Inconvenient truth of IPCC’s AGW theory

by Kyoji Kimoto (e-mail

1.  History of model studies

Evaluation of [Manabe et al., 1964/67]

a. Lapse rate:  fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km

( moist adiabatic lapse rate is more adequate-see [Ramanathan et al.1978])

   b. Planck response:  1.3K

(0.54-0.6K is more likely-see section2 and section3)

   c. Climate sensitivity:  2.4K with water vapor feedback

(0.2-0.8K is more likely-see section 5)

   d. CO2 contribution in the greenhouse effect of 33K:  over 10K

(3.3-6.7K is more likely based on IR absorption -see [Newell et al., 1979; Barrett, 2005])

*) Planck response is the surface temperature rise dTs due to CO2 doubling without feedbacks of lapse rate, water vapor, albedo and cloud.

*) Climate sensitivity = (Planck response)*(Feedbacks effect)

2. Fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km versus moist adiabatic lapse rate

As to Planck response, the following RCM studies appeared after [Manabe et al., 1964/67] utilizing a fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km, which is the first basis of IPCC scheme.

Planck response    Radiative forcing for CO2 doubling

[Manabe et al., 1964/67]         1.3K                 3.5 W/m2

[Hansen et al., 1981]                1.2K                 4.0 W/m2

[Schlesinger, 1986]                  1.3K                 4.0 W/m2

 IPCC AR4 GCM studies          1.2K                 3.7 W/m2

However, dTs is around 0.6K when moist adiabatic lapse rate is utilized, which is better parameterization in RCM studies than fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km [Hummel et al.,1981].

3. Planck response based on Stefan-Boltzmann law

In 1976, Cess obtained 0.3 K/(W/m2) for Planck response factor with the following procedure, which gives Planck response of 1.2K utilizing the radiative forcing of 4W/m2 for CO2 doubling [Cess.1976].

OLR (Outgoing Long wave Radiation) = Eeff σ Ts^4

Planck feedback parameter λ0 = -dOLR/dTs = -4Eeff σ Ts^3

= -4OLR/Ts = -3.3(W/m2)/K

Planck response factor = -1/λ0 = 0.3K/(W/m2)

 Here, Eeff = the effective emissivity of the surface-atmosphere system

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant    Ts=288K     OLR= 233W/m2

Cess’s procedure has been followed by many researchers including IPCC AR4 (see Group A), which is the second basis of IPCC scheme. However, this procedure is apparently a mathematical error since Eeff is not a constant. Furthermore, the combination of Ts and OLR is not accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Group B and Group C appeared in the literature to criticize the defects of Group A [Kimoto, 2009].

4. Climate sensitivity based on IPCC’s theory

According to IPCC, climate sensitivity is expressed as follows [Bony et al.,2006].

Climate sensitivity = Planck response *λ0/ (λ0 + λlr + λwv + λa + λc)

Here, Planck response = -3.7(W/m2) / λ0

λ0: Planck feedback parameter   λ0 = -4OLR/Ts

λlr: lapse rate feedback parameter

λwv: water vapor feedback parameter

λa: albedo feedback parameter

λc: cloud feedback parameter

Ts: surface temperature

OLR: Outgoing Long wave Radiation

Table 2 shows the comparison of Group A, Group B and Group C of Table 1 in terms of Planck response and climate sensitivity calculated with averaged feedback parameters for IPCC AR4 obtained from 14GCMs simulation [Soden et al., 2006].

Table 2 also shows the following test results as to Ts and OLR of each group.

Test 1:  Is the combination of Ts and OLR accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Test2:  Is Ts surface temperature?

(Evaluation of Table 2)

Group A: Climate sensitivity is 6 times larger than 0.5K in section 5.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is not fulfilled.

Group B: Climate sensitivity is 4 times larger than 0.5K in section 5.

Ts is not the surface temperature.

Group C: Climate sensitivity is close to 0.5K in section 5.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is satisfied, and Ts is surface temperature.

5. Climate sensitivity based on the observational methods

(1) From the energy balance consideration: 0.24K [Newell et al., 1979]

(2) From the response to volcanos : 0.3-0.5K [Lindzen, 1997]

(3) From 8 natural experiments: 0.4K or less [Idso, 1998]

(4) From the data analysis of Pinatubo eruption

Climate sensitivity factor : 0.22K/(W/m2) [Douglass et al.,2006].

