Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made
Climate science is ‘ancient astrology’, claims report
By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK (h/t) from WUWT reader Ric Werme
UPDATE: One of the panelists (Dr. Itoh) weighs in here at WUWT, see below.
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document – the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you’ll find some of the key findings – but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”
Next page: (at the Register) Key Passages Translated
UPDATE: From Kiminori Itoh, Prof., Yokohama National University.
Hi everybody!
I am one of the five who participated to the article in the JSER journal, which may have seemed to you as a mystery from Japan. At first, I thank you for picking up our activity in Japan. I am a regular reader of several climate blog sites, and had been making some contributions mainly to Climate Science of Prof. Pielke. Actually, the information I gave in the article largely owes the invaluable information shown at this site WUWT as well as Climate Science and Climate Audit. Thus, I felt I should explain a bit about the article of JSER because, unfortunately, it is written in Japanese although it has partly been translated into English.
Some readers of WUWT might remember my name; I had written a guest blog in Climate Science several months ago, when Roger kindly suggested me to introduce my new book “Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs.” Yes, I am regarded as one of the most hard-core AGW skeptics in Japan, although I myself regard me as a realist in this issue.
The article of JSER has been composed of discussions between the five contributors, made through e-mail for several months, and was organized by Prof. Yoshida of Kyoto University (an editor of the JSER journal). Our purpose was to invoke healthy discussions on the global warming issue in Japan. The JSER journal was selected as a platform for this discussion just because Prof. Yoshida has a personal interest in this issue and he is an editor of the journal.
Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.
All the contributors are well-established researchers in different fields and each has characteristic personal opinions on the AGW issue. Only one (Dr. Emori, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, Japan) represents IPCC. Other members are more or less skeptical of the conclusions of IPCC. For instance, as translated into English, Dr. Kusano made a severe critique on climate models; he himself is a cloud-modeler, so that his critique seems plausible. Prof. Akasofu is well known as an aurora physicist, Prof. Maruyama is famous for his ideas in geophysics, and I myself have sufficient academic record in environmental physical chemistry (more than 160 peer review papers).
We know that our try this time is small one, and its impact has a limitation especially due to language problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussion was useful and informative for everyone interested in the controversies associated with the AGW issue. In March, another article will come also in the JSER journal because the discussion received much interest from the readers of the journal.
Any comments and opinions are welcome and very helpful for us.
Thank you again.
Based on Dr. Itohs comments, I’ve amended the headline to be more reflective of his first hand account on the report. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reasic (09:28:29) :
Where is the published scientific research, which either proves the fallacy in AGW claims or provides proof of some natural mechanism, which better explains the rate of warming in the 20th century?”
It may not get the media attention that the disciples of Gore and the IPCC get but the material does exist…. some samples can be found at this site… Essentially an index of papers, etc.
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
Read Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” if you want to know what is happening to this country.
I never bothered to read them, but by now I think most of us could write them.
We might just have to escape to Japan.
February England temperature WARMER than normal – according to Met Office’s CET http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html. The last week has been mild, but the first week was VERY cold – no less than 4 degrees C below normal! Despite that, the Met Office say we’re warmer! How so? Could it be because of very dodgy data? http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/stations2mean_2009.gif
Can I urge you to email the Met Office and ask them how – they won’t reply to me! enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk
Reasic (09:28:29) :
No! A Japanese society, representing their energy industry doesn’t agree with AGW. It kind of behooves them to take this stance, don’t you think?
… maybe you don’t know that Japan basically has no energy industry of their own. It’s is one of the most energy poor 1st world nations. If any one could benefit from renewables, it would be Japan.
As such, your comment doesn’t seem to make much sense
George E. Smith (11:11:06) :
Remember what our founders gave to us; so you can describe to your grand children what it used to be like in America; land of the free.
Don’t be disheartened George, – there are still many tough, smart americans left who will stand up when they really have too.
Their just asleep for now.
Retroproxy says:
Nonsense. What Wood demonstrated is that for real greenhouses the radiative effects are not what are important, so the name “greenhouse effect” is somewhat of a misnomer. (I.e., it is a correct analogy at the very crude level that both greenhouses and greenhouse gases trap radiation that would otherwise escape but is an incorrect at the level of the mechanism by which this trapping occurs.) Wood also made some vague speculations about what this implied for the effects of greenhouse gases but we now know that his speculations were off-base.
That doubling of CO2 leads to a forcing of about 4 W/m^2 is a fact now accepted by all serious scientists, including “skeptics” like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer. What Spencer and Lindzen dispute is the sign and magnitude of the feedback effects that must be understood in order to get from this forcing to a resulting temperature change. That is something that could never be settled by simple experiments in a greenhouse.
Gripegut (11:40:36) :
While this is good news and while I also agree that the AGW crisis will eventually fold like the house of cards that it is, AGW will just be replaced by “Climate Change” and after that by some other crisis with the only common theme being that man is bad and is destroying the earth.
All of this hysteria has but one common end. That is to reduce human population in a Malthusian effort to “save the planet.”
If Malthusians had any sense they would be promoting economic development and the liberation of women.
Once a country has a modern western economic/social profile – it’s population growth (- immigration) typically drops below replacement levels.
In Australia we give new mothers $4000 to encourage population growth as the birthrate was well beow replacement levels.
@ur momisuglyTim Clark (11:44:02):
Haha! Close, Tim. What you said was more like “It’s the stupid sun.” バカ、太陽ですよ！ would be more grammatically correct. ^_^
But yes, that is more or less what Akasofu-sensei has been saying for a while.
