Warming Effect Reanalysis of Greenhouse Gases and Clouds

2020

PSIJ

Self Cite

The hiatus or temperature pause during the 21 st century has been the subject of numerous research studies with very different results and proposals. In this study, two simple climate models have been applied to test the causes of global temperature changes. The climate change factors have been shortwave (SW) radiation changes, changes in cloudiness and ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events assessed as the ONI (Oceanic Niño Index) values and anthropogenic climate drivers. The results show that a simple climate model assuming no positive water feedback follows the satellite temperature changes very well, the mean absolute error (MAE) during the period from 2001 to July 2019 being 0.073°C and 0.082°C in respect to GISTEMP. The IPCC's simple climate model shows for the same period errors of 0.191°C and 0.128°C respectively. The temperature in 2017-2018 was about 0.2°C above the average value in 2002-2014. The conclusion is that the pause was over after 2014 and the SW anomaly forcing was the major reason for this temperature increase. SW anomalies have had their greatest impacts on the global temperature during very strong (super) El Niño events in 1997-98 and 2015-16, providing a new perspective for ENSO events. A positive SW anomaly continued after 2015-16 which may explain the weak La Niña 2016 PSIJ, 24(2): 1-20, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.55149 2 temperature impacts, and a negative SW anomaly after 1997-98 may have contributed two strong La Niña peaks 1998-2001. No cause and effect connection could be found between the SW radiation and temperature anomalies in Nino areas. Original Research Article

Section: The Temperature Impacts Of Enso Eventsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Ollila Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pause End and Major Temperature Impacts during Super El Niños are Due to Shortwave Radiation Anomalies

2020

PSIJ

Self Cite

“…The contributors of the GH effect according to the published research studies are the absorbers of longwave (LW) radiation, which are the main GH gases and clouds. There are only a few comprehensive studies on this subject [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The author has recognized three studies applying all-sky conditions [7,8,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are only a few comprehensive studies on this subject [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The author has recognized three studies applying all-sky conditions [7,8,10]. In these studies, the percentages of three main contributors vary: for water, they range from 38% to 80.7%; for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from 12.9% to 26%; and for clouds from 1% to 39%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these studies, the percentages of three main contributors vary: for water, they range from 38% to 80.7%; for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from 12.9% to 26%; and for clouds from 1% to 39%. It should be noticed that in all studies above, the percentages of GH factors have been calculated from the LW absorption value, which varies from 125 Wm -2 to 158.3 Wm -2 [6][7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC

2019

PSIJ

Self Cite

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.

Challenging the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement

2019

IJCCSM

Self Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement. Design/methodology/approach The analyses are based on the IPCC’s own reports, the observed temperatures versus the IPCC model-calculated temperatures and the warming effects of greenhouse gases based on the critical studies of climate sensitivity (CS). Findings The future emission and temperature trends are calculated according to a baseline scenario by the IPCC, which is the worst-case scenario RCP8.5. The selection of RCP8.5 can be criticized because the present CO2 growth rate 2.2 ppmy−1 should be 2.8 times greater, meaning a CO2 increase from 402 to 936 ppm. The emission target scenario of COP21 is 40 GtCO2 equivalent, and the results of this study confirm that the temperature increase stays below 2°C by 2100 per the IPCC calculations. The IPCC-calculated temperature for 2016 is 1.27°C, 49 per cent higher than the observed average of 0.85°C in 2000. Originality/value Two explanations have been identified for this significant difference in the IPCC’s calculations: The model is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the positive water feedback does not exist. The CS of 0.6°C found in some critical research studies means that the temperature increase would stay below the 2°C target, even though the emissions would follow the baseline scenario. This is highly unlikely because the estimated conventional oil and gas reserves would be exhausted around the 2060s if the present consumption rate continues.