Husk mig
▼ Indhold

CO2, Temperatures and Ice Ages


CO2, Temperatures and Ice Ages29-01-2009 13:01
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Et af mine nye skriv er dukket op på Icecap i nat:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

Jeg gengiver nedenfor artiklen, og det kunne være sjovt hvis nogen har kommentarer, kritik etc.

Here goes:

******************

CO2, Temperatures and ice ages...
Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.

It is general accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores? At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it's the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:02
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows: First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it's the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down.

Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver. Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let's do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:


Redigeret d. 29-01-2009 13:11
29-01-2009 13:03
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Fig 2. above. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostok data confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced. The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:04
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:05
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature. I write "the area of maximum CO2 warming effect "...

The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises. So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered "the area of maximum CO2 warming effect".
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:06
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:06
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level? One thing is for sure: "Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures." This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: "We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2". But simple fact is: "No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls". So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.

- Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise– WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)

Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all? No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?

This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:08
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Fig 7. Well, if CO2 should be reason to such "temperature-fall-slowing-effect", how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise. However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.

When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: "What is the mechanism behind ice ages???" This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can't answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:

First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don't know.

What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to "mix" and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.

It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

29-01-2009 13:10
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Fig 8. Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing i have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
29-01-2009 13:21
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
Jeg har allerede læst den (i natten til i idag)
En ting jeg lagde mærke til var selve temperaturbølgerne i mellemistiderne.
bølgen fra den for 230.000 år siden er meget spids. bølgerne fra for 130.000 år siden og for 320.000 år siden minder i formen lidt om hinanden.
Så måske er vi ved langsomt at bakke ud af den glaciale periode (icehouse earth) som vi gled ind i for en million eller tre år siden.
Redigeret d. 29-01-2009 13:23
29-01-2009 17:47
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Hej Manse!
Ja, det interessante er, at jo længere tid der før peak har været opvarmning, desto længere tid tager det at køle ned. Varmen har på forskellig vis akkumuleret sig i jordskorpen + oceaner.
Således vil vore dages varme periode næppe efterfølges af en brat nedkøling som efter 230.000 ybp peak. Så uanset om der måtte stå istid foran døren, ja, så bliver det ikke lige i overmorgen vi har isranden i baghaven, skulle jeg mene. Som det ses af første graf har vi nemlig haft en usædvanlig lang varme periode. Der er varme at tage af.

Din tanke om at vi er ved at bakke ud af den glaciale periode.. jo det er rigtigt, trend på de sidste peaks går den vej - men det er dog så kort en trend på bare 3 peaks at det nok er svært at sige?

Bedste hilsner, Frank
29-01-2009 20:08
kulden-varmenProfilbillede★★★★★
(2055)
Frank Lansner skrev:
Din tanke om at vi er ved at bakke ud af den glaciale periode.. jo det er rigtigt, trend på de sidste peaks går den vej - men det er dog så kort en trend på bare 3 peaks at det nok er svært at sige?


Det afgørende i den forbindelse er Lena-kanalen imellem bunden af Ishavet og bunden af Nord Atlanten; da denne kanal afgør om Ishavet og Nord Atlanten er et eller to have. Hvis kanalen er stor nok, så er et forbi med Istiden, og vi får ikke flere istider i de næste mange milioner år. Hvis den er for smal eller bliver smallere, så får vi mange flere istider. Kanalen har åbnet sig fordi der er sket en forskydning så at kontinentalsoklen ud for Grønland og Nordamerika har forskudt sig imod syd, i forhold til kontinentalsoklen ved Svalbard og Europa, som er flyttet nogen få kilometer imod nord. Selvekanalen er ikke særlig bred men har en kraftig sydgående strøm, som modsvare den nordgående Golfstrøm ved overfladen.ca. her ligger Lena-kanalen
Redigeret d. 29-01-2009 20:15
30-01-2009 12:57
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
KV: Super interessant!!

