Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In the future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
Download Climate Change Apps & Share The Real Science on Climate Change Not Funded By Governments & Propagandists. The apps are free.
For Iphone
Larry Fink the founder of Google is one of the globalists, pushing for world dominance pushing the climate change narrative that has removed the app from the Google play store. However, you can still download the app here, and just choose to allow your android device to allow apps from unidentified publishers. There is no malicious files in this app, only 60 slides that sum up the whole climate change narrative lie. You will get warnings on it not being safe, but this is normal for any app downloaded from outside the play store, in which information like this is being censored.
For Android
Conveniently, once you have downloaded the app, share the individual slides to your favourite social media device.
There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf
World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
DR. PATRICK MOORE / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
DR. G.-FIVOS SARGENTIS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. PETER STALLINGA / PORTUGAL
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO
In addition to these ambassadors, there are over 1900 scientists that have joined our organization and declare that there is no climate change emergency, and instead this is a paid and funded narrative by governments over the world looking to implement green policies to fatten their wallets, and control the populations. Be free people. You can care about the planet, live green, reduce population, but undestand one thing. Humans are not causing the climate to change. Now if you want to advocate for better polution policies, your governments are all guilty of incompetence, corruption, and bias bought and paid for by their corporate lobbyists. Yes we can do better on taking care of our planet, but nothing we are doing, is causing climate change, and CO2 has been shown in history to be 5 times the level it is right now, and the planet was flourishing. CO2 is the food for all life on our planet.
Read Our Posts to Learn More
-
Nincs klímavészhelyzet, ezt üzenjük az embereknek
A közvéleménynek szóló üzenetünk (Message to the Public, M2P) az emberek túlnyomó részét kitevő laikusoknak szól, szerte a világon. Az M2P lényegre törően foglalja össze és magyarázza el, hogy nincs klímavészhelyzet, és hogy a klímaváltozásra hivatkozó intézkedéseknek nincs mérhető hatása az éghajlatra. Csakis a gazdaságra fejtenek ki romboló hatást. Guus Berkhout – dutchmobolityinnovatoins.com [...]
The post Nincs klímavészhelyzet, ezt üzenjük az embereknek appeared first on Clintel.
-
Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable
By Andy May “The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this fundamental feature of the Earth’s climate.” (Barry, Craig, & Thuburn, 2002) This is the transcript of the talk I gave in [...]
The post Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable appeared first on Clintel.
Interview Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Name: Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Country: South Africa
What is your background?
I was born in Germany towards the end of the Second World War. I grew up there and spent a major part of my life. I studied physics at the Technical University in Munich (TUM) in the 1960s/70s, when science, contrary to now, enjoyed a certain prestige. Munich was home to a number of scientific celebrities, among them none other than Werner Heisenberg. It was a carefree period with the first fruits of the German economic miracle becoming available and whiffs of hippy-atmosphere arriving from America. Most of us students worked after hours to be able to afford a third hand car – mine turned out to be a Volkswagen Beetle from 1949.
During doctoral work at the Physics Department of the TUM, I had my first encounter with the nuclear world in the form of our own research reactor, the first one in Germany. Due to its shape it was called the Atomic Egg.
Research and teaching took me to different places, in particular to the US and to South America. I left science in my forties and ended up as a freelance consultant for the management of research projects with mainly pharmaceutical and automotive clients in my portfolio. My last assignment of this kind was in 2017, at the age of 72. I now live next to Cape Town and write books and posts – mostly about the drama on global warming.
I’ve been a pilot for most of my adult life which helped me discover the magic of South Africa, her people, her landscape and her wildlife.
Since when and why are you interested in climate change?
The green movements were probably more pronounced in Germany than in any other country in the world. Debates about the ozone hole and forest dieback were as intrusive as they were irrational. With the advent of global warming, it all took on a new order of magnitude and I was sceptical from the start.
How did your views on climate change evolve?
After a few years had passed without measurable increase in average global temperature, the disaster was renamed from global warming to climate change. This was an excellent move in marketing, but it exposed the true motives of the protagonists that the show must go on regardless of how temperature evolves.
Is climate change a big issue in your country and how do you notice this?
In German politics and media there has not been a more dominant topic during the past decades than climate change – it only took a temporary back seat during the corona hype. It’s an issue that not only dominates politics, but permeates society as a whole and which breaks friendships.
In South Africa, where I live now, people have other concerns. And, if you don’t mind me saying so, they’re less neurotic.
How would climate policy ideally look like in your view?
All politics must follow the same principle that medicine follows: primum non nocere – above all do no harm. Measures related to climate change must be in accordance with systematic risk management. Costs and benefits, scope and probabilities must be quantified as best as possible.
And if I were Germany’s climate minister, I would stop the expansion of wind energy and photovoltaics today and would build up nuclear energy instead, with France as a role model. I know that nukes are not dangerous. Working for a year as a nuclear watchdog with the IAEA, I spent plenty of time in the close vicinity of all sorts of nuclear monsters – and I’m still alive.
