NASA’s James Hansen Knew Climate Models Are Fudged

Written by Kyoji Kimoto

New study from Japan reveals climate scientists who originally calculated the greenhouse gas effect knowingly used a wrong calculation that is “theoretically meaningless” when determining the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on atmospheric temperatures.

Independent climate researcher, Kyoji Kimoto identifies that two of the most relied upon studies of CO2 in the atmosphere (Manabe (1964/67) & Hansen (1981)) are riddled with known guesswork and error such that they should now be dismissed as “fake science.”

Crucially, Syukuro Manabe (a Japanese meteorologist) confesses he did not resolve the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate and made an estimate which was falsely entered as “fact,” contrary to modern government expert claims that such work was rigorous “settled science.”

Kyoji Kimoto has carefully pinpointed the precise errors that invalidate the work of these ‘climate experts’ whose papers have become cornerstones in determining the alleged global warming impacts of CO2.

The detailed rebuttal is featured in full below as ‘Hansen Knows Models Are Fudged’ (Kyoji Kimoto, January 29, 2018):

HANSEN KNOWS MODELS ARE FUDGED

1. LACK OF PARAMETER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN 1DRCM STUDIES
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a fake science based on one dimensional radiative convective model (1DRCM) studies by Manabe (1964/67) & Hansen (1981), which gave the Planck response (zero feedback climate sensitivity) of 1.2~1.3K.

Manabe and Hansen utilized the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 causing uniform warming throughout the troposphere and the surface (see Case B in Fig.1). This is physically wrong because radiative forcing is ~4W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the tropopause while it is ~1W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface due to much higher humidity.

The assumption was initiated by Manabe (1964/67) bearing a careless understanding on the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 as follows:

“The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temperature is approximately 6.5K/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b), the destabilizing effect of radiative transfer. Instead of exploring the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate in detail, we here accept this as an observed fact and regard it as a critical lapse rate for convection.” [Emphasis added]

Lapse rate (LR) for 2xCO2
A A: LR = 6.1K/km (-6%)
B: LR = 6.5K/km (basis): Manabe method
B C: LR = 6.9 K/km (+6%)

H 1xCO2: 6.5K/km C
(km) (Observed lapse rate)

T (K) Planck response 0K 1.3K 2.6K
Fig. 1 Parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2 in the Manabe method

The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962). There is no theoretical guarantee, however, that the same lapse rate will be maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 because it depends on radiation, convection, large scale dynamics and moisture etc.. Therefore the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a
parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis.

In Fig.1 the Planck response varies as much as 100% with only a 6% variation of the lapse rate for 2xCO2, while it varies from 4K/km to 10K/km generally. Therefore the Planck response of 1.2~1.3K by Manabe (1964/67) & Hansen (1981) is theoretically meaningless though they furnish a theoretical basis of the Planck response of 1.2K to
GCMs with uniform warming throughout the troposphere and the surface.

Soden (2006) showed all GCMs for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) utilized the Planck feedback parameter of -3.21 (W/m2)/K (see Fig.2), giving the Planck response of 1.2K with the radiative forcing of 3.7(W/m2) for 2xCO2 at the tropopause. It is uniform warming throughout the troposphere and the surface in line with the 1DRCM studies
above. A climate sensitivity of 3K is obtained by the following calculations:

Planck response= -Radiative forcing/Planck feedback parameter
=3.7(W/m2)/3.21(W/m2)/K=1.2K
Climate sensitivity=Planck response x Feedbacks=1.2K x 2.5=3K

Here, feedbacks are (water vapor + lapse rate), surface albedo and cloud feedback.

