|
Post by steve on Nov 19, 2009 17:52:15 GMT
No. I am asking *you* to tell me where *you* think they are. Either you are dim, or you are avoiding the question. I'm clear in *my* mind that no line exists that produces the visual effect of Akasofu's plot. I can't state it simpler than that! You are making things up again. Ocean cycles *do* exist. But they don't explain all the warming. If the LIA was caused by something which then stopped happening, then I suppose it could be called a "recovery". Usually the term is used as a specious mantra though. Applying a linear fit adds nothing. Free energy cannot come out of my black box to warm the world - I'll set Magellan on you for implying such a thing. You are apparently willing for yourself not to be able to remember that I have provided links to real world evidence of this theory that I ardently advocate.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 20, 2009 3:31:02 GMT
So you are saying you have no idea where the lines are on the chart? It could be anything?No. I am asking *you* to tell me where *you* think they are. Either you are dim, or you are avoiding the question. I'm clear in *my* mind that no line exists that produces the visual effect of Akasofu's plot. I can't state it simpler than that! Thats a classic non-constructive criticism. It the place where people who sell hamburgers with teensy beef patties reside. They criticize and offer nothing of substance in return. Its kind of a mindset that goes along with figuring the world owes you a living. . . .kind of endemic to liberals. You have make it perfectly clear you are uncomfortable with the real world. . . .and really don't know how to deal with it. Myself I can appreciate Akasofu's chart for what it is. . . .and he clearly states the fact that in order to understand what effect CO2 is going to have we need to better understand natural variation and his graph demostrates why quite clearly. GLC gets it. . . .guess you are just a little slower. You are making things up again. Ocean cycles *do* exist. But they don't explain all the warming. They don't? What evidence do you have of that? For some reason I think I am wasting energy here. . . .for a split second I thought maybe a depiction reconciling temperature records to predictions might be forthcoming. Obviously way to optimistic of me. If the LIA was caused by something which then stopped happening, then I suppose it could be called a "recovery". Usually the term is used as a specious mantra though. Applying a linear fit adds nothing. Free energy cannot come out of my black box to warm the world - I'll set Magellan on you for implying such a thing. Recovery is probably an apt word, since experience would suggest getting colder is worse than getting warmer. I am willing for you to not be able to demonstrate any real world evidence whatsoever of the theory you believe so ardently in.You are apparently willing for yourself not to be able to remember that I have provided links to real world evidence of this theory that I ardently advocate. What evidence, what links?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 20, 2009 10:52:48 GMT
No. I have already provided my gradient and points of intercept for a straight line for HadCRUT3 which doesn't look anything like Akasofu. The Bryant line looks nothing like Akasofu. I can't see that a line on the Japan plot looks anything like Akasofu, but I can't be bothered to search the link, print it off and do another line until you reciprocate.
You just keep wittering on about beef (don't you know you should stop eating meat to stop global warming) and are avoiding the challenge. I have proved that Akasofu is duff.
Cut the psychobabble please. The need to better understand natural variation was quite clear to me already. I don't need a blatantly falsified graph that pretends that all the variation is "natural" to tell me that.
Ignoring the species, plants and communities that have thrived in a cold climate again, recovery is not very apt for describing a physical observation where the method of "recovery" is undisclosed.
See my various ding-dongs with Kiwistonewall, radiant and Mr Cripwell. My "Evidence of a fifth hat" and radiant's "Oxygen Nitrogen" thread might be a starting point if you really can't remember.
