The climate is not warming faster than models show

Introduction

Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2020 tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record, according to an analysis by NASA. GISS Director Gavin Schmidt said on 14th of January 2021 that “The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend. Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important – the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.” Link: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows

Figure 1. NASA GISS/Gavin Schmidt with an additional remark “Not anthropogenic impacts” by a writer.


I have marked my own addition to the top right of the image to indicate that it is not quite what it looks like. Americans have the wording in courtroom oath something like this: I am telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Schmidt's message does not survive such a test, but he ran bullishly in accordance with the story of the climate establishment. Who is surprised? The year 2020 was not only the warmest, but it was also the hottest. What do you think? Is the average global temperature between 15 and 17 degrees cool, warm, or hot?


I am someway certain that Schmidt is well aware of the measurements that CERES satellites under the responsibility of his NASA colleague Norman Loeb, which have shown a special trend since 2014 when the so-called temperature pause stopped. Figure 2 shows the most relevant measurements of the total solar irradiation (TSI) arriving on the Earth, the trend of shortwave radiation and the trend of longwave (infrared radiation) emitted by the Earth.

Figure 2. Trend curves measured by CERES satellites for total solar irradiation (TSI), shortwave radiation and infrared radiation by the Earth.


Solar activity has been declining slightly for some time (red curve), but surprisingly the shortwave radiation to the Earth (the atmosphere & the surface) increased somewhat between 2002 and 2003 and sharply and strongly after 2014. The reason for this is solely phenomena that have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere, as the Earth reflects about a third of the radiation from the sun back into space. The most significant factor is the variation in cloudiness.


From the beginning of 2001, the amount of shortwave radiation increased by 1.68 W/m2 by the end of 2019. Is this number much or a little? Climate scientists and particularly the IPCC has used a method in which all other factors affecting the climate, such as the increase in greenhouse gas concentration, have been calculated by normalizing the effects at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) using the measuring unit of W/m2. In this way, a common measuring unit is obtained for the various factors, and these forces affecting the climate are called Radiative Forcings (RF). In this way, climate forcings become directly comparable to irradiation by the Sun, from which the Earth receives 99.97% of its energy.


According to IPCC report AR5, the climate impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 1750 to 2011 had been 1.66 W/m2. For human-independent reasons, there was a change in shortwave radiation in 19 years, which was equal to the effect of CO2 in 260 years. Did a slip of tongue happen to Schmidt when he forgot to mention it? I am guessing he is fully aware of this. Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent (Wittgenstein). The climate establishment has silenced this matter to death, and I think the reasons will dawn on the readers later.


The climate warms up faster than models show


One of the most popular claims by the climate establishment and the media is the phrase 'The rate of global warming is faster than what climate models show'. I have never observed any numerical values in connection with this claim that would show how large and significant such a difference is. If you are aware of such numerical values, then I wish your comment on this story. I can tell you out of hand that this argument is false, and the opposite is true. Therefore, those numerical values are missing in connection with this claim.

I have such a bad habit that I try to twist everything into numeral values and models, if possible. Numbers do not just talk; they can be tested. I am doing it now, but not using difficult mathematics, but a couple of simple equations. The IPCC and the undersigned as well have used a simple climate model (some people say, far too infuriatingly simply):


dT = λ*RF (1)


where dT (Kelvin or Celsius) is a change in global temperature caused by climate forcings RF (W/m2) and λ is a climate sensitivity parameter (K/(W/m2). The IPCC's choice of climate sensitivity parameter is 0,5 K/(Wm2) and means the existence of a positive water feedback that doubles the impacts of other climate forcings. This model gives the correct TCS values as well as the RCP scenarios values. According to my studies and direct measurements, this feedback does not exist (except during ENSO events) and therefore my λ value is 0,27 K/(W/m2). When the IPCC model is applied with climate forcings announced by the IPCC, global temperature trends are as shown in Fig. 3 (black curve). The temperature effect of the ENSO effect has been calculated in the same way as Trenberth, and I have used the same equation in my own model.


dT = 0,1 * ONI (2), (2)


where the ONI is the Oceanic Nino Index with a 6-month delay.

Figure 3. Impact of carbon dioxide, total cloud, ENSO (ONI), and short-wave radiation on the temperature in 2001–2019 in accordance with IPCC science.


Figure 3 shows that the IPCC climate model is severely over-hot: an error of 0.65 °C after the year 2014. Therefore, the climate establishment and the media do not show these numerical values.

Figure 4 shows this difference between IPCC climate models and measured temperatures, presented slightly differently.

Figure 4. Measured temperatures. Results of the IPCC and Ollila climate models.


