Sounds familiar: “A friend of mine found one station where the temperature gauge was just outside the air conditioner…”

UAF professor emeritus continues to question sources of global warming

Published Friday, September 19, 2008

FAIRBANKS — A University of Alaska Fairbanks professor emeritus known for his belief that carbon dioxide is not the sole cause of climate change presented his latest research Thursday.

More than 40 researchers and students gathered into a room at the International Arctic Research Center, now named after Syun-Ichi Akasofu, for the hour-long presentation.

“Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” Akasofu said.

For several years now, Akasofu has put forward the idea that while the world was warming for most of the 20th century, it stopped warming sometime around 2000 or 2001. He clarified Thursday that according to his latest research, the oceans have stopped warming since that time, but it appears as if temperatures are still rising if one only looks at land temperatures.

Akasofu also was skeptical of reported changes in land temperature, however. For example, he noted that while many scientists claim global temperatures have risen slightly less than one degree on average across the past few decades, their studies don’t take urbanization into account.

Tokyo, he said, appears to have warmed four degrees, but that does not take into account the fact that the number of dark manmade structures that absorb heat, raising temperatures in their vicinity.

The retired geophysics professor also questioned the accuracy of readings from weather stations where no one is there to regularly monitor the equipment.

“A friend of mine found one station where the temperature gauge was just outside the air conditioner,” he said.

Still, Akasofu doesn’t completely deny the existence of climate change, so much as question what causes it. One culprit he suggested is the recent lack of sunspots.

“Something is happening on the sun,” he said. “There are no sunspots when there should be 50-100 right now, so people warn the sun has become warmer.”

A similar phenomenon was observed between 1650 and 1700, which coincides with what researchers call the Little Ice Age, a period of widespread cooling that came shortly after a warming trend may have peaked sometime around 1000 AD.

However, Akasofu didn’t necessarily connect that warming period to what the planet is experiencing now.

“Some people say it was a degree higher or about the same, but there were no thermometers, so how accurate were they?” he said.

106 thoughts on “Sounds familiar: “A friend of mine found one station where the temperature gauge was just outside the air conditioner…”

  1. How many times does this have to happen???? Scientists point out that the methods of data collection are so poor, the data becomes invalid….
    How many REAL scientists, who actually follow the scientific method, does it take to call into question the politically motivated IPCC conclusions???
    Is it even possible for ‘reason’ to be heard, nowadays, among the multitude of greatly interested voices???
    I am losing hope…

  2. Shouldn’t more sun spot mean a warmer sun?
    The lack of sun spot could actually help explain the higher number of clouds and increase precipitation in the last year.

  3. The good professor is not looking for grants. He has already made his mark. Many others are looking for their piece of the 5 billion or so a year in monies. So the temperature soars and by design the the equipment is not taken care of. Only Mr. Watts keeps after the equipment. I was surprised to hear on another post someone suggesting that Anthony pony up for the calibration stations. How come NASA hasn’t just used the pictures and GPS locations to go upgrade the equipment. If Hansen could just take a little time of his busy schedule and direct some action maybe the U.S. could have accurate ground based measuring sites.

  4. Xanthippa:
    Don’t lose hope, my friend, but be careful what you place it in. If you thought the AGWers were going to roll out of bed one day and admit they were wrong, then you have another thing coming. Also, the majority of people in Western civilization don’t even know (or, at times, even care) that reputed scientist after reputed scientist has questioned the supposed supreme roll of humanity and our CO2 emissions in ‘global warming’ or even whether global warming is even happening at present. Even if they don’t necessarily believe it themselves, they may feel they just don’t know enough about it. And AGW propaganda is pretty potent to the ignorant and the uninitiated. And there is a whole lot of money out there to be had in eco-friendly government-authored/sponsored programs. Don’t expect the delusion to fail any time soon.
    Really, I see no way out of this myself. Sometimes, danger can be averted by warning others. But at other times we all must go through something together, watching our best and most brilliant efforts fail miserably time and again while those of us not suckered stand by patiently and illustrate that this was exactly why we did not sign up to the idea in the first place. This is not a battle we are going to win soon. It is even possible that we may never win it, as a consequence of course that also we may. But whatever happens, good or ill, it will take time. So don’t give up! It may be frustrating waiting for other folks to wake up to the fact they are involved in a hoax, but you can rest assured in the knowledge that you know enough of the truth about it not to be fooled yourself. And that whatever is based on a lie eventually comes crumbling down. Watch and wait.

  5. When reading scientists’ statements I find it useful to remember that they are rather insular creatures. For the most part, once outside their own narrow area of expertise, they are as easily prone to accept the meme of AGW as any layman. The non-climatologist scientist may accept the idea of AGW under the assumption that the new science of climatology is as well developed as their own field and that the theory of AGW has been rigorously studied and has withstood the test of time. That the climate has warmed over the past couple of centuries is not in doubt, so it’s not surprising that scientists, immersed in their own fields, will accept the current warming as being anthropogenic in nature.
    It is also not surprising to see, that when scientists retire from active research in their own fields, that they start to publicly develop doubts as to the validity of AGW. It probably has less to do with the cut-throat quest for grant monies than the fact that they now have the luxury of actually looking more seriously into the matter of AGW.

  6. This whole global warming reminds me of the bomb shelters in the 50’s. A lot of people made money and a lot of people were left with old supplies in holes in their backyards… Wish I could live another 50 years to see a lot of solar panels/wind turbines deteriorating…

  7. I don’t find the article cited easy to read.
    The paragraph starting “Tokyo, he said” does not make sense.
    Then it is reported that the good professor said absence of sunspots makes the sun warmer. Is that really what he said or meant? That might well be so but it is not the effect I have always understood sunspots to have.
    And the following paragraph is simply bizarre. The prize of my finest cricket bat is offered to anyone who can explain what this means :
    “A similar phenomenon was observed between 1650 and 1700, which coincides with what researchers call the Little Ice Age, a period of widespread cooling that came shortly after a warming trend may have peaked sometime around 1000 AD.”
    Despite the appalling way the prof’s talk was reported the gist seems to be “they can’t explain what happened before and they can’t explain what is happening now”. That seems a pretty accurate observation to me. But what do I know? I haven’t been peer-reviewed, I just use a bit of my version of common sense.
    http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-sense-anyone.html
    That brings to mind a question I have meant to ask for a while. I read somewhere that there is no reason why a computer model of climate should be able to say what happened in the past. Is that so? It sounds like nonsense to me. But I haven’t been peer-reviewed, so what do I know.

  8. Is that reporter’s name supposed to link to the staff of this blog? A pretty weak link it is, at that.
    REPLY: WP has this bad habit of inserting it’s own precursor links in the URL’s during some copy paste ops, I’ve deleted the bad link and added direct link into the subtitle. – Anthony

  9. The ‘green’ lobby have never had it so good. AGW is being used to hammer through much of the ‘green’ manifesto even if it is not true.
    Whilst the climate and AGW is being so prominently promoted, it is possible to get funding for alternate power generation, the reduction of existing coal-fired generators recycling, alternate fuels, smaller vehicles (or more fuel-efficient ones), etc, etc, etc. Once started and with emissions trading schemes, carbon capture, etc, it will be hard to dismantle and will provide funds for years to keep the movement going.
    Whilst many of these changes can be argued as being warranted and of benefit to mankind, changes are being forced on us under a false premise and will have major impacts on costs of living, etc.

