Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - PetterT

#1
GODT NYTTÅR
Jeg visste ikke at Klimadebatt var oppegående igjen.  Så et innlegg på Facebook som viste det.  Gledelig.
Det jeg lurer på nå er:
Hvor mye sløser Norge bort på klimahysteriet i statsbudsjettet.
Klimakostnader i Norge i 2018 var på ca. 40 milliarder kr. (økonomiprofessor R. Hannesson, UiB). 
Mye mer nå. >50 mrd./år? 
Noen som har oversikt?
#2
Forklaringen på global temperatur og klimaendringer

https://www.klimarealistene.com/2022/02/23/global-temperatur-og-klimaendringer-forklart/

Nye vitenskapelige rapporter bekrefter nå overbevisende at menneskeskapte utslipp av den livsviktige plantenæringen CO2 i atmosfæren har en ubetydelig innflytelse på global temperatur og dermed også på klimaendringer. Andre prosesser i atmosfæren kan forklare global temperatur og klima, nemlig solinnstråling og atmosfæretrykk.
#3
Viktige klimatema / Re: DET ER SOLEN!
17.02.2022, 22:56:00
W. Soon m. fl.
Study: Strong Association Between Solar Variation and Century Scale Climate Shifts
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/16/study-strong-association-between-solar-variation-and-century-scale-climate-shifts/

The abstract of the study;

Role of the Radiation Factor in Global Climatic Events of the Late Holocene

V. M. Fedorov 📧, D. M. Frolov 📧 Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
V. M. N. Velasco Herrera 📧 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, 04510 México
W. W.-H. Soon 📧 Harvard and Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Division of Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, 02138 USA d Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Sopron, 9400 Hungary
R. G. Cionco 📧 Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Buenos Aires, 2900 Argentina

Received April 30, 2021; revised July 16, 2021; accepted July 19, 2021

Abstract—On the basis of calculations of insolation and insolation characteristics, taking into account changes in solar activity, the causes of global climatic events in the late Holocene have been determined. The main reasons for the Little Ice Age (LIA) are the long and deep minimum of summer insolation and insolation seasonality (IS) in the Northern Hemisphere. The values of the minimums are fixed in the range of approximately 1400–1750. The depth of the minimum over the past 5000 years, taking into account the change in solar activity, is about 8.0 W/m2 for summer insolation and about 13.3 W/m2 for IS in the Northern Hemisphere. The medieval climatic optimum is associated with the winter maximum of insolation contrast (IC) in the Northern Hemisphere, reflecting an increase in the meridional heat transfer in the winter half of the year from the equatorial region to the polar regions, as well as with a maximum of interhemispheric heat transfer. The increase in winter IC at maximum (1118) relative to 3000 BC is 28.4 W/m2. The difference between the hemispheric radiative heat transfer at the maximums (881, 940, and 976) increases by 5.0 W/m2 relative to 3000 BC. Thus, global events of the late Holocene are associated with extremes of insolation characteristics (incoming radiation, IC, and IS of the Earth), but the temporal structure of the extrema themselves is determined by variations in solar activity. It follows from the above that, when reconstructing and predicting global climatic events, it is important to take into account not only variations in the incoming radiation, but also the associated changes in insolation characteristics (IC and IS of the Earth), reflecting the mechanisms of heat transfer. The IC regulates the meridional transfer of radiation heat; its cause is a change in the tilt of the axis and precession. The IS of the Earth determines the intensity of interhemispheric heat transfer. The noted characteristics of insolation, reflecting not only variations in the arrival of solar radiation, but also variations in the mechanisms of heat transfer, are not taken into account in the general astronomical theory of climate. Taking these indicators into account will help obtain more complete information about climate changes in past eras and will allow the more accurate forecasting of the future climate.

Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433821100030
#4

Harde & Schnell skriver bl. a. i konklusjonen:
"These measurements clearly demonstrate that contrary to the often misinterpreted 2nd law of thermodynamics a warmer body can further be heated by absorbing the radiation from a colder body, here the radiation from the cooled plate and a GH-gas. "

Isolert sett så er denne setningen vranglære.
Fra SNL om termodynamikk:
"2. hovedsetning kan formuleres på flere måter, blant annet: Overføring av varme skjer alltid fra et sted med høyere temperatur til et sted med lavere temperatur."

Har man derimot en varmekilde i tillegg, som en termostatstyrt ovn inne i et hus (eller lab-oppsett), og det er kaldere ute, så vil ekstra isolasjon i veggene føre til mindre energiforbruk, som kan måles.  Gir ovnen en konstant energistrøm vil rommet bli varmere.
Slik er det med systemet sol-atmosfære-jord også.  Hvis noe i atmosfæren reduserer varmeutstråling fra jordoverflaten, f.eks. strålingsaktive gasser som H2O eller CO2, så kan jordoverflaten bli varmere fordi konstant energistrøm fra solen hjelper til som ovnen i huset.

H&S har et oppsett med en oppvarmet plate med konstant temperatur, og en kald plate.  De har målt at stråling fra strålingsaktive gasser og den kalde platen påvirker den varme platen og dette har de sett på bakgrunn av "recorded temperature and electric heating data,".  Med andre ord som i et hus med en ovn, altså ikke bare to objekter isolert og uten varmekilde.

H&S finner likevel at effekten av CO2 er så liten at
"Already the presented measurements and calculations demonstrate the only small impact on global
warming with increasing GH-gas concentrations due to the strong saturation. Therefore, we strongly recommend not to further provoke crying and jumping kids by fake experiments and videos only to generate panic, but to teach them in serious science with realistic demonstrations and information about the impact and also benefits of GH-gases."





