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.
MattN (13:51:58) :
Well, I did come across http://www.blogtoplist.com/academics/blogdetails-5009.html
Ya know, MattN doesn’t lend itself to a Google search either. Now, if you had a name like Werme….
Another blow to the Marxist hoax!!!!!
😀
Reasic
The Greenhouse Delusion
Critique of “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
by
VINCENT GRAY, M.A., PH.D
http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm
Climate has always changed and nothing we can do will stop it from changing.
There is no credible evidence that the earth is currently warming. Satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere for the past 23 years show no significant temperature change. The frequently quoted combined temperature record from weather stations is biased in favour of proximity to cities, airports. buildings, roads and vehicles, all of which have become slightly warmer over the years from increased energy consumption. Surface measurements from remote areas, or from countries with many well controlled sites ( such as the USA) show no evidence of significant warming.
Sea level measurements are even more biased than weather stations. They are mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to local and short and long-term geological changes which are difficult to allow for. Sites in remote, low population places, such as the smaller Pacific islands show no evidence of recent sea level change.
The earth’s temperature is warmer because of its atmosphere, and by the influence of greenhouse gases which partly prevent heat loss.
The changes over the years in the properties of the most important of these gases, water vapour, and the clouds that form from it, are virtually unknown.
The minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration linearly at the rate of 0.4% a year, and as a result, agricultural and forestry yields are increasing. There are no established harmful effects of this increase.
The rate of increase of the only other important greenhouse gas, methane, has fallen steadily for the past 17 years. The concentration is currently falling.
Computer climate models are based on the incorrect belief that changes in the greenhouse effect are the only influences on the climate.
There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are unrecognised and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.
No model has ever successfully predicted any future climate sequence. Despite this, future “projections” for as far ahead as several hundred years have been presented by the IPCC as plausible future trends, based on largely distorted “storylines”, combined with untested models.
The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but they have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.
Attempts to suggest a relationship with “unusual” weather events and changes in greenhouse gases have been unsuccessful.
Reasic (12:57:15) :
The international scientific community HAS provided a viable theory, and verifiable proof to support it.
That’s part of the fallacy in the thinking (if you can call it that) among the AGW/CC hysterics.
The viability, if there ever was such a thing, of the AGW hypothesis is falling apart more and more over time. Verifiable PROOF? No, there isn’t. The computer models simply ASSUME manmade C02 drives climate. Besides, science doesn’t deal in proof – that is the realm of mathematics and logic, but in evidence, and the evidence for manmade global warming aka climate change is becoming less and worse as time goes on.
Yes, the same, tired, AGW “consensus” appeal. Typical of AGW trolls, as is the use of the ad hom. Yawn. Back to RealNonsense, or DeSmugBilge, or wherever you come from.
Rachel (14:56:40) :
“[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?
Whilst not specifically using those words, the AR4 summary report clearly concludes temperatures will rise. See page 24 of 52
Rachel (14:56:40) :
“[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?”
First explain what the person quoted meant by “continuous” and “monotonous”, since you are keen on nitpicking trivialities.
Or maybe just look at a graph of IPCC research projected temps to see the obvious. Other than minor ups and downs the means all go upward in any significant timeseries of any of the projections, in what I would easily characterize as continuous and monotonous increase.
The main report was 17 pages in Japanese and was published on January 9th, 2009. Each author had a reference materials section where they referenced some items. Funny who shows up in those sections 😉
Moderator – I am not sure of my use of html tags. If they do not appear please delete the post and I’ll try again. They reference some work from this site.
Joel Shore,
Thank you for your link to the History of our Understanding of the CO2 greenhouse effect. It is well written and demonstrates outstanding research on the thoughts and studies of scientists from long ago. However, there is a messianic tone in it that becomes somewhat overbearing as the article goes on, and eventually this tone overwhelms the writer’s commendable writing early in the paper. Deviation from quality research is rampant when he says that the “final nail in the skeptic’s coffin came in 2005 . . .” and then he goes on to say things that are just plain wrong about droughts, hurricanes, and storms.
FYI for David Porter: John Christy includes in his speeches an explanation that doubling CO2 leads to a one degree increase in temperature — no debate about that impact in isolation. But the question is about feedbacks, that is not nearly as clear.
Rachel,
“[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?
+++
I appreciate that you are trying to be smart but, as you are no doubt aware, malapropisms occasionally happen, especially when languages are translated. It is should be obvious to anyone that the word “monotonous” should actually be “monotonic”.
In analysis, the function of monotonicity means a curve which is always tending to increase, not having even a slope of zero successive numbers, i.e. the hockey stick, upon which the IPCC’s case for future temperature trends, largely rests.
There is no suggestion that the IPCC used the phrase but, by extrapolation, it is entirely fair to conclude that, in its reports, the organisation has predicted largely monotonic temperature trends, certainly on a per-decade level.
@roger H (13:59:11) :
“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.”
this is probably a fallout of steig’s and mann’s newest publication in nature.
the 1000’s of scientist are probably counting every scientist who ever read a thermometer in the antarctic in the last 50 years.
the consensus was, that temperatures have been falling.
steig and mann claim the opposite, while they “forgot” to say that even with their odd computation warming happened only in the first 10 years – quite the opposite you would expect.
auditing at http://www.climataudit.org is currently examining their report and the error discovered by now are rather disturbing and for me raising the question, why these authors are still allowed to teach students.
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….”
I agree, it’s time people grew up stopped hiding behind silly screennames!
Or is it?
Is there any logical basis for discounting an argument because it is put forward by someone using an alias? Of course not. The argument stands or falls on its substance not on the name put forward by its author. Would Mr Reasic’s points be received more readily if he called himself “Frank Muffler” and people assumed this to be his real name? Of course not.
What name would make you agree with someone even if you disagree with what he says?
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?
Behoovement is a funny thing. People don’t necessarily know what behooves them, and even if they do, they often act in opposition to their own welfare.
In this case, however, the assumption is made that experts testify in accord with what they are paid to say. Scientific integrity is for sale, in Japan as in the US.
That’s a cynical assumption, and rather insulting, but it cuts both ways. If the accuser thinks integrity is for sale cheap, then probably his own is. It is a plain fact that a great many people profit directly from climate alarmism.
For the record, I don’t get paid by anybody to hold or express my opinions, scientific or otherwise. It could be that I’m in a small minority on that, but I hope not.
Being just a simple cowboy at heart and in my youth, and having spent many a night in the open with only the stars for a roof, it seems to me that the proof we seek in choosing whether CO2 is our doom or not is thus:
The desert in summer gets very hot on a clear day, but cools very rapidly at night to a chilly temperature. There is very little water vapor in the air both during the hot day, and during the chilly night. What CO2 there is, likely remains the same, I suppose.
But, on those rare occasions when the desert sky is covered with clouds and the humidity rises, the day temperature is only slightly lower but the night temperature is much higher compared to the uncloudy situation. And once again, the CO2 in the air remains the same, even with the clouds and humidity.
This warming at night (or lack of cooling) in the cloudy desert is a rather difficult phenomenon for the AGW crowd to discount.
The same effect happens even in non-desert areas, but it is more noticeable in the desert.
How the AGW crowd can rave on and on that CO2 is going to kill us all is beyond me. Sure, I understand their argument that more CO2 will absorb then re-radiate more IR as heat, vaporizing more water vapor, trapping more heat, and off we go on a vicious cycle. But seriously, what happens when the atmosphere gets more water vapor? Rain. Rain requires a vertical heat transfer at the rate of 970 BTU per pound of rain, (roughly one-eighth of a gallon, or one pint) from ground level to however many thousands of feet up where the water vapor coalesces into drops and begins to fall.
Are the AGW crowd stating as a fact that the CO2 will reside higher than the rain-forming clouds, and trap the heat released as rain forms? That seems to require one heck of a heat trap. Just how much CO2 is required to trap and reflect back 970 BTU per pound of rain? Further, as I understand the argument, the CO2 radiates its heat in all directions, so roughly half will go on into space. This requires then that the CO2 absorb and radiate 2 x 970, or 1940 BTU per pound of rain. Also, is the CO2 absorption frequency matched up with the IR emitted from rain formation at altitude?
Judging from some of the rainstorms I have been in and witnessed over the tv and internet, we are talking about some huge amounts of CO2 over those storms. I suspect that the CO2 will not all gang up and congregate above the rain storm, but will be very snooty and independent — playing keep away, as it were. The second law of thermodynamics requires the CO2 to disperse and not congregate. Or, is there something I am missing here, such as a CO2 attractor in the sky?
In all seriousness, I would appreciate a polite answer, or a non-pay-per-view link to study up on this. It appears to me to be the crux of the matter.
Aside, of course, from Dr. Pierre Latour’s devastating letter regarding the impossibilty of regulating global temperature by manipulating CO2 concentrations. I am still waiting for an AGW proponent to debunk that.
Thank you in advance.
I guess some of the authors of the document read this site and Climate Audit? Here are a couple of images I clipped from the supplementary materials section to the main document. If the links don’t work my apologies – not familiar with the tags here.
Hope those work. If not could the Moderator please repair or delete? Thanks.
What did the two dissenting reviewers say?
Regarding motivation and bias, OK, Japan may wish to protect its petrochemical industry, and that is a reason why they would be relieved to hear that AGW was not sufficiently proven.
Meanwhile, there are many subcultural movements that desire spiritual connection, a larger global peace, a more unified human tribe, a movement away from competition and towards love and cooperation as the foundation for new society. And those groups generally would be disappointed to hear that AGW is not sufficiently proven.
This is what all the accusations about “greedy oil companies” always miss; being a “loving spiritually connected person” ALSO biases the viewpoint.
