A REVIEW OF THE 1981 PAPER BY HANSEN et al.



Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell (1981), “Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide” Science 213 pp. 957-956. [https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf]


Ventura Photonics Climate Post 017.1 Jan. 4, 2023


Roy Clark


Download pdf file



Summary


The modern climate modeling fraud started with three papers, two by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in 1967 and 1975 and a third by Hansen et al in 1981. The main focus of this article is a detailed review of the Hansen paper. This provided the foundation for the multi-trillion dollar climate fraud that we have today. Starting with the work of M&W in 1967, the ‘equilibrium’ climate models are fraudulent, by definition, before a single line of code is even written. This is because the simplified energy transfer assumptions used to build the models must create climate warming as a mathematical artifact in the model output. There is no ‘equilibrium climate’ that can be perturbed by CO2 or other ‘greenhouse gases’. As soon as the simplifying assumptions used by M&W are accepted, physical reality is abandoned and one enters the realm of computational climate fiction. Hansen and his group at NASA Goddard followed M&W into their fictional climate realm and have been playing computer games in an equilibrium climate fantasy land ever since.


M&W set out to adapt a weather forecasting model so that it could predict ‘climate’. They apparently failed to understand that the earth is not in thermal equilibrium and that the coupled non-linear equations used in a global circulation model are unstable and have no predictive capabilities over the time scales needed for climate analysis. A major justification for the M&W approach was that it provided a second stream of funding for the computers and programmers needed for both weather and climate prediction. Unfortunately, melodramatic prophecies of the global warming apocalypse became such a good source of research funding that the scientific process of hypothesis and discovery collapsed. The climate modelers rapidly became trapped in a web of lies of their own making. The second motivation was employment. After the end of the Apollo (moon landing) program, NASA was desperate for funding and a group at NASA Goddard jumped on the climate bandwagon. Later, as funding for nuclear programs decreased, some of the scientists at the old Atomic Energy Commission, by then part of the Department of Energy (DOE) also jumped on the climate bandwagon. No one bothered to look at the underlying assumptions. A paycheck was more important. They just copied and ‘improved’ the computer code.


The only thing that has changed since 1981 is that the models have become more complex. The pseudoscientific ritual of radiative forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivities that started with Hansen et al in 1981 continues on a massive scale today. The latest iteration is described in the IPCC WG1 AR6 Report [IPCC, 2021]. The two original modeling groups have grown to about 50, all copying each other and following the same fraudulent script. Climate modeling has degenerated past scientific dogma into the Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse. Eisenhower’s warning about the corruption of science by government funding has come true.



Introduction


The multi-trillion dollar climate fraud that we have today started in nineteenth century with the oversimplification of the climate energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature of the earth. Two external factors then contributed to the growth of the climate fraud. As the cold war ended and available resources diminished, various government agencies such as NASA and DOE (including the National Labs) decided to jump on the climate bandwagon for additional funding. There was also a deliberate decision by various outside interests, including environmentalists and politicians to exploit the climate apocalypse to further their own causes (see Climate Post VPCP 13). The modern climate modeling fraud started with the work of Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in 1967 [M&W, 1967]. They took the original ‘equilibrium air column’ described by Arrhenius [1896] and added 9 or 18 air layers coupled with radiative transfer and related algorithms. Anyone reading the 1967 M&W paper should have understood that their model had to create global warming as a mathematical artifact of the simplifying assumptions that they introduced. As discussed below, the paper contains four fundamental scientific errors. M&W then went on to build a ‘highly simplified’ global circulation model (GCM) in which they incorporated the mathematical artifacts of their 1967 model into every unit cell of their GCM [M&W, 1975]. Such a model also requires the solution of large numbers of coupled non-linear equations. In 1963, Lorenz demonstrated that the solutions to such sets of equations were unstable. The GCM approach used by M&W has no predictive capability over the time scales needed for climate simulations. Weather forecasting GCMs are limited to about 12 days ahead [Lorenz, 1963, 1973].


NASA Goddard began copying the 1967 M&W approach as described in papers by Wang and Domoto [1974] and by Wang et al [1976]. They chose to ignore the limitations imposed by the M&W simplifications and treated the mathematical artifacts as real temperature changes. There was no attempt to perform any thermal engineering calculations of the surface temperature to validate their model results. NASA failed to provide any oversight of these activities. By 1981 the Goddard group had added three additional assumptions to the M&W model and ‘tuned’ the mathematical artifacts generated by their one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model to match a ‘global mean temperature record’ created from available weather station data [Hansen et al, 1981]. By this time, they were trapped in web of lies of their own making. Melodramatic prophecies of the global warming apocalypse became such a good source of research funding that the scientific process of hypothesis and discovery collapsed. Scientific dogma has now degenerated into the ‘Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse’. Irrational belief in the global warming artifacts created by the climate models has become a prerequisite for funding in main stream climate science. The underlying climate equilibrium assumption was never challenged. An elaborate modeling ritual based on pseudoscientific radiative forcings, feedbacks and the climate sensitivity to a ‘CO2 doubling’ gradually evolved [Ramaswamy et al, 2019]. Little has changed since 1981 except that computer technology has improved significantly and the models have become a lot more complex. However, the underlying assumptions remain the same. The fundamental error is still the equilibrium assumption. This was conveniently summarized by Knutti and Hegerl [2008].


“When the radiation balance of the Earth is perturbed, the global surface temperature will warm and adjust to a new equilibrium state”.


Such an equilibrium state does not exist. An LWIR ‘radiative forcing’ does not change the radiation balance of the earth. Nor can such a ‘radiative forcing’ cause a measurable change in ocean temperatures. Eisenhower’s warming about the corruption of science by government funding has come true. The 1981 paper is riddled with errors. The authors already believed that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause global warming. They did not allow scientific reason or measured data to change their beliefs. The earth’s climate was in equilibrium. This was built into their 1-D RC model. They had to make the model appear to work. They wanted their paychecks.


