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
As for your characterization of JSER as a think tank, I don’t see anything on their site that backs up that contention, nor do I find anything that supports your implication that The Register got this story wrong.
I agree, ‘thinktank’ was sloppy on my part, JSER is more of a science/industry forum, however now that Prof Itoh has kindly confirmed that
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, then I would suggest that the attribution of the conclusions of the report to ‘Japan’s Energy Commission’, this sentence 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. in the Register piece and indeed the title of this WUWT post should now be retracted or corrected.
E.M. Smith.
On the GISTEMP ‘sources page’ that Simon linked to above, under step 4 we have
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
The documentation for the data is on the ncep website at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
and the methodology described in this paper, which states in its opening sentence …
The new NOAA operational global sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is described. The analyses use 7 days of in situ (ship and buoy) and satellite SST.
that is, since 1981 GISTEMP has used satellite-derived SST data. Hope this is useful.
E.M.Smith (04:13:40) :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Nice try, swing and a miss.
The word satellite appears nowhere in that file.
Rather like saying the word satellite appears nowhere in the title ‘Remote Sensing Systems’! It’s the Reynolds data:
Step 4 : Reformat sea surface temperature anomalies
—————————————————
Sources: http://www.hadobs.org HadISST1: 1870-present
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
the Hadley data for the period 1880-11/1981 and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
Since these data sets are complete, creating 1982-92 climatologies is simple.
These data are replicated on the 8000-box qual-area grid and stored in the same way as the surface data to be able to use the same utilities for surface and ocean data.
Areas covered occasionally by sea ice are masked using a time-independent mask.
The Reynolds climatology is included, since it also may be used to find that
mask. Programs are included to show how to regrid these anomaly maps:
do_comb_step4.sh adds a single or several successive months for the same year to an existing ocean file SBBX.HadR2; a program to add several years is also included.
More description here:
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Reynolds references here:
ABSTRACT
A weekly 1° spatial resolution optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis has been produced at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) using both in situ and satellite data from November 1981 to the present. The weekly product has been available since 1993 and is widely used for weather and climate monitoring and forecasting. Errors in the satellite bias correction and the sea ice to SST conversion algorithm are discussed, and then an improved version of the OI analysis is developed. The changes result in a modest reduction in the satellite bias that leaves small global residual biases of roughly −0.03°C.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=15&page=1609&ct=1
ABSTRACT
The new NOAA operational global sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is described. The analyses use 7 days of in situ (ship and buoy) and satellite SST. These analyses are produced weekly and daily using optimum interpolation (OI) on a 1° grid. The OI technique requires the specification of data and analysis error statistics. These statistics are derived and show that the SST rms data errors from ships are almost twice as large as the data errors from buoys or satellites. In addition, the average e-folding spatial error scales have been found to be 850 km in the zonal direction and 615 km in the meridional direction.
The analysis also includes a preliminary step that corrects any satellite biases relative to the in situ data using Poisson’s equation. The importance of this correction is demonstrated using recent data following the 1991 eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo. The OI analysis has been computed using the in situ and bias-corrected satellite data for the period 1985 to present.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(1994)007%3C0929%3AIGSSTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
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.
Oh really? Well, as referenced above, “A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures…”. Of course it’s GIStemp he’s talking about! “Our analysis”, “Tables of this temperature index are included in our data available on the internet”, etc.
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.
I’m not about to install FORTRAN here, but my guess would be the SBXX file in the input folder of the Step 4_5 folder. Perhaps someone else can help. Given that they say they use the Reynolds data in step 4 I’m inclined to believe that they do (it would be a rather silly fib if they don’t, no?). However, if you’re really asserting that the Hansen 1996 paper above is actually “not about GIStemp” then I give up.
E.M.Smith (04:13:40) :
Addendum –
The oisstv2_mod4.clim file starts “/vP1982-1992 Reynolds v2 mean SST (360,180,12)”, so there you are.
Well, I suppose one should be grateful that the title of the post has now been shifted slightly in a reality-based direction. Yet one is left wondering how a ‘sub-committee’ of the JSER can contain no actual members of the JSER?
Can anyone help me out here?
REPLY: Well, you called it a thinktank, I called it committee. Neither you like now. So just to make you happy (since you are always seemingly such an unhappy soul) feel free to pick a term from the list below:
accumulation, aggregation, assemblage, assembly, association, assortment, band, batch, battery, bevy, body, bunch, bundle, cadre, cartel, circle, class, clique, clot, club, clump, cluster, clutch, collection, collective, combination, conglomerate, congregation, coterie, covey, crew, crowd, faction, formation, gaggle, gang, gathering, group, league, lot, mess, organization, pack, parcel, party, passel, platoon, pool, posse, shooting match, society, subset, suite, syndicate, troop….