GUYS (and klimagris): Jeg ligger i intens skyttegravskrig med den gode Hr Engelbeen her:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/

Har også kommunikeret pr mail. My god det er tungt!!!
Men engelbeen er dejlig høflig, 1000 points til Engelbeen for det. Jeg tror han rent faktisk søger sandheden ... nogle gange :-)
31-01-2009 02:10
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
- så kom artiklen på WATTS:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
- på 5 timer er der kommet 132 kommentarer.
01-02-2009 23:37
Lucy
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Hei Frank
Nå må jeg prøver å forstår alt som står her! Men jeg må spørre spørsmål på engelsk, det blir annerledes få mye.

The question is, What is the source of the very interesting picture (CO2 hadcrut) you linked to for me, because I've never never seen a CO2 record that mirrors temperature like that! I've put it on my Primer here

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm#CO2

but with such a breakthrough picture, I'd like a source!
02-02-2009 00:04
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
@Lucy

Mayby I can be of assistance. The CO2 graf is the year to year change og co2 content in the air as seen for each month. (for example change the CO2-numbers: january08-january07, feburary08-february07,...december08-december07)

your can finde the graf on this site (klimadebat.dk) here (scroll down):
http://www.klimadebat.dk/grafer_co2_ppm.php
Source is NOAA/ESRL

the begining of this is about a month ago
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/facts-og-falske-data-d14-e725-s120.php#post_9381
Redigeret d. 02-02-2009 00:18
02-02-2009 00:55
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Manse and Lucy:
Yes, and the particular graph you posted i made slightly modified to show the best fit i could make between the two datasets. I think its nice that we see that around 1977-78 we we need the lowest temperature to the the same CO2 rise/year. So from 1958 to 1978 it more and more CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere for the same temperature. Then from 1978 to 2008, still smaller and smaller amount of CO2 rise/year is accumulated for same temperature.
So, it seems that from 1978 til 2008 something is pulling more and more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Perhaps the biosphere which then would have to be growing.

The particular graph i gave you is not yet puplished in an article of mine, but might be.

K.R. Frank, and thanks for writings at WUWT!


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
02-02-2009 10:38
Lucy
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Fantastisk. Absolutt fantastisk. Takk så mye, Manse42 og Frank Lansner.
02-02-2009 13:17
Lucy
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab på det grønne alter.


Frank du må ser den engelske program av James May Power To The People med en gang! Seks dager mer, før det går vekk!
02-02-2009 13:45
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
Its only available in the UK.

The only thing we get in DK with Captain Slow is Top Gear.
I liked his amphibian yacht.

Manse42
02-02-2009 13:51
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
1000 tak Lucy!

Når jeg prøver dit link, så får jeg ikke lov at se filmen idet den kun kan vises til UK audience...


Og så til grafen vi snakkede om ovenfor:
Ja, jeg synes den er et scoop. Hvis min formodning om at trend i biosfærens størrelse kan aflæses i trendforskellen mellem CO2rise/year og temperatur, ja, så har større varme, stigende CO2 og øget biosfære gået hånd i hånd.
Således viser grafen ret tydeligt, at når man går tilbage fra 1978 mod 1958, ja så går vi tilbage mod en periode hvar der har været varmere, mere CO2 og større biosfære. Det passer med varmen omkring 1940 samt Becks målinger.
Jeg har lige modtaget Becks seneste arbejde, og det ser ret godt ud.
Primært har han vist CO2 som funktion af vindstyrken peger på en baggrunds CO2 omring 1940 på 372 ppm. Bruges nøjagtigt samme metode med vind som parameter samme sted idag (Alperne) så fås ved maks vind værdier der passer med Mauna Loa. Slet ikke tosset.

