Data in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that Earth’s warming trend over the past two decades may not be attributable to human-related activity. [emphasis, links added]
Experts analyzing the report point to changes in the planet’s albedo — the fraction of the Sun’s energy reflected by Earth — as the factor driving the rise in global temperatures.
Albedo fluctuations have caused Earth to reflect less solar energy and absorb more, leading to the warming trend frequently cited by activists, advocates, and policymakers focused on addressing climate change.
As global leaders increasingly pursue aggressive policies to mitigate climate change, data suggesting human activity is not the primary driver could reshape public policy worldwide.
In a recent interview with SCNR, Ned Nikolov, Ph.D., a scientist specializing in climate, cosmology, and astrophysics, expressed concerns about the integrity of IPCC reports, accusing the panel of manipulating climate data.
Nikolov’s research, based on satellite data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project, reveals the IPCC misrepresented trends in solar and long-wave radiation by inverting the data.
He argues that instead of accurately depicting that the Earth is absorbing more solar energy due to reduced cloud cover — an observation supported by NASA — the IPCC altered the data to show the opposite, suggesting less absorbed solar energy.
Nikolov argues that this data inversion is no accident and suggests that the IPCC may have deliberately falsified this data to fit the widely accepted narrative of man-made climate change.
The IPCC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While working on a paper using CERES satellite data, I discovered that the latest IPCC Report grossly misrepresented CERES observations of reflected solar and outgoing LW radiation.
In Chapter 7 of WG1 Contribution, Fig. 7.3 shows INVERTED trends of reflected solar & LW fluxes! pic.twitter.com/lJqO0g7gVG— Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. (@NikolovScience) June 21, 2024
Nikolov contends that all of the warming observed in the past 24 years can be explained solely by increased solar energy absorption, not by rising CO2 levels or greenhouse gases.
“And this, this is not my theory,” he reiterated. “It comes directly from satellite data that NASA has provided. It’s on their website.”
He also pointed out broader implications for climate science, asserting that greenhouse gases like CO2 have a negligible effect on global warming compared to the role of atmospheric pressure.
Karl Zeller, a climate scientist and Nikolov’s longtime research associate, criticized the IPCC’s data interpretation, noting that their models present misleading trends by inverting the actual measurements, showing an increase in albedo.
He told SCNR that these discrepancies arise from how the IPCC calculates anomalies, which drastically changes the findings.
The two scientists have developed a regression equation based on satellite data that predicts temperature changes resulting from variations in solar energy input.
Their research suggests that most recent warming can be attributed to changes in solar radiation, not to greenhouse gases, as is widely accepted.
They recently published their findings in the peer-reviewed journal Geomatics, concluding that the data “measured by CERES explain 100 percent of the observed global warming trend and 83 percent of the interannual GSAT variability over the past 24 years, including the extreme 2023 heat anomaly,” which NASA stated was the warmest year on record.
“These findings call for a fundamental reconsideration of the current paradigm of understanding climate change and related socioeconomic initiatives aimed at drastic reductions of industrial carbon emissions at all costs,” they wrote.
Despite the significance of their conclusions, Nikolov noted the lack of response from the broader scientific community, attributing it to political and financial interests that may hinder open discussion on the issue.
He called for greater transparency and scrutiny of climate data moving forward.
The pair’s research highlights the potential collapse of the anthropogenic global warming narrative if these discrepancies are widely acknowledged.
But, Nikolov acknowledges the difficulty in challenging such a deeply entrenched global consensus, as most media outlets and scientific institutions are reluctant to address these findings.
Read more at SCNR
Net Zero Policies Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature, But Disastrous Effects on People Worldwide.
Oct. 13, 2024.
References.
(1)“Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase”: by Drs. R. Lindzen, W. Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, Dated June 11, 20
(2) Methane and Climate by Drs. W. A. van Wijngaarden and W, Happer.
(3) co2 coalition: Expert Opinion prepared for The Foundation of: “The Environment and Man” The Court of Appeals, The Hague, Netherlands.
(4) Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022.
(5) Hurricane Climatology. Wikipedia: There are three main components critical to the formation of a hurricane. They are warm water, moist warm air and light upper winds. A hurricane begins when large masses of warm water and moist warm air come in contact with cooler air. This collision prompts the warm water vapor to cool down very fast and condense, eventually forming dense storm clouds and emptying out as heavy rain. The annual number of tropical cyclones worldwide remains about 87 ± 10.
About the Authors.
Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.
Dr. W. A. Van Wijngaarden is a full professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York. His research specialties are: high-precision laser spectroscopy, laser cooling and atom trapping, ultracold atoms, Bose-Einstein condensation. pollutant monitoring, and climate change.
Dr. Steven Koonin, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute
at Stanford. Before joining Hoover in 2024, he was a professor at New York University, with appointments in the Stern School of Business, the Tandon School of Engineering, and the Department of Physics. He founded NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, which focuses research and education on the acquisition, integration, and analysis of big data for big cities.
Approximately 140 Independent Scientific Teams (Sponsored by the NO TRICKS ZONE BLOG) – Detailing The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. An update of a previous paper: “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”.by Pierre Gosselin. Associate Degree in Civil Engineering. Vermont Technical College and a BS Degree in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Nota Bene. This paper has been prepared to ensure Governments and Citizens are fully informed of this important Scientific Analysis and its consequences.
The Issue. The issue is the assumption that climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by humans. This however is contradicted by the “scientific method” and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data. Mainly by the UN.
Carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat, which decreases rapidly as CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere increases. This scientific fact about CO2 changes everything about the common view of CO2 and climate change. It means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the “main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
Currently, carbon dioxide is a weak Greenhouse Gas. At today’s concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be will be even smaller. Thus, to repeat, the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Neither can greenhouse gases of methane or nitrous oxide, the levels of which are so small that they are Irrelevant to climate.
In addition, referring to additional atmospheric CO2 as “carbon pollution” is complete nonsense. Quite the contrary it does two beneficial things for humanity .(1) it provides a slight increase in temperature, much less than natural fluctuations. (2) it creates more food for people worldwide.
What Does All This Mean?
First – Net Zero Efforts Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature. More of the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 will increase temperature, but only slightly. How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases affect radiation transfer are described by precise physical equations that have never failed to describe observations of the real world. Application of these formulas to the massive efforts by the US and worldwide to reduce CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 are contained in a paper that is recommend to those with a technical background. They show that all efforts to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully implemented, will have a trivial effect on temperature.
For North America, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.02 deg. F with no positive feedback and only 0.06 deg. F with positive feedback of 4 that is typically built into the models of the United Nations international Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Worldwide, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.13 deg. F or 0.50 deg. F with a factor of 4 positive feedback.
Second – Net Zero Policies will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide. In Canada, the United States and worldwide, Net Zero regulations and subsidies will have disastrous effects. Chief among them would be the proposed elimination of fossil fuels which would mean doing away with internal combustion engines for transportation and other uses, the power plants that provide most of the world’s electricity, gas space heaters, furnaces, cooking stoves and the feedstocks for nitrogen fertilizers that enable the feeding of nearly half the global population. The resulting economic devastation would include massive job losses, which already has occurred in places where Net Zero subsidies and regulations have diverted capital away from investments into productive assets and into ineffective technologies such as wind and solar energy as has already been indicated by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Those hostile to fossil fuels ignore overwhelming evidence that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from their combustion has significantly greened the Earth and boosted crop production.
In addition, various countries will require electric vehicles (EV’s). heat pumps and electric appliances be purchased. They will require companies to report information on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, since more carbon dioxide causes trivial and beneficial warming, this data is immaterial, misleading and very expensive in managerial time and dollars. It should not be required.
Third- More CO2 Means More Food. Contrary to common reporting, more carbon dioxide increases the amount of food available to people worldwide, and is particularly helpful in drought-stricken areas. Doubling carbon dioxide to 800 ppm for example will increase global food supplies by approximately 60%.
Thus, carbon dioxide emissions should not be reduced, but increased to provide more food worldwide. Moreover, there is no risk of catastrophic global warming or extreme weather because carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the amount of food available to people worldwide and produce no benefit to the climate.
Fourth – Fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Net Zero requires that fossil fuels be eliminated because they account for 90% of human-induced CO2 emissions. However, the elimination of fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate since carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. The use of fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Rather it should be expanded because they (1) provide more carbon dioxide which makes more food (2) are used to make nitrogen fertilizer that enables the feeding of about half of the world’s population, and (3) provide reliable and inexpensive energy for people everywhere, especially for the two-thirds of the world’s population without access to electricity.
