Minu arusaamise juures CO2 ja soojuskiirguse omapäradest on see mudel mõistlik.
Lugesin uuringut. Märkasin ka, et uuringut ei ole ilmselt avaldanud ükski eelretsenseeritud teadusajakiri (protsessi olemus: teised valdkonna teadlased loevad artiklit ja osutavad probleemidele, mis tuleks enne avaldamist kõrvaldada). Avaldanud on "scienceofclimatechange.org", mis tegeleb kliimamuutuse eitamist võimaldava info koondamisega. Selle veebilehe suunitlus ei ole teadus.Seega peaks CO2 keskkonda infrapunakiirgusega mõjutades temperatuur pidevalt tõusma. Ometigi ei ole see nii. Seim ja Olseni katses tuleb välja, et CO2 küll vähendab keskkonda läbivat IR kiirguse hulka peegeldades osa sellest tagasi, kuid ometigi ei tõuse temperatuur gaasi sees ega kiirgaval pinnal rohkem kui 0,5%.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-c ... ation-.pdf
Tegemist on siis kodulabori seadmega. Katsekambri materjaliks on penoplast (penoplastist on hulga paremaid isolaatoreid, näiteks vaakumi mullidega soojustuspaneelid, see on muide viimasel ajal COTS materjal - poest saab osta). CO2 on atmosfääri rõhul. Soojusvahetust penoplastiga on püütud kontrolli all hoida tehes katsekamber hästi suur. Suure katsekambri probleemiks on, et seal tekib sees konvektsioon ja kihistumine. Sisuliselt on uurijad olnud teadlikud sellest, et nad teevad katset väga odavate ja ebatäiuslike vahenditega, ning teinud ühe vea allika (soojusvahetus) maha surumiseks kompromissi, mis toob mängu teise vea allika (konvektsioon ja kihistumine).The one-meter-long box, with a volume of 150 liters, is made of insulating 5 cm thick Styrofoam plates. The two chambers are separated by a thin LDPE plastic film that transmits more than 90% of visual light and IR radiation. The window in the front of the foremost chamber was also made of LDPE. The Styrofoam walls of the chambers (except the rear wall) are covered by thin Al-foil. The Al-foil reflects most of the IR radiation and thereby reduces the heat loss through the walls. The length of the rear and front chamber is 30 and 70 cm, respectively. IR radiation was produced by warming a metal plate, painted with heat-resistant, mat black paint, and mounted on the rear wall of the rear chamber. The rear wall, with an area of 0.15 m2, is made from Styrofoam.
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Katse koostajad vastavad meeleldi su kriitikale sellel lehel:
Dr Chris Barnes väidab, et temperatuur tõuseb hoopis geomagneetilistel põhjustel ja CO2 mõju on praktiliselt olematu.7. Conclusions
That the presence of CO2 in the box, with the heating plate present, lead to cooling of a black body (the black envelope) was an unexpected surprise.
The presence of IR radiation from a heated black-body suppresses the heating ability of IR radiation from CO2. This result is also unexpected. From the StefanBoltzmanns law and the climate models used by IPCC, we expected to get heating from IR quanta emitted by increased concentration of CO2 gas. It seems that, to obtain a heating effect from increased CO2 concentration, we have to remove most of the IR radiation from the ground (heated by the sun), for instance by covering the ground by Al-foil!
The hypothesis that most of modern warming is geomagnetically driven is tested and shown to be correct.
...
Very surprisingly and contrary to recent consensus, CO2 is found to have weakest and most statistically irrelevant effect of all known drivers, and it is estimated here to have caused only some 34 mK of warming in mid latitudes since pre-industrial times. This surprise is discussed at length. The dangers of Geoengineering/ SRM are also briefly discussed in relation to these findings. The findings here add to the growing body of evidence that there is something desperately wrong with present climate models and with traditional CO2 heat trapping hypotheses. Because these results are in line with recent satellite albedo studies and confirm the author’s previous work, there now needs to be an urgent paradigm shift in Climate Science.
