Again to Fundamentals – Watts Up With That?

A few years in the past, I made a easy estimate of the temperature impact of the greater than 10% brightening over the past 4 a long time in The Netherlands [1]. The Royal Dutch Metrological Institute (KNMI) attributed solely 0.2^oC to that brightening [2], whereas my methodology resulted in about 1^oC. That would go away just one/3 of the noticed 1.5 ^oC warming to the impact of greenhouse gasses (GHG’s). I coupled “brightening” to much less clouds, and got here to an estimate for the sensitivity to cloud change (cc) of about 0.1 Ok/%cc.
Within the subsequent dialogue with the KNMI, the one argument towards my strategy boiled right down to: “subtle local weather fashions inform us one thing totally different, so your simplistic mannequin should be fallacious”. A number of different strategies to find out this cloud-sensitivity, all delivered comparable outcomes. Lastly, I concluded that KNMI referred to cloud-feedback outcomes from local weather fashions, whereas I used to be seeking to the impact of an impartial change in cloudiness. Subsequent, I in contrast each views towards present developments in cloudiness, floor temperatures, and so on. from satellite tv for pc knowledge [3]. When matched to developments in cloud-coverage, International Circulation Mannequin (GCM)-derived cloud-feedbacks delivered a local weather situation near a runaway state of affairs. Whereas my very own thought of an impartial forcing as a consequence of clouds performing as shutters (modulating photo voltaic enter) delivered very surprisingly, that the sum of all feedbacks exterior the essential Planck suggestions parameter, grew to become rapidly (virtually) zero [3].

These outcomes confirmed my notion that top values for local weather feedbacks usually are not actual however artifacts from local weather fashions. If temperature-induced feedbacks happen on account of elevated GHG’s, in itself a believable thought, they must be by definition “small”. Our local weather could be very secure and the Plank suggestions will accommodate any perturbation from a small forcing, even from 2xCO₂, simply. All these feedbacks ought to, and are for my part small, 2^nd order results, or already included in that parameter as confirmed by the end result of my suggestions evaluation [3]. For that cause, I additionally used a barely modified Planck suggestions parameter for the basic local weather sensitivity within the recurrent relation of the Local weather Mannequin Checker (CMC) in my WUWT-contribution “Outdoors the Black Field” [4].

However methods to show that the IPCC/GCM local weather sensitivities are basically fallacious?

That quest began with a type of “reverse engineering” of my CMC [4] utilizing the identical knowledge, T_S kind HadCrut5 [7], the greenhouse gasoline (GHG) forcing F_GHG from NASA/GISS [6] and calculate the local weather sensitivity as   ̶ 1/λ = ∆T_S/∆F_GHG (see eq.3 additional on) over the past century. With a view to use this sensitivity as a very good proxy to the Equilibrium Local weather Sensitivity ECS, lengthy durations of 15 years have been utilized for figuring out the typical slopes in T_S(t) and F_GHG(t). Outcomes are plotted in fig.1, however given the small ∆F_GHG values earlier than say 1920, one ought to take the values earlier than that point, not too severe.

The nonetheless rocky (black) curve exhibits that ∆T_S/∆F_GHG yields “any” worth for the local weather sensitivity, even detrimental ones throughout 1950-1975, the years of “International Cooling”

that local weather scientists appear to have forgotten.
Our local weather nonetheless, is fairly secure and accordingly, results from simply incremental quantities of additional GHG’s over a interval of 15 years, won’t alter the local weather sensitivity dramatically. If there was simply the AGW-effect warming our local weather, a clean step by step rising temperature profile was to be anticipated.
However what we see, seems fairly totally different. If we translate this – 1/λ worth of say the final decade 2010-2020 into a worth for the ECS, the sensitivity that the IPCC is utilizing of their communications, we get ~ 2^oC. That is the supposed temperature improve from doubling the pre-industrial 280 ppm CO₂ in line with ΔF_2xCO2 = 3.0 W/m² from Van Wijngaarden and Happer [8]. Round 1980 that ECS would have been solely about 1^oC, however in the direction of 1940 it will have been virtually 8^oC. To be adopted by an especially speedy decline in the direction of -2^oC across the fifties. International Cooling was “alarming” certainly.