Og når vi ser stigende varme og CO2 idag medføre (tilsyneladende) større biosfære, hvorfor skulle det så ikke have medført større biosfære omkring 1940?
Og grafen du har viser netop at når man går tilbage fra 1978 til 1958, så har "biosfæren" en signifikant stigende tendens. Den graf forener mange ting.

Min plan er at lave et skriv men grafen jeg gav dig samt visse af Becks nye illustrationer. Ferdinand Engelbeen, en yderst indædt modstander af Becks resultater, sender også løbende materiale til mig, så jeg kan se lidt nuanceret på tingene, og det er nok meget godt :-)
Redigeret d. 02-02-2009 13:56
02-02-2009 14:36
GLARProfilbillede★★★★☆
(1023)
@Frank

Wind Mauna Loa http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/aboutus/siteInformation/mlosite.html

Middelvind 5 m/s
Max middel 20 m/s
02-02-2009 20:41
Lucy
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Herregud Frank, "the plot thickens"! Jeg skriver norsk, og du besvarer på dansk. Nå måtte jeg hente dansk+engelsk ordbok til å oversetter riktig det som du har skrevet! Freelang Dictionary er perfekt for min bruk her.

Synd med programmet. Det var en av de beste, populær men ikke dum.

I'm really glad you think as I do, that you cannot leave the biosphere out of the picture in CO2 levels. So for me, the sea surface temperature is the driver of CO2, and the plants on land, and the shell building animals in the seas, keep the CO2 levels regulated. The oceanographer Floor Anthoni taught me this. I too have had LONG conversations with Ferdinand Engelbeen, and though he has done a lot of interesting work that knocked me flat as a newcomer to the science, I still ended up doubting him but unable to actually disprove him... but at least he agrees that CO2 has no warming power. He's a nice guy, we met up in Portsmouth.

I'm very interested to hear your position on Beck. I emailed him but unfortunately it all got lost when my ISP recently changed its software! Damn nuisance! I've always felt his work was significant but found it hard to reconcile the wild fluctuations in his graphs with the extraordinarily steady steps up measured at Mauna Loa. Now, with what you said about Beck's Alps tests (if I understood you right), and the significant CO2 uptick pointing back to before 1960, before Keeling started, you've given me more ammunition! I shall adjust the text in my Primer.

However, the CO2 has, during the whole period of your graph, always been increasing, never decreasing in total. Is this what Akasofu refers to: that there are slow ocean currents still warming up from after the Little Ice Age, like a "background" to the more immediate temperature fluctuations?
baggrunds CO2 omring 1940 på 372 ppm
Det er en forfærdelig stort nedstyrtning i 20 årene. Og ingen bevis nå av nedstyrtning igjen??
03-02-2009 00:13
Lucy
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
And again "the plot thickens"!

I've been reading the two links from manse42, and I've learned some more really important basic science from Frank!

If I've understood you rightly,

(1) the Arctic sea ice is self-regulating in thickness, and never gets very thick, because as fast as snow piles on from above, it gets pushed down to warmer water underneath that melts it away...

(2) snow HAS been piling on at a huge rate in the Antarctic peninsula at least (what about the mainland?) Does this mean that, from time to time, the sea ice shelves like Larsen B simply get overladen and break away - and that a new Larsen B simply starts to re-form?

(3) in the 2004 NASA study with a superb picture of cooling Antarctica
Findings from a study by Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt are in the 2004 Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures... "Antarctica has been cooling..." Shindell said. "Global warming is expected to dominate in future trends."

but in 2009, Shindell takes part in a study Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface [since 1957].
Redigeret d. 03-02-2009 00:24
03-02-2009 10:01
GLARProfilbillede★★★★☆
(1023)
@Lucy

If I've understood you rightly,

(1) the Arctic sea ice is self-regulating in thickness, and never gets very thick, because as fast as snow piles on from above, it gets pushed down to warmer water underneath that melts it away...

No...the snow is just insolating

(2) snow HAS been piling on at a huge rate in the Antarctic peninsula at least (what about the mainland?) Does this mean that, from time to time, the sea ice shelves like Larsen B simply get overladen and break away - and that a new Larsen B simply starts to re-form?

No...the tide plays an important role +/- up to 2 meters, the ice-shelf cracks and drifts away

Some other reasons see pic
http://international.usgs.gov/ipy/images/ppacket/mcmurdo_labeledLIMA.jpg

1) The glacier plasma is transformed to soft ice, because of a local thermal hotspot, the soft ice freeze into plain ice again and pushed out in the sea, the result of the process can be seeing further south...The re-frozen ice breaks away.

2) The funny part of the story.....very few scientists has reported about the hotspot, despite the research-station McMurdo is just a few hundreds kilometers away, they allways blame the climate change. A thermal hotspot is not interesting for fundraising.

3) It's a huge hotspot, probably the half size of Norway
Redigeret d. 03-02-2009 10:04
03-02-2009 10:32
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
@Lucy continued...

No...the snow is just insolating
... which protects it form transporting heat from the sea below into the atmosphere. The seawater is about -1.8°C the atmosphere -30°C. The sea below is below freezing because of the salt content and therefor not melting the ice above.
When salty water freezes it gives off salt; a part of the thermohaline circulation.

The formation of sea ice also contributes to an increase in seawater salinity; saltier brine is left behind as the sea ice forms around it (pure water preferentially being frozen). Increasing salinity depresses the freezing temperature of seawater, so cold liquid brine is formed in inclusions within a honeycomb of ice. The brine progressively melts the ice just beneath it, eventually dripping out of the ice matrix and sinking. This process is known as brine exclusion. By contrast in the Weddell Sea off the coast of Antarctica near the edge of the ice pack, the effect of wind cooling is intensified by brine exclusion.


The insulating effect of snow is very good. Comparable to wood and 1/20 heat conduction of ice pr. depth. Inuit are building houses with it.

-manse42
Redigeret d. 03-02-2009 10:55
04-02-2009 01:55
Søren_Søndergaard
★★☆☆☆
(203)
@Frank og i andre som følger WUWT

Dit første indlæg omkring temperatur vs CO2 ændring, hvor du har din sag for med Engelbeen.

Jeg tror du kommer til at give dig.
Det er forfejlet at gå efter et link mellem T og dCO2.
Man kan dog let blive snydt specielt da der er tale om cycliske variationer.

I forhold til de almindelige teorier vil man dog skulle kunne se sammenhæng mellem dT og dCO2.
Og hvis du laver en sådan graf vil du se en lige så god korrelation, dog faseforskudt svarende til at det er temperaturændringer som bevirker CO2 ændringer.

Jeg har selv fedtet med et xls men via disse links kan man lave analysen

Temp vs dCo2

og

dT vs dCO2

Vedhæftet klip af grafer.
Tilknyttet billede:

04-02-2009 10:01
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Søren :-)

Tak for grafer!!

Du skal huske på, at når der er en god sammenhæng for dCO2 / T , ja så vil dCO2 / dT nødvendigvis også kunne lidt af det samme.
Temperaturer svinger meget hele tiden, derfor vil dT gøre lige så. Dvs: Når temperaturen svinger ofte, ja, så vil accelerationen af temperatur ligeså røre på sig ofte og i takt hermed.

Derfor vil dCO2 / dT grafen passe fint så længe der er store udsving i T. ALENE FORDI dCO2 / T linket er korrekt vil dCO2 / dT grafen også blive korrekt når der er store udsving.

Det interessante er: Kan det passe at ét år med stor kulde giver et stort duk i CO2rise/year, men at efterfølgende år med samme temperatur har nærmest nul effekt??

Søren, for de efterfølgende år med selvsamme kulde, ja, der er jo ikke løngere acceleration i temperaturen. dT = 0. Således er det kun det første år med en given temperatur der skulle kunn influere på CO2 i atmosfæren...