At least I don't put forward a plot and say "I will faithfully believe that it states the truth until you prove to my satisfaction that it is not. And I will not answer any questions about it."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 20, 2009 14:27:33 GMT
Thats a classic non-constructive criticism. It the place where people who sell hamburgers with teensy beef patties reside. They criticize and offer nothing of substance in return.No. I have already provided my gradient and points of intercept for a straight line for HadCRUT3 which doesn't look anything like Akasofu. The Bryant line looks nothing like Akasofu. I can't see that a line on the Japan plot looks anything like Akasofu, but I can't be bothered to search the link, print it off and do another line until you reciprocate. Reciprocate? You haven't provide a link to your paleoclimate reconstruction. I do find it interesting though that the boyz at CRU would rather destroy their underlying data than give it to McIntyre. Bryant's work on the older lower Hadcrut data may well be more accurate than the newer steeper versions, since steeper serves the purposes of the AGW alarmists more. But for Akasofu's purposes the slope doesn't matter. His point is if you don't understand natural variation, you aren't going to be able to identify unnatural variation within the climate. You just keep wittering on about beef (don't you know you should stop eating meat to stop global warming) and are avoiding the challenge. I have proved that Akasofu is duff. No we are opposites. I am perfectly happy to allow you to be a Tofuhead. Akasofu is the consumate professional. Its like real estate deals. The guys that make real money on real estate do the important work on the back of a napkin. . . . the rest, the least important that has nothing to do directly with the deal being a potential money maker, is putting the financing deal together and making sure the monies are available to see it through. It is at this point in the real estate deal that models become important after the right project has been identified. Akasofu has provided a back of napkin review of the major parts of the deal here. You criticize Akasofu for hinting that all the change might be natural variation. . . .but thats a school child evaluation of Akasofu's work that merely establishes that you read his work by looking at the pictures rather than reading the text. Your criticism of a lack of sophisticated computer analysis and generated graphics shows the essence of the disconnect here. You are impressed primarily by the accouterments. This a fundamental problem with ivory tower types. . . .Tim the toolman Tyler types who really can't do but teach. Impressed with the tools but have no real skills. . . .and just like Tim are more than likely to use the wrong tool for the job. What we have now is the science world being run by the portion of the Star Trek generation that thinks a tricorder can tell us everything we need to know about the world from their offices in the halls of academia. . . .Akasofu is playing Capt Kirk here though saying "hey wait a minute! as his crew moves to engage the enemy in the traditional way". Hope that analogy helps Steve. Not real sure your going to get it. Its actually the Dr Revell caution about jumping the gun. Cut the psychobabble please. The need to better understand natural variation was quite clear to me already. I don't need a blatantly falsified graph that pretends that all the variation is "natural" to tell me that. Ignoring the species, plants and communities that have thrived in a cold climate again, recovery is not very apt for describing a physical observation where the method of "recovery" is undisclosed. Premature ejaculators like Stephen Schneider do the world no service. They leave the world aroused and unsatisfied. When their pet theory folds up into a limp ball and the public finds out they have been had. . . .science is harmed. You condemn Akasofu for attributing all the change in temperature to natural variation without describing the physics of how its done. Bingo!!! Thats Akasofu's point. Bullseye. Developing the experience of knowing how the real world operates is going to be necessary in the long run to identify when something unnatural is happening. Again its Akasofu as Capt Kirk. But he rubs the AGW alarmists the wrong way. They want to stir the pot because they think its good for funding. But they know not the pot they stir.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 20, 2009 14:45:26 GMT
Nice to see you are backing down on this.
But arguing that natural variability is not fully understood is not the same as arguing that it is not understood at all. That is a common sceptic logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 20, 2009 17:08:03 GMT
Nice to see you are backing down on this. But arguing that natural variability is not fully understood is not the same as arguing that it is not understood at all. That is a common sceptic logical fallacy. There is no backing down on anything Steve except for your continued avoidance of graphing the climate record into your view of the future. Akasofu is working off two cycles that are fairly well identified in the paleoclimate record. The actual slopes are relatively unimportant except to the extent the IPCC prediction may be slightly over represented as well as the slope of natural warming that the IPCC shot off of. According to the school of Stephen Schneider over representing that is a condition of funding. . . .thus when Akasofu does it freehand graphically to make a point everybody gets their panties in a wad. However, if you bring both slopes down a tad to closer to perhaps reality the point may not be being emphasized for the casual audience to see clearly. I have no problem with what Akasofu has done graphically as he clearly labels his slope as less than what you actually measured it. Cartoons are fine as long as they are not used with misrepresented data to back them