Japanese Scientist Concludes IPCC Is Using "Erroneous" Parameters And Climate Sensitivities

Kyoji Kimoto, kyoji@mirane.co.jp
Independent climate researcher

History of the AGW narrative of the IPCC

Manabe’s model studies debunked by Newell (1979)

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scare was created in part by Japanese scientist Syukuro Manabe using a one dimensional radiative-convective model (1DRCM) having no ocean (1964/1967). He obtained a no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1.3 °C for doubling of CO2 using the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5 °C/km and a radiative forcing of 4 (W/m2) at the tropopause, which was further enlarged to 2.4 °C with a water vapor feedback.

.

.

Eminent meteorologist R. Newell from MIT criticized Manabe’s model lacking in ocean cooling. He obtained a No-feedback climate sensitivity of 0.03°C for a doubling of CO2 with a thermal inertia of 30 (W/m2) per 1 °C for the surface waters of the ocean using a surface radiative forcing of 1 (W/m2) to incorporate the IR spectra overlap between CO2 and water vapor.

The department of Energy & Dr. R. Cess, however, killed Newell’s ideas to promote nuclear reactors in a difficult time due to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979.

Manabe continued his model studies to enlarge climate sensitivity (CS) for a doubling of CO2 with introducing various feed backs (FBs) as follows, which is the theoretical basis of IPCC’s AGW narrative.

.

Fig. 1 History of the CS for 2xCO2 with model studies by Manabe & IPCC

Fig. 1 History of the CS for 2xCO2 with model studies by Manabe & IPCC

.

Cess’s erroneous calculation of the Planck feedback parameter

Cess (1976, 1989) expressed the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) with equation (1) based on the old energy budget of the earth as shown by Fig. 2.

 

He obtained a Planck feedback parameter0 of -3.3 (W/m2)/C with equation (2), giving a No-feedback CS of 1.2 °C using a radiative forcing of 4 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 at the tropopause as follows:

Cess’s Planck feedback parameter is used in all GCMs for the IPCC ARs with a slight decrease of the radiative forcing from 4 (W/m2) to 3.7 (W/m2) for a doubling of CO2 by IPCC TAR (2000).

  Fig. 3 Feedback parameters of 14 GCMs for the IPCC AR4 by Soden (2006)

Cess’s equation (1) is physically wrong

Cess did not know the atmospheric window, because he was caught by the old energy budget of the earth (see Fig.2).

The OLR is expressed by equation (5) based on a modern energy budget of the earth as shown by Fig.4

OLR= Fu (Tu) (83%) + Fw (Ts) (17%)                                             (5)

Equation (5) means the upper troposphere temperature Tu is increased as much as ~1°C with CO2 doubling instead of the surface temperature Ts.

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Kimo_5-300x235.png 300w, https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Kimo_5.png 923w" sizes="(max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px" />

 

Comparison of no-feedback climate sensitivities

The following list shows the no-feedback climate sensitivities for a doubling of CO2in the literature:

  • Ramanathan (1979) 0.2°C based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • Newell (1979) 0.03°C based on the ocean thermal inertia of 30 (W/m2)/C
  • Idso (1980) less than 0.26°C based on the natural experiments
  • Ramanathan (1981) 0.17°C based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • Idso (1998) 0.1°C based on the 10 natural experiments
  • Kimoto (2015) 0.15°C based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • Manabe (1964/1967) 1.3°C based on the 1DRCM having no ocean
  • Cess (1976) 1.2°C based on a calculation with a mathematical error
  • Hansen (1981) 1.2°C based on Manabe’s 1DRCM
  • Schlesinger (1986) 1.3°C based on Manabe’s 1DRCM
  • Schlesinger (1986) 1.2°C with a trick concealing Cess’s mathematical error

Conclusion

All green policy is nonsense because it depends on IPCC’s claim that the surface temperature Ts is increased as much as 3°C for CO2 doubling utilizing an erroneous Plank feedback parameter0 of -3.21(W/m2)/C from Cess’s mathematical error.

The Paris climate agreement reads as follows: “To keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5°C.”

This is based on IPCC’s erroneous climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubling of CO2discussed above. Therefore the Paris climate agreement is nonsense, though it governs the world politics now.

.

(References)

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.

Idso, S. B., The climatological significance of a doubling of Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Science 1980, 207,1462-1463.

Idso, S. B., CO2-induced global warming: a sceptic’s view of potential climate change,

Climate Research,1998, Vol.10, 69-82.

Kimoto, K., On the confusion of Planck feedback parameters, Energy & Environment, 2009, Vol.7, 1057-1066.

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.

Manabe, S and Wetherald, R.T., The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1975, 32, 3~15.

Newell, R.E. and Dopplick, T.G., Questions concerning the possible influence of anthropogenic CO2 on atmospheric temperature, J. Applied Meteorology, 1979, 18, 822-825.

Ramanathan, V., et al., J. Geophysical Research, 84, 4949-4958 (1979)

Ramanathan, V., The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the CO2 climate problem, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1981, 38, 918-930.

Ramanathan, V., The role of earth radiation budget studies in climate and general circulation research, J. Geophysical Research,1987, 92, 4075-4095.

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.

Views: 177

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on July 27, 2024 at 2:49pm

Joe Biden body double several inches higher than his known height

https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-internet-firestorm-how-many...

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2025   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service