– Anthony
LOL! I like ‘bevy’.
Is the reality not that five non-members of the JSER wrote a report which held some criticisms of the IPCC, and which was published in a JSER journal, but which is in no way representative of the position of the JSER board, of the ‘Japanese Energy Commission’ (whatever that might be) or the concensus of Japanese scientific opinion?
E.M.Smith (11:47:56) :
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.
After a great deal of digging we end up with STEP4_5 that has a one line read statement:
open(14,file=’input_files/oisstv2_mod4.clim’,
* form=’unformatted’)
read(14) line,clim
close (14)
In two FORTRAN programs that use a computed anomaly grid from NOAA that eventually gets back to interpolations based on some satellite data and some surface data. The anomaly grid is used in GIStemp, not the data.
OK, I would not call using an anomaly product ‘using satellite data’, I would call it using a computed product based in part on satellite data. YMMV. I guess I can say my car uses rocket fuel (I have run my Diesel on kerosene, and some rockets do use it…) but it is rather misleading.
If you want to call that using satellite data, OK, I’ll just accept that you have looser use of the language than I do.
John Philip (05:05:17) : On the GISTEMP ’sources page’ that Simon linked to above, under step 4 we have
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
The documentation for the data is on the ncep website at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
[…]
that is, since 1981 GISTEMP has used satellite-derived SST data. Hope this is useful.
Thanks. Actually it was useful. I was expecting temperature data in the early steps, not an anomaly map way out at the end where data have been left far behind.
I did find a buried compressed copy of the anomaly map in the STEP4_5/input_files directory (binary format) but managed to chase down an ASCII variant at NOAA to look at without compiling the FORTRAN. It’s just a grid of 1 degree (lat long) cells with a computed anomaly number per month.
Your statement “used satellite-derived SST” I would agree with if followed by the word “map” or “product” or “anomalies”. I’m more of the mind that data are the “before blending” numbers. But I guess the definition might allow for that.
At any rate: GIStemp does use a satellite derived anomaly map from NOAA for computing further anomaly modifications. It does not use satellite temperature data itself.
Simon Evans (07:08:17) :
Rather like saying the word satellite appears nowhere in the title ‘Remote Sensing Systems’! It’s the Reynolds data:
That is an anomaly map, not what I’d call ‘satellite data’, (as covered above). While you provided an interesting elaboration of the creation of that map, it isn’t the issue.
The basic issue was an assertion that “data” were used, and we seem to have a difference as to what “data” are. I took it to mean “the stuff from the satellite” you took it to mean ~”stuff computed in a long process and at some point in the past connected in some way with a satellite”.
I’d hope we’re past that now.
Me: “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.”
Oh really?
Yes, really. The paper is about the global anomaly recovery after Pinatubo, not about the structure of GIStemp. It does use GIStemp output anomaly maps. It does not demonstrate satellite data used in GIStemp (i.e. actual stuff from a satellite) but does demonstrate use of a NOAA anomaly map derived from satellite data. The discussion of satellites seems to me to be more directed at the NOAA process than at GIStemp.
I’ve put together my reaction to the paper here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/
Though I would suggest that you not read it since it will only upset you.
I’m not about to install FORTRAN here, but my guess would be the SBXX file in the input folder of the Step 4_5 folder.
Not the SBxx file, the file: oisstv2_mod4.clim
though you had the location correct. As downloaded from GISS the file comes as a gzip (and the directions do not say to gunzip it…)
Perhaps someone else can help.
They already have.
However, if you’re really asserting that the Hansen 1996 paper above is actually “not about GIStemp” then I give up.
Please do. It would improve my day. The paper is about anomalies post Pinatubo and uses GIStemp anomaly maps. It is not aboutGIStemp. (Just like my posting is about his paper, not about Pinatubo, though I quote some bits of his paper in my posting).
The message of Japanese scientests was picked up by Czech press (formarly Czechoslovakia) with the headline: The IPCC is lying
Really?
According to Dr Hansen
The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [refs. 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly: (1) the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [ref. 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [ref. 5].
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
and the GISTEMP dcocumentation states
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
the Hadley data for the period 1880-11/1981 and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
What are the weightings in GIStemp? Is it 1/3 each for land, ocean, and satellite? My impression was that the land measurements were nearly 100%.