Based on the analysis presented below, there are nine errors (or groups of similar errors) in the 1981 paper:


  1. An IR radiative forcing (increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration) does not change the energy balance of the earth.
  2. There is no greenhouse effect temperature.
  3. The LWIR flux is coupled to the turbulent convection in the tropospheric heat engine.
  4. The mathematical artifacts created by the M&W assumptions are accepted without question as real surface temperature changes.
  5. The surface energy transfer processes, in particular the coupling of the LWIR flux to the wind driven latent heat flux are ignored in their ‘slab’ ocean model.
  6. The discussion of radiative perturbations to the 1-D RC model has nothing to do with the earth’s climate.
  7. The role of the ocean oscillations, particularly the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) in setting the global mean temperature is ignored.
  8. Any increase in surface temperature form a ‘CO2 doubling’ is too small to measure.
  9. A contrived set of ‘radiaitve forcings’ is used to ‘tune’ the 1-D RC model so that the output artifacts appear to match the global mean temperature series.


These areas will now be considered in more detail.



An IR Radiative Forcing (Increase in Greenhouse Gas Concentration) does not Change the Energy Balance of the Earth


The authors start out:


"Atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 to 300 parts per million in 1880 to 335 to 340 ppm in 1980 mainly due to burning of fossil fuels....

The CO2 abundance is expected to reach 600 ppm in the next century, even if growth of fossil fuel use is low."


Figure 1a show the measured increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration [Keeling, 2022] and Figure 1b shows the resulting changes in the LWIR flux [Harde, 2017, Table 1]. There is a small initial decrease in the LWIR flux emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and a similar increase in the LWIR flux emitted from the lower troposphere to the surface.





Figure 1: a) the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1800 (Keeling curve) and b) calculated changes in atmospheric LWIR flux produced by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0 to 760 ppm.



While the changes in concentration are correct, the authors fail to provide any quantitative thermal engineering analysis of the effect of the changes in LWIR flux on the surface temperature.


"Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric ‘window’ from 7 to 14 micron which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the so called greenhouse mechanism. The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2 to 3.5 °C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm."


Later, on p 858 the authors add:


"Our calculations include the weak CO2 bands at 8 to 15 μm, but the strong 15 μm CO2 band, which closes one side of the 7 to 20 μm H2O window causes ≥90% of the CO2 warming."


They also fail to consider the effects of molecular line broadening that decouples the upward and downward LWIR flux. Almost all of the downward LWIR flux reaching the surface originates from within the first 2 km layer above the surface [Clark, 2013]. This is illustrated in Figure 2. They also fail to calculate the atmospheric cooling rates produced by the LWIR emission to space and the change in cooling rate produced by a change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The total tropospheric cooling rate for the tropical atmosphere is in the 2 to 2.5 K per day range. A doubling of the CO2 concentration produces a slight decrease in the cooling rate in the troposphere of up to +0.08 K per day. At a lapse rate of -6.5 K km-1, an increase in temperature of +0.08 K is produced by a decrease in altitude of approximately 12 meters. This is equivalent to riding an elevator down four floors. The tropospheric cooling rate and the effect on this cooling rate from a doubling of the CO2 concentration are shown in Figure 3a and 3b [Feldman et al, 2008, Iacono et al, 2008].





Figure 2: a) Transition from absorption-emission to free photon flux as the linewidth decreases with altitude. Single H2O line near 231 cm-1. b) Linewidths for H2O and CO2 lines in the 590 to 600 cm-1 spectral region for altitudes of 0, 5 and 10 km. c) Cumulative fraction of the downward flux at the surface vs. altitude for surface temperatures of 272 and 300 K, each with 20 and 70% relative humidity (RH). Almost all of the downward flux reaching the surface originates from within the first 2 km layer. This is the location of the lower tropospheric reservoir.





Figure 3: a) Total (10 to 3250 cm-1) and band-averaged IR cooling rate profiles for the Tropical Model Atmosphere on a log-pressure scale and b) tropospheric heating rates produced by a CO2 ‘doubling’ from 287 to 574 ppm at mid latitude.



The authors have also chosen to ignore the coupling of the tropospheric LWIR flux to the convection. As the warm air rises from the surface, it expands and cools. Internal molecular energy is converted to gravitational potential energy. Within the plane parallel atmosphere approximation, an air parcel in the troposphere emits LWIR radiation upwards and downwards at the local air temperature. It also absorbs LWIR radiation from above and below. In addition, the temperature changes with the local lapse rate as the air parcel changes altitude. This is illustrated in Figure 4a. Most of the initial absorption from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration occurs in the P and R branches of the v2 CO2 band near 640 and 700 cm-1. There is also some weaker absorption by the CO2 overtone bands near 950 and 1050 cm-1 [Wijngaarden and Happer, 2022]. The slight warming produced by these absorptions is then dissipated by a combination of wideband LWIR emission across all of the atmospheric emission bands and coupling to the convection. Some of the thermal energy is converted to gravitational potential energy followed by LWIR emission at a later time. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4b. During the day, over land, under solar illumination, the boundary layer near the surface can be very turbulent, with both upward and downward motion related to convective plumes. Figure 5 shows variations in vertical velocity that reach ±2 m s-1 in the surface boundary layer up to 2 km in altitude reported by Gibert et al [2007]. This is from 2 micron Doppler heterodyne LIDAR measurements recorded over 10 hours at the École Polytechnique, south of Paris, July 10th 2005. At 2 m s-1, a 1 km change in altitude occurs in approximately 10 minutes. The change in temperature depends on the local lapse rate. The upper limit is set by the lapse rate for dry air, -9.8 K km-1. Any small changes in tropospheric temperature, such as the +0.08 K per day heating produced by a CO2 doubling are too small to measure when they are coupled to this turbulent boundary layer. A ‘CO2 doubling’ or any other increase in atmospheric ‘greenhouse gas’ concentration does not change the energy balance of the earth.





Figure 4: a) The energy transfer processes for a local tropospheric air parcel (in a plane-parallel atmosphere) and b) the dissipation of the absorbed heat from a ‘CO2 doubling’ by the normal tropospheric energy transfer processes (schematic). The wavelength specific increase in absorption in the CO2 P and R bands is dissipated as small changes in broadband LWIR emission and gravitational potential energy.