What is your motivation to sign the Clintel World Climate Declaration?
The general population, including the educated part, is surprisingly ignorant when it comes to climate and energy issues. In my books and posts I try to offer appropriate enlightenment. Perhaps Clintel is a platform for such endeavour as well.
The post Interview Hans Hofmann-Reinecke appeared first on Clintel.
-
Models versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion
by Nicola Scafetta reposted from Climate Etc.
Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.
These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.
Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well.
The satellite-based record was added since surface-based records are susceptible to many biases, including urban heat, among others (Connolly et al., 2021; Scafetta, 2021a). The validation tests were conducted using 688 GCM member simulations, 143 average GCM ensemble simulations, and Monte Carlo modeling of internal GCM variability in compliance with three alternative model accuracy requirements.
The period from 1980 to 2021 was chosen because it is when the global temperature records are believed to be affected by the least uncertainty. Moreover, the same time period is also covered by satellite measurements that offer an independent estimate.
The paper’s key finding was that the vast majority of the simulations by the medium and high-ECS GCMs run too hot. From 1980–1990 to 2011–2021, only the simulation of the low ECS GCM group seems to have accurately predicted the warming shown by the surface-based records. For instance, while all temperature data show a warming below 0.6 °C, all GCM averages from the medium and high ECS group forecast a warming over 0.6 °C up to 1.3 °C. These are plainly visible in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1: GCM global surface temperature ensembles (yellow area, ±1σ) versus HadCRUT5 (infilled data), GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records (black, 12-month moving average).
Figure 2: Average temperature changes (2011–2021 minus 1980–1990) hindcasted by 38 CMIP6 GCMs mean simulations. The blue vertical lines represent the temperature change measured by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records.
If internal model variability is also considered, the conclusion remains unchanged because, as the research clearly shows, 95% and 97%, respectively, of the medium and high ECS ensemble member simulations run hotter than all temperature records. These findings are summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Boxplots of the CMIP6 ensemble members for each CMIP6 GCM; # represents the number of the available simulations for each GCM. The horizontal blue lines represent the global surface warming from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021 reported by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records, respectively.
Figures 1-3 make it abundantly evident that the warming hindcast by the GCM grows as the ECS increases and that only the low-ECS GCM group can be regarded as being consistent with the data. The research also demonstrates that the outcome holds true regardless of how statistically the internal variability of the models is modeled. Moreover, it is statistically insignificant that a small number of simulations of the medium and high ECS GCMs would seem to coincide with the evidence. Therefore, it follows that the actual ECS should be lower than 3 °C, as Lewis (2022) also found.
However, Figures 1-3 also show that if the actual warming from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021 is better represented by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, also the low-ECS GCM would be running too hot. In fact, while the various available surface-based temperature records show a warming roughly ranging between 0.5 and 0.6 °C, the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record show a warming of about 0.4 °C while the low-ECS GCMs show a warming of 0.6±0.1°C. It is worth mentioning that according to the GCMs, the troposphere should experience a greater warming trend than the surface (Mitchell et al., 2020) so that the UAH-MSU-lt v6 might even be overestimating the surface warming. The low-ECM GCMs would therefore need to be scaled down by roughly 33%, assuming that the warming of UAH-MSU-lt v6 is accurate and representative of the warming at the surface. This should imply that the actual ECS might likewise be between 1 and 2 °C.
Future warming would be moderate and not particularly concerning if the actual ECS was between 1.5 and 3.0°C. The IPCC’s predictions of future climate catastrophes if CO2 emissions are not severely cut to essentially zero would be unfounded if the actual ECS is considerably lower, which is 1-2°C. As a result, it’s critical to assess if a warming bias, as multiple studies have already revealed, may be affecting surface-based temperature data.
To check the last point, the work adds an extended section where the observed and GCM modelled warming over the land and over the ocean are compared. As a result, the land has warmed 2.0–2.3 times faster than the ocean according to surface-based temperature records, 1.5 times faster according to satellite-based temperature records, and somewhere in the middle according to the GCMs: 1.75±0.20. In addition, the surface-based temperature records over land show a warming that is around 0.4°C more than the satellite readings, whereas the surface-based temperature records over the ocean show a warming that is just slightly larger (up to 0.1°C) than the satellite observations. These results suggest that the warming reported by the surface-based temperature records, especially over land, is too large and incompatible both with the satellite measurements and the land/ocean ratio prediction of the models. These findings imply that the warming indicated by surface-based temperature records, particularly over land, is excessive and inconsistent with both satellite observations and theoretical model predictions of the land/ocean ratio.
Based on the aforementioned findings, it was determined that the surface-based temperature records may be at least 10% off when it comes to actual warming. By reducing the ECS of the low-ECS GCMs by 10%, the ECS range changes from 1.8-3.0°C to 1.6-2.7°C, which is in good agreement with Lewis’s conclusion (1.7-2.7 °C).
However, if the real warming is closer to that indicated by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, or if the climate system is controlled by multidecadal and millennial natural oscillations that the GCMs are unable to replicate, it is possible that the ECS may be much lower (for example, 1-2°C). For example, Scafetta (2013, 2021b) deduced an ECS between 1.0 and 2.3 °C by assuming (solar-astronomically induced) natural climatic oscillations of quasi 20, 60, 115 and 1000 years, which are observed in many climatic data throughout the Holocene but not reproduced by the GCMs. The same result is obtain using solar records showing a large secular variability, while the GCMs use solar forcings taken from the solar proxy reconstructions that show the least secular variability (Connolly et al., 2021).
Because they imply that anthropogenic global warming for the upcoming decades will inevitably be moderate, the results by Scafetta (2022a) and Lewis (2022) cast serious doubts on climatic alarmism.
Bibliography
Connolly R, Soon W, Connolly M et al. (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Res Astron Astrophys 21:131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence. Climate Dynamics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
Mitchell DM, Lo YTE, Seviour WJM, Haimberger L, Polvani LM (2020). The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: persistent model biases in the context of internal variability. Environ Res Lett 15:1040b4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7
Scafetta N (2013). Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semiempirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth Sci Rev 126:321–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.008
Scafetta N (2021a). Detection of non-climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations. Clim Dyn 56:2959–2982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x
Scafetta N (2021b). Reconstruction of the interannual to millennial scale patterns of the global surface temperature. Atmosphere 12:147. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020147
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures. Climate Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w
Scafetta N (2022b). Advanced testing of low, medium, and high ECS CMIP6 GCM simulations versus ERA5-T2m. Geophys Res Lett 49:e2022GL097716. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716
The post Models versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion appeared first on Clintel.
-
How the Greenland ice sheet ‘really’ fared this year
The Greenland ice sheet’s melt season is over, bringing the 2021-2022 season to a close. Below I take a deep-dive into how the poster boy for global warming fared over the past 12-months.
‘SURFACE’ MASS BALANCE
Greenland’s ice sheet gains snow and ice from September through to the following June, and then, as temperatures climb with onset of late-Spring, begins to lose more ice through surface melt than it gains from fresh snowfall. This is known as ‘the melt season’, which generally lasts until the end of August, with snow gains minus ice losses called the ‘Surface Mass Balance’ (SMB).
The map below, courtesy of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), plots the SMB over the past 12-months.
The blue line in the upper chart shows the day-to-day SMB (in Gigatons), while the blue line in the lower chart depicts the accumulated SMB (again, in Gts), from the beginning of the season (Sept 1 2021). The grey line is the multidecadal average.
[DMI]
This year –that is, Sept 1 2021 to Aug 31 2022– the Greenland ice sheet achieved a Surface Mass Balance of approximately 471Gt, ranking it as the 10th highest SMB year in data extending back to 1981.
2022 MELT SEASON
The summer of 2022 was anomalously cold and snowy across Greenland and was book-ended by huge snowfall events.
The first came in June, delaying the melt season by 17-days vs the 1981-2021 median; and the second brought seasonal melting to an abrupt stop in mid-August after a record-breaking 20bn tonnes (Gt) of snow accumulated on the south of the island.
This summer chimed with last years; that is, it was characterized by several monstrous, record-smashing snowfall events. Fresh snow reflects sunlight better than the old, darker glacial ice underneath; and as a result, the onset of melting, which is defined as the first day of three days in a row where the SMB is less than -1Gt, was on June 30, two-and-a-half weeks later than normal.
The end of August 2022 was then marked by truly mammoth snow event. More than 8Gts was added on Aug 30 alone, an unprecedented amount for summer–visualized below by the dramatic-looking ‘spike’ at the end of the DMI’s SMB chart:
The reason for these persistently cold and wet conditions across the Greenland ice sheet is linked to “atmospheric blocking”–a phenomenon shown to increase during times of low solar activity (such as the historically low output we’re experiencing now).
For much of the summer, a high-pressure blocking system stalled over Western Europe, leading to many nations experiencing record-breaking heatwaves. And far out to the west, across the pond, blocking systems also formed over Western Canada and the US. These setups altered the jet stream’s flow, reverting its usual straight (zonal) course to a wavy (meridional) one. The jet effectively ‘buckled’ with Greenland situated in the middle, on the ‘upper’ side of a southerly-plunging jet which saw it subject to influxes of frigid Arctic air; while, conversely, W Europe and the US found themselves located ‘below’ a northerly-arching jet, meaning they were open to rising tropical warm.
Map showing cold weather in Greenland and heat over North America/Western Europe in mid-July 2022 [DMI]. Note also the descending chills in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe/Western Russia (also Alaska and Northern Siberia).
The below graphic aims to clarify the general setup.
And as hinted at above, the prevalence of this ‘wavy’ jet stream setup increases during times of low solar activity. In short, with less energy entering the system, the usually-rigid west-to-east flowing jet weakens and its shape becomes Omega (Ω) or ‘meridional’. It is this mechanism –or more specifically its upshot, i.e. erratic weather patterns– that today’s activist-scientists broadly label ‘climate change’: A weakened jet stream caused by low solar activity.
MSM OBFUSCATION
Refocusing on Greenland, despite this year’s ‘healthy’ melt season, obfuscation was abound across the mainstream media.
CNN wrote the following in July 20 article: “The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.”
They even have a quote from cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT Ted Scambos: “The northern melt this past week is not normal, looking at 30 to 40 years of climate averages. But melting has been on the increase, and this event was a spike in melt.”
CNN is screaming about this period of melting (circled below):
[DMI]
I’ve already given you the data regarding the season as a whole.
The audacity of CNN to claim that the 2022 melt season was in anyway alarming is cherry-picking obfuscation at best and outright fraud at worst. Even the staunchest of AGW proponents must see this–the propaganda can’t be that blinding, surely?
‘TOTAL’ MASS BALANCE
The ‘Surface’ Mass Balance (SMB) is just one of three components when it comes to determining an ice sheet’s overall ‘health’ –its ‘Total’ Mass Balance (TMB)– with the others being the ‘Marine’ Mass Balance (MMB) and the “Basal’ Mass Balance (BMB).
In Greenland’s case, the MMB consists of the breaking off –or ‘calving’– of icebergs as well as the melting of glaciers that meet the warmer sea water. While the BMB, although largely unimpactful, refers to ice losses from the base of the ice sheet mainly caused by frictional effects and ground heat flux.
The components of the Total Mass Balance going back to 1987 are shown below — CNN pay close heed. The SMB is shown in blue, the MMB in green, the BMB in yellow and, most importantly, the TMB is marked in red.
Chart showing the surface (blue), marine (green), basal (yellow) and total (red) mass balances for 1987 to 2022 (in Gt p/year). Credit: Mankoff et al. (2021–updated to include 2022).
This is the official data. Every news outlet has access to it. And what it unambiguously shows is, well, not a lot, certainly nothing to write home about, and most-certainly nothing ‘catastrophic’.
The TMB (red line) did indeed decrease between 1996 to 2012; however, the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth. This is more clearly depicted in the next chart (which doesn’t yet include 2022’s higher reading):
Now, I’m not sat here scratching my head pondering why the MSM works so desperately hard to obfuscate. I’m not naive. Unalarming Greenland data does not serve the doom and gloom agenda and reporting on it honestly on would risk stopping the intravenous-dispensation of fear that requires constantly administering to the masses in order to be effective, in order to force through their controlled demolition of society–that now appears fully underway.
This is what the MSM are tasked with nowadays, perhaps it has always been the case — a population forever scared, always looking over their shoulder for the next ‘catastrophe’ that threatens to upend and ruin them are far easier to keep under the thumb, to marshal, to own, to control. It’s a travesty.
The post How the Greenland ice sheet ‘really’ fared this year appeared first on Clintel.
New peer reviewed paper: climate sensitivity a third lower (Climate Etc. version)
by Nic Lewis reposted from Climate Etc.
Official estimates of future global warming may be overstated.
A brief summary in press release style of my new paper (written in the third person)
One of the most important conclusions of the recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) was to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since 1979, the likely range (66% chance) of climate sensitivity has been between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. This range has remained stubbornly wide, until the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range to be between 2.5°C and 4.0°C.
A new paper by independent scientist Nic Lewis published in the journal Climate Dynamics challenges the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 about climate sensitivity. Lewis’ analysis reduces the magnitude of climate sensitivity by one third, relative to the range provided by the IPCC AR6. These results suggest that future global warming in response to fossil fuel emissions could be significantly less than has been assumed by policy makers.
In 2015, the World Climate Research Programme convened a Workshop aimed at reducing the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. The Workshop ultimately resulted in publication of a report (a 92 page paper) by many of the participants that thoroughly assessed all lines of evidence (Sherwood et al, 2020). A key result of this paper was to reduce the likely range of climate sensitivity values to 2.6 oC to 3.9 oC. While Lewis was an invited participant to the 2015 Workshop, he was not a coauthor on this paper. The Sherwood et al. paper strongly influenced the IPCC AR6’s assessment of climate sensitivity.
Lewis’ paper critiqued the methods used in the Sherwood et al. paper, finding significant errors, inconsistencies and other shortcomings. Lewis remedied these shortcomings and also revised key input data, almost entirely to reflect more recent evidence. The results of Lewis’ analysis determined a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7oC for climate sensitivity. The central estimate from Lewis’ analysis is 2.16 oC, which is well below the IPCC AR6 likely range. This large reduction relative to Sherwood et al. shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates are to input assumptions. Lewis’ analysis implies that climate sensitivity is more likely to be below 2 oC than it is to be above 2.5 oC.
