What has really disturbed me is that the models been used where stuck together Forty years ago when mathematical methods were too difficult for the computer power available. That means serious compromises just to get something to work at all. It was really too soon to attempt the challenge.
So you then use fudge factors that sort of work. Let us be serious. An exponential function can be partially graphed as a straight line is you make the interval short enough and empirical date is fuzzy enough to completely obscure this fudge so long as you do not step too far out. Then your replacement takes over and knows none of this.
The bottom line is that am modeling expert has called them out and essentially told them that their models are junk. I know they are junk if they have relied on something stuck together forty years ago.
Climate science happens to be a difficult modeling problem because nothing is linear. You have multiple vortex cells and mobile bodies of air interacting with jet streams. All this before you consider a thunderstorm.
Then recall that the only completely solved general problem in applied mathematics is the linear case..
.
Japanese Modeling Expert Slams James Hansen / Climate Scientists, Calling Them “Lawbreakers In The Court Of Science”
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:
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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment