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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Counters
Nice integrals and partials in doco even there a priest might be required. Care must be taken to view the path.
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
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”.
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
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.
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”.
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.”
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:
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
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
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.
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
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’.
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.
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.
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!!
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).
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?
“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.
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.