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
Arthur (17:13:57) :
I’m not a moderator but I would like to point out that simply cutting and pasting the URL into your message works perfectly well with WUWT.
Joel Shore (20:05:50) :
“E.M Smith says: Yes, it says that we have the wisdom to admit that there is one heck of a lot more that we don’t know. Admitting your ignorance is the first step to understanding.”
Yes…But admitting someone else’s ignorance, maybe […] that you are not an expert on better than most of the experts on the subject.
Expertise is a great thing. I have a lot of it. Anyone can be an expert in their field. I had this demonstrated by a minimum wage soda jerk. Buddy & I ordered 2 meals with 2 Cokes, one diet. When called we went to the window. Which is which? We were helpless. Soda Jerk glances at the cups: Diet is on your right. How, I ask him? Sugar holds surface bubbles longer, diet looks flat on top. He is an expert in Soda.
But expertise does not grant immunity from error. Even spectacular error. Especially in relatively new fields of endeavor. Climate science if fairly new and climate modeling is an infant.
Sidebar: Though it doesn’t require that a field be new: Notice how suddenly the number of ads for low cholesterol margarine vs heart evil butter are approaching zero? In the 1970s they were legion. Now look on the back of that margarine package. 20% or so Trans Fat. Just in the last decade some researches made tri-stearate (pure saturated fat) and fed it to folks expecting a cholesterol bomb. Nothing. Literally no change to health. Monounsaturated oils lower cholesterol, saturated fats like in beef (stearate) and by extension probably butter do nothing, and the evil is the transfats in margarine. Maybe those old Indian ghee stories are true? (The key to longevity is ghee – clarified butter – they say…) For how long was Medical Expertise wrong? The early tests of ‘animal fats’ were confounded by transfats that act the same (solids) and were not disambiguated. I.e. the experiments were bad and their ‘model’ was wrong.
There are always uncertainties in science. However, in scientific fields where the conclusions don’t have policy implications that some people find quite abhorrent, these don’t seem to be as paralyzing as they seem to be found for theories like AGW and evolution.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Climate models are not even tepid proof. There are, however, many ‘existence proofs’ of the null hypothesis (that the climate changes by natural means).
See:
Bolling interstadial, Older Dryas, Allerod Interstadial, Younger Dryas, Holocene Climate Optimum, 8.2 kiloyear event, Neolithic Subpluvial 7-4k B.C., 5.9 kiloyear event 4k B.C., Pioria Oscillation 3k B.C., 4.2 kiloyear event 2k B.C, Iron Age cold period 900 B.C., Roman Optimum, Migration Era Pessimum / Dark Ages, Medieval Warm period, Little Ice Age, Modern Optimum, AlGore Cold period (entering now, keep all hands, feet, and wallets inside the coach at all times 😉
There is one heck of a lot more than the LIA and MWP for you to erase in our climate history… like, oh, all of it…
Though it has ‘issues’ see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_events
for a clue. (I think they are downplaying the swings somewhat as a pander to the present AGW domination of wiki.)
Then explain, please, Bond Events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
See why I have trouble accepting “But this time it’s different, my video game tells me so!”
(Though that does a disservice to video games. They are vastly more tech savey than the climate models and make GIStemp look like a Rube Goldberg machine… no, that does a disservice to Rub Goldberg, his machines functioned… I’ll have to work on my analogy. GIStemp is pretty bad.)
Chris V. (21:10:22) :
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
But it does. I took this as a double entendre with 1/2 being human, but the other half being a poke at the programming of the climate models that by their design can only find CO2 guilty. So deprogram the CO2 driver in the model and put in any of {solar, ocean oscillations, ozone, GCR, whatever} and your program will find something new and the “CO2 nut” will be cracked.
John Philip (01:45:55) : Some recent examples: in this piece on the GISTEMP October data foulup, Evan Jones says GISS reported the warmest October on record and that GISTEMP does not use satellite data, both untrue.
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/gistemp-start/
and
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/gistemp-step0-input-files/
Are here to help you explore their code, as I have been doing. I would love to see exactly where the satellites appear. Near as I can tell they just take GHCN, USHCN, Antarctic ground station data, and a couple of historical bits from places like Hohenpeissenberg and glue them together (with lots of deletions, interpolations or extrapolations – its hard to tell which, and blatant manipulations via “The Reference Station Method”).
But maybe I missed something. Nobody’s perfect. I’ve only read every single line of the manual pre-steps, STEP0, STEP1, and STEP2 and scanned STEP3 and STEP4_5 along with the GHCN download code.
So, show me the satellite data load step, please.
Oh, and while your at it, explain those Bond Events…
Anthony,
OT but you might like to open a thread…
The doomsayers are getting more and more hysterical.
Whoops, fluffed the HTML.
Chris V:
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
As I suggested in what followed after the statement your quote responds to, I was hoping you’d prove or support an actual CO2 forcing of the magnitude necessary to produce runaway GW, or at least enough to increase Global Atmospheric Temperatures by ~ 3degrees C. per doubling, or at least from doubling, say, 280ppm to 560ppm.
It’s the CO2 forcing, and assisting “feedback”, which needs to be proven and quantified, and which must also comport with or explain some contrary evidence to what you call and assume to be a “CO2 forcing nut”.
I don’t have to disprove what hasn’t yet been proven.
UK to become one big city/
Sidebar pondering: I have noticed a tendency for AGW advocates to assert that skeptics are just not looking at The Science; as though we came to skepticism first and only looked to science later as a crutch. The problem with this is that the stories told here by skeptics are often of the form “I believed in AGW then looked at the data and The Science and became a Sceptic”.
I was one such. My initial take was “Golly, CO2 changing climate! How neat, and how scary. Better look into it.” The more I looked the more I said “Wait a minute, that isn’t right. Your cooking the books (or blowing the physics, or making up computer fantasies, or downright making the models run fast as a deliberate deception.)
So I’m pondering the human psychology of this. Folks often attribute to others that which is themselves. I wonder if it is the AGW advocates who advocated first, then selectively use “science” as a defense for their foundational belief. That would explain a great deal of the selective listening skills displayed and the attack approach to challenge… and the constant whining that skeptics must be in the pay of someone to hold the heretical belief.
(BTW, if any knows how to get paid for my heretical behaviours, I’m available. Right now I’m just the silly one giving it away for free. I’d love to get paid for doing what I’m going to do anyway… but the market rate seems to be zero. I came to my heresy for free and I guess I’m stuck with it for zero pay too. Maybe someday I’ll figure out how to follow the money rather than where reason leads me. Oh Well.)
So is there some character difference, some known aspect of human psychology that determines the order in which folks process? Who ‘changes with the discovery’ and who ‘digs in to defend the foundation belief’? I don’t know, my expertise is modest in psych (though I do have 12 units of Med School Psych, it was a practical lab, not theory, and doesn’t help much. It’s a long story, not for here…) So what makes these particular Japanese Scientists willing to ‘make the leap’ when others are not? Just pondering…
Bruce Cobb
But, we can no more stop warming from happening than we can cooling, which is what is happening now, and cooling is far, far more detrimental to mankind.
Don’t bank on it. Have a look at what the eejits are thinking about now …Mirrors in space!
MartinGAtkins (09:14:47) :
No. But it does speak a bit to mindset and motivations. Your moniker, for instance, displays a playful attitude toward stereotyping and a willingness to face bravely those who would insult. Kinda cool. Not deceptive. Tells me you have some strength of character. Implies (if self descriptive – not known at this time) a willingness to face reality at any cost and very low levels of self deception; unless it’s just a joke. For other folks, there will be other motivations. Alias analysis is not about veracity per se, it is about understanding motivations… It’s the alias that screams deception that raises issues of veracity. “Mary Hinge” for example (given the UK meaning and the assertion that “Mary” is male). The ‘couch time’ to analyze that one would be large… but interesting…
OT. What you say is of course true in that whatever the identity of the person is, it doesn’t diminish or give more weight to the point the poster is making. However there is such a thing as disclosure of interest.[…]
There are no votes here so disclosure is not mandatory. However it is polite to declare any special interest you may have as a recognised representative of any organisation.
In stock trading circles there is a social norm that you must disclose your positions. Partially this is due to SEC regulations on registered folks that makes it a crime not to disclose, so us peons go along for the ride. On stock trading blogs, to not disclose is to be shunned (and sometimes go to prison…)
Strangely enough, a couple of years ago (before i came to understand who they were and that AGW was bunk) I posted some things on one of the AGW blogs (don’t remember which… Maybe RC, maybe?…) And had a “Disclosure: I own tick tick tick” at the bottom. The posting was summarily deleted with the admonition that “This is not a stock picking site”. The fact that I was pointing out no end to fossil fuels or petrochemicals for several hundred years was probably more important to the deletion… or maybe it was that I owned some energy stocks.
At any rate, the fact that Anthony and The Moderators have let me put my biases on the table for all to see via a “Disclosure: I own tick tick…” speaks volumes to me. They know a disclosure is not an advocacy and they understand that admission of bias is a good thing.
