|
Post by hunter on Nov 11, 2009 2:39:25 GMT
The perpetual motion does not come from the greenhouse effect. It comes from the dramatic positive feedbacks AGW depends on.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2009 10:06:10 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 I don't think that questioning my science credentials in one post and then criticising me for questioning why and how Akasofu used 5 sources in another is consistent. I have dug out Bryant in Google books. The page with the plot was there, but unfortunately the page before the plot is "not part of this book preview". Bryant's plot shows a line with a warming of 0.43C per century, and the amplitude of the 1940 bulge is not very large. Akasofu's line is approx 0.56C per century. So Bryant's plot cannot explain Akasofu's plot either. Also Bryant's plot is based on "Jones et al 1994", so duplicates one of the other 4 datasets being considered! Now can you see why I asked about the use of 5 analyses? The bit of text that I can see indicates that Bryant was merely demonstrating that to properly assess annual variability you have to take account of the underlying trend. The plot is in a section called "Background concepts" - ie. introducing ideas on how to analyse the data: (my bold) From page 6 of "Climate process & change" By Edward Bryant To suggest that Bryant was *claiming* that a linear fit was appropriate, is a misreading of this book. Drawing a line with a crayon using the edge of a book as a straight edge would be adequate enough I think.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 11, 2009 10:06:41 GMT
The perpetual motion does not come from the greenhouse effect. It comes from the dramatic positive feedbacks AGW depends on. And that is EXACTLY why we can tell such feedbacks are not present during this range of temperatures...the earth could not maintain interglacial temperatures for ten thousand years if feedbacks were strongly positive.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2009 10:15:33 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. To paraphrase a response when I made this argument before - scientists have their areas of expertise, and analysing the details of the greenhouse effect is outside Roy Spencer's area. It took me a while to pick myself off the floor...
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 11, 2009 11:54:52 GMT
To paraphrase a response when I made this argument before - scientists have their areas of expertise, and analysing the details of the greenhouse effect is outside Roy Spencer's area. It took me a while to pick myself off the floor..
Are you surprised Spencer wrote what he did or surprised that I cited Spencer as an 'expert'. If it's the latter I just thought Roy Spencer's opinion would carry more weight on here.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2009 12:05:22 GMT
To paraphrase a response when I made this argument before - scientists have their areas of expertise, and analysing the details of the greenhouse effect is outside Roy Spencer's area. It took me a while to pick myself off the floor..Are you surprised Spencer wrote what he did or surprised that I cited Spencer as an 'expert'. If it's the latter I just thought Roy Spencer's opinion would carry more weight on here. People are more keen to post on what they disagree with than what they agree with (that includes me). The paraphrased opinion I gave, and the opinion that the greenhouse effect science is completely wrong are, I think, minority views here even if the holders of the views are quite vocal.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 11, 2009 14:03:27 GMT
I don't think that questioning my science credentials in one post and then criticising me for questioning why and how Akasofu used 5 sources in another is consistent. Except thats not the way it happened. You didn't ask what sources Akasofu used. You stated it appeared he used Hadcrut and had exaggerated the 1940's bump. "He has also significantly enhanced the warmth of the 1940's period to make it look more anomalous." "It's not fair to hold up Akasofu's plot as science when you know it is guilty of massaging the data." "I said the other day that the data looked like HadCRUT3, and noone disputed that." I have dug out Bryant in Google books. The page with the plot was there, but unfortunately the page before the plot is "not part of this book preview". Bryant's plot shows a line with a warming of 0.43C per century, and the amplitude of the 1940 bulge is not very large. Akasofu's line is approx 0.56C per century. So Bryant's plot cannot explain Akasofu's plot either. Obviously you cannot grasp averaging 5 studies together. You started out by first criticizing Akasofu for exaggerating Hadcrut's 40's bump. Now its like heh I found this mystic tree core in Yamal. . . .it must be the one with the magic ring map of historical temperatures. . . .and Akasofu didn't use it. . . . .yee haw I have a finding!!!! Also Bryant's plot is based on "Jones et al 1994", so duplicates one of the other 4 datasets being considered! Now can you see why I asked about the use of 5 analyses? So you are suggesting Jones depressed the 1940's bump in a later version huh? This must be the value-added work they won't let us see the details of. I am sooooooooooooooo surprised!!! ROTFLMAO! Must have been connected with the work he got funded in the mid-90's with Briffa. The bit of text that I can see indicates that Bryant was merely demonstrating that to properly assess annual variability you have to take account of the underlying trend. The plot is in a section called "Background concepts" - ie. introducing ideas on how to analyse the data: (my bold) From page 6 of "Climate process & change" By Edward Bryant To suggest that Bryant was *claiming* that a linear fit was appropriate, is a misreading of this book. Don't you think maybe you should read the book first Steve rather than determine conclusions from chapter titles? Seems obvious Bryant was offering a linear fit as at least one possibility. Akasofu clearly states that its an "intuitive" approximation. Unlike Briffa when discovering YAD 061. . . .and he promoted using it as "the answer". Akasofu takes all the information and approximates it in a straight line to suggest maybe two sources of natural variation. (actually there might be a lot more but two might well cover the basics) But the bottom line here is this entire branch of this thread is merely a diversion from you offering what you consider an "intuitive" approximation of how CO2 predictions are consistent with the historical record. So the result of being unable to, or too embarrassed to, come up with anything intuitive as an alternative to Akasofu. . . . you end up criticizing Wendy's beef as being square pattys. There is no beef in that Steve. Perhaps you might want to apply a micrometer to it to determine if my eyes are off.Drawing a line with a crayon using the edge of a book as a straight edge would be adequate enough I think. Wooooooooo! Now we are getting into the real scientific criticism. . . .Akasofu didn't use the Captain Starbrands Official Super Scienceman pen!!! I'm putting that finding at the top of the list!!! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2009 15:43:59 GMT
It is your plot so you support it. There was originally apparent agreement that it was HadCRUT. Fine. So it isn't. But none of the other two sources you've mentioned (Japan, Bryant=oldHadCRUT) support the bump either, and even the Bryant linear fit is a different gradient from Akasofu. It still looks clearly as though Akasofu has massaged the data.
Obviously you can't grasp why I would want to know *why* he felt the need to average 5 studies together. But then I have scientific training. It now appears he has only 4 studies (as one is a newer version of the other). Possibly they are all derivative of each other to some degree, so rejecting pre-1880 data because there are fewer studies is an invalid reason.
Yes of course a linear fit is a "possibility". But when you look at the evidence, a linear fit becomes unlikely. The book quite clearly says that it applies a linear fit to illustrate the effect it has on the stats.
As you can tell I'm not too hot on Akasofu's "intuition" especially when he thinks that people worried about arctic ice melt are really being confused by the fact that the ice melts in summer (one of the dumb things he said on GGWS), and I'm astonished that you seem to be putting him on some sort of pedestal based on a clearly massaged graph.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 11, 2009 17:03:26 GMT
Except thats not the way it happened. You didn't ask what sources Akasofu used. You stated it appeared he used Hadcrut and had exaggerated the 1940's bump.
"He has also significantly enhanced the warmth of the 1940's period to make it look more anomalous." "It's not fair to hold up Akasofu's plot as science when you know it is guilty of massaging the data." "I said the other day that the data looked like HadCRUT3, and noone disputed that."It is your plot so you support it. There was originally apparent agreement that it was HadCRUT. Fine. So it isn't. But none of the other two sources you've mentioned (Japan, Bryant=oldHadCRUT) support the bump either, and even the Bryant linear fit is a different gradient from Akasofu. It still looks clearly as though Akasofu has massaged the data. All of them show a bump at 1940 visually the equivalent to the peaks in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Saying they don't is just complete garbage denial on your part. The only one that doesn't is the later "value-added" version of Hadcrut the underlying data for which was eaten by the dog. They very clearly support what Akasofu drew on his graph. Your criticism on any differences remains at best hairsplitting and worse a coverup to the fact you cannot improve on it. Obviously you can't grasp why I would want to know *why* he felt the need to average 5 studies together. But then I have scientific training. It now appears he has only 4 studies (as one is a newer version of the other). Possibly they are all derivative of each other to some degree, so rejecting pre-1880 data because there are fewer studies is an invalid reason. You are making a claim here that Akasofu wrongly rejected data. But the fact he didn't use it is no proof of that. What you need to do to make that case is establish that he had "quality" data. Since I see many studies using the same data sources cutting off the data at 1880, you are actually making a claim a lot of people were wrong in doing that. . . .and it remains just a suspicion on your part. . . .a suspicion that appears to be the primary support for your view of the world.
Don't you think maybe you should read the book first Steve rather than determine conclusions from chapter titles?
Seems obvious Bryant was offering a linear fit as at least one possibility. Akasofu clearly states that its an "intuitive" approximation.