  10. Richard:
    That’s Soviet communism, not just communism. Communism as a popular idea was around for quite some time before then. It just got its first expression in government through the Russian Revolution and subsequent events. AGW has far more popular appeal than communism, although you are correct in making the connection that both ideas desire the State to be supreme over the People. The various “green/mother earth/back to nature” movements have been around long before AGW was fashionable in political circles too. With some people this idea will never die just as communism still exists in some places as a form of government in some countries (Vietnam and Cuba, for example). AGW is the latest movement to try to unify the earth into one common cause, which will then be exploited endlessly for political and monetary gain while eroding natural freedoms and bringing economic ruin. The laugher is that there is anything scientific to AGW. There isn’t. It’s entirely political. It’s absolutely about control by the government, who will define pollution, the penalties for it, and how you may be spared if you comply. And the lifesblood of it without a doubt is money. Tax dollars subsidising markets for political gain paying no attention whatsoever to the realites on the ground experience by ordinary people, entirely caught up in their own ideas and rhetoric so fully that to them everyone else seems “a bit odd” if not downright insane.
    When you boil AGW and Communism down from a political perspective, there is almost no difference. Both want to use the power of the State to shape the way people live not according to individual freedom of choice but according to the guidelines of a pre-planned philosophy that must be obeyed to the letter by everyone who is not on top. That is how Al Gore can fly on jetliners, drive in huge motorcades, own a house that uses 10 times more electricity than the average US household, and yet still have the unmitigated temerity to lecture people about their CO2 footprints. And his acolytes can suggest we cease eating meat because, since that guy is a Hindu, he probably doesnt anyway (not beef at least).
    But communism had to be tried out on a grand stage to show how utterly vulnerable it is to the whims of madmen like Stalin, and to show its utter futility versus a political system that enshrined freedom of choice (in voting, I mean). AGW may have to go through the same process before people are disabused of the notion that this planet needs to or ought to be rescued from mankind by mankind.

  11. There were no thermometers 1000 years ago. True. But here’s a proxy: At that time the Vikings had prosperous agricultural communities on Greenland lasting 3oo years, crops and livestock. The archeological evidence is still there – UNDER THE PERMAFROST! Forget the temperature reconstructions.

  12. Pingback: No Sun Spots last month

  13. Oldjim (01:48:43) : Those warm areas seem somewhat near to the ocean which might just have some influence on this warming trend. Where there is no influence of ocean, there appears to be cooling!

  14. Since global warming stopped in 1998 and cooling started around 2001, and with a growing belief that we may be entering another mini ice age (precipitated by the sun’s recent inactivity and the pacific ocean’s PDO recently started), how can one cash in on a cooling planet (much as St. Al is cashing in on his carbon credit scheme)?

  15. Bobby Lane.
    I agree with you but…..
    There are a lot of people that still believe in Communism/socialism.
    According to documents now available from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block countries, the Communists murdered some 120,000,000 of their own citizens. (The Hoover Institute for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University has the documents. Their digest is worth getting.) An estimated 39,000,000 were starved to death during Mao’s Great Leap Forward: their food was confiscated and sold on the international market to provide funds for armament factories.
    Look at the people that still support Hugo Chaves and FARC. Look at the people that still support Castro. Look at what happened when a silly airhead from Hollywood wore a shoulder bag with Mao on it down in Peru. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse and look at the people that say we need more government intervention and control. (If you have been reading the Wall Street Journal, they have been predicting this crisis for years.) There are still a lot of people that willfully ignore the murder of tens of millions and the total economic failure of dozens of countries because they “know” that they should be in charge.
    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack
    PS
    Food for thought:
    Communist Vietnam is rapidly converting to a fascist country, i.e. a capitalist economic system with a totalitarian government. This is happening because Communism JUST DOESN’T WORK. The next step is a liberalization of the government. Once that happens WE WILL HAVE WONE THE WAR!
    That’s how Ronald Reagan ended the cold war.

  16. Leon Brozyna (22:19:17) :
    You refer to the “new science of climatology.” While I eventually switched to economics, 40 years ago I spent two years in college studying geography, geomorphology, geology, and geophysics. I clearly remember studying “climatology” in my geography classes. While originally a “social science,” the study of geography was already in those days morphing into an “earth science.”
    The problem is not that climatology is new. The problem is that it has been shanghaied into the service of a political cause that has corrupted it. Little more than a decade ago, climate science still actively studied, and debated, the sources and causes of “natural climate variability.” At the same time, there were those publishing studies that raised concerns about AGW. It is hard to overestimate the damage done by the creation of the IPCC and its corrupting influence on the study of climate science. Created in 1988, it issued its first assessment report in 1990, and its second report in 1995. AGW came to dominate the research agenda of climate science. Billions of dollars poured in to fund research to shore up what had already been claimed in the first two assessment reports. You didn’t get grant money any more simply to study “natural climate variability.” You had to tie it to AGW. You didn’t get published simply reporting findings of “natural climate variability.” You had to either position your research into “natural climate variability” as being designed to show that it was masking evidence of AGW, or at least qualify your findings to say that they didn’t disprove AGW. The former was preferred, especially if you were looking for grant money to fund your research. Government agencies, such as NASA and NOAA here in the US, jumped on the gravy train as well, and became primary contributors to IPCC, as well as conduits to researchers and scientists to fund research into AGW.
    Al Gore and the greenies just completed the corruption by turning it into a political agenda. That, by itself, would make a real scientist stop and take stock of what is going on. Whenever a political agenda is advanced in the name of “science,” it is almost always pseudoscience. Think here of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. The parallels are scary.

  17. The fact that Tokyo is warming is to be expected & is known as the urban heat island efect. This has heretofore been denounced by alarmists as not being a significant cause of warming. Now they seem to be saying global warming is still happening if you don’t count the 75% of it covered by sea & the bits ofland not urbanised.

  18. FatBigot (23:58:40) :
    You wonder why a computer model shouldn’t be able to say what happened in the past. Models are simplistic to an extreme. Drivers of earth’s climate are numerous, some as yet probably unrecognized, and their relationships complex to an extreme. History of known drivers is very poorly understood. Researchers still doing science (as opposed to artful story-telling, e.g. AGW) acknowledge that the most reliable predictor of past or future system behavior are analogous models. In other words, what happened before under similar conditions? E.g., imagine predicting (modeling) what conditions will greet you on a day three months from now when you visit your favorite park. Can you accurately predict the conditions of the landscape? The people who will be there and what they will be doing? The kind of day it will be? When you will arrive? When you will leave? How you will get there? This seems simple at first glance, but just recall the surprises and unexpected changes in plans you’ve had on each visit. And this is an environment you know intimately under conditions you can control! Now imagine you’re going to visit a place you know nothing about, at a time as yet undetermined, and a location defined only as a geographic region. How well could you predict anything? (And you are using the most complex calculating system known – a human brain.) This is analogous to our understanding of climate systems and forcings.
    I did graduate course work in the 1990’s under ecology gods in the US, who cautioned us to beware of drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from model based studies. I’ve been disappointed in the steady decline of application of such caution, as evidenced in the peer-reviewed journals addressing ecological and environmental issues.
    Climate models are not analogous models because of limitations on variables, reliable available data, limitations on types and number of cycle varations that can be included, etc. This is one reason why I have no confidence in AGM.

  19. What one can obtain today from the articles on WUWT’s main page:
    Akasofu believes ‘that carbon dioxide is not the sole cause of climate change.’
    Christy claims ‘that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998.’
    Spencer ‘agrees that humans are creating more carbon dioxide, but he doesn’t agree it’s causing climate change.’
    One scientist claims that CO2 doesn’t influence climate change, the other says it does but stopped doing so 10 years ago and the third says it does, but only partially so.
    The possibility of such contradictory views posted so close to each other in my view greatly detracts from the credibility of this site. It’s too bad. I really long to be a ‘sceptic’, ie believe that Climate Change isn’t happening or that it isn’t caused by the actions of the world’s population, but the more I read here – especially the comments – the more I believe this is site about ‘being right’, no matter how, and not about the truth.
    I hope ClimateAudit can convince me of the fact that MMCC isn’t happening. I thought WUWT looked promising when they corrected the Goddard-article on Arctic Sea Ice Decline but it turns out not to be so promising. A shame, really.

