top of page

Scientific flaws in IPCC climate models and the cover-up of problems in the IPCC AR6

IPCC climate models ignore the strong increase in solar radiation since 2001 and other serious scientific flaws are being covered up

Models and observed temperatures

The latest IPCC evaluation report 6 (AR6), was published on 8 August. As evidence of the correctness of IPCC science, the temperature increase, and the temperature increase calculated according to climate models have been almost the same, i.e. about 1.3 °C from 1750 to 2020. This is fantastic news for the IPCC, which has always had a validation problem: the results of the models do not correspond to the measured values, as shown in Figure 1. Note that the temperature measurement of the AR6 has been calibrated differently to start from the year 1750.

Figure 1. Trends in temperatures GISS and UAH (satellite measurement) and the IPCC warming values starting from the 2nd evaluation report. Different temperature data sets have been calibrated to the same reading for 1980 and their difference has increased by about 0.15... 0.2 degrees by 2020.

Change in shortwave radiation, i.e., net solar radiation change

You can ask like an American judge if it was the whole truth. No, it wasn't. According to the CERES satellite measurements, the AR6 report shows the trend of the increase in shortwave solar radiation from 9/2000 to 6/2017, in exactly the same way as Dr. Loeb et al. and Dr. Ollila (Ref. 1, 2, 3, and 4), but its impact has been omitted in post-2000 warming calculations - which explain high temperatures after 2015-2016 El Nino.

Figure 2. Changes in shortwave radiation received by the Earth in 2001–2020 (Ref. 1, 2, 3, and 4).

The change in net solar radiation is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The change in shortwave radiation from the Sun and the resulting temperature impact, according to the climate models of the IPCC and Ollila.

Both climate models apply equation (1) applied for the calculation of temperature change dT for radiative forcing (RF).

dT = CSP * RF (1)

where CSP is Climate Sensitivity Parameter. In the IPCC model, the CSP factor is 0.47 Wm-2 and in the Ollila model, it is 0.27 Wm-2 (no water feedback). The effects of the ENSO events have been calculated using an equation

dT = 0.1 * ONI (2)

where ONI is the Oceanic Nino Index, and a 6-month delay has been applied in calculations. The IPCC model uses the Myhre et al. equation for calculating the CO2 radiative forcings, and Ollila's corresponding equation is RF = 3,12 * ln(CO2/280). The effect of the shortwave radiation change has been calculated also using equation (1). Simulation results indicate that the IPCC model-calculated temperature values are too high, but the average error of the Ollila model is less than 0.1 °C.

Radiative forcing values according to AR6

What evidence is there that the strong climate forcing of shortwave radiation is not included in the AR6 climate models?

Table 1. Values and temperature effects of radiative forcings in report AR6 from 1750 to 2019.

I have copied to Table 1 all the values and temperature effects of radiative forcings reported by the IPCC from 1750 to 2020, Figures 7-6 and 7-7 in AR6. The total radiative forcings is 2.70 Wm-2, and it has caused a temperature effect of 1.27 ° C according to IPCC science. Now the temperature impact caused by climate forcings is clearly visible, while in the report AR5 no one has found it; the reason was apparently that 37% of the error would have been noticed (Fig. 1) right away. The radiative forcing value in the AR5 (the data year 2011) was 2.34 Wm-2.

Climate Sensitivity Parameter – IPCC’s water positive feedback hideout

Now we have the written evidence of the value of the climate sensitivity parameter CSP, according to the current IPCC report. In the 3rd report (TAR) in 2000, the IPCC reported a value of about 0.5 K/(Wm-2). This value is based on the study of Ramanathan et al. (Ref. 5) in 1985, which value is an average value from the eight CSP studies: 0,5 K/(Wm-2) within a range (0,47 to 0,53). In the report AR5, its value varied within broad limits (water feedback doubles or triples the impact of other forcings!), but now it can be seen that the CSP is 0,47 K/(Wm-2), which is applicable for the temperature impact calculation from the total radiative forcing.

In this way, IPCC science has taken a significant step forward in 35 years. I have been reminded quite often that wrong, wrong; Why does Ollila not believe that equation (1) cannot be applied and it is not IPCC science. In the future, I will use this CSP value of 0.47 K/(Wm-2).

According to IPCC science, therefore, the temperature should have risen from 2011 to 2019 by 0.47 * (2.70 – 2.34) = 0.17 °C, including all possible factors affecting the climate.

Radiative forcing (RF) and warming impact of carbon dioxide

What if only the temperature impact of carbon dioxide CO2 was included? This radiative forcing has increased from 1.68 Wm-2 of AR5 to 2.12 Wm-2 AR6, and the impact of this increase is 0.23 °C. The simple conclusion is that other factors have decreased the total warming impact. So, this climate agent does not include a strong increase in shortwave radiation.

The IPCC has been using the Myhre et al. equation for radiative forcings of CO2 since 2000, i.e. in three assessment reports TAR, AR4, and AR5. NASA's Gavin Schmidt has called it a "canonical formula" in accordance with the terminology of the Catholic Church. Now, in the AR6, this formula has been abandoned and replaced by the equation of Meinshausen et al. (Ref. 6), which gives the CO2 radiative forcing value of 3.93±0.47 Wm-2, for CO2 concentration of 560 ppm, i.e., an increase of about 6% - not very little - to Myhre's value of 3.71 Wm-2. The value of 3.93 Wm-2 is close to Hansen’s equation value of 3.98 Wm-2; Back to the science of the 1980s?

Meinshausen et al. has used or calculated the same values as Etminan et al. (including Gunnar Myhre) for CO2, but they have formulated a different equation through data fitting, which they say to work better for CO2 concentrations above 2000 ppm. Then the already known reserves of coal will be exhausted. Maybe that's why mankind is in a hurry to get to Mars to see if there's any more coal? These matters are included in Chapter 7 of the AR6, where Meinshausen is a Contributing Author, but Gunnar Myhre's name cannot be found. The IPCC's 3rd IPCC report was published in 2000 and one of the "Leading Author" names was Gunnar Myhre. Maybe there's no smoke without fire. The matter has been studied in 2015 and the result was that among the 20 most referenced researchers in the AR5, there are 19 names who have been themselves making the AR5 report. Only one name on this list can be found on the list of the 20 most quoted researchers of climate science. Does the IPCC use the best studies in the field? Not in light of this information, but the IPCC is always so right.

Aerosols, clouds, and radiation

According to the IPCC classification, the radiation change should be included either in aerosol-clouds or aerosol-radiation agents, but that is not the case, since the RF value is -1.06 Wm-2 and in the AR5 it was -0.82 Wm-2.

What if albedo effects are also included? The RF value for albedo, aerosols, clouds, and radiation was -0.97 Wm-2 in the AR5, and in the AR6 this value was -1.12 Wm-2, i.e., it has decreased by 0.05 Wm-2. Even that value cannot contain a strong upward change in shortwave radiation.

The Sun's total radiation has turned to a slight decline. According to the AR5, its impact from 1750 to 2011 was +0.05 Wm-2, and now, according to AR6, it is -0.02 Wm-2, i.e., the change from 2011 to 2019 has been -0.07 Wm-2. According to the CERES measurements, the change has been -0.09 Wm-2 based on my EXCEL calculations. My calculators and the IPCC‘s calculators sometimes work differently. One reason may be that the IPCC comparison (material) years go differently in different calculations. Many scientists have research studies showing that solar activity has increased considerably since 1750, such as Lean and Froelich, estimated it to be at about +1.0 Wm-2, which would mean the temperature impact of 0.47 °C according to IPCC science and 0.27 °C according to Ollila's science.