up. Disclosure is everything!! I would agree with you if Akasofu had offered the graph, didn't label the slope as less and hid the underlying data for 6 years from others that wanted to verify the work. Its complete nonsense to get your panties in a wad over that while defending the garbage the CRU group offers up through the IPCC. Akasofu recognizes two things that seem rather certain. First short term ocean oscillations on a decadal scale and longer term and more powerful climate oscillations on a centennial or millenial scale. The shorter term oscillations are currently notable in the instrument record. I am not familiar with whether they are well represented in the paleo record. However, the centennial scale markers can be seen in the paleo record, in icecores, anecdotal records, and to some limited extent in the instrument record. . . .the portion of which Akasofu represents in his graph, give or take a few hundredths of a degree per decade. Akasofu is making the case for decadal oscillations; something effectively denied by the IPCC. He is also making the case for an underlying longer term oscillation that is consistent with the paleo record as well. Now CO2 may be consistent also with the latter but there is a big difference. We know that CO2 was not responsible for the paleo record of centennial/millenial scale temperature fluctuations and something obviously had to be responsible. Its putting the system on its head to suggest that because nobody can explain what was responsible that it should be ignored. Quite the opposite is true as it is clearly something that needs to be reconciled. That is recognized by the IPCC CRU or else they would not be searching the world for burlwood that properly makes their case and "gets rid of the MWP". Since nearly a half of the IPCC prediction appears to be lost (at a minimum assuming it doesn't actually get colder) from the decadal oscillations alone; its mere desperate speculation to hang ones hat on the climate catching up with the prediction. Acknowledging natural fluctation overtaking CO2 forcing retroactive after denying it clearly calls for major adjustments to the predictions. As an auditor I used to have folks play this game all the time when a finding was made. . . .oh yeah they suddenly got religion and claimed the natural variation was expected after not acknowledging it in their original due diligence. This might not be highly scientific of an approach but it is the only realistic approach and does prove out in the end as experience will show the on going result will group nicely around the adjustment showing clearly that experience counts. So all I am asking for here Steve while you play the game of the tail wagging the dog is that you put the dog in the picture so we can see what that looks like and get a good belly laugh out of it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2009 14:40:37 GMT
The actual gradient is not important! I'm asking you to give me a gradient so I can reproduce for myself what *you* think the linear fit should be on one or more of the individual datasets that you say are represented by Akasofu's plot. It was a simple question designed to improve my understanding of your position. I've asked it a few times and I've clearly stated why I asked it. I have come to the conclusion that you are ignoring my very basic question and flim-flamming because you know that the Akasofu graph is not based on data, and you know that none of the actual datasets prove his point about variability. PS. this is what I said a month ago: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=903&page=2#33267
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 16:11:10 GMT
The actual gradient is not important! I'm asking you to give me a gradient so I can reproduce for myself what *you* think the linear fit should be on one or more of the individual datasets that you say are represented by Akasofu's plot. It was a simple question designed to improve my understanding of your position. I've asked it a few times and I've clearly stated why I asked it. I have come to the conclusion that you are ignoring my very basic question and flim-flamming because you know that the Akasofu graph is not based on data, and you know that none of the actual datasets prove his point about variability. An actual plot of the hadcrut3 data from 1880 to 2000 (the period covered by the Akasofu plot) is .62C warming. That equates to .525C per century. Further if you break Hadcrut in half the first 60 years results in a .4C per century rise and in the second 60 a .66C per century rise. If you look at Bryant and the old Hadcrut data the mid peak was lowered .12C. So distributing that change into the revised hadcrut you get .53C for the first half and .54 for the second half. Obviously thats a crude analysis but since the information on how CRU made those adjustments have been apparently lost. So again what are you yammering about with the Akasofu plot? If it is because Akasofu did not extend the observation window that may be for the identical reason that NASA and NOAA and JAMA did not.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2009 16:29:29 GMT
The Akasofu plot has 3 humps and 2 dips within the region of the observation data. He uses this to tell a story of waves of warming superimposed on a linear trend.
The line I drew, and the one you have drawn on the original data do not support the picture he is painting.
The first hump is not a hump at all because it is pretty clear that the cooling doesn't extend into the past. The second hump is much smaller. The third hump is the current warming that shows no signs of being a hump.
Akasofu has used a fake image to tell an untrue story. It has worked because it is all over the web, and you've lapped it up. It's antiscientific, and could never be published. Even in Energy & Environment (I'd hope...).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 17:55:08 GMT
So again what are you yammering about with the Akasofu plot?
