Der er ingen klimakrise - 500 uafhængige videnskabsmænd

Mange amatører tror, at klimasensitiviteten skulle være faldende.

Når energiopbygningen i jordens klimasystemer er meget konstant fra 1990 til i dag så er temperaturen på jordoverfladen ikke stigende i berøring med klimadepoterne (oceanerne, ismasserne, jordmasser osv) og dermed er drivhuseffekten minimal. Hvis drivhuseffekten var markant med stigende temperaturer omkring oceanerne og ved iskapperne så skal der ske en accelererende opbygning af energi i disse energidepoter, og det gør der ikke, som betyder at klimaintensiteten vedr. co2 er minimal.

Se på forcing for CO2 som funktion af årstal..
Der er absolut intet der tyder på, at klimasensitiviteten kan konkluderes lav pga konstant optag af varme i oceanerne siden 1991.

Nej for levebrøds klimaforskere som ikke har nogen realitetssans!

Oceanerne opvarmes overhovedet ikke eller noget med 3/1000 grad pr. år og det samme for iskapperne.

2019 undersøgelse: The warming, measured since 1960, is faster than predicted by scientists in a 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that looked at ocean warming, according to the study, published this week in the journal Science.

"It's mainly driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities," said Lijing Cheng, a lead author of the study from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The increasing rate of ocean warming "is simply a signature of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", Cheng said.

Hvor de 0.003 grad pr år kommer fra er helt uvist.

delphi skrev:

Hvor de 0.003 grad pr år kommer fra er helt uvist.

Hvis man tager tager 722 mio. km3 vand og tilfører 10^22 Joule energi så vil vandmængden opvarmes de 0,003 grad. 722 mio. km3 er vandmængden i oceanerne.

Med de ovenfor givne forklaringer, ser jeg det som en stor ros :-)

Men den beregning har ikke rigtigt nogen værdi, for hovedparten af varmen afsættes i den øverste del af oceanet.

De forskere, der beregner klimasensitiviteten ud fra varmeakkumulering i havene og temperaturer, når frem til en klimasensitivitet på mellem 1,2 og 3,8 grader.
Der er ingen, der finder, at "klimasensitiviteten er meget lav", som Delphi synes.
Beklager, Delphi, jeg finder ingen steder, at der er opbakning til dine ideer.

May I offer you a very simple estimate for climate sensitivity? Trenberth & Kiehl 1997 estimate CO₂ greenhouse effect at 32W/m² for cloudless sky, and 24W/m² for clouds. Given that clouds are currently at ca. 65% that gives us the total GHECO₂ of 26.8W/m². Now, we know that GHECO₂ is logarithmic, therefore it can be described as GHECO2 = C*ln(pCO₂), therefore C = 26.8/ln(410) = 4.45W/m². This gives us the radiative forcing for CO₂ doubling: 4.45W/m²*ln(2) = 3W/m². Taking derivation of Stefan-Boltzmann equation at the earth surface temperature (who cares what happens at 17k feets!) gives us 5.4W/m²K. Therefore ECS = 3/5.4 = 0.57K. And the entire anthropogenic warming 4.45*ln(410/280) / 5.4 = 0.3K. Nothing to worry about.

Seriously, I find attempts to derive ECS from the (flawed) temperature series completely stupid, because we don't know other forcings. Which can be negative or positive, and are certainly greater than the CO₂ influence.

PS I also find the Trenberth's number a bit high, because he attributes most of the forcing from the overlapping with water vapor bands to CO₂. He also assumes earth emissivity as equal to 1. Also the 280ppm is probably not the correct baseline, since some of the increase in CO₂ is attributable to the higher ocean temperature. Anyway that doesn't matter much. Given the method above ECS will always stay between 0.45-0.65K.

delphi skrev:

De forskere, der beregner klimasensitiviteten ud fra varmeakkumulering i havene og temperaturer, når frem til en klimasensitivitet på mellem 1,2 og 3,8 grader.
Der er ingen, der finder, at "klimasensitiviteten er meget lav", som Delphi synes.
Beklager, Delphi, jeg finder ingen steder, at der er opbakning til dine ideer.

Det er jo ikke noget med ideer, det er jo gemen konstatering.

