Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made
Climate science is ‘ancient astrology’, claims report
By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK (h/t) from WUWT reader Ric Werme
UPDATE: One of the panelists (Dr. Itoh) weighs in here at WUWT, see below.
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document – the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you’ll find some of the key findings – but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”
Next page: (at the Register) Key Passages Translated
UPDATE: From Kiminori Itoh, Prof., Yokohama National University.
Hi everybody!
I am one of the five who participated to the article in the JSER journal, which may have seemed to you as a mystery from Japan. At first, I thank you for picking up our activity in Japan. I am a regular reader of several climate blog sites, and had been making some contributions mainly to Climate Science of Prof. Pielke. Actually, the information I gave in the article largely owes the invaluable information shown at this site WUWT as well as Climate Science and Climate Audit. Thus, I felt I should explain a bit about the article of JSER because, unfortunately, it is written in Japanese although it has partly been translated into English.
Some readers of WUWT might remember my name; I had written a guest blog in Climate Science several months ago, when Roger kindly suggested me to introduce my new book “Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs.” Yes, I am regarded as one of the most hard-core AGW skeptics in Japan, although I myself regard me as a realist in this issue.
The article of JSER has been composed of discussions between the five contributors, made through e-mail for several months, and was organized by Prof. Yoshida of Kyoto University (an editor of the JSER journal). Our purpose was to invoke healthy discussions on the global warming issue in Japan. The JSER journal was selected as a platform for this discussion just because Prof. Yoshida has a personal interest in this issue and he is an editor of the journal.
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.
All the contributors are well-established researchers in different fields and each has characteristic personal opinions on the AGW issue. Only one (Dr. Emori, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, Japan) represents IPCC. Other members are more or less skeptical of the conclusions of IPCC. For instance, as translated into English, Dr. Kusano made a severe critique on climate models; he himself is a cloud-modeler, so that his critique seems plausible. Prof. Akasofu is well known as an aurora physicist, Prof. Maruyama is famous for his ideas in geophysics, and I myself have sufficient academic record in environmental physical chemistry (more than 160 peer review papers).
We know that our try this time is small one, and its impact has a limitation especially due to language problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussion was useful and informative for everyone interested in the controversies associated with the AGW issue. In March, another article will come also in the JSER journal because the discussion received much interest from the readers of the journal.
Any comments and opinions are welcome and very helpful for us.
Thank you again.
Based on Dr. Itohs comments, I’ve amended the headline to be more reflective of his first hand account on the report. – Anthony
I came across this record a few weeks ago but it seemed unimportant possibly because the translation was poor. This is much better and if it is an accurate record it would be the first major western nation to break ranks.
Tonyb
This is the kind of news we are waiting for.
Now the Japanese Government must implement these findings in it’s policies and bring the discussions on a political level.
If that is going to happen?
In the mean time every American should realize that Obama will use his so called fight against climate change not only to focus on inefficient and costly “Green Technologies” but to tax fossil fuels in order stuff the holes in Federal Budget.
This will burden the US economy in such a way that recovery from the current economic decline will be very difficult if not impossible.
It’s really time now to undertake a joint effort and seek publicity to make clear that Obama has taken the wrong exit before he destroys the country.
Gee, I wonder why this story hasn’t been picked up by the media …
I think something got lost in the translation. I think:
Should be:
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
Though I will concede that the drone from the IPCC is rather monotonous.
Compliments to these courageous Japanese scientists for showing common sense in upholding foundational scientific principles and for their validation efforts exposing the inadequacy of IPCC assertions of its global warming models.
Hai!! Domo arigato, Nihon!!
Hmmm. I wait for the BBC to report this.
So, will the Japanese admit that the Kyoto Protocol must be scraped?
[snip- boorish societal comment]
No! A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do “skeptics” only state them in the media, on blogs, and on websites? Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?
This is good news. We will be able to trust the CO2 data from JAXA, once they start publishing.
The Japanese are very diplomatic, and avoid causing offence. To find a reference comparing climate science to astrology (Thales) is quite extraordinary.
First Russia, now Japan – who’s left backing AGW apart from the USA and the EU? What do the Chinese think?
“They are funded by big oil”
“They are funded by the coal industry”
“They aren’t climate scientists”
“So and so also believes the earth is flat”
etc etc
Now thats out the way the report can be discussed.
Ron de Han
“It’s really time now to undertake a joint effort and seek publicity to make clear that Obama has taken the wrong exit before he destroys the country.”
That’s pretty much already been done (destroying the country). Credit where credit is due please.
Reasic (09:28:29) :
Are you kidding? Prove that temperature trends are “Natural”?
Prove they aren’t.
Reasic
The onus is on the team members to provide proof the climate is changing due to man NOT the other way roundf.
tonyb
IPCC accused of practicing astrology.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I say.
Someone please send a copy of Orwell’s 1984 to the Japanese. If you think their scientists are angry now, imagine how they’ll feel when they RTFM!
If Japan breaks from the Kyoto Treaty, perhaps there is hope that we will come to our senses as well.
A little OT. I regularly hear the argument that the skeptics only publish in the media and not in peer reviewed journals. However anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that it is harder to get published when you are publishing against the consensus. Siince I have no first hand experience with this can anyone shed some light on this topic?
Thanks,
G
Why is it that every AGW advocate always falls back to this flimsy stance?
If you look at their site, several of the main people in the group are academia, not corporate. To summarily dismiss their information is not scientific, but purely emotional.
WUWT readers:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
The Register is free and relies solely on its advertising. So to show your appreciation and support, you should go there and eyeball their ads.
1. It get censured by editors who won’t print anything that disagrees with the party line. This is known as ‘peer review’, btw.
2. When it does get published, it gets ignored by the warmists, the government and the media.
3. When it does get coverage, it’s to disparage the authors with ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments.
Hope this helps
Even if AGW were true, the science and experiments to support it were sloppy and unproven. At the minimum AGW scientists should be taken to task for bad science.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do “skeptics” only state them in the media, on blogs, and on websites?
If only! Where was this? It came out weeks ago. Do you imagine that if the conclusion had been otherwise we would be reading it here or at El Reg for the first time?
Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?
The mere fact that you ask this speaks volumes. Seek, friend, and ye shall find!
You might make a start with LaDochy, et al. (Dec. 2007), McKitrick and Michaels (2008), and Yilmaz et al. (2008).
Reasic: Roy Spencer, Richard Mintzen, the Roger Pielkies etc do publish contravening research
To Reasic: Experiments conducted in the early 20th Century by scientists including R.W. Wood and Niels Bohr proved that “greenhouse” gases like CO2 cannot increase air temperature by “trapping” infrared radiation. The results of R.W. Wood’s research were published in Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320 – back when science relied on experiments, not computer models. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Empirical science proves that CO2 will not warm our atmosphere by trapping IR. The Earth will continue to warm and cool according to the natural cycles of the sun, the oceans, volcanism, orbital variations, and numerous other natural factors. The 0.038 percent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket and totally irrelevant and insignificant.
Reasic asks: “Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?”
Reasic – why not ask …WHERE IS THE FUNDING to develop, carry out and publish research which either proves the falloacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism…? It seems to me YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION! Wake up! The powers-that-be are pushing all the research dollars to researchers who only look to prove AGW. They are curtailing or refusing to fund research and researchers who just might disprove AGW. Hell, some AGW true believers want to de-certify, de-tenure, mock, degrade, marginalize, and otherwise punish anyone who doesn’t agree with them. As exhibit #1, I offer as proof your own words that MOCK these leading Japaneese scientist as nothing but representatives of the “energy industry” . You see yourself as a SAVIOR of the world…. but in reality YOUR appoach proves that you are nothing but a BULLY and THUG for a belief that is an unproven theory.
One little crack at a time… Eventually, the hysterics will inexorably be replaced with reasoned hypothesis such as we see here and elsewhere. I commend the bravery of these scientists for standing firmly on the science rather than advocacy. They, as with all AGW skeptics, have reality on their side. Time is on the side of the truth, as is being plainly shown with every passing day as more and more reality creeps into this mess. I feel quite confident that the hysteria over naturally occurring climate change will ultimately be cast aside as once good intentions gone horribly wrong! Maybe soon we can start addressing the “real” environmental problems we face. Much has been ignored while the world fusses over a non existent problem. That ignorance is perhaps what irks me the most. I see folks with AGW/Climate change stickers all over their cars leave enormous piles of plastic and glass etc. scattered everywhere after a weekend in my little valley in paradise. Perhaps instead of Dr. Hanson’s civil disobedience, they might strike a blow by cleaning up after themselves! And stop cutting down mature trees for their firewood!!! (They mightily hack down a parent tree [instead of an easily spotted standing dead tree] and after much no doubt manly sweating and grunting, discover it won’t burn as it is too green! One more among thousands of such tragedies I witness on a daily basis)
Sorry for the rant but I just came back from a site yesterday where some of these new enviros had hacked down, no butchered, an 800 year old fir that would have spread it’s successful genetics for miles around had not some beta male eco lumberjack slaughtered it for his campfire. Such ignorance is increasing because the AGW gang has made paying lip service to environmentalism all that is required. Voting for a “green” candidate entitles you to untold environmental destruction! I have had campers, when caught in the act, promise to buy offsets as punishment! Can you believe that!!! The eco movements equivalent to Catholic “indulgences” more like. Apt for any religion I suppose.
Alright. Enough. I am sorry but the sight of that magnificent tree laying scorched but not burned over a fire pit really got me. The “Climate action now!” bumper sticker on their car just drove the point home.
This is a very encouraging report, injecting a bit of common sense to dampen hysteria. I find it particularly interesting that the substance of this report reflects the substance of the reservations the IPCC itself expressed in the body of its reports before all sense was put to one side in the hyperbolic political summary.
One more step towards sanity and balance.
Well, I can now say with 100% certainty I am proud to be a Japanese Language and Cultures major. I was already familiar with the work of Akasofu-sensei, but I commend the rest of the scientists for taking such a stance. I await to see any report of the mainstream media on this. Not holding my breath though.
This is spectacular news!
Given a choice of “go along to get along” but with the risk of permanent loss of face when the AGW thesis falls apart, or “be the nail that sticks up” (and thus gets hammered down), they chose the path with the most public pain. This implies that they know AGW is a farce and care more about their reputation in the long run than being battered in the press now.
Steve (09:41:43) : First Russia, now Japan – who’s left backing AGW apart from the USA and the EU? What do the Chinese think?
Australia is in the EU camp. And the EU camp has ‘defectors’ like Czech Republic.
Per China: They are voting with their (our?) dollars.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/china-where-coal-turns-to-money/
Notice they produce more coal than anyone else on the planet and are building one coal powered electric generation plant a week, more or less, and will be for years to come. (They are ‘in train’ for at least several years. It’s that whole communist ‘5 year plan’ thing…)
I’m tellig you guys. Stop feeding the troll…uhh, I mean Reasic….
Syun-Ichi Akasofu is an eminent scientist who has expressed his reservations over a number of years (see here, for example – 10mb – http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf).
I can’t really see what the ‘news’ is in this article – the JSER certainly doesn’t represent the Japanese government’s position.
Retroproxy,
I agree. If exciting the molecules of CO2 would cause such an increase in temperature, I would fill my house at 1000 ppm and save on my heating bills. My plants would also grow very nicely in there.
And yet the good old BBC reports that everything in the Arctic is changing so fast, and for the worst. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7906539.stm
You do all realise that with the sheer numbers of scientists in dissenting countries such as Russia, China, India and Japan WE have suddenly become the consensus!
Mary, Joel, Rachel et al, I don’t know how to tell you this, but YOU are now the Skeptics!
tonyB
Greylar (09:52:53) :
A little OT. I regularly hear the argument that the skeptics only publish in the media and not in peer reviewed journals. However anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that it is harder to get published when you are publishing against the consensus. Siince I have no first hand experience with this can anyone shed some light on this topic?
Thanks,
G
Both publishing and grants are tough to come by for those not in the AGW camp.
