Studies That ‘Confirm’ Humans Cause Climate Rely On Imaginary-World Conditions In Their Calculations

To claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions drive global warming, radiative forcing modeling studies must assume 1) clouds do not ever change, 2) cloud albedo is constant, and/or 3) clouds do not exist. None of these are real-world conditions.

The real atmosphere is what scientists refer to as all-sky, an atmosphere where clouds not only exist but they are present 70-90% of the time.

In the real world clouds also “regulate the Earth’s climate,” as they are “the most important parameter controlling the radiation budget, and, hence, the Earth climate” (Sfîcă et al., 2020, Lenaerts et al., 2020).

Image Source: Sfîcă et al., 2020 and Lenaerts et al., 2020

Studying all the factors contributing to Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) means we must consider the controlling, regulating dominance of the cloud radiative effect. Isolating selected factors like well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) while simultaneously excluding the cloud radiative effect only serves to advance a narrative about what is believed to occur an imaginary world where clouds are constant or do not exist.

Succinctly, an all-sky atmosphere analysis means cloud radiative effects are included in the calculations. A clear-sky analysis excludes the radiative effect of clouds.

Modeling studies purporting to isolate the radiative effect of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases can only refer to clear-sky conditions – an Earth atmosphere that does not exist in reality.

Recently, Kramer et al. (2021) has received a lot of attention as a study robustly supporting the claim we humans have been and continue to control the climate with our CO2 emissions. They use a modeling “technique” that is claimed to isolate the human contribution to the radiative forcing from the “total radiative changes” from 2003 to 2018.

“We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period.”

However, the authors acknowledge that to arrive at their conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant radiative forcing factor, their modeling calculations can only apply to an imaginary-world, clear-sky-only atmosphere. They admit radiative modeling for an all-sky world is “not possible.” So they assume clouds are constant, and that cloud albedo variations neither exist or affect climate. Hence, their study does not use real-world observational evidence; it only uses modeled calculations for a world that does not exist in reality.

“For all-sky conditions, an analogous calculation…requires the [instantaneous radiative forcing from all factors affecting climate] be known, [and thus] this differencing technique is not possible.”

“…we estimate Cl [cloud cover] is a constant…”

“For the [longwave impact from clouds] we use a constant of 1.24, derived from dividing clear-sky and all-sky double-call radiative transfer calculations of CO2 [instantaneous radiative forcing] from models.”

“This conversion to all-sky conditions accounts for the presence of clouds but not cloud changes. Therefore, the [instantaneous radiative forcing] in this study does not include aerosol-cloud interactions, such as cloud albedo effects.”

Image Source: Kramer et al., 2021

Feldman et al. (2015) is another study that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) apologists often claim provides “observational” evidence of the dominance of CO2 forcing in climate change. But, of course, this widely-heralded study also only has radiative calculations applying to an imaginary world where clouds do not exist (clear-sky). The authors even admit in the abstract that CO2’s radiative effects can only impact 10% of the longwave forcing trend in clear-sky.

Image Source: Feldman et al., 2015

Song et al. (2016) provide an excellent illustration of the reason why AGW-promoting studies only reference imaginary-world, clear-sky conditions and simultaneously exclude real-world conditions, or all-sky.

From 2003-2014, the total greenhouse effect forcing trend can be shown to be positive (blue) – but only for clear-sky conditions where CO2 and water vapor are presented as the drivers. This supports the position that rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases are enhancing the greenhouse effect as they rise.

But clouds exist, and all-sky is reality. And, in contrast to the clear-sky trend, the all-sky greenhouse effect impact (where clouds are considered as a radiative forcing factor in climate) is negative (red). The greenhouse effect is not enhanced, but devolves to a decline or a “hiatus” when clouds are considered.

“Therefore, although the greenhouse effect can be enhanced by increasing GHGs and water vapor in the atmosphere, it can be weakened by decreasing clouds. If these two actions offset each other, a hiatus of the global greenhouse effect will result.”

Image Source: Song et al., 2016

Of course, AGW apologists do not want us to see what happens when we fail to pretend clouds do not exist, or that clouds are not variable, but constant. They know cloud radiative effects destroy the humans-did-it narrative.

13 responses to “Studies That ‘Confirm’ Humans Cause Climate Rely On Imaginary-World Conditions In Their Calculations”

  1. Wolfgang Richter

    The Jan T. M. Lenaerts et al. paper writes that the ice sheet of greenland is melting accelarated. That’s right for the period to the year 2012, as the paper does. But since then the melting is decelarating. The linearized data of the TMB (Total Mass Balance) of the ice sheet from 2012 to 2023 is positive and shows a relative fast decreasing ice loss.
    The data can be found in the last report from the polarportal: Polar Portal Season Report 2023, page 5, Figure 5.