De sidste 30 år er havene steget konstant under 3 mm pr. år. De sidste 30 år er der hvert år tilført jorden en konstant effekt med 200 TW energi og havene er opvarmet 0.0015 grad i 2 km, de sidste 30 år har isafsmeltningen fra grønlands iskapper været konstant. De sidste 30 år har tempertaursætningen ned gennem oceanerne været ensartet, eller temperaturerne ned gennem havdybet har været ensartet og meget svagt stigende fordelt ned gennem havdybet osv osv.

Eller over de sidste 30 år har klimasystemerne kunnet kompensere for over halvdelen af alt menneskeskabt co2 i atmosfæren ved bare at tilbageholde sølle 200 TW energi, hæve temperaturen i verdenshavene med 0,0015 grad årligt og smelte 300 Gt is på grønland, lade oceanerne stige under 3 mm. osv. osv. eller fuldstændig harmløse følgevirkninger af enorme mængder co2 i atmosfæren.

Og hvordan mon det går med den næste fordobling af co2'en i atmosfæren - ikke særlig meget!!

Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change. Sea surface temperature in European seas is increasing more rapidly than in the global oceans. Projections show the temperature increases will persist throughout this century. Ice-free summers are expected in the Arctic by the end of this century, if not earlier. Already, there is evidence that many marine ecosystems in European seas are affected by rising sea temperature.
Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century. In five European seas the warming occurs even more rapidly. In the North and Baltic Seas temperature rose five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Som tidligere vist ved beregning efter kendt formel, såfremt man indsætter temperaturstigningen mellem 1979 og 2018, vil temperaturen ved en fordobling af CO2, være 2,1K .

Klimasensitivitet= Ts/5.35*ln(415/336)
Ts = temperaturstigning

Og det er 800 TW mere effekt som næsten neutralisere den øgede backradiation fra co2'en.

pifpafpuf skrev:
...Delphi - jeg skal lige forstå om jeg tilhører de laverestående eller er at regne som >= Perlehøne.
- Hvis man først overbeviser sig selv om at oceanernes "heat content", jfr ovenstående diagram, er så meget større end atmosfærens.
- for så, på en sommerdag, at gå i vandet et sted hvor temperaturen er den samme i luften og i vandet. Og så oplever at man fryser hurtigere i vand end i luft.
Med de to observationer alene - så har man afvist drivhuseffektens katastrofale effekter på civilisationen (og jordens gennemsnitstemperatur)? ...

Peter Villadsen skrev:
En klimaforsker piller de 500 "videnskabsmænd", der bare er skeptikere, fra hinanden.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/10/more-than-500-people-misunderstand-climate-change/

The following statement is misleading:

"The geological archive reveals that Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic"

It is true that Earth's climate has changed over the past, but such changes have had specific physical causes, which are reasonably well understood.

There have been changes in the shape of the continents, formation of mountain ranges, changes in atmospheric composition, changes in Earth's orbit around the sun (the Milankovitch cycles), changes in the sun, volcanic activity, and changes in ocean currents, all of which have influenced Earth's climate.

As for the "Little Ice Age", it was very different to the present global warming. It had a more regional character and was not as synchronised on a global scale as the ongoing climate change.

The scientific documentation of past changes in climate is one of the ways that we know that that the climate is sensitive to changed conditions. The Earth has never been as closely monitored as today, especially with the help of satellites and advanced modern instruments, giving unprecedented amounts of high-quality data.

This monitoring shows that the conditions that caused climate change in the past are absent today, except for the increases in greenhouse gases. The IPCC reports provide lists of peer reviewed papers on the global warming.

The following statement is incorrect:

"The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change."

Indeed, comparisons between simulated and observed global mean surface temperatures indicate a good correspondence.

I can believe that the people who signed the petition don't understand climate change, but they should speak for themselves. The rest of the science community has a fairly good understanding.

The fact that we can write computer code based on the fundamental laws of physics that is able to reproduce phenomena we observe on Earth, indicates that we do understand the climate system. See the description of climate models on both Carbonbrief.org and TED.com.

The following statement is incorrect:

"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial."

The scientific knowledge underpinning climate policies is established both from observations as well as the laws of physics and climate models.

