Kudos again Laura for posting different viewpoints on this topic.

That's basically what us anti-AGW people have been claiming all along...it's only common sense. Nice to add another distinguished name to the growing list of "critics" as he refers to himself.

As a graduate student and a postdoc, I did a considerable amount of research involving statistical information processing. Given the data that he used, I find Dr. Akasofu's analysis to be quite reasonable. I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with the way he analyzed the data.

Nice paper. The inability of the models to hindcast (already known, but nice to see in a paper) cuts the legs out from under the IPCC and evironmental whackos cleanly. Either (A) the models are wrong or (B) the data is wrong. The author covers the (B) part, so the IPCC & company are basically proven to be pushing a lie.

Which is why, despite Ms. Hannon's desires, politics keeps rearing its ugly head here. Without the science, it is follow the money time.

Outstanding paper! This is what I've been asking about for a long time. It is also what I've been saying all along that common sense needs to take hold here and to stop the chicken little syndrome.

More studies must be made, more questioning and less political BS.

Of course coming out of a little ice age is a cause for global warming. That's what some of us have been saying, along with other reasons. There are too many unanswered questions for us to immediately jump on the "we are creating most of the global warming" band wagon.

How much are we contributing? Has it not been warm before manmade gases? What about other influences such as cyclical variations, nature, solar energy, coming out of a little ice age, etc.? Should we tax ourselves out of prosperity based on inconclusive science? Of course not, wake up!

After 150 years of industrialization, the sea levels have risen by....? Apocolyptic, right?

Having just completed a quick perusal of the complete paper, I am wondering if Laura is still skeptical of the author's work. I've also noticed that the AGW crowd hasn't been debunking the paper as of yet.

My favorite figure in the paper is Figure 9 depicting the retreat of the glaciers in Glacier Bay since 1794. My question is: If increased carbon dioxide is causing the glaciers to retreat at an unprecedented pace, why did the bulk of the retreat in Glacier Bay occur before 1907?

Meanwhile, the brainless wonders at the UN are spewing out this utterly comical and nonsensical rubbish:

"Global warming could cause more hunger in Africa and melt most Himalayan glaciers by the 2030s, according to a draft UN report due on Friday"

We are talking about a potentially catastrophic set of developments," Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Program"

Paul - the skepticism I referred to in my entry was Dr. Akasofu's, not my own. I thought his paper was very interesting.

Sorry, Laura.

My mistake.

At first read, this seems like a well-written and reasoned paper. I'll be interested to see how the AGW community responds.

I note that Dr. Akasofu seems to argue, in essence, that the warming we've observed is natural, not anthropogenic. He does not seem to dispute the reality of the warming.

Please reread the quote offered by The Skeptic:
Global warming could cause more hunger in Africa and melt most Himalayan glaciers by the 2030s, according to a draft UN report due on Friday

Nothing in Dr. Akasofu's paper challenges this statement. While "Paul" and "The Skeptic" may enjoy debating whether the Titanic hit the iceberg on the port or starboard bow, that debate is irrelevant to the reality that the ship is, in fact, sinking.

Global warming is taking place. It is a serious problem. If the warming is natural, it is still warming and still accelerating. Dr. Akasofu does not claim that CO2 cannot accelerate whatever warming is taking place. His piece insteads seems to argue that we have not yet convincingly measured the anthropogenic component of that warming.

I think any end-zone displays by the deniers are therefore very premature. We face a serious problem and we need to figure out what to do about it.

Sorry BT, but I fail to see the seriousness if things happen as gradually as they have been. It's my firm belief that none of the dire consequences put forth by the IPCC will come to pass, that mankind will adapt quite nicely to this period of warming and lots of good things will come to pass because of it. Mostly a reduced heating bill in the winter and a longer growing season. If it gets too hot in the south, people will move north, same thing for wet and dry areas. I love the heat in the summer and would like to see it hang around for longer living as I do in Canada.

Tom,
Dr Akatofosu's paper draws from secondary sources, and based on a purely rational observation, he speculates that all of our warming since the coldest period of the LIA is just a rebound of a 500 global cold snap. What caused the 500 year LIA, or the the preceeding 400 year MWP is immaterial. His observation is that the warming of the last 150 years follows a normal curve if you take into account the global climate of the last 2000 years.

