In June 2019 Dr. Mototaka Nakamura
published a small book in Japanese.
It’s titled:
"Confessions of a climate scientist:
the global warming hypothesis
is an unproven hypothesis."
From 1990 to 2014,
Nakamura worked on
cloud dynamics and forces
mixing atmospheric
and ocean flows on medium
to planetary scales.
His bases were MIT,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Goddard Space Flight Centre,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Duke and Hawaii Universities
and the Japan Agency for
Marine-Earth Science
and Technology.
He’s published about
20 climate papers
on fluid dynamics.
Climate alarmists claim
climate models’ outputs
are compelling evidence
for human-caused warming
Dr. Nakamura
strongly disagrees.
There was no
English edition
of his book in June,
but Dr Nakamura
recently offered
a free Kindle version
in English that is
an essay about his
original conclusions.
"I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process."
Nakamura and colleagues
even tried to patch up
some of the models’
crudeness ...
"… so I know the workings of these models very well … For better or worse I have more or less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me."
"I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.
I regret to say this but I am also confident that docile and/or incompetent Japanese climate researchers will remain silent until the ’mainstream climate science community’ changes its tone, if ever."
Nakamura accuses climate
scientists of “data falsification”
by adjusting previous temperature
data to increase apparent warming:
“The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
"These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction."
He projects warming
from a 100% CO2 increase,
to be only +0.5 degree C.,
while the UN's IPCC
has claimed +1.5 to +4.5
degrees C., since it was
formed in 1988.
Concerning CO2 changes he says,
"I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system … "
"… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation."
Key model elements
are replete with “tunings”
i.e. fudges.
Nakamura explains
how that trick works:
"The models are ‘tuned’ by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained.
I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes."
"One set of fudges involves clouds."
"Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2."
"Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm.” Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models."
Nakamura describes as
“moronic” the claims that
“tuned” ocean models
are good enough
for climate predictions.
He says a large part
of the forecast
global warming
is attributed to
water vapor changes,
not CO2 changes.
“But the fact is this: all climate simulation models perform poorly in reproducing the atmospheric water vapor and its radiative forcing observed in the current climate. ... Positive water vapor feedbacks from CO2 increases are artificially enforced by the modelers. They neglect other reverse feedbacks in the real world, and hence they exaggerate forecast warming."
The supposed measuring
of global average temperatures
from 1890 has been based on
thermometer readouts
barely covering 5 per cent
of the globe
until the satellite era
began 40-50 years ago.
“We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
"The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily …there is no reason to trust their predictions / forecasts."
"With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly."