Citat:
Precis. De säger att vi förmodligen kommer att få en ökad kunskap om detta snart.Nu säger ju Hansen själv att det i nuläget inte går att avgöra inverkan av aerosoler och moln: ”although it is difficult to apportion the albedo change between aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks because of limited global measurements”
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration-causes-and-consequences
Jag kan bara säga samma sak tillbaka till dig: Allt detta får man förståelse för om man läser artikeln varifrån du tog utdraget.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration-causes-and-consequences
Jag kan bara säga samma sak tillbaka till dig: Allt detta får man förståelse för om man läser artikeln varifrån du tog utdraget.
Empirical evidence related to aerosol climate forcing will become clearer soon. If the forcing change is as large as we believe, it will push global warming to at least +1.6-1.7°C (Fig. 6), well above the level that would be expected for the moderate ongoing El Nino, and it should also limit the decline of global temperature following the El Nino.
Men det rör liksom inte det vi pratar om. Om temperaturökningen av reducerat albedo är stor, så behöver också temperaturreduktionen av ett ökat albedo vara stor. Det är två sidor av samma mynt.
Här framgår det tydligt vad de menar
Citat:
We have argued[3] that the imminent threat of human-made climate change is understated in IPCC[4] assessments, which are based predominately on global climate models (GCMs). We suggest that the IPCC best estimate for climate sensitivity (3°C for 2×CO2 or 0. 75°C per W/m2) is an underestimate, as we find real-world (paleoclimate) evidence for a sensitivity of 4.8°C ±1.2°C for 2×CO2 (1.2°C per W/m2). In addition, we suggest that IPCC underestimates (negative) aerosol climate forcing and global cooling by aerosols that partly counterbalances greenhouse gas (GHG) warming. These two errors compensate and allow GCMs with low sensitivity to match observed warming of the past century by using an unrealistically small aerosol effect. Compensation is not an accident; it is a result of overreliance on GCMs. With aerosol forcing unmeasured, it is natural for modelers to focus on an aerosol forcing that yields agreement with global warming of the past century. Some clarification will be possible in 2024.
We have argued[3] that the imminent threat of human-made climate change is understated in IPCC[4] assessments, which are based predominately on global climate models (GCMs). We suggest that the IPCC best estimate for climate sensitivity (3°C for 2×CO2 or 0. 75°C per W/m2) is an underestimate, as we find real-world (paleoclimate) evidence for a sensitivity of 4.8°C ±1.2°C for 2×CO2 (1.2°C per W/m2). In addition, we suggest that IPCC underestimates (negative) aerosol climate forcing and global cooling by aerosols that partly counterbalances greenhouse gas (GHG) warming. These two errors compensate and allow GCMs with low sensitivity to match observed warming of the past century by using an unrealistically small aerosol effect. Compensation is not an accident; it is a result of overreliance on GCMs. With aerosol forcing unmeasured, it is natural for modelers to focus on an aerosol forcing that yields agreement with global warming of the past century. Some clarification will be possible in 2024.
Om det är svårt att förstå kan jag försöka mig på en analogi? Är du i behov av en sådan?
