|
Post by hilbert on May 15, 2009 0:26:56 GMT
An example; we have (curves are from the US executive branch) which is bad enough--one might plausibly argue, though, that we need to wait more time, even though the measured value is already close to the peak of the higher curve. Hansen, though, predicts as follows: and, as I understand (which I might not), allows no wiggle room for natural variation. Isn't this enough to falsify Hansen's prediction?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 15, 2009 2:07:42 GMT
where did you get the graph of the Hansen projection?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 15, 2009 12:57:25 GMT
There's an article on "Watts Up With That" (WUWT); it might also be in Climate Science. Let me know, if you have trouble finding it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 15, 2009 18:34:57 GMT
"Possible lower limit" seems impossibly low. There's no way Hansen claimed such a tight limit would exist in just a 7 year period. My bet is that someone has taken a longer term projected rate from Hansen and compared it with a much shorter period.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2009 19:49:15 GMT
The Hansen paper did not make a prediction. It noted that the ocean data 1993 to 2003 supported the other data on the earth's energy balance, and then "inferred" that the trend would continue.
The lower limit in this plot is I presume based on the uncertainty in the observed trend.
Yes I would like to know why the ocean data went flat. I bet it has started going up though now.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 13:49:33 GMT
The Hansen paper did not make a prediction. It noted that the ocean data 1993 to 2003 supported the other data on the earth's energy balance, and then "inferred" that the trend would continue. LOL! but he forgot to carry some figures in adding it all up. The lower limit in this plot is I presume based on the uncertainty in the observed trend. Yes I would like to know why the ocean data went flat. I bet it has started going up though now. Is that a prediction or an inference? If an inference what did you base it on?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 16, 2009 17:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on May 16, 2009 19:19:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 19:37:04 GMT
Averages (and other single statistics ) can be quite deceiving. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I would like to see data ( or projections ) such as this annotated with other relevant statistics, such as mode, median, StdDev, and so forth. Possibly even a frequency histogram and/or probability curve. I don't expect a full statistical workup on a forum such as this, but a bit more information would benefit everyone. In case anyone wonders, I have the same concern with most statistics for public consumption, that originate with various media or govt institutions.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 16, 2009 20:26:08 GMT
In the opening paragraph of the paper socold refers to, the authors stated that one of the bases for their study included "...correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data."
They are not clear regarding the specific methodology or the reason for their massaging of the data.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 22:00:57 GMT
In the opening paragraph of the paper socold refers to, the authors stated that one of the bases for their study included "...correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data." They are not clear regarding the specific methodology or the reason for their massaging of the data. I'm assuming you were replying to my previous. Given what you said, I would not attribute much credibility to this report. The data (as presented ) do not support any conclusions at this time.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 22:32:21 GMT
In the opening paragraph of the paper socold refers to, the authors stated that one of the bases for their study included "...correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data." They are not clear regarding the specific methodology or the reason for their massaging of the data. I'm assuming you were replying to my previous. Given what you said, I would not attribute much credibility to this report. The data (as presented ) do not support any conclusions at this time. Methodology: As directed from above. Support for conclusions: None except to note of the various OHC analyses I have seen this is the most aggressive for the AGW perspective and it does not support Steve's contention of OHC going up but instead characterizes it as "plateaued".
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 22:42:59 GMT
I'm assuming you were replying to my previous. Given what you said, I would not attribute much credibility to this report. The data (as presented ) do not support any conclusions at this time. Methodology: As directed from above. Support for conclusions: None except to note of the various OHC analyses I have seen this is the most aggressive for the AGW perspective and it does not support Steve's contention of OHC going up but instead characterizes it as "plateaued". Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 22:57:48 GMT
Methodology: As directed from above. Support for conclusions: None except to note of the various OHC analyses I have seen this is the most aggressive for the AGW perspective and it does not support Steve's contention of OHC going up but instead characterizes it as "plateaued". Thank you. The sound you heard from socold was the sound of him sucking air as he stepped off the edge. Bottom line is even the most aggressive of analyses falsifies the models. The last bastion of hope for the models is everybody got the OHC wrong and the authors of the study socold published went out of their way saying repeatedly they had no clue if the adjustments they were making were right.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2009 3:01:45 GMT
The sound you heard from socold was the sound of him sucking air as he stepped off the edge. Bottom line is even the most aggressive of analyses falsifies the models. The last bastion of hope for the models is everybody got the OHC wrong and the authors of the study socold published went out of their way saying repeatedly they had no clue if the adjustments they were making were right. The sound george, is actually the skeptics frantically backpeddling. Levitus, the main author of that study was the skeptics golden boy a few years back when he published a paper saying OHC had fallen by 1/3 in recent years. Subsequent publications later and he's now become accused of massaging figures. When skeptics don't like a piece of research, they opt for conspiracy theories.
|
|