Militaarteemad minevikust kaasaega
https://www.militaar.net/phpBB2/
[/norimine ON]See ei ole päris täpne algarvu definitsioon, sest selle järgi oleks algarv ka 1.
Now we are talkingMadis Reivik kirjutas: ↑12 Mai, 2024 18:30 Õigem väljend oleks vist "algarvudeks tegurdamine".
https://kodu.ut.ee/~ltart/Arvuteooria_k ... n_2019.pdf
.CO2 moodustab atmosfäärist ~0,04 %, inimtekkelist päritolu hinnatakse sellest 4 % ehk 0,0016 % atmosfäärist.Kilo Tango kirjutas: ↑10 Mai, 2024 15:02Seda küsimust küsivad tavaliselt need inimesed kes ei tea, kuidas CO2 temperatuuri mõjutab ja miks ning mispärast väike CO2 taseme tõus muudab temperatuuri oluliselt.
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observ ... and_cloudsThe debate about the role of clouds in climate change is part of a larger concern about feedbacks in warming the world. It has long been clear that the “greenhouse effect” of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will directly raise global temperatures by about 1 degree C. The physics of that is undisputed. But that is only the beginning. Things get more complicated — and concerning — because of amplifying feedbacks caused by how natural systems respond to this initial warming. None are easy to assess accurately.
So if total cloud coverage increases - due perhaps to global warming or increased aerosol loading - would that cool or warm the planet overall? We cannot be sure, yet. Clouds represent something of a blind spot in current climate models.
Sabine on tore teaduse populariseerija, aga ma ei imestaks kui temast saaks lähiajal tõsine kliimaskeptik. Vildakad hüpoteesid ei lähe kokku reaalsete andmetega.Kilo Tango kirjutas: ↑13 Mai, 2024 12:26 Alustuseks vaatab läbi selle video teemal, kuidas CO2 mõjutab Maa IR peegeldusvõimet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
Siis vaatab läbi selle video teemal, kuidas me teame, et kliimamuutuste põhjuseks on inimtekkeline CO2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KGnCj_cfM
5. Conclusion
The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case.
Veel infot siinThe presented measurements and calculations clearly confirm the existence of an atmospheric GHE, but they also demonstrate the only small impact on global warming, which apparently is much more dominated by natural impacts like solar radiative forcing (see, e.g., Connolly et al. 2021 [16]; Harde 2022 [17]).
Human activities releasing greenhouse gases are identified as dominant contributors to the observed climate change including global warming and its acceleration. The consequences for humanity are predicted to be severe. Therefore, to mitigate global warming, significant efforts are being devoted to reducing CO2emissions and stabilizing (or even reducing) atmospheric CO2concentration. This enormous endeavor of ‘decarbonization’ comes with substantial costs, running into trillions of USD in Western countries alone. Fundamentally, the entirety of endeavors, actions, and outcomes hinges upon the central hypothesis stating that the increase of CO2 concentration from approximately 0.03% to more than 0.04% causes a noticeable temperature rise. Given the paramount significance of this hypothesis, the generally accepted rules of science would necessitate rigorous scrutiny for substantiation. Such substantiation is typically provided by an experimental evidence. Yet, surprisingly according to the results of this research, exactly this essential experimental evidence supporting the central hypothesis seems to be lacking, not fully adhering to fundamental principles of scientific analysis. Consequently, robust experimental evidence must be presented to substantiate the hypothesis, as the failure to do so would necessitate a reassessment of the emphasis on CO2 emissions reduction as the primary solution to climate change.
)Korrelatsioon tööstuse kasvu ja kliimasoojenemise vahel on üpris ühene. Kuidas me siis järeldame et inimese osalus puudub ?AMvA kirjutas: ↑13 Mai, 2024 16:46 Ma olin kah alguses kergelt selle poolt, et sellel CO2-l võib olla mingi mõju.
Aga kui vaadata, milline religioon ainult selle ühe gaasi ümber on loodud ja ka milline kena suur äri on käima läinud, siis ma olen hakanud järjest enam selles jutus kahtlema. Eriti kui arvestada, kui suured kliimamuutused on toimunud alles hiljuti ja seda ilma mingisuguse inimese osaluseta.
Tra ma ei või. Lugesid ka seda linki või ? Tehnilised argumendid ei ole ironiseerimine vaid puhas reaalteadus !
CO2 mõju kliimale on loodusteaduslik küsimus. Loodusseadused töötavad täiesti sõltumatult sellest, kas või miks inimesed neist mõne ümber suurt äri ehitavad või ei ehita. Seetõttu on sinu arutlus loogiliselt vigane.
Reaalteaduseks muutub asi siis, kui Kilty kordab katset ja tõestab oma andmetega, et laiema mõõtenurga korral tulemused muutuvad. Ilma selleta on tegemist võhiku targutamisega. Samamoodi ei päde Kilty selgitus Stefan-Boltzmann seaduse kohta, sest IPCC tõlgendab IR probleemi täpselt samamoodi. Kui Kilty arvates kasutasid seda seadust valesti norrakad, siis käsitleb seda valesti ka IPCC, mis lööks IPCC hüpoteesil kohe jalad alt.Madis Reivik kirjutas: ↑13 Mai, 2024 20:29Tra ma ei või. Lugesid ka seda linki või ? Tehnilised argumendid ei ole ironiseerimine vaid puhas reaalteadus !