Skrevet av Emne: CO2 - en klimagass?  (Lest 3589 ganger)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 266
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: CO2 - en klimagass?
« Svar #30 på: 05.06.2017, 21:45:48 »
Kom over denne figuren igjen som burde passe under dette temaet: CO2 - en klimagass?
Se: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/co2-and-the-energy-budget/


Forklaringen tyder på at CO2 har ingen målbar effekt på oppvarming i Troposfæren, men sterkt avkjølende effekt i Stratosfæren
Ozon har litt oppvarmende effekt i Toposfæren, men mer i Stratosfæren.
Stratospheric cooling rates:
The picture shows how water, cabon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere.
Colours from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere.
The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above).
For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere.
Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Thankfully, there are some excellent bloggers reporting upon the really good science.
The overall message of this graph is just that in the troposphere, water is everything and CO2 is nothing.
We can also add to this graph that convection and evaporation / condensation are major processes in the troposphere and this radiative model isn’t really all that important for surface cooling at all.
In the stratosphere we see some cooling from water vapor, so, little as there is up there, it still does something.
However, THE largest blobs of cooling color come from CO2 and ozone.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes more radiative heat loss from just those parts of the atmosphere that do radiative heat loss, and does nearly nothing in that part of the atmosphere dominated by convection and evaporation / precipitation.
Warming of the surface of the earth increases convection, evaporation, and water transport, and deposits that water and heat higher in the sky; so will dump more heat into the stratosphere (and perhaps more water vapor too … enhancing that water radiative part).
In short, the system is dynamic and has a convection driven lower layer, with a radiative driven upper layer.
More CO2 means more radiative heat loss, not less.
THAT is why the stratosphere has been cooling (though the upper atmosphere has dropped more on the loss of UV in the solar funk.)
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
In short: The very existence of a troposphere makes the whole CO2 driven radiative IR model daft.
All that tropospheric CO2 can only close an already closed radiative window in the troposphere and contribute to the convection that is already dominant.
BTW, in deep winter with a strong polar vortex, the tropopause can reach ground level near the poles (especially the South Pole).
In that context, then, it can enhance the radiative heat dump to space.
But warming? In any mid-latitudes especially? Not a chance.
Ignore the gasses and IR / radiative story telling.
Look at the convection, mass flow, tides and ocean cold water mixing, along with solar UV shifts and how the atmosphere moves around if you would hope to know what really happens.
Arguing over CO2 and “down welling” IR is just arguing about how many Angels fit on pinheads.

“Warmers” think in a static scored air model.
It sits still, in constant height layers, and only radiation moves thermal energy in, and out, of the air.
In the real world, it’s a highly dynamic scored air mass, both vertical and horizontal.
Water moving by the kiloton and falling as snow and rain.
You can’t get a correct dynamic answer from a static model.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/static-vs-dynamic-scored-air/

Mer omtale her: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 266
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: CO2 - en klimagass?
« Svar #31 på: 09.06.2017, 07:21:21 »

17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change
See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/#sthash.WbdEGcZ4.dpuf[/
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 266
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: CO2 - en klimagass?
« Svar #32 på: 10.06.2017, 22:58:53 »
Langbølget stråling fra atmosfæren kan ikke varme opp havene.  Det er omvendt!
CO2 kan derfor ikke være årsak til den milde og gunstige oppvarmingen vi har hatt siden Lille Istid.

Ocean Warming Dominates The Increase In Energy Stored In the Climate System
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/ocean-warming-dominates-the-increase-in-energy-stored-in-the-climate-system/ 
In Conclusion:
The IPCC claims that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system. The IPCC claims that the oceans are warming. Data proves the oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not vice verse.  The problem is, the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans. If the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans, it can’t explain how/why the atmosphere is warming. To explain why the atmosphere is warming you have to explain why the oceans are warming. The oceans are warming because more visible radiation is reaching them. If that is the case, I would stop looking at CO2 and try to discover if anything has happened that would allow more visible radiation to reach the oceans. Has the frequency of volcanic eruptions slowed, has there been any changes to the Hadley Cells or cloud cover over the oceans especially the tropics, have we cleaned the air of sun blocking particulate matter? Explain why the oceans are warming and you explain why the atmosphere is warming, and it isn’t due to CO2. To quote Dr Singer, “evidence of warming isn’t evidence that man is causing that warming.”
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 266
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: CO2 - en klimagass?
« Svar #33 på: 17.06.2017, 22:37:08 »
Flott oppsummering av status her av

MARKO, SOON, ET AL: To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet’s Climate First
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/16/america-first-climate/
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 266
  • Tenk sjæl
    • Vis profil
Sv: CO2 - en klimagass?
« Svar #34 på: 17.07.2017, 22:50:27 »
I beste/verste (stryk det som ikke passer) fall er CO2 en svak klimagass. ;D

Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide
F. K. Reinhart, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf
Abstract
The well-known absorption properties of CO2 and the physics of thermal radiation permit to estimate the infrared absorption of the atmospheric CO2. The earth is considered as a homogeneous spherical black body emitter with a temperature of 288 K. An idealized atmosphere, the CO2 content of which is the only infrared absorber, surrounds the emitter. The CO2 concentration at sea level amounts to 400 ppm and the density exponentially tapers off with height. Accordingly, the average black body temperature contains the so-called greenhouse contribution. Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations.  If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T.  Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K.  At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K. 
Det er tanken som teller :-)