@ur momisugly Simon Evans (10:27:14):
True, it does not represent the Japanese government’s opinion. But it is a fundamental break in though amongst the Japanese at large (and culturally, that is not looked upon well). They must have some good reason to be at such an at-odds position, which may have further ramifications.
“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. “
Hmmm…..I’m guessing something’s been lost in the translation. Perhaps they meant something more like: IPCC’s ridiculous claim that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with C02 is nothing but a complete fabrication?
By the way, a very good source for the history of our understanding of the CO2 greenhouse effect is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Oh, my! They’re even onto the sunspot/solar wind/cosmic radiation/low-level-cloud-cover/global temperature relationship. I may weep tears of joy!
I do hope the translation into English is reasonable accurate.
CH
Scott Covert:
That’s part of the fallacy in the thinking among “skeptics”. The international scientific community HAS provided a viable theory, and verifiable proof to support it. The “skeptical” community has nothing. You think you can just assume it’s “natural” unless proven otherwise, but you’re wrong. A cause for recent warming must be proven, natural or not. That you can’t provide proof for any alternative mechanism is telling, don’t you think?
There are a great number of people here who can’t even get beyond the basic idea of water vapor as a feedback, and that has been on par with my experiences with “skeptics”. How can you possibly make a determination as to the veracity of the VAST MAJORITY of the world’s research on climate science, when you can’t even grasp the basics of thermodynamics?
REPLY: You really do need to dig deeper. We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views. What sort of work do you do there for BWSC?
It’s about time the silence was broken!
“One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. “ This is heavy spin from the Register. There is no mention of astrology in the translated documents. The quote seems to be based on this comment from Kusano:
This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice.
A few points
1. Thales of Miletus was not an astrologer. He is one of the Seven Sages of Greece – a philosopher, a fine mathematician and with a keen interest in astronomy.
2. Astrology has a bad rep because it misuses astronomical observations to predict events on Earth. The use of astronomical observations to predict solar eclipses is – astronomy.
3. I’m not sure what Kusano’s point was, but Thales prediction was famous precisely because it was tested in practice. The eclipse occurred as he predicted, and the Persians retreated from Halys.
“…Hmmm. I wait for the BBC to report this…”
Phillip Bratby
Let me predict how the BBC (and all the other environmentalists) will present this:
“The Japanese, those well known anti-environmentalists who make up science in order to keep killing whales, today made up another bit of science in their never-ending attempt to justify their slaughter of these helpless, soon-to-be-extinct mammals….”
Jeff L
“… maybe you don’t know that Japan basically has no energy industry of their own. It’s is one of the most energy poor 1st world nations.”
Ummm…Not quite the case. A truer statement is that Japan has few domestic energy supplies. Japan imports vast quantities of petroleum and natural gas to fuel its energy needs, and also has quite a few nuclear power plants. They have one of the largest oil refining industries in the world. They are very concerned over the “Cut The Carbon” crap, as most of their energy is from burning carbon.
Consuming energy goes along with high economic activity, which Japan has had for decades.
“We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views.”
And there we have my main problem with Reasic….
There was a report in the news today about the 1,000’s of scientists that have been studying the Antarctic “warm-up” and they have reached the conclusion that the glaciers are moving faster than before. They then conclude from this glacial movement that the seas will rise 3 plus meters in a few short years. Now, the good part -They concluded thru all of their studies the the average temperature for the entire Antarctic was -51degrees in 1957 and since then, 54 years, the avg temp has risen to -50 degrees – 1 whole entire degree. The amazing thing to me is that they have found ice that returns to liquid form(water?) at -50 degrees. If they can keep it from turning to steam at around 0 degrees they can replace anti-freeze with this miracle potion.
HEAVEN HELP US – THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!
Joel Shore (12:48:02) :
I know you have all these peer reviewed papers at your finger tips so could you please direct me to where Lindzen and Spencer agree with your view that a doubling of CO2 leads to a forcing of 4w/m2.
@MattN (13:51:58) :
“We at least we have the courage to put our names to our views.”
And there we have my main problem with Reasic….
OK now I feel bad. Gripegut is a nickname I have had since basic training in 1987. But the point is well stated except that debate in and of itself does not require an authors identity, just an honest exchange of ideas and open minds.
However from my perspective it seems that the people in the AGW camp are often (but not always) not open minded. In the rush to “save the planet” they have closed the debate by stating that “there is a consensus” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
and “the science is settled.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
when nothing could be further from the truth. So who is the real denier?
The Bishops and High Priests of the Global Church of Climate Scientology will smite these un-believers, will strike them down and force to recant their adulation of false climate gods when everyone knows the old climate model gods are perfectly acceptable.
Reply: Allowed because not being used to attack another poster in discussion ~ charles the moderator
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762v3
/Mr Lynn
Japan’s oil refining capacity ranks fourth in the world, behind USA, China, and Russia. Japan’s refining capacity is roughly 5 percent of the total world’s refining capacity. Japan also has a major petrochemical industry, using feedstocks from the refineries. [source: eia.doe.gov]
Japan will have serious problems converting to a “green” energy economy, as their solar opportunities are limited (northern latitude, small land area), area for wind energy is small, and geothermal exists but is less than 1 percent of total energy supplies.
And more dissent –
Foes of wind farm off Cape Cod sue Mass. agency
“[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase”
Could someone point me to where the IPCC ever said such a thing?