The coldest temperature on record was measured in Antarctica this last Southern winter. In addition 27 studies, reported at NoTricksZone, in the last 3 years confirm that Antarctica has been cooling for 4 decades.
Climate modeling was just awarded the Nobel Prize. But two German researchers prove that in climate research, observations are more important than calculations.
by Alex Reichmuth, on October 21, 2021, 5:00 a.m.
The satisfaction among the protagonists of man-made climate change was huge when the Nobel Prize Committee awarded at least half of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics to the American Syukuro Manabe and the German Klaus Hasselmann. The two researchers are pioneers of so-called climate modeling - the attempt to trace and predict climate developments using mathematical models.
Nobel laureate Syukuro Manabe
The prize is a recognition “that our knowledge of the climate rests on a solid foundation, based on a rigorous analysis of observations,” praised Thors Hans Hansson of the Nobel Prize Committee when the award winners were announced. The “Tages-Anzeiger” wrote of “balm for the battered souls of climate researchers”. It is now "even more difficult to ignore and discredit climate research". The climate models were based on “solid physics”.
But, ... climate models fail
With so much hand-clapping, they forgot how massive the scientific problems associated with climate modeling are. This was recently revealed again with CMIP6 models, which are the basis of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report of August. The CMIP6 models are unable to correctly trace the real temperature development of past decades and they “simulate” warming much greater than seen in real measurements. So, one cannot trust these models to correctly predict future warming. The IPCC still relied on them (see here ).
Nobel laureate Klaus Hasselmann
Steven Koonin is a critic of climate modeling, he's a well-renowned American physicist and climate researcher who was Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, under US President Barack Obama and who just published a “climate-skeptical” book. He notes that the climate models fail again and again because they fail to prove any human influence on global warming. Disagreements among individual climate models show that “science is far from being settled” (see here and here ).
NASA project Ceres data shows:
Real data questions climate model projections time and again, as found by German researchers Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal in a new study, just published in the scientific journal “Atmosphere”. Vahrenholt and Dübal were originally chemists, but have been intensively involved with climate science in recent decades.
Climate researcher and author Steven Koonin
The study is based on data from US space agency NASA's “Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System” (Ceres). Since 1998, Ceres used satellites to record radiation falling on and emitted by earth. The project gaols include a better understanding of the role of clouds and the Earth's radiation balance with regard to global warming.
Cloud cover decreased by 2 percent
And it's precisely this data from Ceres that spikes the man-made climate change hypothesis. Vahrenholt and Dübal concluded that man-made greenhouse effect increase isn't the main cause of warming over the last 20 years, but a 2% fall in cloud cover, over this time, is (see here ). According to Vahrenholt and Dübal, sparser clouds led to more solar short-wave radiation reaching the earth's surface. And this solar radiation increase was the biggest driver of global warming.
Fritz Vahrenholt, chemist and climate researcher
NASA researchers led by Norman Loeb and the Finn Antero Ollila also point out, in their studies, that short-wave solar radiation increased from 2005 to 2019 due to the decrease in low-lying clouds (see here and here ). Dübal and Vahrenholt looked at radiation fluxes for the whole period from 2001 to 2020 - fluxes: both near the ground and at 20 kilometer altitude - and compared these fluxes to cloud cover changes.
The greenhouse effect only had a small impact
Satellite data from Ceres show short-wave radiation emitted by clouds to space decreased by around 2% in both the northern (NH) and southern hemispheres (SH). With almost constant solar radiation, this means that more short-wave radiation reached the earth's surface and drove warming.
Source: Vahrenholt / Dübal
At the same time, the proportion of long-wave radiation re-emitted back to earth from the atmosphere (the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE) warmed earth far less. According to Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal, this increased greenhouse effect has even been largely compensated for by the afore-mentioned decrease in cloud cover (which itself will give less of a GHGE): The decrease in clouds has led to more long-wave radiation from the earth reaching space.
IPCC rely on model calculations instead of real data
The study results from these 2 German researchers contradict IPCC claims, according to which the observed warming happeded entirely due to a stronger greenhouse effect (AKA man-made warming). The IPCC attribute 100% of warming (all of it) to humanity via this modelled increased greenhouse effect - but don't justify their statements with actual data. They only use model calculations.
«Warming of the last 20 years was caused far more by cloud changes than by the 'consensus' greenhouse effect.»
Study authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal
In their study, Vahrenholt and Dübal also investigated the source of greater heat absorption seen by earth. Different explanations of this can quickly befuddle laypeople: Based on changes in so-called Enthalpy of the climate system and the ocean heat absorption, they found that since 1850 there were 2 warming surges on earth, each lasting 20 to 30 years. A third warming surge began in 1990 and continues to this day. The start of these 1st 2 warming surges synced with changes in the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation, AMO, a natural periodic ocean current flow in the Atlantic that significantly changes climate.
The end of the warming surge could mean the end of global warming
The 3rd warming surge coincides in time with the cloud decrease seen. Measurement data for the coming years will have to clear-up whether this warming boost, like the 2 before it, will end soon. If it's over soon, global warming is likely to end and the propagandized “climate crisis” will fail.
It's still not clear what causes of the cloud thinning we see. According to the study authors, changes in ocean currents are cited as possible causes in the literature, but also a decrease in aerosols in the air and warming due to more CO₂ in the atmosphere. Vahrenholt and Dübal emphasize: "The warming of the last 20 years was caused more by changes in the clouds than by the consensus greenhouse effect." We call on the IPCC to review its results.
