yakmatt

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

I left the graph and data off and just pasted the stuff most of us can read. And please no politics.


Abstract. In this paper we will provet hat GCM-modelsusedinIPCCreport AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
. Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature

The basic task is to divide the observed global temperature anomaly into two parts: the natural component and the part due to the green house gases. In order to study the response we have to re-present Figure TS.12 from Technical Summary of IPCC AR5 report (1). This figure is Figure 1. Here we highlight the subfigure “Land and ocean surface” in Figure 1. Only the black curve is an observed tem- perature anomaly in that figure. The red and blue envelopes are computed using climate models. We do not consider computational results as experimental evi- dence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other

Data section in the link

The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1àC because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01àC.

3. Conclusion

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24àC. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

TheRealMacGyver

spraynet 1

The like button is my entire contribution to this thread.

Mod 7, 9, & 11 That should make you all very happy!

alfnator

lol

GaryDoug

Ridiculous. The studies start no earlier than 1970 (or 1985). Way too short a time to be of any significance. And involving P. Malmi; are you kidding? Most of you deniers need to do some research on this instead on jumping to idiotic conclusions.

NCSUboater

The time humans have been analyzing meteorological data in general is way too short to draw any conclusions from... Never mind the fact that the supposed "warming" between, say, the late 1800s and now is within the margin of error of the instruments taking the readings (and that band gets wider the further you go back in history).

So basically...nobody knows anything either way.

cdrhoek

savage

I believe that my high tide normal level has risen by about six inches in the last seven years.
However - this observation isn't published, so just take this information as what I've seen out back.

Marlin308

GaryDoug

You are so funny even thought you are not trying! Do you even know who P. Malmi is?

billinstuart

This, 100% Too short a sampling time.

I've carried to the next level..global darkness. Since the end of June, daylight hours are becoming shorter!!! At this rate, we're gonna be in 24 hour darkness by next summer!!! Temperatures will drop, life will die out.

billinstuart

And mine hasn't risen noticibly in 20 years. I'm a hundred miles from Miami, which is flooding. Real simple..Miami is SINKING!

NCSUboater

No your pier is frost heaving so it's covering up the sea level rise.

1976K204x4

Because we eat to many steaks

triplenet

I recall scientists in the 70's claiming the next Ice Age was coming..... Guess that didn't pan out......

Lets be real - I would assume everyone would agree that humans attribute to the climate -burning fuel, cutting down Forrests, etc ..

But as said, to take a 100 year sample of a 5 billion year old planet seems a bit limited to me ...

Cracker

I remember learning as a child that the earth is ALWAYS CHANGING....Climate change is a natural phenomenon..

xlr8ngn

So which is more likely. We are changing the weather of the earth, or a small segment of men are claiming climate change for money and power?

Fish'nFool

We can only hope!

Uncas

Climate change concerns are just about who can best control the weather.

Fish'nFool

We can't even accurately predict the weather a week out and yet we are expected to believe certain "scientists" can pinpoint the causation and forecast something as complex as the changing global climate?