CO2-hypotesen rakner i nye studier: Bare 0.5°C ved dobling til 760 ppm

Started by Telehiv, 30.04.2021, 09:41:15

Previous topic - Next topic


"The absorption reaches values close to 100% for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03%, it is concluded that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth's climate."
Konklusjonen er: "The effect of an anthropogenic CO2 increase on the climate on earth is fairly negligible."

En rekke andre studier understøtter disse funnene:
Denne studien ligger i samme sjikt som en rekke andre studier de senere årene mht. "equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate", dvs. 0.5 eller 0.6°C ved en dobling av CO2 fra 380 til 760 ppm. Av disse studiene kan nevnes Stallinga et al., 2020, Ollila, 2019, Smirnov, 2017, Smirnov, 2020, Harde, 2016, Bates, 2016, Kissin, 2015, Abbot and Marohasy, 2017, Gervais, 2016.
Vi kan ta noen stikkord fra disse studiene:

Stallinga et al., 2020: Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
Finally, three data sets with different time scales (60 years, 600 thousand years, and 650 million years) show markedly different behavior, something that is inexplicable in the framework of the greenhouse theory.

Ollila, 2019: Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
"The reproduction of CO2radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2used by the IPCC.  A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC's climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.Original Research Article"

Smirnov, 2017: Infrared Atmospheric Emission
"Doubling of the concentration of   CO2  molecules in the atmosphere that is expected over 130 years leads to an increase of the average Earth temperature by   (0.4±0.2)  K mostly due to the flux towards the Earth if other atmospheric parameters are not varied."

Harde, 2016: Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Harde er et eksempel på dem som lander på at sola betyr mer for global temperatur enn CO2:
"Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of  = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of  = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century."

Bates, 2016: Estimating climate sensitivity using two-zone energy balance models
Bates peker på flere svakheter i klimamodellene, herunder at "GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years."
Videre ankepunkt er bl.a.:
"In particular, any underestimation of the value of the tropical radiative response coefficient by comparison with observations, such as has been indicated by recent studies to exist in current GCMs, can cause the GCMs to give a substantial overestimation of the effective climate sensitivity"
Oppsummeringen blir dermed slik:
The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (≈1°C) given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effective, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered."

Kissin, 2015: A Simple Alternative Model for the Estimation of the Carbon Dioxide Effect on the Earth's Energy Balance
"Within the approximations used in the model, a doubling the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere would lead to an increase of the surface temperature by about +0.5 to 0.7 °C, hardly an effect calling for immediate drastic changes in the planet's energy policies."

Abbot and Marohasy, 2017: The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change
Denne har jeg kommentert tidligere i andre forbindelser, men den sier altså om CO2 at:
"The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods."

Gervais, 2016: Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle
"...the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014)"

PS: Med "The natural component" menes naturlige sykluser (her: 60-års sykluser), jfr. Michael Manns nylige frenetiske behov for å erklære at disse ikke lenger finnes (slik at all oppvarming kan skyldes på menneskeskapte årsaker).