There really are many scientists who dispute the alarmist conclusions of the climate scientists.
What follows is a scathing open letter from Japanese scientist and modeling expert Kyoji Kimoto to Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess.
======================================
You are the lawbreakers in the court of science
by Kyoji Kimoto
9 January, 2016
Dear Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess,
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC is based on Manabe & Wetherald (1967) and Hansen et al., (1981) which utilize one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2, obtaining the zero feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2-1.3K.
However it is theoretically meaningless when the parameter sensitivity analysis is applied to the lapse rate for 2xCO2 as shown here.
Hansen himself admitted that 1DRCM is a fudge in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA as shown below. Here Dr. Hansen and his colleagues are referring to a paper by W. C. Wang et al., 1976: “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” Science 194, 685-690.
An excerpt from the interview:
Weart:
This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…
Hansen:
That’s trivial. You just put in…
Weart:
… a lapse rate…
Hansen:
Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification. But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.
See more: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1
Cess made a mathematical error in Cess (1976), Cess et al., (1989) and Cess et al., (1990) when differentiating his equation OLR=EeffxsigmaxTs^4,which can be detected by any high school student learning differentiation. Manabe and the IPCC AR4 adopted Cess method to obtain the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) =1.2K. The detailed discussions are here: http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.6-7.1055
The AGW theory of the IPCC has caused huge economic losses to the world, including the collapse of British coal industry and the Fukushima nuclear disaster from the nuclear promotion policy of Japanese government to cut CO2 emissions. How will you take your responsibility for this?
As shown above, you are lawbreakers in the court of science. In the farewell lecture held on 26 October, 2001 in Tokyo, Manabe spoke about his research as follows:
Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”
Sincerely,
Mr. K. Kimoto
References
Cess, R.D., 1976. An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology. J.Atmospheric Sciences 33, 1831-1843.
Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Le Treut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Riches, M.R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M., Wetherald, R.T., Yagai, I., 1989. Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science 245, 513-516.
Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., DelGenio, A.D., Deque, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W.L., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Lacis, A.A., LeTreut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., McAvaney, B.J., Meleshko, V.P., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Rikus, L., Roeckner, E., Royer, J.F., Schlese, U., Sheinin, D.A., Slingo, A., Sokolov, A.P., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M. and Wetherald, R.T., 1990. Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models. J. Geophysical Research 95, 16,601-16,615.
Manabe, S., Wetherald, R.T., 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., Russell, G., 1981. Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 213, 957-966.
If its a fudge, how would a 3d model make it better? By fudging more? Rotating the model till the bad data is from view? That’s only half a story. A lie by ommission. If you are trying to prove a point, and have to lie, does that validate your point?
Wow! I’m sure that qualified folks will confirm or refute the science. The statements attributed to the scientists, however, rival climate gate emails. Keep us posted please.
The headline is not appropriate. I am an anti-modeling expert in Japan.Although Hansen told that 3D model has no lapse rate problem in the interview with Weart,the realities are as follows.
(1)As you know, climate sensitivty(CS) is expressed in the IPCC AR4 as follows.
CS=zero feedback CS x feedbacks=1.2Kx2.5=3K
The zero feedback CS of 1.2 K is determined from 1DRCM studies and Cess method.It is called as the Planck response and uniform throughout the troposphere and the surface.
(2)Lapse rate feedback is included in 3D model to compensate the big positive effect of water vapor feedback.
(3)3D model utilizes more than 100 parameters to be tuned.It is not a science but a political tool to maintain the dogma of the IPCC and huge funds for the AGW scientists.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of K. Kimoto’s work on CO2 sensitivity, he exceeds his remit wildly by reference to
…..”the collapse of British coal industry and the Fukushima nuclear disaster from the nuclear promotion policy of Japanese government to cut CO2 emissions”….
The British coal industry was doomed for purely economic reasons unconnected with AGW, and the huge Japanese investment in nuclear power stems from decisions taken in the early 1970s, again irrelevant to his charges against Hansen etc.
Why proper debate always seems to be eclipsed by overdrive statements of this kind is very disappointing.
“The British coal industry was doomed for purely economic reasons unconnected with AGW, ”
But! Margaret Thatcher DID use warmunism as an excuse. She had Crispin Tickell, arch-warmunist, as advisor! He later went on to become a trustee of Thomson-Reuters Foundation, has a few years ago been replaced by Globalist Pascal Lamy.
Hansen has scared the society with the tipping points for sea level rise and extreme weather events based on his climate sensitivity of 3K when CO2 doubling.This has caused the following economic affairs.
(1)Collase of the British coal industry
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
(2)Japanese government decided the promotion of 20 nuclear reactors to cope with the Kyoto protocol in 1998.Japan has been attacked by huge earthquakes and tsunamis many times from ancient day.
(3)In 2013,Hansen et al. opened a letter to policy maker for the promoton of nuclear energy to stop the AGW disaster.
(4)UN advised Australia to stop mining coal in 2015.
All of these affairs have come from the AGW theory of the IPCC based on Manabe&Wetherald (1967) and Hansen et al.,(1981)utilizing 1DRCM which is called as a fudge by Hansen.
I have to agree. The main body of the article is excellent but the examples given for damage due to AGW response devalues the rest of the article and gives the AGW crowd a toehold to dismiss the fraud that the author is attempt to highlight.
Could the section being discussed be removed or replaced by more appropriate examples, such as diversion of resource away from developing countries?
You raised an important point.My essay is not enough to consider the unreasonable situation of developing countries.
I am afraid of the possibility of the second Fukushima nuclear disaster due to huge earth quake&tsunami attack. More than 50 nuclear reactors exist in this small country where 4 plates collide underground.
Although coal can replace nuclear in terms of cost and resouce quantity, it is being attacked by Environment Agency and media influenced by the false AGW theory of the IPCC.
False theory? That’s a joke, right?
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
It’s a refuted theory. The tropospheric hotspot didn’t materialize, water vapor feedback is a dud in the real world, and worse, troposphere hasn’t warmed in 18 years, so by warmunist Ben Santers’ criterion, “the models have a problem”. And the models are the only codified form of the AGW theory in quantifiable form.
As Kyoji Kimoto says: 100+ parameters – to parameterize statistical descriptions. These parameters are all ASSUMPTIONS. THe models failed because the assumptions are wrong. (well, of course some processes also cannot be modeled with the statistical approach because the number of process instances per grid cell is too small at any given time- and, some other processes ARE NOT modeled. The QBE for instance.)
Is that “false theory” ENOUGH for you?
Has Mr. K. Kimoto not published any peer reviewed papers refuting Hansen et al?
Why not?
Any idiot can post comments on a blog — and as this blog shows, many do. Publish something real, Mr. Kimoto. Then you might have something to stand on.
Well, you are the proof incarnate of the claim of your second last sentence.
Appell still hopes that the stranglehold of the warmunist mafia on journals will help his beloved warmunist pseudoscience chug along for just a short while longer.
Well David, it’s collapsing, not because we’re so smart or the journals in the hand of warmunists, but simply because Earth doesn’t warm as prescribed.
There’s nothing to gain for you from clinging on to a falsified theory. What’s wrong with you and the other unpaid warmunist hobo trolls? Are you addicted to being wrong?
Dear Kyoji Kimoto,
You have raised good questions, but, nothing that has already been known for many years by many scientists. Although I can’t agree with you on certain issues, for instance the British Coal Industry, which was condemned to closure because Ms. Margaret Thatcher understood paying more for British coal than importing it was lunacy, you have, besides, made good points. However, the real problem lies central with computer modeling. The problem is that we have no standards like they have engineering, and that, most importantly that modeling doesn’t follow the Scientific Method, especially where a test or model must have the falsifiability standard too, but they don’t. And why not? Because all models would fail the falsifiable test, for no model can be shown to work in 100% of the situations for 100% of the time, even within error.
Such tests are applied in Engineering. Why is that? Because if we didn’t have such tests, products and processes could end up killing people. But it appears Science is above all this. Why? For the same reason why Engineering resisted standards for methods of development for many years, the unscrupulous made money. This is underscores the problem in Science, it is populated by crooks and thieves. There is rampant dishonesty in the Scientific literature, and wide spread corruption in the grant process.
It is time for Science to come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. It is time for honest structures and standards to be placed into the Scientific Community. It is time to end the subterfuge, corruption, and organized skulduggery that is morphing more into a mafia like organized oligarchy of crime syndicates than a community of science.
What really is needed is that it is Time To Clean Science! White collar crime in Science is rampant, it is time to punish the White Collars as we do the Blue Collars. Sir, you call these people “Lawbreakers in the Court of Science”, it is time to call them what they really are, Criminals, and they belong in prison.
As a man of Science myself I am sick and tired of what I see. We all know what is going on, lets be honest, we do. So when are we going to be honest enough to do what really is required that needs to be done? That is the really tragedy here, every body indirectly talks around the real problem. And that truly condemns us all to what we really all are, sanctimonious pretenders! It is so easy to point a finger, but pointing a finger does nothing, it is time to call out the criminals, and charge them with fraud, and prosecute them.
The Fukushima power plants were not built to mitigate CO2 and were, in fact, the first plants ever built in Japan. Unit 1 was 3 weeks away from final shutdown for decommissioning when the quake struck. They were built because Japan does not have any fossil fuel and needs energy for their industry. Importing fossil fuel is expensive.
I support Kyoji Kimoto’s comments. Anybody who dismisses as being over the top the dire consequences of Western governments to reduce CO2 emissions beyond reason or possibility, is being disingenuous.
And note this extract from the essay by Richard Courtney, quoted by Kyoji Kimoto: “Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.” Since then of course, we all know about the rush for the blight that is “renewables”.
Courtney is right, see my comment above. Crispin Tickell was the key person.
Dear David Appell:
I would like to answer to your questions.
(1)The AGW scientists like Trenberth have a fire-wall system to prevent skeptical papers from publishing in the major climate science journal.Until their power will weeken,Energy&Environment is a journal where sceptical articles can be published. Here is an example of Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/research-pages/the-spencer-braswell-dessler-papers/
(2)Did you read Kimoto(2015),which is shown in the post on 8 January, 2016.
My conclusion is as follows.
IPCC:Radiative forcing for 2xCO2 is 3.7W/m2 at the tropopause. Planck response=1.2K and Climate sensitivity=3K.
Kimoto:Radiative forcing for 2xCO2 is 1.1W/m2 at the surface. Planck response=0.1-0.2K and Climate sensitivity=0.14-0.17K at the surface.
False AGW theory means the warming with 2xCO2 is negligiblly small at the surface.
Gate-keeping by egoistic scientists who fancy themselves as the keepers of the truth is nothing new. Max Planck: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”
From what I read in the paper all of the mathematics is simply speculation.
I have real doubts about the applicability of much of the algebraic manipulations I commonly see.
These are often based on comparing 2 things that are not equal and inappropriately equating the “net” form of the SB equation which has no single sigma T^4 value – it represents a difference which is undefined unless both temperatures are known – obviously.
I’ve seen such a claim used as proof of doubling radiation by a heat shield when in reality the equation cannot be solved without knowing the final value of T – the very thing the “proof” asserts is proven without knowing the final value.
This is a circular argument and totally invalid yet it is accepted as realistic.
This is how one person proved the Steel Greenhouse effect:-
P = sigma T1^4 – we know P and hence T1;
P = sigma T2^4 – sigma T1^4 = sigma T2^4 – P (here they simply chose to ignore that P should really be P(net) – a totally different concept)
Hence sigma T2^4 = 2 P.
Note they simply demand the answer they want by equating 2 different thing.
What is wrong with this is P is not even defined for the second equation unless the final value T2 is known.
It should be P(net) = sigma T2^4 – sigma T1^4 = sigma T2^4 – P
Which simplifies to:
1. P(net) + P = sigma T2^4; or,
2. sigma T2^4 – sigma T1^4 = sigma T2^4 – sigma T1^4
sigma T2^4 = sigma T2^4; or,
3. sigma T1^4 = sigma T1^4 – all of which are obvious
It remains that P(net) is an unknown and its value is absolutely determined by the value of T2 – also an unknown and to try to assert the “proof” is valid is incompetence.
No one has ever been able to solve one equation with 2 unknowns yet some think they can.
I see such absurdities all the time and I suspect differentiating the SB equation as performed may be a similar absurdity without any real meaning outside the constructs of mathematics.
I’ve seen the similar type of construct in the equations used to justify pyregeometers:-
E(net) = E(in) – E(out)
E(net) is supposedly measured.
E(out) is calculated from the temperature measured and therefore treated as a blackbody and equated to sigma T^4 leading to the fundamental pryegeometer equation
E(in) = E(net) + sigma T^4.
Which is also :-
E(in) = (E(in) – E(out)) + sigma T^4
or E(in) = E(in) ??? WOW !
Hence a pyregeometer actually DOES NOT actually measure ANY down-welling long-wave radiation – DLR – at all !
It calculates DLR from a dubious set of algebraic fudges involving the SB equation in a manner I find circular and possibly wrong.