Figure 5: Vertical velocity profile in the turbulent boundary layer recorded over 10 hours at the École Polytechnique, south of Paris, July 10th 2005 using Doppler heterodyne LIDAR.



On the first page, the authors also state:


"The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase, in fact the temperature in the N. Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5 °C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 build up. "


Here the authors fail to recognize that the dominant term in the observed temperature record is the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). This is discussed in more detail below in relation to the temperature record shown in Hansen figure 3.



There is No Greenhouse Effect Temperature


The authors then introduce a ‘greenhouse effect temperature’ based on an ‘effective emission temperature’. This concept was discussed earlier by Moller [1964].





Here, the authors have simply inserted the calculated average planetary LWIR flux into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to derive the emission temperature. They have chosen to ignore the spectral distribution of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) emitted to space. By 1981, satellite measurements of the spectral distribution of the OLR had been available for over a decade. Measurements of the LWIR flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) using the Michelson interferometer (FTIR spectrometer) on the Nimbus 4 satellite clearly showed that the LWIR flux at TOA did not have the spectral distribution of a blackbody radiator near 255 K [Hanel et al, 1971]. This is illustrated in Figure 6. The LWIR flux to space at TOA is simply a cooling flux. It should not be used to define a temperature. This is illustrated above in Figure 3a.





Figure 6: The LWIR flux emitted at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) for selected geographic regions measured by the Michelson interferometer (FTIR spectrometer) on the Nimbus 4 satellite. The spectral distribution is clearly not that of a blackbody radiator at a temperature near 255 K.



There is an Open Cycle Heat Engine Called the Troposphere


The authors then introduce an emission height as part of the greenhouse effect.





Here, the authors are really talking about the tropospheric heat engine and the LWIR emission to space from the cold reservoir of this engine. They do not seem to understand that the LWIR flux cannot be separated from the convective mass transport. The troposphere functions as an open cycle heat engine that transports part of the surface heat by convection to the middle to upper troposphere. From here it is radiated to space, mainly by the water bands. The spectral band cooling rates are illustrated in Figure 3a above.


As the moist air rises through the troposphere it must interact with both the gravitational field and the angular momentum or rotation of the earth. This leads to the formation of the Hadley, Ferrel and polar cell convective structure, the trade winds, the mid latitude cyclones/anticyclones and the ocean gyre circulation. The LWIR flux should not be separated and analyzed independently of the other flux terms. It is an integral part of the energy transfer processes that determine the earth’s weather patterns. The tropospheric heat engine and the surface energy transfer processes at the ocean-air and land-air interfaces are shown schematically in Figure 7.





Figure 7: Basic climate energy transfer processes for the earth, a) atmospheric energy transfer showing the tropospheric heat engine, b) ocean energy transfer and c) land energy transfer (schematic).



At the surface, the upward and downward LWIR fluxes combine to establish an LWIR exchange energy (upward - downward LWIR flux) that reduces the net LWIR cooling emission from the surface. Within the spectral regions of the main LWIR absorption/emission bands, when the surface and air layers are at similar temperatures, photons are exchanged without any significant heat transfer. The net LWIR cooling of the surface is limited to the emission into the atmospheric transmission window. This is illustrated in Figure 8. As shown above in Figure 2c, almost all of the downward LWIR flux to the surface originates from within the first 2 km layer above the surface. In order to dissipate the absorbed solar flux, the surface warms up so that the excess heat is removed by evapotranspiration (moist convection). The surface temperature is determined by the coupling of four main flux terms to the surface thermal reservoir. These are the solar flux, the net LWIR flux, the evapotranspiration and the subsurface thermal transport. (This does not include rain or freeze-thaw effects). The four flux terms are interactive and should not be separated and analyzed independently of each other [Clark and Rörsch, 2023]. A change in surface temperature has to be determined by dividing the change in heat content or enthalpy of the surface reservoir by the local heat capacity. The energy transfer processes are different at the land-air and ocean-air interfaces and have to be analyzed separately.





Figure 8: Downward LWIR flux to the surface for surface and air temperatures of 288 K. The spectral range is from 100 to 1500 cm-1 at a resolution of 2 cm-1. These spectra are from MODTRAN calculations with a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm and a surface RH of 70% using the mid latitude summer model [MODTRAN, 2021]. The main H2O and CO2 bands are labeled. Within the main absorption/emission bands, the molecular lines are broadened into a quasi-continuous blackbody. The downward LWIR emission establishes an exchange energy with the upward LWIR flux from the surface that limits the net LWIR cooling flux to that emitted into the LWIR atmospheric transmission window.



The authors then return to the equilibrium climate assumption and incorrectly apply conservation of energy to the initial decrease in LWIR flux at TOA (‘radiative forcing’) produced by an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.


"If the atmospheric IR opacity increases, the temperature of the surface and atmosphere will increase until the emission of radiation from the planet again equals the absorbed solar energy."


As shown above in Figures 3 and 4, the small amount of heat produced at each level in the troposphere is dissipated by a combination of wideband LWIR emission and turbulent convection. There is no change to the energy balance of the earth.


The authors then mix the ‘greenhouse effect’ with the tropospheric heat engine for the atmospheres of Mars, Earth and Venus.


"The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets which provide an ensemble of experiments [sic] over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about1, 6 and 70 km and lapse rates of Gamma = ~5, 5,5 and 7 °C km-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eqn. 3)."


The ‘radiating level’ is set by the spectroscopic properties of the ‘greenhouse gases’ that are involved in the atmospheric radiative transfer. LWIR radiation from below is absorbed and re-emitted at the temperature of the local air parcel as shown above in Figure 4a. This process continues until there is a transition from absorption and emission to a free photon flux as the molecular lines narrow and the number density decreases at higher altitudes. However, the temperature of the air parcel is set by convection within the tropospheric heat engine, not simply by ‘infrared absorption and emission’. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the surface be warmer than the radiating temperature of the cold reservoir of the heat engine [Holmes, 2017, Jelbring, 2003]



What Part of Mathematical Artifact Don’t You Understand?


The authors then proceed to analyze the surface temperature using a modified version of the ‘equilibrium air column’ model published by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in 1967. This approach must create spurious climate warming as a mathematical artifact of the simplifying assumptions introduced by M&W.


"A one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model, which computes temperature as a function of altitude, can simulate planetary temperatures more realistically than the zero dimensional model of Eqn. 1. The sensitivity of the surface temperature in the 1-D RC models to changes in CO2 is similar to the sensitivity of the mean surface temperature in the global 3-D models. This agreement does not validate the models, it only suggests that the one dimensional models can simulate the effect of certain basic mechanisms and feedbacks. But the agreement does permit useful studies of global mean temperature change with a simple 1-D model."


The assumptions used by M&W were clearly stated on the second page of their 1967 paper.


  1. At the top of the atmosphere, the net incoming solar radiation should be equal to the net outgoing long wave radiation.
  2. No temperature discontinuity should exist.
  3. Free and forced convection and mixing by the large scale eddies prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5 C km-1.
  4. Whenever the lapse rate is subcritical, the condition of local radiative equilibrium is satisfied.
  5. The heat capacity of the earth’s surface is zero.
  6. The atmosphere maintains the given vertical distribution of relative humidity (new requirement).

These assumptions contain three fundamental scientific errors. 1) There is no flux balance at TOA, 2) the heat capacity and the effects of moist convection have to be included in the surface energy transfer and 3) the relative humidity distribution is not fixed. In addition, molecular line broadening in the lower troposphere means that the upward and downward LWIR flux are not equivalent (see Figure 2).


Instead of correcting the underlying errors related to the equilibrium assumption used by M&W, Hansen et al [1981] added three more invalid assumptions. First, a ‘slab’ ocean was added to the M&W model without any consideration of the surface energy transfer effects. Second, a prescribed mathematical ritual of ‘radiative forcing’ was introduced. This was based on the perturbation of an equilibrium climate state by a ‘doubling’ of the CO2 concentration followed by the transition to a new equilibrium state with a higher surface temperature. Small changes in equilibrium LWIR flux were assumed to be capable of changing the surface temperature including the oceans. No thermal engineering calculations of the change in surface temperature were performed to validate the model. Third, there was a ‘bait and switch’ change from ‘equilibrium’ surface and air temperatures to the weather station temperature record. The role of ‘natural variations’ in temperature record, specifically the 1940 peak of the Atlantic Multi-decadal oscillation were ignored.


The authors first describe the sensitivity of their model to various processes as shown in Figure 9. Here the sensitivity is the increase in surface temperature produced by doubling of the CO2 concentration from 30 to 600 ppm. This is just the pseudoscientific mathematical artifact created by the M&W assumptions. Model 4, with a ‘sensitivity’ of 2.8 K was selected for additional analysis. The increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface is given as 3.9 or 4.0 W m-2.





Figure 9: Hansen et al 1981, Table 1 - Equilibrium surface temperature increase due to doubled CO2 (from 300 to 600 ppm) in 1D-RC models. Model 1 has no feedbacks affecting the atmosphere’s radiative properties. Feedback factor f specifies the effect of each added process on model sensitivity to doubled CO2. F is the equilibrium thermal flux into the ground if Ts is held fixed (infinite heat capacity) when CO2 is doubled. Abbreviations: FRH, fixed relative humidity, FAH, fixed absolute humidity, 6.5LR, 6.5 °C km-1 limiting lapse rate, MALR, moist adiabatic lapse rate, FCA, fixed cloud altitude, SAF, snow/ice albedo feedback and VAF, vegetation albedo feedback.



Where is the Wind Driven Ocean Latent Heat Flux?


The authors then introduce a ‘slab’ ocean model with a mixed ocean layer 100 m thick and a thermocline layer below this. They ignore the surface energy transfer and only consider the time delays related to the increase in heat capacity. The penetration depth of the LWIR flux into the oceans is less than 100 micron [Hale and Querry, 1972]. Here it is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation or latent heat flux. Using long term zonal averages from Yu et al, [2008], the sensitivity of the latent heat flux to the wind speed is at least 15 W m-2/m s-1 over the ±30° latitude bands. The entire ‘CO2 doubling’ flux of 4 W m-2 is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of 27 cm s-1 or approximately 1 km per hour. The normal (1 sigma) variation of the wind speed in the ±30° latitude bands is 2 m s-1 at an average wind speed of approximately 6 m s-1 with larger wind gust variations. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the start of the Industrial Revolution is near 140 ppm, from 280 to 420 ppm. This has produced an increase in downward LWIR flux of approximately 2 W m-2 that is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of 13 cm s-1 (see Figure 1). At present, the annual average increase in CO2 concentration is near 2.4 ppm. This corresponds to an increase in downward LWIR flux of 0.034 W m-2 per year which is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of approximately 2 mm per year. The penetration depth of the LWIR flux into the oceans is shown in Figure 10 and the sensitivity of the latent heat flux to the wind speed is shown in Figure 11. Based on this discussion, it is impossible for the increase in downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface produced by a ‘CO2 doubling’ to cause any measurable change in ocean surface temperature. The authors chose to ignore physical reality and simply assumed that the increase in LWIR flux had to cause the expected climate warming in their oversimplified equilibrium air column model. This is shown in Figure 12.





Figure 10: The penetration depth (99% absorption) of the LWIR flux into water a) below 3300 cm-1 and b) 1200 to 200 cm-1. The locations of the main CO2 absorption bands and the overtones are indicated.





Figure 11: The sensitivity of the ocean latent heat flux to the wind speed.





Figure 12: Hansen et al 1981, Figure 1 - Dependence of CO2 warming on ocean heat capacity. Heat is rapidly mixed in the upper 100 m of the ocean and diffused to 1000 m with diffusion coefficient k. The CO2 abundance is 293 ppm in 1880, 335 ppm in 1980 and 373 ppm in 2000. Climate model sensitivity is 2.8 °C for doubled CO2.



Did You Even Read the M&W Assumptions?