The global climate models share common description of the atmosphere with weather forecast models used on a daily basis to provide operational weather warnings.

All climate models have been evaluated and tested, and they do reproduce the observed global warming as seen with the observations.

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Their physical properties can be established accurately through lab studies.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas which is a byproduct from the consumption of fossil energy, and the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations represents approximately 40% of the total amount produced from the exploitation of fossil fuels.

The CO2 bears a fingerprint that connects the increased amount to coal, oil and gas, in terms of the isotopes carbon-13 and carbon-14, as well as the comparable concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen and ocean acidification.

The climate models reproduce the observed sensitivity, as shown in Benestad and Schmidt (2009) and the figure below.



Fig 2 from Benestad & Schmidt (2014)
Observed 〈T〉 and "all" (thick curves), together with predictions based on equation (1) (open circles) and linear multiple regression models in equation (2) using all known forcings as input (solid circles). Source: Benestad & Schmidt (2009).

The following statement is incorrect:

"There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests."

CO2 has an indirect effect on extreme weather conditions through increasing the greenhouse effect and changing Earth's hydrological cycle. It is well-established that increased surface temperatures lead to increased evaporation and water vapour in the atmosphere.

Water vapour is the main fuel for weather phenomena such as storms and rainfall. Global warming is also accompanied by changes to the large-scale circulation pattern, such as the Hadley cell, affecting both extreme rainfall in the tropics and drought conditions in the sub-tropics.

The observed number of record-breaking temperatures and rainfall provide statistical evidence for the weather becoming more extreme. One example is the increased probability of heavy precipitation.

The following statement is misguided:

"There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world."

There is ample evidence of changing risks connected to weather, with more heatwaves and more extreme rainfall.

The global mean sea-level is rising and coral reefs are dying. Glaciers providing predictable water supply are melting, such as in the Himalayas. The consequences for ecosystems and agriculture are dire.

The insurance sector is already affected, and the consequences from climate change will increasingly disrupt new sectors such as agriculture, water management, transport, tourism, and trade.

There will be regions where people no longer will be able to reside and there will be increased levels of migration and conflicts connected to climate change.

Rather than pushing a petition, the contrarians should present scientific evidence for their view. If such evidence exists, it needs to be transparent so that others can reexamine it and get swayed by the information. So far, the typical contrarians (and one of the signatures) have preferred not to disclose their work.

There have already been some reactions to this petition, e.g. on Climatefeedback.org. It was also preceded by a similar Italian "pro-fake-news" petition (signed by more or less the same Italian contrarians as this version) that prompted a response from Italian scientists.

The claims presented in the petition signed by 500 contrarians is the strongest case the contrarians can muster against climate science. In other words, the best shot from the majority of world's supposedly prominent academics known to have an alternative opinion (i.e. the majority of a tiny minority).

Obviously, there is not much convincing evidence against anthropogenic climate change.

If people who reject climate science ever point to actual data, you can just about bet the farm it will be data from satellite measurements of upper-atmosphere temperatures. At least until the record-setting global heat in 2015 and 2016, some of the satellite data was amenable to the claim that global warming had magically ended in 1998.

That was always nonsense, involving cherry-picking a start year and ignoring ongoing corrections to the complex satellite measurements. That said, it is certainly fair to compare the satellite records to climate models to see what we can learn.

Peter Villadsen skrev:
Delphi, du kan ikke tilbagevise nogetsomhelst med et par grafer og nogen ord uden kilder.
Det er ligegyldigt, når det bare er dine egne påstande.

Hvis man vil forstå klimamodellerne og om de regner rigtigt, så start med at spørge der, hvor den faglige kompetance er.
Læs fx her og bliv meget klogere:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

The range of sensitivity across all of these studies has likely narrowed slightly over time, though the average has remained fairly close to 3C. Contrary to claims on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered.

There has, however, been some disagreement in recent years on the lower end of the sensitivity range. Model and palaeoclimate-based approaches (blue and purple lines and dots) rarely provide sensitivity estimates below 2C, whereas approaches that use instrumental data (orange) often have. This contributed to the IPCC broadening its sensitivity range from 2C to 4.5C in its fourth assessment report, published in 2007, to 1.5C to 4.5C in its fifth assessment.