Abstract. Analyzing the development within the power imbalance on the prime of the ambiance as measured by satellites, delivers a “pure” local weather sensitivity of 0.3 Ok/W/m2. That’s at, or very near the inverse of the Planck suggestions parameter as might be anticipated. Ranging from the essential power steadiness, it’s proven that the excessive local weather sensitivities as utilized by the IPCC are only a consequence from the invalid assumption that world warming is attributable to greenhouse gasses solely. Local weather feedbacks to clarify these excessive values are not more than crucial artifacts wanted to assist this mis-conception. At current circumstances it’s calculated from a easy analytical expression that the IPCC local weather sensitivity is 3.2x too excessive. That means that the worldwide warming as measured since 1980, is for about 2/3rd the results of a rise in incoming solar energy and may just for 1/3rd be attributed to a rise in GHG’s, at max. This evaluation is supported by radiation knowledge from NASA’s CERES-project (2000-2020).
A few years in the past, I made a easy estimate of the temperature impact of the greater than 10% brightening during the last 4 a long time in The Netherlands . The Royal Dutch Metrological Institute (KNMI) attributed solely 0.2oC to that brightening , whereas my methodology resulted in about 1oC. That would go away only 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 in opposition to my strategy boiled right down to: “refined local weather fashions inform us one thing completely different, so your simplistic mannequin have to be improper”. 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 trying to the impact of an unbiased change in cloudiness. Subsequent, I in contrast each views in opposition to present tendencies in cloudiness, floor temperatures, and so forth. from satellite tv for pc knowledge . When matched to tendencies 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 concept of an unbiased forcing because of clouds performing as shutters (modulating photo voltaic enter) delivered very surprisingly, that the sum of all feedbacks exterior the essential Planck suggestions parameter, turned impulsively (virtually) zero .
These outcomes confirmed my notion that top values for local weather feedbacks aren’t actual however artifacts from local weather fashions. If temperature-induced feedbacks happen because of elevated GHG’s, in itself a believable concept, they should 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, 2nd order results, or already integrated in that parameter as confirmed by the result of my suggestions evaluation . For that purpose, I additionally used a barely modified Planck suggestions parameter for the elemental local weather sensitivity within the recurrent relation of the Local weather Mannequin Checker (CMC) in my WUWT-contribution “Exterior the Black Field” .
However tips on how to show that the IPCC/GCM local weather sensitivities are essentially improper?
That quest began with a sort of “reverse engineering” of my CMC  utilizing the identical knowledge, TS type HadCrut5 , the greenhouse fuel (GHG) forcing FGHG from NASA/GISS  and calculate the local weather sensitivity as ̶ 1/λ = ∆TS/∆FGHG (see eq.3 additional on) during the last century. With the intention to use this sensitivity as a great proxy to the Equilibrium Local weather Sensitivity ECS, lengthy intervals of 15 years have been utilized for figuring out the typical slopes in TS(t) and FGHG(t). Outcomes are plotted in fig.1, however given the small ∆FGHG values earlier than say 1920, one ought to take the values earlier than that point, not too severe.
The nonetheless rocky (black) curve reveals that ∆TS/∆FGHG yields “any” worth for the local weather sensitivity, even unfavourable 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, is not going to alter the local weather sensitivity dramatically. If there was simply the AGW-effect warming our local weather, a clean regularly rising temperature profile was to be anticipated.
However what we see, seems fairly completely 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 ~ 2oC. That is the supposed temperature enhance from doubling the pre-industrial 280 ppm CO2 in accordance with ΔF2xCO2 = 3.0 W/m2 from Van Wijngaarden and Happer . Round 1980 that ECS would have been solely about 1oC, however in direction of 1940 it might have been virtually 8oC. To be adopted by an especially speedy decline in direction of -2oC across the fifties. International Cooling was “alarming” certainly.
As soon as, I criticized the CMIP6 forcings  as being too excessive, however tailored values would solely marginally change fig.1. It will anyhow present this “fingerprint” of pure causes for world warming. Not solely that different forcings are at play, but additionally that they have to 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 , 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 power streams, both within the SW- or within the LW-channel are fully fastened to their prime streams SWIN and LWOUT 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 completely 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 finally works. And that suggests, that we don’t should know a lot about what’s happening inside this “black field” that we name “local weather”, to grasp the results 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 power flows SWIN and LWOUT, 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 power flows are simply “good to know”.
However what about these giant local weather feedbacks? Thankfully, being caught in an issue, there may be all the time a technique out: “again to fundamentals”. And that climate-basics is fairly easy the relation between floor temperature TS, incoming shortwave photo voltaic power SWIN and outgoing longwave IR radiation LWOUT, given by the Earth’ power steadiness on the prime of the ambiance (TOA) by way of:
C dTS/dt = SWIN – LWOUT = FTOA (1)
In eq.1, C is the efficient thermal capability per floor space of the Earth’ system and T a system-characteristic temperature. In apply, the floor temperature TS will likely be thought to be the attribute climate-temperature for apparent causes. In equilibrium, ∂TS/∂t = FTOA = 0.
