|
Post by magellan on Nov 10, 2009 3:08:52 GMT
Here is more for you Steve. From Akasofu on the use of the linear line for approximating temperature change: Bryant (1997) showed statistically that the linear approximation is accurate, with only a few points being outside 95% confidence limits. Bryant, E. 1997. Climate Process and Change. Cambridge University Press Once one begins examining weather/climate processes it becomes staggeringly apparent just what a bit player CO2 is in the equation of it all. I've said it before and will say again, the oceans are the key to our habitat on the surface. Read Erl Happ's 'The Climate Engine'. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/the-climate-engine/#commentsThere are distinct patterns in warming/cooling cycles, all of which are dominated by ENSO events. It's very obvious. Below is pale in comparison to Erl Happ and others, but it is what I've using to get a good idea of upcoming global temps based on UAH satellite and why in all probability 2010 will result in a drop in global temp similar to what has been observed in previous years, maybe even more so than 2008 (2010/2011 La Nina). Keep SOI in mind through all this; the relationship to global temps and ENSO is uncanny. Now as this El Nino has developed, again there will be a cycle just as there always is, bar some extraordinary event such as a huge volcano. Hurricanes also throw things out of whack a bit. Unless OHC makes a decided turn upward, to say 2010 or 2011 will exceed 1998 (globally) due to CO2 is based on a foundation of quicksand IMO, and wishful thinking. I expect global temps to peak in Jan or Feb 2010 then decidedly will begin to tumble by late summer if not earlier. It all depends on what Nino 3.4 does in Nov/Dec. Currently it looks to be somewhat mimicking 2006/2007. Time will tell. A few simple observations: 1) First, note El Nino and La Nina events since 1979 and the corresponding ONI. 2) Next, we have all the ocean metrics from UAH T2LT records. Lots of noise, almost as much as the hockey stick spaghetti graph. Note both NoPol and SoPol ocean temps are steadily going downward. 3) Yet, within all that noise, there are patterns and cycles within each ENSO event the oceans appear to follow year after year. For now we'll only look at El Nino and how global satellite temperature relates to it. Keep in mind SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) throughout all of this; the correlation is real. As has been discussed by Christy et al 2008, the CO2 warming signal is so small to be barely detectable. Since CO2 signal should be uniform and linear, fluctuations in temperature have nothing whatsoever to do with GHG emissions. None, zero, zilch. Beginning with 1997/1998 El Nino, it looks pretty chaotic, the pattern is there, just out of sync with the El Ninos that followed. From what I've read and ascertain, 1998 was a "reset" of the climate system, with 2001 being the new initialization. Pinatubo and Crichton messed things up a bit. Note that NoPol and SoPol are always the outliers. Sorry, I didn't label everything. Also, UAH did not release all the data yet, so the 2009/2010 El Nino is missing October, but it still looks to be following the typical pattern. Note NoPol compared to previous years. The oceans are cooling. More info and charts to follow. The current IDA tropical storm may muck up the works, but I don't think it will be much. However, as more heat is removed due to this storm system, tropospheric temps may jack up a bit more than would be expected. Always remember: El Nino = release of heat La Nina = gain of heat
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 10, 2009 12:12:40 GMT
If you are happy to admit that Akasofu's plot is based on a massaged version of incorrect data then just say so. You forgot to mention it was different. So you must mean a massaged version of the massaged version. Ever consider it was the unmassaged version? p.s. Did your research for you Steve. Akasofu's graph does not come from Hadcrut but comes from a Japanese government climate site, including the linear line. Akasofu extended the linear line both directions outside of the observation window he drew off the Japanese work. people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/global_temperature_change.pdfDo you suppose maybe the Japanese used the raw data and Briffa and Jones curved it? No you didn't do my research, Icefisher. You produced the graph, so you need to justify it. I do my fairshare of debunking nonsense on this forum. Akasofu shows HadCRUT3 in his document as well as the Japanese one (which I couldn't find elsewhere). His final plot, though includes the distortion with 20 years above the straight line, whereas the original plot has only 10 years above the straight line. So: 1. There is no physical justification for having a straight line. 2. There is no support for his trend line if you go further back in time. 3. The current warming is *nothing* like the blip that occurred in the 1940s (and is probably an artefact of the change of SST measurements).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 10, 2009 13:26:05 GMT
