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.
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.”
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)
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.
near an airconditioner ….. that shouldn’t even qualify as a special cause variation ……… the Professor is correct – the datum speak for themselves
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
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.
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 🙂 ].
“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.
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.
Mark (06:19:35) :
It looks like this: click
“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.
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 :
Not record setting, but 2005 will be tough to beat.
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.
I couldn’t keep my keyboard silent while this gem from Mr. Bentley passed by:
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?
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.