问题是,与目前流行科学理论,相比,甲烷有更大的汇.
按照目前流行的科学理论,甲烷的汇是 O(1D)+CH4 及 OH+CH4。
甲烷更大的汇是什么? My understanding is that the reason that methane became a hot topic in the general field of global changes was that observations showed the consistent increase of its concentration with time in the atmosphere. I am not aware that its concentration has been stabilized in recent years though my current research is not in this field. Even if it has happened/stabilized, it does not necessarily mean that the sink has been intensified. It could as well be that some of the many source terms have been decreased.
Coolboy considers 光谱, nngs and several others very good scientists and highly respectful people on this forum. You should be very happy and thankful to them for their spending great efforts on patiently discussing your problems with you in the above link. Their suggestion of working on concrete/small problems QUANTITATIVELY is a very good one. Sometimes and often, even the publication of one’s paper in an international journal does not necessarily mean that he/she is right or has made a contribution to the science community. Finally, I do not think that it is appropriate to post Paul Crutzen’s personal/private message on a public forum without his approval. The book I have at hand now is a report by World Meteorological Organization:
WMO, 1991: Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1991. Geneva.
Figure 1-8 in the report shows independent and continuous measurements of methane (CH4) by several research groups at many different locations globally over about 10 years. From 1984 to 1990, CH4 mixing ratio in the atmosphere increased from about 1600 ppbv to about 1675 ppbv, i.e., increased from about 1.6 ppmv to about 1.7 ppmv.
“你应当不难查阅到,那时的统计数字是大气中甲烷含量是2ppm(碰巧，人们在那个时候也在预言甲烷浓度将大幅度增长),而今天更加认真的统计是1800ppb.”
Is it possible that the value 2 ppm was only a round-off value of 1.6?
I am not aware of any serious scientists doing their scientific researches based on encyclopedias or popular science magazines. 1800/1600 = 1.125
Scientific community or ordinary scientists who possess the very basic logical thinking will consider that the increase of 12.5% in global methane concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere within about 20 years is quite significant. Specialists in different sub-fields will examine its various causes or consequences in radiation, circulation, photochemistry, biochemistry, geochemistry, etc., which, I believe, is what has been happening in scientific community in the last few decades or so.
On the other hand, I do not think anyone who, after knowing this fact, still regards this as “甲烷在大气中浓度持续增长是一个由来已久的假象” or “关于2ppm事情,无论是否可以理解为1.6ppm的一种简写,至少与1800ppb相差不大” is qualified to do scientific research. In other words, I do not think an ordinary scientist needs to pay any attention to theories or hypotheses proposed by people like you who have such a big 差距在于对于这些信息的理解 from an ordinary scientist.
It is not whether you or an ordinary scientist is right or wrong on a specific theory or hypothesis. It is that, at least from this incident as one can see, you do not have an ability to think logically. ... It is that, at least from this incident as one can see, you do not have an ability to think logically.
:idea: :wink: Because it “shows independent and continuous measurements of methane (CH4) by several research groups at many different locations globally over about 10 years”, so I trusted the figure. The figure also shows explicit slopes/trends in its plot.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Within two years, coolboy’s salary has increased from 0.6万元 to 1.4万元 whereas at the same time benlinglou’s salary has decreased from 1.4万元 to 0.6万元. One day, benlinglou’s wife asked him: “Honey, why have you been making so little money in the last two years? Looking at that coolboy, now, he is making more than twice of the money as you are making.” Benlinglou answered: “Well, nothing has been changed. It is a fact that our salaries are still 维持稳定. Both coolboy and I are making 1万元 per year.” 完全摸不到头...
是不是你们担心<<太阳攻击>>真的会发生啊... 对于ＣＨ４
我记得牛放屁好像也会有ＣＨ４出来 别有用心
真是好笑了,你用有一个假说,推倒出了一个严重偏离事实的结果
并且这个假说中存在若干常识与逻辑的错误,大量的推断都是"在我看来"
给你指出来了就叫别有用心,真是好笑了
说要投杂志,也没见动静,就知道在论坛上嚷嚷
页:
[1]
2