The authors then proceed to consider ‘radiative climate perturbations’ in their model. They start out:


"Identification of the CO2 warming in the observed climate depends on the magnitude of climate variability due to other factors. Most suspected causes of global climate change are radiative perturbations which can be compared to identify those capable of counteracting or reinforcing the CO2 warming."


Figure 13 (Hansen et al, figure 2) shows the estimated changes in surface temperature produced by a variety of ‘radiative perturbations’, now known as ‘radiative forcings’ [Ramaswamy et al, 2019]. As discussed above, the initial decrease in LWIR flux at TOA produced by an increase in ‘greenhouse gas’ concentration does not change the energy balance of the earth. Any small amount of heat produced in the troposphere is dissipated by a combination of wideband LWIR emission and turbulent convection. The changes in temperature are the result of the mathematical artifacts created by the climate equilibrium and related simplifying assumptions used in the 1D-RC model.





Figure 13: (Hansen, 1981 figure 2) Effects of various ‘radiative perturbations’ on surface temperature calculated using a 1D RC climate model. The changes in ‘surface temperature’ are mathematical artifacts produced by the simplifying assumptions used in the model.



What Part of Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation Don’t You Understand?


Next the authors describe long term surface air temperature averages derived from weather station data. Figure 14 (Hansen et al, figure 3, lower plot) shows the long term five year global average from 1880 to 1980. This includes the well-defined Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) peak near 1940 [AMO, 2022]. The change in CO2 concentration (Keeling curve [2022]) is also shown.





Figure 14: The global mean temperature, 5 year running average from Hansen et al, 1981 with the Keeling curve (CO2 concentration) overlaid. The broad peak centered near 1940 is the AMO.



The role of the AMO in setting the surface air temperature has been misunderstood or ignored for a long time. The first person to claim a measurable warming from an increase in CO2 concentration was Callendar in 1938. He used weather station temperatures up to 1935 that included most of the 1910 to 1940 warming phase of the AMO [Callendar, 1938]. The warming that he observed was from the AMO not CO2. During the 1970s there was a ‘global cooling’ scare that was based on the cooling phase of the AMO from 1940 to 1970 [McFarlane, 2018, Peterson et al, 2008, Douglas, 1975, Bryson and Dittberner, 1976]. As shown in Figure 14, Hansen et al [1981] chose to ignore the 1940 AMO peak in their analysis of the effects of CO2 on the weather station record. Similarly Jones et al conveniently overlooked the 1940 AMO peak when they started to ramp up the modern global warming scare in 1986 [Jones et al, 1986]. This is illustrated in Figure 15. The AMO and the periods of record used are shown in Figure 24a. The AMO is plotted with the HadCRUT4 global temperature record [HadCRUT4, 2022]. The two are aligned from 1869 to 1970. The temperature records used by Callendar, Douglas, Jones et al and Hansen et al are shown in Figures 15b through 15e. The Keeling curve showing the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is also shown in Figures 15d and 15e [Keeling, 2022].





Figure 15: a) AMO anomaly and HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly, aligned from 1860 to 1970, b) temperature anomaly for N. temperate stations from Callendar [1938], c) global cooling from Douglas [1975], d) global temperature anomaly from Hansen et al, [1981] and e) global temperature anomaly from Jones et al, [1986]. The changes in CO2 concentration (Keeling curve) are also shown in c and d. The periods of record for the weather station data are also indicated.



Too Small to Measure Means Too Small to Measure


The authors then go on to discuss the presumed effects of the volcanic eruption of Mount Agung in 1963. However, this discussion is based on the mathematical artifacts created by their 1-D RC model. There is no reason to expect that the model results for aerosols to be any better than those for CO2. The authors then describe the changes in flux produced in their 1-D RC model when the CO2 concentration is doubled from 300 to 600 ppm and their model responds by ‘adjusting’ to a new ‘equilibrium state’ with a higher surface temperature. This is shown in Figure 16 (Hansen et al, figure 4). Again, the temperature changes are just mathematical artifacts of the 1-D RC model. In reality, any small amount of heat release in the troposphere is re-emitted as wideband LWIR emission or dissipated by turbulent convection (see Figures 3 and 4). There is no change to the energy balance of the earth and no change in surface temperature. Unfortunately, the concept of radiative forcing has become accepted as part of the Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse. A very similar argument to Figure 16 was used in Chapter 8 of the Fifth IPCC Assessment WG1 Report [IPCC, 2013] over 30 years later. Figure 17 shows the equilibrium climate ‘adjustment’ to a radiative forcing from figure 8.1 of the IPCC report.





Figure 16: The effects of a hypothetical ‘CO2 doubling’ from 300 to 600 ppm on an equilibrium average climate.





Figure 17: (Figure 8.1 AR5, WGp 1 [2013]). Cartoon comparing (a) instantaneous RF, (b) RF, which allows stratospheric temperature to adjust, (c) flux change when the surface temperature is fixed over the whole Earth (a method of calculating ERF), (d) the ERF calculated allowing atmospheric and land temperature to adjust while ocean conditions are fixed and (e) the equilibrium response to the climate forcing agent. The methodology for calculation of each type of forcing is also outlined. DeltaT0 represents the land temperature response, while DeltaTs is the full surface temperature response. (Updated from Hansen et al., 2005.)



Time to Sing a Different ‘Tune’


The authors then use a contrived mix of increasing CO2 concentration, volcanic aerosols and variations in solar flux to create a fit to the weather station record with their 1-D RC model. This is shown in Figure 18 from Hansen et al, figure 5. In reality, they are simply ‘tuning’ their model to match a temperature record dominated by the AMO (see Figure 15).





Figure 18: (Hansen et al, figure 5) Global temperature trend obtained from climate model with sensitivity 2.8 °C for doubled CO2. The results in (a) are based on a 100 m mixed layer ocean for heat capacity those in (b) include diffusion of heat into the thermocline to 1000 m.


