Expert Climate Scientists Conclude From Historical Trends That Anthropogenic Factors Are Overweighted In Models

What follows is another paper to add to the list of 400 peer-reviewed papers published this year which show claims surrounding man-made global warming are in fact hyped up.

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On July 4 in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences an article by Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm  and Risto Jalkanen appeared and addressed an important issue. The warming of the last 150 years after the Little Ice Age is often gladly viewed as having 100% anthropogenic causes. Of course this makes little sense because the Little Ice Age was the coldest period of the last 10,000 years and was caused by natural factors such as solar weak phases and volcanic eruptions.

“IPCC makes a large mistake”

And when the sun again strengthens and volcanic eruptions remain at low levels, the earth warms up again. That there is an anthropogenic warming component of course should not be disputed. The warming of the last 150 years is due to a mix of natural and anthropogenic causes. Here the IPCC makes a large mistake when it assumes that the warming has been 100% anthropogenic.

In the study, Ogurtsov and fellow scientists compare the modern warming to the temperature history of the last 10,000 years. Here they find that there had been only a few similar warming phases when looking at the warming of the past 135 years. If one however considers that only half of that warming was natural, then similar warming phases occur on average every few centuries. The authors conclude that the natural component in the models must be taken into account much more. And conversely the role anthropogenic factors must be reduced correspo0ndingly so that a more accurate picture is attained when compared to the real temperature development.

The Abstract:

On the Possible Contribution of Natural Climatic Fluctuations to the Global Warming of the Last 135 Years
A number of numerical experiments with artificial random signals (the second order autoregressive processes), which have important statistical pro- perties similar to that of the observed instrumental temperature (1850-2015), were carried out. The results show that in frame of the selected mathematical model the return period of climatic events, analogous to the current global warming (linear increase of temperature for 0.95˚C during the last 135 years) is 2849-5180 years (one event per 2849-5180 years). This means that global warming (GW) of the last 135 years can unlikely be fully explained by inherent oscillations of the climatic system. It was found however, that natural fluctuations of climate may appreciably contribute to the GW. The return period of climatic episodes with 0.5˚C warming during the 135 years (half of the observed GW) was less than 500 years. The result testifies that the role of external factors (emission of greenhouse gases, solar activity etc.) in the GW could be less than often presumed.”


10 responses to “Expert Climate Scientists Conclude From Historical Trends That Anthropogenic Factors Are Overweighted In Models”

  1. tom0mason

    Theories and hypotheses in climate science have bound-up the thinking on the subject, away from many observations of reality, through the use of computer models. This subset of the ‘Philosophy of Science’ and it’s adherents believe they have ‘the’ answer to climate, but as Shakespeare said —

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ”

    This ‘Philosophy of Science’ is an attempt to organize the observed universe into a humanly understandable sense, and constrained it in our version of mathematical rigor. Unfortunately the universe is the sort of place that tends to defy the limits of human imaginings of such a stringent organizations.
    I would wager that there are both fewer things and more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in this philosophy, regardless of how enchanting the illusions appears.

  2. BoyfromTottenham

    The IPCC didn’t ‘make a mistake’ in attributing 100% of the claimed recent temperature rise to human activity, it was deliberate disinformation. Remember, the IPCC is NOT a scientific body, it is an unelected political organisation spouting propaganda.

    1. tom0mason

      So true on all counts. Increasing CO2 is good for the planet.

  3. RAH

    And then there is this:
    Essentially this latest National Climate Assessment report tells us that all the warming is due to man. IOW the report denies there is such a thing as natural variability. It also seems to forget that water vapor is the most potent “green house gas”. What a sad joke. Drain the damned swamp faster!

  4. yonason

    “…water vapor is the most potent ‘green house gas’.” – RAH

    And the kicker is, it ain’t that potent, actually cooling rather than warming.

    So, if the gorilla (H20 vapor) in the china cabinet is a wimp, how potent could the ant (CO2) possibly be? Not very, I think.

  5. BoyfromTottenham

    Did Pres Trump know this report was being published? If so, could he have stopped it? If he could have, why didn’t he?

    1. RAH

      I’m sure he knew. This “assessment” was started well before the election and a draft circulated months ago. The huge and political/governmental machine that drives the propaganda has many tentacles and many hearts and brains throughout the huge bureaucracy. It was not created in a day. It will take time, and in some cases, changes in laws and budgets by Congress to dismantle it.

      1. SebastianH

        Why are you guys want laws to change and a president to stop publishing of a report and on the other hand you find it outrageous that someone Sue’s someone else over science instead of debating? Don’t you find that strange?

        1. RAH

          “Science” is worth debating. Political/social trash propaganda created at the cost of billions of tax payers dollars needs to be exposed for what it is and those that created it held accountable for their fraud.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy