The Nobel Fraud
Erik Bye
May, 2025
In 2024 professor Roy Clark revealed an enormous scandal in the awarding of The Nobel prize in physics in Stockholm, 2021. Professor Syukoru Matabe was awarded the prize based upon his climate models being developed as early as 1967.
These findings were published in a comprehensive scientific article in the Norwegian journal: Science of Climate Change: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024Nobel-Prize-Errors.pdf
Here is the Abstract:
When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded part of the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics to Syukuro Manabe, they failed to recognize that the climate models used to justify the award were invalid. When the CO2 concentration was increased in the 1967 model developed by Manabe and Wetherald it created warming as a mathematical artifact of the simplistic steady state energy transfer assumptions that they used. The initial temperature increase was then amplified by a sec- ond artifact, the assumption of a fixed relative humidity distribution that created a water vapofeedback. When the CO2 concentration was doubled from 300 to 600 parts per million (ppm), the 1967 model predicted an increase in equilibrium surface temperature of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. The equilibrium temperature increase produced by a CO2 doubling later became known as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The algorithms used in the 1967 model were incorporated into their 1975 global circulation model (GCM). This also had an ECS of 2.9 °C.
The steady state assumption provided the foundation for the concept of radiative forcing. The water vapor feedback became part of a set of feedbacks that were used to adjust the radiative forcings The ECS produced by the 1967 model artifacts provided a benchmark for the last temperature increases to be expected in future climate models. The invalid concepts of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity were accepted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and have been used in all six of the IPCC Climate Assessment Reports. A thermal engineering analysis of the interactive, time dependent surface energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature demonstrates that it is impossible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1800 to have caused any unequivocal change in surface temperature.
My comments:
In summary, Clark revealed that the climate models of Manabe introduced too high an impact due to the input value of the CO2 amount. Furthermore, these models have been used by the IPCC in all their main reports, AR1AR6. This has resulted in a dramatic failure in the anticipated global warming, and as such a complete fraud in their climate change messages.
One might have expected an enormous reaction due to these findings, both within the scientific society and also in the UN. But nothing happened, nobody reacted, the results of these findings were neglected in IPCC, similar to most other critical observational results.
Here is a «more easy to read» Summary, after a request from professor (em) Jan-Erik Solheim, The Editor of the journal:
Abstract (a modified version by Roy Clark)
When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded part of the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics to Syukuro Manabe they failed to recognize that the climate models used to justify the award were invalid. A doubling of the CO2 concentration in the oversimplified 1967 climate model developed by
Manabe and Wetherald created a spurious warming of 2.9 °C. The invalid 1967 model algorithms were incorporated into later global circulation models and provided the foundation for the radiative forcings and water vapor feedback still used in the climate models today. These pseudoscientific concepts have been used in all six of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Assessment Reports. A thermal engineering analysis of the energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature demonstrates that it is impossible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1800 to have caused any measurable change in surface temperature.
This dramatic event was published in Norway, on a blog with a translator:
https://fakta360.no/2024/06/nobelprisen-i-fysikk-i-2021-ble-tildeltsyukuro-manabe-pa-feil-grunnlag/
To increase the dessimination, I sent a note about the work to No Tricks Zone:
«Seminar 1967 Paper Introducing CO2 ‘Radiative Forcing’ Is Based On Assumptive Imaginary-World Modeling (notrickszone.com)»
In addition the investigation was presented at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/12/live-1pm-edt-climate-lawfareheats-up-the-climate-realism-show-118/
and the SEPP newsletter was also published on WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/15/weekly-climate-and-energynews-roundup-605/
The European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen There was no visible reaction to this described Fraud. Then I decided to
send a message to The EU Commission, to Ursula von der Leyen:
Dear Ursula,
I take this opportunity to write to you, due to a dramatic Scandale in The Swedish Academy of Sciences, in awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2021 to Syukuro Manabe. The Scandale is described in this article by Roy Clark:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024Nobel-Prize-Errors.pdf
Manabe constructed a Climate model that was completely wrong. The model gave too much effect to the CO2-concentration introduced in the model. The effect should have been negligible. This model has been used by the IPCC in all their reports and the results are completely wrong. Thus the whole Climate Change process is a failure and have to be thoroughly Reconsidered.
I hope you will do all you can, as fast as possible, to open up for a realistic and un-partial discussion of this serious situation. My best regards Erik Bye, Norway.
Answer from The Commission:
Dear Mr Bye
President Ursula von der Leyen thanks you for your letter of 20 July 2024 to which she has asked me to reply in my capacity as Director of the Healthy Planet Directorate in theDirectorate-General for Research and Innovation.