See the recent entry in Roy Spencer’s blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/what-about-the-clouds-andy/
“Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m-2 K-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence. “
There is a report in co2science today which seems relevant. “More evidence of Solar-Driven climate change.”
I’m sorry I am not able to see how to include the link in my posting. If anyone will kindly explain to me at djones9253@aol.com I’ll be grateful.
Well I think the Japanese Government should tell the world; that Kyoto is one of their most revered cultural cities; and that the whole world should cease and desist from using the name Kyot, in any menton of any UN promoted so-called accords; which so far absolutely nobody is complying with.
And speaking of who else; the Indian government and science community have aslo said “poppycock”, and basically told the AGWers to ‘go and jump in the alke’ ; they are not going to pay attention to nor abide by any carbon controls of any kind; and they said the man made global warming nonsese was pure bunk.
But yes you can expect our new Marxist government to keep on shoving it down our throat, to keep that bug-eyed crone in power.
Be careful what you pray for; you might get it.
Did anybody notice in last nights crafty but very non-Reaganesque diatribe; that the words Nuclear power were never mentioned, along with the used donut grease that he is going to fuel airforce one and two with or whatever they call those expensive helicopters.
For the very courteous Japanese people to describe the UN/IPCCs thesis as ancient Astrology, is being quite unfair to ancient astrology..
We now have a dictatorship, and it is being run by the man behind the curtain; who issues instructions to the juvenile empty suit out front.
Read Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” if you want to know what is happening to this country; which once had a Constitution that defined the responsibilities and limited powers of central government.
Remember what our founders gave to us; so you can describe to your grand children what it used to be like in America; land of the free.
I should hope that fact that “… the JSER certainly doesn’t represent the Japanese government’s position.” is not a interpreted by you to reflect badly on the scientists involved in this report.
Science should inform policy not support the current ruling party’s position.
the for decades leading japanese party is about to loose next elections. their probable successors have declared to persue a more asian focused policy. and not to follow the us as uncritical as before.
i wonder if greenpeace’s extremely aggressive attacks that left one japanese whaler dead may have contributed to this.
Simon Evans: Your link doesn´t work : “ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND”
While this is good news and while I also agree that the AGW crisis will eventually fold like the house of cards that it is, AGW will just be replaced by “Climate Change” and after that by some other crisis with the only common theme being that man is bad and is destroying the earth.
All of this hysteria has but one common end. That is to reduce human population in a Malthusian effort to “save the planet.”
I read the entire translated version and must summarize the report in this fashion:
それは愚かな太陽である
(I don’t know if wordpress supports Japanese language so I’ll publish the translation for Leif’s benefit, John W. (10:20:05) can tell me if it’s right.):
It’s the sun, stupid!
Oops, forgot: ;~D
Simon, surely you jest. The ‘ancient astrology’ bit itself ought to be the horselaugh heard round the world. Here we are, the truth is finally getting out of bed, and looking for its boots, which Simon would prefer to hide in another room.
==========================================
DaveM (10:08:11) :
Geez, Dave, just when I thought I was the one having the most trouble by having to be around hypocritical Greeenies. Around here, my local Green compatriots have gotten the Bull Trout/Dolly Varden incorrectly declared “endangered”, then they want to illegally catch and eat them! No $hit, you can actually see the lust in [some of] their eyes! I guess it must just taste better if only you can eat it and illegally?
It also turns out that the Dolly Varden is quite a predator of other fish, so now hardly any other fish can exist amongst them where they are “protected”, which the Greenies claim took them totally by surprise, when they had in fact already been told right from the start by the local guides that this would happen!
As I’ve mentioned before, they have also got the whole Canyon here nearly perfectly primed for a big burn by outlawing fire breaks and the cutting of standing dead trees for firewood. Well, that burn will really help “save” the endangered species, not to mention our cabins – and ourselves and the hapless Campers, if we all get trapped up-canyon and can’t outrun the fire!
This may be slightly off topic, but how can anybody take these people seriously anymore?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Technology/Life+doomed+climate+woes+British+scientist/1328177/story.html
Some dismiss solar cycles / activity of having much of an influence on climate change due to the small variation in TSI.
Lubos ( http://motls.blogspot.com/ ) has a blurb on his blog right now and a link to an interesting paper. From the extract…..
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml
Reasic (09:28:29) :
“No! A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do “skeptics” only state them in the media, on blogs, and on websites? Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?”
Reasic,
You are putting the world upside down.
It is the AGW/Climate Chance doctrine stating that CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is causing unprecedented Global Warming, that lacks scientific proof, despite over 50 billion dollars spend on research.
You can not blame the “skeptics” for that.
Until today all read this once again, all IPCC AGW claims have been debunked.
If you take the trouble to the read for example the studies published at ICECAP.US or had read the earlier posts at WUWT, you would have known all about the facts and you would have spared yourself this rediculous claim.
Just for the fun of it – International groups of skeptics…
India
http://tinyurl.com/6mj6l8
Russia
http://tinyurl.com/56h7js
Canada
http://tinyurl.com/cnx4nu
Argentina
http://tinyurl.com/bbfh6x (pdf)
Reasic (09:28:29) :
Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?”
It may not get the media attention that the disciples of Gore and the IPCC get but the material does exist…. some samples can be found at this site… Essentially an index of papers, etc.
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
Read Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” if you want to know what is happening to this country.
I never bothered to read them, but by now I think most of us could write them.
We might just have to escape to Japan.
February England temperature WARMER than normal – according to Met Office’s CET http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html. The last week has been mild, but the first week was VERY cold – no less than 4 degrees C below normal! Despite that, the Met Office say we’re warmer! How so? Could it be because of very dodgy data? http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/stations2mean_2009.gif
Can I urge you to email the Met Office and ask them how – they won’t reply to me! enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk
Reasic (09:28:29) :
No! A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
… maybe you don’t know that Japan basically has no energy industry of their own. It’s is one of the most energy poor 1st world nations. If any one could benefit from renewables, it would be Japan.
As such, your comment doesn’t seem to make much sense
George E. Smith (11:11:06) :
Remember what our founders gave to us; so you can describe to your grand children what it used to be like in America; land of the free.
Don’t be disheartened George, – there are still many tough, smart americans left who will stand up when they really have too.
Their just asleep for now.
Retroproxy says:
Nonsense. What Wood demonstrated is that for real greenhouses the radiative effects are not what are important, so the name “greenhouse effect” is somewhat of a misnomer. (I.e., it is a correct analogy at the very crude level that both greenhouses and greenhouse gases trap radiation that would otherwise escape but is an incorrect at the level of the mechanism by which this trapping occurs.) Wood also made some vague speculations about what this implied for the effects of greenhouse gases but we now know that his speculations were off-base.
That doubling of CO2 leads to a forcing of about 4 W/m^2 is a fact now accepted by all serious scientists, including “skeptics” like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer. What Spencer and Lindzen dispute is the sign and magnitude of the feedback effects that must be understood in order to get from this forcing to a resulting temperature change. That is something that could never be settled by simple experiments in a greenhouse.
Gripegut (11:40:36) :
While this is good news and while I also agree that the AGW crisis will eventually fold like the house of cards that it is, AGW will just be replaced by “Climate Change” and after that by some other crisis with the only common theme being that man is bad and is destroying the earth.
All of this hysteria has but one common end. That is to reduce human population in a Malthusian effort to “save the planet.”
If Malthusians had any sense they would be promoting economic development and the liberation of women.
Once a country has a modern western economic/social profile – it’s population growth (- immigration) typically drops below replacement levels.
In Australia we give new mothers $4000 to encourage population growth as the birthrate was well beow replacement levels.
@Tim Clark (11:44:02):
Haha! Close, Tim. What you said was more like “It’s the stupid sun.” バカ、太陽ですよ！ would be more grammatically correct. ^_^
But yes, that is more or less what Akasofu-sensei has been saying for a while.
@ Simon Evans (10:27:14):
True, it does not represent the Japanese government’s opinion. But it is a fundamental break in though amongst the Japanese at large (and culturally, that is not looked upon well). They must have some good reason to be at such an at-odds position, which may have further ramifications.
“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. “
Hmmm…..I’m guessing something’s been lost in the translation. Perhaps they meant something more like: IPCC’s ridiculous claim that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with C02 is nothing but a complete fabrication?
By the way, a very good source for the history of our understanding of the CO2 greenhouse effect is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Oh, my! They’re even onto the sunspot/solar wind/cosmic radiation/low-level-cloud-cover/global temperature relationship. I may weep tears of joy!
I do hope the translation into English is reasonable accurate.
CH
Scott Covert:
That’s part of the fallacy in the thinking among “skeptics”. The international scientific community HAS provided a viable theory, and verifiable proof to support it. The “skeptical” community has nothing. You think you can just assume it’s “natural” unless proven otherwise, but you’re wrong. A cause for recent warming must be proven, natural or not. That you can’t provide proof for any alternative mechanism is telling, don’t you think?
There are a great number of people here who can’t even get beyond the basic idea of water vapor as a feedback, and that has been on par with my experiences with “skeptics”. How can you possibly make a determination as to the veracity of the VAST MAJORITY of the world’s research on climate science, when you can’t even grasp the basics of thermodynamics?
REPLY: You really do need to dig deeper. We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views. What sort of work do you do there for BWSC?
It’s about time the silence was broken!
“One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. “ This is heavy spin from the Register. There is no mention of astrology in the translated documents. The quote seems to be based on this comment from Kusano:
This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice.
A few points
1. Thales of Miletus was not an astrologer. He is one of the Seven Sages of Greece – a philosopher, a fine mathematician and with a keen interest in astronomy.
2. Astrology has a bad rep because it misuses astronomical observations to predict events on Earth. The use of astronomical observations to predict solar eclipses is – astronomy.
3. I’m not sure what Kusano’s point was, but Thales prediction was famous precisely because it was tested in practice. The eclipse occurred as he predicted, and the Persians retreated from Halys.
“…Hmmm. I wait for the BBC to report this…”
Phillip Bratby
Let me predict how the BBC (and all the other environmentalists) will present this:
“The Japanese, those well known anti-environmentalists who make up science in order to keep killing whales, today made up another bit of science in their never-ending attempt to justify their slaughter of these helpless, soon-to-be-extinct mammals….”
Jeff L
“… maybe you don’t know that Japan basically has no energy industry of their own. It’s is one of the most energy poor 1st world nations.”
Ummm…Not quite the case. A truer statement is that Japan has few domestic energy supplies. Japan imports vast quantities of petroleum and natural gas to fuel its energy needs, and also has quite a few nuclear power plants. They have one of the largest oil refining industries in the world. They are very concerned over the “Cut The Carbon” crap, as most of their energy is from burning carbon.
Consuming energy goes along with high economic activity, which Japan has had for decades.
“We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views.”
And there we have my main problem with Reasic….
There was a report in the news today about the 1,000’s of scientists that have been studying the Antarctic “warm-up” and they have reached the conclusion that the glaciers are moving faster than before. They then conclude from this glacial movement that the seas will rise 3 plus meters in a few short years. Now, the good part -They concluded thru all of their studies the the average temperature for the entire Antarctic was -51degrees in 1957 and since then, 54 years, the avg temp has risen to -50 degrees – 1 whole entire degree. The amazing thing to me is that they have found ice that returns to liquid form(water?) at -50 degrees. If they can keep it from turning to steam at around 0 degrees they can replace anti-freeze with this miracle potion.
HEAVEN HELP US – THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!
Joel Shore (12:48:02) :
I know you have all these peer reviewed papers at your finger tips so could you please direct me to where Lindzen and Spencer agree with your view that a doubling of CO2 leads to a forcing of 4w/m2.
@MattN (13:51:58) :
“We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views.”
And there we have my main problem with Reasic….
OK now I feel bad. Gripegut is a nickname I have had since basic training in 1987. But the point is well stated except that debate in and of itself does not require an authors identity, just an honest exchange of ideas and open minds.
However from my perspective it seems that the people in the AGW camp are often (but not always) not open minded. In the rush to “save the planet” they have closed the debate by stating that “there is a consensus” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
and “the science is settled.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
when nothing could be further from the truth. So who is the real denier?