As soon as, I criticized the CMIP6 forcings [4] as being too excessive, however tailored values would solely marginally change fig.1. It could anyhow present this “fingerprint” of pure causes for international warming. Not solely that different forcings are at play, but in addition that they should be bigger than the forcing by GHG’s. Until in fact, our local weather isn’t the very secure system that I assume. So, when Willis Eschenbach was so form to share his CERES-database on WUWT [5], I noticed instantly alternatives to check that stability assertion and a few hypotheses I developed since these workout routines described above.
That assertion can certainly be simply checked with the CERES knowledge over the interval 2000-2020. All vitality streams, both within the SW- or within the LW-channel are fully mounted to their prime streams SW_IN and LW_OUT respectively.I haven’t seen ratios for which the annual averages modified greater than about 0.3% over this era. Sturdy variations have been solely discovered between all sky and clear sky, with surprisingly totally different results of clouds in both channel, and memorable variations between Northern- and Southern Hemispheres. These very secure all sky ratios, present how well-controlled our local weather system in the end works. And that suggests, that we don’t must know a lot about what’s happening inside this “black field” that we name “local weather”, to know the consequences of perturbations.
This complicated local weather system mirrored in for example the Trenberth kind diagrams, is totally ruled by these two, spectrum-wise non-overlapping vitality flows SW_IN and LW_OUT, and their values at TOA. These flows solely “contact” one another on the Earth’ floor the place the primary is being transferred into the latter and all the opposite vitality flows are simply “good to know”.

However what about these giant local weather feedbacks? Fortuitously, being caught in an issue, there may be all the time a method out: “again to fundamentals”. And that climate-basics is fairly simple the relation between floor temperature T_S, incoming shortwave photo voltaic vitality SW_IN and outgoing longwave IR radiation LW_OUT, given by the Earth’ vitality steadiness on the prime of the environment (TOA) through:

C dT_S/dt = SW_IN – LW_OUT = F_TOA                                        (1)

In eq.1, C is the efficient thermal capability per floor space of the Earth’ system and T a system-characteristic temperature. In follow, the floor temperature T_S might be thought to be the attribute climate-temperature for apparent causes. In equilibrium, ∂T_S/∂t = F_TOA = 0.

I’m not going to repeat all of the steps that one can discover in any local weather science textbook, however merely state an important components derived from eq.1, beginning with the final assumption that adjustments in radiative flux at TOA are proportional to floor temperature adjustments:

∆F_TOA = λ∆T_S                                                                         (2)

a 1^st order linear relation between the temperature change ∆T_S and adjustments in radiative flux ∆F_TOA. It’s impartial from any assumption about what’s driving our local weather. The inverse of the fixed λ might be thought to be our fundamental local weather sensitivity. By introducing small perturbations in eq.1, so referred to as forcings ∆F we derive the well-known relation typically used to find out the local weather sensitivity:

– 1/λ = ∆T_S/∆F                                                                       (3)

During which ∆T_S is the change in floor temperature T_S, and ∆F the “forcing” that induces an imbalance. The time period λ, which ought to in precept be equal to the one in eq.2, is now referred to as a “suggestions”, in view of the local weather response to compensate that forcing, and is subsequently by conference “detrimental”. This eq.3 holds for an entire restoration of equilibrium and that’s solely at “infinity”. For a dynamic evaluation we regularly see this components with a denominator (∆F – ∆N) the place ∆N represents the (relaxation) imbalance at TOA. For a time interval of say 2-3x the thermal rest time of our planet, estimated at 3-5 years, one can assume ∆N to be small and eq.3 is sufficiently correct. I used eq.3 in fig.1 on this technique to calculate -1/λ as the worth of the local weather sensitivity to GHG-forcings.
The final vital relation for use is the expression for the Planck suggestions parameter:

– λ_PL = 4 SW_IN/T_S                                                                     (4)

The shortwave photo voltaic radiation SW_IN as utilized in eq.1. is in literature typically written as (1  ̶  α)Φ₀ with the albedo α and the typical photo voltaic depth Φ₀ in area. The Planck suggestions parameter λ_PL determines the way in which our local weather reacts to disturbances within the system. It’s the consequence of eq.2 for our current local weather and impartial from any assumptions apart from that the Stefan-Boltzmann legislation determines the LW vitality movement from the floor. Consequently, – 1/λ_PL also needs to be by definition our local weather sensitivity to disturbances like the consequences of GHG’s.

