Japanese Expert: Models Just Cartoon Climate Science
As U.S. President Donald Trump works towards deep cuts to federal funding for climate research an independent Japanese climate researcher shows why climate modeling was really junk science all along.
Kyoji Kimoto, a retired expert in fuel cell energy and thermodynamics, points to recent evidence to prove a statistical “hoax” in a heated email exchange with a top UN climate modeler, Dr Robert D Cess of Stony Brook University, New York.
In the email exchange Kimoto challenges Cess about the way climate models are rigged (via the “Planck response”) to show any warming otherwise attributable to changes in water vapor, etc. (the “parameters”) are instead rigged to show they come from carbon dioxide.
In an email dated 23 August, 2016, Dr. Cess replies to Kimoto where Cess apparently admits he allowed such mathematical “errors” in his calculations. His equations have been routinely used for key climate models relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and government policymakers set on reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide.
The error, which is common among government climate modelers, is a wholesale fudge of the impacts from clouds and relative humidity, which are crudely made fixed and constant in the models. This fake alternative reality defies actual observations where there is great variation and little – if anything – is fixed.
In cartoon climate science speak this is referred to as the ‘no-feedback sensitivity’ as shown below in Dr Cess’s email to Kimoto. As a result of this tomfoolery the models consistently exaggerate expected warming due to CO2, as shown in the graph below [model average in red, actual observations blue/green]
Cess writes to Kimoto:
”I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there were no interactive climate feedback mechanisms? Simply stated, it is a hypothetical reference sensitivity. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY.“
As another skeptic of alarmist models, P Gosselin, notes from this revealing email exchange:
“The AGW [man-made global warming] theory of the IPCC is constructed on the Planck response of 1.2°K produced by the mathematically erroneous Cess method. Since Cess has admitted his mathematical errors in the above reply, the theory totally collapses together with the high climate sensitivity of 3°K for a doubling of CO2. It raises sea surface temperature as much as 2°K, thus leading to the various AGW scares such as rapid sea level rise and severer extreme weather in the GCM studies of the IPCC.
Kimoto [11] showed the surface climate sensitivity of 0.14-0.17°K with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1 W/m2 for 2xCO2. It is reduced from the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 at the tropopause due to infrared absorption overlap between CO2 and water vapor plentifully existing at the surface.”
Kimoto, along with many other independent researchers, sees this adulteration of the data to be a deception which is not openly admitted to in media presentations made to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate public.
Sadly, the “lukewarmists” are as guilty as the “alarmists” for allowing this fabricated information through the use of this fallacy.
For President Trump it is helpful to know that the models were rigged from the start to intentionally put the focus on carbon dioxide – when it might even be completely ‘innocent’ of any impact on climate change. And this is the real reason why official climate models have always failed to predict future climate.
For another paper on this subject by Kyoji Kimoto see:
http://www.academia.edu/12823582/ON_THE_CONFUSION_OF_PLANCK_FEEDBACK_PARAMETERS
Trackback from your site.