You forgot to mention it was different. So you must mean a massaged version of the massaged version. Ever consider it was the unmassaged version? p.s. Did your research for you Steve. Akasofu's graph does not come from Hadcrut but comes from a Japanese government climate site, including the linear line. Akasofu extended the linear line both directions outside of the observation window he drew off the Japanese work. people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/global_temperature_change.pdfDo you suppose maybe the Japanese used the raw data and Briffa and Jones curved it? No you didn't do my research, Icefisher. You produced the graph, so you need to justify it. I do my fairshare of debunking nonsense on this forum. Akasofu shows HadCRUT3 in his document as well as the Japanese one (which I couldn't find elsewhere). His final plot, though includes the distortion with 20 years above the straight line, whereas the original plot has only 10 years above the straight line. So: 1. There is no physical justification for having a straight line. 2. There is no support for his trend line if you go further back in time. 3. The current warming is *nothing* like the blip that occurred in the 1940s (and is probably an artefact of the change of SST measurements). I do my fairshare of debunking nonsense on this forum. How about explaining to socold what perpetual motion is and why his reflective back radiation oven is also nonsense. The globe is cooling steve. You guys may as well get used to it. Arguing about straight lines may give you solace, but it won't change the inevitable. The current El Nino which has no relation to CO2, will peak, there will be another La Nina, temperatures will fall again all the while trending downward. Since you cannot explain why virtually all heat related metrics do not support the CO2 warming fantasy, it must be assumed those who still cling to the failed GHG hypothesis of global warming are religious zealots. Climate models, the holy relic of AGW, are miserable failures. As for global warming, it is neither. Dozens of articles have been presented proving the surface measurements are contaminated by UHI and land use change, but denialists (do you like that word applied to you?) refuse to acknowledge it. Yet more evidence: blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/11/expanding-cities-contribute-to-global-warming.html
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 10, 2009 15:16:22 GMT
You might call it no research but all you are doing is sitting around with your thumb up your arse. The graph is attributed to the Japan Meteorological Agency, Steve. You accused Akasofu of "It's not fair to hold up Akasofu's plot as science when you know it is guilty of massaging the data." Thats a pretty unfair charge when Akasofu gave a great deal of detail and description of what he did here: people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdfBottom line is you seem to prefer the typical "team" response of resorting to so much hand waving while offering zero analysis of the temperature records yourself. His final plot, though includes the distortion with 20 years above the straight line, whereas the original plot has only 10 years above the straight line. So: 1. There is no physical justification for having a straight line. 2. There is no support for his trend line if you go further back in time. 3. The current warming is *nothing* like the blip that occurred in the 1940s (and is probably an artefact of the change of SST measurements). Fact is Akasofu provided temperature sources from: NASA GISS, Hadcrut, JMA, NOAA, and Bryant 1997 all with very similar oscillations. JMA shows about 20 years above the line and couple of small bumps back to the line. But thats JMA, the Hadcrut and the NOAA graphs smooth those bumps out and show 20 solid years of relative warming. So much for that non-issue. 1. Two of Akasofu's sources show a linear line.(JMA and Bryant) One comes complete with an accompanying statistical analysis. Scientifically speaking Akasofu's work far surpasses your handwaving about and your lack of offering any kind of an alternative analysis. So you think the underlying straight line is uncalled for. However, the fact is a curved line in the Bryant analysis would probably yield more deviant points. Bryant calculated an r-squared of .51 for the linear regression line of about .5C per century on the data for temperatures from about 1850 to 1996. Looking at the data the probably the only way to get a higher R value would be to do a multi-polynomial fit with the line moving both ways to follow the oscillations in the previous discussion. 2. Going back further in time and the data gets pretty thin. The majority of Akasofu's sources did not do that, probably determining it was rather unreliable. Akasofu makes it clear the extensions of his lines outside of the observation window ending at 1880 is speculative. You might not like that speculation and you might offer an alternative but you will need to provide reliable evidence supporting such speculation if you want to contend that Akasofu is wrong in doing that. Handwaving need not apply. 3. NOAA, GISS, and JMA all show bumps of approximate equal height above a linear line with late 19th century/about 1940, and about 2000. Bryant's graph has the 1940 bump about .05deg below the straight line and Hadcrut has a .3Cdegree bump for 1940 that falls about .1C below the straight line (and error bars that extend above the straightline). . . .all probably well within our ability to accurately measure global temperatures. You need to get your head out of the teams pocket. I haven't seen you producing any kind of alternative analysis as you are still serving burgers with no beef Steve.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 10, 2009 15:28:15 GMT
Perhaps you could explain to socold how a molecule of air deliberately avoids radiating energy towards the earth because it works out that the earth is warmer than the air around the molecule. Perhaps you could explain how the earth becomes invisible from the moon during a total eclipse because the earth is banned by the second law of thermodynamics from radiating energy towards the sun.