  20. Neven,
    One reason why people like myself are skeptics is because of the fact that the science is not settled as St. Al purports. The fact that three scientsts have differing opinions is not surprising, but taken in general indicate that mankind’s involvement in climate change is minimal at best. Actually statements 1 and 2 are not contradictory, as water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, contributing to as much as 95% by volume in the atmosphere. With respect to the third comment, it is demonstrated by various sources that yes, the level of CO2 has continued to increase over the last 10 years but the temperature has trended downwards during this time, essentially erasing the temperature increases of the last 30 years. This scenario seems to support his statement.

  21. Neven,
    Why do you fault WUWT for simply reporting? It is not like anyone, least of all Anthony, was saying all three things. They come from different sources. Perhaps the message you should take away from the differences is that nothing is settled, and the notion of a “consensus” or that “the science is settled” is a myth. That’s the real power of this site. That it continually draws attention to just how unsettled, and unsure, are the claims made for AGW. What do you think is more likely to be the best source of information here? A web site that posts information showing that the state of knowledge about climate science and climate change is unsettled, even at times contradictory, or one that claims that the science is settled and will entertain no challenges to the contrary? If the latter, then there’s always tamino’s web site. 🙂

  22. Neven (07:44:58) : I hope ClimateAudit can convince me of the fact that MMCC isn’t happening.
    What makes you think it IS happening? There is only declaration but no proof. The things that Michael Mann and company trot out as evidence have questionable validity for various reasons. That’s all you’ll get at CA and rightfully so.
    The best thing to do is look at the evidence yourself then decide. Don’t depend on anyone else to do it for you.

  23. Neven
    Every scientist on both sides have varying positions as to effect and degree of effect of human influence over the climate. The problem is that you never read about it because the primary message has been hi-lacked. Man is killing the planet. We see and hear it so often you just believe that there is 1000s of scientists saying the exact same thing. There is not.
    There are all kinds of competing theories in all fields of climate science, and not everyone agrees on forcing, feedbacks and tipping points. I do not think anyone has said that we do not impact our environment in some fashion, all species do. The beaver actually changes his environment to suit him and destroys other species habitat in the process. Catapillers plow through the decidious forests in Northern Canada stripping every leaf and bud from every tree in a path 2 KM wide and 100’s km long. What effect on climate has that?
    We also put out naturally caused forest fires, to what extent does that impact the climate? We irrigate our fields and divert water to feed us, that has a massive effect on climate, but you are not here saying stop growing food, or are you?
    This site and many others concentrate on different aspects of AGW, my site almost exclusively looks at the economic impacts and political implications of CO2 mitigation strategies. Guess what! There is no agreement on what will and will not work economically, and what effect it would actually have on CO2 levels. People disagree, on both sides.
    This is a huge subject and to make your decision based on the fact that three scientists have three views that you feel are incompatible, you really should get the citation list from the IPCC site and read the actual papers and see for yourself the amount of disagreement contained there as well.

  24. Neven,
    This site was not created to convince you of anything. If you read the header, you will see:
    Watts Up With That?
    Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
    “The possibility of such contradictory views posted so close to each other in my view greatly detracts from the credibility of this site.”-Neven
    If there were no contradictory views posted on this site, then I, and many others would be disappointed. If every post was in lockstep with every post, it would hardly be “commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news ”
    “I really long to be a ’sceptic’, ie believe that Climate Change isn’t happening or that it isn’t caused by the actions of the world’s population, but the more I read here – especially the comments – the more I believe this is site about ‘being right’, no matter how, and not about the truth.”
    OK, now I feel real bad because Mr. Watts and everyone who comments have prevented you from becoming a ‘sceptic’… A shame, really.

  25. “Communist Vietnam is rapidly converting to a fascist country, i.e. a capitalist economic system with a totalitarian government… The next step is a liberalization of the government. Once that happens WE WILL HAVE WONE THE WAR!”
    I wonder how soon they would have had a liberal government if we had just left them alone…

  26. There is a concept called “playing above the line”, which is explained here in section 4:
    http://casts.webvalence.com/sites/DareToCare/Broadcast.D20000910.html
    Basically above the line behavior is taking responsibility through your words and actions
    Below the line behavior is blaming other people or circumstances for everything, and also justifying yourself.
    Many of the doomsayers BLAME everyone else for “climate change”, but they JUSTIFY their right to live life as they see fit, carbon footprint be damned. That is not RESPONSIBLE behavior.
    Don’t BLAME Anthony and the commenters for any decision you make about “climate change”. You cannot JUSTIFY creating a poorer world because temperatures have risen .7 degrees. Also not RESPONSIBLE behavior.
    Responsibility is learning everything you can by reading and studying, and then doing what you believe you should be doing, without blaming anyone or justifying yourself. That’s called being a grownup.

  27. Just noting that Jason-1 sea level figures have reprocessed after an error was discovered earlier this year. (Jason-2 is still being calibrated and Jason-1’s data won’t be updated again until the end of 2008.)
    The new numbers are 2.4 mm / year (or less than 1 foot over one hundred years). Furthermore, the increase over the past two years has slowed to about 1.0 mm / year (or 4 inches over one hundred years.)
    Despite this new (slightly lower) data (which indicates a person wouldn’t even be able to notice any change in sea level over an entire lifetime), over at RealClimate, the folks are falling all over themselves about how rising sea level and collapsing glaciers will destroy all of the world’s coastlines. It is clear the warmers do not actually look at what the data says, just what Hansen scares them about.
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Global_IB_RWT_PGR_Adjust.png

  28. Bill,
    I’d suggest investing in a sheep farm. The carbon folks would love you for all the pasture land for CO2 sequestration, The animals themselves produce a natural fiber – I think it’s called wool, sutable for blankets and itchy shirts, and if all else fails, you have a ready food source on the hoof.
    Simple really – and sheep don’t produce near the methane that cattle do.
    Mike

  29. It seems that scientists now realize they have used by the politicians.
    .S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
    Senate Report Debunks “Consensus”
    Report Released on December 20, 2007
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
    Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
    NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

  30. It took communism around 70 years to finally fail.
    Threescore and ten. One lifetime.
    Although, one might say “fall” rather than “fail”. Other than success in WWII (from late 1942 – 1945), and certain limited phases of the Space Race, one could argue it was an utter failure from start to finish.
    By analogy, I worry that the AGW movement will do great damage before it exits, stage left, in disgrace. Even if the theory is right, the AGW movement solution is dead (as in potentially millions of dead) wrong.

  31. Sampling of key quotes from scientists participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:
    Former UN Scientist Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from UN IPCC in protest): “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
    UN IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand: “This conference demonstrates that the [scientific] debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”
    Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”
    Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers: “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. […] 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction. […] 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend.”
    Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray: “There are lot’s of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.”
    UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.”
    Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.”
    Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores University in UK: “[Global warming cap-and-trade bills have] caused so much trouble in Europe. It’s not working, it’s never going to work. It won’t have any effect on the climate, but only that there will be more unemployed in Europe. If that helps the climate, perhaps that is a solution.”
    Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center: “The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. […] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”
    Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”
    German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.”
    Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all ‘greenhouse gases,’ albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.”
    Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. […] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.” (LINK)

  32. a pre-planned philosophy that must be obeyed to the letter by everyone who is not on top.
    “From each/To each” works in a lifeboat. In fact, it is utterly necessary in a lifeboat.
    Dire emergency, extreme circumstances, finite resources, survival at stake. Like Russia during WWII.
    It stagnates and fails utterly, however, when safe on dry land, as it is about apportionment only and is inherently nonproductive.

  33. near an airconditioner ….. that shouldn’t even qualify as a special cause variation ……… the Professor is correct – the datum speak for themselves

  34. So this is just another global warming [snip] site.
    No matter how you talk and select your data, the [snip] have already lost the argument. The only thing left to decide is for how much longer they will keep their eyes closed and heads under the sands.
    REPLY: sorry you don’t get to use those words here

  35. 克莱夫 (12:57:51) The only thing left to decide is for how much longer they will keep their eyes closed and heads under the sands.
    We tend to ask for definitive proof instead of simply having faith, particularly when asked to make drastic lifestyle changes in the name of that faith. “It seems reasonable that …” and supposition doesn’t count very much as definitive. Obviously you have had your epiphany. Test your faith. Enlighten us.

