Climate Book By Japanese Physics Professor: “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore”…IPCC “Scientifically Immoral”

By Kirye
Edited by P Gosselin

A climate skeptic book by Japanese physicist and Professor Emeritus Yuh Fukai released in October, 2015, was recently released in Kindle version. The title of the book in Japanese is: 地球はもう温暖化していない, which  means:

The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore“.


Japanese physicist says IPCC is “scientifically immoral”… “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore “

In his book Dr. Fukai quotes many scientists such as Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, Dr. Kunihiko Takeda and Dr. Kiminori Itoh. Also prominently featured are charts by R. J. Donohue et al, Dr. Roy Spencer, and Dr. John Christy. Dr. Fukai writes: “An enormous amount of meteorological balloon data of great worth ignored by IPCC were employed in Christy’s 2015 graph.”

CO2 “a good thing” …studies show global greening

Dr. Fukai also points out that global vegetation coverage increased by 11% in 29 years, from 1982 to 2010, as increasing CO2 has helped the greening of the Sahel and Sahara Desert. He contradicts the often heard media claims that drought is spreading globally, writing: “The media spread the word that desertification is progressing globally, but practically the desert is greening through CO2.” […] “Everyone should be aware that increasing CO2 concentrations in atmosphere is not in itself harmful, but it’s a good thing.”

No correlation

Dr. Fukai also shows that the earth’s temperature change is not simple and does not correlate at all with CO2. He shows graphs from D. M. Etheridge et al., Mauna Loa Observatory and the temperature data from Moberg et al. (2005).

Chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt 

The retired Japanese professor writes that at around 1000 A.D. — the Medieval Warm Period — there were no signs showing CO2 concentration was higher. A temperature graph using data from Moberg et al. (2005) shows the Medieval Warm Period appears clearly and that CO2 was in fact around 280 ppm at that time.

Warming better for humans

In addition he writes that from a historical perspective, “warming brought about no trouble to human life.”

Fukai notes that in Japan the great famine of Kanei (1640 to 1643) and the great famine of Genroku (1695 to 1696) happened during the Little Ice Age, a dark and gloomy period of crop failures and paranoid witch hunts. He writes: “We have never heard of a famine resulting in a warming period”, and that “global cooling was terror for humans.”

Suppressed views

He notes that public opinion in Japan has been almost universally behind the claim that humans are the main cause of warming. Some 91% of Japanese citizens believe it. A shocking number compared to other countries. It is certain the media were in part hugely responsible, he writes.

Dissent is rare in Japan

“Articles by outspoken journalists overseas, however, have put the brakes on the CO2-made global warming hypothesis. There is no chance of that here in Japan. Japanese journalists have suppressed views that challenge the hypothesis,” Fukai writes.

According to Fukai: “Among Japanese earth scientists, only Dr. Shigenori Maruyama has sharply criticized the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 from a paleoclimatology point of view.”

But he adds: “Many solar researchers stand for an opinion that solar activity plays a major role in driving the climate.”  In Japan there are Dr. Kunitomo Sakurai and Dr. Hiroko Miyahara.

IPCC “scientifically immoral”

About the IPCC, he writes: “The IPCC are fixated on global warming being caused by CO2, and simply ignore all other factors and that their attitude is scientifically immoral.”

He notes in his book, citing NoTricksZone, that Prof. Hans von Storch “Fears that science is taking a role in political decision processes” and “sea level rise fears are unwarranted because long-term tide gauge data show 21st century sea level rise will be approximately as much as the 20th century“.

==========================================

Yuh Fukai is Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University Areas of Specialization: Metal Physics, Materials Science, Earth Sciences. He graduated from the Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, the University of Tokyo in 1958 with a major in geophysics. In 1963, he received his Doctor of Science for completing the doctorate program at the university’s Graduate School of Science. Dr. Fukai currently works as a visiting researcher at the Institute of Materials Structure Science and the Institute of Industrial Science, the University of Tokyo. Though he specializes in materials science as well as in metal physics, he also has interest in earth sciences as well as climate change and energy issues.

His primary works include The Physics of Diffusion Phenomena [Kakusan Gensho no Butsuri] (Asakura Shoten, 1988), Hydrogen and Metals [Suiso to Kinzoku] (Uchida Rokakuho, 1998), The Metal-Hydrogen System (Springer, 2005), Climate Change and Energy Issues [Kiko Hendo to Enerugi Mondai] (Chuko Shinsho, 2011), and The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore [Chikyu wa Mou Ondanka Shiteinai] (Heibonsha Shinsho 2015).