The European Commission appreciates you sharing your concerns about the science
underpinning climate models. I thank you for your interest in research on
climate change, a topic at the core of European Union policies, as our European Climate Law and EU Adaptation Strategy illustrate.
You may know that the European Union, through its successive research and innovation funding programmes, has a long history of financing impactful research on climate change. The Horizon Europe programme dedicates 35% of its research and innovation budget to climate-related activities. The Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2025-2027 presents new opportunities to continue informing the implementation of the European Green Deal and of the Paris Agreement.
The European Commission considers that the evidence of climate change is incontestable, and that the IPCC’s findings, including those on modelling and derived policy options, are based on reliable, sound science.
However, climate models and their projections are not perfect. As they underlie and shape climate policies, it is a priority for the European Commission to improve their quality, to reduce the uncertainty of these projections and to ensure that these advances are adequately reflected in IPCC reports. For this reason, EU-funded projects have mobilised some of Europe’s best scientists to push the state of the art of climate science forward. For example, the ESM2025 project is advancing our understanding of the Earth system and its response to anthropogenic emissions, while the NextGEMS and AI4PEX projects are improving the accuracy and reducing the uncertainties in the Earth system model projections by combining classical and emerging approaches in climate modelling.
The European Commission invites you to familiarize yourself with the scientific results of these projects, and once again appreciates your concerns and awareness.
My answer to Mr. Bell:
Thank you for your prompt reply.
The earth’s climate is always changing over many different time scales. These range from a few years for short term ocean oscillations such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to 100,000 years for the current Ice Age cycle. The earth’s weather patterns are chaotic and have to be modeled using large numbers of coupled nonlinear equations. The errors associated with the solutions to these equations accumulate over time. The climate models have no predictive capabilities over the time scales associated with climate change. Instead, the models are simply ‘tuned’ to match a contrived global mean temperature record.
Speculation that variations in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could cycle the earth through an Ice Age started with the work of Tyndall in 1861. Early modeling work by Arrhenius was based on a steady state air column that created global warming as a mathematical artifact in the calculation. Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. Gradually, the Ice Age CO2 hypothesis was transformed into concern over fossil fuel combustion. CO2 induced global warming became scientific dogma. The real cause of an Ice Age, perturbations to the orbital and axial rotation of the earth, was explained in 1976 by Hays et al. This was ignored by the climate modelers in the 1979 Charney report. If CO2 does not cause an Ice Age cycle, there is no reason to expect warming from the CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion.
The European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement are based on fraudulent climate models. This fraud can be traced back to Table 5 of the 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”. Here they claimed that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm would produce an increase in equilibrium surface temperature of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. This temperature increase is just a mathematical artifact created by the oversimplified one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model that they used. The errors found in these early climate models have never been corrected and provide the pseudoscientific foundation of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity still used
in the climate models today. This pseudoscience is clearly described in the introduction to Chapter 7 of the Working Group 1 contribution to the Sixth IPCC Climate Assessment Report (AR6). The 2 (or 1.5) °C temperature limit contained in the Paris Climate Accord is an arbitrary number with no scientific foundation. Natural causes of climate change have been ignored.
Little has changed in the basic modeling approach since the IPCC was established in 1988. The IPCC still assumes that an increase in CO2 concentration perturbs the equilibrium climate state of the earth and that the average surface and air temperatures adjust until the flux balance at the top of the atmosphere is restored. This is contradicted by an abundance of evidence presented for example in the 2013 NIPCC report ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’, the Annual Climate Reviews for 2021, 2022 and 2023 prepared by Ole Humlum for the Global Warming Policy Foundation and in the recent film ‘Climate, the Movie’. The CLINTEL World Climate Declaration ‘There is no Climate Emergency’ has been signed by over 1900 scientists and professionals (including myself). It is time for an honest and open discussion about the failures of the climate models. The IPCC and the EU must stop trying to suppress this debate by trying to censor criticism of the climate models and climate policy.
In addition to all these critical comments about the failure og IPCC, it is remarkable that 46 of the most qualified climate researchers in the world have decided to stop their Scientific cooperation with IPCC, as described in this report:
https://principia-scientific.com/46-climate-change-denying-statementsmade-by-former-ipcc-scientists/
Each of the 46 scientists has been provided a brief description of the reasons why they have decided to abandon the IPCC. This is a damning condemnation of the integrity of the IPCC that should be carefully considered by the EU policy makers.