The Bishops and High Priests of the Global Church of Climate Scientology will smite these un-believers, will strike them down and force to recant their adulation of false climate gods when everyone knows the old climate model gods are perfectly acceptable.
Reply: Allowed because not being used to attack another poster in discussion ~ charles the moderator
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762v3
/Mr Lynn
Japan’s oil refining capacity ranks fourth in the world, behind USA, China, and Russia. Japan’s refining capacity is roughly 5 percent of the total world’s refining capacity. Japan also has a major petrochemical industry, using feedstocks from the refineries. [source: eia.doe.gov]
Japan will have serious problems converting to a “green” energy economy, as their solar opportunities are limited (northern latitude, small land area), area for wind energy is small, and geothermal exists but is less than 1 percent of total energy supplies.
And more dissent –
Foes of wind farm off Cape Cod sue Mass. agency
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase”
Could someone point me to where the IPCC ever said such a thing?
MattN (13:51:58) :
Well, I did come across http://www.blogtoplist.com/academics/blogdetails-5009.html
Ya know, MattN doesn’t lend itself to a Google search either. Now, if you had a name like Werme….
Another blow to the Marxist hoax!!!!!
😀
Reasic
The Greenhouse Delusion
Critique of “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
by
VINCENT GRAY, M.A., PH.D
http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm
Climate has always changed and nothing we can do will stop it from changing.
There is no credible evidence that the earth is currently warming. Satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere for the past 23 years show no significant temperature change. The frequently quoted combined temperature record from weather stations is biased in favour of proximity to cities, airports. buildings, roads and vehicles, all of which have become slightly warmer over the years from increased energy consumption. Surface measurements from remote areas, or from countries with many well controlled sites ( such as the USA) show no evidence of significant warming.
Sea level measurements are even more biased than weather stations. They are mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to local and short and long-term geological changes which are difficult to allow for. Sites in remote, low population places, such as the smaller Pacific islands show no evidence of recent sea level change.
The earth’s temperature is warmer because of its atmosphere, and by the influence of greenhouse gases which partly prevent heat loss.
The changes over the years in the properties of the most important of these gases, water vapour, and the clouds that form from it, are virtually unknown.
The minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration linearly at the rate of 0.4% a year, and as a result, agricultural and forestry yields are increasing. There are no established harmful effects of this increase.
The rate of increase of the only other important greenhouse gas, methane, has fallen steadily for the past 17 years. The concentration is currently falling.
Computer climate models are based on the incorrect belief that changes in the greenhouse effect are the only influences on the climate.
There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are unrecognised and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.
No model has ever successfully predicted any future climate sequence. Despite this, future “projections” for as far ahead as several hundred years have been presented by the IPCC as plausible future trends, based on largely distorted “storylines”, combined with untested models.
The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but they have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.
Attempts to suggest a relationship with “unusual” weather events and changes in greenhouse gases have been unsuccessful.
Reasic (12:57:15) :
The international scientific community HAS provided a viable theory, and verifiable proof to support it.
That’s part of the fallacy in the thinking (if you can call it that) among the AGW/CC hysterics.
The viability, if there ever was such a thing, of the AGW hypothesis is falling apart more and more over time. Verifiable PROOF? No, there isn’t. The computer models simply ASSUME manmade C02 drives climate. Besides, science doesn’t deal in proof – that is the realm of mathematics and logic, but in evidence, and the evidence for manmade global warming aka climate change is becoming less and worse as time goes on.
Yes, the same, tired, AGW “consensus” appeal. Typical of AGW trolls, as is the use of the ad hom. Yawn. Back to RealNonsense, or DeSmugBilge, or wherever you come from.
Rachel (14:56:40) :
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase”
Could someone point me to where the IPCC ever said such a thing?
Whilst not specifically using those words, the AR4 summary report clearly concludes temperatures will rise. See page 24 of 52
Rachel (14:56:40) :
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase”
“Could someone point me to where the IPCC ever said such a thing?”
First explain what the person quoted meant by “continuous” and “monotonous”, since you are keen on nitpicking trivialities.
Or maybe just look at a graph of IPCC research projected temps to see the obvious. Other than minor ups and downs the means all go upward in any significant timeseries of any of the projections, in what I would easily characterize as continuous and monotonous increase.
The main report was 17 pages in Japanese and was published on January 9th, 2009. Each author had a reference materials section where they referenced some items. Funny who shows up in those sections 😉
Moderator – I am not sure of my use of html tags. If they do not appear please delete the post and I’ll try again. They reference some work from this site.
Joel Shore,
Thank you for your link to the History of our Understanding of the CO2 greenhouse effect. It is well written and demonstrates outstanding research on the thoughts and studies of scientists from long ago. However, there is a messianic tone in it that becomes somewhat overbearing as the article goes on, and eventually this tone overwhelms the writer’s commendable writing early in the paper. Deviation from quality research is rampant when he says that the “final nail in the skeptic’s coffin came in 2005 . . .” and then he goes on to say things that are just plain wrong about droughts, hurricanes, and storms.
FYI for David Porter: John Christy includes in his speeches an explanation that doubling CO2 leads to a one degree increase in temperature — no debate about that impact in isolation. But the question is about feedbacks, that is not nearly as clear.
Rachel,
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase”
Could someone point me to where the IPCC ever said such a thing?
+++
I appreciate that you are trying to be smart but, as you are no doubt aware, malapropisms occasionally happen, especially when languages are translated. It is should be obvious to anyone that the word “monotonous” should actually be “monotonic”.
In analysis, the function of monotonicity means a curve which is always tending to increase, not having even a slope of zero successive numbers, i.e. the hockey stick, upon which the IPCC’s case for future temperature trends, largely rests.
There is no suggestion that the IPCC used the phrase but, by extrapolation, it is entirely fair to conclude that, in its reports, the organisation has predicted largely monotonic temperature trends, certainly on a per-decade level.
@roger H (13:59:11) :
“There was a report in the news today about the 1,000’s of scientists that have been studying the Antarctic “warm-up” and they have reached the conclusion that the glaciers are moving faster than before.”
this is probably a fallout of steig’s and mann’s newest publication in nature.
the 1000’s of scientist are probably counting every scientist who ever read a thermometer in the antarctic in the last 50 years.
the consensus was, that temperatures have been falling.
steig and mann claim the opposite, while they “forgot” to say that even with their odd computation warming happened only in the first 10 years – quite the opposite you would expect.
auditing at http://www.climataudit.org is currently examining their report and the error discovered by now are rather disturbing and for me raising the question, why these authors are still allowed to teach students.
MattN (13:51:58) :
““We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views.”
And there we have my main problem with Reasic….”
I agree, it’s time people grew up stopped hiding behind silly screennames!
Or is it?
Is there any logical basis for discounting an argument because it is put forward by someone using an alias? Of course not. The argument stands or falls on its substance not on the name put forward by its author. Would Mr Reasic’s points be received more readily if he called himself “Frank Muffler” and people assumed this to be his real name? Of course not.
What name would make you agree with someone even if you disagree with what he says?
A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
Behoovement is a funny thing. People don’t necessarily know what behooves them, and even if they do, they often act in opposition to their own welfare.
In this case, however, the assumption is made that experts testify in accord with what they are paid to say. Scientific integrity is for sale, in Japan as in the US.
That’s a cynical assumption, and rather insulting, but it cuts both ways. If the accuser thinks integrity is for sale cheap, then probably his own is. It is a plain fact that a great many people profit directly from climate alarmism.
For the record, I don’t get paid by anybody to hold or express my opinions, scientific or otherwise. It could be that I’m in a small minority on that, but I hope not.
Being just a simple cowboy at heart and in my youth, and having spent many a night in the open with only the stars for a roof, it seems to me that the proof we seek in choosing whether CO2 is our doom or not is thus:
The desert in summer gets very hot on a clear day, but cools very rapidly at night to a chilly temperature. There is very little water vapor in the air both during the hot day, and during the chilly night. What CO2 there is, likely remains the same, I suppose.
But, on those rare occasions when the desert sky is covered with clouds and the humidity rises, the day temperature is only slightly lower but the night temperature is much higher compared to the uncloudy situation. And once again, the CO2 in the air remains the same, even with the clouds and humidity.
This warming at night (or lack of cooling) in the cloudy desert is a rather difficult phenomenon for the AGW crowd to discount.
The same effect happens even in non-desert areas, but it is more noticeable in the desert.
How the AGW crowd can rave on and on that CO2 is going to kill us all is beyond me. Sure, I understand their argument that more CO2 will absorb then re-radiate more IR as heat, vaporizing more water vapor, trapping more heat, and off we go on a vicious cycle. But seriously, what happens when the atmosphere gets more water vapor? Rain. Rain requires a vertical heat transfer at the rate of 970 BTU per pound of rain, (roughly one-eighth of a gallon, or one pint) from ground level to however many thousands of feet up where the water vapor coalesces into drops and begins to fall.
Are the AGW crowd stating as a fact that the CO2 will reside higher than the rain-forming clouds, and trap the heat released as rain forms? That seems to require one heck of a heat trap. Just how much CO2 is required to trap and reflect back 970 BTU per pound of rain? Further, as I understand the argument, the CO2 radiates its heat in all directions, so roughly half will go on into space. This requires then that the CO2 absorb and radiate 2 x 970, or 1940 BTU per pound of rain. Also, is the CO2 absorption frequency matched up with the IR emitted from rain formation at altitude?
Judging from some of the rainstorms I have been in and witnessed over the tv and internet, we are talking about some huge amounts of CO2 over those storms. I suspect that the CO2 will not all gang up and congregate above the rain storm, but will be very snooty and independent — playing keep away, as it were. The second law of thermodynamics requires the CO2 to disperse and not congregate. Or, is there something I am missing here, such as a CO2 attractor in the sky?
In all seriousness, I would appreciate a polite answer, or a non-pay-per-view link to study up on this. It appears to me to be the crux of the matter.
Aside, of course, from Dr. Pierre Latour’s devastating letter regarding the impossibilty of regulating global temperature by manipulating CO2 concentrations. I am still waiting for an AGW proponent to debunk that.
Thank you in advance.
I guess some of the authors of the document read this site and Climate Audit? Here are a couple of images I clipped from the supplementary materials section to the main document. If the links don’t work my apologies – not familiar with the tags here.
Hope those work. If not could the Moderator please repair or delete? Thanks.
What did the two dissenting reviewers say?
Regarding motivation and bias, OK, Japan may wish to protect its petrochemical industry, and that is a reason why they would be relieved to hear that AGW was not sufficiently proven.
Meanwhile, there are many subcultural movements that desire spiritual connection, a larger global peace, a more unified human tribe, a movement away from competition and towards love and cooperation as the foundation for new society. And those groups generally would be disappointed to hear that AGW is not sufficiently proven.
This is what all the accusations about “greedy oil companies” always miss; being a “loving spiritually connected person” ALSO biases the viewpoint.
But wait, surely the loving viewpoint is better than the greedy viewpoint?! Well, this is science we’re talking about, which doesn’t have a morality. The moral outlook of the scientists doesn’t have much to do with the objective study of material stuff. As we know, Nazi scientists seemed to make a lot of scientific technical progress despite being kinda evil.
I’m happy to admit that many greenies are simply more noble and caring; but that doesn’t make them smarter. And it will be the smartest people who solve the riddles of the climate.
I don’t wish to belabor the point, but maybe it ought to be belabored one more time.
I am completely bored and fed up with the ad hominem logical fallacy that findings and judgments of paid scientists are suspect because they are paid. I am also weary to the bone of the opposite Appeal to Authority argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy which contends that someone with manifest credentials (such as peer reviewed publications) holds unassailable opinions.
Logic dictates that the validity of a proposition is not made or broken by the person who expresses it. A total moron can be right, and a world-class expert can be wrong. Truth lies outside the character and/or qualifications of the advocate.
Let us proceed with the enlightening discussion about the evidence and theories, without the continual devolution into logical fallacies and the worship or condemnation of the individual who dares to express a point of view.
Actually, the ad hom accusation of “energy companies” financing skeptics is hilarious.