However apparently, local weather scientists produce other concepts. I shall come again on this situation, however first we’re going to apply eq.2 to research some CERES knowledge, specifically the radiation measurements at TOA. We’ll take a look at all sky knowledge solely.
In fig.2 the values for SW_IN and LW_OUT at TOA are plotted for the interval 2000-2020. These are shifting annual averages to suppress all short-term variations. However, they’re nonetheless slightly “rocky”, however their developments appear secure, and in common, going up. Their absolute values might be questioned for his or her accuracy, however I simply want their rather more dependable slopes.
We rewrite eq.2 for the local weather sensitivity as:

1/λ = (∂T_S/∂t)/(∂F_TOA /∂t)                               (5)

One can now instantly calculate the local weather sensitivity that ruled our local weather throughout that interval. With the slopes that the CERES knowledge present: ∂/∂t (SW_IN-LW_OUT) = 0.41 W/m²/decade (fig.2), and from ∂T_S/∂t = 0.125 Ok/decade, we calculate 1/λ = 0.30/Ok/W/m². I might even have used the UAH LT development of 0.13 Ok/decade, with 1/λ = 0.32/Ok/W/m² however that wouldn’t have modified the conclusion that 1/λ is remarkably near this “fundamental” Planck worth of – 1/λ_PL = 0.30 Ok/W/m² as derived from eq.4.

This can’t be a coincidence and clearly exhibits that the CERES knowledge don’t help the outcomes of GCM calculations: there are not any giant local weather sensitivities, nor important feedbacks. These CERES measurements affirm what fundamental local weather science predicts (if not prescribes), that our local weather is first and for all, managed by the inverse of the Planck suggestions parameter of about 0.3 Ok/W/m².

We will additionally take a look at the “stability” of the Planck suggestions parameter and see how that worth evolves over time. In fig.3, – 1/λ_PL is plotted vs. time, as calculated by eq.4 from the values derived from the CERES knowledge. To suppress noise, annual averages are used to calculate its worth (4SW_IN/T_S)^-1 over the interval 2000-2020. Fig.3 makes instantly clear the excessive stability of this local weather sensitivity (thoughts the size) with lower than 0.2% change over 20 years. However furthermore, it’s declining and that’s opposite to what might be anticipated from an amplified warming impact of a excessive ECS with giant feedbacks.
Since GHG’s don’t act on the SW-channel, the nominator of eq.4 must be fixed whereas the denominator ought to improve. That means:
– 1/λ_PL ought to improve with warming/time, if the AGW-hypothesis could be appropriate. It doesn’t.
It merely exhibits that theSW_IN element is rising as a substitute, as already clear from fig.2, and even quicker than the floor temperature T_S, can observe.

I haven’t put any model-assumptions within the above evaluation, however simply seemed to the information. And people knowledge don’t present any indicators of huge local weather sensitivities and/or giant feedbacks.
justify this with that “settled” local weather science? Let’s first look to how and why local weather feedbacks have been launched. The derivation of eq.2-4 relies on a linear approximation so, 2^nd order results may very well be the explanation to develop λ with additional phrases as these temperature feedbacks. However then, these 2^nd order feedbacks must be by definition, small.
On this case nonetheless, I assume these giant feedbacks to be only a postulate to “make up” for the distinction between remark/GCM calculation, and the outcome obtained by making use of eq.3 with λ_PL as proportionality. Fig.1 exhibits, that the latter merely delivers by far not sufficient warming since 1980. For the calculated temperature anomalies from GCM’s it’s even worse. Based on eq.3 we now have apparently a big inequality, which can’t be from a 2^nd order impact in our local weather’s response:

ΔT_S = – ΔF_GHG/λ_AGW  >> – ΔF_GHG/λ_PL                                (6)  

Right here the subscript AGW is used to point that this reasoning is coupled to the AGW-hypothesis the place all local weather adjustments are as a consequence of rising GHG’s solely. Now to get the “appropriate” warming related to this “recognized” forcing, the widely accepted resolution is to adapt the local weather sensitivity by introducing the idea of additional local weather feedbacks in line with:

λ_AGW = λ_PL + λ₁ + λ₂ + λ₃ + ….. = λ_PL + ∑ λ_i = λ_PL + λ_FB                 (7)

The Plank suggestions parameter retains enjoying its function, however it’s apparent from eq.6 that the mixed feedbacks λ_FB must be giant and with an reverse signal to λ_PL to get |λ_AGW| << |λ_PL|. Thoughts, that these mixed feedbacks show a “feedforward” character and thus, improve warming results from GHG-forcings to suit a higher-than-expected ΔT_S. The arguments that it is a good thought, are all very believable. Take the so-called Water Vapor suggestions λ_WV: rising GHG’s yield warming, which reinforces water-evaporation. Hotter air can comprise extra water vapor. Being a robust greenhouse gasoline itself, extra water vapor yields a better temperature. Or take the Albedo suggestions λ_AL: larger temperatures soften the polar caps, thus lowering the general reflection. Much less reflection implies extra photo voltaic vitality absorption by the Earth and so, it warms. These are all scientifically “sound” arguments.

However at what temperature will that feedforward mechanism lastly cease? Furthermore, we definitely had local weather adjustments prior to now with warming results comparable to those who GHG’s induce as we speak. So, these feedbacks ought to already be “half and parcel” of the Planck suggestions. What makes GHG-forcings then so particular? The evaluation of λ_PL and the local weather sensitivity derived from the CERES radiation imbalance knowledge, are giving a transparent reply: nothing particular! The true situation is: local weather sensitivity is a (close to) mounted parameter, and never a freely adaptable one relying on to the type of forcing at hand. Giant feedbacks are simply as a result of false impression that GHG’s are “the one present on the town”.

The inequality in eq.6 will also be restored by altering ΔF whereas retaining λ_AGW = λ_PL. Simply settle for one other forcing ΔF_SW subsequent to the GHG-forcing ΔF_GHG, as I did intuitively in analyzing cloud-effects [3]:

ΔT_S = – (ΔF_GHG + ΔF_SW)/λ_PL                           (8)

The subscript SW signifies a forcing that primarily acts on the SW_IN-channel in eq.1. That’s not by hypothesis, however the one choice to clarify the optimistic change in SW_IN in addition to LW_OUT, as in fig.2.
The AGW-hypothesis can merely by no means clarify an rising LW_OUT by rising GHG-forcings solely!
The reasoning behind that assertion is easy: though ΔF_SW and ΔF_GHG are each forcings that improve the floor temperature, they show slightly totally different “fingerprints” at TOA. A GHG-forcing ΔF_GHG will decrease LW_OUT and the local weather response to extend T_S is fed by a continuing SW_IN. That improve in T_S will finally restore the lowered LW_OUT to its previous worth (see additionally fig.4). In case of a shortwave forcing ΔF_SW, ΔT_S comes instantly from this extra SW_IN and thus, will improve LW_OUT completely. In a dynamic scenario with an rising forcing, a GHG-forcing with e.g., ∂F_GHG/∂t = fixed, will yield ∂LW_OUT/∂t ≈ ∂SW_IN/∂t = 0. However a ∂F_SW/∂t = fixed i.e., ∂SW_IN/∂t > 0, will yield ∂LW_OUT/∂t > 0. Each optimistic slopes within the SW-case are the “fingerprint” at TOA as presently noticed (see fig.2).

Adherents to the AGW-hypothesis will instantly declare that enormous feedbacks affecting the SW_IN element akin to Albedo- and Cloud suggestions will produce an identical sample to that ΔF_SW > 0 case. True, however simply in precept as there are a variety of arguments towards that declare. To start with, the strongest suggestions i.e., from Water Vapor acts on the LW-channel suppressing LW_OUT even additional. Secondly, Albedo- and Cloud suggestions ship collectively not rather more than 1 W/m²/Ok [13], which might by no means clarify the 1.38 W/m² improve within the SW_IN as measured by CERES. It could require an accompanying temperature improve of 1 – 1.5 ^oC between 2000 and 2020, which is way past any remark. Nonetheless, most significantly, it will solely be potential when the slopes of the 2 developments are a lot nearer, according to a a lot bigger local weather sensitivity. The evaluation making use of eq.5 on the CERES knowledge in fig.2 has proven already that (∂SW_IN/∂t – ∂LW_OUT/∂t) is set by the Planck suggestions solely. Different feedbacks simply don’t play a lot of a task in fig.2.

There are a number of choices for such SW_IN-forcings. Clouds, and specifically the low hanging clouds, are for me choice #1 as they affect each SW- and LW channels, be it fairly in a different way. From the Cloud Radiative Impact (CRE) out of CERES knowledge, we all know that the net-effect favors a ΔF_SW contribution in eq.8, as additionally concluded in my earlier work [1][3]. Since clouds do act on SW_IN otherwise than on LW_OUT, we don’t even want a change in common cloudiness. A re-distribution over the varied latitudes is enough as (SW_IN – LW_OUT) varies from extremely optimistic to extremely detrimental, going from the equator to the poles [12].  Adjustments within the stratospheric Ozone, and/or in UV-radiation associated adjustments as a result of cyclic habits of the Solar, present prospects for solar-related forcings as effectively. However different explanations are definitely to not be excluded.