Hvorfor har år nr 2,3,4,5,6... med nøjagtigt samme kulde eller varme ingen indflydelse??

Dette ville kræve, at hele CO2 balancen på ét år havde nået euqilibrium.

CBH, Søren anyone: Er der nogen solid dokumentation for at CO2 balance når equilibrium så hurtigt?

Anyway, Søren, År med store temperatur udsving vil medføre samme udsving for accelerationen, dT. Så hvis du skal afgøre rigtigheden af dCO2 / dT grafen, fokuser på årene uden de store temperaturudsving... men det er lidt svært da det hele tiden svinger..
Redigeret d. 04-02-2009 10:09
15-09-2010 11:17
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4537)
Det ser us til at Outgoing raditaion fra Jorden over de sidste 60 år er steget markant.

Dette harmonerer ikke med at CO2 skulle have holdt mere og mere varme tilbage på Jorden.

Stigningen er på hele 6 W/kvm.

Dette svarer til 1½ halvering af CO2 concentration i atmosfæren - såfremt at CO2 har de formodede 3,7 W/kvm effect.

F.eks svarer det til at CO2 (med den formodede effect) var gået fra 800 ppm ned til 280 ppm på 60 år.

SÅ realiteterne ser ud til at være, at alt imens CO2 koncentrationen er steget fra ca 350ppm (1958) til 390ppm (2010), ja, så er jordens evne til at udstråle vareme boostet med 6 W/kvm...

Dette er exibit 134 (ca) der går stik mod Co2 teorien.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:

15-09-2010 12:11
ISIS
★★☆☆☆
(361)
Frank skriver:

Det ser us til at Outgoing raditaion fra Jorden over de sidste 60 år er steget markant.

Dette harmonerer ikke med at CO2 skulle have holdt mere og mere varme tilbage på Jorden.

Stigningen er på hele 6 W/kvm.

Dette svarer til 1½ halvering af CO2 concentration i atmosfæren - såfremt at CO2 har de formodede 3,7 W/kvm effect.

F.eks svarer det til at CO2 (med den formodede effect) var gået fra 800 ppm ned til 280 ppm på 60 år.

SÅ realiteterne ser ud til at være, at alt imens CO2 koncentrationen er steget fra ca 350ppm (1958) til 390ppm (2010), ja, så er jordens evne til at udstråle vareme boostet med 6 W/kvm...

Dette er exibit 134 (ca) der går stik mod Co2 teorien.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html


Ja, og overskriften til det hele lyder:

"No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate"


Hvad mon reaktionerne fra "klimakonsensusvidenskaben" bliver, og hvordan mon det hollandske meteorologiske institut reagerede?

Vi kan vel godt gætte på, at det ikke bliver bragt i mainstreammedierne...
eller på videnskab.dk, Science, Nature osv. Men som sædvanlig, kan man jo altid håbe, - for nogle gange bringes oplysningerne jo alligevel, overraskende nok!


....
Redigeret d. 15-09-2010 12:16




Deltag aktivt i debatten CO2, Temperatures and Ice Ages:

Husk mig

Lignende indhold
DebatterSvarSeneste indlæg
The ice is melting at the poles...pole...p525-11-2015 20:46
Global temperatures continue to set new records2808-10-2015 00:33
Southern Ocean: Udviklingen i Sea Surface Temperature og Sea Ice Cover. Analyse af data fra NOAA.4016-09-2015 14:50
Southern Ocean: Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Area - links II201-12-2014 12:50
Southern Hemisphere:Udviklingen i Sea Ice Area og Sea Ice Extent..011-08-2014 11:48
▲ Til toppen
Afstemning
Bør der indføres en klimaafgift på oksekød, som foreslået af Etisk Råd?

Ja

Nej

Ved ikke


Tak for støtten til driften af Klimadebat.dk.
Copyright © 2007-2016 Klimadebat.dk | Kontakt | Privatlivspolitik