Skrevet av Emne: Klimasensitivitet - skeptikere  (Lest 1251 ganger)

Emeritus

  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 2 213
    • Vis profil
Klimasensitivitet - skeptikere
« på: 18.06.2015, 20:36:11 »
Jeg har gjennom ulike kilder forsøkt å finne ut hva ulike skeptikere har uttalt om klimasensitivitet. Altså ikke om AGW - teorien har noe for seg, men om tilførsel av en dobling av CO2 i forhold til preindustrielt nivå, vil lede til 3 - 4 C økning i gjennomsnittstemperaturen som IPCC forfekter, som jeg har antydet tidligere; ingen av de aktuelle synes å mene at CO2 ikke varmer kloden, men mener IPCC overdriver;

Lindzen  - 1  - http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/04/lindzen-et-al-response-and-parry/
Spencer - 1,3 - http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/our-new-paper-el-nino-warming-reduces-climate-sensitivity-to-1-3-deg-c/
Scafetta   1,5 - http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Nicola-Scafetta-def.pdf
Levis and Crok -1,75 - http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/05/lewis-and-crok-climate-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-models-suggest/
Monckton, Soon  -1 - http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml





« Siste redigering: 18.06.2015, 20:40:51 av Emeritus »

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 327
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: Klimasensitivitet - skeptikere
« Svar #1 på: 11.07.2017, 11:36:54 »
"Lukewarmers" som tror på 33 K ufysiske "greenhouse gas back radiation" har denne forklaring på at klimasensitiviteten ikke kan overskride en "feedback fraction" på 0,11.

Briggs & Monckton her:
To Put America First Is To Put Our Planet’s Climate First — With Critical Updates
http://wmbriggs.com/post/22050/

There is a natural greenhouse effect, which drives the difference of 33 K between the mean emission temperature of the Earth (255 K) and the mean surface temperature (288 K). That greenhouse effect comprises partly the consequence of forcings and partly the consequence of feedbacks. Assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that the 33 K natural greenhouse effect comprises entirely feedbacks.
You will agree, I think, that the feedbacks acting on today’s climate (before any perturbation by us) cannot by any stretch of the imagination exceed the entire natural greenhouse effect, for otherwise they would be by some magical process materially influencing the Sun itself. Accordingly, elementary feedback theory stipulates that the feedback fraction f, which is the fraction of today’s 288 K surface temperature that is fed back, cannot exceed 33/288, or 0.11, and it is most unlikely to be this large.
IPCC, however, says reference warming ΔTs in response to doubled CO2 before feedbacks will be 1.2 K, but that equilibrium warming ΔT after feedbacks will fall on [1.5, 4.5] K, implying that its feedback fraction f = (1 – ΔTs/ΔT) will fall on [0.23, 0.74]. But that interval is between twice and seven times the absolute maximum possible value of f, and two orders of magnitude greater than any realistic value.
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 327
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: Klimasensitivitet - skeptikere
« Svar #2 på: 23.10.2017, 21:50:06 »
Dobling av CO2 gir en temperaturøking på ca 0,01 K.
Nikolov & Zeller blir sitert.

Atmospheric Radiative Heat Transfer in Context
© Dai Davies, PhD
http://brindabella.id.au/climarc/dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayInContext170828.pdf

Summary:
The IPCC climate consensus view of radiative dynamics is that the sun heats the Earths’s surface. The surface sheds heat through radiation and other processes. Around 88% of that radiation is trapped by RGs in the atmosphere, heating it by 33 K. They radiate much of that heat back to the surface. Surface cooling is impeded and its temperature rises. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the gap in the water vapour absorption spectrum that allows the 12% of surface radiation to escape directly to space, so further decreasing surface heat loss. This view assumes strong positive feedbacks. It has been claimed that these could cause runaway heating. A distinct alternate view, a total paradigm shift, is that the sun heats the surface during the day. The surface sheds heat through radiation and other processes. Around 88% of this radiation is delayed by RGs in the atmosphere, heating it by less than 1 K. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would increase this heating by less than 0.01 K. Meanwhile, at the surface, the intrinsic atmospheric radiation generated by molecular collisions, along with direct thermal conduction, allow the atmosphere to act as a thermal buffer reducing the daily surface temperature range and in doing so cause the surface temperature to rise by 60 K or more. This surface heating mechanism is near saturation and is in no way prone to runaway heating. The results reported here support and quantify the latter view – one in which carbon dioxide plays an insignificant role.

Increased atmospheric CO2 has been highly beneficial to the biosphere as would a doubling. 
Det er tanken som teller :-)