The lower estimates of climate sensitivity determined by Nic Lewis have profound implications for climate models and projections of warming for the 21st century. Climate models used in the IPCC AR6 had values of climate sensitivity ranging from 1.8oC to 5.6oC. The IPCC AR6 judged that some of the climate models had values of climate sensitivity that were too high. Hence the AR6 selected only the climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity to be used in projections of 21st century climate change. Lewis’ analysis indicates that a majority of climate models used in the IPCC AR6 have values higher than the likely range.
Nic Lewis has authored ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. Lewis’ latest paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.
The post New peer reviewed paper: climate sensitivity a third lower (Climate Etc. version) appeared first on Clintel.
Nincs klímavészhelyzet, ezt üzenjük az embereknek
A közvéleménynek szóló üzenetünk (Message to the Public, M2P) az emberek túlnyomó részét kitevő laikusoknak szól, szerte a világon. Az M2P lényegre törően foglalja össze és magyarázza el, hogy nincs klímavészhelyzet, és hogy a klímaváltozásra hivatkozó intézkedéseknek nincs mérhető hatása az éghajlatra. Csakis a gazdaságra fejtenek ki romboló hatást. Guus Berkhout – dutchmobolityinnovatoins.com [...] The post Nincs klímavészhelyzet, ezt üzenjük az embereknek appeared first on Clintel.
Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable
By Andy May “The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this fundamental feature of the Earth’s climate.” (Barry, Craig, & Thuburn, 2002) This is the transcript of the talk I gave in [...] The post Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable appeared first on Clintel.
Interview Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Name: Hans Hofmann-Reinecke
Country: South Africa
What is your background?
I was born in Germany towards the end of the Second World War. I grew up there and spent a major part of my life. I studied physics at the Technical University in Munich (TUM) in the 1960s/70s, when science, contrary to now, enjoyed a certain prestige. Munich was home to a number of scientific celebrities, among them none other than Werner Heisenberg. It was a carefree period with the first fruits of the German economic miracle becoming available and whiffs of hippy-atmosphere arriving from America. Most of us students worked after hours to be able to afford a third hand car – mine turned out to be a Volkswagen Beetle from 1949.
During doctoral work at the Physics Department of the TUM, I had my first encounter with the nuclear world in the form of our own research reactor, the first one in Germany. Due to its shape it was called the Atomic Egg.
Research and teaching took me to different places, in particular to the US and to South America. I left science in my forties and ended up as a freelance consultant for the management of research projects with mainly pharmaceutical and automotive clients in my portfolio. My last assignment of this kind was in 2017, at the age of 72. I now live next to Cape Town and write books and posts – mostly about the drama on global warming.
I’ve been a pilot for most of my adult life which helped me discover the magic of South Africa, her people, her landscape and her wildlife.
Since when and why are you interested in climate change?
The green movements were probably more pronounced in Germany than in any other country in the world. Debates about the ozone hole and forest dieback were as intrusive as they were irrational. With the advent of global warming, it all took on a new order of magnitude and I was sceptical from the start.
How did your views on climate change evolve?
After a few years had passed without measurable increase in average global temperature, the disaster was renamed from global warming to climate change. This was an excellent move in marketing, but it exposed the true motives of the protagonists that the show must go on regardless of how temperature evolves.
Is climate change a big issue in your country and how do you notice this?
In German politics and media there has not been a more dominant topic during the past decades than climate change – it only took a temporary back seat during the corona hype. It’s an issue that not only dominates politics, but permeates society as a whole and which breaks friendships.
In South Africa, where I live now, people have other concerns. And, if you don’t mind me saying so, they’re less neurotic.
How would climate policy ideally look like in your view?
All politics must follow the same principle that medicine follows: primum non nocere – above all do no harm. Measures related to climate change must be in accordance with systematic risk management. Costs and benefits, scope and probabilities must be quantified as best as possible.
And if I were Germany’s climate minister, I would stop the expansion of wind energy and photovoltaics today and would build up nuclear energy instead, with France as a role model. I know that nukes are not dangerous. Working for a year as a nuclear watchdog with the IAEA, I spent plenty of time in the close vicinity of all sorts of nuclear monsters – and I’m still alive.
What is your motivation to sign the Clintel World Climate Declaration?
The general population, including the educated part, is surprisingly ignorant when it comes to climate and energy issues. In my books and posts I try to offer appropriate enlightenment. Perhaps Clintel is a platform for such endeavour as well.
The post Interview Hans Hofmann-Reinecke appeared first on Clintel.
Models versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion
by Nicola Scafetta reposted from Climate Etc.
Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.
These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.
Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well.
The satellite-based record was added since surface-based records are susceptible to many biases, including urban heat, among others (Connolly et al., 2021; Scafetta, 2021a). The validation tests were conducted using 688 GCM member simulations, 143 average GCM ensemble simulations, and Monte Carlo modeling of internal GCM variability in compliance with three alternative model accuracy requirements.
The period from 1980 to 2021 was chosen because it is when the global temperature records are believed to be affected by the least uncertainty. Moreover, the same time period is also covered by satellite measurements that offer an independent estimate.
The paper’s key finding was that the vast majority of the simulations by the medium and high-ECS GCMs run too hot. From 1980–1990 to 2011–2021, only the simulation of the low ECS GCM group seems to have accurately predicted the warming shown by the surface-based records. For instance, while all temperature data show a warming below 0.6 °C, all GCM averages from the medium and high ECS group forecast a warming over 0.6 °C up to 1.3 °C. These are plainly visible in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1: GCM global surface temperature ensembles (yellow area, ±1σ) versus HadCRUT5 (infilled data), GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records (black, 12-month moving average).
Figure 2: Average temperature changes (2011–2021 minus 1980–1990) hindcasted by 38 CMIP6 GCMs mean simulations. The blue vertical lines represent the temperature change measured by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records.
If internal model variability is also considered, the conclusion remains unchanged because, as the research clearly shows, 95% and 97%, respectively, of the medium and high ECS ensemble member simulations run hotter than all temperature records. These findings are summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Boxplots of the CMIP6 ensemble members for each CMIP6 GCM; # represents the number of the available simulations for each GCM. The horizontal blue lines represent the global surface warming from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021 reported by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records, respectively.
Figures 1-3 make it abundantly evident that the warming hindcast by the GCM grows as the ECS increases and that only the low-ECS GCM group can be regarded as being consistent with the data. The research also demonstrates that the outcome holds true regardless of how statistically the internal variability of the models is modeled. Moreover, it is statistically insignificant that a small number of simulations of the medium and high ECS GCMs would seem to coincide with the evidence. Therefore, it follows that the actual ECS should be lower than 3 °C, as Lewis (2022) also found.
However, Figures 1-3 also show that if the actual warming from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021 is better represented by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, also the low-ECS GCM would be running too hot. In fact, while the various available surface-based temperature records show a warming roughly ranging between 0.5 and 0.6 °C, the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record show a warming of about 0.4 °C while the low-ECS GCMs show a warming of 0.6±0.1°C. It is worth mentioning that according to the GCMs, the troposphere should experience a greater warming trend than the surface (Mitchell et al., 2020) so that the UAH-MSU-lt v6 might even be overestimating the surface warming. The low-ECM GCMs would therefore need to be scaled down by roughly 33%, assuming that the warming of UAH-MSU-lt v6 is accurate and representative of the warming at the surface. This should imply that the actual ECS might likewise be between 1 and 2 °C.
Future warming would be moderate and not particularly concerning if the actual ECS was between 1.5 and 3.0°C. The IPCC’s predictions of future climate catastrophes if CO2 emissions are not severely cut to essentially zero would be unfounded if the actual ECS is considerably lower, which is 1-2°C. As a result, it’s critical to assess if a warming bias, as multiple studies have already revealed, may be affecting surface-based temperature data.
To check the last point, the work adds an extended section where the observed and GCM modelled warming over the land and over the ocean are compared. As a result, the land has warmed 2.0–2.3 times faster than the ocean according to surface-based temperature records, 1.5 times faster according to satellite-based temperature records, and somewhere in the middle according to the GCMs: 1.75±0.20. In addition, the surface-based temperature records over land show a warming that is around 0.4°C more than the satellite readings, whereas the surface-based temperature records over the ocean show a warming that is just slightly larger (up to 0.1°C) than the satellite observations. These results suggest that the warming reported by the surface-based temperature records, especially over land, is too large and incompatible both with the satellite measurements and the land/ocean ratio prediction of the models. These findings imply that the warming indicated by surface-based temperature records, particularly over land, is excessive and inconsistent with both satellite observations and theoretical model predictions of the land/ocean ratio.
Based on the aforementioned findings, it was determined that the surface-based temperature records may be at least 10% off when it comes to actual warming. By reducing the ECS of the low-ECS GCMs by 10%, the ECS range changes from 1.8-3.0°C to 1.6-2.7°C, which is in good agreement with Lewis’s conclusion (1.7-2.7 °C).
However, if the real warming is closer to that indicated by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, or if the climate system is controlled by multidecadal and millennial natural oscillations that the GCMs are unable to replicate, it is possible that the ECS may be much lower (for example, 1-2°C). For example, Scafetta (2013, 2021b) deduced an ECS between 1.0 and 2.3 °C by assuming (solar-astronomically induced) natural climatic oscillations of quasi 20, 60, 115 and 1000 years, which are observed in many climatic data throughout the Holocene but not reproduced by the GCMs. The same result is obtain using solar records showing a large secular variability, while the GCMs use solar forcings taken from the solar proxy reconstructions that show the least secular variability (Connolly et al., 2021).