In your answer, you say that: «The European Commission considers that
the evidence for climate change is incontestable and that the IPCCs findings, including those of modelling and derived policy options, are based on reliable and sound science.»
Here, I think you are substantially wrong. The following list of serious scientific errors in the postulates of IPCC, clearly demonstrates the failures in the official perception of climate change:
- The climate is a non-linear, chaotic system and cannot be modelled to using conventional numerical analysis. Therefore any forecast for the future climate system is impossible.
- The IPCC assumes that natural forcings equal to zero in their calculations, i.e. the nature has no impact on the climate system. This can not be correct.
- IPCC introduces the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the modelling, although it is only the fossil CO2 that is the proposed reason for the climate change. This is obviously wrong and far from reliable and sound science.
To summarize, these failures in the scientific basis of the reports of IPCC, AR1 - AR6, mean that CO2 has no effect on global temperature and climate change. And obviously, there is little indication of reliable and sound science.
CO2 increase per year
At present, the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing by approximately 2.4 parts per million (ppm) per year. This produces an increase in the average downward long wave IR flux (LWIR) from the lower troposphere to the surface near 34 milliwatts per square meter per year. In order to improve the quality and reduce the uncertainty in the climate model predictions, the EU funded state of the art climate modeling should answer the following questions:
1) How does this increase of 34 milliwatts per square meter per year in
downward LWIR flux change the surface temperature of the earth?
2) How does this increase of 34 milliwatts per square meter per year in downward LWIR flux provide the water vapor feedback found in the climate models?
3) How does this increase of 34 milliwatts per square meter per year in downward LWIR flux increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events?
The short answer to these questions based on realistic thermal engineering analysis is that the increase of 34 milliwatts per square meter per year in downward LWIR flux can have no effect on the temperature of the earth, nor can it produce a ‘water vapor feedback’ or have any influence on extreme weather events.
The planet is quite healthy and the vegetation is enjoying the enhanced growth related to the 140 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The temperature changed first and the CO2 concentration followed. The anthropogenic contribution is approximately 5 ppm. The other 135 ppm is the natural result of ocean outgassing and other sources such as increased CO2 released by decaying vegetation. The earth has never needed the services of a Healthy Planet Directorate.
It is time to abandon the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement.
I hope you have the time to reply to these questions and to comment on the serious issues that they raise for EU policy. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
My best regards Erik Bye, Norway
The EU Commission is obviously safe about the message from IPCC and their own quality work around global warming.
Then I sent mail to The Swedish Academy of Sciences, written in Norwegian and translated for this presentation:
The Swedish Academy of Sciences
Dear Birgitte Henriques-Nordmark
I take this opportunity to write to the Swedish Academy of Sciences regarding the scandal called “The Nobel Fraud”.
I refer to an article by Roy Clark, published in the Norwegian journal “Science of Climate Change” (SCC), with a link to the article of Roy Clark.
This article describes the Academy’s mistake in not identifying the errors in the climate models that led to awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2021 to Syukuro Manabe. In his 1967 model, a doubling of CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm would produce a temperature increase in the Earth’s surface temperature of 2.9˚C. This temperature increase was an artificial mathematical value that was the result of three serious errors in the model. The real temperature increase should have been “too small to be measured”.
These errors have never been corrected and represent the foundation for the pseudoscientific radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity used in subsequent climate models. The results from these models were accepted by the IPCC without questions, and have been used by the IPCC in all six Main Reports, AR1 - AR6. The whole world has been misled by the IPCC and by the model errors that started with the work of Manabe and his group. The two-degree target in the Paris Agreement and the Net Zero energy policy adopted by many countries are based on results from incorrect climate models.
My question is therefore: What measures will the Swedish Academy of Sciences take to inform the whole world about this scandal, and how will the Academy initiate a serious and impartial scientific evaluation of the real effect of the increased CO2
concentration in the atmosphere?
My Regards
Erik Bye, Norway
No answer from The Swedish Academy.
All my correspondence in Norway, to The Parliament, The Government and to several politicians gave no responses, except for a formal answer without any serious analysis of the reported scandal.
Clark wrote a more easy-to-read article of his findings:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/
I have not read about this Nobel scandal any place. This is obviously an invent the International scientific community wants to hide!
Recently Roy Clark has published two articles, with more detaled description of The Nobel Fraud:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/05/ damage_claims_and_clawback_are_needed_to_stop_the_climate_model ing_fraud.html
https://climatechangedispatch.com/as-trump-targets-climate-frauddeeper-scandals-remain-untouched/
Can We expect any reaction at all to this Fraud?