“Professors Furfari and Masson write: “The climate system, and the way IPCC represents it, is highly sensitive to tiny changes in the value of parameters or initial conditions and these must be known with high accuracy. But this is not the case.”
In other words, the IPCC method is fraught with great uncertainties and much guesswork.
“This puts serious doubt on whatever conclusion that could be drawn from model projections,” the two professors write.” ” click here
“Climate models have such large deficits in the depiction of events in the tropical Pacific that they are globally incorrect in determining the response to the forcing and systematically overestimate the sensitivity to the forcing (according to Seager et al, and Dong et al).” click here
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI, NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.
In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature. click here
“It really doesn’t matter in what order you rearrange the Climategate emails. You get the same result every time: a bunch of second-raters bullying dissenters, troughing lavish grants, racking up air miles on conference freebies, cooking the books, manipulating the evidence, torturing the data till it screams in order to make man-made global warming look like a much more significant and well-understood problem than it actually is.” click here
“Greenland’s most famous glacier has grown nearly 10km over the past seven years. click here
Alexander J. Winkler, Ranga B. Myneni, Georgii A. Alexandrov, Victor Brovkin. Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes. Nature Communications, 10, 885, 2019.
Most Earth system models agree that land will continue to store carbon due to the physiological effects of rising CO2 concentration and climatic changes favoring plant growth in temperature-limited regions. But they largely disagree on the amount of carbon uptake. The historical CO2 increase has resulted in enhanced photosynthetic carbon fixation (Gross Primary Production, GPP), as can be evidenced from atmospheric CO2 concentration and satellite leaf area index measurements. Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient CO2 from the past 36 years of satellite measurements to obtain an Emergent Constraint (EC) estimate of GPP enhancement in the northern high latitudes at two-times the pre-industrial CO2concentration (3.4 ± 0.2 Pg C yr−1). We derive three independent comparable estimates from CO2 measurements and atmospheric inversions. Our EC estimate is 60% larger than the conventionally used multi-model average (44% higher at the global scale). This suggests that most models largely underestimate photosynthetic carbon fixation and therefore likely overestimate future atmospheric CO2 abundance and ensuing climate change, though not proportionately.
“If you liked last summer’s record temperatures, you’re going to love the 1990s, says James Hansen, the NASA scientist who, during congressional hearings on the Midwestern drought, linked greenhouse warming to the heat wave. Last summer was a preview of the average summer 10 years from now, and the hottest summers during the ’90s will be even hotter and drier than the one we just struggled through, he says.” click here