Saturday, July 18, 2015

Collapse of the AGW theory of the IPCC; 'Most influential climate paper of all time' contains multiple false assumptions


Kyoji Kimoto, a Japanese chemist, scientist, and fuel-cell computer modeler & inventor, has submitted his latest work as a guest post to The Hockey Schtick, and which refutes multiple false physical assumptions which underlie the alleged "first physically sound climate model" described in "the most influential climate change paper of all time." These same erroneous physical assumptions also continue to serve as the fundamental basis of James Hansen's NASA/GISS climate model, many other models including the 'state-of-the-art' IPCC climate models, and form the basis of the wide range of modeled CO2 climate sensitivity estimates.

In Kimoto's new work below (and in his prior published paper also below), he addresses the multiple unphysical assumptions made by Manabe & Wetherald, Hansen/GISS, and IPCC modelers et al, a few of which include:

1. An artificially fixed tropospheric lapse rate of 6.5K/km, which does not adjust to perturbations in the atmosphere. This false assumption artificially limits negative lapse rate feedback convection. Using physically correct assumptions, Kimoto finds the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 to be a negligible 0.1-0.2C.

2. Mathematical error in the calculation of the Planck response parameter, due to a false assumption of fixed emissivity, an error which continues to be promulgated by the IPCC

3. Positive feedback from water vapor (whereas millions of radiosonde & satellite observations demonstrate water vapor has a net negative-feedback cooling effect)

4. Fixed relative humidity (contradicted by observations showing a decline of mid-troposphere relative and specific humidity) (A new paper also finds specific humidity is the most non-linear and non-Gaussian variable in weather models, also implying relative humidity is non-linear, and borne out by observations)

5. Neglect of the < 15 micron ocean penetration depth of GHG IR radiation, which greatly limits potential greenhouse gas warming of the top ocean layer. 

[An upcoming HS post will discuss additional other unphysical assumptions of Manabe et al. including improper application of blackbody assumptions & the Stefan-Boltmann Law, gross failure to calculate maximum emitting temperatures of greenhouse gases, and absolutely false assumption that CO2 can absorb/emit at an equivalent blackbody temperature of 300K (but is limited to 193K maximum by basic physical chemistry & quantum theory). Also note, the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere was published 9 years after Manabe et al, did not reference Manabe et al, and did not use one single radiative transfer equation or calculation to determine the entire atmospheric temperature profile 0-100km, including the stratosphere which is grossly inaccurate in Manabe et al] 

According to a recent 'consensus' by The Carbon Brief of 36 IPCC authors, "one paper clearly takes the top spot" as "the most influential climate change paper of all time:" Manabe & Wetherald's 1967 paper entitled, "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity"

According to The Carbon Brief article,
'the work was the first to represent the fundamental elements of the Earth's climate in a computer model, and to explore what doubling carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to global temperature." 
Manabe & Wetherald (1967), Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 
The Manabe & Wetherald paper is considered by many as a pioneering effort in the field of climate modelling, one that effectively opened the door to projecting future climate change. And the value of climate sensitivity is something climate scientists are still grappling with today
Prof Piers Forster, a physical climate scientist at Leeds University and lead author of the chapter on clouds and aerosols in working group one of the last IPCC report, tells Carbon Brief: 
"This was really the first physically sound climate model allowing accurate predictions of climate change." 
The paper's findings have stood the test of time amazingly well, Forster says.
"Its results are still valid today. Often when I've think I've done a new bit of work, I found that it had already been included in this paper." 
Prof Steve Sherwood, expert in atmospheric climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales and another lead author on the clouds and aerosols chapter, says
"[The paper was] the first proper computation of global warming and stratospheric cooling from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, including atmospheric emission and water-vapour feedback."
All of the above claims regarding Manabe & Wetherald, et al, are refuted in Kimoto's new work below:

Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

By Kyoji Kimoto

PDF file

A prior peer-reviewed, published paper by the same author, which is referenced in his new work above is available here and reproduced below:


  1. Excellent. A critical review of all Manabe's work is in order. This is a good start.

  2. You are probably right about the influence of the Manabe& Wetherald 1967. it is a reference in the book "The Physics of the Atmosphere" 1977 by John T Houghton who was Director of the UK Meteorological Office and had a large influence on the IPCC from its foundation. The book has been part of reference material for some "Climate Science"( sic) courses at Universities (2nd rate?) and other institutions.
    The book contains information that is incorrect. It appears that some parts may have been plagiarized with no reference to the source or understanding of the point for inclusion ie not further elaborated (eg 1.4 Adiabatic lapse rate or 9.1 The Reynolds Number). The book demonstrates that the author has a poor or no understanding of engineering (science) or the engineering subjects of heat&mass transfer, fluid dynamics or thermodynamics.
    I will read the Kimoto papers with interest and thoroughly.

    1. Thanks cementafriend, looking forward to your further thoughts on Kimoto's papers, etc.

  3. The following two papers deal with the suggestion to consider a variation of the lapse rate in sensitivity studies

    1. I have just read for papers, sensitivity.pdf and sensitivity_overview.pdf. I was greatly impressed. You insights and logic are refreshing.

      Thank you for that.

      I look forward to reading your other papers.