I’m not going to repeat all of the steps that one can discover in any local weather science textbook, however merely state a very powerful system derived from eq.1, beginning with the overall assumption that adjustments in radiative flux at TOA are proportional to floor temperature adjustments:
∆FTOA = λ∆TS (2)
a 1st order linear relation between the temperature change ∆TS and adjustments in radiative flux ∆FTOA. It’s unbiased from any assumption about what’s driving our local weather. The inverse of the fixed λ will be thought to be our fundamental local weather sensitivity. By introducing small perturbations in eq.1, so known as forcings ∆F we derive the well-known relation typically used to find out the local weather sensitivity:
– 1/λ = ∆TS/∆F (3)
Wherein ∆TS is the change in floor temperature TS, 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 known as a “suggestions”, in view of the local weather response to compensate that forcing, and is due to this fact by conference “unfavourable”. This eq.3 holds for an entire restoration of equilibrium and that’s solely at “infinity”. For a dynamic evaluation we regularly see this system 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 option to calculate -1/λ as the worth of the local weather sensitivity to GHG-forcings.
The final essential relation for use is the expression for the Planck suggestions parameter:
– λPL = 4 SWIN/TS (4)
The shortwave photo voltaic radiation SWIN 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 house. The Planck suggestions parameter λPL 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 unbiased from any assumptions apart from that the Stefan-Boltzmann regulation determines the LW power move from the floor. Consequently, – 1/λPL must also be by definition our local weather sensitivity to disturbances like the results of GHG’s.
However apparently, local weather scientists produce other concepts. I shall come again on this problem, however first we’re going to apply eq.2 to research some CERES knowledge, particularly the radiation measurements at TOA. We’ll take a look at all sky knowledge solely.
In fig.2 the values for SWIN and LWOUT at TOA are plotted for the interval 2000-2020. These are transferring annual averages to suppress all short-term variations. However, they’re nonetheless relatively “rocky”, however their tendencies appear secure, and in common, going up. Their absolute values will be questioned for his or her accuracy, however I simply want their far more dependable slopes.
We rewrite eq.2 for the local weather sensitivity as:
1/λ = (∂TS/∂t)/(∂FTOA /∂t) (5)
One can now immediately calculate the local weather sensitivity that ruled our local weather throughout that interval. With the slopes that the CERES knowledge present: ∂/∂t (SWIN-LWOUT) = 0.41 W/m2/decade (fig.2), and from ∂TS/∂t = 0.125 Ok/decade, we calculate 1/λ = 0.30/Ok/W/m2. I may 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/λPL = 0.30 Ok/W/m2 as derived from eq.4.
This can’t be a coincidence and clearly reveals that the CERES knowledge don’t assist the outcomes of GCM calculations: there are not any giant local weather sensitivities, nor important feedbacks. These CERES measurements verify 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/λPL is plotted vs. time, as calculated by means of eq.4 from the values derived from the CERES knowledge. To suppress noise, annual averages are used to calculate its worth (4SWIN/TS)-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 will 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 enhance. That means:
– 1/λPL ought to enhance with warming/time, if the AGW-hypothesis can be right. It doesn’t.
It merely reveals that theSWIN element is rising as a substitute, as already clear from fig.2, and even sooner than the floor temperature TS, can comply with.
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 enormous local weather sensitivities and/or giant feedbacks.
The way to 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 is predicated on a linear approximation so, 2nd order results might be the explanation to develop λ with additional phrases as these temperature feedbacks. However then, these 2nd 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 consequence obtained by making use of eq.3 with λPL as proportionality. Fig.1 reveals, that the latter merely delivers by far not sufficient warming since 1980. For the calculated temperature anomalies from GCM’s it’s even worse. In line with eq.3 we have now apparently a big inequality, which can’t be from a 2nd order impact in our local weather’s response:
ΔTS = – ΔFGHG/λAGW >> – ΔFGHG/λPL (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 because of rising GHG’s solely. Now to get the “right” warming related to this “recognized” forcing, the widely accepted answer is to adapt the local weather sensitivity by introducing the idea of additional local weather feedbacks in accordance with:
λAGW = λPL + λ1 + λ2 + λ3 + ….. = λPL + ∑ λi = λPL + λFB (7)
The Plank suggestions parameter retains enjoying its position, however it’s apparent from eq.6 that the mixed feedbacks λFB must be giant and with an reverse signal to λPL to get |λAGW| << |λPL|. Thoughts, that these mixed feedbacks show a “feedforward” character and thus, improve warming results from GHG-forcings to suit a higher-than-expected ΔTS. The arguments that it is a good concept, are all very believable. Take the so-called Water Vapor suggestions λWV: rising GHG’s yield warming, which reinforces water-evaporation. Hotter air can comprise extra water vapor. Being a robust greenhouse fuel itself, extra water vapor yields the next temperature. Or take the Albedo suggestions λAL: increased temperatures soften the polar caps, thus lowering the general reflection. Much less reflection implies extra photo voltaic power 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 people who GHG’s induce at this time. So, these feedbacks ought to already be “half and parcel” of the Planck suggestions. What makes GHG-forcings then so particular? The evaluation of λPL and the local weather sensitivity derived from the CERES radiation imbalance knowledge, are giving a transparent reply: nothing particular! The actual problem is: local weather sensitivity is a (close to) fastened parameter, and never a freely adaptable one relying on to the sort of forcing at hand. Massive feedbacks are simply because of the false impression that GHG’s are “the one present on the town”.