I live in one of the most oil-industry driven cities in the world (Calgary), and I can tell you from discussing with oil-industry execs: THEY LOVE AGW. The entire theory. Love it! They push it harder than anyone.
Why? MORE MONEY FOR LESS WORK. Why pump 10 bbls at $15/bbl when you can pump 1 at $150? The profits are better, there is less transportation, less infrastructure upgrade, and they’re standing in line to collect tax credits from every existing leak they plug and every “green innovation” they can slide past a gullible auditor.
So, seriously, the alarmists who keep spewing the whole “funded by Exxon” line to discredit someone apparently have no idea how stupid this makes them sound… and can’t seem to figure out why I burst into LOUD laughter in real life when I hear one say it.
The Japanese have a strong cultural tendency to huddle together and come up with a joint consensus before announcing the group opinion, with the highest-level person in the group having the most influence. So it is astonishing to me that one of the members is known to disagree with the announcement. It must mean that this is a very important announcement, and I doubt that it would be one that would be outside the thinking of the government. If so, it is a tremendously important event, and I hope it does not get buried.
A bit OT: Consider the alternative… GIStemp. I’ve started posting my ‘deconstructing GIStemp’ details at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/gistemp-step-minus-1/
It’s not pretty and most folks will not want to be looking at FORTRAN, but for those who do want to look ‘under the hood’, it’s there. Started with getting the code and data, and this posting adds the first bit of preprocessing code. One down, about 100 to go 8-{
I can only hope that the Japanese have a better source for their data.
Looks like comedy hour has also started at RC. Comments are already being made that the scientists represent industry.
jack mosevich (10:00:09) :
Reasic: Roy Spencer, Richard Mintzen, the Roger Pielkies etc do publish contravening research
And Landscheidt, Charvatova, Fairbridge, and a few others have published on the planet / solar / angular momentum theories (the list is long that that but I can’t look it up right now…)
What’s all the hubub?
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is a rather small (about 1700 members) organization dedicated to “promoting the science and technology concerning energy and resources”. As far as I can tell, the two Japanese scientists quoted about the report have done no research in climate, or paleoclimate, or meterology, or atmospheric physics, or atmospheric chemistry….
So what’s the big deal? A few scientists who don’t do research in anything related to climate are sceptical of AGW. They’ve offered some rather vague suggestions about “natural cycles” and the sun, but that’s about it.
Their main point seems to be that there are still a lot of uncertainties about what’s driving recent climate change.
Interestingly, they don’t even mention CO2. Getting rid of that CO2 forcing is a tough nut to crack!
Hardly a paradigm shift…
Lee Kington (11:55:57) :
Thanks for pointing out the study at Lubos Motl’s blog today. Some very smart people are saying there is no science to prove variations in the sun affect temps on earth (if I am understanding them correctly). Other very smart people say variations in the sun do affect temps on earth.
I think I’m as smart as these smart folks, though I haven’t spent my life in the area of sun study so I don’t know as much about the sun as they do. But I think my common sense tells me anything the sun does has an effect on the earth.
It could be that those who say there is no science that proves variations on the sun affect temps on earth are science purists who have to have a heavy dose of verifiable data before they’ll acknowledge something is ‘science’–I reckon.
Here’s a study that shows a correlation between solar activity and climate on earth :
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
Also, here’s a YouTube video covering the same, but simplified :
And on topic of this thread : it’s good to see momentum growing for us “deniers”. I haven’t seen any good news for the “alarmists” in a long time–unless you consider dressing in your Sunday’s best next Monday and protesting at a coal powered electric plant in Washington D.C. good news! Gosh, what good news! And what fun too, sure to convince everyone to do something about “global warming”! 😉
“Chris V. (18:37:12) :
What’s all the hubub?”
Thanks for the alarmist’s downplay. Or should I call it whistling past the cemetery?
Reasic (12:57:15) : The international scientific community HAS provided a viable theory, and verifiable proof to support it.
No, they have not. They have a flakey theory encoded into weak computer models driven by dodgy data that’s been cooked by folks like Hansen. (Yes, I know that data are cooked ’cause I’m reading the GIStemp code right now. It cooks the books, to put it charitably.)
A computerized fantasy is proof of nothing. One fed garbage is worse.
You think you can just assume it’s “natural” unless proven otherwise, but you’re wrong. A cause for recent warming must be proven, natural or not.
No, it need not. The ‘null hypothesis’ is just fine as: The world has changed far more dramatically in the past with no humans at all, it can be doing that again.
See, it’s real simple. People don’t know everything. Sometimes they need to admit that.
That you can’t provide proof for any alternative mechanism is telling, don’t you think?
Yes, it says that we have the wisdom to admit that there is one heck of a lot more that we don’t know. Admitting your ignorance is the first step to understanding.
I might just as well say “Green Gremlins cause gravity” and because you can not PROVE to me what gravity is or how it works, then I must be right. That clearly is nutty. We can describe what gravity does, be we just don’t really know what it is.
We can describe what 30 year weather is, but we just don’t really know what drives it. (Or perhaps you would care to tell us exactly what the PDO, AMO and ENSO do and why? Oh, and when? While you are at it, exactly what is the influence of cosmic rays. On clouds, ozone, and charged particle flows. And how does the sun influence them? And what is the effect of our position in the galaxy and relative to the invariant plane?) We have guesses, but it isn’t known. Given that you don’t know, you can not dismiss.
Furthermore, you need to explain: The Little Ice Age, The Medieval Warm Period, The Younger Dryas, … and about a dozen others. What causes Bond Events? What is the impact of the Jose Cycle? Why do volcanoes seem more active when the sun goes quiet? Hmmm?
These things can not be simply dismissed by saying “My computer fantasy says CO2 did it!!!”
Chris V “rather small (about 1700 members)” —
corresponding size for an American society 5,000 —
Now, how big is the IPCC? “More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries …”
Rather small, don’t you think, for a 154 country organization?
As for the CO2 nut, what is the forcing from CO2 alone? If there is amplification, where is it? Troposphere not heating up. Oceans neither.
Your right: What’s the big deal?
Joel Shore (12:48:02) :
I read Spencer Weart’s essay on CO2 and while interesting and well written, reaffirms that climate science is still in its infancy and AGW still in the realm of hypothesis.
E.M Smith says:
On that we can agree.
Yes…But admitting someone else’s ignorance, maybe not so much. And, in fact, I think it is quite a block to understanding if you think that you understand something (including to what extent things are actually understood) that you are not an expert on better than most of the experts on the subject.
There are always uncertainties in science. However, in scientific fields where the conclusions don’t have policy implications that some people find quite abhorrent, these don’t seem to be as paralyzing as they seem to be found for theories like AGW and evolution.
Chris V:
Getting rid of that CO2 forcing is a tough nut to crack!
Have youl tried Deprograming?
Seriously, why hasn’t water vapor alone already produced runaway warming, at least up to its maximal absorption given a stable source of long wave radiation? Or has it already maxed out? If it hasn’t, then why would CO2, which is effectively a very weak greenhouse gas, make water vapor, which is effectively a much stronger greenhouse gas, do much more than what it apparently could only achieve before – in the face Climate mechanisms such as clouds, convection, etc., which have limited its effect and will still be acting strongly to do the same?
And exactly why is a doubling of CO2 concentration going to increase temperatures ~3 degrees C.? [Please post the answer also on CA.] And what happens with the next doubling? What happened with the previous doublings of CO2 in the process of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature getting to where it is now? Why have CO2 levels always followed temperature changes?
Without simply postulating ex post facto factors, why haven’t temperatures tracked CO2 concentrations more closely, now to the point that “natural influences” have to be invoked? Can the GCM’s explain the MWP warming, along with the other warmings of the Holocene? If they can’t, then they can’t really explain the current [apparently minor] warming over the past 130 years, because they haven’t accounted for non-CO2 factors.
Anthony, shouldn’t there be a link to the original Register story someplace obvious? The link at the bottom is labeled as not going to the first page of the Register story. Give them a link to their story, please.
REPLY: The link at the bottom of the page does in fact go to the second part of the story at the Register, which I thought would give them the maximum linkage to the entire piece, sinc emost people would want to read the entire story. But I’ve also added another. – Anthony
DaveM (10:08:11) :
Thanks, Dave, for that excellent illustration of how ‘feel good’ ideology trumps rationality, common sense, and responsibility amongst the extreme ‘environmentalists’ and their politically-correct camp followers (fortuitous pun).
Writ large, it says something about demagogues like Algore, who use a combination of fear-mongering and ersatz sentimentality about ‘the environment’ to further their quest for power and control. That some of their followers are as callous and selfish as they are is no surprise. It’s all about self-aggrandizement, except perhaps for those genuinely naive and deluded souls, who will not pick up their trash to keep the place clean, but to ‘save the planet’.
/Mr Lynn
Obama is the “front man”, the salesman for the Ideology of Change (aka Global Socialism). The man behind the curtain is George Soros.
Soros wants to change the world and has enough money to do it. He has funded the effort that in less than a year brought a little known “community activist/junior senator” from Chicago into the White House. There is no doubt that he has a brilliant mind.
Soros has funneled large sums of money into the Democratic Party. In reciprocation, the Democrats have allowed him to install a small army of true believers to execute his bidding. He funds MoveOn.org and a number of environmental front groups.
The Soros vision is of a one-world Socialist government ruled by a select elite that control the global financial system. He has euphemistically christened his Utopian vision as The Open Society.
What follows are the closing paragraphs of a speech he recently made at Davos (printed in The Financial Times). Here in are the marching orders for his surrogate-creation, Barack Hussein Obama. Note the paragraph regarding energy:
“To prevent the US economy from sliding into a depression, Mr Obama must implement a radical and comprehensive set of policies. Alongside the well-advanced fiscal stimulus package, these should include a system-wide and compulsory recapitalization of the banking system and a thorough overhaul of the mortgage system – reducing the cost of mortgages and foreclosures.
Energy policy could also play an important role in counteracting both depression and deflation. The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.
Finally, the international financial system must be reformed. Far from providing a level playing field, the current system favours the countries in control of the international financial institutions, notably the US, to the detriment of nations at the periphery. The periphery countries have been subject to the market discipline dictated by the Washington consensus but the US was exempt from it.
How unfair the system is has been revealed by a crisis that originated in the US yet is doing more damage to the periphery. Assistance is needed to protect the financial systems of periphery countries, including trade finance, something that will require large contingency funds available at little notice for brief periods of time. Periphery governments will also need long-term financing to enable them to engage in counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
In addition, banking regulations need to be internationally co-ordinated. Market regulations should be global as well. National governments also need to co-ordinate their macroeconomic policies in order to avoid wide currency swings and other disruption.”
The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of the Open Society Institute. These are extracts from an e-book update to The New Paradigm for Financial Markets – The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means (Public¬Affairs Books, New York)
J. Peden (20:29:40) :
Chris V:
“Getting rid of that CO2 forcing is a tough nut to crack!
Have youl tried Deprograming?”
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
I hope your not going to respond with a link to that stuff by Dr. Hug.
I’m happy to admit that many greenies think they’re more noble and caring.
Roger Sowell (14:56:24) : Japan will have serious problems converting to a “green” energy economy, as their solar opportunities are limited (northern latitude, small land area), area for wind energy is small, and geothermal exists but is less than 1 percent of total energy supplies.
But they do know how to extract Uranium from sea water at prices that are near market, and they do have the Japan current for bottom anchored ‘water mills’ and they do have lots of waves for wave power… (They could do wind, but the land is just too beautiful to put up wind turbines, IMHO…)
So if you count Uranium as ‘green’, no problem. Oh, and they can also buy organic feedstocks for ‘petrochemical’ processing from places like Brazil, if they wanted to do so. (It would be silly, since oil is so available, but we’re being silly about carbon, so why not…) And they have a major issue with garbage disposal, so the ‘trash to fuel’ processes would be a great match.
I’ve got to think that the costs of nuclear facilities in Japan are lower than here.
