Innledning.
Nøkkelpunkter:
- Selv om Solen bidrar til den globale oppvarmingen vi opplever nå, så kan likevel utslipp av CO2 være hovedårsaken! Det ene utelukker ikke det andre.
- Vårt C02 varmer nå opp kloden 50 ganger mer enn Solen.
Third rock from the Sun.
På 1820-tallet beregnet Joseph Fourier at en gjenstand på jordens størrelse, og avstand fra solen, skulle vært betydelig kaldere enn planeten faktisk er hvis den bare ble oppvarmet av innkommende stråling alene.
Det må være noe annet som gir oss denne beboelige temperaturen.
Mens andre planeter i jordas solsystem enten er altfor varme eller er bittert kalde, har jordoverflaten relativt milde, stabile temperaturer. Jorden nyter disse temperaturene på grunn av atmosfæren, som er det tynne laget av gasser som omkranser og beskytter planeten.
Uten CO2 og de andre ikke-kondenserende drivhusgassens evne til å absorbere infrarød stråling, ville det jordiske drivhuset kollapse og føre det globale klimaet inn i en iskald tilstand. Uten klimagassene i atmosfæren ville jordens gjennomsnittstemperatur være nede på -15 grader Celsius i stedet for + 15 grader Celsius.
drivhuseffekten – Store norske leksikon
Hvis solen er en så viktig driver for dagens globale oppvarming, hvorfor har da hele planeten (luft, hav, land og is) blitt oppvarmet raskt de siste 60 årene mens solaktiviteten har gått ned?
De to hovedbevisene MOT Solen som årsak til den globale oppvarmingen vi ser nå:
- Hvis solen var ansvarlig for den globale oppvarmingen i vår tid, ville vi forvente å se oppvarming gjennom alle lag i atmosfæren, fra overflaten helt opp til den øvre atmosfæren (stratosfæren). Men det vi faktisk ser er oppvarming ved jordoverflaten og avkjøling i stratosfæren. Dette stemmer overens med at den globale oppvarmingen skyldes oppbygging av varmefangende drivhusgasser nær jordoverflaten og ikke av at solen blir "varmere."
- Ett annet hovedbevis som forteller oss at solen ikke forårsaker dagens global oppvarming, kommer fra å se på mengden av solens energi som treffer toppen av atmosfæren. Siden 1978 har forskere sporet dette ved hjelp av sensorer på satellitter, og det de forteller oss er at det ikke har vært noen oppadgående trend i mengden av solens energi som når oss.
Grafen (over) sammenligner globale overflatetemperaturendringer (rød linje) og solens energi mottatt av Jorden (gul linje) i watt (energienheter) per kvadratmeter siden 1880. De lysere / tynnere linjer viser årlige nivåer mens de tyngre / tykkere linjer viser 11-års gjennomsnittstrender. Elleve års gjennomsnitt brukes til å redusere den naturlige støyen fra år til år i dataene, noe som gjør de underliggende trendene mer tydelige.
Mengden solenergi mottatt av jorden har fulgt solens naturlige 11-årige syklus av små oppturer og nedturer uten nettoøkning siden 1950-tallet. I løpet av den samme perioden har den globale temperaturen steget markert. Det er derfor ekstremt usannsynlig at Solen har forårsaket den observerte globale temperaturutviklingen det siste halve århundret.
TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.
Oppvarmingen som kommer av vår forbrenning av fossilt brensel siden 1750, er over 50 ganger større enn den svake ekstra oppvarmingen som kommer fra selve solen over det samme tidsintervallet.
"Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared. By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676)."
What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval."
Is the Sun causing global warming?
Climate Science Special Report: Physical Drivers of Climate Change
Satellittene bekrefter :
KOSMISK STRÅLING:
HAR EN BITTELITEN EFFEKT MOT KJØLING - IKKE OPPVARMING.
Hypotesen om denne effekten på klimaendringene møter store problemer fordi
(a) det ikke har vært noen langsiktig endring i verken kosmisk stråling eller solaktivitet som kan forklare den observerte globale oppvarmingen;
(b) mekanismen bak hypotesen tilsier at måten sollys reflekteres på (jordens dagside) påvirker temperaturene, men den observerte oppvarmingen har vært størst om natten (der solen ikke skinner);
(c) det er ingen korrelasjon mellom kosmisk stråling og global temperatur eller nedbør;
(d) det er ingen motsetning mellom en økt drivhuseffekt pga mer CO2 og hypotesen om kosmisk stråling ('false dichotomy').
“Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are high-energy radiation that originates outside our solar system and may even be from distant galaxies. It has been suggested that they may help to seed or "make" clouds. So reduced GCRs hitting the Earth would mean fewer clouds, which would reflect less sunlight back into space and so cause Earth to warm.But there are two problems with this idea. First, the scientific evidence shows that GCRs are not very effective at seeding clouds. And second, over the last 50 years, the amount of GCRs have actually increased, hitting record levels in recent years. If this idea were correct, GCRs should be cooling the Earth, which they aren't.”
Here Are Five of The Most Common Climate Change Misconceptions, Debunked
aug 2019:
Cosmic rays comically unable to affect clouds and climate.
That's the sum of the findings of two relatively recent studies on the subject.
Gordon et al 2017 found that modern CCN are pretty much insensitive to cosmic rays and changes in TSI from the Sun, compared to the very much larger anthropogenic and natural contributions (volcanoes, oceanic oscillations and wildfires):
"New particle formation in the atmosphere is the process by which gas molecules collide and stick together to form atmospheric aerosol particles. Aerosols act as seeds for cloud droplets, so the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere affects the properties of clouds. It is important to understand how aerosols affect clouds because they reflect a lot of incoming solar radiation away from Earth's surface, so changes in cloud properties can affect the climate.Before the Industrial Revolution, aerosol concentrations were significantly lower than they are today. In this article, we show using global model simulations that new particle formation was a more important mechanism for aerosol production than it is now. We also study the importance of gases emitted by vegetation, and of atmospheric ions made by radon gas or cosmic rays, in preindustrial aerosol formation.We find that the contribution of ions and vegetation to new particle formation was also greater in the preindustrial period than it is today.However, the effect on particle formation of variations in ion concentration due to changes in the intensity of cosmic rays reaching Earth was small."
And
"...solar cycle variations of ion concentration lead to a maximum 1% variation of CCN0.2% concentrations. This is insignificant on an 11 year timescale compared with fluctuations due to, for example, the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, variations in wildfires, or volcanoes."Gordon et al 2017 - Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present‐day and preindustrial atmospheres.”
Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present‐day and preindustrial atmospheres
Pierce 2017 also studied the subject and took into account the findings of Gordon et al 2017 and found the coup de grace for cosmic rays, being proven to unable to significantly affect clouds and climate:
Cloud Condensing Nuclei respond too weakly to changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays to yield a significant influence on clouds and climate.
Pierce 2017 - Cosmic rays, aerosols, clouds, and climate: Recent findings from the CLOUD experiment
Cosmic rays, aerosols, clouds, and climate: Recent findings from the CLOUD experiment
DET FINNES VELDIG MYE FORSKNING OM DEN MANGLENDE EFFEKTEN FRA KOSMISK STRÅLING.
An analysis of more than 50 years' worth of climate data has found scant evidence for a controversial theory that attempts to link cosmic rays and global warming. The theory suggests that solar variations can affect the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth, which in turn influences climate by impacting on cloud formation. The latest study was done by Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and he concludes that changes to the Sun cannot explain global warming.
Solar Activity and Earth's Climate | Rasmus E. Benestad | Springer
‘Cosmoclimatology’ – tired old arguments in new clothes
Comprehensive study shows cosmic rays are not causing global warming.
Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate
VIDEO:
NAS member Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2
BONUS:
Henrik Svensmark studie:
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
BEKREFTER AT EFFEKTEN FRA KOSMISK STRÅLING ER VELDIG VELDIG LITEN...MOT KJØLING, ikke OPPVARMING. AKKURAT SOM ALL ANNEN FORSKNING HAR FUNNET UT.
BONUS 2: CERN PROSJEKTET : FANT INGEN EFFEKT.
En grundig studie av CERN-prosjektet konkluderer:
"Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming."
CLOUD researchers note that cosmic rays have little influence on the formation of sulphuric acid–amine particle formation:
"The ion-induced contribution is generally small, reflecting the high stability of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters and indicating that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on their formation, except at low overall formation rates."
Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere
"ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols."
Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation
“variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere” and that biogenic nucleation is much more significant in cold formation.
Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements
Og hva sier hovedmannen bak CERN prosjektet Jasper Kirkby?:
“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate,”
https://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v476/n7361/nature-2011-08-25.html
