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.
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”?
Retirement be cursed!
Wouldn’t it be possible to cancel the pensions and retirement benefits of thzese professors who speak climate blasphemy?
(Please note I’m being sarcastic)
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.
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.
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
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
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
There are “changes already underway” in Greenland. Temperatures are -30F on the last day of summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076
If this is global warming what was it like before – sheesh
http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html
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?
IPCC scientist Andrew Weaver says that we need to stop breathing immediately – or risk facing extinction
unless we reach a point where we stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely, 80 per cent of the world’s species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=7b9e2d6a-e3d3-4b42-bbe0-56fde6443007&p=2
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 !
“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*?
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.
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).
A story from the UK
“Drivers could face £20 fine for leaving engines running in traffic jams”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-leaving-engines-running-traffic-jams.html
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.
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.
GODZILLA!!
— 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.
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]
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.
““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?
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