I did find it an odd psychological observation that what was mandatory to prevent hidden bias on stock blogs was forbidden on an AGW site because… because… er, um…
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
Satellite data is employed for computing SSTs for the period 12/81 to present. Description here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Fuller description in Hansen et al 1998:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1996/1996_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Data here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
PaulS – nowhere in the IPCC’s report does it say that future temperature rises will be continuous and monotonous/monotonic. It does say that abrupt changes are likely. Abrupt != continuous.
I don’t really know what you mean by “open up a little”
By the way, you may have thought that I was casting aspersions on your credibility when I said “I really don’t rate the credibility of anyone who can’t accurately report what they are commenting on.” That comment was referring to the authors of the report.
E.M.Smith (12:15:30) Sidebar pondering: No formal psych classes in my past, but I have read Freud, Jung, Skinner and others over the past 45 years. I think one of our underlying principals as humans is to label some ‘thing’ as the cause of our problems. There is nothing so unbearable for humans as not knowing something. Without the scepticism of scientific thought, our minds naturally come to a conclusion or conceptual understanding, regardless of whether there is enough information to empirically determine the same. Thus, the masses glom onto the latest horrific fad of impending doom until the next one comes around. People are attracted to pleasure and ease of living, but are only motivated to change via pain. This leads to the concept of personal guilt, and opening oneself to manipulation by those who would take advantage of the ‘guilty’, the ones we hold as our leaders, political and religious, should they be so inclined.
J. Peden (12:10:11) :
Chris V:
I was hoping more for something that involved physics and stuff.
As I suggested in what followed after the statement your quote responds to, I was hoping you’d prove or support an actual CO2 forcing of the magnitude necessary to produce runaway GW, or at least enough to increase Global Atmospheric Temperatures by ~ 3degrees C. per doubling, or at least from doubling, say, 280ppm to 560ppm.
It’s the CO2 forcing, and assisting “feedback”, which needs to be proven and quantified, and which must also comport with or explain some contrary evidence to what you call and assume to be a “CO2 forcing nut”.
I don’t have to disprove what hasn’t yet been proven.
Who said anything about runaway GW? Not I, the IPCC, nor any climate scientist I’m aware of (I wouldn’t consider Hansens idea of 6 degrees for CO2 doubling- after melting of ice sheets, etc., – to imply a runaway GH effect). A runaway greenhouse effect would involve stuff like the the oceans boiling away.
As for the CO2 forcing, it can be calculated using radiation codes like Hitran.
In an earlier post you said said that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2.
If you explain how the GH forcing from water vapor is determined, I will explain how the GH forcing from CO2 is determined. 😉
The estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling come from climate models, observations of modern climate following changes in forcings (like sulphates from volcanoes), and from studies of paleoclimate. All the results huddle around 2 to 3 degrees or so.
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 moths 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.
Thank you for responding, Professor Itoh, and for your explanation of the situation.
I would love to see a guest post by you, expanding on your thoughts regarding the debate over the AGW issue.
Also, congratulations on your impressive command of the English language.
OK so it was just an email discussion from five discussants: I note this summary quote from Prof Itoh:
Where does this leave the reliability or the Register’s “exclusive report”? Will we see an update on this blog?
E.M.Smith (11:05:19) writes in part: Monounsaturated oils lower cholesterol, saturated fats like in beef (stearate) and by extension probably butter do nothing, …
I see the Fat Is Bad health scare as a cautionary tale when considering AGW. That scare changed the eating patterns of the world, all on the basis of some bad data.
Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
We, the general populace, fell for an erroneous scare (likely not a “scam”)… just as we would have fallen for AGW (a demonstrable “scam”) and paid dearly for it if folks had been suckered…
Wal; I hope we are not suckered. Probably still in the balance, with sanity just holding disaster at bay…
Professor Itoh,
It is a high honor to read your comments on WUWT. I have worked with Japanese engineers, businessmen, and academics many times since 1977 and am always impressed. I have visited Japan only once, but my visit was most memorable and wonderful.
I look forward to reading your next article.
I work in California as a Climate Change attorney, with clients in the energy, manufacturing, and power generation sectors. I am convinced that the state law to prevent Global Warming in California, AB 32, is leading this state into economic devastation. Following that will come social upheaval.
In my opinion, you and your colleagues are performing a great service by your stand and publishing. I can only hope that other top-notch scientists will follow your lead, and we see many such articles around the world.
Thank you, Professor Itoh.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Rachel (13:49:28) wrote: Abrupt != continuous.