Because they imply that anthropogenic global warming for the upcoming decades will inevitably be moderate, the results by Scafetta (2022a) and Lewis (2022) cast serious doubts on climatic alarmism.
Bibliography
Connolly R, Soon W, Connolly M et al. (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Res Astron Astrophys 21:131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence. Climate Dynamics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
Mitchell DM, Lo YTE, Seviour WJM, Haimberger L, Polvani LM (2020). The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: persistent model biases in the context of internal variability. Environ Res Lett 15:1040b4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7
Scafetta N (2013). Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semiempirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth Sci Rev 126:321–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.008
Scafetta N (2021a). Detection of non-climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations. Clim Dyn 56:2959–2982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x
Scafetta N (2021b). Reconstruction of the interannual to millennial scale patterns of the global surface temperature. Atmosphere 12:147. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020147
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures. Climate Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w
Scafetta N (2022b). Advanced testing of low, medium, and high ECS CMIP6 GCM simulations versus ERA5-T2m. Geophys Res Lett 49:e2022GL097716. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716
The post Models versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion appeared first on Clintel.
How the Greenland ice sheet ‘really’ fared this year
The Greenland ice sheet’s melt season is over, bringing the 2021-2022 season to a close. Below I take a deep-dive into how the poster boy for global warming fared over the past 12-months.
‘SURFACE’ MASS BALANCE
Greenland’s ice sheet gains snow and ice from September through to the following June, and then, as temperatures climb with onset of late-Spring, begins to lose more ice through surface melt than it gains from fresh snowfall. This is known as ‘the melt season’, which generally lasts until the end of August, with snow gains minus ice losses called the ‘Surface Mass Balance’ (SMB).
The map below, courtesy of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), plots the SMB over the past 12-months.
The blue line in the upper chart shows the day-to-day SMB (in Gigatons), while the blue line in the lower chart depicts the accumulated SMB (again, in Gts), from the beginning of the season (Sept 1 2021). The grey line is the multidecadal average.
[DMI]
This year –that is, Sept 1 2021 to Aug 31 2022– the Greenland ice sheet achieved a Surface Mass Balance of approximately 471Gt, ranking it as the 10th highest SMB year in data extending back to 1981.
2022 MELT SEASON
The summer of 2022 was anomalously cold and snowy across Greenland and was book-ended by huge snowfall events.
The first came in June, delaying the melt season by 17-days vs the 1981-2021 median; and the second brought seasonal melting to an abrupt stop in mid-August after a record-breaking 20bn tonnes (Gt) of snow accumulated on the south of the island.
This summer chimed with last years; that is, it was characterized by several monstrous, record-smashing snowfall events. Fresh snow reflects sunlight better than the old, darker glacial ice underneath; and as a result, the onset of melting, which is defined as the first day of three days in a row where the SMB is less than -1Gt, was on June 30, two-and-a-half weeks later than normal.
The end of August 2022 was then marked by truly mammoth snow event. More than 8Gts was added on Aug 30 alone, an unprecedented amount for summer–visualized below by the dramatic-looking ‘spike’ at the end of the DMI’s SMB chart:
The reason for these persistently cold and wet conditions across the Greenland ice sheet is linked to “atmospheric blocking”–a phenomenon shown to increase during times of low solar activity (such as the historically low output we’re experiencing now).
For much of the summer, a high-pressure blocking system stalled over Western Europe, leading to many nations experiencing record-breaking heatwaves. And far out to the west, across the pond, blocking systems also formed over Western Canada and the US. These setups altered the jet stream’s flow, reverting its usual straight (zonal) course to a wavy (meridional) one. The jet effectively ‘buckled’ with Greenland situated in the middle, on the ‘upper’ side of a southerly-plunging jet which saw it subject to influxes of frigid Arctic air; while, conversely, W Europe and the US found themselves located ‘below’ a northerly-arching jet, meaning they were open to rising tropical warm.
Map showing cold weather in Greenland and heat over North America/Western Europe in mid-July 2022 [DMI]. Note also the descending chills in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe/Western Russia (also Alaska and Northern Siberia).
The below graphic aims to clarify the general setup.
And as hinted at above, the prevalence of this ‘wavy’ jet stream setup increases during times of low solar activity. In short, with less energy entering the system, the usually-rigid west-to-east flowing jet weakens and its shape becomes Omega (Ω) or ‘meridional’. It is this mechanism –or more specifically its upshot, i.e. erratic weather patterns– that today’s activist-scientists broadly label ‘climate change’: A weakened jet stream caused by low solar activity.
MSM OBFUSCATION
Refocusing on Greenland, despite this year’s ‘healthy’ melt season, obfuscation was abound across the mainstream media.
CNN wrote the following in July 20 article: “The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.”
They even have a quote from cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT Ted Scambos: “The northern melt this past week is not normal, looking at 30 to 40 years of climate averages. But melting has been on the increase, and this event was a spike in melt.”