44 responses to “Climate Book By Japanese Physics Professor: “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore”…IPCC “Scientifically Immoral””

  1. RobK

    Thanks. These kind of testimonials from experts are important to lay people such as myself.

    1. SebastianH

      Read from better experts. The guy in the article has it wrong.

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        Confirmation bias, Seb.
        Confirmation bias.

        “Better” experts just means those who agree with your viewpoint.

        But if you had something substantive to say, e.g., a refutal (using data) of any of the points made by Kirye or Yuh Fukai, you would have said it already, right?

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the English-speaking MSM finally report on what the [ostensibly 3%] have to say, at least once in a while!

    But I’m having trouble getting my arms around “scientifically immoral” as a coherent concept. “Immorality” is a religious concept, which requires contravening religious or belief norms. Or behaving in such a fashion.

    Science, on the other hand, is, like Agent Friday from the Dragnet TV series, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” So if you tweak or misrepresent the data, and/or exaggerate the conclusions beyond what sound science would enable you to do, you are just being an unscientific twerp and are worthy of being ignored.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      In just English, here is a list, take your pick:
      https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/immoral

      Other languages likely could suggest more.

    2. SebastianH

      Kurt, [snip – irrelevant analogy] It would be refreshing if you guys finally tried to understand science and not abuse it like you guys constantly do …

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        Seb,

        You wouldn’t know science if it were a brick which hit you between the eyes.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Seb, You wouldn’t know science if it were a brick which hit you between the eyes.

          SebastianH actually believes it is “science” when he claims that humans cause volcanoes to erupt…by increasing CO2 emissions.

          SebastianH: “Less weight from melting ice causes less pressure to contain the magma, thus causing volcanoes to errupt. Perfectly good and very plausible science.”

          He also believes humans are causing the Earth to spin faster (or slower, depending upon the alarmist source) on its axis just by raising CO2 emissions. And he calls this “perfectly good science”.

          Can’t make this stuff up. If it weren’t so preposterous, it would be laugh-worthy. But he actually believes this is what real science is.

          1. SebastianH

            Kenneth, you don’t believe decreasing ice mass does cause land to lift and thus volcanoes to erupt? You don’t believe that shifting mass has an influence on how fast the Earth spins? And you don’t seem to understand that different things that happen due to climate change have different effects … like slowing down or faster spinning. Your reply indicates you think this is a contradiction.

            Really can’t make it up. Kurt’s brick must have hit you hard. And that irrelevant analogy snip above … way to go censoring comments from people you dislike. Do you really think every opinion no matter how ridiculous deserves equal airtime?

            You guys seem to really believe you are right and everybody else is wrong… just wow 😉

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth, you don’t believe decreasing ice mass does cause land to lift and thus volcanoes to erupt?

            Hmmm. During the Little Ice Age “explosive volcanism” had the effect of lowering temperatures and glaciating the Northern Hemisphere. So the opposite happened: ice sheets gained mass at the same time volcanoes were erupting far more often than they did during the 20th and 21st centuries. Then, during the 20th and 21st centuries, when volcanoes erupted less often, deglaciation occurred — the exact opposite of what you’re asking me to believe in regarding ice sheet recession leading to more volcanism.

            So we have observations undermining the belief that you espouse. In science, when this happens, we discard the hypothesis. We don’t continue to maintain it as truth…or call it “perfectly good science”.

            Similarly, when it’s claimed that CO2 rise causes ice sheet melt, and then we learn that the ice sheets melted far more when CO2 was lower (i.e., during the 1920-1950 period) than it has since it began rising (just 1.5 cm of meltwater contribution to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets combined during 1958-2014!), we question the validity of this unsupported claim. And then we look for other explanations since this one isn’t consistent with the observations. That’s what skeptics do, anyway. Believers just keep on believing.

            You don’t believe that shifting mass has an influence on how fast the Earth spins?

            How much faster (or slower) does the Earth spin with the 1.5 cm of meltwater equivalent from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets between 1958-2014? What are those measurements from the observations? Do you have them, or is it enough to say that there’s “an effect” without quantifying?

            And is the Earth’s spinning faster or is it slowing with the ice sheet melt? Which is the right “science”? Since, you know, this is “perfectly good” science and we have contradictory results?

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
            2002: “[I]ncreasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555
            2007: “Global warming will make Earth spin faster”

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-change-longer-days-glaciers-north-south-pole
            2015: “[W]ater from shrinking glaciers slows Earth’s rotation”

            http://www.livescience.com/53071-melting-glaciers-change-earth-spin.html
            2015: “Earth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Melt”

            And you don’t seem to understand that different things that happen due to climate change have different effects

            Ooh. That’s specific. Different things happen due to different effects. What would those different things be? Be sure to provide these measurements the things and not your usual “Don’t you agree there’s an effect?” convolution.

            And that irrelevant analogy snip above … way to go censoring comments from people you dislike.

            I’m censoring your ridiculous and irrelevant analogies. You claimed (with your analogy) that the commentators here you disagree with are like the guy telling the other guy who’s being rained on that it’s not raining. Not only is that not what’s going on here, we are not writing about rain — or whether or not it’s raining. We’re writing about the scientific evidence supporting or undermining the claim that humans melt the ice sheets from below with our CO2 emissions. We’re not talking about rain. Or frogs. Or rockets. Or asteroids. Or bank accounts. Stick to the topic and stop concocting these worthless analogies that no one bothers to even read.

          3. SebastianH

            So the opposite happened: ice sheets gained mass at the same time volcanoes were erupting far more often

            We are talking about volcanoes that are located below ice, don’t bring other things influencing volcanoes or being influenced by volcanoes into this.

            You act the same… snip – please end all the stupid ramblings where you claim you are always right. If you want your long-winded comments to appear, then make them using your real identity and present to us your qualifications. As mentioned earlier, you act like you have multiple PhDs and have won half a dozen Nobel Prizes. Please tell us your qualifications if you are going to demand we believe your every word. -PG]

          4. SebastianH

            Na, sorry Kenneth you will never get to know how wrong you are to call these thing contradicting… fun times. And you guys feel suppressed? 🙂 oh the irony

    3. Kenneth Richard

      So if you tweak or misrepresent the data, and/or exaggerate the conclusions beyond what sound science would enable you to do, you are just being an unscientific twerp and are worthy of being ignored.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/exposing-staggering-ice-sheet-melt-deceptions/
      Exposing “Staggering” Ice Sheet Melt Deceptions

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        Yup, Kenneth: those fellows deserve to be ignored.
        By scientists.
        Or ridiculed.
        By the MSM.
        And the rest.

        Yet their errors are ignored by the scientists, without comment.
        And their follow-on papers are lapped up like puppy-pablum.
        By “scientific” organizations.

        And the MSM [cluelessly?] or perhaps intentionally play the game.
        Of cloak and mirrors and climate Armageddon.
        ‘Cause it fits the meme.

  3. Dan Pangburn

    What Dr. Fukai perceived three years ago is being confirmed. Satellite measures of temperature (lower atmosphere, but surface measurements are corroborative) are about what they were in 2002 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp50wMHU4AAl6J2.jpg while CO2 has increased by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002.

  4. Dee

    Funny fact:

    NASA’s own facts say that there has been no global warming either, since at least 1972.

    According to NASA, as at 2017, the average global temperature was 288k or 15°c.

    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    In 1972, Sagan and Mullen stated that the average global temperature was estimated at being between 286 and 288k.

    https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

    In the interim there’s been an increase of around 60ppm atmospheric CO2 as far as I recall.

    And nothing of note has occurred as a consequence.

  5. Climate Book By Japanese Physics Professor: "The Globe Isn't Warming Anymore"…IPCC "Scientifically Immoral" | Un hobby...

    […] Kirye, October 23, 2048 in […]

  6. Japanese Physic's Professor: 'The Globe Isn't Warming Anymore' | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  7. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    On Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Dr Tim Ball by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
    http://www.drtimball.com

  8. Neues Klimaziel: Globale Abkühlung auf minus zwei Grad begrenzen! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Klima-Buch eines Physik-Professors aus Japan: Die Erde erwärmt sich nicht mehr – IPCC „… […]

  9. Steve

    I defend the right of SebH to have opinions, correct or otherwise.
    It seems to me he has a lot of time to waste.
    The Sun is the main driver of climate IMO.
    If that is true, then there is nothing one can do about it, except to adapt.
    Simple really!

    1. Robert Folkerts

      Steve, I think the same regarding a person’s opinions.

      However from what Seb h espouses on this site, it appears he is not in agreement with that concept.

