The downward flux by the atmosphere is the same as the real greenhouse effect. This flux is excatly the same as the sum of four energy fluxes: LW radiation absorption 155.6 + SW radiation absotpion 75.0 + Latent heating 90.8 + 24.2 = 345.6 W/m2
ClimatExam Scientific analyses of the climate change and global warming by Dr. Antero Ollila
Slideshows are presented in compact and easily readable form. The "Scientific approach" pages contain more science and details.
I have used mainly English but there are some Finnish presentations. Suomenkielistä materiaalia löytyy Blogi-suomi sivuilta ja Diaesitykset-sivuilta.
Time is in favor of truth
Every single result of IPCC must pass the test on the scientific basis. The essential evidences of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) presented by IPCC do not pass this test.
Nihil in verbis - omnia probate
Purpose of this net page
This website is dedicated to the analyses of the climate change based mainly on the method of spectral analysis. It is the only method, which can be used for analysing the effects of greenhouse gases on the greenhouse phenomenon. Other scientific methods are used when they are appropriate.
Mission of ClimatExam web pages
There are tens of web pages containing valid information which disprove the IPCC's evidences of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Because I have used spectral analysis method in my scientific studies, one feature has caught my attention in the contents of these web pages: Almost non-existing results of the spectral analysis scientific publications or the material based on the spectral analyses.
I checked briefly 35 popular sceptical (anti-IPCC) web pages and these were the result:
- 4 sites showing refences to the spectral analysis publications
- 2 sites showing spectral analysis results on its pages.
Sceptical web sites contain information and detailed analysis based on the following evidences: air and ocean temperatures trends (the most general approach), sea ice trends, cloudiness trends, sea level trends, extreme weather trends, CO2/temperature trends, solar and cosmic ray trends, climate sensitivity analyses, and publication references.
Normally these evidences are scientifically justified and can show that IPCC's results are not in line with the real observations of the climate change. In the end there is still the final proof that the sceptical climate science has to show, which they have not stated yet: that IPCC's results are not scientifically correct. IPCC's simple models (radiative forcing calculations) are based on the simple atmospheric models applying spectral analysis method. IPCC manifests that the increased concentrations of the greenhouse gases has caused the present warming and the expected higher concentrations of the GH gases can cause much higher temperatures than observed today. According to IPCC, the pause in the temperatures is caused by natural fluctations only and the warming trend will come back to its "Representative Concentration Pathway". (IPCC abandoned the word scenario, because they applied it against the definition of this term). The conclusion is that there must be something wrong in the IPCC's spectral analysis calculations, because otherwise sceptical science should admit that they have not found any flaws in the IPCC's simple models.
There may be a very simple reason to this situation. There is a very limited number of researchers utilising spectral analysis method in general and even fewer who have published papers showing results contradictory with the IPCC's simple models and of course with General Circulation Models (GCMs). The author knows only three reseacrhers besides me who are in this category: Ferenc Miskolczi, Martin Mlynczak, and Thomas Harde. If you know more names, I am glad to add their names here. Spectral analysis method is the only method which can be used to analyze the absorption phenomenon in which GH gases absorb the longwave (LW) radiation emitted by the Earth.
Many people do not know that General Circulation Models (GCMs) do not use the spectral analysis method in their calculations. They apply simpler methods trying to implement the main results originating from simple climate models applying spectral analyses. GCMs can produce 3-dimensional profiles and trends of the different parameters like temperature, which look accurate and nice. But they can never improve the basic accuracies of warming impacts of the GH gases, which are worse than the original results utilizing spectral calculation method.