  36. It seems to me that the journalist has mangled Akasofu’s words. This often happens. Akasofu is a fine scientist. A little tidbit: As a reviewer he rejected my very first scientific paper in 1968 [setting science back several years 🙂 ].

  37. “evanjones (10:52:05) :
    a pre-planned philosophy that must be obeyed to the letter by everyone who is not on top.
    “From each/To each” works in a lifeboat. In fact, it is utterly necessary in a lifeboat.
    Dire emergency, extreme circumstances, finite resources, survival at stake. Like Russia during WWII.
    It stagnates and fails utterly, however, when safe on dry land, as it is about apportionment only and is inherently nonproductive.”
    Evan this is the best although rather different definition of Marxist doctrine that I have seen. Unfortunately it is now promoted as AGW and I think we know who the people on top will be.

  38. Evan
    “They say the measure of a person’s intellegence is how much they agree with you”
    And that might be true in this case, since I think Evan is spot on in his analysis. The issue here is not who is right, or what factor or combination of factors are big climate movers, but what could result from misbegotten projects.
    The computer models used are so simplistic (and probably wrong-headed), and the surge to grab the money so intense that we’re going to break the economy, or the ecology playing with things we don’t understand.
    The problem is someone left the barn door open and the horses they is run off. Roundin’ ‘um up is goin’ to be a job.
    The one good thing that might result from the AGW furball is a better understanding of climate change and our role (or lack thereof) in it. As that becomes clear, then, and only then can technology move to help the human situation.

  39. “From each/To each” works in a lifeboat. In fact, it is utterly necessary in a lifeboat. Not on my lifeboat, or yours either. Nice idea, sounds pleasing, but it trivializes leadership. Small or big someone is in charge, even if those on the boat don’t know why or how. As the needs of the one exceed what the view of the leader sees it is no longer from each to each. Unfortunately AGW is a straw man with an agenda that is not mentioned. The computer models have an agenda. The limited view has an agenda. Climate is complex so the view is kept simple because of the agenda. AGW’s leaders want to be in charge, that is their agenda as far as I can see. Again not on my life boat if I can help it. After reading McCain and Obama recently I am worried as they both have taken the bait on AGW. Cap and trade here we come. The government knows best.

  40. Patrick Henry (10:41:02) :
    The Atlantic storm season is just about to drop below last year’s numbers.
    http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2008/named-storms-climatology.gif
    No doubt the press will describe 2008 as being “yet another record breaking hurricane season.”
    A more important metric is “Named Storm Days.” Storms last year stuggled to reach tropical storm status and win a name, and often fell apart soon thereafter. In 2005 even storms that got sheared down to depression status managed to come back. This year Fay went on and on. Hanna too.
    From http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2008/sep2008/sep2008.pdf :

    Seasonal Update through August 2008
    Through August, the 2008 hurricane season has had 68 percent of the NTC activity of the average hurricane season. June-July 2008 had near-record activity while August had slightly above-average activity. As of 1 September, eight named storms, three hurricanes and two major (Cat. 3-4-5) hurricanes have developed. Through August, the climatological (1950-2000) average number of named storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes is 4.2, 2.4, and 0.7, respectively. Through August of 2008, the Atlantic basin has witnessed 190, 125 and 286 percent of average named storm, hurricane, and major hurricane activity, respectively. Overall, based on NTC, we have experienced slightly more than twice the average tropical cyclone season through August 31.

    Not record setting, but 2005 will be tough to beat.

  41. The GreenWeenie agenda is now irrelevant.
    Given the crisis in the financial markets, and the proposed trillion-dollar bailout by the gummint, any attempt to burden business and taxpayers with higher costs of energy will be met with fierce resistance. We are in perilous times, where we may experience steep DEflation for a couple years, followed by higher taxes or round-the-clock-printing of dollars to pay for the bailout (which would destroy the present value of 401(k)s and SocSec payments by leading to inflation.)
    So forget cap-and-trade. Forget “carbon taxes”. Forget universal health care. No bold new programs.
    To mix metaphors, we are in deep weeds AND unchartered waters.

  42. I couldn’t keep my keyboard silent while this gem from Mr. Bentley passed by:

    The computer models used are so simplistic (and probably wrong-headed)

    Here you go: this is the gateway page of NCAR’s “Community Climate System Model,” a collaborative, multi-component coupled model of the climate system. It’s operated and maintained by a wide variety of people, and its source code is available for anyone who wants it. Now, I could rant on and on about why it’s laughable that “the computer models are so simplistic,” but I’ve decided against it. Rather, I’d like to point you to the scientific description of the CAM (the atmosphere portion of the model. I’ll let you all have fun perusing that document and seeing firsthand how simple it is; I especially like 3.1.13, or “Solution of semi-implicit equations.”
    Keep in mind that the CAM is just one component of the model; you can’t even run the new version of the model as just the CAM. You have to couple it with at least the CLM to get anything meaningful, and realistically, you’d have to set up the CCSM’s flux coupler and tie at least half a dozen dense, complex models together to run a nice climate experiment.
    So, are the climate models simplistic? I’ll let you decide.
    REPLY: Counters, does this climate model incorporate clouds?

  43. Since what the Soviet Union had wasn’t communism, in the Marxist sense at least, you really can’t say it failed or not. The rhetoric was Marxist but the planned economy was something else (Dictatorship of the Proletariate perhaps). None of the so called communist states implemented anything approaching pure communism. What they had was Socialism (state ownership of the means of production). You may be able to argue the collectives were communist or even the kibbutz of Israel, but not the whole “central planning” thing. And this critique is not to imply I think communism can work, only that it’s never really be tried at any level greater than a farm or village.

  44. To whichever moderator made the inline comment:
    You want sections 4.7 and 4.8. Unfortunately it’s not as simple as “incorporating clouds;” you have to remember that the spatial resolution of the model grid is much coarser than your tiny cloud – this is why we parameterize them. Perhaps in the future when computers are ten times as powerful as they are now, we’ll be able to dial in the grid and do some real nitty gritty cloud computations. As a matter of fact, a field i’m interested in researching is the coupling of research weather models with the climate systems models; it would be very neat to generate weather during climate runs. But let’s be realistic about where technology is; it takes quite some time to run a 100 year coupled model run, and terabytes of data-to-be-analyzed are generated in the process.

  45. “you can’t even run the new version of the model as just the CAM. You have to couple it with at least the CLM to get anything meaningful, and realistically, you’d have to set up the CCSM’s flux coupler and tie at least half a dozen dense, complex models together to run a nice climate experiment.”
    Man, that sure seems like alot of trouble to get a load of garbage.

  46. I am of the opinion that very few U.S. weather reports – and as far as know, all such reports contain temperatures – are made by other than government agencies.
    I maintain then that we have a clear case of massive non/mis/management of these sites. The major exception may reports from our military bases. I believe, maybe incorrectly, they are managed much more closely.
    Further, an agency like NASA who spends large amounts of taxpayer money to launch weather observing satellites, and then will not use the data is at best in a category of mismanaging our tax money.
    My conclusion is that heads should roll. I think this opinion is well founded, and I cite the old military maxim that a new broom sweeps clean.
    We need an extensive management housecleaning. New equipment mismanaged as poorly as in the past will prove to be of little worth. Let the bloodletting begin!
    That is my 2 cents worth.

  47. Rod, I think you should look more into who takes atmospheric measurements, what type of data constitutes the climate record, what organizations oversee the archiving of the data, and most importantly, how the measurements are taken – historically and currently. Things aren’t perfect, but they’re nothing like you seem to think.

  48. Counters
    My area of expertise is the code. Went to download 3.0 of some model got blown off by invalid security cert. What I look for is documentation within the code then check it to see if it really does what it says it should do. Then match that with reality. I am not typically impressed with million line efforts and typically takes a a very senior systems guy to have it do the desired task. I will try again. Peculiar that it is so open then to be blown off by the certs. Maybe I just did not know how to ask. By the way the commentary should be understandable by any reasonably educated person. If it doesn’t reach the minimal standard then it is for a priest to decipher.

