Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

20th Century temperatures explained as natural recovery from Little Ice Age

by on Feb. 16, 2012, under Climate change

A well-referenced paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, contends that 20th Century warming can be explained as a linear recovery from the “Little Ice Age (LIA)” as modified by solar-induced multi-decadal oscillations.  The author notes that the recovery since the end of the LIA in about 1850 has proceeded at the rate of 0.5°C/century and is expected to continue at least until the year 2100.  The author predicts that global temperature increase to 2100 will be “0.5°C ± 0.2° C, rather than 4° C ± 2.0° C predicted by the IPCC.”

This paper contains many interesting graphics and provides a good short summary of natural variation and the evidence for such variation.  The author does not find any evidence of influence by carbon dioxide emissions.  In fact, the author debunks some of the supposed evidence used to support the greenhouse effect.

 

 

The abstract reads:

A number of 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 to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that 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. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. 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 remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend.

Reference:

Akasofu, S.-I. 2010. On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Natural Science 2: 1211-1224.

[Link to full paper, click on Full Text]

Copyrighted by Jonathan DuHamel. Reprint is permitted provided that credit of authorship is provided and linked back to the source. Check the ARTICLE INDEX page for more posts on geology, natural history of the Sonoran desert, climate change, and energy. Also check the BOOK REVIEWS page.

More in Science & Technology:

Once upon a time in Crown King

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 7:24 am and is filed under Climate change. Tags for this post: , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • john_parsons

    I read all 14 pages of this twaddle. When a grammatical error appears in the abstract, one starts to immediately wonder about the review process. But when the online “journal” publishes papers for $300 a pop, I guess you can’t expect a lot of attention to detail. You can search “scam journals” or go to this Nature article to find out more about Dr. Akasofu’s choice of a publisher:   http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html. JP

  • john_parsons

    Disqus ate my homework. JP

  • john_parsons
    • Jonathan_Duhamel

      John’s sources:

      The “chimp” paper is written by a person who admits to great personal animosity toward Syun-Ichi Akasofu and tries to belittle him.

      The chimp paper author claims the “inputs (of carbon dioxide) at the time of the onset of the industrial revolution, ca. 1845, would not manifest significantly until 100 years later.” He must be unaware that it has been shown that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere less than ten years. (See Segalstad paper from Bate, R. (Ed.): “Global Warming: The Continuing Debate”, European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), Cambridge, England (ISBN 0-9527734-2-2), pages 184-219, 1998. Where he cites 36 papers showing the short residence time for CO2.)
      http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

      He also says that warming of the time since LIA is “consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.” Yet he fails to provide any supporting evidence.

      The other two URLs are from a blog “By Brisbane Waters” written by Tom Curtis, a self-described philosopher not a scientist.

      After setting up and destroying a “straw man” Curtis’ further argument is a study in pedantry.

      • john_parsons

        Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.   [Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Draft Report: 1990 -2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs]. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years. [Jacobson 2005] http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005JD005888.shtml   This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and a few other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.  [Archer, David 2009, "Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide"] While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. [Meehl, G. A., 2007], [Caldeira/Wickett, 2005].

        Since you offered know evidence to dispute Tom Curtis’ analysis, I can only presume you have none. JP

        • john_parsons

          I should have mentioned that although the author Jon links to above has published numerous articles on Climate, I could find none that were peer- reviewed. This seems so remarkable to me that I invite Jon or his readers to let me know if this is not the case.

          Additionally, I purposely chose Tom Curtis’ analysis because of the accessible nature of the presentation. There are dozens of rebuttals to Akasofu if anyone is interested in a more rigorous analysis.

          • Jonathan_Duhamel

            So John, are you saying it can’t be true if it’s not peer-reviewed? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

            • john_parsons

              Jon, It’s important to have experts in the field review technical matters in their specialty. For example I would rather have your opinion on the prospective value of a mineral claim than that of the local water witch, or even a great mathematician. 

              There’s a big difference between an appeal to authority and the advice of experts. When folks like you and I form opinions about topics outside our expertise, we are wise to have those opinions based on state of the art knowledge. 

              Of course I’m not saying “…it can’t be true…” if it isn’t peer-reviewed. I am saying not all opinions have equal weight. That’s why I often question your sources. I don’t do it to “belittle” the author of the opinion. I do it to show the relative value of the information. 

              Not all sources of information are equally valuable or reliable.   JP

«
»