The Hansen et al 1981 paper is one of the earliest examples of the use of a contrived set of ‘radiative forcings’ to fraudulently ‘tune’ an ‘equilibrium’ climate model to match the climate record. This process was adopted by the IPCC and copied by the USGCRP [Ramaswamy et al, 2019]. A more refined version of Figure 18 may be found in a 1993 review paper by Hansen et al. This is shown in Figure 19 [Hansen et al, 1993]. Chapter 7 of the WG1 Report in AR6, the latest IPCC Climate Assessment Report starts out:


"This chapter assesses the present state of knowledge of Earth’s energy budget, that is, the main flows of energy into and out of the Earth system, and how these energy flows govern the climate response to a radiative forcing. Changes in atmospheric composition and land use, like those caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and emissions of aerosols and their precursors, affect climate through perturbations to Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy budget. The effective radiative forcings (ERFs) quantify 7 these perturbations, including any consequent adjustment to the climate system (but excluding surface temperature response). How the climate system responds to a given forcing is determined by climate feedbacks associated with physical, biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. These feedback processes are assessed, as are useful measures of global climate response, namely equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR)."


Figure 20 shows the estimated temperature increases from 1750 to 2019, the related radiative forcings, the time series of the radiative forcings, the estimated increase in the ‘global mean temperature anomaly’, and the equilibrium climate sensitivities. Figures 20a through 20d are from Chapter 7 of the IPCC WG1 AR6 Report (figures 7.7, 7.6, 7.8 and Box 7.1a) and Figure 20e is from Hausfather [2019]. Little has changed since 1981. Figure 20a is an update of Figure 13 (Hansen et al, 1981 figure 2). Figures 20b, 20c and 20c follow from Figure 18 (Hansen et al, 1981 figure 5) and Figures 19b and 19c (Hansen et al, 1993). ‘Efficacies’ were added to further ‘tune’ the radiative forcings by Hansen et al in 2005 [Hansen et al, 2005]. The role of the AMO in setting the surface temperature is still ignored. Figure 20e still brackets the climate sensitivity of 2.8 °C used by Hansen et al in 1981. The main change here is that the 1-D RC model has been replaced by more complex GCMs. However, the models are still ‘tuned’ using a contrived set of radiative forcings so that they appear to match the mean global temperature record.





Figure 19: (Composite from figures 19 and 15 of Hansen et al, 1993) a) and b) simulated global temperature change for 3 climate sensitivities. Successive forcings are added cumulatively. The zero point of observations and model is 1866-1880 mean. c) and d) climate forcings used in the GCM simulations.





Figure 20: a) Simulated temperature increases from 1750 to 2019, b) changes in radiative forcings since 1750, c) time dependence of the temperature changes derived from the radiative forcings, d) ‘tuned’ temperature record using a contrived set of radiative forcings that appear to simulate the global mean temperature record (IPCC AR6, WG1, figures 7.7, 7.6, 7.8 and Box 7.1a) and CMIP6 climate model sensitivities from Hausfather [2019]. The range, from 1.8 to 5.6 °C still brackets the 2.8 °C value used by Hansen et al in 1981.



The contrived set of radiative forcings used to match the climate model output to the global mean temperature record has also been used to fraudulently create a ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2 and to attribute ‘extreme weather events’ to anthropogenic warming (see Climate Post VPCP 18). For example, Otto et al [2013] simply assumed that the HadCRUT4 global mean record was caused by ‘radiative forcing’ and derived both equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and climate transient response (TCR) from an unproven correlation between the temperature data and the radiative forcings used in the CMIP5 climate model ensemble. Their approach is illustrated in Figure 21. They divided up the HadCRUT4 temperature series into a series of time steps as shown in Figure 21a and assumed that each step was caused by a change in radiative forcing over the same time step as shown in Figure 21b. Using this and estimates of the heat stored in the climate system, mainly by the oceans, they created both ECS and TCR for each time step. These are shown in Figure 21c and 21d. The total radiative forcings and the presumed time evolution of these forcings from IPCC AR5 WG1 are shown in Figures 21e and 21f. In reality, the downward flux to the surface from the LWIR radiative forcings cannot penetrate below the ocean surface and cause any kind of measurable temperature change. Within the ±30° latitude bands they are dissipated at the ocean surface by an increase in wind speed of approximately 13 cm s-1 (see Figures 10 and 11 above). This is indicated by the red dashed lines in Figure 21f. The equilibrium climate sensitivities for selected climate models used in the CMIP5 ensemble are shown in Figure 21g, from IPCC AR5 WG1 Table 9.5. This is clear evidence that the models have been ‘tuned’ to match the global mean temperature record. The real climate sensitivity is ‘too small to measure’.





Figure 21: a) Decadal mean temperature estimates derived from the HadCRUT4 global mean temperature series. b) Decadal mean forcing with standard errors from the CMIP5 /RCP4.5 ensemble. c) Estimates of ECS and d) TCR from Otto et al [2013]. e) Radiative forcings from Figure 8.17 of IPCC AR5. f) The time dependences of the radiative forcings from f) adapted from figure 8.18 of IPCC AR5. g) The climate sensitivities of various CMIP5 models from IPCC AR5 WG1 Table 9.5].



The same set of contrived radiative forcings is then used to ‘attribute’ anthropogenic warming to the recent rise in the global mean temperature record and make fraudulent claims that this warming is causing increases in ‘extreme weather’. This is illustrated in Figure 22, from figure 1 of the US Geological Survey Report, ‘Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking-The role of the U.S. Geological Survey’ (USGS2020) [Terando et al, 2020]. Figure 22a shows the ‘observed’ global mean temperature change from 3 sources, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4.5 and NOAA and the results from the CMIP5 model ensemble (orange line) ‘tuned’ using radiative forcings similar to those shown in Figure 21f. The temperatures here are °F not °C. Figure 22b shows the same global mean temperature record but the climate models have been run with the ‘anthropogenic forcings’ turned off to show ‘natural factors’ only. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. The LWIR radiative forcings cannot cause any measurable temperature change (see Figures 10 and 11). The global mean temperature record has two ‘natural factors’. The first is the AMO. The second is a linear temperature increase of approximately 0.3 °C per century related to the temperature recovery from the Maunder minimum or Little Ice Age (LIA) [Akasofu, 2010]. In addition, there are three other bias terms that produce warming in the global mean temperature record. First there are urban heat islands related to population growth that were not part of the earlier record. Second, the mix of urban and rural weather stations used to create the global record has changed. Third, there are so called ‘homogenization’ adjustments that have been made to the raw temperature data. These include the ‘infilling’ of missing data and adjustments to correct for ‘bias’ related to changes in weather station location and instrumentation. It has been estimated that half of the warming in the ‘global record’ has been created by such adjustments. This has been considered in more detail by Andrews [2017a, 2017b and 2017c] and by D’Aleo and Watts [2010]. Adjustments to the Australian temperature record have been discussed by Berger and Sherrington [2022]. The various contributions to the global mean temperature record are illustrated in Figure 23.





Figure 22: Figure 1 from USGS2020 [Terando et al, 2020] a) shows the observed global mean temperature record (°F) with the CMIP5 model simulations using ‘human plus natural factors’ and b) shows the model simulations with the ‘human factors’ turned off. Temperatures are in °F not °C.





Figure 23: The identification of the AMO signal in the ‘global mean temperature record’.



The use of radiative forcings to create a spurious ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2 have led to absurd claims that increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration can cause increases in every imaginable form of ‘extreme weather event’. One of the more egregious examples of this is the annual supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society ‘Explaining Extreme Events of [Year] from a Climate Perspective’ [Herring et al, 2022]. The series has been published annually since 2012. The BAMS publication guidelines clearly state:


"Each paper will start with a 30 word capsule summary that includes, if possible, how anthropogenic climate change contributed to the magnitude and/or likelihood of the event."


The climate sensitivities created in CMIP5 and CMIP6 model ensembles and other in climate models are used without question to ‘explain’ the observed ‘extreme weather events’ for the year of interest. Natural climate changes related for example to ocean oscillations and blocking high pressure systems have to be ‘enhanced’ by the pseudoscience of radiative forcings.


The ocean oscillations provide a natural ‘noise baseline’ for climate temperatures. There is a well-established inverse relationship between the temperature changes related to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the wind speed as indicated by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) [ENSO, 2022, SOI 2022]. These variations change the size and location of the Pacific equatorial warm pool, but the maximum ocean surface temperature stays near 30 °C. In addition, an important source of heat in the lower troposphere is air compression. This has been ignored by the climate modeling community. As dry air descends to lower altitudes, the lapse rate is 9.8 K km-1. There are two main effects. The first is heating by downslope winds and the second is the heating produced by the down flow of air within a high pressure ‘dome’. These processes can produce temperature changes of 10 °C or more over a few days or less. Ocean oscillations, downslope winds and blocking high pressure systems are considered in more detail by Clark and Rörsch [2023].



Conclusions


The modern climate modeling fraud was established by the work described in three papers, two by Manabe and Wetherald [M&W, 1967, 1975] and the third by Hansen et al [1981]. Little has changed in 40 years. The elaborate pseudoscientific ritual of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity to CO2 described in Chapter 7 of the Working Group 1 Report in the Sixth climate Assessment [IPCC 2021] can be traced back to the 1981 Hansen et al paper. The main change has been the addition of ‘efficacies’ to the radiative forcings by Hansen et al [2005]. As computer technology has improved, the climate models have become more complex, but the underlying errors are still the same. An infrared ‘radiative forcing’ produced by an increase in atmospheric ‘greenhouse gas’ concentration does not change the ‘energy balance’ of the earth. The small additional amount of heat added to the troposphere is dissipated by wideband LWIR emission to space and turbulent convection. Any increase in the surface temperature of the earth is too small to measure. Similarly, any increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation at the ocean surface and cannot produce a measurable increase in the ocean surface temperature.


The climate modeling fraud has three parts. First, the climate energy transfer processes were oversimplified, starting the nineteenth century with the equilibrium climate assumption. M&W simply copied the ‘equilibrium air column’ model introduced by Arrhenius in 1896 and added 9 or 18 air layers with radiative transfer and related algorithms. This approach had to produce climate warming as a mathematical artifact in the model output. Melodramatic prophecies of the global warming apocalypse became such a good source of research funding that the scientific process of hypothesis and discovery collapsed. The climate modelers rapidly became trapped in a web of lies of their own making. Second, as resources decreased for space exploration and nuclear programs with the end of the cold war, various groups at government agencies such as NASA and DOD, which included the old Atomic Energy Commission with the National Labs, decided to jump on the climate bandwagon. They simply copied and ‘improved’ the M&W work. There was no attempt to conduct any thermal engineering calculations using the time dependent flux terms to validate the climate models. A paycheck was more important. Third, various environmental and political groups decided to exploit global warming to further their own interests.


Climate ‘science’ has degenerated past scientific dogma into the ‘Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse’. Irrational belief in the Sacred Spaghetti Plots generated by the equilibrium climate models has become a requirement for research funding. A multi-trillion dollar fraud has evolved to study every aspect of this non-existent problem. Insane restrictions on the use of fossil fuels have been implemented as government policy based on completely fraudulent climate model results. The climate sensitivity to CO2 used to justify the 1.5 or 2 °C limit in the Paris Accord is pseudoscientific nonsense. Eisenhower’s warning about the corruption of science by government funding has come true. It is time to dismantle this massive fraud.