2. HANSEN KNOWS MODELS ARE FUDGED
Hansen admitted that the 1DRCM study was fudged because its results strongly depended on the lapse rate used in an interview with Spencer Weart held on October 23, 2000 at NASA. An excerpt from the interview follows:

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…
HansenYes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have a 3D model to do it properly. In the 1D 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 3D model.
Source: Interview of James Hansen by Spencer Weart on 2000 October 23, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD USA, www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oralhistories/243091

On November 10, 2016, I sent an email to Hansen accusing him of the flawed AGW scares. Then Hansen changed his saying as follows:

Old View (July 2006):
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

Revised View–Worse Than Thought (2009)
Several years later, with the publication of his 2009 manifesto Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save the Planet, he shared “some bad news” (p. 139) with readers: The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. It does not always work that way. Sometimes our estimates are off in the other direction, and the problem is not as bad as we thought. Not this time. “The climate system is on the verge of tipping points,” Hansen stated (p. 171). “If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.”

Also in 2009, he told the press:

“We cannot afford to put off [climate policy] change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

Revised View–Need to Go Emissions Negative (October 2016)

“Contrary to the impression favored by governments, the corner has not been turned toward declining emissions and GHG amounts. The world is not effectively addressing the climate matter, nor does it have any plans to do so, regardless of how much government bureaucrats clap each other on the back.…. Negative CO2 emissions, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.”

My mail to Hansen on November 10, 2016:

Dear Dr. J. Hansen:
You said “1DRCM is fudged because its results are strongly dependent on the lapse rate used” here. https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1
I completely agree with your idea as shown in my article “Collapse of the AGW theory of the IPCC” attached. Could you please explain why you are talking about the AGW scares such as rapid sea level rise and extreme weather when CO2 doubling, which are produced by 3DGCMs based on 1DRCM studies in Manabe (1964/67) and Hansen (1981) ?
Sincerely,
Mr. K. Kimoto

New View (December 2016):
“Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.

The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future.

The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/

Fame & fund is main driving force for climate scientists to advocate the AGW theory. In the farewell lecture held on October 26, 2001 in Tokyo, Manabe talked 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.

Source: Dr. Syukuro Manabe’s Farewell Lecture and Interview held on October 26, 2001. Resume of “Climate Research: Breaking through difficulties” (in Japanese) http://hydro.iis.utokyo.ac.jp/~taikan/WebRep/2001/manabe2001/

3. PHYSICAL REALITY VS. MODEL OUTPUTS
In the orthodox AGW theory, radiation height increases from point a to point b in Fig. 3 due to increased IR opacity when CO2 is doubled. This decreases the temperature at the effective radiation height of ~5km causing an energy imbalance between the Absorbed Solar Radiation of 240W/m2 and Outgoing Long wave Radiation.

In order to restore the balance of energy, the radiation temperature increases from point b to point c. Based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, a warming of 1K at the effective radiation height is enough to remove the energy imbalance caused by the radiative forcing of ~4W/m2 for 2xCO2.

Surface temperature Ts increases in the same degree of 1K with the Manabe method since the FLRA is utilized for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 (see Fig.3). It is, however, erroneous because the Manabe method fails in Fig. 1. On the contrary, surface temperature increase is negligibly small in Kimoto model with a slight decrease of the lapse rate from 6.5K/km to 6.3K/km. It is in line with the physical reality that surface radiative forcing is much smaller than that of the upper troposphere thanks to higher humidity.

In conclusion the AGW confusion for more than 50 years is an illusion produced with the careless FLRA by Manabe (1964/67) obstructing genuine climate science.

Thanks to the erroneous Planck response of 1.2K, GCMs for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) show much larger troposphere temperature increase than observations in the model comparison project (CMIP-5) (see Fig.4).

Fig.4 Comparison between model outputs and observations
Source: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016, Testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf

As to sea surface temperature (SST) governing climate, physicist and oceanographer criticize model outputs. They claim that it violates a physics law that water is opaque to IR radiation of CO2 at the interface of the atmosphere-ocean (see Fig.5).

Fig.5 Comparison between IPCC model and physical reality

4. WARMER PERIOD OF 1930s
D. Dahl-Jensen et al. shows the 1930s is 0.5K warmer than the present time based on a bore-hole study of Greenland ice sheet in Science Vol. 282, 268-271(1998). If there is no data tampering by NOAA and NASA, this could be seen in their surface temperature time series. The following data will support D. Dahl-Jensen’s finding.

