Antero Ollila. Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC. Physical Science International Journal,
2019 – Volume 22 [Issue 2]. https://doi.org/10.9734/psij/2019/v22i230127
The greenhouse effect concept has been developed to explain the Earth’s elevated temperature. The prevailing theory of climate change is the anthropogenic global warming theory, which assumes that the greenhouse (GH) effect is due to the longwave (LW) absorption of 155.6 Wm-2 by GH gases and clouds. The actual warming increase to 33°C of the Earth’s surface temperature according to the present GH effect definition is the infrared downward LW radiation of 345.6 Wm-2 emitted by the atmosphere. The atmosphere’s temperature is the key element behind this radiation. According to the energy laws, it is not possible that the LW absorption of 155.6 Wm-2 by the GH gases could re-emit downward LW radiation of 345.6 Wm-2 on the Earth’s surface. In this study, the GH effect is 294.5 Wm-2, including shortwave radiation absorption by the atmosphere and the latent and sensible heating effect. This greater GH effect is a prerequisite for the present atmospheric temperature, which provides downward radiation on the surface. Clouds’ net effect is 1% based on the empirical observations. The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature. The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC. A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.
Yes, there certainly are issues associated with changes in climate and extreme weather that require attention. But a “climate emergency” as this writer claims? No. Even the most recent IPCC report makes no such claims.
“Here is the wildly false claim: “At a time when the international scientific community has concluded that we have 11 years to avert the worst of climate change…” This claim occurs repeatedly in emergency declarations.”
“This false claim refers to the IPCC SR15 report issued in October 2018. What the IPCC really said was we have the 12 years until 2030 to prevent the small difference in impact between 1.5 degrees of total warming and 2.0 degrees. With one degree already done this is just the difference between 0.5 degrees of new warming and 1.0 degrees. The question only came up because both targets are mentioned in the Paris Accord. The question thus arises, what difference this difference makes?”
“According to the IPCC this difference in impact is very small. It is certainly not “the worst of climate change” as the Post and other alarmists repeatedly claim.” click here
“The IPCC’s latest serve of climate catastrophism, released just before the UN General Assembly met in New York last month, ironically contained some good news; but not even “inadequate” models, “limited” observations, poor understanding, dodgy “projections” and revelations about “deep uncertainty” could rein in the hyperbole.” click here
“In a letter to Secretary General Guterres, 500 scientists are now requesting that the UN end the hysteria and return to rational dialogue.” click here
“NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds.” 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
“A huge circulation pattern in the Atlantic Ocean took a starring role in the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” In that fictional tale the global oceanic current suddenly stops and New York City freezes over. While many aspects of the movie are unrealistic, oceanographers are concerned about the long-term stability of the Atlantic Ocean circulation, and previous studies show that it has slowed dramatically in the past decade. New research from the University of Washington and the Ocean University of China finds the slowdown is not caused by global warming but is part of regular, decades-long cycle that will affect temperatures in coming decades.” click here