In Paris countries signed a (non-binding) agreement on climate, and now coal will soon disappear from our lives, right? Think again.
A new paper by Japanese scientist Kyoji Kimoto published by Energy and Environment here suggests CO2 climate forcing has been grandly overstated, and as a consequence coal will remain an energy backbone for many nations in the future.
Kimoto maintains there’s been confusion over the Planck feedback parameters.
Here’s the abstract, emphasis added:
The central dogma is critically evaluated in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC, claiming the Planck response is 1.2K when CO2 is doubled. The first basis of it is one dimensional model studies with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5°K/km. It is failed from the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for CO2 doubling. The second basis is the Planck response calculation by Cess in 1976 having a mathematical error. Therefore, the AGW theory is collapsed along with the canonical climate sensitivity of 3°K utilizing the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling. The surface climate sensitivity is 0.14-0.17K in this study with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2. Since the CO2 issue is removed, coal will be the energy for the future of many nations in terms of the amount of resource and production cost.”
“Basic errors” in the AGW theory
In an e-mail Kimoto wrote he has 5 years experience in the computer simulation of chemical processes and has read most of the leading papers of the AGW scientists and found basic mathematical errors in the theory. His paper suggests that coal’s effect on climate has been considerably exaggerated, and that it will remain an essential energy source for many countries long into the future – due to its economy, availability and reliability.
In the paper’s conclusion, Kimoto states:
The central dogma of the IPCC is theoretically failed that the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2K for 2xCO2, resulting in the collapse of the AGW theory claiming the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K for CO2 doubling.”
26 responses to ““AGW Theory is Collapsed” …Japanese Scientist Finds CO2 Climate Sensitivity Grandly Overstated!”
As I understand the initial claim that the doubling of the CO2 concentration causing a temperature rise of 1.0-1.1℃ was merely a guess. The other estimates ranged from 0.25 to over 5℃. The explanation came later, along with the claim of a 3X amplification due to water vapour.
In the last few years there has been a series of scientists claiming that the climate sensitivity has been grossly over-estimated. They have been ignored because “the science is settled”. With the failure of the climate to behave according to the theory it seems these claims have to be taken more seriously.
Science is settled and has chosen to ignore reality while the funding is good.
Just like the string theory modelers. They’re still trying to imagine ways of how to experimentally check their theory. They say.
Kimoto’s ideas were discussed at Lucia’s blog a while ago. Very thoroughly.
Looks like you’re referring to an earlier paper. The one above is from 2015.
Arch climate alarmist Stephen Schneider already knew this in 1971 when he co-authored a paper with Rasool which states:
Maybe 2016 will bring some debate about the basic assumptions of the CO2 models. I’m hoping David Evans will complete his work and throw it into the fray. There are now a number of estimates of “sensitivity” that challenge the heart of the IPCC’s assumptions. Even if some government scientists continue to “adjust” data, if the CO2 effect is trashed the cause will be lost. Saner heads may yet prevail.
Never understood the emphasis on anthropogenic CO2 – it only constitutes a trivial 3% to 4% of all CO2 emitted – 96% to 97% is natural in origin. If CO2 were the villain it is supposed, we couldn’t do beans about it to begin with.
I’m sure I’m missing something…glad to see today that this fraud is being called out for what it is!
Great article, Pierre, Thanks.
The claim, Bob, is that the natural stuff is in long term balance, while the anthro stuff is tilting the balance, and basically accumulating over time.
It’s pretty amazing that such a fundamental assumption hasn’t been thoroughly investigated for validity. To the extent it has, it has essentially been by asserting consistency with isotope ratios. But, finding evidence consistent with an hypothesis, and failing to look for evidence inconsistent with it, has ever been the foundation of pseudoscience.
The remarkably close affine relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is a clear indicator that human additions do not contribute significantly to atmospheric concentration.
Muray Salby’s work studies this relationship and concludes that we cannot show that total CO2 is effected by anthro CO2 by looking at rates of change for both.
The problem is the university took his work and he can’t publish it.
Understand, Bart 8, thank you.
Global Warming is the zombie apocalypse.
It’s been “collapsing” for years, but every time it does, it keeps being gotten up by those whose interests aren’t served by admitting it’s dead.
AGW = Climate Change/Disruption = Bernie Lomax.
So, any guesses on how he’s going to be attacked by the alarmists? Other than with pure lies and slander, of course. The paper says he works at Mirane Corporation but a Google search turns up absolutely nothing. Very strange.
The science part of the climate hustle has been falling apart for years.