    2. SebastianH

      Na, not allowed to have one. Everything now gets ultra censored … this comment might not get through either. Whatever, you have fun in this curated echo chamber of yours.

      1. John Brown

        Not sure what you complain about. With all the snips going on your post sound even cogent!

  10. Robert Folkerts

    Seb, surely you can see you have been pushing some boundaries lately.
    You have exhibited a lot of rudeness and arrogance in increasing measure.
    Hardly surprising you get your wings clipped a little.

  11. ME

    Seb doesn,t understand English apparently , so his comments are not clear.Read the previous two entries. He thinks that he is not allowed to have an opinion which is the opposite of what Robert Folkerts wrote. He thinks everyone can have an opinion.
    Mine is that the article is interesting. My qualifications only allow me to say that much.

    1. SebastianH

      He thinks that he is not allowed to have an opinion which is the opposite of what Robert Folkerts wrote. He thinks everyone can have an opinion.

      I am not quite sure if you understand English. What are you trying to say?

      I am merely stating that a lot of comments get deleted lately and the parts that get “snipped” aren’t what the “snips” say they were. Apparently I am not allowed to challenge what you guys write and think anymore.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Apparently I am not allowed to challenge what you guys write and think anymore.

        Your ad hominem comments attacking the credentials of the source and the incessant you-guys-believe-in-nonsense cheap shots are not considered “challenges”.

        1. SebastianH

          So attacking me and questioning my qualification is not ad hominem? Writing that I am a beliefer and you are not is not such a cheap shot?

          Why is it ok when you guys do it, but when someone replies in kind the outrage ensues?

          P.S.: Earth spins faster and slower due to climate change. Read those articles you found to be contradictory and understand that they are all talking about different effects and not about the net influence of climate change as a whole on Earth’s spin. I find it aggravating that either you or Pierre just deleted that reply, letting what you wrote stand unrefuted …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            So attacking me and questioning my qualification is not ad hominem?

            Will you stop this petulant whining already? Does “But he did it to me!” go over well where you live?

            You claimed that this Ph.D physics professor lacked the qualifications to be considered a real expert, which, by definition, is an ad hominem. Pierre challenged you to cite your qualifications. You haven’t.

            P.S.: Earth spins faster and slower due to climate change.

            Provide the measurements, then. How much faster/slower (which is it?) does the Earth spin now that the ice sheets have contributed 1.5 cm to sea levels during 1958-2014?

            The 2015 paper claiming Earth-spinning speed changes came from the same December, 2015 paper. One journalist source said the Earth spins faster due to ice sheet melt. The other journalist source said the Earth spins slower due to ice sheet melt. Again, these contradictory results are being reported from the same paper! But of course you believe the journalists are not contradicting each other. They’re both right at the same time. Because if you believe it’s true, it is. That’s how you operate.

          2. SebastianH

            Will you stop this petulant whining already? Does “But he did it to me!” go over well where you live?

            I am complaining about the different standards you guys apply. I don’t care what you do to me …

            You claimed that this Ph.D physics professor lacked the qualifications to be considered a real expert, which, by definition, is an ad hominem.

            What exactly did I write?

            Pierre challenged you to cite your qualifications. You haven’t.

            Yes I did. I wrote that I lack any qualification in climate science as all of you guys do as well. I wrote that highschool math should be enough in most cases. I will now add that knowing how to write software is also helpful to understand the computer models scientists use.

            This reply was likely deleted.

            Provide the measurements, then. How much faster/slower (which is it?) does the Earth spin now that the ice sheets have contributed 1.5 cm to sea levels during 1958-2014?

            That requires a second Earth where this hasn’t occured. The shift in mass however gets monitored by satellites as well as the duration of a day.

            Why do you still ask “which is it”? Those effects pale compared to the effect the Moon has on the spin rate and each effect from the articles you linked to adds or subtracts from that.

            Again, these contradictory results are being reported from the same paper! But of course you believe the journalists are not contradicting each other. They’re both right at the same time. Because if you believe it’s true, it is. That’s how you operate.

            Just read and understand the paper they are referring to:
            http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500679

            It – surprise – contains both: reasons for Earth spinning faster and for Earth spinning slower due to ice melt.

  12. Mystified

    Could this be the culprit ?

    CEO and Professor in Climate Change

    Sebastian H. Mernild , Ph.D., Dr. Scient.

    Lead Author on the next IPCC Assessment Report, AR6

    If it is, then it’s another example of AGW global preaching .

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #333 | Watts Up With That?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close