ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
From electroverse:
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.
In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura.
“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
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 (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.
The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend.
He has published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics. There is no questioning the man’s credibility or knowledge base.
Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.
Nakamura writes, “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
Here in Nakamura we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific basis of the climate crisis claims — the AGW Party’s worst nightmare.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
At last the walls of Jerico are tumbling?
May I refer you to what Pink Floyd had to say about that….
We can only hope that more people start to realise how the whole Global Warming fraud is going .https://www.technocracy.news/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
It is not just idiots who are pushing their lies ,there are politicians and the media in on the scheme which is aimed at destroying our economy .With huge price increases pushed onto everybody , one of the next things might be to make it so that your home cannot be sold unless is reaches an impossible energy standard . And the inheritance tax idea is already being talked about . So the end result will be that all housing will be taken over by the state which will turn into a one world Marxist / socialist dictatorship .
So keep exposing their lies .
Rt (Dis)H T. Bliar has talked some belated sense about NZ after years of preaching blx on AWG/CC – what is he setting “us” up for next – I am subterraneanly suspicious of this pseudo volte face………..from a millionaire all garnered as an ex elected politician.
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,”
Because the data after 1980 are all derived from global satellite coverage, relying on them alone is part of the problem. Most of the data prior to 1979 are reasonably consistent with empirical observations, especially the warm 1920s and 30s. The early temperature values are mostly from land and are acknowledged to be plus or minus 0.5°C. at best. And, of course, models are not able to quantify natural variability all of which is unpredictable.
Stupendously wrong.
There is virtually no data for Africa, South American, India, China, Eastern Russia, Australia, Antarctica and the SEVENTY-ONE PERCENT of the earth’s surface that is the oceans.
One more thing. Satellite temperature data is limited. WE DON’T KNOW EARTH’S TEMPERATURE TODAY. Let alone 70 years ago. 150 years ago is the dark ages.
Dr Nakamura is correct, ‘the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on.’
Concerning sea surface temperatures.
Note that in the decades before the advent of the significant coverage of the oceans by the buoy networks, the ocean temperature data was acquired in the main by ship’s engine room water inlet temperature data or by measuring the temperature in buckets thrown over the side on a rope.
Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience, there is no protocol for the recording of the temperatures.
There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken and the position of the temperature sensor may be anywhere between the hull of the ship and the engine cylinder head itself.
The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.
It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified (optimistically IMO) to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.
Yes. You may recall that Charles Darwin, aboard the HMS Beagle, made thousands of temperature measurements (both air and sea surface) almost every day, usually around noon, local time. Examining those records one finds that temperatures today at those same places, same months, are not that much different. Of course, none of those was on land where he made very few.
Note that the Argo buoy program is less than 20 years old.
Each of the 4,000 floating buoys in 361,000,000 km2 of sea water represents 90,250 square kilometers. Think ONE THERMOMETER for all of Scotland . . . and most of Wales.
Everybody seems to think that all that earlier generations knew of the Oceans was based on observations in a few buckets thrown over the side and drawn up by off-duty sailors.
Forsooth!
There has always been intense interest in the sea, for military and commercial and scientific reasons; and some of the best theorists and experimenters, as well as Naval Officers of many Nations, studied the issues. Oceanography was one of the earliest exact sciences.
Viz. this survey published in 1912:
http://19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/1912-Murray/README.htm
We know the (general) picture of the temperatures of the Oceans at all depths and many locations in the later 19th Century. More modern measurements merely show a gradual and slight warming of this huge heat sink, in the 150 years since the voyages of H.M.S. Challenger 1873-76. What else should we expect? The heat capacity of the Ocean is 1,400 times that of the atmosphere and its takes hundreds of years for temperatures to change as much as a single degree C. anywhere not in the top 100 feet of it.
Confirms my long-held belief that comparing pre-satellite era data with what we see now cannot be considered to be sound. Any measure of change in climate can only be made using the same or similar measuring equipment, calibrated in the same way, in the same locations and under similar conditions.
Its like comparing Thermometer readings with those of tree rings. Not that anyone would think of doing such a bizarre thing or splicing together the results.
Sounds Mann-ufactured to me
I see E.on on Twitter have blocked replies to their pant wetting climate crisis adverts.
