Absorbed solar radiation anomaly challenges the IPCC science

Summary

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 the leading climate researchers have not recognised the ASR even though it is based on direct satellite observations of the CERES satellites. Only Gavin Schmidt of NASA has admitted that the warming of 2023 could not be explained by climate models and ”we could be in uncharted territory”.

The admittance of the ASR value of 1.81 W/m2 would mean a temperature impact of 0.85 °C. 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. It would raise questions about the water feedback issue and the radiative forcing value of carbon dioxide of 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) even though its accuracy issue is much more challenging than the ASR measurement accuracy. Climate researchers have no other choice than to continue this game so that we do not react to the ASR trend as if it does not exist. But I am afraid that it will not disappear.

Introduction

The warming spike in 2023 has caused extraordinary reactions among climate scientists but also comment that nothing unusual is going on and everything fits into the "natural variability" calculated by climate models.

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 (extreme in modern parlance) unlikely to be caused by greenhouse gases. NASA administrator Gavin Schmidt acknowledged in an article in the journal Nature 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 vain 0.02 °C, Perhaps we are in uncharted territory. This statement was unexpected.

My study titled "The 2023 record temperatures: correlation to absorbed shortwave radiation anomaly" was published on 25.4.2023  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 report AR6 in its warming calculations, but calculates that the resulting warming is caused by greenhouse gases, i.e. makes a double error. I will show that behind this behaviour 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.

2019 warming according to IPCC

The IPCC's explanation of the temperature increase between 1750 and 2019, presented in AR6, Table 1, is hardly discussed in public.

Table 1. Warming causes according to the reports of AR5 and AR6 of the IPCC

 According to Table 1, aerosols and clouds have caused cooling from 2011 to 2019 because their radiative forcing has decreased from -0.82 W/m2 to -1.00 W/m2, which has a temperature impact of -0.09 °C according to the IPCC.   Aerosols and clouds affect the reflection of solar radiation back into space, the trend of which can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Changes anomalies of total solar radiation, reflection of solar radiation and absorption of solar radiation.

The absorption of solar radiation is the difference between the total solar radiation entering the Earth (approx. 340 W/m2) and the radiation reflected by the Earth (approx. 100 W/m2), which is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere (approx. 75 W/m2) and the Earth's surface (approx. 165 W/m2), so their sum of approx. 240 W/m2 is the energy flux received by the Earth from the Sun. The false claim that the atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation is constantly being made, but about 30% is absorbed by the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows that the amount of solar radiation has started to increase sharply since the temperature pause in 2014, so this is a significant increase in temperature caused by aerosols and cloudiness.

According to AR5, the total radiative forcing in 2011 was 2.34 W/m2, which caused a temperature increase of 1.17 °C, but the measured temperature was only 0.85 °C, an error of 35%. In 2019, the total radiative forcing was 2.70 W/m2 and the resulting warming was 1.27 °C (Table 1). According to the IPCC, the measured temperature was 1.29 °C, which means that the models calculated the temperature almost correctly. If something looks too good to be true, it's usually not true: in eight years, models and reality would have started to match! Worth checking out.

A simple analysis reveals that there is rot somewhere. According to the IPCC, the change in total radiative forcing between 2011 and 2019 totalled 0.36 W/m2, which caused a warming of only 0.17 °C according to IPCC science, but the total warming was 0.44 °C, Figure 2.

Figure 2. Change in surface temperature, temperature effect of ENSO, change in solar radiation and change in radiative forcing of carbon dioxide according to IPCC.

According to the IPCC's indicators, non-greenhouse gases have increased the temperature by 0.27 °C, which is only 39% of the total temperature change. For some reason, the IPCC completely "forgets" to state this fact in AR6, but instead presents with clear eyes that the warming in 2019 was mainly caused by greenhouse gases, which have been mitigated by a change in cloud cover by lowering the temperature by -0.09 °C.  In reality, therefore, the decrease in cloud cover has significantly increased the absorption of solar radiation according to Figures 1 and 2, but the IPCC calculates the opposite. Why is that?

According to IPCC science, the global warming potential of solar radiation between 2011 and 2019 would have been 0.47 °C/(W/m2)) * 0.36 W/m2 = 0.6 °C.  This would have raised the temperature calculated by computer models so high that the IPCC could not report it. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.  The IPCC succeeds because the media does not know basic calculations and does not dare to question anything related to IPCC science.

2023 warming

According to IPCC science, the average radiative forcing of carbon dioxide in 2019 was 2.16 W/m2 and in 2023 it was 2.28 W/m2.The change in solar radiation absorption (=ASR) from 2001 to 2023 has totalled 1.81 W/m2, which is 80 % of the radiative forcing value of carbon dioxide in 2023 calculated by the IPCC. Figure 3 shows the temperature simulation according to the IPCC's simple model and Ollila's model. The main difference is the positive feedback of water in the IPCC model, which is explained in the appendix, and provides a more detailed description of climate models.

Figure 3. Temperature change according to IPCC science and according to Ollila's climate model from 2001 to 2024.

The temperature increase from the comparison period 2001-2014 to 2023 was 0.52 °C (UAH, 2024).

