Sunday, December 26, 2010

The science is done, the debate is over

Nope and nope ...

Recent paper: On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
Author: Syun-Ichi Akasofu - International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

... published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied ...
... the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present.
... the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900.
... The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000.
... These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from the present global warming/cooling trend.
Sea level data, for example:

[Via FOS]


dizzy said...

// the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA //

Think about that. In particular, what does the work "recovery" signify?
The earth's temperature is different from outer space or the moon because of well-underatood physical mechanisms.
Changes in the earth's climate are also the result of changes in these physical forces.
But what does it mean to say that the earth's temperatue is changing in "recovery" from another temperature?
"Recovery" hides the fact that no physical mechanism is offered in explanation.
I may as well explain that summer is a 'recovery" from winter.

Dr. Akasofu was a well-known researcher in aurora physics.
Retired now, he excercises his hobby [or hobbyhorse] as an expert for the Heartland Institute.
A discussion of his empty proposition --

JR said...

Dizzy (good name!),
... Heartland Institute ..." Sigh.. Your point would be what? That he can make more money doing work funded by a private institute than he can doing research with government funding? Get real!

"...suggests no physical mechanism"?? Akasofu's work points to natural causes for recent, as yet poorly understood, changes and states clearly that more research is urgently needed to account for (ie "quantify") any human influences.

Perhaps you can let us know what caused the MWP and LIA? Or any of the many other full blown ice ages and subsequent "recoveries". No? I didn't think so.

So, "recovery" means an "improvement" towards more hospitable (warmer) climes from earlier, colder climate. What could be simpler?