As a worker in the UK IT industry I regularly read The Register for its industry news and gossip – and in this area it is generally informative and entertaining, if a little ‘laddish’. However on the climate change issue it is simply not a reliable source, having decided to adopt a remorselessly contrarian stance, its news pieces are relentlessly spun and unbalanced and the ‘science’ articles contain factual errors and blatent cherry-picks which remain uncorrected even when pointed out.
Some recent examples: in this piece on the GISTEMP October data foulup, Evan Jones says GISS reported the warmest October on record and that GISTEMP does not use satellite data, both untrue. Here the same author confuses CO2 with CO2 equivalent (amongst other howlers). In this piece Steve Goddard compares a global trend with a hemispherical one, compares annual figures with a YTD, and uses different start dates when comparing the trends in Hadley and NASA data, introducing a >0.2C bias. And, here, in a rare retraction, the Editor publishes a response to another of Goddard’s articles from Dr Walt Meier which concludes Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed
So, having established that El Reg is not quite the goto site for accuracy, what are we to make of this piece claiming an opinion shift amongst the Japanese scientific community? First a nitpick
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields
No, it is one such thinktank, there are others e.g. the JIE .
The facts behind the Register’s rather excited piece appear to be that 5 members of the JSER have published a report, parts of which, by three of the five, selectively translated by El Reg, are at odds with the conclusions of the IPCC. Is the report representative of the position of the JSER as a whole? No evidence that it is, and that would in fact represent something of a shift, as just last month the Society was supporting an international symposium on this topic…
Global warming is recognized as a serious problem which the human race is facing now, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its research and proposal of measures concerning this issue.
In this symposium, the 4th assessment report was highlighted, and the future concept of measures to mitigate global warming was discussed. Also, leading researchers presented their advanced works, particularly biofuel production and carbon dioxide capture & storage that attract attention as future promising technologies …
Very curious. Can anyone enlighten us as to what the actual position of the JSER is?
Re ‘continuous and monotonous’. Obviously weather doesn’t stop in the event of greenhouse gas forcings rising, so temperatures will continue to go up some years, down other years. The long term trend will be constantly upward, though, if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to be the largest forcing operating.
As for monotonous, in the AR4 summary that Paul S linked to, the possibility of abrupt changes was specifically discussed. I really don’t rate the credibility of anyone who can’t accurately report what they are commenting on.
REPLY: Rachel what’s your credibility? What do you do, other than hang out on blogs. Are you a scientist, or artist?- Anthony
The planet is more than one subject. Include the sun and there’s even more subjects (astrophysicists anyone?) Show me the group that is expert in all of these things.
Now, as for groups. “Groups” and “Consensus” are also a subject. Who is expert on groups? Who is expert on belief systems? Who is expert on groupthink?
We have to at least turn to sociologists at the very minimum. Plus if you are so inclined, I also have it on good authority from the world’s foremost recognised expert on delusion, the Buddha, that we are all suffering from one form of delusion or another. But let’s stay with sociology for now.
Most knowledge we receive second hand. Most stuff we don’t double check ourselves. And most people are part of one subculture or another, with their own particular views on life, their own beliefs, their own sense of moral outlook, their own philosophy, and all that stuff we call a “lifestyle”. We are social creatures, and we know that groupthink, conformity, obedience of authority and so on–the world’s religions have been using these for thousands of years of course–are all very real and very powerful mechanisms in culture. This we know from the experts. So if “experts” is the main concern, we should also be listening to sociologists who can explain something about cultural groupthink. It doesn’t matter whether you think groupthink is or isn’t happening, that’s for the experts to declare.
The most damming thing about the AGW supporters is that they are so picky about whom they admit as an “expert”. When they see an expert they don’t like, they attack them. It goes like this:
– is the expert part of a church? say he’s not a rational person
– if he is not part of a church, then say he’s paid by the oil industry
– if he’s not paid, say he’s a crazy person
– if he’s not crazy, and actually is a scientist, say he’s not in the field
– if he is in the field, say he’s just one voice
– if there are more than one of them, and they are in the field, and they are experts, and they are not crazy, and they are not part of a church, then say:
“they may have a point but it is IRRESPONSIBLE of them to express it”
And because they are irresponsible, we can dismiss their view.
See, these discussion play out like this. The fact which I observe time and time again is the AGW believers trumpet “the experts” whilst in reality not caring one whit about experts.
I was poking through my bookshelf the other day and came across a copy of Karl Popper’s Logic of scientific Discovery, 50 years since the first english translation was published.
It seems to me his thesis cuts to the core of the climate debate ,
a hypothesis has to be written in a way that it can be falsified.
This to me is the core of the problem for the AGW proponents and the IPCC’s handling of the science.
Time they reread Popper.
All hypotheses should be tested and if found wanting back to the drawing board.
In almost every case the claims of the IPPC in relation to the science have been found wanting. The responce from their scientists has been to take a fortress mentality and refuse to accept data which challanges or falsifies their claims.
Hansen & gore have stooped to the equivalent of saying lets burn the heretic’s, a classic denialist defence, an admission their scientific arguments are weak, lets turn to politics to preserve our position.
Burning heretics comes with a price, so be warned
[snip- junk]
Rachel (01:56:31) :
As for monotonous, in the AR4 summary that Paul S linked to, the possibility of abrupt changes was specifically discussed. I really don’t rate the credibility of anyone who can’t accurately report what they are commenting on.
The AP4 report specifically discusses a great many things. What you asked for is where the IPCC’s conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase. I think I’ve proven this. What your rebuttal attempted to do was redirect the argument from the original point. This does bode well on your creditability stakes.
I believe you can contribute a lot to the debates on WUWT if you open up a little. I for one enjoy the debates put forwards by Joel Shore, foinavon and John Phillip, for example. They put forwards arguments that challenge and that are backed up with evidence. Don’t let us down.
Soros also backs realclimate.org. When you point out that inconvenient fact, we’re told the source of funding is irrelevant, of course.
Barry Foster (12:25:07) :
I don’t know how they come up with these numbers. The first number is actual and the second is provisional Anomaly.
February 4.0 0.3 provisional, to the 25th
Further down the page we read:-
Provisional CET anomaly, (up to 25th February): -0.29
So what is it? 0.3 or -0.29.
I can tell you that if February comes in at 4.0 it will be 1.4 lower than last Feb and below 1900-2008 trend. By eyeballing the graph I have, it will be about -0.3 below the trend. The best fit trend is up from 1900 4.0 to 2008 4.4.
Joel Shore (12:36:59) :
Your continued pasting of this argument in threads shows a lack of your ability to think for yourself. You and I discussed this at length in another thread. I will if you want explain it all to you again. However it would be a good place to start if you could just get it into your head that the earth is not a green house.
Great post again Anthony. I hope Real Climate is paying attention, there’s a reason why you won science blog of the year.
One thing I’m certain of about AGW is we cannot claim to be certain.
Heck, I hope the rest of the world is paying attention too.
A mainstream publication got the story wrong? That never happens, right? Oh they got many stories wrong? Seriously, does the media ever get things right?
As for your characterization of JSER as a think tank, I don’t see anything on their site that backs up that contention, nor do I find anything that supports your implication that The Register got this story wrong.
BTW: As a fellow IT worker (albeit in the USA), I have yet to find any of the mainstream press that gets the climate change story right. The AP keeps running stories about climate change accelerating, while also running stories about how cold it is. It’s pure ‘doublespeak’ to claim the recent downturn in global temperatures is a sign of global warming.
2+2 = 5, heh?
John G. Bell (11:19:36) :
I should hope that fact that “… the JSER certainly doesn’t represent the Japanese government’s position.” is not a interpreted by you to reflect badly on the scientists involved in this report.
Huh? I was simply pointing out that it was incorrect to jump to the assumption, as some had done, that this has any bearing on Japan’s commtiment to GHG reduction. Far from saying anything bad about any of the authors, I made a point of stating that Akasofu is an eminent scientist.
kim (11:45:25) :
Simon, surely you jest. The ‘ancient astrology’ bit itself ought to be the horselaugh heard round the world. Here we are, the truth is finally getting out of bed, and looking for its boots, which Simon would prefer to hide in another room.
I agree that the ‘ancient astrology’ gaffe is a horselaugh, but the laugh is on The Register, as Nick has pointed out above ( Nick Stokes (13:37:38) ). Far from wanting to hide any truth, a motivation you falsely attribute to me for no reason, I would like the opposite – let’s see the whole of this report without The Register’s misinterpretations. Don’t you agree? Isn’t that what any true sceptic would want?
Adolfo Giurfa (11:38:30) :
Sorry about the dead link. Here’s an even bigger version of Akasofu’s full paper – it’s 60Mb and slow, so I’d advise downloading rather than trying to open it directly –
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf
I would guess that Akasofu’s contribution to the JSER report is based on his arguments therein.
Rachel (01:56:31)
The long term trend will be constantly upward, though, if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to be the largest forcing operating.
Funny how the AGW mantra now concerns ALL greenhouse gasses instead of just C02, which of course is just a bit player compared to water vapor. Oh yes, the claim is that the small amount of C02 forcing causes water vapor to rise so there’s supposedly a positive feedback there. If only. Firstly, C02’s warming effect is miniscule, and secondly, as far as feedbacks, they are just as likely to be negative as positive, due to the complexity of the climate system.
Greenhouse gasses are not, nor have they ever been much of a climate forcing, being far outweighed by what the sun does, as well as the oceans, and other long-term factors such as the orbital eccentricity every 100k years, possibly the “Milky Way” effect described by Nir Shaviv, varying the amount of cosmic rays the earth is exposed to, etc.
The minor warming of the past century was a boon to mankind, as was the rise in C02 levels. But, we can no more stop warming from happening than we can cooling, which is what is happening now, and cooling is far, far more detrimental to mankind.
Al Gore is monotonous . AGW ideology claims temperature increases, over time will be continual and monotonic , even if we halted all industrial production of C02 today, just one of their many absurd claims.
FatBigot (16:03:16) :
OT. What you say is of course true in that whatever the identity of the person is, it doesn’t diminish or give more weight to the point the poster is making.
However there is such a thing as disclosure of interest. It’s used where a person in a discussion has something gain or something to loss from the outcome of the discussion. By declaring an interest usually the person is not exempt from putting a point forward but may be excluded from any vote.
There are no votes here so disclosure is not mandatory. However it is polite to declare any special interest you may have as a recognised representative of any organisation.
Arthur (17:13:57) :
I’m not a moderator but I would like to point out that simply cutting and pasting the URL into your message works perfectly well with WUWT.
Joel Shore (20:05:50) :
“E.M Smith says: Yes, it says that we have the wisdom to admit that there is one heck of a lot more that we don’t know. Admitting your ignorance is the first step to understanding.”
Yes…But admitting someone else’s ignorance, maybe […] that you are not an expert on better than most of the experts on the subject.
Expertise is a great thing. I have a lot of it. Anyone can be an expert in their field. I had this demonstrated by a minimum wage soda jerk. Buddy & I ordered 2 meals with 2 Cokes, one diet. When called we went to the window. Which is which? We were helpless. Soda Jerk glances at the cups: Diet is on your right. How, I ask him? Sugar holds surface bubbles longer, diet looks flat on top. He is an expert in Soda.
But expertise does not grant immunity from error. Even spectacular error. Especially in relatively new fields of endeavor. Climate science if fairly new and climate modeling is an infant.
Sidebar: Though it doesn’t require that a field be new: Notice how suddenly the number of ads for low cholesterol margarine vs heart evil butter are approaching zero? In the 1970s they were legion. Now look on the back of that margarine package. 20% or so Trans Fat. Just in the last decade some researches made tri-stearate (pure saturated fat) and fed it to folks expecting a cholesterol bomb. Nothing. Literally no change to health. Monounsaturated oils lower cholesterol, saturated fats like in beef (stearate) and by extension probably butter do nothing, and the evil is the transfats in margarine. Maybe those old Indian ghee stories are true? (The key to longevity is ghee – clarified butter – they say…) For how long was Medical Expertise wrong? The early tests of ‘animal fats’ were confounded by transfats that act the same (solids) and were not disambiguated. I.e. the experiments were bad and their ‘model’ was wrong.
There are always uncertainties in science. However, in scientific fields where the conclusions don’t have policy implications that some people find quite abhorrent, these don’t seem to be as paralyzing as they seem to be found for theories like AGW and evolution.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Climate models are not even tepid proof. There are, however, many ‘existence proofs’ of the null hypothesis (that the climate changes by natural means).
See:
Bolling interstadial, Older Dryas, Allerod Interstadial, Younger Dryas, Holocene Climate Optimum, 8.2 kiloyear event, Neolithic Subpluvial 7-4k B.C., 5.9 kiloyear event 4k B.C., Pioria Oscillation 3k B.C., 4.2 kiloyear event 2k B.C, Iron Age cold period 900 B.C., Roman Optimum, Migration Era Pessimum / Dark Ages, Medieval Warm period, Little Ice Age, Modern Optimum, AlGore Cold period (entering now, keep all hands, feet, and wallets inside the coach at all times 😉
There is one heck of a lot more than the LIA and MWP for you to erase in our climate history… like, oh, all of it…
Though it has ‘issues’ see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_events
for a clue. (I think they are downplaying the swings somewhat as a pander to the present AGW domination of wiki.)
Then explain, please, Bond Events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
See why I have trouble accepting “But this time it’s different, my video game tells me so!”
(Though that does a disservice to video games. They are vastly more tech savey than the climate models and make GIStemp look like a Rube Goldberg machine… no, that does a disservice to Rub Goldberg, his machines functioned… I’ll have to work on my analogy. GIStemp is pretty bad.)
Chris V. (21:10:22) :
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
But it does. I took this as a double entendre with 1/2 being human, but the other half being a poke at the programming of the climate models that by their design can only find CO2 guilty. So deprogram the CO2 driver in the model and put in any of {solar, ocean oscillations, ozone, GCR, whatever} and your program will find something new and the “CO2 nut” will be cracked.
John Philip (01:45:55) : Some recent examples: in this piece on the GISTEMP October data foulup, Evan Jones says GISS reported the warmest October on record and that GISTEMP does not use satellite data, both untrue.
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/gistemp-start/
and
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/gistemp-step0-input-files/
Are here to help you explore their code, as I have been doing. I would love to see exactly where the satellites appear. Near as I can tell they just take GHCN, USHCN, Antarctic ground station data, and a couple of historical bits from places like Hohenpeissenberg and glue them together (with lots of deletions, interpolations or extrapolations – its hard to tell which, and blatant manipulations via “The Reference Station Method”).
But maybe I missed something. Nobody’s perfect. I’ve only read every single line of the manual pre-steps, STEP0, STEP1, and STEP2 and scanned STEP3 and STEP4_5 along with the GHCN download code.
So, show me the satellite data load step, please.
Oh, and while your at it, explain those Bond Events…
Anthony,
OT but you might like to open a thread…
The doomsayers are getting more and more hysterical.
Whoops, fluffed the HTML.
Chris V:
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
As I suggested in what followed after the statement your quote responds to, I was hoping you’d prove or support an actual CO2 forcing of the magnitude necessary to produce runaway GW, or at least enough to increase Global Atmospheric Temperatures by ~ 3degrees C. per doubling, or at least from doubling, say, 280ppm to 560ppm.
It’s the CO2 forcing, and assisting “feedback”, which needs to be proven and quantified, and which must also comport with or explain some contrary evidence to what you call and assume to be a “CO2 forcing nut”.
I don’t have to disprove what hasn’t yet been proven.
UK to become one big city/
Sidebar pondering: I have noticed a tendency for AGW advocates to assert that skeptics are just not looking at The Science; as though we came to skepticism first and only looked to science later as a crutch. The problem with this is that the stories told here by skeptics are often of the form “I believed in AGW then looked at the data and The Science and became a Sceptic”.
I was one such. My initial take was “Golly, CO2 changing climate! How neat, and how scary. Better look into it.” The more I looked the more I said “Wait a minute, that isn’t right. Your cooking the books (or blowing the physics, or making up computer fantasies, or downright making the models run fast as a deliberate deception.)
So I’m pondering the human psychology of this. Folks often attribute to others that which is themselves. I wonder if it is the AGW advocates who advocated first, then selectively use “science” as a defense for their foundational belief. That would explain a great deal of the selective listening skills displayed and the attack approach to challenge… and the constant whining that skeptics must be in the pay of someone to hold the heretical belief.
(BTW, if any knows how to get paid for my heretical behaviours, I’m available. Right now I’m just the silly one giving it away for free. I’d love to get paid for doing what I’m going to do anyway… but the market rate seems to be zero. I came to my heresy for free and I guess I’m stuck with it for zero pay too. Maybe someday I’ll figure out how to follow the money rather than where reason leads me. Oh Well.)
So is there some character difference, some known aspect of human psychology that determines the order in which folks process? Who ‘changes with the discovery’ and who ‘digs in to defend the foundation belief’? I don’t know, my expertise is modest in psych (though I do have 12 units of Med School Psych, it was a practical lab, not theory, and doesn’t help much. It’s a long story, not for here…) So what makes these particular Japanese Scientists willing to ‘make the leap’ when others are not? Just pondering…
Bruce Cobb
But, we can no more stop warming from happening than we can cooling, which is what is happening now, and cooling is far, far more detrimental to mankind.
Don’t bank on it. Have a look at what the eejits are thinking about now …Mirrors in space!
MartinGAtkins (09:14:47) :
No. But it does speak a bit to mindset and motivations. Your moniker, for instance, displays a playful attitude toward stereotyping and a willingness to face bravely those who would insult. Kinda cool. Not deceptive. Tells me you have some strength of character. Implies (if self descriptive – not known at this time) a willingness to face reality at any cost and very low levels of self deception; unless it’s just a joke. For other folks, there will be other motivations. Alias analysis is not about veracity per se, it is about understanding motivations… It’s the alias that screams deception that raises issues of veracity. “Mary Hinge” for example (given the UK meaning and the assertion that “Mary” is male). The ‘couch time’ to analyze that one would be large… but interesting…
OT. What you say is of course true in that whatever the identity of the person is, it doesn’t diminish or give more weight to the point the poster is making. However there is such a thing as disclosure of interest.[…]
There are no votes here so disclosure is not mandatory. However it is polite to declare any special interest you may have as a recognised representative of any organisation.
In stock trading circles there is a social norm that you must disclose your positions. Partially this is due to SEC regulations on registered folks that makes it a crime not to disclose, so us peons go along for the ride. On stock trading blogs, to not disclose is to be shunned (and sometimes go to prison…)
Strangely enough, a couple of years ago (before i came to understand who they were and that AGW was bunk) I posted some things on one of the AGW blogs (don’t remember which… Maybe RC, maybe?…) And had a “Disclosure: I own tick tick tick” at the bottom. The posting was summarily deleted with the admonition that “This is not a stock picking site”. The fact that I was pointing out no end to fossil fuels or petrochemicals for several hundred years was probably more important to the deletion… or maybe it was that I owned some energy stocks.
At any rate, the fact that Anthony and The Moderators have let me put my biases on the table for all to see via a “Disclosure: I own tick tick…” speaks volumes to me. They know a disclosure is not an advocacy and they understand that admission of bias is a good thing.
I did find it an odd psychological observation that what was mandatory to prevent hidden bias on stock blogs was forbidden on an AGW site because… because… er, um…
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
Satellite data is employed for computing SSTs for the period 12/81 to present. Description here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Fuller description in Hansen et al 1998:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1996/1996_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Data here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
PaulS – nowhere in the IPCC’s report does it say that future temperature rises will be continuous and monotonous/monotonic. It does say that abrupt changes are likely. Abrupt != continuous.
I don’t really know what you mean by “open up a little”
By the way, you may have thought that I was casting aspersions on your credibility when I said “I really don’t rate the credibility of anyone who can’t accurately report what they are commenting on.” That comment was referring to the authors of the report.
E.M.Smith (12:15:30) Sidebar pondering: No formal psych classes in my past, but I have read Freud, Jung, Skinner and others over the past 45 years. I think one of our underlying principals as humans is to label some ‘thing’ as the cause of our problems. There is nothing so unbearable for humans as not knowing something. Without the scepticism of scientific thought, our minds naturally come to a conclusion or conceptual understanding, regardless of whether there is enough information to empirically determine the same. Thus, the masses glom onto the latest horrific fad of impending doom until the next one comes around. People are attracted to pleasure and ease of living, but are only motivated to change via pain. This leads to the concept of personal guilt, and opening oneself to manipulation by those who would take advantage of the ‘guilty’, the ones we hold as our leaders, political and religious, should they be so inclined.
J. Peden (12:10:11) :
Chris V:
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
As I suggested in what followed after the statement your quote responds to, I was hoping you’d prove or support an actual CO2 forcing of the magnitude necessary to produce runaway GW, or at least enough to increase Global Atmospheric Temperatures by ~ 3degrees C. per doubling, or at least from doubling, say, 280ppm to 560ppm.
It’s the CO2 forcing, and assisting “feedback”, which needs to be proven and quantified, and which must also comport with or explain some contrary evidence to what you call and assume to be a “CO2 forcing nut”.
I don’t have to disprove what hasn’t yet been proven.
Who said anything about runaway GW? Not I, the IPCC, nor any climate scientist I’m aware of (I wouldn’t consider Hansens idea of 6 degrees for CO2 doubling- after melting of ice sheets, etc., – to imply a runaway GH effect). A runaway greenhouse effect would involve stuff like the the oceans boiling away.
As for the CO2 forcing, it can be calculated using radiation codes like Hitran.
In an earlier post you said said that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2.
If you explain how the GH forcing from water vapor is determined, I will explain how the GH forcing from CO2 is determined. 😉
The estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling come from climate models, observations of modern climate following changes in forcings (like sulphates from volcanoes), and from studies of paleoclimate. All the results huddle around 2 to 3 degrees or so.
From Kiminori Itoh, Prof., Yokohama National University.
Hi everybody!
I am one of the five who participated to the article in the JSER journal, which may have seemed to you as a mystery from Japan. At first, I thank you for picking up our activity in Japan. I am a regular reader of several climate blog sites, and had been making some contributions mainly to Climate Science of Prof. Pielke. Actually, the information I gave in the article largely owes the invaluable information shown at this site WUWT as well as Climate Science and Climate Audit. Thus, I felt I should explain a bit about the article of JSER because, unfortunately, it is written in Japanese although it has partly been translated into English.
Some readers of WUWT might remember my name; I had written a guest blog in Climate Science several moths ago, when Roger kindly suggested me to introduce my new book “Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs.” Yes, I am regarded as one of the most hard-core AGW skeptics in Japan, although I myself regard me as a realist in this issue.
The article of JSER has been composed of discussions between the five contributors, made through e-mail for several months, and was organized by Prof. Yoshida of Kyoto University (an editor of the JSER journal). Our purpose was to invoke healthy discussions on the global warming issue in Japan. The JSER journal was selected as a platform for this discussion just because Prof. Yoshida has a personal interest in this issue and he is an editor of the journal.
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.
All the contributors are well-established researchers in different fields and each has characteristic personal opinions on the AGW issue. Only one (Dr. Emori, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, Japan) represents IPCC. Other members are more or less skeptical of the conclusions of IPCC. For instance, as translated into English, Dr. Kusano made a severe critique on climate models; he himself is a cloud-modeler, so that his critique seems plausible. Prof. Akasofu is well known as an aurora physicist, Prof. Maruyama is famous for his ideas in geophysics, and I myself have sufficient academic record in environmental physical chemistry (more than 160 peer review papers).
We know that our try this time is small one, and its impact has a limitation especially due to language problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussion was useful and informative for everyone interested in the controversies associated with the AGW issue. In March, another article will come also in the JSER journal because the discussion received much interest from the readers of the journal.
Any comments and opinions are welcome and very helpful for us.
Thank you again.
Thank you for responding, Professor Itoh, and for your explanation of the situation.
I would love to see a guest post by you, expanding on your thoughts regarding the debate over the AGW issue.
