Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Som jag skrev läser jag inte alla långa texter folk länkar till från pseudovetenskapliga bloggar där det hela lika gärna kan utmynna i att det inte existerar någon växthuseffekt eller andra tossigheter. Det hade varit bättre om du gått direkt till Nature Geoscience. Själva idén att solaktivitet påverkat klimatet kring Nordatlanten är inte ny, jag vet att t ex Michael Mann skrivit om saken tidigare.

Nej, det är en av dom saker som har utvärderats gång på gång, och befunnits vara oriktiga för den temperaturökning vi upplever nu. Som forskare så måste du utvärdera alla hypoteser, och just solens variationer är ordentligt undersökt. Som jag minns så är det också så att utan den temperatur ökning växthusgaser medfört så skulle jorden ha gått mot en lägre medel temperatur.

" If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. "

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Tyvärr stämmer dock inte hypotesen dom framför om att " Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. " Eller vi kan säga att den stämmer upp till en viss nivå. Visserligen växer det snabbare, men det har senare visat sig att det också medför en tidigare död. Detta i sin tur medför att den vegetation som ska ta upp CO2 istället blir en CO2 bomb i sitt sönderfall.

Några citat.

" Previously climate modellers have assumed that rising levels CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the growth of forest trees under the carbon fertilisation effect. But according to David Hilbert of research organisation CSIRO, they have left out one key factor - trees also die younger as their metabolic rate is increased. "Most carbon is in living trees, and tree mortality is not included in the models", says Hilbert. "Trees grow faster with higher temperatures, but mortality goes up too. So despite higher tree growth and higher turnover of biomass, rainforests in a warmer climate have a reduced carbon storage capacity." The effect is most marked in African rainforests, but holds good everywhere from northern Australia to the Amazon. And the implications are massive. Every degree centigrade of temperature increase, he has calculated, will eventually result in 14 tonnes of carbon emissions per hectare of rainforest, equating to 24.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon worldwide - two and a half times the entire world carbon emissions in 2007. Under a warming rate of 1-2 C per year, forests will end up producing 1.2Gt per year of carbon, more than they are currently absorbing as a sink (about 1Gt per year). In all tropical rainforests hold about 200-300 Gt carbon in biomass, mainly in standing trees."

studie från 2009

" The amount of carbon the Amazon’s remaining trees removed from the atmosphere fell by almost a third last decade, leading scientists to warn that manmade carbon emissions would need to be cut more deeply to tackle climate change... Trees in untouched areas of the forest have been dying off across the basin at an increasing rate, found the study, published in Nature on Wednesday. Meanwhile the tree growth produced by higher CO2 levels in recent decades leveled off."

Studie från 2015

Samt " " The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) calculated that around 2075, the plant world would start to take up less and less carbon. Maybe we’d see the start of that process by 2035? Meanwhile, the idea of plants as a sink which will thrive with more CO2 and warmth is built into every carbon budget ever released. The catch is: actual measurements of CO2 at Maunu Loa show that tipping point is already in the rear view mirror. It happened in 2006, Curran tells us, and he explains how we know that."

"The news has come as a shock. Previous estimates indicated that peak carbon would not be reached until at least 2030.

Instead, the new data reveals that trees and plants are already 10 years beyond peak carbon. In 2014 alone, the shortfall in carbon absorption was equivalent to a year's worth of human-produced emissions from China. " "

Från i år.

Vad pratar du om?

Som jag skrev läser jag inte alla långa texter folk länkar till från pseudovetenskapliga bloggar där det hela lika gärna kan utmynna i att det inte existerar någon växthuseffekt eller andra tossigheter. Det hade varit bättre om du gått direkt till Nature Geoscience. Själva idén att solaktivitet påverkat klimatet kring Nordatlanten är inte ny, jag vet att t ex Michael Mann skrivit om saken tidigare.

Nej, det är en av dom saker som har utvärderats gång på gång, och befunnits vara oriktiga för den temperaturökning vi upplever nu. Som forskare så måste du utvärdera alla hypoteser, och just solens variationer är ordentligt undersökt. Som jag minns så är det också så att utan den temperatur ökning växthusgaser medfört så skulle jorden ha gått mot en lägre medel temperatur.

" If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. "

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Tyvärr stämmer dock inte hypotesen dom framför om att " Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. " Eller vi kan säga att den stämmer upp till en viss nivå. Visserligen växer det snabbare, men det har senare visat sig att det också medför en tidigare död. Detta i sin tur medför att den vegetation som ska ta upp CO2 istället blir en CO2 bomb i sitt sönderfall.

Några citat.