Eq.8 additionally clarifies a serious attribute of the AGW-hypothesis, specifically ΔF_SW = 0. Given the choices for ΔF_SW, one might additionally state that the AGW-hypothesis “denies” pure causes for international warming. That is precisely IPCC’s place [9] and implicitly, additionally utilized in GCM calculations. 

The distinction between these two choices, both introduce additional feedbacks (the AGW-hypothesis), or settle for different forcings (this work), might be simply demonstrated. Contemplate a local weather with the choice for a step-wise change at t = 0 within the GHG forcing ΔF_GHG by +/- ΔR, and for a forcing within the SW channel ΔF_SW (∆SW in fig.4) variable in the identical method: +/- ΔR. In fig.4 the evolution over time of the elements that govern these two totally different views on their warming impact, is graphically displayed for the 6 most evident combos. The ultimate adjustments in λΔT_S from these two views, are additionally given and in comparison with the anticipated worth in that exact state of affairs.
State of affairs #6 exhibits what occurs as we speak in actuality: a rising temperature mixed with a rising LW but in addition a rising SW. State of affairs #2 displays todays IPCC-view. Fascinating are state of affairs #3 and #5 with an equivalent “zero net-warming” response. What to advocate right here? Cease emitting CO₂ in case of #3? For these situations with canceling forces for which no warming happens, eq. 6 produces giant, non-zero outcomes. As anticipated, eq.6 yields no warming from a photo voltaic forcing solely. The situations with GHG-forcings solely, are in fact accurately represented by eq.6. All others are merely fallacious.
As eq. 8 “delivers” in all situations as anticipated, it merely exhibits its validity and correctness. And thus:  
the widely in local weather science utilized eq.6, relies on the fallacious assumption of ΔF_SW = 0.
No marvel, that the IPCC nonetheless retains this wide selection of ECS values. It simply is dependent upon the time and circumstances i.e., the worth of ΔF_SW, what ECS worth eq.6 yields; simply look to the details in fig.1.

It’s attention-grabbing now to calculate the ratio of the derived local weather sensitivities out of each views, by eliminating ΔT_S in combining eq.6 and eq.8 (with AGW and PL as the standard subscripts additionally for ECS):

ECS_AGW/ECS_PL = λ_PL/λ_AGW = (ΔF_GHG + ΔF_SW)/(ΔF_GHG) = 1 + ΔF_SW/ΔF_GHG         (8)

For the interval 2000-2020 we discover from the CERES knowledge (fig.2) ΔF_SW = ΔSW_IN = 1.38 W/m². From the CMIP6 forcings [6] we derive ΔF_GHG = 0.64 W/m², making the ratio ΔF_SW/ΔF_GHG = 2.2.
The local weather sensitivity that the IPCC is selling is thus 3.2x the “actual” sensitivity of our local weather system i.e., the inverse of the Planck suggestions parameter! This issue of three or extra sounds fairly acquainted, doesn’t it? To legitimize it, the idea of local weather feedbacks to bridge that hole between faux and actuality needed to be launched. They appear like scientifically “sound” results however usually are not primarily based on falsifiable physics. They’re constructs with just one goal: to compensate for the denial of pure results that may trigger international warming.

From the ratio between ΔF_SW and ΔF_GHG, it’s also clear that the Solar is liable for about 2/3 of the noticed warming since 2000, and even earlier. Whereas GHG’s could be liable for the remaining. Certainly “could be”, as I’ve simply taken ΔF_GHG from an estimated/modelled forcing by NASA [6]. In “Outdoors the Black Field” on WUWT, I strongly questioned these knowledge as being too excessive [4]. However, this 2:1 ratio helps the evaluation of the impact of brightening in The Netherlands [1] in addition to my suggestions evaluation [3]. Globally, rising SW_IN (fig.2), should have created many of the noticed warming. The expansion within the atmospheric focus of CO₂ can solely have performed a minor function, because the rising LW_OUT radiation in fig.2 confirms this a lot bigger SW-channel impact.