Perhaps you could explain to me why Akasofu needed to increase the temperature of at least 20 years of the Japanese data to produce the main features of his plot - and I bet that isn't the only exaggeration, and why he only went back to 1880 when data for prior to that exists. It's specious pseudoscientific nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 10, 2009 16:26:43 GMT
Perhaps you could explain to me why Akasofu needed to increase the temperature of at least 20 years of the Japanese data to produce the main features of his plot - and I bet that isn't the only exaggeration, and why he only went back to 1880 when data for prior to that exists. It's specious pseudoscientific nonsense. Obviously you are poorly trained in the sciences. Akasofu, as I explained once already did not go back before 1880 because he was using 5 sources and the majority of them did not go back to before 1880. If he had done that representing the work as a compilation of those source you would have criticized him for that. And why accuse him of exceeding the Japanese data when the work is considering 5 sources? The Japanese data has the least variance of the 5 studies, as a compilation work, it should be more than the Japanese data. Have you ever taken a science class?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 10, 2009 17:23:11 GMT
Perhaps you could explain to socold how a molecule of air deliberately avoids radiating energy towards the earth because it works out that the earth is warmer than the air around the molecule. Perhaps you could explain how the earth becomes invisible from the moon during a total eclipse because the earth is banned by the second law of thermodynamics from radiating energy towards the sun. Perhaps you could explain to me why Akasofu needed to increase the temperature of at least 20 years of the Japanese data to produce the main features of his plot - and I bet that isn't the only exaggeration, and why he only went back to 1880 when data for prior to that exists. It's specious pseudoscientific nonsense. Answering a question with a question....typical. Very simple: how does a CO2 molecule warm the air without work being performed? It can't, and I suspect you know it can't. I've seen this type of pseudoscience in the free energy community whereby friction of oil molecules can somehow create heat without expending energy. It was a big fad in the late 70's, then resurrected several years ago. Now it is permeated in AGW. Free fuel for everyone! www.fuellesspower.com/8_Heater2.htm
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 10, 2009 17:34:22 GMT
As UAH has updated their October data, I've updated the 2009/2010 graph. Keep an eye on the tropics ocean for short term indicators of what 2010 will do. The sooner it peaks and begins it's drop, the sooner 2010 will drop accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 10, 2009 17:48:58 GMT
Perhaps you could explain to me why Akasofu needed to increase the temperature of at least 20 years of the Japanese data to produce the main features of his plot - and I bet that isn't the only exaggeration, and why he only went back to 1880 when data for prior to that exists. It's specious pseudoscientific nonsense. Obviously you are poorly trained in the sciences. Akasofu, as I explained once already did not go back before 1880 because he was using 5 sources and the majority of them did not go back to before 1880. If he had done that representing the work as a compilation of those source you would have criticized him for that. And why accuse him of exceeding the Japanese data when the work is considering 5 sources? The Japanese data has the least variance of the 5 studies, as a compilation work, it should be more than the Japanese data. Have you ever taken a science class? Good scientists look for causation to explain or justify correlation, line-fitting or whatever. Good scientists do not say "Well as the data is limited, I will assume that the trend continues". Good scientists would clearly list the sources they used, and explain why they used 5 sources - why do you need 5 sources. As I'm not too bad a scientist with plenty of training and experience in my background I could give examples of when 5 sources would be good, bad or indifferent. Please show me *any* dataset in which the 1940's warming is as notable as Akasofu's plot. I know of 3 that don't. Please don't tell me he patched in US temperatures with equal or higher weighting!
