What is the source of the rise in
atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?
by Shunichi Akasofu
Founding Director of the
International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The
rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was
mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to
increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2
emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years).
However, since 2001, this increase halted.
Despite this, CO2
emissions are still increasing.
According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures
should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the
hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed
to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of
this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the
increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something
greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect.
What that "something" is, is natural
From this author's research into natural (CO2
emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the
past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature
increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice
Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global
warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).
The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable
30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition,
this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year
2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has
begun to turn negative.
(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most
part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.)
This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates
0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50
years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely
pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand.
The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940
and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions
rapid increase after 1946).
Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently
researched natural variations, they claim that CO2
has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000,
although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric
temperature stabilized completely (despite CO2
emissions continuing to increase).
Since 1975 the chances of increase
in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are
high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative.
For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after
that, the negative cycle will probably continue.
Regarding the current temporary condition (la Niņa) JPL observes
a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note:
this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should
be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has
risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a
They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but
before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for
"truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony.
This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and
easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really
happen must be broken.
It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature
rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is
The end of Sunspot Cycle 23
is already two years late: the cycle should have started in
2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's
northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new
sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere).
At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots
in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest
levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is
So, have there been other historical periods with an absence of
As a matter of fact, from 1650 to
1700 approximately, there were almost no sunspots. This time
period has been named for the renown English astronomer
Maunder, and is called the Maunder Minimum.
There is a relationship between transported energy and the light
emissions from the photosphere and sunspots. It was thought that
times of few sunspots are times of lower energy. Satellites were
launched in 1980 to research this, and results were contrary to
expectations. It became clear that these times were more
energetic than periods of high sunspots.
Periods of low sunspots have
vigorous solar activity. The total change during sunspot cycles
is usually .01%, from the Maunder Minimum to today the increase
is .05%. The Maunder Minimum fell in the middle of the period of
1400-1800, the Little Ice Age, and it was theorized that
this was due to a cut in solar emissions. The theory is that
solar activity began to increase after that, and from 1800
global warming increased and recovery from the Little Ice Age
But sunspot change and climate change are not clearly
correlated. Rather, the cycle was not the punctual 11 years,
scientific research indicates that climate change is related to
that change. Furthermore, according to the IPCC's computational
investigation, this energy increase does not significantly
contribute to global warming.
But then, the IPCC insists that
current global warming correlates to CO2, solar
influence is estimated as minimal, this calculation should be
redone. This 0.1-0.5% is an enormous sum of energy. The energy
of solar emissions is not just light from the photosphere. Solar
winds cause geomagnetic storms, yet comparisons of solar wind
and light energy to particle emissions are rarely carried out.
Research into the relationship between geomagnetic storms and
climate change has been undertaken for almost 100 years.
However, because during this time,
this simple correlation has not been seen, no conclusion has
been reached. The super-hot temperatures of geomagnetic storms
higher than 100 kilometers have increased, and the chances of
the stratospheric and tropospheric transference are low.
Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary
considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer are affected.
Whether or not this affects the troposphere is unknown. More
research is necessary.
On the other hand, cosmic rays
continuously fall, it seems that they constantly seed
comparatively low clouds. The solar system may shield us
somewhat from Geomagnetic storms caused by solar winds, so
called "magnetic clouds" may shield us from extrasolar cosmic
rays, so solar activity and climate are in a complex
In this way, climate change and solar activity's relationship is
inconclusive. It is necessary to increase research efforts into
the relationship between Earth's climate fluctuations and solar
Predicting the Future with
by Kanya Kusano
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth
Science & Technology (JAMSTEC)
Numerical simulation by forecast models are generally classified
as theoretical models and empirical models.
The former follows universal laws
and carries out predictive calculations, the latter makes models
that are thought to be realistic from data of phenomenon. These
two methods cannot be strictly differentiated, generally
experiential methods gradually become theoretical methods,
finally becoming the generally accepted dogma.
Celestial mechanics originated in astrological prediction of
solar and lunar eclipses, calendars were experiential
predictions; mechanistic theory evolved when we reached an era
of accurate computation.
Consequently, the predictability of
celestial mechanics became extremely high and practical
estimates gave way to proof. Similarly, modern Global Climate
Models still largely dependent on empirical models.
Fundamental principles, therefore
must resolve very complex physical/chemical/biological processes
and phenomenon. That is why many artificial optimization
operations (parameterization tuning) are needed, or we will not
be able to reproduce the phenomenon.
Because of this, besides
mathematical accuracy, the people who construct models' choice
of processes and optimum operating guidelines will have large
scale effects on the calculated results.
Scientific Understanding and
When constructing models, if our scientific
understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model.
But we should pay attention to the importance of the
naturally occurring processes when our scientific
understanding is not yet clearly decided.
In the IPCC's 4th Evaluation Report, a few potentially major
processes were discussed; but [since] scientific
understanding was too low to decide, the evaluation of these
was omitted. In order to scientifically understand the
uncertainty of accurate estimates according to the potential
importance of these processes, "the cause of lack of
scientific understanding and uncertainty" must be assessed.
Finally, uncertainty estimates should be included. For
example, the effect of variances in cosmic ray activity on
clouds, caused by sunspot activity, solar flares accompanied
by energetic protons striking the upper atmosphere and
generating NOx and ozone effects [*], etc., are not
sufficiently understood and incorporated into the models.
Also, there are great uncertainties in reproducing
historical TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), TSI fluctuation and
spectral change related climate sensitivity estimates are
The limits of modeling
aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation
as the greatest uncertainty is becoming widely recognized,
but fundamental, naturally spontaneous (especially oceanic)
aerosols are not yet well understood.
Dimethyl sulfide (DMS: CH3SCH3)
of biological origin is thought to be a primary source of
sulphuric aerosol formation over oceans, but the process of
cloud cores forming from DMS is not sufficiently understood.
According to recent physical
models, the percentage of involvement of cosmic ray
ionization processes is not well understood.
Furthermore, the types of aerosols and the ways they affect
climate systems are not well understood. The increasing
number of aerosols, in this case, augments precipitation,
but if it increases too much, water droplet diameter will
decrease and cloud generation will be renewed, and the
albedo will be changed
significantly. Thus, the fine-scale physical processes of
clouds causing feedback in geological climate fluctuation
now clearly points at this as a decisively material effect.
However, the discussion of the properties and life span of
aerosols in clouds in the IPCC 4th Evaluation
Report is inadequate.
Predictability and estimation
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the
reliability of its assessment that previous data does not
differ from its model. But a more effectively persuasive
assessment of its predictive ability has not come forth.
This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting
solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in
Again, by means of short
metaphase models and domain models, future information
feedback can be isolated in hindcast experiments
(reproducing the past according to the model) and
quantitatively compared to long term climate predictions
global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to
accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics
theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of
reliance on trial and error experiential models.
There are still no successful
The significance of this is that
climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic
greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation
Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric
temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously
increase, should be perceived as an improvable
hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and
to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural