by Cap Allon
Another Climate Scientist
with Impeccable Credentials
of the Real
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,
Institute of Technology
In his book
Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura
explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science
is "untrustworthy" and cannot be relied on:
temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,"
"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)
Duke and Hawaii
Japan Agency for
Marine-Earth Science and Technology
He's published 20+
climate papers on fluid dynamics.
There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.
warming science' is akin to an upside down pyramid which
is built on the work of a few climate modelers.
These AGW (anthropogenic
global warming) 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.
Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate
modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases
of the climate crisis claims.
But he's up against it:
activists are winning at the moment, and they're fronted by
scared, crying children, an unstoppable combination, one that's tricky to
discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I've tried)...
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura's recent book
warming data as
"untrustworthy" and "falsified".
When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is
convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging.
If you don't pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or
get your tone wrong then it's very easy to sound like a conspiracy
crank (I've been there, too).
But now we have Nakamura...
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 - something Tony Heller
has been proving for years on his website
"The global surface mean temperature-change data no
longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda
tool to the public."
The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits.
"The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as
they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for
Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and
the impacts of human-caused CO2 can't be judged with the knowledge
and technology we currently possess.
The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.
As well as ignoring
the Sun, they also drastically simplify large
and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds
(cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have
global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo:
"Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to
make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in
the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet," and water
The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary "tunings" of key
parameters that are simply not understood.
Nakamura on CO2
"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 naive climate researchers who
have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid
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."
Solar input is modeled as a "never changing quantity," which is
"It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to
accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several
decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter.
it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in
the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes?
Read Mototaka Nakamura's book
for free on Kindle
(or read a "Summary",
or a full translation from Japanese by 'Google
Translator'). Arm yourself with
the facts, and spread them...
Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the
"(The models have) no
understanding of cloud formation/forcing."
"Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a
"Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries of the real world."
Solar output isn't constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud
nucleation is a key consequence.
solar minima, like
the one we're entering now, the sun's magnetic field weakens and the
outward pressure of the solar wind decreases.
This allows more
Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet's atmosphere. These CRs
have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al).
And clouds are
a crucial player earth's climate...
As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:
"Clouds are the
Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you
global warming... or
For more on that read "Cosmic
Rays, Cloud Seeding and Global Cooling"...
The cold times appear to
be returning, in line with historically low solar activity.
NASA has warned that this next
solar cycle 25 will be,
"the weakest of the
past 200 years":