(NASA)

The strongest hurricane Labor Day hit in 1935. (U.S .National Hurricane center)

1935 892 hPa Labor Day
1969 909 hPa Camille
2005 920 hPa Katrina
1992 922 hPa Andrew
1886 925 hPa Indianola
2017 929hPa Irma
2017 938hPa Harvey

The strongest typhoon Muroto hit in 1934. (Japan Meteorological Agency)

1934 912 hPa Muroto
1945 916 hPa Makurazaki
1961 925 hPa Second Muroto
1959 929 hPa Isewan
1993 930 hPa 1993, No.13

PDO index was positive during 1925-1945. (Japan Meteorological Agency)

*) Increasing solar activity with positive PDO index caused higher daytime high
temperature, the highest heat wave index and the strongest storm in 1930s.

5. GLOBAL COOLING THANKS TO DECREASING SOLAR ACTIVITY
In my book (2010), I predicted that global cooling might occur in 2018 with wavy jet stream caused by decreasing solar activity. My prediction was based on a 44-year cycle of heavy snowfall in Japan as follows:

1833/heavy snowfall Dalton minimum (1795-1830)
(44 years)
1877/heavy snowfall
(41 years)
1918/heavy snowfall Gleissberg minimum (1898-1923)
(45 years)
1963/heavy snowfall
(43 years)
2006/heavy snowfall Dalton or Gleissberg minimum?

*) Global cooling might occur in 2017~2020 with the following calculation.
2006 (solar phase change) + 11~14 (ocean time lag) = 2017~2020

44-year cycle of heavy snowfall in Japan (Kimoto Cycle)、

Sunspot maximum year (NASA) heavy snowfall (HS) or famine
(Type of coming minimum)
Maunder minimum(1645-1715) (probability:20%)
Dalton minimum (1795-1830) (probability:40%)
Gleissberg minimum(1898-1923) (probability:40%)

Maunder Dalton Gleissberg What type minimum?

4 upward arrows: HS years and 2 downward arrows: JU-CM-CS event years

References:
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D. and Russell, G., Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Science 1981, 213, 957~966.
Kimoto, K., Will coal save Japan and the world?, Energy & Environment, 2015, 26, 1055~1067.
Manabe, S. and Strickler, R.F., Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a convective adjustment, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1964, 21, 361~385.
Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1967, 24, 241~259.
Soden, B.J. and Held, I.M., An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Climate, 2006, 19, 3354~3360.

Ref.: https://principia-scientific.org/nasas-james-hansen-knew-models-are-fudged/

………………..

Princeton Physicist: Climate Models ‘Don’t Work’

Written by Michael Bastasch

Princeton University physicist William Happer is not a fan of models used to predict future manmade global warming, and stars in a new educational video laying out the reasons he believes climate models are faulty.

“And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future,” Happer said in a video produced by PragerU.

In the video, Happer argues that even supercomputers used to predict the weather and forecast future global warming aren’t strong enough to capture the complexity of Earth’s atmosphere, including cloud cover and natural ocean cycles.

“That’s why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another — based on computer models — has been wrong,” Happer said in the video. “They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.”

Scientists have increasingly been grappling with reconciling the difference between global climate model projections and real-world temperatures. Scientists skeptical of catastrophic manmade warming often point out that models overestimate warming from greenhouse gases.

Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger found that real-world warming has been on the low end of model predictions for the last six decades, and a more recent study published in the journal Nature Geoscience found a similar trend.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times in 2017.

But other scientists have been critical of claims that models overestimate warming. The University of California, Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said models only predict about 8 percent more warming than what’s actually happened.

Ref.: https://principia-scientific.org/princeton-physicist-climate-models-dont-work/

Imaginary Changes Of Climate

Devastating Hail Across the Planet Under Reported in the Media

Mini Ice Age is here?