Japanese Modeling Expert Slams James Hansen / Climate Scientists, Calling Them “Lawbreakers In The Court Of Science”

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”

http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/13/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:

 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.