  2. David Hamilton Russell

    Thermalization proves that the GHE is 1/200th of what the consensus states:

    Consensus: GHGs absorb IR energy from the surface and re-radiate half of it back to the surface.

    Reality: Premise: 1) GHGs make up less than 0.5% of the atmosphere; 2) but all molecules at any given altitude have the same temperature. Therefore:

    GHGs absorb IR from the surface, use 99.5% of it to warm the other 99.5% of the air via molecular collisions (conduction) and radiate the residual 0.5% of what they absorbed.

    Thus the GHE is 1/200th of the consensus belief (0.5% over 100% = 1/200th).

  3. oebele bruinsma

    As stated years ago, models are equivalent to opinions, as opinions set the various variables operating in the models. As opinions are of no importance in scientific endeavours, models and their outputs are opinions or hot air so to speak.

    1. David Hamilton Russell

      Climate models are process models, not designed to make predictions. However their masters torture them until they do.

  4. Dr. Karl E. Spees (MD)

    Oxygen Offsets
    ‘If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.’ W. C. Fields

    The oxygen (O2) cycle requires carbon dioxide (CO2) to work. Some simplifications will be used to make this understandable.

    Humans require oxygen to survive. Trees require carbon dioxide to survive. CO2 is tree food. The earth’s atmosphere contains 20% oxygen (a lot) and 1/25 of 1% (400 ppm) carbon dioxide (very little).

    Trees take in the scarce CO2 gas; they keep the C (carbon) and release the O2 gas. Trees are largely made of Carbon in long-chain-molecules (solid or wood). A fully loaded log truck can carry 50 tons of timber or carbon aka ‘long-chain carbon-molecules’ (wood).

    Each pound of CO2 (carbon dioxide) has 0.73 pounds of O2 and 0.27 pounds of C (carbon).

    It takes 183 tons of CO2 gas to make 50 tons of logs. Each timber harvest requires many truck loads to get the job done. Young replanted forests require even more food or CO2 per acre.
    Forests desperately need tree food or the scarce, essential, atmospheric gas CO2 to grow and thrive.

    If the politicians and mainstream media can convince the general public that men have menstrual periods and give birth, convincing them that humans are destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels should be as easy as falling off a log…truck.

    Dr. Karl Spees

    Please share with your friends and neighbors.
    K of PA
    ***

  5. Studies That ‘Confirm’ Humans Cause Climate Rely On Imaginary-World Conditions In Their Calculations - Climate- Science.press

    […] From NoTricksZone […]

  6. Petit Barde

    Song et Al. 2016 let me unimpressed :

    they use a GHG effect parameter Ga which definition is given :

    Ga = sigma * Ts^4 – OLR

    where :
    – sigma : Stefan constant
    – OLR : outgoing long radiation

    This definition of GHG forcing (also used by the IPCC) is not based on physics mainly because it compares apples to bananas :
    – OLR is a radiative energy transfer from the atmosphere to the space (the back radiation of the 4K space is insignificant),
    – sigma * Ts^4 is a mere radiative flux which is not a radiative energy transfer. Moreover, sigma * Ts^4 use implicitly carries the assumption that the Surface behaves as a black body : this is wrong.
    – The actual energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is the difference between the upward and the downward fluxes which is 17 W/m² according to the NASA Earth energy budget, certainly not sigma * Ts^4 which is some 390 W/m².

    Thus, a correct Ga should be Ga = (Radiative energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere) – OLR ~ 17-150 = -133 W/m².

    1. David Hamilton Russell

      With respect, 17W/M2 is nowhere close. If it were we would all quickly fry.

  7. ROSEMARY BEHAN

    To Whomever runs this site .. congratulations .. you have persistence and patience!!!!

  8. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove

    […] No Tricks Zone: Studies That ‘Confirm’ Humans Cause Climate Rely On Imaginary-World Conditions In Their Calculations […]

  9. Mercury

    The “scientists” who run these models know that they don’t reflect reality, yet they use and promote them anyway. This is not science, it is dishonesty. Does integrity ever make an appearance in the world of climate change?

  10. Studien, die „bestätigen“, dass der Mensch Klimaänderungen verursacht, stützen sich bei ihren Berechnungen auf eine imaginäre Welt. - EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  11. 536 AD: How Did Humanity Survive The Worst Year In History? – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Studies That ‘Confirm’ Humans Cause Climate Rely On Imaginary-World Conditions In Their Calculat… […]

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

Close