" Previously climate modellers have assumed that rising levels CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the growth of forest trees under the carbon fertilisation effect. But according to David Hilbert of research organisation CSIRO, they have left out one key factor - trees also die younger as their metabolic rate is increased. "Most carbon is in living trees, and tree mortality is not included in the models", says Hilbert. "Trees grow faster with higher temperatures, but mortality goes up too. So despite higher tree growth and higher turnover of biomass, rainforests in a warmer climate have a reduced carbon storage capacity." The effect is most marked in African rainforests, but holds good everywhere from northern Australia to the Amazon. And the implications are massive. Every degree centigrade of temperature increase, he has calculated, will eventually result in 14 tonnes of carbon emissions per hectare of rainforest, equating to 24.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon worldwide - two and a half times the entire world carbon emissions in 2007. Under a warming rate of 1-2 C per year, forests will end up producing 1.2Gt per year of carbon, more than they are currently absorbing as a sink (about 1Gt per year). In all tropical rainforests hold about 200-300 Gt carbon in biomass, mainly in standing trees."

studie från 2009

" The amount of carbon the Amazon’s remaining trees removed from the atmosphere fell by almost a third last decade, leading scientists to warn that manmade carbon emissions would need to be cut more deeply to tackle climate change... Trees in untouched areas of the forest have been dying off across the basin at an increasing rate, found the study, published in Nature on Wednesday. Meanwhile the tree growth produced by higher CO2 levels in recent decades leveled off."

Studie från 2015

Samt " " The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) calculated that around 2075, the plant world would start to take up less and less carbon. Maybe we’d see the start of that process by 2035? Meanwhile, the idea of plants as a sink which will thrive with more CO2 and warmth is built into every carbon budget ever released. The catch is: actual measurements of CO2 at Maunu Loa show that tipping point is already in the rear view mirror. It happened in 2006, Curran tells us, and he explains how we know that."

"The news has come as a shock. Previous estimates indicated that peak carbon would not be reached until at least 2030.

Instead, the new data reveals that trees and plants are already 10 years beyond peak carbon. In 2014 alone, the shortfall in carbon absorption was equivalent to a year's worth of human-produced emissions from China. " "

Från i år.

Nej, det är en av dom saker som har utvärderats gång på gång, och befunnits vara oriktiga för den temperaturökning vi upplever nu. Som forskare så måste du utvärdera alla hypoteser, och just solens variationer är ordentligt undersökt. Som jag minns så är det också så att utan den temperatur ökning växthusgaser medfört så skulle jorden ha gått mot en lägre medel temperatur.

" If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. "

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Tyvärr stämmer dock inte hypotesen dom framför om att " Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. " Eller vi kan säga att den stämmer upp till en viss nivå. Visserligen växer det snabbare, men det har senare visat sig att det också medför en tidigare död. Detta i sin tur medför att den vegetation som ska ta upp CO2 istället blir en CO2 bomb i sitt sönderfall.

Några citat.

" Previously climate modellers have assumed that rising levels CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the growth of forest trees under the carbon fertilisation effect. But according to David Hilbert of research organisation CSIRO, they have left out one key factor - trees also die younger as their metabolic rate is increased. "Most carbon is in living trees, and tree mortality is not included in the models", says Hilbert. "Trees grow faster with higher temperatures, but mortality goes up too. So despite higher tree growth and higher turnover of biomass, rainforests in a warmer climate have a reduced carbon storage capacity." The effect is most marked in African rainforests, but holds good everywhere from northern Australia to the Amazon. And the implications are massive. Every degree centigrade of temperature increase, he has calculated, will eventually result in 14 tonnes of carbon emissions per hectare of rainforest, equating to 24.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon worldwide - two and a half times the entire world carbon emissions in 2007. Under a warming rate of 1-2 C per year, forests will end up producing 1.2Gt per year of carbon, more than they are currently absorbing as a sink (about 1Gt per year). In all tropical rainforests hold about 200-300 Gt carbon in biomass, mainly in standing trees."

studie från 2009

" The amount of carbon the Amazon’s remaining trees removed from the atmosphere fell by almost a third last decade, leading scientists to warn that manmade carbon emissions would need to be cut more deeply to tackle climate change... Trees in untouched areas of the forest have been dying off across the basin at an increasing rate, found the study, published in Nature on Wednesday. Meanwhile the tree growth produced by higher CO2 levels in recent decades leveled off."

Studie från 2015

Samt " " The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) calculated that around 2075, the plant world would start to take up less and less carbon. Maybe we’d see the start of that process by 2035? Meanwhile, the idea of plants as a sink which will thrive with more CO2 and warmth is built into every carbon budget ever released. The catch is: actual measurements of CO2 at Maunu Loa show that tipping point is already in the rear view mirror. It happened in 2006, Curran tells us, and he explains how we know that."

"The news has come as a shock. Previous estimates indicated that peak carbon would not be reached until at least 2030.

Instead, the new data reveals that trees and plants are already 10 years beyond peak carbon. In 2014 alone, the shortfall in carbon absorption was equivalent to a year's worth of human-produced emissions from China. " "

Från i år.

Du behövde alltså bara läsa sju ord för att förstå att den hänvisade till Nature Geoscience. Men sju ord kanske är lite för långt för dig?

När det rör sig om en ren pseudovetenskaplig sida som den du länkade till, ja. Bara för att artikeln sen hänvisar till en seriös artikel finns inget som säger att budskapet i de två stämmer överens. Det finns massor av pseudovetenskapare som lärt sig att man kan se seriös ut genom att ha med en referenser till seriös litteratur, få kollar dem i alla fall. Läs originalet om du vill ha trovärdig information, annat är som bäst slöseri med tid.

Nä, det är därför man ska gå in och läsa originalet. Det gjorde inte du. Det visar väldigt tydligt att du saknar intellektuell nyfikenhet. Brist på intellektuell nyfikenhet är kanske en förutsättning för att bli en klimatreligiös solförnekare.