|
Post by steve on Nov 17, 2009 11:14:00 GMT
The message it is sending is that it is a meaningless plot allegedly generated from some sort of conglomeration of a random collection of datasets, but with some features enhanced and some features deleted in order to present a specious theory based on decadal variations and a non-physical linear trend.
You cannot create the same plot with any of the other datasets. If you changed the gradiant on the Akasofu plot you'd have to change the exaggerations of the bumps to give the same picture.
My picture doesn't need a phoney hockey stick. The significant increase in temperatures in the last 30 years has been observed by ground stations, ships, satellites, planes and radiosondes. The impact is demonstrated on ocean heat content, sea level rise, glacier mass balance changes, glacier acceleration, sea ice loss and the fact that I rarely get to see thick snow anymore.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 17, 2009 13:59:51 GMT
The message it is sending is that it is a meaningless plot allegedly generated from some sort of conglomeration of a random collection of datasets, but with some features enhanced and some features deleted in order to present a specious theory based on decadal variations and a non-physical linear trend. You mean like IPCC predictions? Or the picture you allude to below? You cannot create the same plot with any of the other datasets. If you changed the gradiant on the Akasofu plot you'd have to change the exaggerations of the bumps to give the same picture. I already disproved that statement several posts ago. You are just circling the drain in this argument Steve. The fact is of the 5 graphs used by Akasofu only one has the depressed 1940 bump and that is the "value-added" post 1994 Hadcrut plot. The deemphasis of the 1940 temperature oscillation is just another example reflecting on the integrity of the CRU science team. They could claim some shred of credibility if they could even claim to have evidence their work was legitimate but they appear to have gone so far as to destroy their workpapers and raw data to avoid turning it over to auditors. My picture doesn't need a phoney hockey stick. The significant increase in temperatures in the last 30 years has been observed by ground stations, ships, satellites, planes and radiosondes. The impact is demonstrated on ocean heat content, sea level rise, glacier mass balance changes, glacier acceleration, sea ice loss and the fact that I rarely get to see thick snow anymore. What picture? Thats the challenge Steve, produce the picture. Does your picture indicate any particular linear pattern or does it go around in circles? p.s. Forget all those impacts of discrete changes in heat content, sea level rise, glacier mass balance changes, glacier acceleration, sea ice loss, and the fact you haven't played in deep snow since you were a kid. . . .I mean if your temperature plot and prediction is consistent with a recovery from a LIA or not and still shows warming all that stuff is going to be expected Steve. . . . .like Duhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 17, 2009 14:51:08 GMT
You haven't disproved it because you've not given me a plot, a gradient and a start and end point to allow me to see a plot that bears resemblance to the Akasofudge. If you want to moan about the data then moan about it to Akasofu because he claims to have used it. Basically the "recovery from an LIA" idea is unscientific tosh unless you have reasonable ideas about why it was colder and why it has warmed up.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Nov 17, 2009 15:00:46 GMT
The significant increase in temperatures in the last 30 years has been observed by ground stations, ships, satellites, planes and radiosondes. The impact is demonstrated on ocean heat content Hi Steve, Temperature is a quantity, it doesn't 'cause' anything. It's the energy which has been emitted from the oceans which has had an impact on temperature, not the other way round. This does seem to be a common problem with the understanding (or lack of it) AGW proponents have of the law of cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 17, 2009 15:22:23 GMT
You haven't disproved it because you've not given me a plot, a gradient and a start and end point to allow me to see a plot that bears resemblance to the Akasofudge. If you want to moan about the data then moan about it to Akasofu because he claims to have used it. Basically the "recovery from an LIA" idea is unscientific tosh unless you have reasonable ideas about why it was colder and why it has warmed up. I gave you the link to the 5 plots. I am not going to spoonfeed you on this. And since it appears that the MWP was maybe .6C warmer than today's temperature (Loehe) via a compilation of non-treering proxies. . . .and it was colder 200 years ago; one would have to say that a recovery from those low temperatures to the previous highs a thousand years ago is within the range of natural variation. Now I agree that doesn't prove its naturally caused. . . .but it provides good reason to believe that its normal and not a threat. Now you can conjure up the doom of the world anyway you want but the average person is not going to subscribe to that unless you can provide physical evidence the globe is warming unnaturally. And that is what your challenge is . . . .provide a picture of your predictions pasted over natural fluctuations and if nothing own up to the fact your pet theory is basically that a pet theory with no real world evidence its real.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 17, 2009 20:20:33 GMT
