November 27, 2021 8:18 am
It’s incredible that this discussion/debate continues to ignore the actual empirical data measuring the radiative forcing from CO2.
We know from the empirical data/measurements(from almost 2 decades) that the models/IPCC add 42% more forcing from CO2 than is actually taking place.
It’s like Dr. Spencer once stated…………”95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong”
There was great satisfaction among protagonists of man-made climate change when the Nobel Prize Committee awarded at least half of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics to American Syukuro Manabe and German Klaus Hasselmann. The two researchers are pioneers of what is known as climate modeling – that is, the attempt to trace and predict climatic developments with the help of mathematical models.
The prize recognizes “that our knowledge of the climate rests on a solid foundation, based on rigorous analysis of observations,” praised Thors Hans Hansson of the Nobel Committee as he announced the winners. Of “balm for the beleaguered souls of climate researchers,” wrote the “Tages-Anzeiger.” It will now be “even more difficult to ignore and discredit climate research.” Climate models were based on “solid physics,” it said.
Climate models have failed
With so much applause, it was lost how big the scientific problems are that go hand in hand with climate modeling. This was evident again just recently with the models called CMIP6, which form the basis of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued in early August. The CMIP6 models are not able to correctly reproduce the real temperature development of the past decades and simulate a warming that is much stronger than the real data show. Thus, there can be no confidence in these models to correctly predict future warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has nevertheless relied on them.
Nobel laureate Klaus Hasselmann
Critics of climate modeling include, in particular, Steven Koonin, a highly accomplished American physicist and climate scientist who once served U.S. President Barack Obama and recently published a “climate skeptic” book. He notes that climate models have failed time and again because they fail to prove human influence on global warming. Discrepancies among individual climate models showed “that the science is far from settled”.
Data from NASA’s Ceres project used
In general, real-world data repeatedly calls into question the results of climate models and thus the tone-setting climate science. This is also the case with a study by German researchers Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal, which has just been published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Atmosphere.
Vahrenholt and Dübal are originally chemists, but have worked extensively on climate science in recent decades. The study is based on data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (Ceres). Ceres has been using satellites to record the radiation that reaches, and is emitted by, the Earth since 1998. The project’s goals include a better understanding of the role of clouds and the Earth’s radiation balance with respect to global warming.
Cloud cover has decreased by two percent
And it is precisely these data from Ceres that throw a wrench into the thesis of man-made climate change. Vahrenholt and Dübal conclude that it is not man-made enhancement of the greenhouse effect that is the main cause of warming over the past 20 years, but a two percent decrease in cloud cover during that period. According to Vahrenholt and Dübal, the weaker cloud cover has resulted in more shortwave radiation from the sun reaching Earth. This increase in solar radiation has been a major driver of global warming.
NASA researchers led by Norman Loeb, as well as Finnish researcher Antero Ollila, have each pointed out in a study that shortwave solar radiation increased from 2005 to 2019 due to a decrease in low clouds. Dübal and Vahrenholt have now studied radiation fluxes for the entire period from 2001 to 2020 – both near the ground and at an altitude of 20 kilometers – and related them to changes in cloud cover.
Greenhouse effect had only a small impact
In fact, the satellite data from Ceres show that the shortwave radiation emitted into space by the clouds has decreased by about two percent in both the northern hemisphere (NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH). With solar radiation remaining nearly constant, this means that more shortwave radiation has reached the Earth’s surface and contributed to warming. At the same time, the fraction of longwave radiation that is reflected back to Earth from the atmosphere has only warmed the planet to a lesser extent. This radiation back to the earth is the greenhouse effect, which has been intensified by the emission of climate gases. According to Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal, this enhanced greenhouse effect has even been largely compensated by the aforementioned decrease in cloud cover: The decrease in clouds has resulted in more longwave radiation reaching space from the earth.
IPCC relies on model calculations instead of real data
The study results of the two German researchers contradict the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to which the observed warming occurred solely because the proportion of long-wave radiation reflected back to Earth from the atmosphere increased (due to the stronger greenhouse effect). The IPCC attributes 100 percent of the warming to this enhanced greenhouse effect – but justifies it with model calculations rather than real data.
“The warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by changes in clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect,” say study authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal
In their study, Vahrenholt and Dübal also looked into the background of the observed stronger heat absorption by the Earth. The corresponding explanations can quickly exceed the understanding of laymen: Based on observations of the so-called enthalpy of the climate system and oceanic heat uptake, it was shown that there have been two warming periods on Earth since 1850, each lasting 20 to 30 years. A third warming period began in 1990 and continues to this day.
The onset of each of these three warming episodes was accompanied by changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a natural periodic ocean current in the Atlantic that significantly determines the climate…
The third warming period coincides with the observed decrease in cloud cover. Whether this warming period, like its two predecessors, will end soon must be clarified by measurement data in the coming years. If the warming period ends soon, global warming should decrease and the announced “climate catastrophe” will largely fail to materialize.
To date, it is unclear what is causing the observed cloud thinning. According to the study authors, changes in ocean currents are cited in the literature as possible causes Study authors are cited in the literature as possible causes, but also a decrease in aerosols in the air and warming due to more CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, Vahrenholt and Dübal emphasize: “The warming of the last 20 years was caused more by changes in clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is thus challenged to review its findings.
metmike: My work and opinion is not that the warming is ending but that the models almost double the real warming based on the actual physics and even more so THE MEASUREMENTS.
We've got good measurements from 2 decades of accurately singling out how much of the warming is coming from the increase in CO2. However, since it shows the IPCC models use mathematical equations that assign 42% too much warming from CO2.........they are being totally ignored.
No way that an independent scientist in Indiana would know about it and every single climate modeler would also not know.
That's what they do for a living. It's their job.
It would be like a major league baseball coach not knowing who is pitching for the other team............when that pitcher...........is right there, standing on the mound throwing baseballs to his players in the 7th inning.
By Norman Rogers – November 27,2021
Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.
The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.
Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists. Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented? No, the discoverer of any flaw would be demonized and attacked as a pawn of evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer come to mind. There are many more skeptical scientists keeping quiet in varying degrees.
Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.
This was my comment:
November 29, 2021 9:21 am
Awaiting for approval
“Around the world, research aimed at mitigating crop damage is underway. A NASA study published this month suggests climate change may affect the production of corn and wheat, reducing yields of both, as soon as 2030.”
Now the damage won’t start until 2030????……….as trendline yields have continued higher for the past 30 years………….despite the dire predictions of crop disasters looming just around the corner the entire time:
I reinserted the original title and date from the article below…….. that they removed from the article to make it harder to find and so that people wouldn’t know when it came out.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not CheckedPETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
“Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands”
So let’s see what those wheat yields have actually been doing for the past 30 years.
That’s more than 3 decades of being wrong almost every year. The response?
Manufacture even scarier scenarios because people aren’t acting fast enough to the previous scares.
It’s not about science, its about the politics of scaring people to convince them to follow an agenda, using a “save the planet” ruse.