Private funding will be the source for another view on Earth’s weather and climate system. Those that wish to extract coal and the mountains of shale oil we have for energy, will be able to use part of that investment for CO2 satellites. Those little puppies can be kicked into orbit for next to nothing compared to the big deal satellites our tax dollars are/will be funding. And think the green AGW movement knows that.
<blockquote cite=”MartinGAtkins (08:13:21)”
Your continued pasting of this argument in threads shows a lack of your ability to think for yourself. You and I discussed this at length in another thread. I will if you want explain it all to you again. However it would be a good place to start if you could just get it into your head that the earth is not a green house.
Funny. I read Joel’s comment as meaning, essentially, that “the earth is not a greenhouse” (and that, therefore, experiments performed in greenhouses would be of limited applicability).
Since the two of apparently agree on this point, I look forward to further argument.
Roger Knights (11:19:35) :
What are the weightings in GIStemp? Is it 1/3 each for land, ocean, and satellite? My impression was that the land measurements were nearly 100%.
If only it was that simple…
ALL of the basic temperature data comes from land in the first steps. Then some anomalies are computed using sea based readings in the very last steps. Some of these come from a satellite grid of 1 degree lat /long cells with a single data item for each month in them (the ‘map’ I mention below). These are only used to adjust an anomaly map. They are not used to produce real temperature data.
The best answer I can give you is “Strange and Wondrous”. The satellite computed map is only applied at the bitter end during the computation of anomalies (long after any temperatures have disappeared into the averaging stew…) The first set of steps (about 5 of them starting with manual data download) are all about gluing together the GHCN USHCN and Antarctic data, then computing anomaly maps from them. From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/gistemp-start/
where I’ve documented some of this, I quote from GISS:
Step 4 : Reformat sea surface temperature anomalies
—————————————————
Sources: http://www.hadobs.org HadISST1: 1870-present
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present
For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
Notice that this step (called STEP4, but actually about the 6th real step) is all about sea surface anomalies. By this point, you are only dealing with an 8000 cell global ‘anomaly map’. The temperature data from earlier steps was along ago massaged into oblivion by a method that glues variable amounts of GHCN and USHCN together (and changes those records where both GHCN and USHCN data exist…). That is in STEP0.
There is a method called the “Reference Station Method” applied repeatedly that lets GIStemp change the value of a data item for one location based on the value from another station (between 1000 km to 1200 km away!), so there is no real way to say what “percentage” of that final datum is from land, sea, or whatever; though prior this this final adjustment of the ‘anomaly map’ all data are from land (i.e. USHCN, GHCN and Antarctica).
You can say that most of the thermometers of the world are in the USA and Europe (especially when length of the thermometer lifetime is included) and you can say that GIStemp “cherry picks” their decision to toss out all records older than 1880, that being the bottom of the last downturn of the little ice age.
Beyond that, GIStemp is more what I would describe as “Pasteurized Processed Homogenized Data Food Product” than any kind of set of actual temperatures…
@roger Knights:
As an addendum to earlier response, here a bit more detail on the “satellite” component of the GISS stew. First, notice that this all talks about SST for Sea Surface Temperature. It’s not about satellite data coverage for land. From:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/
Analysis Description and Recent Reanalysis
The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SSTs plus SSTs simulated by sea ice cover.
So here are your first clues. It’s an “analysis” not a reporting of satellite data. It uses “in situ”, that is surface reports from ships, buoys, etc.; along with satellite Sea Surface Temperatures and, my favorite, SSTs simulated by sea ice cover. Given the recent “issues” with sea ice reporting it kinda make you wonder…
So, ok, a stew of ships, buoys, whatever, a dash of satellite data, and some simulations (based on a broken ice cover satellite?) are used to create this analysis product (that some folks want to call “satellite data”…)
Before the analysis is computed, the satellite data is adjusted for biases using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993). A description of the OI analysis can be found in Reynolds and Smith (1994). The bias correction improves the large scale accuracy of the OI.
Oh, and the satellite data are adjusted based on an optimal interpolation method. We’re getting even further away from “data” and into the land of processed data food product…
In November 2001, the OI fields were recomputed for late 1981 onward. The new version will be referred to as OI.v2.
The most significant change for the OI.v2 is the improved simulation of SST obs from sea ice data following a technique developed at the UK Met Office. This change has reduced biases in the OI SST at higher latitudes. Also, the update and extension of COADS has provided us with improved ship data coverage through 1997, reducing the residual satellite biases in otherwise data sparse regions. For more details, see Reynolds, et al (2002).
