CO2 - en klimagass?

Started by Amateur2, 29.09.2016, 23:06:24

Previous topic - Next topic

PetterT

Enda en som anser CO2 som neglisjerbar når det gjelder global temperatur:

Physics Professor: CO2's 0.5°C Impact After Rising To 700 ppm Is So Negligible It's 'Effectively Unmeasurable'
https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/13/physics-professor-co2s-0-5c-impact-after-rising-to-700-ppm-is-so-negligible-its-effectively-unmeasurable/


Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
Peter Stallinga
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020011611163731.pdf

Abstract
Climate change is an important societal issue. Large effort in society is spent
on addressing it. For adequate measures, it is important that the phenomenon
of climate change is well understood, especially the effect of adding carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere. In this work, a theoretical fully analytical study is
presented of the so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. The effect of
this gas in the atmosphere itself was already determined as being of little importance
based on empirical analysis. In the current work, the effect is studied
both phenomenologically and analytically. In a first attempt of energy transfer
by radiation only, it is solved by ideal-gas-law equations and the atmosphere
is divided into an infinite number of layers each absorbing and reemitting
infrared radiation (surpassing the classical Beer-Lambert analysis of
absorption). The result is that the exact structure of the atmosphere is irrelevant
for the analysis; we might as well keep the two-box model for any analytical
approach. However, the results are unsatisfactory in that they cannot
explain the profile of the atmosphere. In a new approach, the atmosphere is
solved by taking both radiative as well as thermodynamic processes into account.
The model fully fits the empirical data and an analytical equation is
given for the atmospheric behavior. Upper limits are found for the greenhouse
effect ranging from zero to a couple of mK per ppm CO2. It is shown
that it cannot explain the observed correlation of carbon dioxide and surface
temperature. This correlation, however, is readily explained by Henry's Law
(outgassing of oceans), with other phenomena insignificant. Finally, while the
greenhouse effect can thus, in a rudimentary way, explain the behavior of the
atmosphere of Earth, it fails describing other atmospheres such as that of
Mars. Moreover, looking at three cities in Spain, it is found that radiation
balances only cannot explain the temperature of these cities. 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.
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

#91
Prof William Happer har gitt ut en interessant (og komplisert) rapport sammen med en kollega:
Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most
Abundant Greenhouse Gases
W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and W. Happer2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
fra konklusjonen:
Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all
greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and
CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude
with respect to the optically thin values.
Det betyr at om det blir mer CO2 i luften så er det ikke mer stråling å absorbere og reemittere.  Mer CO2 i luften har neglisjerbar virkning på global temperatur og dermed også klima.
Det er tanken som teller :-)