Aitäh vihje eest.MadMan kirjutas: ↑14 Aug, 2025 9:43 Katse koostajad vastavad meeleldi su kriitikale sellel lehel:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/15/ ... -from-co2/
Väidab sellise väite:Dr Chris Barnes väidab, et temperatuur tõuseb hoopis geomagneetilistel põhjustel ja CO2 mõju on praktiliselt olematu.
https://www.isroset.org/journal/IJSRPAS ... er_id=3882
...ja ei too oma väite allikat. Nii ei käi asjad."CO2 is found to have weakest and most statistically irrelevant effect of all known drivers, and it is estimated here to have caused only some 34 mK of warming in mid latitudes since pre-industrial times."
Ära muretse, see pole ka tema valdkond. Tüüp on materjaliteadlane. PhD teema: "Electronic charge transfer at the metal dielectric interface with particular reference to Biological Materials."lennumudelist kirjutas: ↑14 Aug, 2025 11:11 Tore, et ta uurib magnetpooluste mõju pilvkattele (ma ei ole komptentne seda kritiseerima, see pole minu valdkond)
Nende eeltsenseeritavate teadusajakirjadega on kliimavaldkonnas see häda, et näiteks 2021 ja 2022 esitatud töödest ainult 5% vastab avatuse, korratavuse ja reprodutseeritavuse nõuetele.
Üks mitte kliimateadlasest skeptik suutis tuvastada vea ookeanide temperatuuri käsitlevast eelretsenseeritud teadusajakirjas avaldatud tööst ning autorid olid sunnitud oma tulemused ümber hindama.Today, the academic peer-review process plays an essential role in signaling which knowledge is high quality and trustworthy. However, we show that only five percent of some of the most highly cited peer-reviewed climate change research published in 2021 and 2022 fully shares data and code at the time of publication, a widely promoted minimal standard for credible scientific research.
Conclusions
The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.
Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.
Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.
Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.
But perhaps that is too much to hope for.
Kui PDF avada, siis CO2 Discussion algab leheküljest 9. Lõpus on selline lõik, millest see 34 mK paistab pärinevat.
Nishioka (2024) [53] found global CO2 emissions did not precede subsequent increases in global temperature proposed
by IPCC. A reverse situation where an increase in global temperature caused an increase in soil respiration, and a
subsequent increase in global CO2 emissions were found. Moreover, this natural process was clearly attributed to
increasing temperature specifically during El Niño events. Thus, their results cast strong doubts that anthropogenic CO2
is the cause of global warming. To fully understand the effect of C02, in the present author’s opinion requires no
more than to be able to read and comprehend the work of Smirnov (2018) who discuss collision and radiative
processes in emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide and conclude that an absorption band model as used by IPCC and
many authors etc. is not the correct way to calculate the radiative flux change at doubling of carbon dioxide
concentration because averaging over oscillations decreases the range where the atmospheric optical thickness is of the
order of one, and only this latter range determines any change. They employ a line-by-line method which gives a
very much lower change in temperature of some +.4K because of doubling the carbon dioxide concentration [66].
Moreover, they state the change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since preindustrial to be approximately 0.02 K now. This is very much of the same order of magnitude as has been derived in this present work, which by extrapolation to 1850 would be
some 0.034K.
Ah, jäta nüüd, kogu algandmestikku väga tihti ei avaldatagi koos artikliga. See käib näiteks ka astronoomia või osakestefüüsika kohta, kus on suured andmemahud. Jamaks läheb siis, kui neid andmeid kuskil polegi, st. huvilistel pole võimalik neid pärast välja pärida või neile üldse ei viidata.MadMan kirjutas: ↑14 Aug, 2025 11:36Nende eeltsenseeritavate teadusajakirjadega on kliimavaldkonnas see häda, et näiteks 2021 ja 2022 esitatud töödest ainult 5% vastab avatuse, korratavuse ja reprodutseeritavuse nõuetele.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _do_betterToday, the academic peer-review process plays an essential role in signaling which knowledge is high quality and trustworthy. However, we show that only five percent of some of the most highly cited peer-reviewed climate change research published in 2021 and 2022 fully shares data and code at the time of publication, a widely promoted minimal standard for credible scientific research.