This may well make sense in Western Australian medical circles, but it defeats me from souh of the border. Would you explain it to me, miss Rachel?
EM Smith: “The problem with this is that the stories told here by skeptics are often of the form “I believed in AGW then looked at the data and The Science and became a Sceptic”.”
Yes, that’s the standard sceptic ‘conversion’ narrative. After all, an AGW sceptic could hardly say: ““I believed in AGW then discovered Hansen was a raving socialist, so I became a Sceptic”.
The sceptic narrative has at least two embedded messages:
1) I was prepared to give AGW a chance, therefore my mind is open to the evidence;
2) My trust was betrayed by perfidious scientists.
“So is there some character difference, some known aspect of human psychology that determines the order in which folks process?”
I don’t think the mechanism is quite so crude. More likely, people attempt to place new information within their existing belief system. It’s a truism that we place more trust in new information that conforms to old, and that we are more inclined to believe those we trust.
The article that heads this thread is a good example of these traits. The message is congenial to WUWT, and the source is trustworthy enough for WUWT, so a number of posters have taken the story at face value.
That said, the WUWT response has been relatively muted, especially considering the melodramatic lead para: “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.”
Or perhaps the response is muted *because* of the nature of the lead para, which asks the reader to take a very large leap in understanding. In addition, there are memories of a similar event: the recent Theon debacle, where the journalist’s hyperbole fell apart when subject to critical analysis. The Japanese story also fails to provide sufficient context, and geographical and cultural distance may also render the story less compelling.
Context is often overlooked as an aid to conferring meaning. Take this comment from the current thread: “Gee, I wonder why this story hasn’t been picked up by the media …”
Since the writer is a sceptic, he is probably implying that the [mainstream] media is biased against such stories. However, if the comment came from an AGWer, it would very likely imply the opposite: that the lead para was exaggerated, hyperbolic and overblown, and therefore not credible. Same comment, different context, different understanding.
Don’t think I’m getting at sceptics. I’m sure AGWers have their own blind spots. My point is that psychologising is seductive, and that it can often merely confirm our own prejudices with a ‘scientific’ gloss.
@Brendan H
Prof. Itoh has explained the background of the article.
You pretend to take a balanced view, what is fine, though you should admit, that critical remarks, especially well founded, would not be admitted to AGWer’s discussion forums. Real climate science is not interested in a balanced view.
This is one reason, why an increasing number of experts have their say here (or on climateaudit.org, climatesci.org and a few other sites).
This is why advances in climate science are increasingly happening on these sites and not in the frozen consens, closed discussion circles.
The discussion about Global warming looks like this very much.
“Which is a beginning?The egg is the first,The chicken is the second?
or the chicken is first,the egg is the second? ”
I think the discussion about Global warming is same.
and
There are an uncertainty theorem in the physics world, an incompleteness theorems in the information world.
So neither can be proven scientifically.
A cause of the global warming that I think of is such a reason.
The scientist who gets money （or is pressured） from the person,the company that makes money by global warming and the organization that plans for something by global warming says that the earth is warming.
the reverse is also.
Anyway,the ordinary Japanese people tries to recycle hard and have the eco-bag, environmental product etc…They are thinking that it is possible to protect Tuvalu and a white bear if they reduce Co2.
In the elementary school in Japan somewhere, Children seem to have shown a dance of “the prevention of Global Warming”. Oh,No…It seems to be a new religion…
National consensus is considerably made already. So it might not be problem for them whether the earth is warming or not.
from Japanese student who study environmental design
dareka nihon wo tasukete kudasai!!
Simon Evans (13:41:10) :
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
Please show me where GIStemp uses satellite data.
Satellite data is employed for computing SSTs for the period 12/81 to present. Description here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Nice try, swing and a miss.
The word satellite appears nowhere in that file. Unless the satellite data somehow got renamed to “historical” and are buried in the USHCN or GHCN data sets, they are not there. Go Fish.
Fuller description in Hansen et al 1998:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1996/1996_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Interesting paper, not about GIStemp. The word satellite appears 6 times, mostly talking about how to interpolate vis a vis sea surface measurements. Not about GIStemp. Go Fish. Again.
Data here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Nice data. Those data set files do not appear in the GIStemp code. So I say again: Show me where satellite data are used in GIStemp.
You’ve given me three air balls so far. I’ve got the source code and it says nothing about satellites.
$ ls
STEP2 STEP3
GISTEMP_sources.tar STEP4_5
STEP0 differ
STEP1 gistemp.txt
$ grep satellite */*
$