According to the IPCC simple model, the corresponding temperature change is the sum of the following factors:

ASR change of 0.68 °C, CO2 forcing 0.22 °C and ENSO effect -0.01 °C, giving a total of +0.89°C, i.e. error +0.37°C.   The corresponding values in Ollila's model are: ASR change 0.39 °C, CO2 forcing 0.09 °C and ENSO effect -0.01 °C, total 0.47 °C, indicating error +0,05°C for UAH temperature.

The greatest increase in the ASR anomaly occurred after the end of the temperature pause of 2014. The average UAH temperature in 2015-2023 is 0.28 °C, the calculated temperature of Ollila's model is 0.39 °C and the IPCC model calculated average is 0.85 °C.   Both models track dynamic changes in temperature well by edri, confirming that the time constants of the dynamics are correct. The difference between the two models is mainly due to the water feedback mechanism in the IPCC model, which now takes into account the Asr anomaly.

During the simulation period 2001-2023, the albedo value ranged from 0.2937 to 0.2819 and, correspondingly, the climate sensitivity parameter λ without positive feedback of water ranged from 0.262 to 0.266 K/(W/m2)). This means that an average λ-value of 0.265 K/(W/m2)) is very suitable for use in simulations.

Final comment

An unexpected rise in temperature in 2023 has prompted bizarre statements. NASA administrator Gavin Schmidt admitted that climate models have not been able to explain the 2023 temperature rise. Rantanen & Laaksonen also did not give any reason for the temperature increase but concluded that the impact of the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga volcano has been only 0.02–0.07 W/m2 and the limit of sulphur emissions from ships only 0.02–0.06 W/m2, which cannot explain the temperature increase.

Experts have cited El Nino starting in 2023 as one of the reasons, but its temperature impact on 2023 temperatures compared to 2022 is only 0.06°C.  Professor Hannele Korhonen of the Finnish Meteorological Institute proposed in Hesar on 21.4.24: The year 2023 will be within temperature limits according to climate models, and the cause of the temperature rise is El Nino and greenhouse gases, but not a word about the absorption of solar radiation.

There is therefore no place for representatives of official meteorology to admit that a natural climate change factor has been included, namely the change in absorption of solar radiation, which, through the change in cloud cover (ASR), caused a radiative forcing of 2.01 W/m2 from 2001 to 2023 and is based directly on satellite measurements and not on a value calculated using models. That radiative forcing will be about 80% of the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide in 2023, according to IPCC science. According to the alternative road, the ASR value exceeds the value of carbon dioxide radiative forcing.

This phenomenon could be called climate data denialism, as climate researchers deny direct measurement data that differ from the effects of aerosols and clouds calculated using computer-based climate models, even to the point where the sign is the other way around, as in 2011-2019. On the other hand, opinions of climate scientists are beginning to be torn apart.

Figure 4. IPCC image of the ASR change according to CERES measurements (a) and the corresponding figure of the author for a slightly longer period. The correspondence is the same.

Figure 4 shows that the IPCC did note strong changes in the trend of solar radiation in its AR6 report, but they were not taken into account in the changes caused by radiative forcing calculated according to Table 1.

A kind of "empire strike back" was an article by Hansen et al. (Ref. 3), which had come to such a wild estimate that the actual climate sensitivity value of carbon dioxide (concentration 560 ppm) is in the order of 4.6 W/m2 and will cause a temperature increase of about 10 °C.  Since opinion pieces have been removed from this forum as well, apparently because someone has claimed that they contain the dissemination of false information, how should we deal with this scientific article by Hansen et al. It includes NASA Director Norman Loeb and Gunnar Myhre, whose CO2 radiative forcing value was used by the IPCC in three assessment reports. The values of my climate model differ relatively little from the official values of the IPCC compared to the values of these climate scientists.

But don't worry: Michael Mann (Ref. 4) rushed to defend the warming results calculated by the IPCC. This is starting to get interesting. Admittedly, mainstream media journalists have patches on their eyes and haven't noticed anything strange..

References.

1. M. Rantanen, A. Laaksonen, The jump in global temperatures in September 2023 is extremely unlikely due to internal climate variability alone. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 7, 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00582-9
   

2. A. Ollila, The 2023 record temperatures: correlation to absorbed shortwave radiation anomaly, Science of Climate Change, Vol. 4.1,  (2024). https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Olilla-Record-Temperature-2023.pdf 3. Hansen J, Sato M, Simons L et al. Global warming in the pipeline. Oxford Open Clim Chan 3(1), https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889 4. Comments on new articles by James Hansen. https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
   

Attachment. Simple climate models

In the IPCC model, the λ-value of the climate sensitivity parameter of 0,47 Wm-2 was applied, and the CO2 effect was calculated using equation (1), but other greenhouse gas effects were excluded because of their negligible temperature impact of about 0,02 °C over a 21-year simulation period.

dTs = λ * RF [°C]                                                           (1)

In Ollila's model, the radiative forcing of CO2 was calculated using the formula ERF = 3.83 ln(CO2/280)), resulting in an ERF value of 2.65 W/m2 for a concentration of 560 ppm (Ollila, 2023). The ASR value was calculated based on CERES' observations, the difference between TSI and SWup deviations. λ-value was calculated according to actual CERES observations (SWup / TSI). In both models, the effect of temperature on the ENSO effect is calculated from the ONI index by the equation dTs = 0.1 ONI with a delay of 6 months in the effect of temperature (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013; Ollila 2021). The dynamic ocean time constants were 2.74 months and the Earth 1.04 months (Stine et al.,2009).