But wait, surely the loving viewpoint is better than the greedy viewpoint?! Well, this is science we’re talking about, which doesn’t have a morality. The moral outlook of the scientists doesn’t have much to do with the objective study of material stuff. As we know, Nazi scientists seemed to make a lot of scientific technical progress despite being kinda evil.
I’m happy to admit that many greenies are simply more noble and caring; but that doesn’t make them smarter. And it will be the smartest people who solve the riddles of the climate.
I don’t wish to belabor the point, but maybe it ought to be belabored one more time.
I am completely bored and fed up with the ad hominem logical fallacy that findings and judgments of paid scientists are suspect because they are paid. I am also weary to the bone of the opposite Appeal to Authority argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy which contends that someone with manifest credentials (such as peer reviewed publications) holds unassailable opinions.
Logic dictates that the validity of a proposition is not made or broken by the person who expresses it. A total moron can be right, and a world-class expert can be wrong. Truth lies outside the character and/or qualifications of the advocate.
Let us proceed with the enlightening discussion about the evidence and theories, without the continual devolution into logical fallacies and the worship or condemnation of the individual who dares to express a point of view.
Actually, the ad hom accusation of “energy companies” financing skeptics is hilarious.
I live in one of the most oil-industry driven cities in the world (Calgary), and I can tell you from discussing with oil-industry execs: THEY LOVE AGW. The entire theory. Love it! They push it harder than anyone.
Why? MORE MONEY FOR LESS WORK. Why pump 10 bbls at $15/bbl when you can pump 1 at $150? The profits are better, there is less transportation, less infrastructure upgrade, and they’re standing in line to collect tax credits from every existing leak they plug and every “green innovation” they can slide past a gullible auditor.
So, seriously, the alarmists who keep spewing the whole “funded by Exxon” line to discredit someone apparently have no idea how stupid this makes them sound… and can’t seem to figure out why I burst into LOUD laughter in real life when I hear one say it.
The Japanese have a strong cultural tendency to huddle together and come up with a joint consensus before announcing the group opinion, with the highest-level person in the group having the most influence. So it is astonishing to me that one of the members is known to disagree with the announcement. It must mean that this is a very important announcement, and I doubt that it would be one that would be outside the thinking of the government. If so, it is a tremendously important event, and I hope it does not get buried.
A bit OT: Consider the alternative… GIStemp. I’ve started posting my ‘deconstructing GIStemp’ details at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/gistemp-step-minus-1/
It’s not pretty and most folks will not want to be looking at FORTRAN, but for those who do want to look ‘under the hood’, it’s there. Started with getting the code and data, and this posting adds the first bit of preprocessing code. One down, about 100 to go 8-{
I can only hope that the Japanese have a better source for their data.
Looks like comedy hour has also started at RC. Comments are already being made that the scientists represent industry.
jack mosevich (10:00:09) :
Reasic: Roy Spencer, Richard Mintzen, the Roger Pielkies etc do publish contravening research
And Landscheidt, Charvatova, Fairbridge, and a few others have published on the planet / solar / angular momentum theories (the list is long that that but I can’t look it up right now…)
What’s all the hubub?
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources is a rather small (about 1700 members) organization dedicated to “promoting the science and technology concerning energy and resources”. As far as I can tell, the two Japanese scientists quoted about the report have done no research in climate, or paleoclimate, or meterology, or atmospheric physics, or atmospheric chemistry….
So what’s the big deal? A few scientists who don’t do research in anything related to climate are sceptical of AGW. They’ve offered some rather vague suggestions about “natural cycles” and the sun, but that’s about it.
Their main point seems to be that there are still a lot of uncertainties about what’s driving recent climate change.
Interestingly, they don’t even mention CO2. Getting rid of that CO2 forcing is a tough nut to crack!
Hardly a paradigm shift…
Lee Kington (11:55:57) :
Thanks for pointing out the study at Lubos Motl’s blog today. Some very smart people are saying there is no science to prove variations in the sun affect temps on earth (if I am understanding them correctly). Other very smart people say variations in the sun do affect temps on earth.
I think I’m as smart as these smart folks, though I haven’t spent my life in the area of sun study so I don’t know as much about the sun as they do. But I think my common sense tells me anything the sun does has an effect on the earth.
It could be that those who say there is no science that proves variations on the sun affect temps on earth are science purists who have to have a heavy dose of verifiable data before they’ll acknowledge something is ‘science’–I reckon.
Here’s a study that shows a correlation between solar activity and climate on earth :
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
Also, here’s a YouTube video covering the same, but simplified :
And on topic of this thread : it’s good to see momentum growing for us “deniers”. I haven’t seen any good news for the “alarmists” in a long time–unless you consider dressing in your Sunday’s best next Monday and protesting at a coal powered electric plant in Washington D.C. good news! Gosh, what good news! And what fun too, sure to convince everyone to do something about “global warming”! 😉
“Chris V. (18:37:12) :
What’s all the hubub?”
Thanks for the alarmist’s downplay. Or should I call it whistling past the cemetery?