Anyhow, the ultimate query stays: “what about these fallacious outcomes of GCM calculations?”
Personally, I do imagine that the majority scientists behind local weather fashions do, and have all the time finished, their utmost to simulate Earth’ local weather to the very best of their data. Nonetheless, making them extraordinarily detailed with complicated surfaces, coupled oceans, melting ice-caps or no matter interactions “contained in the field”, will likely not make a giant distinction in calculated local weather sensitivities.
However, these excessive sensitivities, nor these accompanying giant feedbacks are explicitly entered into GCM’s algorithms; they’re simply the results of analyzing their outputs. So, we now have to search for the purpose within the course of the place the AGW-assumption of “no pure forcings” i.e., ΔSW_IN= 0, has its impression and thus, “sneaks” into these GCM-simulations. To my understanding, that may solely occur throughout the tuning course of to generate a local weather that runs over a protracted interval with a continuing habits. As soon as such stability is created, that AGW-characteristic of ΔF_SW = 0, is an integral a part of this specific local weather as inner dependencies are tuned to it. Then, including additional GHG’s to that tuned environment to calculate its local weather reactions, might very effectively ship these exaggerated warmings.
However such a secure and fixed local weather has by no means existed. Historical past has proven sturdy pure fluctuations again and again. Even throughout my very own, human time scale, the unexplained International Cooling of the 1950-1975 interval has proven that nothing is fixed in our local weather. GCM-algorithms primarily based on correct physics are most likely not dangerous in any respect, besides could also be for the modelling of clouds. Their preliminary situations to run them nonetheless, could be basically fallacious and distorting their output.

I can not give you some other clarification, and if legitimate, this could simply be solved by tuning to e.g., these CERES knowledge or different “recognized” local weather (re-analysis) knowledge from the latest previous.
Nonetheless, the actual downside created with this evaluation is, that forecasting with GCM’s has grow to be a ineffective and meaningless train so long as we can not reliably forecast pure adjustments in SW_IN. For the anthropogenic half it’s fairly clear: with a progress to a most CO₂-level of 560 ppm, even underneath a sensible ‘enterprise as typical’ state of affairs [11], there may be definitely not more than about 0.4^oC to go.

Advert Huijser, October 2022

Added after completion: In a sequence of posts https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/21/scatterplot-sensitivity/ , Willis Eschenbach just lately printed quite a few scatterplots from 1×1 diploma gridded CERES knowledge. From these knowledge, common local weather sensitivities are calculated for photo voltaic radiation of 1/λ_SW = 0.16 Ok/W/m², and for the greenhouse impact 1/λ_GHG = 0.58 Ok/W/m², respectively (detrimental suggestions indicators are neglected for simplicity). These values are derived by assigning floor temperatures to both pure photo voltaic (∆F_GHG = 0), or the pure GHG trigger (∆F_SW = 0). By taking nonetheless, the relative contribution of the forcings by photo voltaic ∆F_SW and GHG’s ∆F_GHG with a ratio of two.2 as derived from eq.8 on this work under consideration, the typical local weather sensitivity for all forcings might be calculated as:

1/λ = (2.2 x 1/λ_SW + 1 x 1/λ_GHG)/3.2 = 0.29 Ok/W/m²,

shut sufficient to the 0.3 Ok/W/m² of the inverse Planck suggestions parameter, to conclude that additionally in Eschenbach’s analyses this Planck suggestions parameter is the climate-change figuring out issue.

References:

1. See for a abstract, https://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/2020/12/01/de-zon-en-de-opwarming-van-nederland/#more-6953  (In Dutch however on-site translation by Google-translate out there)
2. https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/achtergrond/knmi-14-klimaatscenario-s
3. A. Huijser (2021), https://www.clepair.web/clouds-AdHuijser.pdf
4. A. Huijser (2022), https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/21/outside-the-black-box/
5. W. Eschenbach (2022), https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/08/the-ceres-data/
6. https://knowledge.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
7. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
8. W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer (2021), Relative Efficiency of Greenhouse Molecules, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.16465v1
9. IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report, A.4.4.
10. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/options/OceanCooling
11. https://www.climategate.nl/2022/09/pfff-gelukkig-nog-maar-ongeveer-06-graden-c-te-gaan/
12. https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/09/22/the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-vii-a-summary-and-some-questions/
13. S. C. Sherwood, et al. (2020). An evaluation of Earth’s local weather sensitivity utilizing a number of strains of proof, Opinions of Geophysics, 58, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678