  49. Counters
    Nice integrals and partials in doco even there a priest might be required. Care must be taken to view the path.

  50. Rod Smith, For the most part I’ll put my 2 cents with your 2 cents and agree it is time for a massive change of management.
    Counters, Thank you for your answer to the moderator that asked if you incorporated clouds. I am not a scientist but I could understand that answer.
    Mr. Moderator In my humble unscientific mind I think his answer was nope they didn’t because their model was to simplistic to get the grids fine enough to use the clouds. When the word parametrize is used I think it really means they guessed and who knows.
    Stay with us counters I like your posts I don’t often agree but I like them. Once in a while I learn something from them.
    Great site Anthony, this is the most free speach site on the net with both sides presented with equal vigor.
    Bill Derryberry

  51. counters: “it takes quite some time to run a 100 year coupled model run”
    I’d just like to see the data for the next 6 months. Mild winter? Ashokan Reservoir swimming in NY on New Year’s eve (think snow melt run-off)?
    A tip of the hat to Mike Bryant – funny comment, although I would have said “load of horse manure”.

  52. Counters,
    Sorry but I think your discussion of all that went into the models is still simplistic. By that I mean that your computer model cannot even begin to crunch the complexity of Earth’s climate. It may be a start, but only that. The discussions of folks on this page with more credentials than I have words for testify to that. If there is such a large, diverse opinion among learned individuals, you cannot convince me a computer program in whatever language is sufficient to encompass the complexities of Earth’s climate.
    I maintain that the best programming efforts so far are simply wireframe approximations of reality. In any case to take action on what these programs are putting out now is folly and misdirected effort.
    As beginning tools and just that, they are a start, but to think anyone could put together a model conforming to the Earth’s climate at this stage is a real streach.
    Mike

  53. Tom,
    You know, the model guys could really enhance their credibility if they WOULD release detailed climate runs out six months. I wonder why they won’t do that? Those hundred year runs are kinda hard to check.
    My hundred year predictions include jetpacks and silver jumpsuits.

  54. counters (17:58:25) : So, are the climate models simplistic? I’ll let you decide.
    I don’t think Mr. Bentley’s comment simplistic should be interpreted as meaning “simple”. I would interpret it as meaning “much simpler than the actual climate system”, a point you grant in your response about the grid sizes that can be evaluated by today’s computers. You are forced to make simplifying assumptions, hence “simplistic”.

  55. One last thought –
    As an engineer I learned not to be too proud of what I built or thought I knew. History is full of wonderful ideas that fell short in practice. Yea, the computer code may be complex, but it is still not up to the task of predicting climate. It isn’t capable of looking at all the variables in fine enough detail. Therefore it simplifies…
    “We have miles to go before we sleep.”

  56. If we can’t get good data, how can it be compared to previous data? I say the whole ‘Global Warming’ stuff has been WAY overblown. It is being sold to us as the religion of the left.
    Who said “If you repeat a lie enough times, people begin to believe it to be the truth.” (It was probably a Clinton administration adviser!)
    http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
    Reply:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.
    “A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin.
    ~ charles the moderator

  57. http://www.physorg.com/news139742812.html
    “The speed of supercomputing is measured in how many calculations can be performed in a given second. Petascale computers can make 1,000,000,000,000,000 calculations per second, a staggeringly high rate even when compared to supercomputers. And though true “peta” processing is currently rare, the anticipated availability of petascale computing offers a golden opportunity for climate simulation and prediction scientists to dramatically advance Earth system science and help to improve quality of life on the planet. For decades researchers assumed that, in some sense, weather and climate were independent. In other words, the large-scale climate determined the environment in which weather events formed, but weather had no impact on climate. However, investigators are finding evidence that weather has a profound impact on climate; a finding that is of paramount importance in the drive to improve weather and climate predictions, as well as climate change projections.”
    I would add that even with petascale computers, if climate models are up to the task of simulating the climate on a 1/4″ grid, the complexity would add nothing to the veracity of the models.
    “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.”
    Pierre Gallois

  58. I think that the most astounding part of the above quote is the assertion that, “investigators are finding evidence that weather has a profound impact on climate.” Hmmmm

  59. hyonmin:
    If you have issues with finding information on the models then don’t take them up with me; I merely pointed the readers here in a direction that I doubt many of them have ever taken the opportunity to take. I’m sorry you’re having issues, but you need to take it up with the Department of Commerce rather than complaining that their website is broken. As for all them there derivatives and integrals, let’s remember: mathematics is the language through which science is communicated. I didn’t mention a specific page because I was trying to be a smart-ass; I mentioned it because it’s a component that I’m directly studying and analyzing in my own research. That there’s tons of fancy math stuff isn’t meant to impress… I’m not impressed by it! (it’s actually not terribly complicated if you dissect it slowly, assuming you understand the notation)
    Bill in Vigo:
    My answer was definitely not “nope they didn’t because their model was to simplistic to get the grids fine enough to use the clouds.” If we had the raw computing power to run climate models on a meter by meter grid, then we’d be able to fully incorporate clouds into our models. It has nothing to do with being simplistic; the technology does no exist to process that much data in a reasonable time frame. Regardless, it’s a moot point: the behavior of the clouds and their effect on radiative forcing is the important thing, and if you read the documentation I provided, you can see precisely how that behavior is parameterized. There will always be debate on how good the parameterizations are, but no one has authored any sort of study which demonstrated that the parameterizations used in most climate experiments are somehow fundamentally wrong.
    Tom in Texas:
    You don’t run the CCMS to make weather predictions for the future. Hell, if you want predictions for six months, either Mr. Watts, me, or any other meteorologist will tell you to go look at an almanac. Climate models aren’t used to predict the weather. If you want to predict the weather, I can direct you to half a dozen numerical weather models (as a matter of fact, the WRF which is also developed at NCAR as a browser online where you can fully dive right into the entire code of the model). Climate models are used to predict trends in the climate. I’m sick of skeptics not understanding this: there is a HUGE difference between weather and climate.
    Why don’t we release 6 month climate runs? Because they’re worthless. They won’t tell you anything because the climate doesn’t change in six months. If you read the documentation I linked, you’ll start to understand that models don’t work by tallying up the temperature at weather stations for each minute of each year; they calculate radiative forcings based on atmospheric constituents and a myriad of other sources and record them over time. The end result of a climate model run isn’t a String that says “The Earth has warmed by xx.xx degrees F.”
    Michael J. Bentley:
    Your argument is a straw man. The way you’ve constructed it, you will always discard model results on the basis that it’s not the actual climate. You mention that you’re an engineer, so we’ll put it this way: Is there value in modeling the structural integrity of a complicated structure in a complex, dynamic environment? For instance, say that we could’ve modeled the Tacoma Narrows bridge on a computer before it was built. Maybe we developed a huge program to simulate storms in the Narrows and their effect on the bridge. Would this endeavour have had any value? Of course… we may have been able to see the resonant effects of the bridge, and perhaps money could’ve been saved by re-engineering the bridge.
    Models aren’t reality. No one is pretending that the CCSM or any other climate model is a de facto replica of reality. But just because it’s a “simplified” model of reality doesn’t mean it’s worthless. At a fundamental level, the model is equivalent to reality because it is applying the same basic principles (in this case, laws of physics) to the same set of constraints. Sure, we have to fudge a bunch of things since we can’t directly solve some of the equations involved, and sure, we have to parameterize other things since we lack the computational ability to include certain fine details in the model. But the model is still based on the exact same principles that guide reality.
    If you think that he models are worthless, then fine; you’re entitled to your own opinion, however misinformed it might be. The thing with AGW is that the theory stands on the scientific principles itself. AGW is nothing but the assertion that greenhouse gases alter the net radiative balance of the climate system of a long period of time. Models are just one way to demonstrate that this relationship exists and how it will proceed. But of course, if you prefer, we’ll just let that principle play out in reality; after all, reality isn’t simplified in any way shape or form, and the results of that experiment are rather unambiguous thus far.