If it is because Akasofu did not extend the observation window that may be for the identical reason that NASA and NOAA and JAMA did not.The Akasofu plot has 3 humps and 2 dips within the region of the observation data. He uses this to tell a story of waves of warming superimposed on a linear trend. The line I drew, and the one you have drawn on the original data do not support the picture he is painting. I am looking at my plot of Hadcrut3 1880-2000 data and an Excel linear trend line drawn on it. It has 3 humps and 2 dips. So I have no idea what you are talking about. The first hump is not a hump at all because it is pretty clear that the cooling doesn't extend into the past. The second hump is much smaller. The third hump is the current warming that shows no signs of being a hump. The second hump is only lower in the later versions of Hadcrut. The Bryant version does not show a diminished 2nd hump and neither does the NASA, NOAA or JAMA plots. And Dr. Jones would rather destroy the original data than give it to Steve McIntyre and face the music of a detailed statistical analysis of what he did to lower the 2nd hump. Seems to me the 2nd hump has a lot of scientific support and the new version has no support since it has no data to support it. The first hump you claim to not be a hump is not a complete hump in either my plot of Hadcrut3 nor in Akasofu's. In fact my hadcrut3 plot looks exactly like Akasofu's with peaks at 1881 and a smaller one at 1889 and a peak at 1998 on the other end. The plots do not return to the line in Akasofu's or any of the agency plots. All you can do is object to his extrapolations outside of the observation window. . . .but what support do you bring? Akasofu has used a fake image to tell an untrue story. It has worked because it is all over the web, and you've lapped it up. It's antiscientific, and could never be published. Even in Energy & Environment (I'd hope...). I have to agree that scientifically it is weak but it is scientific. The same cannot be said about Briffa's Yamal reconstruction, upside down Mann, Stripbarks, lwork that has no supporting datasets, and other tricks like grafting temperature records on to reconstructions "to hide" declines. As far as being able to publish such stuff, it seems to me that is a measure of nothing these days when you have the above examples that get through peer review. Some wanks own publications. Ownership of a publication isn't anything special anymore since ethics is no longer anything special to these owners of publications. Peer review is a joke these days. What your problem is you have failed to distinguish between science and theory. Science is empirical. Akasofu carefully notes the empirical portion of his graph it is and it is supported by the available science. Outside of the observation window he offers a theory combined with an opinion. This is carefully labeled, no subterfuge, no hiding of data. You simply don't like his theory but are afraid to parade your theory out for all to see because what it would like would be the IPCC portion of Akasofu's graph grafted onto the observation window. You have failed miserably to show any fudging in the observation window.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 18:12:54 GMT
Icefisher: After reading the exchanges on your evidenced paper, your last analysis is totally correct, and actually has never been challenged as it is so easy to understand.
It is the "outside" of the window that is drawing criticism. And ya know......that is a total crap shoot as to if anyone actually knows.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2009 20:02:52 GMT
And either your middle hump is tiny (unlike Akasofu), or your left-most hump is huge (with probably no data points below the line prior to 1900) + left dip virtually non-existent.
I think we've done this to death now. I don't *think* I can explain it better.
It's obviously far more likely that the temperature has been driven mostly by increasing levels of CO2 and changing levels of aerosols, and there is no "correct" level of temperature that inevitably will be "recovered" to.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 20:33:17 GMT
I am looking at my plot of Hadcrut3 1880-2000 data and an Excel linear trend line drawn on it. It has 3 humps and 2 dips. So I have no idea what you are talking about.And either your middle hump is tiny (unlike Akasofu), or your left-most hump is huge (with probably no data points below the line prior to 1900) + left dip virtually non-existent. LOL! If you want to criticize the small Akasofu middle dip why limit it to Akasofu? NASA, NOAA, JAMA, and the Bryant graphics all have middle dips similar to Akasofu. Why not criticize them? And the left dip maybe almost non-existant but its there in the Hadcrut graph. Further if you plot a 6 order polynomial on the Hadcrut data after adding 6 years back to 1874 the return to the line with the Hadcrut data becomes more pronounced than the Akasofu plot. So why just criticize Akasofu? And oh it also has 3 bumps and 2 dips. I think we've done this to death now. I don't *think* I can explain it better. No kidding! Running with the antelope is really hard when you are a pink elephant with a lame leg. It's obviously far more likely that the temperature has been driven mostly by increasing levels of CO2 and changing levels of aerosols, and there is no "correct" level of temperature that inevitably will be "recovered" to. Now that your request has been satisfied are we now going to see your plotted prediction grafted to the observation window with support as promised?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 21, 2009 20:54:09 GMT
You're always inventing stuff that I've said! I haven't criticized the "middle dip". I've said that the plot is exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 21, 2009 21:26:13 GMT
You're always inventing stuff that I've said! I haven't criticized the "middle dip". I've said that the plot is exaggerated. My mistake! I meant to say above you criticized the middle hump. You said: "The second hump is much smaller." However, I pointed out while Akasofu's hump is larger than the Hadcrut revised version, it is not larger than the Hadcrut earlier version, the Bryant Version, the NOAA version, the NASA version, and the JAMA version. So why not criticize them too? So far you have not made a case of the Akasofu observation window being exaggerated. Worse you apparently cannot produce a version that fits your beliefs either. So I will ask the question again: Now that your request has been satisfied are we now going to see your plotted prediction grafted to the observation window with support as promised? Or are you a weasel?
|
|