Also, congratulations on your impressive command of the English language.
OK so it was just an email discussion from five discussants: I note this summary quote from Prof Itoh:
Where does this leave the reliability or the Register’s “exclusive report”? Will we see an update on this blog?
E.M.Smith (11:05:19) writes in part: Monounsaturated oils lower cholesterol, saturated fats like in beef (stearate) and by extension probably butter do nothing, …
I see the Fat Is Bad health scare as a cautionary tale when considering AGW. That scare changed the eating patterns of the world, all on the basis of some bad data.
Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
We, the general populace, fell for an erroneous scare (likely not a “scam”)… just as we would have fallen for AGW (a demonstrable “scam”) and paid dearly for it if folks had been suckered…
Wal; I hope we are not suckered. Probably still in the balance, with sanity just holding disaster at bay…
Professor Itoh,
It is a high honor to read your comments on WUWT. I have worked with Japanese engineers, businessmen, and academics many times since 1977 and am always impressed. I have visited Japan only once, but my visit was most memorable and wonderful.
I look forward to reading your next article.
I work in California as a Climate Change attorney, with clients in the energy, manufacturing, and power generation sectors. I am convinced that the state law to prevent Global Warming in California, AB 32, is leading this state into economic devastation. Following that will come social upheaval.
In my opinion, you and your colleagues are performing a great service by your stand and publishing. I can only hope that other top-notch scientists will follow your lead, and we see many such articles around the world.
Thank you, Professor Itoh.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Rachel (13:49:28) wrote: Abrupt != continuous.
This may well make sense in Western Australian medical circles, but it defeats me from souh of the border. Would you explain it to me, miss Rachel?
EM Smith: “The problem with this is that the stories told here by skeptics are often of the form “I believed in AGW then looked at the data and The Science and became a Sceptic”.”
Yes, that’s the standard sceptic ‘conversion’ narrative. After all, an AGW sceptic could hardly say: ““I believed in AGW then discovered Hansen was a raving socialist, so I became a Sceptic”.
The sceptic narrative has at least two embedded messages:
1) I was prepared to give AGW a chance, therefore my mind is open to the evidence;
2) My trust was betrayed by perfidious scientists.
“So is there some character difference, some known aspect of human psychology that determines the order in which folks process?”
I don’t think the mechanism is quite so crude. More likely, people attempt to place new information within their existing belief system. It’s a truism that we place more trust in new information that conforms to old, and that we are more inclined to believe those we trust.
The article that heads this thread is a good example of these traits. The message is congenial to WUWT, and the source is trustworthy enough for WUWT, so a number of posters have taken the story at face value.
That said, the WUWT response has been relatively muted, especially considering the melodramatic lead para: “Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.”
Or perhaps the response is muted *because* of the nature of the lead para, which asks the reader to take a very large leap in understanding. In addition, there are memories of a similar event: the recent Theon debacle, where the journalist’s hyperbole fell apart when subject to critical analysis. The Japanese story also fails to provide sufficient context, and geographical and cultural distance may also render the story less compelling.
Context is often overlooked as an aid to conferring meaning. Take this comment from the current thread: “Gee, I wonder why this story hasn’t been picked up by the media …”
Since the writer is a sceptic, he is probably implying that the [mainstream] media is biased against such stories. However, if the comment came from an AGWer, it would very likely imply the opposite: that the lead para was exaggerated, hyperbolic and overblown, and therefore not credible. Same comment, different context, different understanding.
Don’t think I’m getting at sceptics. I’m sure AGWers have their own blind spots. My point is that psychologising is seductive, and that it can often merely confirm our own prejudices with a ‘scientific’ gloss.
@Brendan H
Prof. Itoh has explained the background of the article.
You pretend to take a balanced view, what is fine, though you should admit, that critical remarks, especially well founded, would not be admitted to AGWer’s discussion forums. Real climate science is not interested in a balanced view.
This is one reason, why an increasing number of experts have their say here (or on climateaudit.org, climatesci.org and a few other sites).
This is why advances in climate science are increasingly happening on these sites and not in the frozen consens, closed discussion circles.
The discussion about Global warming looks like this very much.
“Which is a beginning?The egg is the first,The chicken is the second?
or the chicken is first,the egg is the second? ”
I think the discussion about Global warming is same.
and
There are an uncertainty theorem in the physics world, an incompleteness theorems in the information world.
So neither can be proven scientifically.
A cause of the global warming that I think of is such a reason.
The scientist who gets money （or is pressured） from the person,the company that makes money by global warming and the organization that plans for something by global warming says that the earth is warming.
the reverse is also.
Anyway,the ordinary Japanese people tries to recycle hard and have the eco-bag, environmental product etc…They are thinking that it is possible to protect Tuvalu and a white bear if they reduce Co2.
In the elementary school in Japan somewhere, Children seem to have shown a dance of “the prevention of Global Warming”. Oh,No…It seems to be a new religion…
National consensus is considerably made already. So it might not be problem for them whether the earth is warming or not.
from Japanese student who study environmental design
dareka nihon wo tasukete kudasai!!
Simon Evans (13:41:10) :
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
Satellite data is employed for computing SSTs for the period 12/81 to present. Description here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Nice try, swing and a miss.
The word satellite appears nowhere in that file. Unless the satellite data somehow got renamed to “historical” and are buried in the USHCN or GHCN data sets, they are not there. Go Fish.
Fuller description in Hansen et al 1998:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1996/1996_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Interesting paper, not about GIStemp. The word satellite appears 6 times, mostly talking about how to interpolate vis a vis sea surface measurements. Not about GIStemp. Go Fish. Again.
Data here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Nice data. Those data set files do not appear in the GIStemp code. So I say again: Show me where satellite data are used in GIStemp.
You’ve given me three air balls so far. I’ve got the source code and it says nothing about satellites.
$ ls
STEP2 STEP3
GISTEMP_sources.tar STEP4_5
STEP0 differ
STEP1 gistemp.txt
$ grep satellite */*
$
As for your characterization of JSER as a think tank, I don’t see anything on their site that backs up that contention, nor do I find anything that supports your implication that The Register got this story wrong.
I agree, ‘thinktank’ was sloppy on my part, JSER is more of a science/industry forum, however now that Prof Itoh has kindly confirmed that
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, then I would suggest that the attribution of the conclusions of the report to ‘Japan’s Energy Commission’, this sentence The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. in the Register piece and indeed the title of this WUWT post should now be retracted or corrected.
E.M. Smith.
On the GISTEMP ‘sources page’ that Simon linked to above, under step 4 we have
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
The documentation for the data is on the ncep website at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
and the methodology described in this paper, which states in its opening sentence …
The new NOAA operational global sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is described. The analyses use 7 days of in situ (ship and buoy) and satellite SST.
that is, since 1981 GISTEMP has used satellite-derived SST data. Hope this is useful.
E.M.Smith (04:13:40) :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Nice try, swing and a miss.
The word satellite appears nowhere in that file.
Rather like saying the word satellite appears nowhere in the title ‘Remote Sensing Systems’! It’s the Reynolds data:
Step 4 : Reformat sea surface temperature anomalies
—————————————————
Sources: http://www.hadobs.org HadISST1: 1870-present
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
the Hadley data for the period 1880-11/1981 and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
Since these data sets are complete, creating 1982-92 climatologies is simple.
These data are replicated on the 8000-box qual-area grid and stored in the same way as the surface data to be able to use the same utilities for surface and ocean data.
Areas covered occasionally by sea ice are masked using a time-independent mask.
The Reynolds climatology is included, since it also may be used to find that
mask. Programs are included to show how to regrid these anomaly maps:
do_comb_step4.sh adds a single or several successive months for the same year to an existing ocean file SBBX.HadR2; a program to add several years is also included.
More description here:
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Reynolds references here:
ABSTRACT
A weekly 1° spatial resolution optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis has been produced at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) using both in situ and satellite data from November 1981 to the present. The weekly product has been available since 1993 and is widely used for weather and climate monitoring and forecasting. Errors in the satellite bias correction and the sea ice to SST conversion algorithm are discussed, and then an improved version of the OI analysis is developed. The changes result in a modest reduction in the satellite bias that leaves small global residual biases of roughly −0.03°C.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=15&page=1609&ct=1
ABSTRACT
The new NOAA operational global sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is described. The analyses use 7 days of in situ (ship and buoy) and satellite SST. These analyses are produced weekly and daily using optimum interpolation (OI) on a 1° grid. The OI technique requires the specification of data and analysis error statistics. These statistics are derived and show that the SST rms data errors from ships are almost twice as large as the data errors from buoys or satellites. In addition, the average e-folding spatial error scales have been found to be 850 km in the zonal direction and 615 km in the meridional direction.
The analysis also includes a preliminary step that corrects any satellite biases relative to the in situ data using Poisson’s equation. The importance of this correction is demonstrated using recent data following the 1991 eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo. The OI analysis has been computed using the in situ and bias-corrected satellite data for the period 1985 to present.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(1994)007%3C0929%3AIGSSTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Fuller description in Hansen et al 1998:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1996/1996_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Interesting paper, not about GIStemp. The word satellite appears 6 times, mostly talking about how to interpolate vis a vis sea surface measurements. Not about GIStemp. Go Fish. Again.
Oh really? Well, as referenced above, “A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures…”. Of course it’s GIStemp he’s talking about! “Our analysis”, “Tables of this temperature index are included in our data available on the internet”, etc.
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Nice data. Those data set files do not appear in the GIStemp code. So I say again: Show me where satellite data are used in GIStemp.
You’ve given me three air balls so far. I’ve got the source code and it says nothing about satellites.
I’m not about to install FORTRAN here, but my guess would be the SBXX file in the input folder of the Step 4_5 folder. Perhaps someone else can help. Given that they say they use the Reynolds data in step 4 I’m inclined to believe that they do (it would be a rather silly fib if they don’t, no?). However, if you’re really asserting that the Hansen 1996 paper above is actually “not about GIStemp” then I give up.
E.M.Smith (04:13:40) :
Addendum –
The oisstv2_mod4.clim file starts “/vP1982-1992 Reynolds v2 mean SST (360,180,12)”, so there you are.
Well, I suppose one should be grateful that the title of the post has now been shifted slightly in a reality-based direction. Yet one is left wondering how a ‘sub-committee’ of the JSER can contain no actual members of the JSER?
Can anyone help me out here?
REPLY: Well, you called it a thinktank, I called it committee. Neither you like now. So just to make you happy (since you are always seemingly such an unhappy soul) feel free to pick a term from the list below:
accumulation, aggregation, assemblage, assembly, association, assortment, band, batch, battery, bevy, body, bunch, bundle, cadre, cartel, circle, class, clique, clot, club, clump, cluster, clutch, collection, collective, combination, conglomerate, congregation, coterie, covey, crew, crowd, faction, formation, gaggle, gang, gathering, group, league, lot, mess, organization, pack, parcel, party, passel, platoon, pool, posse, shooting match, society, subset, suite, syndicate, troop….
– Anthony
LOL! I like ‘bevy’.
Is the reality not that five non-members of the JSER wrote a report which held some criticisms of the IPCC, and which was published in a JSER journal, but which is in no way representative of the position of the JSER board, of the ‘Japanese Energy Commission’ (whatever that might be) or the concensus of Japanese scientific opinion?
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
John Philip (01:45:55) : Some recent examples: in this piece on the GISTEMP October data foulup, Evan Jones says GISS reported the warmest October on record and that GISTEMP does not use satellite data, both untrue.
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
After a great deal of digging we end up with STEP4_5 that has a one line read statement:
open(14,file=’input_files/oisstv2_mod4.clim’,
* form=’unformatted’)
read(14) line,clim
close (14)
In two FORTRAN programs that use a computed anomaly grid from NOAA that eventually gets back to interpolations based on some satellite data and some surface data. The anomaly grid is used in GIStemp, not the data.
OK, I would not call using an anomaly product ‘using satellite data’, I would call it using a computed product based in part on satellite data. YMMV. I guess I can say my car uses rocket fuel (I have run my Diesel on kerosene, and some rockets do use it…) but it is rather misleading.