And they have had a change of method lately with “improved simulation”. Frankly, I’m not real fond of having my data be a simulation… especially when based on the sea ice data that are, er, questionable. Even if they do say they think it may have reduced the “biases in” the optimal interpolation at higher latitudes (which I presume means in the arctic where the ice was, er is, er, ought to be…)
But these “data” are just fine for calling “satellite data”… at least as long as you don’t mind your data simulated, interpolated, averaged, homogenized, etc. etc. etc. Me? I like my data to be from instruments, natural, whole, and minimally processed. Certainly not synthetic, er, simulated…
John Philip (04:20:44) : According to Dr Hansen
[…] (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4] […] and the GISTEMP dcocumentation states[…]and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.
Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
Yes, I’m sure it does…
Seeing that Dr Itoh wrote:
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.
Is it not incorrect to refer to the report as being from a “Subcomittee of Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources” as seen in the title?
A short additional notation on the JESR article, from Kiminori Itoh (Kimi).
Prof. Yoshida (vice-chairman of the editorial committee of JSER), the organizer of the discussion on the JSER journal, gave a comment in an article at Yomiuri Shinbun (one of the biggest newspaper in Japan) on March 2nd as follows: “Present arguments in massmedia seem to insist that the scientific aspect of the global warming issue has over. This may be because the issue is now more political than scientific. I felt it a danger (of science), and wanted to rethink about the issue from scientific views.” (Available at http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/eco/ondan/on090302_01.htm, but unfortunately, in Japanese again.)
Thus, he invited us (the five pannelers) to the e-mail discussion in the JSER jounal. I should say Prof. Yoshida is certainly a healthy skeptic on the global warming issue although he just served as a coordinater this time and he did not state his personal opinions on the issue.
Kiminor Itoh, Yokohama National University (“Kimi” is OK, if you like.)
Thanks for the additional clarification Dr Itoh.
I was wondering if you considered yourself a member of a Subcommittee of the JSER or just a contributor to a special discussion hosted by the JSER Journal, as it’s unclear what everyone’s affiliations and roles are.
About our affiliation;
I myself am Professor of Yokohama National University, belonging to more than ten scientific societies except JSER (specifically, Chemical Society of Japan, Electrochemical Society of Japan, Japanese Society for Environmental Sciences, Japanese Society of Applied Physics, Optical Society of America, Japanese Society of Microbial Ecology, American Geophysical Union, Japanese Geophysical Union, etc.). You can imagine how large membership fee I should pay each year.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu; he is Founding Director of International Arctic Research Center, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Prof. Emiritus of the university now. He is famous for his magnificent pioneer work in the field of aurora physics. I don’t know which scientific society he belongs, but I’m sure he is not a member of JSER.
Dr. Shigenori Maruyam; he is Pof. of Tokyo Instititute of Technology. He is a geophysicist, famous for the idea of plume tectonics as an effective tool for seismology etc. (you can find a detailed explanation on this subject at Wikipedia). I don’t think he is a JSER member.
Dr. Kanya Kusano; he is a group leader at JAMSTEC (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/profile_kusano.en.html). He is originally a solar physicist, in which field he had been awarded from relevant societies. At JAMSTC, he is doing good researches on computer simulation of physical processes associated with cloud formation, and hence, he is capable to give sincere comments on the global clime models. He is probably not a JESR member.
Thank you for the information Dr Itoh,
I certainly would not want to be paying your affiliation fees!
Now that you’ve cleared up the roles of you and your associates in the discussion, I wonder if the title of this blog post will be changed for a more accurate title. I suggest:
“Japanese discussion papers provide varied views on Climate Change”
親愛なる教授伊藤公、
2009年3月3日（午前22時19分46秒）私は、自動的にGoogle翻訳を使用して、日本語を英語に翻訳することが可能ですからの記事をお勧めしたいのような通知を参考に。選択した記事は、この手法を使って直接リンクできるようになると日本のスクリプトの英語翻訳を投稿してください。
かしこで
フィリップ
Google翻訳
Yomiuri Online
Reply: Moderators, leave this as is. It contains this message:
Itou Hiroshi Dear Professor,
2009 March 3, 2007 (22:19:46) I’m using Google’s automatic translation of general notice to the recommended articles can be translated from Japanese into English help. Selected articles, please post a English translation of the script and Japan will be able to link directly with this approach.
In passim
Philip
~ Charles the moderator.