See on ju väga hea. Mis siis?
lennumudelist kirjutas: ↑13 Aug, 2025 21:27 Lugesin härrade Seim ja Olsen kogemuse kohta füüsikas. Seim on olnud Oslo Ülikooli füüsika instituudis amanuensis, ehk sisuliselt sekretär.
Aitäh. Mõtlesin, et see 34 millikelvinit peaks olema numbrilise viitega Nishioka artiklis. Oli hoopis ilma numbrita Smirnovi artiklis (number võis olla eespool toodud). See on kahjuks maksumüüri taga vähemalt minu jaoks. Siiski, leidsin vastuväite Smirnovi artiklile, mis ei ole maksumüüri taga. Kommentaar asub siin ja on 12 lk, suhteliselt jõukohaselt loetav.MadMan kirjutas:Kui PDF avada, siis CO2 Discussion algab leheküljest 9. Lõpus on selline lõik, millest see 34 mK paistab pärinevat.
Lühikokkuvõte: M. Lino da Silva ning J. Vargas juhivad tähelepanu, et Smirnov on jätnud arvestamata Maa musta keha kiirgust spektri vahemikus 12-15 mikromeetrit. CO2 kahekordistumise tulemus pole seega 0.02 K ega isegi 0.4 K. Kui arvestuses viga ära parandada, on see 1.1 - 1.3 kelvinit. Koos tagasisidega muude gaaside kaudu võib aga saada väärtuse 3 kelvinit.The paper titled ‘Collision and radiative processes in emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide’ (Smirnov 2018 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51 214004) dismisses the role of increasing concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming of planet Earth. We show that these conclusions are the consequence of two flaws in the paper theoretical model which neglect the effects of the increased concentrations of CO2 on the absorption of Earth’s blackbody radiation in the 12–15 µm region. The influence of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere on the surface temperature is not $\Delta T = 0.02$ K, or even $\Delta T = 0.4$ K if only one of the two mistakes in the paper’s analysis is corrected. The correct value lies within $\Delta T = 1.1-1.3$ K as outlined by Wilson and Gea-Banacloche (2012 Am. J. Phys. 80 306–15) using simplified, yet more theoretically consistent models. In addition, if feedback effects are factored in, a higher value of $\Delta T = 3$ K is predicted, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group report of 2021.
Kuningas kipub ikka Kuule - nagu muinasjutus. Õnneks saab Kongress selles osas kaasa rääkida enne kui NASA teadusosakond täiesti kinni pannakse.Kriku kirjutas: ↑21 Aug, 2025 7:46 NASA ajutine juht lubab kliimamuutuste uurimise lõpetada: https://teadus.postimees.ee/8308437/kas ... e-uurimise .
Veel üks laborikatse näitab, et CO2 mõju temperatuurile on väga piiratud ja sellega seotud mudelid tuleks kriitilise pilguga üle vaadata.Congress can still intervene through the normal appropriations process, which determines annual funding for agencies like NASA.
Viidatud on ka tööle "Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere." Schildknecht, D. (2020), kus käsitletakse Saksa inseneri A. Schack 1972 avaldatud artiklit, milles viimane väidab, et atmosfääris 0,03 % CO2 taseme ületamisel see küllastumise tõttu enam kiirguse sidumisest praktiliselt osa ei võta ja seega ei suuda enam kliimat mõjutada.5. Conclusion
Experimental evidence in this work confirms earlier work that increasing levels of CO2 at current levels in the atmosphere cannot significantly contribute to warming by more back-radiation. We also demonstrated that increasing greenhouse spurious gases like Freon show a strong response in back-radiation when added into our atmospheric test chamber. Climate models and their CO2 forcings should be revised and much more experimental evidence about the IR radiation response of greenhouse gases should be collected before appointing current warming trends and climate change mechanisms monocausal to greenhouse gas theories.
In his 1972 article [1], Schack points out that for a concentration of 0.03 % carbon dioxide in air, approximate saturation is reached within a distance of approximately the magnitude of the height of the troposphere. The absorption reaches values close to 100 % for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03 %, it is concluded [1] that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and
consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.
