• Home
  • Current News
  • Japanese Expert Trashes Government ‘Back of an Envelope’ Climate Models

Japanese Expert Trashes Government ‘Back of an Envelope’ Climate Models

Written by John O'Sullivan

Japanese climate researcher who identified evidence that extreme weather in Japan is linked to solar activity and global cooling produces a new study showing that government computer models rely on a faulty back-of-the envelope calculation from a 1976 science paper.

Japanese chemical science modeler, Kyoji Kimoto, told fellow climate researchers at Principia Scientific International that: “I can help end the man-made global warming issue with facts and theory since I have studied most of the leading papers in this field.”

Climate science has long been bogged down in a hot debate over the effects of clouds on earth’s climate. Most agree that variations in cloudiness and cloud type cause several contradicting effects on climate conditions.

With such confusion, Kyoji Kimoto has identified that government climate researchers have fed code into their computer models that is little more than guesswork from a 1976 paper that attempted to gauge the impacts of cloud on climate (Cess).  Alarmists have claimed that clouds and the water cycle strongly enhance the so-called radiative greenhouse gas effect(Schneider, 1972; Cess, 1976). Most skeptics disagree and say clouds are benign and moderate both high and low temperatures.

Kimoto has crunched the disputed numbers used by Cess et al whereby Climate sensitivity (CS) is expressed as follows:

CS=Planck response (zero-feedback CS) x feedbacks (water vapor FB, ice albedo FB, cloud FB, lapse rate FB).

By so doing he has exposed a failure to see any predicted Planck response of 1.2 degrees in the man-made global warming theory promoted worldwide for thirty years by western governments and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC).

Earth’s atmospheric and environmental conditions are constantly changing and interacting. These conditions cause daily local variations of weather, such as cloudiness and rainfall, which may vary on a wide range of time and areal scales

Kimoto,  originally an an organic chemist has 5-year’s experience of computer simulation of chemical processes obtaining a Master’s Degree in organic synthesis. He provides a youtube video from another scientist (Randall) confirming Kimoto’s assessment. It may be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjE4GDC7afQ

Kimoto’s study is excerpted below:

1. Failure of the 1DRCM study by Manabe (1967)

Manabe (1967) is failed when a parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is performed as shown by Fig.1, which is a standard procedure to check the validity of obtained results in scientific study. Hansen’s 1DRCM study is fudged due to large dependence of obtained results on the lapse rate used in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA here. www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1

2. Mathematical error in the Planck response calculation by Cess (1976, 1989) Cess (1976, 1989) obtained the Planck feedback parameter  0 of -3.3(W/m2)/K utilizing eqn (1), giving the Planck response of 1.2K with the radiative forcing RF of 4W/m2 at the tropopause for 2xCO2 as follows:



Cess, R.D., An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, 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. and Yagai, I., Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models, Science, 1989, 245, 513-516.

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. Held, I.M. and Soden, B.J., Water vapor feedback and global warming, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 2000, 25, 441-475.

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.

Mitchell, J.F.B., The greenhouse effect and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics, 1989, 27, 115-139.

Schlesinger, M.E., Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 1986, 1, 35-51.

Soden, B.J. and Held, I.M., An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Climate, 2006, 19, 3354-3360.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Ken Coffman


    It’s like a bunch of activists, government-funded scientists and academics all debate about the merits of a house built from marshmallows. Then someone comes along and says, “Hey, you can’t build a house from marshmallows, marshmallows cannot support much weight and it would collapse on itself.” They pause for a moment, accuse the critic of being a marshmallow science denier and then carry on with their lucrative conversation.


  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn


    The cartoonishness of climate models is built upon the cartoonishness of meteorological models which has emerged from a cartoonish understanding of H2O that has resulted in magical notions that have never been detected empirically like ambient-temperature steam, magical releases of never detected “latent heat,” and convective notions of atmospheric flow that completely faily to describe the lateral motion of jet streams.

    During the time of Newton there were many cartoonish notions of gravity and laws of motions. Fortunately Newton didn’t waste his time drawing attention to the cartoonishness of his opponents. Instead he looked for and found hidden principles.

    The heart of bad science is a tendency to look critically at the accepted superstitions of your opponents and use that as an excuse to not look critically at your own accepted superstitions.


Leave a comment