The warmest year in the Loehle reconstruction is 858AD with temperature between 0.28C and 0.83C with 95% confidence. The reconstruction ends at 1935 with temperatures between -0.24C and 0.47C with 95% confidence. www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/LoehleMcC.txtThe instrumental record since 1935 would imply temperatures in the last decade have surpassed the warmest year in the MWP in the Loehle reconstruction. Recovery from the little ice age is at odds with this, because there's no reason for current temperatures to be the "norm". Additionally in the 70s glacier loss slowed down to a halt, implying that the Earth was already in equilibrium at least that long ago.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 17, 2009 20:40:02 GMT
The warmest year in the Loehle reconstruction is 858AD with temperature between 0.28C and 0.83C with 95% confidence. The reconstruction ends at 1935 with temperatures between -0.24C and 0.47C with 95% confidence. www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/LoehleMcC.txtThe instrumental record since 1935 would imply temperatures in the last decade have surpassed the warmest year in the MWP in the Loehle reconstruction. Recovery from the little ice age is at odds with this, because there's no reason for current temperatures to be the "norm". Additionally in the 70s glacier loss slowed down to a halt, implying that the Earth was already in equilibrium at least that long ago. I think that glacier loss slowing to almost a halt in the 70's only showed that the 70's was at the apex of the 30 year cooling trend. An inference of anything other than that is pure speculation, as long term equalibrium of the earth is much colder than the present temps. Just as I would expect a stagnant rise in temps or cooling for the next 30 year period. We really need to be bringing the 30 year averages to date with the period of 1978-2008 as the base and have anomolies based on that period as the temp cycles seem to have been roughly 30 years in the past. I would think that is why all the data uses a 30 period of time to compare the anomolies to.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Nov 18, 2009 18:58:16 GMT
The instrumental record since 1935 would imply temperatures in the last decade have surpassed the warmest year in the MWP in the Loehle reconstruction. The errors involved mean no sensible conclusions can be drawn. Particularly considering the poor quality of the network since Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 18, 2009 20:34:45 GMT
The significant increase in temperatures in the last 30 years has been observed by ground stations, ships, satellites, planes and radiosondes. The impact is demonstrated on ocean heat content Hi Steve, Temperature is a quantity, it doesn't 'cause' anything. It's the energy which has been emitted from the oceans which has had an impact on temperature, not the other way round. This does seem to be a common problem with the understanding (or lack of it) AGW proponents have of the law of cause and effect. The context (a concept which some sceptics often struggle with ) should have indicated to you that I meant that the temperature rise was *corroborated by* the observations of ocean heat content etc. and not by one poxy tree in the Siberian wastelands that nobody even knew about till 10 years ago. I shall try to tyep more carefully in future.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 18, 2009 20:38:39 GMT
You haven't disproved it because you've not given me a plot, a gradient and a start and end point to allow me to see a plot that bears resemblance to the Akasofudge. If you want to moan about the data then moan about it to Akasofu because he claims to have used it. Basically the "recovery from an LIA" idea is unscientific tosh unless you have reasonable ideas about why it was colder and why it has warmed up. I gave you the link to the 5 plots. I am not going to spoonfeed you on this. You're not "spoonfeeding" me. You're ignoring the challenge. If you look back on this subject I have already done this myself and proved to myself that the Akasofu plot is nonsense. Now it is possible that I am drawing the wrong line to get the result I want, and that is why I am asking you for your opinion. But I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 18, 2009 20:43:12 GMT
The instrumental record since 1935 would imply temperatures in the last decade have surpassed the warmest year in the MWP in the Loehle reconstruction. The errors involved mean no sensible conclusions can be drawn. Particularly considering the poor quality of the network since Jim Hansen took over at GISS. The observations have been taken by ground stations, ships, satellites, planes and radiosondes. The warming is corroborated by ocean heat content figures, sea level rise, glacier mass balance changes, glacier acceleration, sea ice loss and the fact that I rarely get to see thick snow anymore. That last item might be amusing, but having been able to personally observe the warming within my short life is important to my understanding of the issue - I cannot be a doubting Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 18, 2009 22:27:27 GMT