#5
Ny forskning / Tilbakestråling er reelt
07.01.2022, 14:25:54
Nå har Herman Harde og Michael Schnell (H&S) greid å måle at CO2 har en temperatureffekt (drivhuseffekt) i laboratorium, beskrevet i artikkelen " Verification of the Greenhouse Effect in the Laboratory " https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/verification-of-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-laboratory/ .

De skriver i Abstract:
"We measure the additional warming of a pre-heated plate due to back-radiation of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide as a function of the gas concentration, and we derive from the observed warming the radiative forcing of these gases. The measurements are well confirmed by radiation transfer calculations and underline that there exists no climate emergency."
Og noen utdrag fra Conclusion:
"it is an interesting curiosity that, had convection produced a uniform temperature, there wouldn't be a greenhouse effect (Lindzen, 2018 [34])"
"Simply expressed: the greenhouse effect contributes to some warming of the Earth's surface and by this also to some additional convection, but not to any remarkable direct warming of the air temperature. At least that is the lesson learned from the experiments with CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. This finding is of particular importance since air warming is a necessary prerequisite for the alleged CO2-water vapor feedback, without which there would be no threatening Earth warming. "
"Already the presented measurements and calculations demonstrate the only small impact on global warming with increasing GH-gas concentrations due to the strong saturation"

Laboratorieeksperimentene har vist at atmosfæren nå er mettet når det gjelder drivhusgasser og deres innvirkning på temperatur, og det er det samme som i den teoretiske analysen til  Wijngaarden og Happer, 2020: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf .  Mer CO2 har liten effekt. 

H&S finner at drivhuseffekten i realiteten er så liten at den kan ignoreres når det gjelder global temperatur og klimaendringer, noe svært mange er kommet til før dem (f.eks. Happer, Koonin, Lindzen her: https://casetext.com/brief/317-cv-06011-157-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-v-bp-plc-et-al 2018 ).
#6
Viktige klimatema / Re: DET ER SOLEN!
31.12.2021, 15:00:25
Solar influences show up in sea level rise, El Nino events and oceanic climatic cycles
https://www.netzerowatch.com/solar-influences-show-up-in-sea-level-rise-el-nino-incidence-and-oceanic-climatic-cycles/
The Sun's energy effects our climate but its influence is often ignored as changes in its intensity are very small. Its effect might be subtle but over decadal periods it adds up to being significant as a series of recent papers show.
#7
Kan det tenkes at aktoratet anker Rittenhouse-saken?
#9
Viktige klimatema / Re: DET ER SOLEN!
20.10.2021, 19:25:47
Det ER solens effektive innstråling til jordoverflaten som styrer endring i global temperatur:

2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/2001-2019-warming-driven-by-increases-in-absorbed-solar-radiation-not-human-emissions/
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the "root cause" of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.

#10
Meget lesverdig:

Frikjennelsen av Wuhan-laboratoriet er et journalistisk havari uten sidestykke
https://www.document.no/2021/10/18/frikjennelsen-av-wuhan-laboratoriet-er-et-journalistisk-havari-uten-sidestykke/
#11
Noen som har sett på NRK 2 program med tittel QAnon.  Switchet så vidt innom og fort vekk igjen.  Hva er det for noe hatsk møl?
#12
Viktige klimatema / Re: DET ER SOLEN!
17.08.2021, 22:32:51

Challenging UN, Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/

Climate scientist Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Soon and 21 other scientists incl. Humlum & Solheim

The following is the abstract of the study;

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate

Ronan Connolly1,2, Willie Soon1, Michael Connolly2, Sallie Baliunas3, Johan Berglund4, C. John Butler5, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7, Ana G. Elias8,9, Valery M. Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Lüning16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik Solheim18, László Szarka19, Harry van Loon20, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard C. Willson22, Hong Yan (艳洪)23 and Weijia Zhang24,25

In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature. Half of these estimates are "low variability" and half are "high variability". Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e., there has been some "global warming" since the 19th century. For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC's recommended "anthropogenic forcings" time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.

Read more: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
#13
I rapportens Figure SPM.2 er sol og vulkaners påvirkning lagt sammen med resultat 0 (null!).

De har ignorert dette:
New evidence that solar forcing is greater than CO2 forcing. | Tallbloke's Talkshop (wordpress.com)
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/08/08/new-evidence-that-solar-forcing-is-greater-than-co2-forcing/#more-54106

"since the increase in OLR through the atmospheric window is much larger than the decrease in OLR due to extra CO2, the majority of the warming must be due to an external forcing (increased incident solar shortwave)."

#14
Vaksine fjerner vel ikke virus, men hindrer at den vaksinerte blir alvorlig syk.
#15
Er det noen med kunnskap i geologi her inne som kan svare på dette?

Viser til figur nedenfor fra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Upper_mantle_temperature_profile.png som antyder at jordvarmen alene kan holde jordoverflaten på ca 0 grC.  Stemmer det, og hvor nøyaktig er det? 
Energibudsjettet til IPCC, Kiehl & Trenberth, James Hansen m.fl. angir at solen alene bare kan varme opp jordoverflaten til - 18 grC (minus 18 grC), og at tilbakestråling fra klimagasser i atmosfæren har æren for levelig global gjennomsnittstemperatur på 14-15 grC.
Men da er det noe som ikke stemmer.  Burde energibudsjettet i stedet ta utgangspunkt i 0 grC slik at tilbakestrålingen har mindre betydning?
Er utgangspunktet til IPCC m. fl. feil?