References


Akasofu, S.-I. (2010), “On the recovery from the Little Ice Age” Natural Science 2(11) pp. 1211-1224. Akasofu

AMO (2021) AMO

Andrews, R. (2017a), “Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 3: Lower Troposphere Satellite Temperatures” Energy Matters Sept 14. Andrews 2017a

Andrews, R. (2017b), “Making the Measurements Match the Models – Part 2: Sea Surface Temperatures” Energy Matters Aug 2. Andrews 2017b

Andrews, R. (2017c), “Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 1: Surface Air Temperatures” Energy Matters July 27. Andrews 2017c

Arrhenius, S. (1896), “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground” Philos. Trans. 41 pp. 237-276. Arrhenius

Berger, T. and G. Sherrington, (2022), “Uncertainty of Measurement of Routine Temperatures–Part Three” WUWT Oct 14 Berger.Sherrington

Bryson, R. A. and G. J. Dittberner (1976), “A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature” J. Atmos. Sci. 33(11) pp. 2094-2106. Bryson.Dittberner

Callendar, G. S. (1938), “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature” J. Roy. Met. Soc. 64 pp. 223-240. Callendar1 also available at Callendar2

Clark, R. (2013), “A dynamic, coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts” Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) pp. 319-340. Clark 2013a

“A dynamic, coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications” Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) pp. 341-359. Clark 2013b

Clark, R. and A, Rörsch (2023), Finding simplicity in a complex world, Amazon (In Press). D’Aleo, J. and A. Watts (Aug. 27, 2010) “Surface temperature records: policy driven deception? [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf] (link not working) Available at: D'Aleo.Watts

Douglas, J. H. (March 1, 1975) “Climate change: chilling possibilities” Science News 107 pp. 138-140. Douglas

ENSO (2022) ENSO

Feldman D.R., K. N. Liou, R. L. Shia and Y. L. Yung (2008), “On the information content of the thermal IR cooling rate profile from satellite instrument measurements” J. Geophys. Res. 113 D1118 pp. 1-14. Feldman

Gibert, F., J. Cuesta, J.-I. Yano, N. Arnault and P. H. Flamant (2007), “On the Correlation between Convective Plume Updrafts and Downdrafts, Lidar Reflectivity and Depolarization Ratio” Boundary Layer Meteorology 5 pp. 553-573.Gibert

HadCRUT4 (2022), HadCRUT

Hale, G. M. and M. R. Querry (1973), “Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength region” Applied Optics 12(3) pp. 555-563. Hale.Querry

Hanel, R. A., B. Schlachman, D. Rogers and D. Vanous (1971), “Nimbus 4 Michelson Interferometer” Applied Optics 10(6) pp. 1376-1382, Hanel

Hansen, J., A. Lacis, R. Ruedy M. Sato and H. Wilson (1993), “How sensitive is the world's climate?” National Geographic Research and Exploration 9(2) pp. 142-158. Hansen 1993

Hansen, J. et al. (45 authors) (2005), “Efficacy of climate forcings” J. Geophys. Res. 110 D18104 pp. 1-45. Hansen 2005

Harde, H. (2017), “Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2Int. J. Atmos. Sci. 9251034 pp. 1-30. Harde

Hausfather, Z. (2019), “CMIP6: The next generation of climate models explained” Carbon Brief Hausfather

Herring, S. C., N. Christidis, A. Hoell and P. A. Stott (2022), “Explaining Extreme Events of 2020 from a Climate Perspective” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 101 (1), pp. S1–S128, (and prior years in this series) Herring

Holmes, R. I. (2017), “Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity” Earth Sciences 6(6) pp. 157-163. Holmes

Iacono, M. J., J. S. Delamere, E. J. Mlawer, M. W. Shephard, S. A. Clough, and W. D. Collins (2008), “Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models” J. Geophys. Res. 113, D13103 pp. 1-8. Iacono

IPCC, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (2021). In Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157896 IPCC 2021

IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, (2014)1535 pp. ISBN 9781107661820. IPCC 2013

Jelbring, H. (2003), “The greenhouse effect as a function of atmospheric mass” Energy and Environment 14(2) pp. 351-356. Jelbring

Jones, P. D. T. M. Wigley and P. B Wright (1986), “Global temperature variations between 1861 and 1984” Nature 323(31) pp. 430-434. Jones

Keeling (2022), "The Keeling Curve". Keeling

Knutti, R. and G. C. Hegerl (2008), “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes” Nature Geoscience 1 pp. 735-743.Knutti.Hegerl

Lorenz, E. N. (1973), “On the Existence of Extended Range Predictability” J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology 12(3) pp. 543-546. Lorenz 1973




Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald (1975), “The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration in the climate of a general circulation model” J. Atmos. Sci. 32(1) pp. 3-15. M&W 1975

Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald (1967), “Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity” J. Atmos. Sci. 24 pp. 241-249. M&W 1967

McFarlane, F. (2018), “The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth” Watts Up with That, 11.19.2018. McFarlane

MODTRAN (2021). MODTRAN

Möller, F. (1964), “Optics of the lower atmosphere” Applied Optics 3(2) pp. 157-166. Möller

Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens and M. R. Allen (2013), “Energy budget constraints on climate response” Nature Geoscience, 6 (6). pp. 415 - 416. ISSN 1752-0894. Otto

Otto, Ibid, Supplementary Material. Otto.Suppl

Peterson, T. C., W. M. Connolley and J. Fleck, (2008) “The myth of the 1970’s global cooling consensus” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86 pp. 1325-1337. Peterson

Ramaswamy, V., W. Collins, J. Haywood, J. Lean, N. Mahowald, G. Myhre, V. Naik, K. P. Shine, B. Soden, G. Stenchikov and T. Storelvmo (2019), “Radiative Forcing of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications” Meteorological Monographs Volume 59 Chapter 14. Ramaswamy

SOI (2022). SOI

Wang, W. C. and G. A. Domoto (1974), “The radiative effect of aerosols on the earth's atmosphere” J. Appl. Meteorology 13(5) pp. 521-534. [https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1974)013<0521:TREOAI>2.0.CO'semicolon'2]

Wang, W. C., Y. L. Yung, A. A. Lacis, T. Mo and J. E. Hansen (1976), “Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations of trace gases” Science 194 pp. 685-690. Wang.1976

Wijngaarden, W. A. van and W. Happer (2022), “IR Forcing by Greenhouse Gases” CO2 Coalition publication 6/10/22, Wijngaarden

Yu, L., X. Jin, and R.A. Weller (Jan. 2008), “Multidecade global flux datasets from the objectively analyzed air-sea fluxes (OAFlux) project: latent and sensible heat fluxes, ocean evaporation, and related surface meteorological variables” OAFlux project technical report OA-2008-01. Yu