  60. Mike, the only person being tomfooled in this case is you. The statement “However, investigators are finding evidence that weather has a profound impact on climate” is a completely ambiguous case of circular logic. Of course weather has a “profound impact” on climate because in the most trivial sense, climate is the accumulation of weather over a long period of time. But ironically, climate has a “profound impact” on weather, because climate is the set of possible events which can comprise a weather event. In other words, the statement “weather impacts the climate” is ambiguous because “climate impacts the weather.”
    I’ve gone out of my way to provide a link to an extensive piece of documentation on one of the most important research climate models in the world, and thus far no comment as actually commented on that documentation. It’s been the standard, run-of-the-mill GIGO, or “models are too simple,” or “AGW is a lie” comments. Just as Leif is willing to come here and help educate you all on solar physics and the relation of the sun to climate, I’m willing to help you all understand what the models are, what they’re used for, how they work, and why they aren’t perfect. However, just as it seems no matter how many times Leif corrects the misunderstandings of some commenters here, I’m beginning to believe that my efforts to help share some of this information with you all are futile.
    I’m done here; I’ve spent less and less time posting here because it’s become apparent to me that the skeptics here aren’t skeptical of AGW, they’re hostile to it. I don’t know, but they’ll always go out of their way to find something wrong with any explanation a proponent will give. It’s a waste of my time to repeat, ad nauseam, the standard arguments and rebuttals to the same old worn-out, debunked arguments. “The globe is cooling.” “Warming stopped in 1998.” “The models don’t work.” “The Hockey Stick is a fraud.”
    I’ve got better things to do than argue about basic climate science with random people on the internet. I wish I had come to that realization sooner.

    REPLY: Oftentimes we feel the same way about warmers, but to give up is to give in to self made prejudice. – Anthony

  61. Again I wish to point out that the journalist has mangled the words. Akasofu is Japanese and the Japanese language does not have the ‘l’ sound. It sounds like an ‘r’ to them and they also pronounce the ‘l’ sound as ‘r’, so when Akasofu said:
    “Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.

  62. Mr. Watts, it’s not “giving up.” I don’t have the time that I used to have to post, and quite frankly, I’m not masochistic enough to justify constantly diving into comments that, while never directed at me, suggest that me and my ilk are nothing more than frauds and swindlers trying to peddle some socialist agenda on the world in the guise of environmentalism.
    I’ll retire for the night and perhaps return tomorrow to talk more about the CCSM if that’s still on peoples minds. However, not to be a smart-ass or anything but Re: Charles’ inline quotation of Lenin (“A lie told often enough becomes truth”), perhaps I could say the same thing about some of the skeptics out there.

  63. Question for those more knowledgeable than I in terms of the models…
    Has there ever been a model that took historically known data as input (such as 1950 through 1980) and actually had output for a subsequent period (such as 1990 – 1995) that matched up with historical records? It seems that any model that would be used in climate prediction would first be tested to see if it actually produced results that were within acceptable error of a known period.
    I understand the point they use 100 year periods because smaller timeframes are indicative of weather and not climate, but from a laypersons point of view, it would seem that if a model can be “somewhat accurate” over a 100 year period, surely the predictive accuracy would be BETTER for a shorter period such as a decade.
    Great site… I read and lurk often, but seldom comment. Most of the science is above my level. However, as someone with some engineering background, it seems that the climate modeling is smoke and mirrors. We used finite elements to predict stress and then measured in a lab to see if our calculations were within acceptable ranges. It would seem the same could be done by running the models to predict a historical period. Yet, I’ve never seen it… maybe it’s out there and I’ve not dug deep enough.

  64. Counters,
    all that POSITIVE FEEDBACK in the Models doesn’t seem to be doing much lately. Can you explain that??
    I need a good laugh with the nutcases running our country!!

  65. Has there ever been a model that took historically known data as input (such as 1950 through 1980) and actually had output for a subsequent period (such as 1990 – 1995) that matched up with historical records?

    I’m sure there have been, as such tests would be routine for a climate model. However, what they do between tests is fix the model so the next time it might actually produce the correct result. The problems include that the scientists don’t know what all the factors are, they don’t know the exact effects of many of the known factors, and they add parameterizations to adjust anything from what their first attempt was (and the first attempt should have included their best estimates of everything).

  66. Many thanks to Miss Russell (07:00:01) for seeking to help me in my state of confusion. I certainly understand that the factors affecting climate are extremely complicated and cannot readily be reflected in a computer model, if indeed, they have yet all been discovered. My confusion is not so much about the inevitable difficulty of building a model which takes every relevant factor into account as about what a model can be expected to do.
    I cannot now remember where, but I read recently that a model which “predicts” the future accurately would not necessary be able to “predict” the past. In other words, if one feeds in all the relevant data as at September 2008 it would be able to tell us what the next 30 years have in store but if one fed in the observed facts for the period September 1928 – September 1958 (i.e. what did Mr Sun do, what did Mrs Pacific do, what did Dr Atlantic do and so forth) and asked it to tell us 1928-1958 were like it would not necessarily be able to do so. Maybe I misunderstood the point that was being made, but that is how I interpreted the proposition and it left my pitiful little non-scientific brain all a-quiver.
    I would have thought the ability to “predict” accurately for a period in which truth had superseded hypothesis would be a necessary pre-condition for being able to “predict” on hypothesis alone. But what do I know?

  67. “Again I wish to point out that the journalist has mangled the words. Akasofu is Japanese and the Japanese language does not have the ‘l’ sound. It sounds like an ‘r’ to them and they also pronounce the ‘l’ sound as ‘r’, so when Akasofu said:
    “Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.”
    This sounds a little derogatory to infer that Akasofu speaks Engrish. But perhaps you are acquainted with him. However, I see no reason in light of what the article said to think he meant collect instead of correct. I see it as his correcting information about temperature increase, etc, in his “latest research presentation” for instance.

  68. If AGW is ever prevented/decreased through the IPCC/World taking firm action to reduce C02 they’ll be the saviors of the world, but this could easily happen without any intervention as the earth may just cool on its own. Either way once they start taking AGW counter actions they will be able to say they’ve saved the the earth, our only hope is to have the earth cool on it’s own before any major AGW counter actions are taken, which would prove that AGW isn’t caused by man/C02 but rather natural earth/sun cycles.

  69. Glenn (22:19:49) :
    “Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.”
    But perhaps you are acquainted with him.
    Yes, I know him very well, and vice versa, in fact, he as a reviewer rejected my very first scientific paper. And it is difficult to tell the difference between his ‘l’ and ‘r’.
    Even though Akasofu knows that the data is poor, he is not in the “adjustment” business [as Jim Hansen with temps and I with the sunspots and TSI]. Are you accusing him of anti-Hansen-type “adjustments”?

  70. Retirement be cursed!
    Wouldn’t it be possible to cancel the pensions and retirement benefits of thzese professors who speak climate blasphemy?

  71. Counters,
    I apologize to you. My anger is not with you but with the way your work is being used. If an engineer uses a computer model to design a bridge, and later that bridge comes tumbling down. I would say that the fault lies with the model. Still, though, HIS insurance will have to pay.
    My problem is not really with climate models or with their predictive power, but with the people that are using those predictions for social engineering. If the social engineers are successful, and we lose our freedom and wealth, WHO will pay?
    The world will have been beaten into the poverty of the collective, in great part because of a faulty line of code.

  72. Counters
    I too apologize. I was not directing the complaint about the links to you. I thank you for the links. The math is fine with me, I will reread the document to see if the English leads to a viewpoint. Hopefully the math will follow suite. Then to the program to see if it follows the English and the math. I often had many issues when I was responsible for a 100 man year software release, but the above process rooted out the problems. I haven’t retired yet so it takes my spare time to look.