If you want to call that using satellite data, OK, I’ll just accept that you have looser use of the language than I do.
John Philip (05:05:17) : On the GISTEMP ’sources page’ that Simon linked to above, under step 4 we have
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
The documentation for the data is on the ncep website at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
[…]
that is, since 1981 GISTEMP has used satellite-derived SST data. Hope this is useful.
Thanks. Actually it was useful. I was expecting temperature data in the early steps, not an anomaly map way out at the end where data have been left far behind.
I did find a buried compressed copy of the anomaly map in the STEP4_5/input_files directory (binary format) but managed to chase down an ASCII variant at NOAA to look at without compiling the FORTRAN. It’s just a grid of 1 degree (lat long) cells with a computed anomaly number per month.
Your statement “used satellite-derived SST” I would agree with if followed by the word “map” or “product” or “anomalies”. I’m more of the mind that data are the “before blending” numbers. But I guess the definition might allow for that.
At any rate: GIStemp does use a satellite derived anomaly map from NOAA for computing further anomaly modifications. It does not use satellite temperature data itself.
Simon Evans (07:08:17) :
Rather like saying the word satellite appears nowhere in the title ‘Remote Sensing Systems’! It’s the Reynolds data:
That is an anomaly map, not what I’d call ‘satellite data’, (as covered above). While you provided an interesting elaboration of the creation of that map, it isn’t the issue.
The basic issue was an assertion that “data” were used, and we seem to have a difference as to what “data” are. I took it to mean “the stuff from the satellite” you took it to mean ~”stuff computed in a long process and at some point in the past connected in some way with a satellite”.
I’d hope we’re past that now.
Me: “Interesting paper, not about GIStemp. The word satellite appears 6 times, mostly talking about how to interpolate vis a vis sea surface measurements. Not about GIStemp. Go Fish. Again.”
Oh really?
Yes, really. The paper is about the global anomaly recovery after Pinatubo, not about the structure of GIStemp. It does use GIStemp output anomaly maps. It does not demonstrate satellite data used in GIStemp (i.e. actual stuff from a satellite) but does demonstrate use of a NOAA anomaly map derived from satellite data. The discussion of satellites seems to me to be more directed at the NOAA process than at GIStemp.
I’ve put together my reaction to the paper here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/
Though I would suggest that you not read it since it will only upset you.
I’m not about to install FORTRAN here, but my guess would be the SBXX file in the input folder of the Step 4_5 folder.
Not the SBxx file, the file: oisstv2_mod4.clim
though you had the location correct. As downloaded from GISS the file comes as a gzip (and the directions do not say to gunzip it…)
Perhaps someone else can help.
They already have.
However, if you’re really asserting that the Hansen 1996 paper above is actually “not about GIStemp” then I give up.
Please do. It would improve my day. The paper is about anomalies post Pinatubo and uses GIStemp anomaly maps. It is not aboutGIStemp. (Just like my posting is about his paper, not about Pinatubo, though I quote some bits of his paper in my posting).
The message of Japanese scientests was picked up by Czech press (formarly Czechoslovakia) with the headline: The IPCC is lying
Really?
According to Dr Hansen
The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [refs. 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly: (1) the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [ref. 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [ref. 5].
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
and the GISTEMP dcocumentation states
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
the Hadley data for the period 1880-11/1981 and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
What are the weightings in GIStemp? Is it 1/3 each for land, ocean, and satellite? My impression was that the land measurements were nearly 100%.
Private funding will be the source for another view on Earth’s weather and climate system. Those that wish to extract coal and the mountains of shale oil we have for energy, will be able to use part of that investment for CO2 satellites. Those little puppies can be kicked into orbit for next to nothing compared to the big deal satellites our tax dollars are/will be funding. And think the green AGW movement knows that.
<blockquote cite=”MartinGAtkins (08:13:21)”
Your continued pasting of this argument in threads shows a lack of your ability to think for yourself. You and I discussed this at length in another thread. I will if you want explain it all to you again. However it would be a good place to start if you could just get it into your head that the earth is not a green house.
Funny. I read Joel’s comment as meaning, essentially, that “the earth is not a greenhouse” (and that, therefore, experiments performed in greenhouses would be of limited applicability).
Since the two of apparently agree on this point, I look forward to further argument.
Roger Knights (11:19:35) :
What are the weightings in GIStemp? Is it 1/3 each for land, ocean, and satellite? My impression was that the land measurements were nearly 100%.
If only it was that simple…
ALL of the basic temperature data comes from land in the first steps. Then some anomalies are computed using sea based readings in the very last steps. Some of these come from a satellite grid of 1 degree lat /long cells with a single data item for each month in them (the ‘map’ I mention below). These are only used to adjust an anomaly map. They are not used to produce real temperature data.
The best answer I can give you is “Strange and Wondrous”. The satellite computed map is only applied at the bitter end during the computation of anomalies (long after any temperatures have disappeared into the averaging stew…) The first set of steps (about 5 of them starting with manual data download) are all about gluing together the GHCN USHCN and Antarctic data, then computing anomaly maps from them. From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/gistemp-start/
where I’ve documented some of this, I quote from GISS:
Step 4 : Reformat sea surface temperature anomalies
—————————————————
Sources: http://www.hadobs.org HadISST1: 1870-present
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
Notice that this step (called STEP4, but actually about the 6th real step) is all about sea surface anomalies. By this point, you are only dealing with an 8000 cell global ‘anomaly map’. The temperature data from earlier steps was along ago massaged into oblivion by a method that glues variable amounts of GHCN and USHCN together (and changes those records where both GHCN and USHCN data exist…). That is in STEP0.
There is a method called the “Reference Station Method” applied repeatedly that lets GIStemp change the value of a data item for one location based on the value from another station (between 1000 km to 1200 km away!), so there is no real way to say what “percentage” of that final datum is from land, sea, or whatever; though prior this this final adjustment of the ‘anomaly map’ all data are from land (i.e. USHCN, GHCN and Antarctica).
You can say that most of the thermometers of the world are in the USA and Europe (especially when length of the thermometer lifetime is included) and you can say that GIStemp “cherry picks” their decision to toss out all records older than 1880, that being the bottom of the last downturn of the little ice age.
Beyond that, GIStemp is more what I would describe as “Pasteurized Processed Homogenized Data Food Product” than any kind of set of actual temperatures…
@roger Knights:
As an addendum to earlier response, here a bit more detail on the “satellite” component of the GISS stew. First, notice that this all talks about SST for Sea Surface Temperature. It’s not about satellite data coverage for land. From:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Analysis Description and Recent Reanalysis
The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SSTs plus SSTs simulated by sea ice cover.
So here are your first clues. It’s an “analysis” not a reporting of satellite data. It uses “in situ”, that is surface reports from ships, buoys, etc.; along with satellite Sea Surface Temperatures and, my favorite, SSTs simulated by sea ice cover. Given the recent “issues” with sea ice reporting it kinda make you wonder…
So, ok, a stew of ships, buoys, whatever, a dash of satellite data, and some simulations (based on a broken ice cover satellite?) are used to create this analysis product (that some folks want to call “satellite data”…)
Before the analysis is computed, the satellite data is adjusted for biases using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993). A description of the OI analysis can be found in Reynolds and Smith (1994). The bias correction improves the large scale accuracy of the OI.
Oh, and the satellite data are adjusted based on an optimal interpolation method. We’re getting even further away from “data” and into the land of processed data food product…
In November 2001, the OI fields were recomputed for late 1981 onward. The new version will be referred to as OI.v2.
The most significant change for the OI.v2 is the improved simulation of SST obs from sea ice data following a technique developed at the UK Met Office. This change has reduced biases in the OI SST at higher latitudes. Also, the update and extension of COADS has provided us with improved ship data coverage through 1997, reducing the residual satellite biases in otherwise data sparse regions. For more details, see Reynolds, et al (2002).
And they have had a change of method lately with “improved simulation”. Frankly, I’m not real fond of having my data be a simulation… especially when based on the sea ice data that are, er, questionable. Even if they do say they think it may have reduced the “biases in” the optimal interpolation at higher latitudes (which I presume means in the arctic where the ice was, er is, er, ought to be…)
But these “data” are just fine for calling “satellite data”… at least as long as you don’t mind your data simulated, interpolated, averaged, homogenized, etc. etc. etc. Me? I like my data to be from instruments, natural, whole, and minimally processed. Certainly not synthetic, er, simulated…
John Philip (04:20:44) : According to Dr Hansen
[…] (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4] […] and the GISTEMP dcocumentation states[…]and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
Yes, I’m sure it does…
Seeing that Dr Itoh wrote:
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.
Is it not incorrect to refer to the report as being from a “Subcomittee of Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources” as seen in the title?
A short additional notation on the JESR article, from Kiminori Itoh (Kimi).
Prof. Yoshida (vice-chairman of the editorial committee of JSER), the organizer of the discussion on the JSER journal, gave a comment in an article at Yomiuri Shinbun (one of the biggest newspaper in Japan) on March 2nd as follows: “Present arguments in massmedia seem to insist that the scientific aspect of the global warming issue has over. This may be because the issue is now more political than scientific. I felt it a danger (of science), and wanted to rethink about the issue from scientific views.” (Available at http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/eco/ondan/on090302_01.htm, but unfortunately, in Japanese again.)
Thus, he invited us (the five pannelers) to the e-mail discussion in the JSER jounal. I should say Prof. Yoshida is certainly a healthy skeptic on the global warming issue although he just served as a coordinater this time and he did not state his personal opinions on the issue.
Kiminor Itoh, Yokohama National University (“Kimi” is OK, if you like.)
Thanks for the additional clarification Dr Itoh.
I was wondering if you considered yourself a member of a Subcommittee of the JSER or just a contributor to a special discussion hosted by the JSER Journal, as it’s unclear what everyone’s affiliations and roles are.
About our affiliation;
I myself am Professor of Yokohama National University, belonging to more than ten scientific societies except JSER (specifically, Chemical Society of Japan, Electrochemical Society of Japan, Japanese Society for Environmental Sciences, Japanese Society of Applied Physics, Optical Society of America, Japanese Society of Microbial Ecology, American Geophysical Union, Japanese Geophysical Union, etc.). You can imagine how large membership fee I should pay each year.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu; he is Founding Director of International Arctic Research Center, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Prof. Emiritus of the university now. He is famous for his magnificent pioneer work in the field of aurora physics. I don’t know which scientific society he belongs, but I’m sure he is not a member of JSER.
Dr. Shigenori Maruyam; he is Pof. of Tokyo Instititute of Technology. He is a geophysicist, famous for the idea of plume tectonics as an effective tool for seismology etc. (you can find a detailed explanation on this subject at Wikipedia). I don’t think he is a JSER member.
Dr. Kanya Kusano; he is a group leader at JAMSTEC (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/profile_kusano.en.html). He is originally a solar physicist, in which field he had been awarded from relevant societies. At JAMSTC, he is doing good researches on computer simulation of physical processes associated with cloud formation, and hence, he is capable to give sincere comments on the global clime models. He is probably not a JESR member.
Thank you for the information Dr Itoh,
I certainly would not want to be paying your affiliation fees!
Now that you’ve cleared up the roles of you and your associates in the discussion, I wonder if the title of this blog post will be changed for a more accurate title. I suggest:
“Japanese discussion papers provide varied views on Climate Change”
親愛なる教授伊藤公、
2009年3月3日（午前22時19分46秒）私は、自動的にGoogle翻訳を使用して、日本語を英語に翻訳することが可能ですからの記事をお勧めしたいのような通知を参考に。選択した記事は、この手法を使って直接リンクできるようになると日本のスクリプトの英語翻訳を投稿してください。
かしこで
フィリップ
Google翻訳
Yomiuri Online
Reply: Moderators, leave this as is. It contains this message:
Itou Hiroshi Dear Professor,
2009 March 3, 2007 (22:19:46) I’m using Google’s automatic translation of general notice to the recommended articles can be translated from Japanese into English help. Selected articles, please post a English translation of the script and Japan will be able to link directly with this approach.
In passim
Philip
~ Charles the moderator.