Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Framförallt är LiE:s påstående om att luften strålar med en temperatur på 255 C en ren halmdocka. Det är en temperatur han hittat på själv för att få det att se omöjligt ut.

Här är en analys av skogsbränderna i Kalifornien som har blivit allt mer förödande på senare år:

Wildfires

Wildfires have made and remade the California landscape for centuries. But in recent years, they have grown vaster, and the fire season itself has gotten longer. Nine of the ten most destructive fires in recorded California history have occurred since 2000, according to the California Department of Fire & Fire Protection (CalFire). The November 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 86 people and incinerated more than 18,000 structures, including virtually the entire town of Paradise, topped the grim list.
…
Already, climate change is exacerbating these vulnerabilities. The state has a natural cycle of wet winters, which nourish vegetation, and arid summers, which dry out the landscape and leave it susceptible to fire. Climate change has made California hotter, and a spate of studies has shown that the increased heat has made the state drier and more prone to drought, including an enormously destructive one that lasted from 2012 to 2016.

https://insideclimatenews.org/american-climate/wildfire-essay2

Den förflutna tiden för en kvantvåg genom den lägre troposfären är extremt kort. Tidsförloppet från havsnivån upp till 3 km är ungefär 1 millisekund och därför är det inte möjligt för koldioxid att behålla termisk energi i mer än 0,0001 sekunder vid ytan.

För det första, vad har hur lång tid CO2 behåller energin med saken att göra? För det andra har livslängden hos ett exciterat tillstånd i CO2-molekylen inget att göra med hur lång tid det tar för en foton att passera atmosfären. Under lågt tryck har relevanta excitationsnivåer en livstid på uppåt en sekund, denna blir dock kortare ju längre ned i atmosfären man kommer pga kollision mellan molekyler.

Effekten blir rätt uppenbar om man jämför den förflutna tiden genom vattenånga och koldioxid, d.v.s. 0,5831 s respektive 0,0049 s för att nå den yttre rymden. Min slutsats blir då att koldioxid kyler atmosfären.

Tyvärr var det där ett totalt obegripligt inlägg. Vad beskriver dina siffror? Hur resonerar du?

Nytt om utsläpp från tinande permafrost:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/global-impacts-thawing-arctic-permafrost-may-be-imminent

Natureartikeln:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8

Mycket allvarsamma ord från en lundaforskare; Wolfgang Knorr. Vi får inte underskatta den potentiella faran av klimatförändringarna utan använda försiktighetsprincipen!

Climate scientist: our profession is letting down humanity – we must change the way we approach the climate crisis

As a climate scientist of more than 25 years, I’m proud of the work my profession has done in recent decades to alert humanity to the unfolding climate crisis. But as the emergency becomes ever more acute, we scientists need to alter the way we approach it – or face being part of the problem.
…
The problem is that 40 years of these efforts, however well-intentioned, have not had any impact on the carbon course of humanity. Since the middle of the 19th century, CO₂ emissions from human activities have been growing exponentially, on average by 1.65% per year since 1850.
…
If we continue this exponential rise for just five more years, we will have already exhausted the carbon allowance that gives us a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. That’s according to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for communicating the science of climate breakdown. Other scientists estimate that we have already missed the boat.

Hedged bets

Our painful sluggishness to act is not the fault of scientists. But the crisis is now more urgent than ever, and our current approach to it is starting to make us part of the problem.
Scientists are by nature conservative. This tendency is intimately linked to the way science operates: before a new theory is accepted it needs to be repeatedly scrutinised to make sure we are absolutely sure it holds up.

Usually, this is good practice. But it has caused climate scientists to consistently underestimate both the speed at which the climate is destabilising, and the severity of the threat it poses.
The IPCC is a chief culprit for this. It has the added difficulty of having to seek ratification from the world’s governments for its summary reports, and has been consistently singled out for underselling the impending crisis.

The scientists across the world that contribute to the body’s reports must heed its track record of mistaken conservatism, and adjust their approach going forward. Uncertainties are of course inherent in modelling how and when the climate will destabilise, but when the stakes are as high as they are, we must operate on the precautionary principle – the normal burden of proof on scientists should be reversed.
…
Professions such as doctors wouldn’t take such a punt on preserving life if better odds were available. Why is the same not true of climate scientists? We need to shift both our own and society’s ideas about what is an acceptable level of risk to offer government leaders, and therefore the living planet’s inhabitants.
…
Ultimately, the way the world responds to the impending crisis depends on the extent to which its citizens and leaders feel radical action is necessary. By reframing our research and changing accepted levels of risk and uncertainty, perhaps climate scientists can finally help humanity change its carbon course.

https://theconversation.com/climate-scientist-our-profession-is-letting-down-humanity-we-must-change-the-way-we-approach-the-cli mate-crisis-122479

Norra Ishavet isfritt i september 2032?
Prognosen, att Norra Ishavet kommer att vara isfritt i september 2032 som en följd av den globala uppvärmningen, ser ut att hålla. Om uppvärmningen fortsätter.
September är den månad som det är minst is i Norra Ishavet. Under perioden 1979 till 2019 har isvolymen i september minskat från 17000 km³ till 4200 km³. Den genomsnittliga minskningstakten har under tidsperioden varit 3200 km³/årtionde.

Graf:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

Mer information:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

–

Skitsnack, data om isen är fabricerad.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/10/fighting-global-warming-with-fake-data-for-50-years/

Med din och Hellers skruvade världsbild så antar jag att landet Schweiz håller på att försvinna under framväxande is? Eller?

Det som rapporteras är att glaciärerna i Schweiz har minskat med 10% under de senaste 5 åren.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/15/europe/switzerland-glacier-melting-scli-intl-scn/index.html

Får jag gissa? Du har en annan teori?

–

Den gröna ekonomin är bättre för sysselsättningen än fossilindustrin i USA.

US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the fossil fuel industry

The green economy has grown so much in the US that it employs around 10 times as many people as the fossil fuel industry – despite the past decade’s oil and gas boom.

The fossil fuel sector, from coal mines to gas power plants, employed around 900,000 people in the US in 2015-16, government figures show. But Lucien Georgeson and Mark Maslin at University College London found that over the same period this was vastly outweighed by the green economy, which provided nearly 9.5 million jobs, or 4 per cent of the working age population. The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/#ixzz63Fo7rRRK