  73. Counters,
    I think you confuse in that you say that we use fudge factors because we don’t understand all the equations. I understand that. Parameterizations are fudge factors for unknown effects (a guess educated or not) that can be adjusted one way or another. You state that there are no papers or studies that prove that the parametrization are incorrect. I haven’t found any either but neither have I found any studies that claim they are correct. They are just as you say fudge factors and being fudge factors the output of any model can be biased to the researchers opinion of direction.
    That is the gist of the argument for me. I can’t fudge my finances, I can’t fudge my education, in life we for the most part aren’t allowed to fudge very much. Why should you expect me or anyone else to drastically change our life style when the scientist must use fudge factors to make his model output perform as desired. Here in NE Alabama at this time we have very limited fuel and it is devastating to the local economy on a short term basis. I can only imagine the effects of the long term changes being demanded because of fudge factors.
    I understand that climate is the long term analysis of weather. if the weather changes for a long term the climate will change. The old timers will tell us that climate is what you expect weather is what you get. I find that to be true. It is a sad state that we have to wait for our children to see if the projections of the climate models are correct or not. I have no problems with the models themselves but I don’t believe that they are ready for us to make major civilization changes on their output. Heck Counters we aren’t even sure of the data we are installing in the programs as being correct any more as many of the data sets have been “corrected” that no one knows if it is true or not. That isn’t the modelers fault for the most part but the collectors and first users.
    You have some good arguments but the data isn’t altogether trust worthy at this time. I don’t think the raw data is even available any more. So what do we base our input on? At this time a best guess?
    Continue your work by all means we need to be able to predict the climate so that we can prepare to adapt to the climate what ever it is. At this time I don’t think we are able to modify the climate but we can adapt to the changes. We shall see. Perhaps one day you will have a computer with enough power to work the clouds. I hope we do but we need to use all the information to get the output and it must not be biased, it must be pure science with all due diligence.
    Bill Derryberry

  74. OFF TOPIC
    Climate wars, last episode on tonight. After watching the second episode it seems that the programme was just a repost to the great global warming swindle.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9
    Tonights episode
    “Having explained the science behind global warming, and addressed the arguments of the climate change sceptics earlier in the series, in this third and final part Dr Iain Stewart looks at the biggest challenge now facing climate scientists. Just how can they predict exactly what changes global warming will bring?
    It’s a journey that takes him from early attempts to model the climate system with dishpans, to supercomputers, and to the frontline of climate research today: Greenland. Most worryingly he discovers that scientists are becoming increasingly concerned that their models are actually underestimating the speed of changes already underway.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dqcmw
    The BBC’s Climate change experiment predicts hotter dryer, summers. After the past two summers a hot dry summer would be nice.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/resultsataglance.shtml

  75. The odd part about these projections for a dry hot summer is that they are dependent on the jetstream passing to the north of the British Isles to allow the Azores High to develop and extend to the UK.
    Now the part I haven’t seen is how the climate models forecast the jet stream position in relation to global warming although there are a few papers which show that it is moving polewards in both hemispheres up to 2001
    The other factor is that the present warm (relatively) climate over the UK is due to the Gulf Stream so a temperature rise as being forecast must be reflected in the temperature of the Gulf Stream otherwise it won’t happen due to the fact that UK temperatures are ameliorated by the surrounding sea as those of us who lived on the north east coast can readily testify.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml
    http://www.mccip.org.uk/arc/2007/atlantic.htm

  76. counters (21:08:40) : Climate models are used to predict trends in the climate. I’m sick of skeptics not understanding this: there is a HUGE difference between weather and climate
    Well, the mark of a model is in how well it predicts — unless, of course, the purpose is simply to compactly encapsulate the past. I can model the stock market quite accurately as long as I confine my model’s output to the past — especially if you allow me to continuously adjust it.
    So let me ask you: How has this model worked so far?
    I note that the date of the document (at least when the page was made) you linked to is 2004-06-22. Well, that was four years ago. How was this model validated? If it is being used to predict the future, what’s its track record?
    Here’s a model that seemed quite accurate at the time. Obviously though, it wasn’t validated for prediction. Oh yeah, it was based upon only ten years of weather!
    At a fundamental level, the model is equivalent to reality because it is applying the same basic principles (in this case, laws of physics) to the same set of constraints.
    The equations may be known but the corresponding constants it uses are not. It is common for the x in f(x) to be called f’s sole parameter but it should never be forgotten that any constants used by f are also parameters.
    Sure the equations might conform to the physics but that doesn’t mean the parameters do. BTW: the temperature forcing equations used by the IPCC (in the form AlogX + BlogX^2…) are curve fits which aren’t likely to have been derived from any physical law per se.
    I’ve gone out of my way to provide a link to an extensive piece of documentation on one of the most important research climate models in the world, and thus far no comment as actually commented on that documentation
    Ok, nice documentation. Why does that impress you? The model has not been validated at all. At least not for its predictive power. So who cares how nicely it’s documented? Nicely documented junk is still junk. What makes you think this model isn’t just well-documented junk?
    I do commend NCAR for making the documentation public. Now if they can do the same for the rest …
    I don’t know, but they’ll always go out of their way to find something wrong with any explanation a proponent will give.
    Welcome to the internet 🙂 This is true of any topic you can think of.
    There are faithful on both sides. Yep, you will always hear the same objections. At one time I sold home improvement. Every possible objection can be listed in less than two typed pages. I actually found myself driving to an appointment hoping I’d hear a novel objection. Never happened. Yes, it’s tiresome.
    I’m willing to help you all understand what the models are, what they’re used for, how they work, and why they aren’t perfect.
    Knowing how they work is important but ultimately it’s their performance that really counts. Can you help in this?

  77. DAV (10:39:46) :
    I don’t know, but they’ll always go out of their way to find something wrong with any explanation a proponent will give.
    Welcome to the internet 🙂 This is true of any topic you can think of. There are faithful on both sides. Yep, you will always hear the same objections. At one time I sold home improvement. Every possible objection can be listed in less than two typed pages. I actually found myself driving to an appointment hoping I’d hear a novel objection. Never happened. Yes, it’s tiresome.

    Amen !

  78. “Even though Akasofu knows that the data is poor, he is not in the “adjustment” business [as Jim Hansen with temps and I with the sunspots and TSI]. Are you accusing him of anti-Hansen-type “adjustments”?”
    I’m not “accusing” him of anything. It seemed unlikely that he would speak Engrish and that is what I questioned. Not sure what you mean by “anti-Hansen-type” adjustments, but surely, although for example Anthony is collecting information about ground stations, Anthony’s ultimate goal or hope would seem to be to *correct* (or rather have corrected) the errors in information derived from the errors in data he has found. I wouldn’t characterize my understanding of Anthony’s purpose as being “accusatory” in nature. From the article I inferred Akasofu to be on a similar quest. Collecting is a hobby that will not change or contribute to anything unless used for a purpose. Do you think your friend Akasofu means to go into retirement and simply collect *information*?

  79. If Counters revisits – and to support Mike Bryant –
    My argument remains and is simply this:
    Your computer model may be complex – so what? I could go on and on about the complexity of the telephone system that allows you to call anywhere in the world by pressing 15 or so buttons. You don’t care about that, all you want to do is get the person on the line. Your comment back to me simply says I don’t care about the complexity – I just want to make a call.
    Same is true of your computer model. Does the output fit the actual climate? I don’t care how many lines of code it has, or the elegance of the sub-routines – in short form does it work?
    Counters:
    Your argument is a straw man. The way you’ve constructed it, you will always discard model results on the basis that it’s not the actual climate.
    Careful with the word “always” and the answer to your statement is “Not True”. I can (and have) accepted the output of models. Sometimes they proved invaluable. Other times they failed miserably. I’ve learned to ask “What are the constraints?” before acceptance.
    Mike, I think you have a better understanding of computer modeling than I do, but we’re on the same page. As far as anger goes, I won’t be angry until someone messes with the weather and screws up the climate, then I’ll be really mad.
    Oh, Tacoma Narrows (Galloping Gurdy) A relatively easy wind tunnel test would show the old girl to be an airfoil waiting to happen. She even telegraphed her weakness by moving in some pretty light breezes.
    I have no problem with your model, but as Mike says, it’s not ready to underscore a multi-trillion dollar project to reduce CO2.

  80. Glenn (11:46:36) :
    Do you think your friend Akasofu means to go into retirement and simply collect *information*?
    I have asked him by email. Lei’s see what he says on Monday (or when he comes in).

  81. Michael Bentley,
    I am not a computer expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.
    In the interest of total transparency I am a master plumber, but I am no one’s fool.

  82. Patrick,
    Thanks for the tip on the Vancouver Sun article. A true example of hyperbolic alarmism. A truely chilling picture, not of the future, but of the glimpse at Weaver’s thinking.
    Completely stop emissions of GHGs would cause the extinction of one species, homo sapiens.

  83. Again I wish to point out that the journalist has mangled the words. Akasofu is Japanese and the Japanese language does not have the ‘l’ sound. It sounds like an ‘r’ to them and they also pronounce the ‘l’ sound as ‘r’, so when Akasofu said:
    “Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.

    GODZILLA!!

  84. — Mr. Watts, it’s not “giving up.” I don’t have the time that I used to have to post, and quite frankly, I’m not masochistic enough to justify constantly diving into comments that, while never directed at me, suggest that me and my ilk are nothing more than frauds and swindlers trying to peddle some socialist agenda on the world in the guise of environmentalism. —
    Well, counters, in order for me to accept that comment on face value I need a little more information.
    1. Who does pay you? How much do you make? How much does your project cost? Where does your funding come from exactly? I just want to make sure that I am not paying for it. You don’t pay my salary, of that I am quite sure. I am all for no swindling of anyone. Please explain to me how I am not being swindled.
    2. What exactly is the agenda of your funding source? Please be specific. I don’t want to think that your benefactors have a socialist agenda, but just to make sure, name them, and I’ll check them out.
    3. What is the guise you operate under? Does it have nothing to do with the environment? Nor with “environmentalism”? Please define those words and state your agenda vis a vis same.
    I only ask because I would like some clarification. Your tone was rather accusatory. Perhaps you would feel better if you came clean about the matters at hand, and then you would not feel so defensive about them.

  85. Jeff Alberts (16:49:28) :
    “Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.
    GODZILLA!!
    GODZIRRA!
    When I was visiting professor at the University of Nagoya, my name was Raifu Subarugardo. Interesting and befitting, Subaru is the Japanese word for the Pleiades [go look at a Subaru car’s logo emblem]

  86. Did anyone actually read the article? It doesn’t appear that anyone has.
    “Still, Akasofu doesn’t completely deny the existence of climate change, so much as question what causes it. One culprit he suggested is the recent lack of sunspots
    “‘Something is happening on the sun,’ he said. ‘There are no sunspots when there should be 50-100 right now, so people warn the sun has become warmer.’”
    Sorry, but fewer sunspots means less solar radiation reaching the Earth. A lack of sunspots can’t be the cause of warming.

  87. ““Communist Vietnam is rapidly converting to a fascist country, i.e. a capitalist economic system with a totalitarian government… The next step is a liberalization of the government. Once that happens WE WILL HAVE WONE THE WAR!”
    I wonder how soon they would have had a liberal government if we had just left them alone…”
    I wonder how soon they would have had a liberal government if we had not given up after the war had been won?

  88. Anthony,
    Since counters seems to have a great deal of knowledge about GCMs, do you think you could induce him/her to do a guest posting that gives an overview of the various parts of a modern GCM (what are the CAM, the CLM, and CCSM’s flux coupler?), along with the types of computations (e.g., numerical solution to Navier-Stokes equation) and the assumptions/parameters that go into the models? Or point to some overview document that describes it? I’m interested in the science, but don’t have the time to investigate everything de novo, and since this is one of counters’ research areas, he/she should hopefully be able to give a high-level description without too much effort.
    REPLY: I don’t know how much knowledge he really has and how much is youthful bluster, as far as I can gather, he’s an undergraduate. Perhaps a sophomore. Besides my policy is that anyone that would guest post here has to do it under a real name. We don’t accept web phantoms for guest articles any more than a scientific journal would. – Anthony

  89. Fair enough. Joel Shore perhaps? Surely there is someone who knows enough to let us discuss the science enough to get beyond ignorant speculations on the skeptics’ part and overconfidence in the results on the warmers’ part.

  90. @Mark:
    Are all skeptics ignorant speculators and are all warmers overconfident? That seems to be a pretty big brush you are waving there.
    Many people tell me I am overconfident in my results, but none would say that I speculate ignorantly.

  91. Dee Norris (13:56:03) : Are all skeptics ignorant speculators and are all warmers overconfident?
    I don’t think that’s what I said; at least it’s not what I intended. I am frequently impressed by the depth of knowledge of many of the posters here (you included). The ignorance I had in mind was not of science in general, or even of climate issues, but specifically of the internals of GCMs. I know that’s true for me at least. Conversely, the tendency I see from warmers’ posts is that they place a great deal of confidence that the GCMs correctly model the science. It is difficult to share that confidence without more knowledge of the internals of the models, so I’m willing to be open-minded that I am unfairly construing them as being overconfident.
    Perhaps there is a skeptic in the audience with enough experience in the internals of modern GCMs to be able to field a general summary. What I’m looking for is a discussion of the science behind the GCMs, the strengths, weaknesses, inputs, assumptions, range of results, …. Ignorance is, after all, a curable fault.

  92. Mark:
    Overconfidence can also be a product of ignorance.
    As an undergrad, I wrote a model for an early GCM. My module was the simulation of the various chemical reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere. The inputs were the various chemical components of the atmosphere and energy inputs – radiation mostly, as well as conductive heat and starting temperature. The outputs were the same. After validation by my professor, my module was added to a growing collection of models, each simulating an aspect of climate and creating a General Climate Model. Back then, we lacked the CPU power to even come close to what the modern GCMs are running on and the technology of computer programming is much more advanced, the fundamental concept remains more or less the same.
    As counters seems to be much closer to the modern GCMs than I am, I am sure he will contribute constructively upon the foundation I have laid.
    Regardless, the GCM are only part of the solution and are also part of the problem. IMHO, properly used, a GCM can help identify the areas where we need more ground data and better theory. The ubiquity of computers in our lives has given the impression that can be a replacement for ground truths. Hey, an Excel spreadsheet will always correctly add up a column of number, right? Animal Rights Extremists demand a halt to animal testing because we can model the biological system with computers, for example. In some cases, this is true, but would you want to trust your life on a drug that has never been tested in a living biological system?
    Trusting our future to computers running GCMs which almost all agree are missing components of the climate is pretty much the same thing. Instead of pursuing a career in academics, I chose to work in computers. I have spent many years bailing out firms on Wall Street from projects that went sour. Some of the projects were attempts to model a system as complex and chaotic as the climate – the stock market. Those didn’t work that well either and I have seem them all, from neural networks to technical analysis. The technology is lacking. And so is the technology and science to model the climate as it stands. Forget the ability to make predictions for any significant point in the future.

  93. I realize that they are a lot of comments here, and that it is difficult to sort through all of them, so I will summarize a few key concepts here.
    1. Dr. Meier is currently working on a second set of questions, based on comments here.
    2. He is not avoiding the forum.
    3. He has, and continues to, put a huge amount of his personal time into this effort – which he is under no obligation to do.
    4. His offer to take this on is perhaps unique.
    5. He knows a lot more detail about what is going on day to day in the Arctic than most of the rest of us.
    Individuals may or may not agree with his view of the future of the Arctic, but please express your opinion in a scientific, non-personal manner. We don’t want to mimic the bad behavior which goes on at some well known global warming advocacy sites.

  94. New press story on Prof Akasofu:
    “Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.”
    The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001.”
    […]
    “Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.”
    http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion
    Sure looks to me like his intent is to correct, not to passively collect, “information”:
    “The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision.”

Comments are closed.