. . . 6 hours a day.
E.on…F.off?
The so called models cannot hindcast the actual measured data. So if they cannot look backward to the past, they certainly cannot look forward to the future with any degree of accuracy. The 97% consensus that “the science data is in” has been trashed along with the the corruption demonstrated by Essexgate, Mann and Gore’s “hockey stick” and the UN’s admitted waring hoax, to name a few. Politician’s of all stripes, especially WEF indoctrination graduates, the UN and MSM have a lot to answer for.
There is another explanation.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NwK5-McCOFaAxpkhAR9RlJcKh2lkA9IQ_u6gFzCcAnQ/edit?usp=sharing
An excellent letter today in the Daily Express from Dr. Peter Outen,where he blames “the real climate change deniers at the IPCC. He even includes a short quote from the notorious Climategate exposure,”we,ve got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
Models are only as good and reliable as the data put in to create them. As with most subjects, we simply do not know enough about them to put in data which would make for reliable models.
Not sure that’s quite right. A model of the future is only valid if the model accurately replicates the physical processes involved. We don’t need accurate data input into the model of where the planets will be in 100 years, other than their positions now. Climate models don’t model the physical processes accurately, probably don’t model some processes at all and calculate linearly when climate is non-linear. All the data in the world can’t solve those problems. And of course they don’t know accurately where we are at any given point that they want to start the model running.
All the models do is model the opinions and assumptions of the modellers. And of course they truly, really believe their opinions and assumptions are the only ones worth consideration. Confirmation bias for numpties.
Yes, they claim sensitivity to C02 is “emergent” from the models but that’s just obviously false. Increased CO2 leads to higher temperatures as a physical process assumed in the model. I’ve built, used and analysed lots of different models over 30 years now, and the worrying trend is for modelers to have virtually no understanding of what they are actually doing across virtually all disciplines. They all believe their models are reality rather than almost always vastly simplified versions of reality into which you feed assumptions to see how things may change if your assumptions are correct.
She’s right, but it’s not the only problem.
Even if they had good input data, they’d still get bogus results.
Posted previously – probably often – but worth bearing in mind:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So stated the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
I see the Mercedes F1 team still haven’t fixed their porpoising problems. That’s two seasons and what is a fairly simple problem, when compared to modelling the climate, yet a team with a long history of success in Formula 1. 8 constructors and 9 drivers championships and 125 GP victories. Seventy years of experience in many forms motorsport.
Yet with all that eperience, budget and expertise they haven’t managed to solve a simple, for experts, aerodynamic problem.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12930591/lewis-hamilton-left-concerned-as-mercedes-bouncing-problems-return-at-belgian-gp
But Climate Armageddon not a problem
“Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
Not so, Australia and New Zealand have enough data to establish air temperature history back to the mid to late 19th century.
I was sceptical of “global warming” until I’d seen it in several places in both hemispheres.
Trustworthy? Look at all the “adjustments” and even deletions.
And in any case why ignore everything _before_ the 19th century? The climate still changed despite all the things that the eco-terrorists want to ban not even existing. Same on the uninhabited planets.
>>North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
I don’t doubt that since the LIA the world has warmed a little. But if it hadn’t it would be a different world with many more problems.
But the key issue is whether or not CO2 is involved in this warming, I’d say very little if any involvement
You managed to see a 30 or 40 year long term trend by visiting places? How clever of you.
97% of climate scientists get grants for climate science
And 100% of grants are given only if you agree with the Orthodoxy.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
[1] Grapes were grown around York, in Roman occupation times, 2000 years ago.
[2] What about the Mediaeval Warm Period circa AD 1000 when the Vikings farmed GREENLAND!? Warmer than now.
[3] What about the Little Ice Age of Dickens time , when the Thames froze VERY HARD….for Ice Fairs to be held on the river ? Was that not due to a huge VOLCANIC ERUPTION? It cut out the natural heat of the sun !! VOLCANIC DUST in the upper atmosphere!
We were still coming out of that ,with natural warming, up to 200 years later.
