The warming spike in 2023 has caused extraordinary reactions among climate scientists but also shows that nothing unusual is going on and everything fits into the “natural variability” calculated by climate models. [emphasis, links added]
Mika Rantanen and Ari Laaksonen, researchers at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, proved in their study (Reference 1) that September 2023 was the warmest with a difference of 0.5°C and that its occurrence is statistically very unlikely (in normal language impossible) to be caused by greenhouse gases.
NASA administrator Gavin Schmidt acknowledged in his World View article in the journal Nature on March 19, 2024, that in 2023 temperatures were 0.2°C higher each month than previous records, and because greenhouse gases have been able to raise temperatures from 2023 only 0.02°C, ”perhaps we are in uncharted territory”.
This statement was unexpected and extraordinary, expressed by a firm supporter of the IPCC science.
My study titled “The 2023 record temperatures: correlation to absorbed shortwave radiation anomaly” was published on April 25, 2023, in the journal Science of Climate Changes and shows that the cause of warming in 2023 after the temperature pause from 2015 onwards is fully known and can be verified based on satellite measurements.
My research shows that the IPCC does not accept the shortwave radiation values measured in its AR6 report in its warming calculations, but calculates that the resulting warming is caused by greenhouse gases only, i.e., makes a double error.
I showed that behind this climate science lies the wider problem of computer models, namely the positive feedback of water, which leads to the temperature values of computer models escaping far too high.
The absorbed solar radiation anomaly (ASR) has increased from 2001 to 2023 total of 1.81 W/m2, which is about the same as the radiative forcing (RF) value of the carbon dioxide in the AR6 in 2019.
The IPCC and leading climate researchers have not recognized the ASR even though it is based on direct satellite observations of the CERES satellites operated by NASA.
The admittance of the ASR value of 1.81 W/m2 would mean a temperature impact of 0.85°C, according to the IPCC science. If this value is added to the last warming value of 1.27°C in the AR6, the warming value would be 2.12°C.
This value would alert also the media about the validity of climate models, raising questions about the water feedback issue and the radiative forcing value of carbon dioxide at 560 ppm concentration: 3.93 W/m2 of the AR6 and 2.4…2,6 W/m2 reported by contrarian researchers.
Climate researchers have continued to study the trend of the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) as an explanation for increased ASR even though its accuracy issue is much more challenging than the ASR measurement accuracy.
Originally the EEI research studies were carried out to show that the extra energy received through the ASR anomaly increase has gone to the deep ocean. This explanation passed away since the global temperature increased anyway.
Climate researchers have no other choice than to continue this game as if the ASR is not capable of increasing temperatures. Not even when we know that 99.97 % of the energy of the Earth originates from the Sun.
The official message of the IPCC is that climate change is anthropogenic and the natural causes may have only short-term impacts like La Nina.
This figure depicts the global temperature (GISS), the ENSO temperature effect, carbon dioxide radiative forcing by the IPCC, and the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) change according to the CERES observations by NASA.
The temperature changes follow the ASR changes very well. ENSO temperature effects have about a six-month delay on the global temperature.
That is why the present La Nina temperature effects will have the maximum impact in May-June 2024 even though its maximum was in December 2023 and it can partially explain the exceptionally high temperatures of 2023.
The radiative forcing effect of carbon dioxide has been insignificant during 2013 – 2023 when compared to the ASR effect.
Antero Ollila holds an M.Sc. in Process Engineering, a Licentiate in Process Dynamics from Oulu University, and a Doctorate in Quality Management from Helsinki University of Technology. He has served in various industrial roles, including R&D Director and Quality Director, and is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Quality Management at Helsinki University of Technology. An active researcher since 2011, he has published 25 articles on climate change, focusing on the greenhouse effect, the warming impacts of greenhouse gases, the carbon cycle, the Earth’s energy balance, and climate simulations. He regularly writes at his site, Climate Exam.
Top photo by Nic Y-C on Unsplash
The clueslees author wrote:
“That is why the present La Nina temperature effects will have the maximum impact in May-June 2024 even though its maximum was in December 2023
December 2023 was the maximum (actually November 2023 through January 2024) of the 2023 El Nino. Not a La Nina
Absorbed solar energy increases can explain daytime TMAX warming but greenhouse gases are a much better explanation of TMIN warming at dawn. The majority of warming since 1975 was at TMIN, nit TMAX.
One cause of ASR would be the reduction of SO2 emissions since 1980 and the reduction of particulate matter in the atmosphere after 2011.
To make a rather self-evident point, the average surface temperature on Earth is that required to maintain an energy balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave infrared radiation. The Earth cannot, and does not, sustain an imbalance between energy in an energy out. Earth rapidly adjust’s its average surface temperature to whatever temperature is required to ensure that any imbalance is negated, from whatever change within the atmospheric and ocean system inside the radiative exchange system, such as CO2 or volcanic effects, or externalites such as solar change or asteroids, etc..
To assert otherwise is surely to misunderstand the most basic condition of thermal equilibrium in space. These arm waving wafflings, made up to satisfy the delusions of modellers, deny the most basic facts of planetary thermodynamics and natural equilibrium, because their whole belief system and language is a flawed pseudo science, not real, and doesn’t happen as predicted, ever.
Because it’s wrong, as a real scientist once said.