Wijngaarden &技术上是怎么了哈珀的论文声称表明二氧化碳饱和表面变暖的贡献?

2023 - 05 - 29 - t21:05:07z

, < a href = " https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > 依赖地球的温室气体热辐射五最丰富的 < / > <一口> 1 < /一口>,据报道已经拒绝了来自几个主要期刊。通过分析详细的温室气体吸收光谱比之前已经完成,现在声称证明二氧化碳有效饱和(对辐射强迫)和大气浓度的进一步增加将导致表面温度的变化可以忽略不计。他们的数值结果同意以前的有关这一课题的文献。作者气候紧急怀疑者。同时注意的是,很明显,如果结果是正确的将会有巨大的政治影响,我的问题并不关心这些。 的文章没有被发表,因为它是如此错误的它不值得同行评审,<强>我想知道精确和技术为什么报纸< /强>是错误的。作者是物理学家所以我想了解其缺陷从气候科学的角度来看,如果可能的话。 我专门 不感兴趣的参数的“IPCC是正确的,这是不兼容,所以它必须wrong"再次,我正在寻找一个精确的和技术反驳。 谢谢! <人力资源/ > [1] w·a·范·Wijngaarden和w·哈珀,< a href = " https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf " rel =“nofollow noreferrer”>“依赖地球热辐射的五个最丰富的温室气体。" < / > arXiv, 2020年。 doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2006.03098.

回答,Zim谢尔曼Wijngaarden &技术上是怎么了哈珀的论文声称表明二氧化碳饱和表面变暖的贡献?

2023 - 06 - 22 - t22:24:23z

回答最初的问题有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>饱和,我将描述光谱吸收。每个气体在大气中吸收不同波长的光线,和一些波长吸收超过别人。光谱吸收的CO 2 <子> < /订阅>是形状像诉没有有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅>,地球就像一个黑体的辐射光谱。当公司<子> 2 < /订阅>是补充说,这种“V”推入黑体光谱,使一个等级。目前的浓度,这个缺口底部“饱和”,这意味着它到达底部。随着越来越多的公司<子> 2 < /订阅>添加,V是推动进一步分解成光谱辐射。底部当然仍然饱和,但缺口的边缘继续侵蚀。 有其他问题。 摘要图6显示的大气浓度加倍有限公司<子> 2 < /订阅> N <子> 2 < /订阅> O,和CH 4 <子> < /订阅>将导致增加辐射强迫。他们声称这些增长可以忽略不计,但他们不是。他们自己的数据显示,加倍CO 2 <子> < /订阅>将导致额外的增加了3.74 W / m <一口> 2 < / >吃饭。 To put this in perspective, all radiative forcing to date, referenced to the start of industrial times in 1750, is 3.4 W/m². Doubling N2O would cause an additional 1.99 W/m². Doubling CH₄ would cause an additional 1.12 W/m². These numbers are not "negligible".

Figure 15 in the paper presents their model's results, side-by-side with satellite measurements. To the naked eye, they look good. However, when they are plotted against each other, they do not match. As their model is meant to study spectral absorption, you might think their model would match the satellite data in the "spectral window" where no absorption occurs. It does not. Their model must be scaled by +5.6%, -3.9%, and -12.5% for the Sahara, Mediterranean, and Antarctic datasets, respectively. Even after adjusting the model to match the satellite data, the model overestimates the amount of outgoing radiation. This infers that the Earth is staying cool, when in fact it is retaining heat. The discrepancy is on the order of 3-5% globally, which is quite large.

In answering this question, I have used the data presented in the paper itself. As the authors did not provide the raw data, I used software to digitize the graphical data. My results may be off by a decimal place, but they are in the ballpark.

Wijngaarden &技术上是怎么了哈珀的论文声称表明二氧化碳饱和表面变暖的贡献?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换

Wijngaarden &技术上是怎么了哈珀的论文声称表明二氧化碳饱和表面变暖的贡献?

回答,Zim谢尔曼Wijngaarden &技术上是怎么了哈珀的论文声称表明二氧化碳饱和表面变暖的贡献?