There is so much information in Figure 4, that it is worth telling it in more details. Firstly, it has two measured sets of temperatures. The other is GISTEMP, also known as GISS and operated by NASA. Another temperature graph is called UAH, a satellite measurement series maintained by the Huntsville university in Alabama. The UAH series begins in 1980 and is it is fitted to be the same as GISTEMP in 1980. As you can see, until the year 2000-2005, the series traveled one leg, but now GISTEMP is about 0.15-0.2 degrees higher. That is its own story and I will not comment on this matter in this blog. GISTEMP is adjusted to 0.85 °C, which the IPCC reported as the global warming value from 1880 to 2011 in the AR5 based on several independent measurements.


I have drawn some circles in Figure 4 describing the warming values of the IPCC, according to their five Assessment Reports. One value, i.e. for 2005, coincides with the measured value. Everyone can see that there is something seriously wrong with this value, because this value is less than the value of the previous IPCC report, even though greenhouse gas concentrations have steadily increased. The explanation is that the IPCC has two climate forcings "aerosols” and “clouds" and they are quite strongly negative in value. This feature has been completely silenced because it will allow the IPCC to adjust the outcome of its model if it so desires. In 2005, the IPCC wanted the value given by the model to be the same as the measured value. This is what the climate establishment and their per-party runners will keep quiet about. The media does not even have an idea. In 2011, the IPCC model gives a value of 1,17 °C (this value cannot be found in the IPCC 1600-page report AR5), which is 37 % higher than the measured 0,85 °C. The climate is warming faster than the models show. No, it is not.


Well, what about 2020, which just ended? Now the situation seems quite different for the climate establishment. The difference between the IPCC model and the GISTEMP temperature is exceedingly small, i.e. about 0.08 °C. However, one cannot say that 'it is true if it seems to be so'. As NASA's Schmidt announced, according to the climate establishment, all changes in the climate are anthropogenic. He did not say anything about the occasional climate disturbance El Nino 20015-16, because it suits so well their story, and of course, not a word about the extraordinary anomaly of shortwave radiation. The red line on the right-hand side of the image indicates that, according to the IPCC model, the GISTEMP temperature would decrease to approximately 0.43 °C, i.e. below the average of the 21st-century temperature pause, if this non-anthropogenic factor would be removed.


On the right-hand side of Figure 4 there is another dashed line in blue indicating that the UAH temperature would fall to 0.65 °C, i.e. to the beginning of the pause, if the effect of shortwave radiation is calculated according to my model. There is in Figure 4 also my own comprehensive climate model SECM result (green curve), which will start to fall slightly after 2020.


Forecast for the year 2021


When we talk about the annual temperature forecast, it is a borderline case and it may more be the matter of meteorology. I have two factors on which I base my prognosis.

My first argument is this anomaly of shortwave radiation or disturbance. What goes up, will come down too. Whether the decrease will take place already in 2021 is more of a feeling than a fact. CERES measurements lag for up to 6 months, so I cannot get any help there. UAH temperatures dropped to 0.26°C in December, a relatively big change. It may or may not be an omen.

Another factor influencing the temperature in 2021 is the recent birth of La Nina, Figure 5. In terms of size, this La Nina is apparently "strong" in class. The ONI index is likely to remain at -1.4, with a global impact of around -0.1°C to -0.15°C and it may last for a year or two. What about the increase in CO2 concentration? The annual increase has been on average 2.5 ppm and its temperature effect according to the IPCC model is 0.007°C per year and in my model, the effect is half of that. Well, that's it.

Figure 5. ONI Index


Summary

The climate establishment is reporting not only purposefully, but consciously contrary to its better knowledge of climate change. The strong increase in shortwave radiation is withheld from the public, the main cause of the high temperature in 2020 with an impact of +0.45 °C since 2000. Taking this effect into account, it becomes clear that anthropogenic causes have not been able to raise global temperatures since 2000. Another important point is that the exceedingly high temperatures given by the models of the climate establishment and the IPCC's own model is never told because the flaws in the models are all too striking. This is a bullish and immoral activity. What is extraordinary is that I have never heard media representatives to ask climate change experts about the evidence of anthropogenic impact. It may be that any answer is also valid. An example of this happened once when a journalist of the Finnish Television asked Juhani Damski, The Director of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, what evidence there is that climate change is caused by humans. Damski’s response was that the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased. That was enough for the journalist, and apparently, it is also enough for the researchers at the Finnish Meteorological Institute to explain the matter. Except, of course, a small two facts that the climate models of the climate establishment strongly exaggerate the impact of greenhouse gases but non-human forcings have been omitted.


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
Archive
Follow Us