CNN is screaming about this period of melting (circled below):
[DMI]
I’ve already given you the data regarding the season as a whole.
The audacity of CNN to claim that the 2022 melt season was in anyway alarming is cherry-picking obfuscation at best and outright fraud at worst. Even the staunchest of AGW proponents must see this–the propaganda can’t be that blinding, surely?
‘TOTAL’ MASS BALANCE
The ‘Surface’ Mass Balance (SMB) is just one of three components when it comes to determining an ice sheet’s overall ‘health’ –its ‘Total’ Mass Balance (TMB)– with the others being the ‘Marine’ Mass Balance (MMB) and the “Basal’ Mass Balance (BMB).
In Greenland’s case, the MMB consists of the breaking off –or ‘calving’– of icebergs as well as the melting of glaciers that meet the warmer sea water. While the BMB, although largely unimpactful, refers to ice losses from the base of the ice sheet mainly caused by frictional effects and ground heat flux.
The components of the Total Mass Balance going back to 1987 are shown below — CNN pay close heed. The SMB is shown in blue, the MMB in green, the BMB in yellow and, most importantly, the TMB is marked in red.
Chart showing the surface (blue), marine (green), basal (yellow) and total (red) mass balances for 1987 to 2022 (in Gt p/year). Credit: Mankoff et al. (2021–updated to include 2022).
This is the official data. Every news outlet has access to it. And what it unambiguously shows is, well, not a lot, certainly nothing to write home about, and most-certainly nothing ‘catastrophic’.
The TMB (red line) did indeed decrease between 1996 to 2012; however, the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth. This is more clearly depicted in the next chart (which doesn’t yet include 2022’s higher reading):
Now, I’m not sat here scratching my head pondering why the MSM works so desperately hard to obfuscate. I’m not naive. Unalarming Greenland data does not serve the doom and gloom agenda and reporting on it honestly on would risk stopping the intravenous-dispensation of fear that requires constantly administering to the masses in order to be effective, in order to force through their controlled demolition of society–that now appears fully underway.
This is what the MSM are tasked with nowadays, perhaps it has always been the case — a population forever scared, always looking over their shoulder for the next ‘catastrophe’ that threatens to upend and ruin them are far easier to keep under the thumb, to marshal, to own, to control. It’s a travesty.
The post How the Greenland ice sheet ‘really’ fared this year appeared first on Clintel.
New peer reviewed paper: climate sensitivity a third lower (Climate Etc. version)
by Nic Lewis reposted from Climate Etc.
Official estimates of future global warming may be overstated.
A brief summary in press release style of my new paper (written in the third person)
One of the most important conclusions of the recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) was to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since 1979, the likely range (66% chance) of climate sensitivity has been between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. This range has remained stubbornly wide, until the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range to be between 2.5°C and 4.0°C.
A new paper by independent scientist Nic Lewis published in the journal Climate Dynamics challenges the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 about climate sensitivity. Lewis’ analysis reduces the magnitude of climate sensitivity by one third, relative to the range provided by the IPCC AR6. These results suggest that future global warming in response to fossil fuel emissions could be significantly less than has been assumed by policy makers.
In 2015, the World Climate Research Programme convened a Workshop aimed at reducing the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. The Workshop ultimately resulted in publication of a report (a 92 page paper) by many of the participants that thoroughly assessed all lines of evidence (Sherwood et al, 2020). A key result of this paper was to reduce the likely range of climate sensitivity values to 2.6 oC to 3.9 oC. While Lewis was an invited participant to the 2015 Workshop, he was not a coauthor on this paper. The Sherwood et al. paper strongly influenced the IPCC AR6’s assessment of climate sensitivity.
Lewis’ paper critiqued the methods used in the Sherwood et al. paper, finding significant errors, inconsistencies and other shortcomings. Lewis remedied these shortcomings and also revised key input data, almost entirely to reflect more recent evidence. The results of Lewis’ analysis determined a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7oC for climate sensitivity. The central estimate from Lewis’ analysis is 2.16 oC, which is well below the IPCC AR6 likely range. This large reduction relative to Sherwood et al. shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates are to input assumptions. Lewis’ analysis implies that climate sensitivity is more likely to be below 2 oC than it is to be above 2.5 oC.
The lower estimates of climate sensitivity determined by Nic Lewis have profound implications for climate models and projections of warming for the 21st century. Climate models used in the IPCC AR6 had values of climate sensitivity ranging from 1.8oC to 5.6oC. The IPCC AR6 judged that some of the climate models had values of climate sensitivity that were too high. Hence the AR6 selected only the climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity to be used in projections of 21st century climate change. Lewis’ analysis indicates that a majority of climate models used in the IPCC AR6 have values higher than the likely range.
Nic Lewis has authored ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. Lewis’ latest paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.
The post New peer reviewed paper: climate sensitivity a third lower (Climate Etc. version) appeared first on Clintel.
