thanked 18,311 Times in 8,181 Posts
3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

I downloaded the txt file with all Mauna Loa data dating to 1958 from the NOAA site.

Since 1970, there have been very small dips in the average CO2 ppm between June/July and Sept/Oct (depending on year). However, after October each year the numbers continue to rise and don't go back to previous lows. There are no dips in any other months.

I think Urs Max is right, overall we have an A + x trend.

Perhaps we should expect a decrease in the ppm sooner this year (May?) since most of the world is shut down, but even looking at the past week the number has risen by 0.01 ppm each day.

Also it appears human CO2 emissions are only part of the atmospheric CO2 numbers.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...ycle/page5.php

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...-not-for-long/

Last edited by 3Wishes; 12.04.2020 at 22:42. Reason: added the word average; changed 2000 to 1970 as I read further back
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 12.04.2020, 22:37
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 474
Groaned at 228 Times in 164 Posts
Thanked 1,821 Times in 1,001 Posts
Pashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthyPashosh is considered unworthy
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Why do you expect the athmospheric(!) CO2 level to drop? I honestly don't follow.

The amount of CO2 added to the athmosphere by humn activity is less now than a year ago. Only 90% of last year's amount or whatever, but that's still a huge amount of CO2 that's blown into and added to the athmosphere every day.

Nope.
The amount added is smaller, we seem to agree on that. But by adding to what's already there you/we still keep increasing the resulting amount.

A + x is always more than A (as long as A and x are bigger than zero, which is the case here).
Your second attempt is interesting:

If A was the level of CO2 in 2019, and x is the added CO2 in 2020 then
follows that the level of CO2 will always increase as long as fossil fuels are used. We are doomed even if there will be internal combustion engine left running.

Luckily there are are CO2 sinks which absorb CO2 and save us.

At the very least we should see CO2 growth rate slow significantly.
Reply With Quote
  #1978  
Old 12.04.2020, 23:11
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,288
Groaned at 403 Times in 304 Posts
Thanked 10,796 Times in 5,685 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
If A was the level of CO2 in 2019, and x is the added CO2 in 2020 then
follows that the level of CO2 will always increase as long as fossil fuels are used.
Yes. A will increase less fast from 2019 to 2020 than it would have without the coronavirus but increase it will. Everything else being equal of course.
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 07.10.2020, 13:26
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,858
Groaned at 434 Times in 375 Posts
Thanked 18,196 Times in 9,678 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Comments?
Quote:
An earlier universe existed before the Big Bang and can still be observed today, said Sir Roger Penrose when he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.
The time it takes for a black hole to completely evaporate is huge, possibly longer than the age of our current universe. However, Sir Roger believes that "dead" black holes from previous universes or "eons" are now observable. If so, it would prove Prof. Stephen Hawking's theories were correct.
Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the Cosmic Microwave Background Sky
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 07.10.2020, 14:28
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nyon
Posts: 4,045
Groaned at 193 Times in 142 Posts
Thanked 5,461 Times in 2,570 Posts
bowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

It’s all Klingon to me?
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Average salary for post-doctoral scientist barish Employment 87 01.10.2008 15:27


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0