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):


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
Climate sensitivity=Planck response x Feedbacks=1.2K x 2.5=3K

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

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…
Hansen: Yes. 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,

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.
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) ?
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.”

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)

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

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

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.


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.

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

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.

About the author:

Kyoji Kimoto holds a Master degree in organic synthesis from Kyusyu University. He is a retired fuel cell researcher having a 5-year experience of computer simulations in chemical processes and currently works as an independent climate researcher. Kimoto has two papers  published in the journal Energy & Environment,

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    Quote: “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). ”
    I seem to be missing something here as I can’t get this sentence to make sense. What does the phrase, “water is opaque to IR radiation of CO2” mean as the meaning somehow alludes me?

    • Avatar

      jerry krause


      Hi Dale,

      I am sure you know water molecules in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases in that they absorb a portion of the longwave infrared radiation being emitted from the earth’s surfaces. But you maybe do not know that water molecules also absorb a portion of the shortwave infrared solar radiation. Water molecules in liquid water are obviously much more dense than water molecules in the atmosphere, so the shortwave infrared radiation which is absorbed by water molecules is not observed to be transmitted through a thin layer of liquid water (hence the word opaque). It is also observed that the portion or shortwave infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide is not transmitted through a thin layer of liquid water.

      I find the quote to which you refer very interesting. This because Kimoto never addresses why this radiation is reflected in Fig 5, and not simply absorbed in the liquid water. Which maybe is the cause of your question.

      For I find that the following is not commonly known. “Metals do not reflect 100 percent, but many do reflect visible light very well. In other words, the imaginary part of their indexes is very large. But we have seen that a large part of the index means a strong absorption. So there is a general rule that if any material gets to be a very good absorber at any frequency, the waves are strongly reflected at the surface and very little gets inside to be absorbed.” Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol II, pp 33-11)

      Have a very good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    jerry krause


    Hi Readers,

    “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.”” Kyoji Kimoto

    The headline of Kyoji Kimoto’s very honest article was “NASA’s James Hansen Knew Climate Models Are Fudged”. And so did evidently almost every other scientist funded to study the possible consequences of the theory known as the Greenhouse Effect which is now about 120 years old. The key word here is FUNDED. A key word in Manabe’s quote is COMPUTER. For it seem the whole of the scientific community accepts that computer modeling is an acceptable substitute for actual observations. But more insidious is that argument is an acceptable substitute for actual observation in what is termed science.

    It seems a historical fact that what we now term science was established (founded) by a man we commonly call Galileo. But there is a historical fact, when I read Henry Crew and Alfonso’s English translation of Galileo’s book, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, about the science which Galileo espoused. Galileo believed that observation (experimental results) needed to be supplemented by rational argument.

    Two other scientists with less commonly known names were contemporaries of Galileo: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Tycho Brahe made highly accurate astronomical observations, given the fact they were naked eye observations, and Johannes Kepler, a mathematician (computer?), who analyzed Brahe’s observation.

    But Kepler was more than a computer, because after calculating the circular orbits of all the planets observed by Brahe, he was confronted by Brahe’s observations of Mars. For he could not fit Mar’s orbit, within what he considered to be experimental errors of Brahe’s observations, to a circular orbit. So, he considered the possibility that Mar’s orbit was an ellipse with one of its foci being the sun. And he went back to recalculate the other planet’s orbits as if they were similar ellipses and found a better fit of Brahe’s quite accurate observations to the ellipse than he had found for their fit to circles. And he went a step further and discovered the existence of three scientific laws. And the rest is history for we now know that orbits of planets are better described as ellipses than as circles and that Kepler’s three scientific laws have not been observed to faulty.

    However, a historical fact is Galileo never accepted the results of Brahe’s observations and Kepler’s analysis. I must conclude this was because Galileo believed observation needed the support of rational argument (whatever a rational argument is if it is wrong).

    I like reflect on quotes which have been made by scientists of significant achievements.

    “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.” Einstein

    “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong; it is character.” Einstein

    “Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.” Galileo

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Warren L. Kitchel


    For another valid climate change analysis, look up the speech by Dr. Patrick Moore (one of Greenpeace’s Founders): Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

    The speech was given at the 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture at the
    Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

Comments are closed