Climate sensitivity: 0.22K/(W/m2)*3.7W/m2=0.8K

(5)From the ERBE: 0.5K [Lindzen et al., 2009]

(6)From the CERES: 0.6K [Spencer et al., 2010]

(7)From the energy budget of the earth (adapted from Trenberth et al. 2009)

(Conclusion) Observational climate sensitivity: 0.2-0.8K


Barrett J., 2005: Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 16, 1037-1045

Bony,S., Colman,R., Kattsov,V.M., Allan,R.P., Bretherton,C.S., Dufresne,J.L., Hall,A., Hallegatte,S., Holland,M.M., Ingram,W., Randall,D.A., Soden,B.J., Tselioudis,G. and Webb,M.J. 2006: Review Article How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes? J.Climate,Vol.19,3445-3482

Cess,R.D., 1976: Climate Change: An Appraisal of Atmospheric Feedback Mechanisms Employing Zonal Climatology. J.Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.33,1831-1843

Cess,R.D., Potter,G.L., Blanchet,J.P., Boer,G.J., DelGenio,A.D., Deque,M., Dymnikov,V., Galin,V., Gates,W.L., Ghan,S.J., Kiehl,J.T., Lacis,A.A., LeTreut,H., Li,Z.X., Liang, X.Z., McAvaney,B.J., Meleshko,V.P., Mitchell,J.F.B., Morcrette,J.J., Randall,D.A., Rikus,L., Roeckner,E., Royer,J.F., Schlese,U., Sheinin,D.A., Slingo,A., Sokolov,A.P., Taylor,K.E., Washington,W.M. and Wetherald,R.T., 1990: Intercomparison and Interpretation of Climate Feedback Processes in 19 Atmospheric GeneralCirculation Models, J. Geophysical Research, vol.95, 16, 16,601-16,615

Douglass,D.H.,Knox,R.S.,Pearson,B.D. and Clark,Jr.A.,2006:Thermocline flux exchange during the Pinatubo event. Geophysical Research Letters. Vol.33,L19711, doi:10.1029/2006GL026355

Hansen J., Johnson D., Lacis A., Lebedeff S., Lee P., Rind D. and Russell G.,1981: Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Science Vol.213,957-966

Held I.M. and Soden B.J.,2000: Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. Vol.25, 441-475

Hummel J.R. et al., 1981: Comparison of radiative-convective models with constant and pressure-dependent lapse rate. Tellus, Vol.33, 254-261

Idso S.B., 1998: CO2-induced global warming; a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research, Vol.10, 69-82

Kerr R.A., 2004: Three Degree of Consensus. SCIENCE Vol.305, 932-934


ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT Vol.20, 1057-1066 (

Lindzen R.S., 1997: Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.94, 8335-8342

Lindzen R.S. and Emanuel K.A., 2002: The Greenhouse Effect (PDF is in his home page)

Lindzen R.S. and Choi Y.S.,2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters Vol.36,L16705.DOI:10.1029/2009GL039628.

Manabe S. et al., 1964: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.21, 361-385

Manabe S. et al., 1967: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.24, 241-259

Manabe S. et al., 1975: The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.32, 3-15

Newell R.E. et al., 1979: Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature. J. Applied Meteorology, Vol.18, 822-825

Ramanathan V. et al., 1978: Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. Reviews of Geophysics and Spacephysics, Vol.16,465-489

Ramanathan,V., 1981:The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.38,918-930

Schlesinger,M.E., 1986: Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO2. Climate Dynamics, Vol.1,35-51

Soden,B.J. and Held I.M.,2006:An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models. J.Climate, Vol.19,3354-3360

Spencer R.W. and Braswell W.D.,2010: On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol.115: D16109.DOI:10.1029/2009JD013371.


Tsushima,Y., Abe-Ouchi,A. and Manabe,S., 2005: Radiative damping of annual variation in global mean temperature: comparison between observed and simulated feedbacks. Climate Dynamics, Vol.24,591-597

Wetherald,R.T. and Manabe,S., 1988: Cloud Feedback Processes in a General Circulation Model. J. Atmospheric Sciences Vol.45, 1397-1415


2 thoughts on “Inconvenient truth of IPCC’s AGW theory”

  1. I'm sure some of you can go through this paper and make sence of it but if the Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers equation is not applicable to a three dimentianal configureation why waste your time using it.
    Climate Realists Article
    NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
    Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

    "During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…"

    Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

    But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
    NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

    But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

    Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?

    In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.

    As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."

    Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence

    Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

    As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

    But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

    How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.


    Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website:

  2. Great job on the article! I have been through some of the examples you have noted in some detail in the past but frankly I have never had a lot of interest in CO2 and related. That is the subject of a group that has been shown to be more interested in profits and deception than any attempt at real science. Unlike yourself. It is good that you can mathematically explain the lack of accuracy and compare that to observational evidence. Several have shown their determinations are unsupportable.

    What I would say on this topic is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration since 2000 has risen xx.x% and the temperature has remained stable within some confidence limits, therefore the climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentrations is non-existent, zero, nil etc. Correlation coefficient = 0. Some have noted, and this calculation may support the view, that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is actually negative. We do not have a complete knowledge of all the feedback systems and fluid motions, either liquid or atmospheric, that affect the resultant, non-existent average global temperature.

    Therefore the hypothesis of AGW is falsified. The Sun really does have the primary control of our climate. Send everyone home without pay and start the pre-trial investigations. Piers Corbyn has shown by his successful weather predictions that the Sun and Moon can explain any and all climate variations. I don't understand the credibility given to a falsified hypothesis. As they say," When an honest man is proven wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.