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 10, 2009 18:07:31 GMT
Obviously you are poorly trained in the sciences. Akasofu, as I explained once already did not go back before 1880 because he was using 5 sources and the majority of them did not go back to before 1880. If he had done that representing the work as a compilation of those source you would have criticized him for that. And why accuse him of exceeding the Japanese data when the work is considering 5 sources? The Japanese data has the least variance of the 5 studies, as a compilation work, it should be more than the Japanese data. Have you ever taken a science class? Good scientists look for causation to explain or justify correlation, line-fitting or whatever. Good scientists do not say "Well as the data is limited, I will assume that the trend continues". Good scientists would clearly list the sources they used, and explain why they used 5 sources - why do you need 5 sources. As I'm not too bad a scientist with plenty of training and experience in my background I could give examples of when 5 sources would be good, bad or indifferent. Please show me *any* dataset in which the 1940's warming is as notable as Akasofu's plot. I know of 3 that don't. Please don't tell me he patched in US temperatures with equal or higher weighting! With all of the charges of unsound science that are flying about I can't tell if you all are posting about Akasofu or Briffa, Mann, et al.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 10, 2009 18:42:07 GMT
Good scientists would clearly list the sources they used, and explain why they used 5 sources - why do you need 5 sources. As I'm not too bad a scientist with plenty of training and experience in my background I could give examples of when 5 sources would be good, bad or indifferent. Please show me *any* dataset in which the 1940's warming is as notable as Akasofu's plot. I know of 3 that don't. Please don't tell me he patched in US temperatures with equal or higher weighting! Steve, look at the link to the extended document I gave you. . . .its also featured as the top link on Akasofu's website. I don't know why you question using 5 sources over using one. . . .perhaps you really believe that one tree on the Yamal peninsula best represents global temperatures as well. . . .the team sure does. And it appears to me that eyeballing the temperature plots Akasofu used. . . .the NASA GISS, the NOAA, and the Bryant plots all support robust 1940 bumps the equivalent of Akasofu's. Perhaps you might want to apply a micrometer to it to determine if my eyes are off.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 10, 2009 18:56:21 GMT
Good scientists would clearly list the sources they used, and explain why they used 5 sources - why do you need 5 sources. As I'm not too bad a scientist with plenty of training and experience in my background I could give examples of when 5 sources would be good, bad or indifferent. Please show me *any* dataset in which the 1940's warming is as notable as Akasofu's plot. I know of 3 that don't. Please don't tell me he patched in US temperatures with equal or higher weighting! Steve, look at the link to the extended document I gave you. . . .its also featured as the top link on Akasofu's website. I don't know why you question using 5 sources over using one. . . .perhaps you really believe that one tree on the Yamal peninsula best represents global temperatures as well. . . .the team sure does. And it appears to me that eyeballing the temperature plots Akasofu used. . . .the NASA GISS, the NOAA, and the Bryant plots all support robust 1940 bumps the equivalent of Akasofu's. Perhaps you might want to apply a micrometer to it to determine if my eyes are off. Speaking of NOAA - they just announced the third coldest October ever. All signs point to . . . . heck, I don't know. All I do know is that the warmist are more likely wrong than the coolists. We in the middle are waiting for proof either way.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 10, 2009 20:37:06 GMT
Very simple: how does a CO2 molecule warm the air without work being performed? It can't, and I suspect you know it can't. There is infrared radiation streaming past the air that molecule of co2 is in. The co2 molecule is able to absorb some of that radiation stream and convert it to heat.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 10, 2009 23:50:05 GMT
Very simple: how does a CO2 molecule warm the air without work being performed? It can't, and I suspect you know it can't. There is infrared radiation streaming past the air that molecule of co2 is in. The co2 molecule is able to absorb some of that radiation stream and convert it to heat. If that is what JUST ONE CO2 molecule can do, imagine what 387 ppm can do. I think I'm converted to the religion now. Thanks Socold.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 11, 2009 1:21:39 GMT
Magellan, you wrote How about explaining to socold what perpetual motion is and why his reflective back radiation oven is also nonsense.This is getting tedious. This nonsense is still being spouted on various blogs. It's total garbage. Now I'm sure you won't accept my opinion (or Steve's or socold's) but hopefully you will accept Roy Spencer's. On his blog See www.drroyspencer.com/page/5/ There is a post (In defense of the Greenhouse Effect) which includes the following. Please read it. IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS A second objection has to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is claimed that since the greenhouse effect depends partly upon cooler upper layers of the atmosphere emitting infrared radiation toward the warmer, lower layers of the atmosphere, that this violates the 2nd Law, which (roughly speaking) says that energy must flow from warmer objects to cooler objects, not the other way around.
There are different ways to illustrate why this is not a valid objection. First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system, and to all forms of energy involved in the system…not just its temperature. And in the atmosphere, temperature is only one component to the energy content of an air parcel.
Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.
In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.
Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts.
But what if the boiling hot jar was by all by itself? Then, it would have cooled even faster. Does that mean that the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar? No, it was just reducing the rate of cooling of the hot jar. The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it.
Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer “trap” any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layer’s ability to absorb and emit IR the same. The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively.
|
|