Conclusion – All Net Zero carbon dioxide regulations and subsidies in the United States, Canada and worldwide must be stopped immediately to avoid disastrous effects on North Americans and people throughout the world especially in developing countries.
Alastair Allan, Former Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Government, Science and Engineering, Military Procurement (Retired).
Total BS from a fool names Nikolov
Most warming since 1975 was at night, in higher latitude N.H. nations and in the coldest six months of the year.
Stratosphere is cooling since 1980
Antarctica is not melting
All are symptoms of greenhouse warming, and the opposite of symptoms of solar warming.
There are no data to measure the actual amount of solar energy blocked by clouds.
If there is less cloudiness (measured changes using proxy data are statistically insignificant), then nights would be getting cooler. But they are getting warmer.
You call Dr Nikolov a fool. And so “Dr Greene”, what is your educational background to call him that? And where did he say that Antarctica is melting?
Ritard Greene hijacked CAGW, called it his own, then to differentiate himself from all the other wild-eyed screaming climate loons, he claims that his brand of warming is actually good. That’s it, that’s his entire schtick.
On his website, he’s recently dedicated himself to attacking conservatives. He leaps to the defense of leftist woketards, argues from the perspective of warmists, defends consensus ‘science’ as the warmists do, accepts every warmist premise, arrives at the same conclusions as warmists, but then flips it to claim that it’s good for you… so you should definitely subscribe to warmism because it’s so good.
He’s a closeted leftist and a warmist attempting to trick legitimate skeptics over to the side of warmism.
As I show here:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
… he’s also just as wrong as the warmists. He keeps claiming that I’m wrong, but every single time he tries, I hammer his pointy little head into the ground with facts, scientific reality and irrefutable maths. LOL
Yeah, he drops in every once in a while to shower us with his vast intellect while providing anything to show us what his educational background is to justify us believing anything he spews. Kinda like every politician pushing AGW as settled science (not understanding there’s no such thing as “settled science”). And every prediction they have told us was going to happen has NOT happened but just hoping the ignorant masses won’t notice that they have just move the “goal posts” once again when their predictions were as BS as they are.
The Kook is a science denying Nutter who claims humans have no effect on the climate and there is no greenhouse effect. In my 28 years of reading I have only found one scientist who denied the greenhouse effect: A Canadian geography Pd.D.fool names Tim Ball.
The Kook is a similar crackpot with crazy theories Piled High and Deep..
I don’t just “claim” it, Ritard Greene… I prove it… mathematically, scientifically, irrefutable.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. The energy density gradient determines radiant exitance of graybody objects.
For you to deny this fundamental scientific truth means you deny 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense… you must claim that energy can flow without work being done, and therefore conversely you must also claim that work can be done without energy having to flow… because you don’t understand the scientific principles upon which you propound as a supposed ‘expert’, you don’t understand thermodynamics, you don’t understand much of anything. LOL
Your appeal to authority logical fallacy simply proves you can not refute anything I wrote.
Nikolov’s PhD is for Ecological Modeling.
What does that have to do with atmospheric physics?
2016 Washington Post: A paper published in the journal Advances in Space Research has been withdrawn following the revelation that the authors used pseudonyms. Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, independent researchers, had developed a mathematical model for calculating a rocky planet’s surface temperature. According to their model, Earth is warming not because of human activities but because of solar radiation and Earth’s atmospheric pressure. However, due to the controversial nature of their assertion and the heated discussions that an earlier paper of theirs had caused, they worried that no journal would publish the study. So they submitted and published their paper under the names Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez, their actual names spelled backward. Although the pair claim they only wanted to avoid the bias inherent in the peer-review system, their use of fake names has been denounced by fellow researchers as being “sneaky.”
IOW, climate researchers are such dullards that they cannot immediately see that “Den Volokin” is Ned Nikolov in reverse, and “Lrak Rellez” is Karl Zeller in reverse. Was it not immediately apparent to everyone reading those names? Just me? LOL
A friend of mine and I did that way back in parochial school. Mine was Evets Netnub. So 8th graders could figure it out but so-called “Climate Scientists” with PhDs can’t figure it out. But their complaining about the authors writing their names backwards after the paper was accepted shows what the authors were concerned about–the paper wouldn’t have been accepted.
The sun has more influance on our Weather then dose the Aircraft, SUV’s and Ships ever do its just today we have a a bunch of Eco-Freaks wanting to control our everyday lives from Cradle to Grave