Gondolom minden általam linkelt anyagot áttanulmányoztál.
Akkor kérdezném, hogy hogy tudtad értelmezni a megadott forrásokban szereplő következő mondatokat, adatokat?
"The principal findings of this study are that neither the atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor ΔRFCO2 is correlated with T over most of the ancient (Phanerozoic) climate. Over all major climate transitions of the Phanerozoic Eon, about three-quarters of 136 correlation coefficients computed here between T and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and between T and ΔRFCO2, are non-discernible, and about half of the discernible correlations are negative. Correlation does not imply causality, but the absence of correlation proves conclusively the absence of causality [63]. The finding that atmospheric CO2 concentration and ΔRFCO2 are generally uncorrelated with T, therefore, implies either that neither variable exerted significant causal influence on T during the Phanerozoic Eon or that the underlying proxy databases do not accurately reflect the variables evaluated."
"For mid latitudes, MODTRAN calculations show that ΔRFCO2 peaks at 3.7 W/m2 at an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 200 ppmv, near the minimal CO2 concentration encountered in nature during glacial cycling (~180 ppmv) [60,61]. From that peak ΔRFCO2 declines continuously with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration (Figure 8b) as RF increases continuously and logarithmically (Figure 8a). Using the above Equations (3) and (4) respectively, ΔRFCO2 declines to half its initial value at an atmospheric concentration CO2 of 337.15 ppmv, and to 1/e or 36.79% of its initial value at 366.66 ppmv (Figure 8b)."
"At the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 (~407 ppmv [1]), the marginal forcing power is smaller than during natural glacial cycles but still greater than during most of the Phanerozoic Eon. The half-decay of CO2 marginal forcing (~337 ppmv) was surpassed in 1980, while the exponential marginal forcing decay constant (~367 ppmv) was exceeded in 1999. At the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is approaching 410 ppmv, atmospheric CO2 has lost nearly two-thirds of its cumulative marginal forcing power."
"As implied by the decline in marginal forcing, when atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches 1000 ppmv, near the baseline value for most of the Phanerozoic Eon (Figure 5), marginal forcing will decline to 14.3% of its maximum (computed using MODTRAN; Figure 8b)"
"Afer 2150 the main drivers are water vapour and CO2, with
albedo in the third place. Te contribution of CH4 is much smaller, while the other Montreal and Kyoto gases
remain the fourth most important driver of the self-sustained warming and thawing of the permafrost. (b) Te
relative importance of water vapour in global warming in Scenario 1. Afer 2150 water vapor has approximately
the same efect as the sum of all the other GHGes. Historically, from 1850 to 2000, the ratios in the ESCIMO
base run fall well within the uncertainty band reported by Cess, Rind, Hansen and Ramanathan and Inamdar
cited earlier."
"Te unexpected result in Scenarios 1 and 2 is that the global temperature keeps rising
for centuries afer man-made GHG emissions of are brought to zero. Even more surprising, at frst glance, is the
fact that the temperature keeps rising afer the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has declined back to the
pre-industrial level through absorption in the deep ocean, biomass and soil.
In both cases the explanation (in ESCIMO) rests in the joint action of albedo, carbon (both as CH4 and CO2)
from thawing permafrost, and water vapour in warm air—which together ensure that the temperature stays high
even when the concentration of CO2 declines. Some additional comments help explain:
...Water vapour exists in the atmosphere because of the balance between evaporation, which increases with temperature, and precipitation from the atmosphere, which also increases with temperature. H2O is not held in the atmosphere because of CO2, or any other GHG. Tis means that water vapour,and its warming efect, will not disappear when the CO2 concentration declines back to pre-industrial levels—as
Ez az OLR értékét mintegy 100 W/m2 értékkel csökkenti, ez a teljes üvegházhatása, amely 23,8 C felszíni hőmérséklet emelkedést okoz.
A vízpára mennyisége 4%-kal növekedett ez becsülten 0,8 C felszíni hőmérséklet emelkedést generál." #279
"This is regarded as a result of convective elevation of the maritime atmosphere, reducing the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) about 100 W/m2 locally and 4 W/m2 globally from an increase in global water vapour of about 4%. This suggests a linear response from greenhouse warming to increased water vapour content of the atmosphere. Note that the extra heat in the atmosphere during an El Nino is controlled by all these sources of warming, as shown in Figure 2. Whatever the source of extra heat in the ocean, by moving extra water into the atmosphere as vapour it warms the atmosphere by the resultant greenhouse effect, reducing OLR, as well as direct warming by sunlight in the air column."
"Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures."
"A striking new result is that from the mid-2005 to mid-2019 estimates the trend of the energy flux for 0–2,000 m ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) is 0.43 ± 0.40 W m−2 decade−1, and the trend for the net CERES TOA energy flux is 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 over that same time period (Figure 1, dashed lines). The trend in the difference between the CERES and in situ data is 0.068 ± 0.29 W m−2 decade−1. Trends are determined using least squares linear regression and uncertainties in the trends correspond to 5–95% confidence intervals, accounting for autocorrelation in the data following the methodology of Santer et al. (2000). This remarkable increase in EEI is consistent between these two completely independent observational estimates. The linear trend of CERES implies a net EEI of 0.42 ± 0.48 W m−2 in mid-2005 and 1.12 ± 0.48 W m−2 in mid-2019. The in situ estimates yield a statistically indistinguishable result."
"The positive trend in EEI is a result of combined changes in clouds, water vapor, trace gases, surface albedo, and aerosols, which exceed a negative contribution from increasing global mean temperatures."
"[10] The annual mean LDRcf increase of +3.9(2.0) W m−2 is due to increasing greenhouse gases and increasing temperature. The forcing that is due to increasing greenhouse gases can be isolated by subtracting the effect of surface temperature rises from LDRcf. Using the first derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann law we subtract for each month separately, the longwave radiation due to variations of temperature in each year (residuals to the linear regression) and due to temperature trends over the time period. An increase of +1.18(0.7) W m−2 remains on the annual mean for the cloud-free and temperature subtracted longwave downward radiation (LDRcf,Ts) (Figure 3e). The good correlation between surface absolute humidity [g m−3] under cloud-free situations (Ucf) and LDRcf,Ts of r = 0.89 manifests, that the dominant part of the LDRcf,Ts forcing is due to water vapor increase. Sensitivity values [Philipona et al., 2004] of 0.56 and 1.73 W m−2 at 500 respectively 3000 meters a.s.l., for a 0.1 g m−3 change of absolute humidity at the surface (gradual decrease assumed in the first 4 km), allow to subtract the water vapor forcing from LDRcf,Ts, and hence isolate the part that is just due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A remaining annual mean anthropogenic forcing of +0.35(0.4) Wm−2 for cloud-free, temperature subtracted and humidity subtracted longwave downward radiation (LDRcf,Ts,Us) is shown in Figure 3e."
"Higher statistical significance is reached for the measured forcing of all greenhouse gases LDRcf,Ts, with +1.18(0.7) Wm−2, where the dominant water vapor forcing accounts for 70% or 2.4 times the anthropogenic forcing."
Az öntözéses/ausztráliás YT-os videóra azt hiszem nem az volt a hozzászóló észrevétele, ami neked, hogy kevesen hivatkoznak rá, más publikációkban. A saját szavaiddal meg tudnád fogalmazni, hogy mi is volt az amúgy klímatagadó fiatalember hozzászólásának lényege?
"A Planck visszacsatolási érték is vitatható, tekintve, hogy ez sok változótól függő függvényként értelmezhető egzakt módon és nem egy, csak a hőmérséklethez köthető állandóként. LINK"
Meg tudnád fogalmazni, hogy miért nem értesz egyet a cikkben szereplő levezetéssel, hogy a Planck visszacsatolás miért egy bonyolult függvényként és nem egy állandóként értelmezendő, ellentétben az IPCC-é valamint a te álláspontoddal?