GOT THIS 48 DEGREES FROM QUORA on great stink of london
With the temperature sometimes rising to a blistering 48 degrees Celsius (118 degrees Fahrenheit) and an average day still hovering at around 36 degrees Celsius (97 degrees Fahrenheit) it is not hard to imagine that Londoners were forced to not only endure the humidity and sweat that the summer of 1858 brought them, but also the revolting consequences of generations of human negligence.
The time Dickens wrote about, not his time.
In fact there are still grapes being grown in North Yorkshire!
https://boltoncastle.co.uk/yorkshire-gardens/vineyard-maze/#:~:text=Although%20historically%20there%20would%20not,Vitis%20Vinifera%20x%20Vitis%20Amurensis.
The book reference is to amazon.in – india? The book seems to be written in Japanese, not one of my languages.
“The book seems to be written in Japanese, not one of my languages”
The author has produced an English version, which is mentioned in one of the comments at the Electroverse article.
Here’s the download link (PDF) from that comment:
Click to access Confessions-Nakamura.pdf
Media……..
The problem is that politicians are human beings and most humans are pretty gullible , especially concerning matters of which they have no direct knowledge.
Science being a prime example. In the 17th century people blamed the awful weather and poor harvests on witches (think climate change deniers).
The thing that irritates me about this whole debate is the religious fervour exhibited by people who know nothing about physics or any other branch of science. They can’t be argued with because they don’t have any language to discuss the science. They believe everything the Guardian tells them.
And the guardian believes everything bill gates tells them to believe
The works of HH Lamb give a better and more accurate picture of known climate history than any Mann-ipulated tree rings or computer models. The models do not even cover the natural cycles, oceans or clouds in any sensible way: while it is these that have always dominated the earth’s climate. The models ought to be regarded as what they are: i.e. attempts to describe a complex and only partially understood system, certainly not facts.
Frankly, the models are just trimmings, it’s the constant stream of lies in support of a flawed theory that brainwashes the public.
Often, in Medieval village churches, there was a Latin Bible chained to the altar.
When questioned beyond his competence (not too hard) the priest would say, “The answer is in there!” Nobody in the village knew how to read Latin, of course. Not even the priest himself.
Summer may be ending early in the Arctic:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
There are still eight Wadhams of sea-ice cover:
To those who hold that humans, by belief, analysis or action, can hold back the overwhelming tides of climate, I can recommend Steve Mithen’s ‘After the Ice – a global human History 20,000 – 5000 B.C.’ It documents how human populations struggled against the merciless forces of climate change, developing early agriculture and then, being forced to abandon it, as climatic change forced them to return to a hunter gatherer existence. This happened more than once. A more recent example is that of the Maya in South America. There, a flourishing system based on the intensive cultivation of maise led to a massive increase in population. This was believed to continue due to the auspices of a priestly elite, whose ritual sacrifices of blood led to the favour of their gods being maintained. These priests were maintained in great comfort and splendour, by a population who willingly contributed to their support as the good times rolled on. Alas, the climate changed around 800AD and it soon became obvious that the priests, despite their ritual bloodletting, had ‘lost the favour of the gods’. More extreme social practices ensued, involving warfare and the sacrifice of virgins and finally, children. None of this had any demonstrable effect and by 900AD the wonderful ritual centres of the Maya people had begun to be reclaimed by the jungle.
It appears there is little practical difference between the ritual beliefs of the Maya priesthood and that of climate modellers – both claim an ability to predict and influence the future that is little different from ‘superstition’ – holding to a belief for which there is no practical support other than the belief itself. Computer models are not ‘science’ – they are based on the belief that a limited ritual mathematical basis can be used to predict the future and the ‘high priests’ of this belief may soon, as the Maya priesthood found, that continually crying for more ritual sacrifice, of existing material support, from their populations, has no measurable effect. They may attempt to return to those older ‘solutions’ such as warfare and the sacrifice of virgins – but, as the world rockets past a total population of 8 billion, virgins may prove to be in short supply…..
I found it interesting that in the first major interviews after being appointed Chairman of IPCC, Jim Skea changed tack rather dramatically.
Jim Skea, the new head of the UN’s IPCC, said it’s not helpful to imply that a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity. He calls for a balanced approach to the climate change debate.
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523
Contact its now global boiling ! Obviously.