Final result about the change in shortwave radiation

The temperature impact of the change in shortwave radiation from 2001 to 2019 has been 1.61 Wm-2 (in 2011 it was also not included), and its temperature impact is 0.47*1.61 = 0.76 ° C according to the equation(1). So the IPCC models give a 2019 temperature increase of 1.27 °C + 0.76 °C = 2.03 °C (rounding to 2 °C), where the error to the measured temperature is as high as 54%. The validation of the IPCC's scientific models disappeared – both simple and complex computer models. IPCC models run still very hot.

This 54% error is due to the positive water feedback applied in climate models, that almost doubles the impact of other climate forcings and which, according to this natural climate experiment, does not exist. According to the latest Earth’s energy balance values, the CSP value is 0,265 K/(Wm-2), which means no positive water feedback because this feedback cannot be found in the energy balance.

Other greenhouse gases

The total radiative forcing sum for other greenhouse gases is 1.68 Wm-2, which is 44 % of the total greenhouse gas forcings of 3.84 Wm-2. Figure 4 may be used for a rough rationality analysis.

Figure 4. Absorption areas of greenhouse gases under average atmospheric conditions.

In my own studies, I have come to the following figures on the role of different contributing agents in the greenhouse effect, Figure 5.

Figure 5. Impact of climate factors on the greenhouse effect.

Other greenhouse gases than CO2 account for approximately 30% of greenhouse gas absorption. This means that, according to the IPCC, the concentrations and impacts of other greenhouse gases would have increased faster than the impact of CO2. I doubt this result.

Origin and composition of atmospheric CO2

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 32% from 598 GtC (gigatons of carbon) in 1750 to 877 GtC in 2019 corresponding to the concentration increase from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. According to the AR6, this is only due to man-made anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have remained (stayed, accumulated) there totaling 279 GtC. The accumulation is on average 44 % per year and the rest is absorbed into the oceans and vegetation.

The IPCC remains silent on permille values since there is no permille word in the AR6, which has been used to measure the ratio of carbon isotopes for analyzing the origin of carbon dioxide. It is also suitable for validating carbon cycle models. Figure 6 shows a representation of the permille value according to NASA measurements and the calculated value according to my own studies and the resulting amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

Figure 6. The portion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the permille trend.

The IPCC presents the permille curve only in Figure 5-6, which shows the permille trend as d13, which means the same thing. There is no comment on the calculation of the Permille value or its trend. This can be compared to the situation if the AR6 had only one image about CO2 concentration and there was no comment. So, this stinks. The model-calculated anthropogenic CO2 amount of my model is only 75 GtC in 2019 since the rest of the increased CO2 originates from the oceans. According to the IPCC, not a single GtC of CO2 has come from the oceans even though about 80 GtC of CO2 circulates from the ocean into the atmosphere every year.

Approximately 25 % of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes every year for the CO2 originating from the carbon reserves of the ocean and vegetation. As a result, less than 6 % of the initial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains after 10 years, and therefore the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be entirely anthropogenic by nature with a permille value of -28 ‰. The permille value of vegetation is -26 ‰. The permille value of the oceans varies between-8,0 and 9,0 ‰. Based on these permille values, it is impossible to achieve the current permille value of -8.6% if 32 % of the atmospheric CO2 would be anthropogenic by nature.

Removal time of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

The cover-up of this issue continues with the removal time of the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, which is now vaguely reported to be from hundreds of years to thousands of years. This is where the IPCC has turned on the sordino. Let's see if Petteri Taalas (Head secretary of WMO) is still talking about tens of thousands of years. Since 1964, the removal time of radioactive carbon from the atmosphere (a complete tracer test for anthropogenic carbon dioxide) has been only 64 years, which means that it is now almost gone. The removal time of the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to the level of 1750 can be estimated to be about the same as its accumulation period, i.e., just under 300 years.

The greenhouse effect definition

Another real point of silence and cover-up is the definition of the greenhouse effect. In previous reports, it was found in the text itself, but now no space has been found in the 4,000-page presentation. According to the IPCC, the increase in the greenhouse effect is practically the only cause of global warming, so the media and others should wonder why they want to keep quiet and hide it. This definition has been hidden in the vocabulary.

The core points of the definition are: ”Greenhouse effect; The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, and some aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. Surface temperature and troposphere warm in response to this forcing, gradually restoring the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.”

Figure 7. Earth's energy balance (Ollila). The image shows no reflections of solar radiation from the atmosphere, clouds, and earth's surface due to simplified presentation only.

The definition text of the IPCC is scientifically correct. All that is missing is the essential description of how the Earth’s surface receives additional energy that causes the greenhouse effect, Figure 7. There's a clear reason for that. The definition no longer shows an explanation of how the absorption of 158 Wm-2, which causes the greenhouse effect, results in downward infrared atmospheric radiation on the ground of 342 Wm-2, Figure 6 (the magnitudes in the figure of mine are slightly different from the IPCC figures but within the margin of error). This is against the laws of physics because energy comes from nothing.

The radiation coming to the surface consists of a total of four energy flows, which according to the IPCC's energy balance are greenhouse gas absorption of 158 Wm-2, latent water vapor heat 82 Wm-2, sensible heat (hot air) 21 Wm-2, and solar radiation absorption in the atmosphere 80 Wm-2. In addition to solar radiation of 240 Wm-2, the three firstly mentioned energy flows totaling 261 Wm-2 is the “greenhouse energy” coming from the atmosphere to the ground and maintaining the greenhouse effect. The earth's surface receives net solar energy of 240 Wm-2, both directly to the Earth's surface of 160 Wm-2 and the atmospheric absorbed portion of 80 Wm-2 as part of infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere. The Earth's energy balance presentations do not show the absorption flux caused by clouds of greenhouse gases, although it is the most important energy flux in climate change. The reason is that somebody with proper knowledge of physics would notice the violation of physical laws.

By distorting the size of the greenhouse effect to the absorption of greenhouse gases only, the IPCC is capable to increase the portion of CO2 in the greenhouse effect from 7,5 % to 19 %, and the temperature effect from 2,5 °C to 6,3 °C. This also means that the mathematical equations used by the IPCC to calculate the radiative forcing value and global warming potential of CO2 for increasing CO2 concentrations are not in line with the portion CO2 in the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC's science as the basis for the Paris Agreement on climate change gives a strongly exaggerated capability for the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In 2019, the limit of 2 degrees was already broken according to the IPCC's climate models.

Historical temperature trend

The AR6 presents a graph of historical temperature trend which makes Michel Mann's famous hockey stick presentation seem not very radical, Figure 8.

Figure 8. AR6 temperature graph and three other graphs.

There is a rumor that many researchers in this field left the IPCC task force when this view was pushed through. Those who believe in this AR6 graphic could make an expedition to Alaska, and see with their very own eyes how the stumps of ancient coniferous forest, which grew between 700 and 1000, are exposed under the melting Mendenhall Glacier. Why there is now a glacier in the first place if global temperatures do not vary? How long does it take for a similar forest to grow there?


1. Ollila A. Global Circulation Models (GCMs) Simulate the Current Temperature Only If the Shortwave Radiation Anomaly of the 2000s Has Been Omitted, 2021. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 45-52. DOI: 10.9734/cjast/2021/v40i1731433.

3. Loeb, NG, Johnson GC, Thorsen TJ, Lyman JM, Rose FG, Kato S, 2021. Satellite and ocean data reveal marked increase in Earth’s heating rate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL093047.

4. NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) net pages, CERES EBAF-TOA Data;2021. Available<

5. Ramanathan V, Cicerone R, Singh H, and Kiehl J, 1985. Trace gas and their potential role in climate change. J Geophys Res 90, 5547-5566.

6. Meinshausen, M. et al. The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, 2020,


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
Follow Us
bottom of page