Newell (1979) Ended Manabe’s Greenhouse Gas Climate Scam
The trillion-dollar man-made climate fraud goes back to the late 1970’s and early ‘80’s when a small clique of Malthusian zealots wanted to find a scare story to help trigger global population control.
The creation of the myth that higher human emissions of carbon dioxide to trigger a runaway greenhouse gas effect was built around the musings of Syukuro “Suki” Manabe, a meteorologist who used and abused computers to simulate global climate change and natural climate variations.
As we know, the alarmist projections of government-sponsored ‘climate scientists’ were all proven way off the mark especially as global temperatures flat-lined this century despite rapidly rising CO2 levels.
Any rational scientist would admit by now that the greenhouse gas theory premised on carbon dioxide as our planet’s climate control knob is utterly busted.
Below, Kyoji Kimoto explains how “Suki” Manabe’s junk climate modeling was the catalyt for other incompetent/corrupt climate ‘experts’ to lead humanity down an expensive and pointless scientific blind alley.
Manabe’s mangled numbers inspired another alarmist academic, Dr James Hansen at NASA to concoct the bogus ’33 Degrees’ Greenhouse Gas Effect promoted by the corrupt UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
These junk computer models are still relied on today by tax-raising governments worldwide to fleece citizens of trillions and drive up the cost of energy.
- AGW scam produced by Manabe’s erroneous model studies
Manabe published basic papers with 1D model (1964/67) and 3D model (1975). His results show climate sensitivity (CS) for 2xCO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm as follows:
1DRCM (1D Radiative Convective Model 1964/67):
No-feedback CS=1.3K with a radiative forcing of 4W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the tropopause
CS with water vapor feedback=2.4K
3DACM (3D Atmosphere Circulation Model 1975):
CS with water vapor & ice-albedo feedbacks=2.9K (globally averaged)
CS with water vapor & ice-albedo feedbacks=7-9K (pole ward)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syukuro_Manabe
Manabe (1975) induced Mercer (1978) claiming a 5m sea level rise scare as follows:
If the global consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow at its present rate, atmospheric CO2 content will double in about 50 years. Climatic models suggest that the resultant greenhouse-warming effect will be greatly magnified in high latitudes. The computed temperature rise at lat 80°S could start rapid deglaciation of West Antarctica, leading to a 5m rise in sea level.
Eminent meteorologist R. Newell from MIT worried about the 5m sea level rise scare by Mercer (1978) to publish an article in 1979. It showed the thermal inertia of 30(W/m2)/K for the surface waters of the ocean and the No-feedback CS of 0.03K using the surface radiative forcing of 1 (W/m2) for 2xCO2.with high humidity.
In Fig.1 Manabe used the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 in his 1DRCM to give a uniform warming of ~1K throughout the troposphere and the surface. This is physically wrong because radiative forcing for 2xCO2 is ~4W/m2 at the upper troposphere while it is ~1W/m2 at the surface due to much higher humidity. Further Newell (1979) showed the ocean cooling at the surface with the thermal inertia of 30(W/m2)/K for the surface waters of the ocean.
Manabe (1964/67) used the erroneous FLRA due to his 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.”
Hansen admitted that Manabe’s 1DRCM is fudged because its results strongly depend on the lapse rate used in an interview with S. Weart held on Oct. 23, 2000 at NASA:
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.
www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1
- History of fudged GCMs studies by the IPCC
The AGW scam of the IPCC utilizes GCMs based on the fudged Manabe’s 1DRCM (1964/67) giving the No-feedback CS of 1.2-1.3K for 2xCO2 as shown by Fig.2.
Fig.2 History of fudged model studies and CS for 2xCO2 by the IPCC
No-feedback CS for 2xCO2 =1.2K from Manabe (1964/67)
CS=No-feedback CS 1.2K x Feedbacks amplification
References:
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.
Mercer, J.H., West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster, Nature Vol. 271 26 January 1978, 321-325.
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.
For more information contact: Kyoji Kimoto, [email protected]
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kyoji and John,
Recently (how recently I do not remember) about something termed Fluid Earth Viewer. About it I read: “Our project team is working to remove obstacles to learning about our dynamic planet, Earth! Fluid Earth Viewer (FEVer) is an interactive web application that allows you to visualize current and past conditions of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. You can use FEVer to learn about the atmosphere and oceans by exploring the daily conditions in places where you live, work, and play or examining whole regions of the planet over years. In particular, FEVer provides hands-on visualizations of conditions in polar regions, changes they are undergoing, and connections between polar regions and the rest of the planet. Built on an open-source application, FEVer is a vehicle for modern Earth science communication, making information used by the scientific community accessible and engaging to everyone. FEVer is explorable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week using your computer, tablet, and smartphone.”
However I have moved about the order of what was written a bit to emphasize that FEVer seems to be an ongoing team effort begun by the same team which created it.
For, until a day, or so, ago, I believed the team was a group of scientists. But no, the project team was and is a group of SCIENTIFIC EDUCATORS, who seem not to appreciate the SCIENCE they have done by using the actual data of the previous six hours.
Words cannot describe what you will find if you visit their website. Later I will describe some of what I have found.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kyoli, John, and most importantly PSI readers,
I have read more about this team of SCIENCE EDUCATORS, who are involved in an inaugural energy symposium titled: Energy Transition and Decarbonization. And I read: “Join us as we explore the monumental challenges in the needed energy transition, interdisciplinary research at Ohio State to advance sustainable energy, and steps the University is taking to address climate change.”
I report what I have learned about these Educators who clearly do not recognize what they have (forget about what they are doing). Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileos well know book, wrote in a preface to its readers: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty inf a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.” These educators have given us sight of the entire world which di not exist SIX years ago. I just watch how one can observe the surface temperatures and winds of a hurricane moved across the Gulf of Mexico in six hour increments of time for 5 days until it made landfall at the coast of Louisiana And see the precipitation that was falling at any specific location during the 6 hour intervals. And you could see the Gulf Stream was flowing through the Atlantic toward the West Coasts of the British Isles and points further north.
In videos I heard them talking about the data sets they were using of which I seldom see actual SCIENTISTS actually using. These people at Ohio State are just like Galileo who refused to accept that the orbits of the planets about the Sun were ellipsis instead the perfect circles which he BELIEVED them to be.
We must accept each and every one of us is not perfect Human and that has been shown over and over it is very easy to overlook the obvious. Like clouds and dew and frost.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
Poor old James Hansen. In 1986, just after his infamous lying to the US congress about the incoming climate catastrophe He was interviewed by a reporter from (I think) The NY Post. Many floors up in Manhattan he told the reporter to look out the window at the street below and then told him that in thirty years time that street would be under water. Funny thing is that the water is, to all intents and purposes, not higher than it was then. What more do these idiots need to convince them that this scam is just that, a scam.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Doug,
You asked: “What more do these idiots need to convince them that this scam is just that, a scam?”
How about even BIGGER SCAM? You see, this ScamDemic may be just a “pursuing the CAGW goals by other means.” Or may not? It did provide the spectacle of the immediate “corpses in the streets and one of them could by YOU!” — Which the CAGW could never provide, not immediately nor ever…
Do not forget, stupidity knows no bounds.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I didn’t know this. Nevertheless, it is completely not surprising that the person at the ontological origins of the false climate narrative is a meteorologist:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply