Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global Warming”
Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11
Dana A. Nuccitelli, John P. Abraham, Rasmus E. Benestad and Scott A. Mandia
Abstract: A recent article which has set forth new interpretations of Earth’s recent climate history has included some questions of authentic scientific inquiry, particularly related to the impact of ocean oscillations on atmospheric temperatures. In fact, this very issue is currently being investigated by multiple research groups. On the other hand, the claim that a two-century linear temperature increase is a recovery from a recent cool period is not supported by the data. Furthermore, this thermal recovery hypothesis is not connected to any physical phenomenon; rather it is a result of a simplistic and incorrect curve-fitting operation. Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.). Each of these errors brings serious question to the conclusions drawn in the referenced article. The simultaneous occurrence of all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.
Also see:
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking, Skeptical Science
Magical climate contrarian thinking debunked by real science, Guardian
Why I Resigned from the Editorial Board of Climate over its Akasofu Publication – Chris Brierley
Global Warming: Man or Myth? 
Very nice rebuttal gentlemen. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
arch stanton
September 19, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Thing is….the science community shouldn’t be forced to respond to the Akasosfu paper given how it is only, the latest in an endless stream of “AGW skeptical” reports, the whole purpose of which is to keep scientists responding and rebutting other scientists reports thereby emulating a behavior patter that strongly suggests to the layman that the science is not settled on the question of whether GW exists and/or is overwhelmingly the result of human activity, namely fossil fuel use.
The reason we can be quite sure of the motive behind the paper’s conception is how it, like so many other from GW “skeptics”, can be relied on to contain errors of such a fundamental nature that it beggars belief to suppose that somehow all these “innocent mistakes” seem to be occurring overwhelmingly on that (or ANY) side of the AGW debate with a frequency of such o statistically improbable nature. Reality simply does not work that way.
Gary Williams
September 22, 2013 at 11:45 pm
I agree Gary. However the alternative of leaving such papers unchallenged to become fodder for the likes of Watts and Morano, is even uglier.
I see that this particular paper is (another) involving resignations of members of an editorial board over the quality of the papers accepted for publication.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/74
arch stanton
September 23, 2013 at 9:55 am
[…] 2013/09/19: SMandia: Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global War… […]
Another Week in the Ecological Crises, September 22, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered
September 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Dana, did you actually read this before “rebutting” it, or did you just give it your old Amazon-book-review treatment? If so, you can use your famous line when challenged: “I never said I read the [paper], I merely criticized the factually inaccurate claims it makes”!
Brad Keyes
October 30, 2013 at 10:24 am
Brad, anyone who actually read the (published) paper would be able to answer that.
arch stanton
October 30, 2013 at 11:13 am
[snip]
[Mandia: Enough sniping, esp. without any evidence of impropriety]
Brad Keyes
October 30, 2013 at 11:47 am
Obviously you did not read the paper.
Obviously you made an attempt at innuendo as ad hominem.
arch stanton
October 30, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Such power to perceive the obvious must make you highly employable!
In any case, dishonesty goes directly and intimately to the core of one’s ability to do science. Is it, therefore, ad hominem to comment on the probity of a “scientist”?
[Mandia: Brad, please move on or risk having future comments being moderated.]
Brad Keyes
October 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm
[…] to those 2 already well rebutted articles by Craig Loehle and Akasofu? In their shorts? Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global Warming” | Global … RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress Shall we call it hide the […]
Global Warming Deniers - Are they STUPID? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 35 - City-Data Forum
January 18, 2014 at 3:13 am