I gave you the link to the 5 plots. I am not going to spoonfeed you on this. You're not "spoonfeeding" me. You're ignoring the challenge. If you look back on this subject I have already done this myself and proved to myself that the Akasofu plot is nonsense. Now it is possible that I am drawing the wrong line to get the result I want, and that is why I am asking you for your opinion. But I doubt it. So your claim is Akasofu's graph is correct but its just the wrong slope? It is only fair you take a position on my original challenge, defend it with something other than blabber and warm waving. In other words you tell me how you arrive at a conclusion of an equilibrium world sans CO2 so that you can claim all or most of the recent warming was attributed to CO2. I am not going to argue splitting hairs on Akasofu's natural warming slope until you take a position.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Nov 19, 2009 1:29:23 GMT
The warmest year in the Loehle reconstruction is 858AD with temperature between 0.28C and 0.83C with 95% confidence. The reconstruction ends at 1935 with temperatures between -0.24C and 0.47C with 95% confidence. www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/LoehleMcC.txtThe instrumental record since 1935 would imply temperatures in the last decade have surpassed the warmest year in the MWP in the Loehle reconstruction. Recovery from the little ice age is at odds with this, because there's no reason for current temperatures to be the "norm". Additionally in the 70s glacier loss slowed down to a halt, implying that the Earth was already in equilibrium at least that long ago. I was curious as to why that data ended at 1935, because it would be useful to see how the calculated proxy data corresponded to observed data. I found the 2007 paper by the author, and that paper extends the graph to 1980. It was only when they issued the 2008 correction paper, that the data was restricted back to an end date of 1935 because there were less proxies available after that date: More importantly, for this discussion, the original paper makes the comment: The graphs in that paper don't show anything exceptional about the current rise in temperature, neither in amplitude nor in rate of change. The historical reconstruction appears to show similar amplitudes and similar rates in the past. And from the abstract of their 2008 correction paper (the link above gives both papers): Are we at the peak of a period equivalent to the MWP, or are we partway towards a peak that will be higher than the MWP? I really don't know.... Finally, in reference to the link that socold made in his post to the observational data since 1935, the authors in the 2008 correction paper had this to say (I've highlighted the relevant phrase):
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 19, 2009 10:06:49 GMT
You're not "spoonfeeding" me. You're ignoring the challenge. If you look back on this subject I have already done this myself and proved to myself that the Akasofu plot is nonsense. Now it is possible that I am drawing the wrong line to get the result I want, and that is why I am asking you for your opinion. But I doubt it. So your claim is Akasofu's graph is correct but its just the wrong slope? It is only fair you take a position on my original challenge, defend it with something other than blabber and warm waving. In other words you tell me how you arrive at a conclusion of an equilibrium world sans CO2 so that you can claim all or most of the recent warming was attributed to CO2. I am not going to argue splitting hairs on Akasofu's natural warming slope until you take a position. You obviously don't read my posts Put any line on any other plot and it won't look anything like Akasofu's plot. It won't tell the same story as Akasofu's plot. Akasofu's plot exaggerates features to tell a non-physical story about multi-decadal variability superimposed on a linear trend. No there is no "equilibrium world" in which CO2 is the only forcing. There are many things that affect the climate. But they are potentially detectable and measurable. What Akasofu and you appear to be implying, without any scientific support whatsoever, is that the LIA was out of equilibrium and therefore there must inevitably be a linear "recovery" towards some future unknown equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 19, 2009 17:00:35 GMT
So your claim is Akasofu's graph is correct but its just the wrong slope? It is only fair you take a position on my original challenge, defend it with something other than blabber and warm waving. In other words you tell me how you arrive at a conclusion of an equilibrium world sans CO2 so that you can claim all or most of the recent warming was attributed to CO2. I am not going to argue splitting hairs on Akasofu's natural warming slope until you take a position. You obviously don't read my posts Put any line on any other plot and it won't look anything like Akasofu's plot. It won't tell the same story as Akasofu's plot. Akasofu's plot exaggerates features to tell a non-physical story about multi-decadal variability superimposed on a linear trend. No there is no "equilibrium world" in which CO2 is the only forcing. There are many things that affect the climate. But they are potentially detectable and measurable. What Akasofu and you appear to be implying, without any scientific support whatsoever, is that the LIA was out of equilibrium and therefore there must inevitably be a linear "recovery" towards some future unknown equilibrium. So you are saying you have no idea where the lines are on the chart? It could be anything? Ocean cycles don't exist in your mind because there isn't enough science to explain them. LIA recoveries don't exist in your mind because they conflict with your little black box physics theory? I am willing for you to not be able to demonstrate any real world evidence whatsoever of the theory you believe so ardently in.
|
|