Yes of course a linear fit is a "possibility". But when you look at the evidence, a linear fit becomes unlikely. What evidence? You haven't given me your view of the world yet. You remain a bun with no beef. The book quite clearly says that it applies a linear fit to illustrate the effect it has on the stats. As you can tell I'm not too hot on Akasofu's "intuition" especially when he thinks that people worried about arctic ice melt are really being confused by the fact that the ice melts in summer (one of the dumb things he said on GGWS), and I'm astonished that you seem to be putting him on some sort of pedestal based on a clearly massaged graph. What evidence do you have of a massaged graph Steve? You are just blabbering at this point. The graph is not massaged because you say it is. . . .produce something to make the case!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 11, 2009 19:53:46 GMT
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. Indeed it shouldn't be seen as a one time event, as long as the additional co2 molecule is up there additional energy will be converted to heat.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 16, 2009 8:53:26 GMT
It appears none of our local AGW proponents can any longer reconcile CO2 predictions to historic temperature fluctuations, they moan and groan about Akasofu's chart, complain about characterizing recent warming as containing two components, components they cannot get rid of. They continue to grasp for the propaganda of the hockey stick like someone being swept downstream in a storm channel but cannot bring themselves to actually take a position in support of it. Akasofu's depiction isn't just the best science available its the only science available.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 16, 2009 11:09:36 GMT
I'll repeat my challenge. Provide a link to one or more of the individual plots, and give me the start and end points of your best fit line. It won't match Akasofu's image - I have already pointed out that the Bryant line is not the same gradient as the Akasofu line. As you've ignored my challenge in the past I am assuming that you know you can't and will just continue to try and shout me down. If your desire is to win by shouting the most then that's fine by me.
He is making a claim about data *prior* to 1880. So he is not justified in ignoring data that disagrees with his claim. If the data prior to 1880 is so poor that his guess is as good as the data, then the future predictions based on his guess can be taken with the same large pinch of salt.
The evidence that climate does not vary without a reason. There is plenty around if you can avert your loving gaze from Akasofu's masterpiece.
The gradient of the line in the Bryant book is different from Akasofu. No reasonable line can be put through current HadCRUT or the Japanese data to make it look like the Akasofu plot. All you do is repeat the plot, say that it is right and fail to answer my pretty simple questions about why the line in the Akasofu plot cannot be reproduced in any shape or form on any of the plots that are supposed to be included in it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 16, 2009 15:39:50 GMT
I'll repeat my challenge. Provide a link to one or more of the individual plots, and give me the start and end points of your best fit line. It won't match Akasofu's image - I have already pointed out that the Bryant line is not the same gradient as the Akasofu line. As you've ignored my challenge in the past I am assuming that you know you can't and will just continue to try and shout me down. If your desire is to win by shouting the most then that's fine by me. Your challenge is an answer to my original challenge asking you to do exactly the same thing Steve. You are just yammering about inconsequential stuff. You pointed out that Akasofu's line was about 4 thousandths of a degree per decade steeper than Bryant's line. My original challenge to you was to do exactly what you are asking here. Namely, produce a reconciliation of CO2 predictions, ala Akasofu, as an alternative to Akasofu. Now you are asking me to do it for you most likely so you can still criticize it. Thats just weasly BS. Your beefless burgers continue to be offered up. Its the game of the decade for the AGW proponents to throw barbs at reconstructions of natural variation. Its obvious that natural variation is powerful enough to override CO2 forcing, but its illogical to say such natural variation only began in 1998 or 2005. So answer the challenge Steve. After you do that I will do what you ask about Akasofu's graph, either justify the slope of the line using the instrument record or adjust it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 16, 2009 18:16:36 GMT
A 30% difference is not inconsequential. And it is the first difference of very many. Hence my suggestion that you'd do better with a crayon.
Reconciliations have been done. It is accepted that the reconciliation proves that CO2, aerosols and solar effects *can explain* the observations. It does not mean that the reconciliation is perfect. It is better than drawing a straight line because there are basic physics reasons for expecting the CO2, aerosols and solar to have an effect and there are basic physics reasons for not expecting a straight line.
To stop global warming you have to stop eating meat. You're falling behind on the debate, lad!
It's obvious that both natural variations and forcings affect the climate. It is not obvious that one can diminish the impact of the other. If I give Warren Buffet ten pounds, he'll be ten pounds richer than he would have been. His massive wealth and income do not "override" the ten pounds increase in his wealth.
My justification, such as it is, is above. It beats the pants off this unauditable, unreproducable and unphysical nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 17, 2009 4:37:33 GMT
A 30% difference is not inconsequential. And it is the first difference of very many. Hence my suggestion that you'd do better with a crayon. Well why didn't you pick the lines on the NASA graph or the JMA graph. NASA is about .58C/Century, JMA is slightly over .6C/century. Further Akasofu labeled his slope as .5C/century. I agree it appears a little steeper, but if he corrected it there would be no difference in the message it was sending. Again you are dodging the issue and splitting hairs to avoid acknowledging your theory is beefless. My justification, such as it is, is above. It beats the pants off this unauditable, unreproducable and unphysical nonsense. Your justification is a pig in a poke. Bring it out of the bag and graph it Steve. Show us how it works. Fact is you can't make it work without a phony hockeystick. . . .thats why there are phony hockeysticks.
|
|