Many of the glaciers that so worry geologists are relatively new; they do not precede the LIA. Climate catastrophes are nothing new. From ancient Egyptian dynasties, to the Aztecs, Ming Dynasties, to the Anazai Indians and the Roman Empire, Climate catastrophes have played a major role. The Jamestown and Roanoke colonies of the 17th century perished during the worst draught to hit North America in 800 years -this draught occured during the coldest years of the LIA.

Geologists are correct to worry about melting glacier - they provide 1 billion people with potable water. It is natural for humans to attempt to find the root causes of major problems. The above cited study should worry people. If the current warming is not anthropegenic, there is essientially nothing we can do to slow the trend of rapidly rising temps. Europe during the last major warm period (MWP), based in decade after decade of warm winters, hot summers, and an ever increasing increase in farmable land. In the 12 Century, corn and wheat were grown in areas as far north as Lapland, and Catholic Pilgrims ventured through Alpine mountain passes that have only recently become open again. Despite this plentitude in Europe, droughts plagued China, India, and South America. The Anazai Indians though flourished on thier maize rich mesa plateaus.

The Little Ice Age was very slow in evolving from a human perspective. Until the last 30 years, most humans were almost pre-programmed with a code that lived with cold climate. This rapid, recent warming is reminicsent of the 10 and 11 centuries; we have just now apporached global temps as warm as that period. The challange today is to recognize what we can "control"; I am from the Roger Pielke Sn School in that respect. We can with a little effort manage our lands better (esp our dwindling Rain Forests) We can with a lot of expense manage our finite clean water supply better, not to mention control the amount of harmful pollutants we throw into the atmosphere. We cannot control the amount or duration of incoming solar radiation, or our ocean's ability to absorb, circulate, or manage that energy.

JP, we seem to land in about the same place.

In particular, I like the way that you've noted that saying that the rapid recent warming is natural does not, therefore, mean that we have nothing to worry about. I also agree with you that if it turns out NOT to be anthropogenic, that could be even more problemmatic because it means there is less reason to believe we can do anything to slow or avoid it.

All in all, as wrote earlier, I think Dr. Akatofosu has written a thoughtful and provocative piece. I look forward to seeing how the climatological scientific community reacts to it.

Mr. Brookline,

"If the warming is natural, it is still warming and still accelerating."

This line from your post above is quite interesting. On what, do you base this statement? Computer models that are poorly calibrated or not calibrated at all? Empirical data? Consensus? Because the carbon dioxide curve does not correlate with the temperature curve. Otherwise, if carbon dioxide concentration drives temperature, one would expect to have seen an increase in temperature from the 40's through the early 70's instead of the decrease we see in the empirical record. That is when the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations really started accelerating. How about enlightening me on how this happens? I eagerly anticipate your response.

Instead of pontificating and bloviating about global warming, how about coming up with some hard facts that support your thesis, other than a consensus of scientists say so? There is no such animal as "consensus" science. Never has, never will be.

I know, it's much more fun to ridicule the "deniers" than to actually debate them. Therefore, I do not expect any kind of serious discussion from you. Until the next time!!

"If the warming is natural, it is still warming and still accelerating."

I second the question Paul asked, where do you get the data to base this comment on? Especially the interesting "accelerating" bit.

On what, do you base this statement?

In this case, the figures in Dr. Akatofosu's paper (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, to be more precise).

Apparently Paul is another denier who feels no need to actually read the material he comments on -- including both the paper by Akatofusu and my comments about it.

Yup, just more evidence that the planet is about to burn up....

From The Alaska Climate Research Center, which is a research and service organization at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks. The group conducts research focusing on Alaska and polar regions climatology and we archive climatological data for Alaska.

Fairbanks residents experienced nearly the coldest March on record this year with an average temperature of -6.5?F, just one tenth of a degree shy of the record cold of 1959. This is a departure of -17.6?F from the average March temperature . The high of 41?F on the last day of the month broke a string of 111 consecutive days (or since December 9th) that the temperature did not reach freezing. Only twice during March was the low temperature not below zero and the lowest temperature for the month was -39?F on the 2nd. As might be expected with the cold, heating degree days were more than 500 units above average at about 2200 units. Along with the cold and mostly sunny skies was below normal precipitation amounts. This is normally the time of year with very light precipitation, and the total snowfall this March was 3.3 inches, about 2 inches below average. To date, the seasonal snowfall total of 28.0 inches is well below average and is the third lowest total on record. Liquid water equivalent precipitation for March was 0.20 inch, about 70% of normal. The seasonal snowpack reached a peak during the month and was at 16 inches by months end.