The proponents of the climate scam has made a tactical retreat in the recent COP. Beware of a new attack. The powers behind the climate hustle will not give up. It is question of power over the resources of the planet and control over its inhabitants, Listen to Christina Figuere. She spells out the real agenda behind the climate hustle
The [CO2] in the atmosphere and global temperature correlate almost perfectly for the last 850,000 years exactly as predicted by Arrhenius in 1896.
If you believe that Arrhenius was right you need to explain why the “Sensitity Constant” changed in 1850 from 16 Kelvin/doubling to 1,6 Kelvin/doubling.
The data in Luethi et al. can be understood in terms of Henry’s law. The correlation after 1850 is mostly coincidental as the Kimoto paper shows. The sensitivity constant is realy small. If it were not we would be experiencing thermal runaway that would vaporize our oceans as suggested by James Hansen and Al Gore.
Kimoto (2015)is based on my studying on most of the leading papers by the major AGW scientists and mail debates with them.
I know the criticism on Kimoto (2009) by Lucia. Since my theory has been evolved from that time, her criticism has no relation to Kimoto (2015).
Mirane Corporation is my personal company.
Thank you for your interest in Kimoto(2015).
It is based on my studying of the leading papers by the major AGW scientists and several mail debates with them.
I know the criticism on my previous paper Kimoto(2009) by Lucia.Since my theory is evolved from it,her criticism has no relation to Kimoto(2015).
Here is an evidence to show that zero feedback climate sensitivity(Planck response)=1.2K is the heart of the AGW theory.
Of course, Randal’s derivation has a mathematical error also.
It is my great pleasure answering to your questions on Kimoto(2015), if any.
By the way,Mirane Corporation is my personal company.
Thanks for showing up here, Mr. Kimoto! And thanks for the video link.
At about 13:00, Randal says he expects Global Warming when CO2 goes higher because his trivial equations, that assume NO ALBEDO CHANGE, and NO OTHER FEEDBACKS, show a warming. This is LOGICAL. Even in the most heavily negatively fed-back system you need at least an infinitesimally small response at the output. The question really boils down to the “sensitivity” i.e. how much does the output have to change to offset the perturbation at the input – just as you say – it is the heart of the AGW theory.
Watched the entire thing now. He omits:
-the chaotic nature of the feedback system (my – and his – simple assumption that a positive change in the input of a negative feedback system must produce at least a small change in the output ignores time lag feedbacks and nonlinear feedbacks which would lead to all kinds of oscillations – chaotic ones)
-that the statistical descriptions of processes in model grid cells SUFFER when the grid cells get smaller
-why the predicted tropospheric hotspot never materialized
-to what temperature measurement series he compares the “successful” 1965 model predictions. This could point to the fraudulent GISS temperature series being of key importance to the entire Climate Modeling industry. They absolutely NEED “measurements” that prove their predictions were correct. BUT – this also means further refinements to the models are made in such a way that they conform to a fraudulent measurement series! In other words, they will never get out of the whole they are digging for themselves. This is probably only true for the public models, not for classified ones. The latter probably simply have different parametrization so the military can just take a public crackpot model and fix it in the right places. IF there is anyone left in the military with a brain, which is questionable at this point. Well maybe some contractors.
All fine and well – but who tells the media to tell us? And even if someone does: who can convince the media not to deny facts?
Compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on climate is presented in a peer reviewed paper at http://eae.sagepub.com/content/26/5/841.full.pdf+html
What does cause average global temperature change (97% match since before 1900) is identified at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
I showed the mathematical error in Randall lecture here.
“Basic global warming hypothesis is wrong”
It also cantains a criticism against confused sayings of Hansen.
I guess you mean this one.
Ah, so they gained their big sensitivity by calculating an unphysically simplified (i.e. false) model. Very sensible argument!
[…] No Tricks Zone, by P […]
“AGW Theory is Collapsed” …Japanese Scientist Finds CO2 Climate Sensitivity Grandly Overstated!
My God, Pierre, this is just a stupid thing for you to write.
AGW is supported by many lines of evidence. It’s simply not going to be overthrown by one paper, let alone a paper published in the crappy joural E&E.
Did you know this journal’s editor says it’s OK for her to be biased?
Look it up. I wrote about it 10+ years ago for Scientific American.
Your Mr. Japanese guy is full of it — which is why he can’t get his work published in a real scientific journal, and has not choice but to publish in the crappy ones.
AGW is actually refuted by hundreds of papers, and the entire geological record going way back…anyone OBJECTIVELY going through the literature would know that.