The inequality in eq.6 can be restored by altering ΔF whereas conserving λAGW = λPL. Simply settle for one other forcing ΔFSW subsequent to the GHG-forcing ΔFGHG, as I did intuitively in analyzing cloud-effects :
ΔTS = – (ΔFGHG + ΔFSW)/λPL (8)
The subscript SW signifies a forcing that primarily acts on the SWIN-channel in eq.1. That’s not by hypothesis, however the one choice to clarify the optimistic change in SWIN in addition to LWOUT, as in fig.2.
The AGW-hypothesis can merely by no means clarify an rising LWOUT by rising GHG-forcings solely!
The reasoning behind that assertion is straightforward: though ΔFSW and ΔFGHG are each forcings that enhance the floor temperature, they show relatively completely different “fingerprints” at TOA. A GHG-forcing ΔFGHG will decrease LWOUT and the local weather response to extend TS is fed by a relentless SWIN. That enhance in TS will ultimately restore the lowered LWOUT to its outdated worth (see additionally fig.4). In case of a shortwave forcing ΔFSW, ΔTS comes immediately from this extra SWIN and thus, will enhance LWOUT completely. In a dynamic scenario with an rising forcing, a GHG-forcing with e.g., ∂FGHG/∂t = fixed, will yield ∂LWOUT/∂t ≈ ∂SWIN/∂t = 0. However a ∂FSW/∂t = fixed i.e., ∂SWIN/∂t > 0, will yield ∂LWOUT/∂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 giant feedbacks affecting the SWIN element resembling Albedo- and Cloud suggestions will produce an analogous sample to that ΔFSW > 0 case. True, however simply in precept as there are a variety of arguments in opposition to that declare. Initially, the strongest suggestions i.e., from Water Vapor acts on the LW-channel suppressing LWOUT even additional. Secondly, Albedo- and Cloud suggestions ship collectively not far more than 1 W/m2/Ok , which may by no means clarify the 1.38 W/m2 enhance within the SWIN as measured by CERES. It will require an accompanying temperature enhance of 1 – 1.5 oC between 2000 and 2020, which is much past any remark. Nevertheless, most significantly, it might solely be attainable when the slopes of the 2 tendencies are a lot nearer, consistent with 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 (∂SWIN/∂t – ∂LWOUT/∂t) is decided by the Planck suggestions solely. Different feedbacks simply don’t play a lot of a job in fig.2.
There are a number of choices for such SWIN-forcings. Clouds, and particularly the low hanging clouds, are for me choice #1 as they affect each SW- and LW channels, be it fairly in another way. From the Cloud Radiative Impact (CRE) out of CERES knowledge, we all know that the net-effect favors a ΔFSW contribution in eq.8, as additionally concluded in my earlier work . Since clouds do act on SWIN differently than on LWOUT, we don’t even want a change in common cloudiness. A re-distribution over the assorted latitudes is enough as (SWIN – LWOUT) varies from extremely optimistic to extremely unfavourable, going from the equator to the poles . Adjustments within the stratospheric Ozone, and/or in UV-radiation associated adjustments because of the cyclic habits of the Solar, present prospects for solar-related forcings as nicely. However different explanations are definitely to not be excluded.
Eq.8 additionally clarifies a significant attribute of the AGW-hypothesis, particularly ΔFSW = 0. Given the choices for ΔFSW, one may additionally state that the AGW-hypothesis “denies” pure causes for world warming. That is precisely IPCC’s place  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), will be simply demonstrated. Contemplate a local weather with the choice for a step-wise change at t = 0 within the GHG forcing ΔFGHG by +/- ΔR, and for a forcing within the SW channel ΔFSW (∆SW in fig.4) variable in the identical approach: +/- ΔR. In fig.4 the evolution over time of the parts that govern these two completely different views on their warming impact, is graphically displayed for the 6 most blatant combos. The ultimate adjustments in λΔTS from these two views, are additionally given and in comparison with the anticipated worth in that specific state of affairs.
Situation #6 reveals what occurs at this time in actuality: a rising temperature mixed with a rising LW but additionally a rising SW. Situation #2 displays todays IPCC-view. Fascinating are state of affairs #3 and #5 with an an identical “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 improper.
As eq. 8 “delivers” in all situations as anticipated, it merely reveals its validity and correctness. And thus:
the widely in local weather science utilized eq.6, is predicated on the improper assumption of ΔFSW = 0.
No surprise, that the IPCC nonetheless retains this big selection of ECS values. It simply will depend on the time and circumstances i.e., the worth of ΔFSW, 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 ΔTS in combining eq.6 and eq.8 (with AGW and PL as the same old subscripts additionally for ECS):
ECSAGW/ECSPL = λPL/λAGW = (ΔFGHG + ΔFSW)/(ΔFGHG) = 1 + ΔFSW/ΔFGHG (9)
For the interval 2000-2020 we discover from the CERES knowledge (fig.2) ΔFSW = ΔSWIN = 1.38 W/m2. From the CMIP6 forcings  we derive ΔFGHG = 0.64 W/m2, making the ratio ΔFSW/ΔFGHG = 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 aren’t based mostly on falsifiable physics. They’re constructs with just one function: to compensate for the denial of pure results that may trigger world warming.
From the ratio between ΔFSW and ΔFGHG, it’s also clear that the Solar is chargeable for about 2/3 of the noticed warming since 2000, and even earlier. Whereas GHG’s could be chargeable for the remaining. Certainly “could be”, as I’ve simply taken ΔFGHG from an estimated/modelled forcing by NASA . In “Exterior the Black Field” on WUWT, I strongly questioned these knowledge as being too excessive . However, this 2:1 ratio helps the evaluation of the impact of brightening in The Netherlands  in addition to my suggestions evaluation . Globally, rising SWIN (fig.2), should have created a lot of the noticed warming. The expansion within the atmospheric focus of CO2 can solely have performed a minor position, because the rising LWOUT radiation in fig.2 confirms this a lot bigger SW-channel impact.
Anyhow, the ultimate query stays: “what about these improper 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 one of the best of their information. Nevertheless, making them extraordinarily detailed with complicated surfaces, coupled oceans, melting ice-caps or no matter interactions “contained in the field”, will likely not make an enormous 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 have now to search for the purpose within the course of the place the AGW-assumption of “no pure forcings” i.e., ΔSWIN= 0, has its affect and thus, “sneaks” into these GCM-simulations. To my understanding, that may solely occur through the tuning course of to generate a local weather that runs over an extended interval with a relentless habits. As soon as such stability is created, that AGW-characteristic of ΔFSW = 0, is an integral a part of this explicit local weather as inside dependencies are tuned to it. Then, including additional GHG’s to that tuned ambiance to calculate its local weather reactions, may very nicely 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 based mostly on correct physics are in all probability not unhealthy in any respect, besides could also be for the modelling of clouds. Their preliminary circumstances to run them nonetheless, could be essentially improper 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.
Nevertheless, 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 SWIN. For the anthropogenic half it’s fairly clear: with a development to a most CO2-level of 560 ppm, even below a sensible ‘enterprise as standard’ state of affairs , there may be definitely not more than about 0.4oC to go.
Advert Huijser, October 2022
Added after completion: In a collection of posts https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/21/scatterplot-sensitivity/ , Willis Eschenbach just lately revealed plenty of scatterplots from 1×1 diploma gridded CERES knowledge. From these knowledge, common local weather sensitivities are calculated for photo voltaic radiation of 1/λSW = 0.16 Ok/W/m2, and for the greenhouse impact 1/λGHG = 0.58 Ok/W/m2, respectively (unfavourable suggestions indicators are ignored for simplicity). These values are derived by assigning floor temperatures to both pure photo voltaic (∆FGHG = 0), or the pure GHG trigger (∆FSW = 0). By taking nonetheless, the relative contribution of the forcings by photo voltaic ∆FSW and GHG’s ∆FGHG with a ratio of two.2 as derived from eq.8 on this work into consideration, the typical local weather sensitivity for all forcings will be calculated as:
1/λ = (2.2 x 1/λSW + 1 x 1/λGHG)/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.
- 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 obtainable)
- A. Huijser (2021), https://www.clepair.web/clouds-AdHuijser.pdf
- A. Huijser (2022), https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/21/outside-the-black-box/
- W. Eschenbach (2022), https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/08/the-ceres-data/
- W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer (2021), Relative Efficiency of Greenhouse Molecules, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.16465v1
- IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report, A.4.4.
- S. C. Sherwood, et al. (2020). An evaluation of Earth’s local weather sensitivity utilizing a number of traces of proof, Opinions of Geophysics, 58, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678