|
Post by socold on Aug 19, 2010 0:15:50 GMT
You obviously didn't read what Akasofu did Socold. His graph is a composite interpretation from several sources with a different anomaly base than GISS. Thus you cannot just plot GISTEMP on this graph and call your work anything other than stupid. Akasofu says: "The red line is a smoothed version of the 5-year mean in Figures 1a and Figure 1b" Figure 1a and 1b are the GISTEMP meteorological station record. The anomalies also match so he hasn't changed the baseline. The red dot with the green arrow that Akasofu draws is the GISTEMP meteorological record for 2008. 2009 was 0.72C. 2010 so far averages about 0.88C. That's above the IPCC high end in Akasofu's graph. Akasofu's graph is based on GISTEMP - and not even GISTEMP global but GISTEMP meteorological stations only, excluding the oceans. To compare like with like he should have used a global land+sea record, not a land only record. It's bizzare why he chose to use GISTEMP land. And yet while defending his graph you slate GISTEMP meteorological record. That's a new consistency low. If you were being consistent you should say hang on a second, now that I know he's based his conclusions on GISTEMP which I don't believe, I will therefore not accept his graph anymore. But no, you like his conclusions too much you can't let go. Update: if he had used a global record (land+sea) he wouldn't have got a nice oscillation around a linear trend. Of course it would be cynical of me to think he deliberately cherrypicked GISTEMP Met because it fit the result he wanted. Slighting scientists for making dubious choices is more your department, so get cracking. I expect comparisons between Akasofu and lysenko any second...
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 19, 2010 1:05:25 GMT
Hope this helps: HadCRUT(taller) and GISS 5-year means vs that graph. Um, I guess it comes down to whether you prefer the Yanks or the Limeys. Obviously - five years on - one is in the supposed projection range shown, the other isn't. The satellites agree more with HadCRUT. GISS agrees more with AGW forecasts.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 1:24:19 GMT
You obviously didn't read what Akasofu did Socold. His graph is a composite interpretation from several sources with a different anomaly base than GISS. Thus you cannot just plot GISTEMP on this graph and call your work anything other than stupid. Akasofu says: "The red line is a smoothed version of the 5-year mean in Figures 1a and Figure 1b"
Figure 1a and 1b are the GISTEMP meteorological station record. The anomalies also match so he hasn't changed the baseline.
The red dot with the green arrow that Akasofu draws is the GISTEMP meteorological record for 2008. 2009 was 0.72C. 2010 so far averages about 0.88C. That's above the IPCC high end in Akasofu's graph.Akasofu says the graph is: "An interpretation of Figures 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f, showing temperature changes that consist of a linear change and fluctuations” superposed on it. The red line is a smoothed version of the 5-year mean in Figures 1a and Figure 1b."
So first its not a plot of Jim Hansen's imagination and exactly what parts of the graph come from 1d, 1e, and 1f? A short answer would be the anomaly as it crosses the zero line about 1965 while GISTEMP crosses it in 1950. And where have you "smoothed" 2010 and 2009 to 5 year means? Akasofu is using smoothing to eliminate the ENSO effects that have driven 09 and 10 much higher. If he hadn't done that there would be a big dip at 2008 which is not there. I understand this kind of simpleton analysis of yours is how they do it over at Real Climate but that is why CAGW is looking so bad these days in public opinion polls. And that doesn't even go to pointing out that GISTEMP is so far out there, doesn't even make sense in places like the Arctic.Akasofu's graph is based on GISTEMP - and not even GISTEMP global but GISTEMP meteorological stations only, excluding the oceans. To compare like with like he should have used a global land+sea record, not a land only record. It's bizzare why he chose to use GISTEMP land.
And yet while defending his graph you slate GISTEMP meteorological record. That's a new consistency low. If you were being consistent you should say hang on a second, now that I know he's based his conclusions on GISTEMP which I don't believe, I will therefore not accept his graph anymore. But no, you like his conclusions too much you can't let go.
Update: if he had used a global record (land+sea) he wouldn't have got a nice oscillation around a linear trend. Of course it would be cynical of me to think he deliberately cherrypicked GISTEMP Met because it fit the result he wanted. Slighting scientists for making dubious choices is more your department, so get cracking. I expect comparisons between Akasofu and lysenko any second... You raise some interesting points. Akasofu notes that Hansen defended his GISTEMP construction with a straight line by comparing it to Bryant 1997 and noting all the smoothed points fit nicely into a 95% confidence interval. " After an early version of Figure 1b was constructed in about 2003, the author found that Bryant (1997) had approximated its changes already by a straight line and mentioned that there are only a few points outside the 95% confidence limits (Figure 1c), but he did not elaborate further on the significance of the linear trend. The gradient of the straight line is about 0.5°C/100 years, in agreement with that in Figure 1b." So you guys are screaming a little loud when its your guy's data and .5C/decade lines Akasofu is pointing to. And as far as the ocean oscillation not producing as neat of oscillation when SSTs are included might be true. But it is important to note that ocean oscillations are not an effect of CO2 and it could be internal ocean variability would change the shape of the curve and it may also be the case that similar evaluations that include SSTs simply are not available. Regardless of all that you guys are not fundamentally disputing what is being put forth by Akasofu and you are merely polluting his charts with unsmoothed data operating off incorrect anomaly figures because of your failure to match all that to the various data sources he used.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 1:28:43 GMT
Hope this helps: HadCRUT(taller) and GISS 5-year means vs that graph. Um, I guess it comes down to whether you prefer the Yanks or the Limeys. Obviously - five years on - one is in the supposed projection range shown, the other isn't. The satellites agree more with HadCRUT. GISS agrees more with AGW forecasts. Notice at the far upper right of the GIS graph, you can see Dr Hansen rising up from kowtowing to the NGO God, throwing his arms in the air and screaming: "Save us from the coal monster!" Look closely!
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 19, 2010 1:34:37 GMT
I uploaded the wrong image on accident, I replaced it with one that shows more recent times on Akasofu's graph. Socold's red dot is exactly where +0.7C is, by the way ...and updated again with a green dot where HadCRUT is right now.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Aug 19, 2010 2:24:09 GMT
I uploaded the wrong image on accident, I replaced it with one that shows more recent times on Akasofu's graph. Socold's red dot is exactly where +0.7C is, by the way ...and updated again with a green dot where HadCRUT is right now. Oh man. that's hard to watch.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 2:35:47 GMT
I uploaded the wrong image on accident, I replaced it with one that shows more recent times on Akasofu's graph. Socold's red dot is exactly where +0.7C is, by the way ...and updated again with a green dot where HadCRUT is right now. That green dot of course being the "unsmoothed" where Hadcrut is right now. The smoothed point has Hadcrut dead center on Akasofu's dashed line (the end of the thin red line from the Hadcrut graph. And of course the original charts Akasofu used are not the ones currently being used having been "value added". If you want to look at the anomalies as they once sat you need to look at Akasofu's paper. people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.phpHansen is off in pursuit of IPCC predictions all by himself cranking up temps in the Arctic and probably any other thinly populated place. The satellites are all largely in agreement with Hadcrut.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 5:00:21 GMT
I most certainly do remember this. The prediction was made in March 2008 after the notably cold January and February (remember the "cooling equivalent to a whole century of warming" stories.)
2008: I said 0.3, HadCRUT3 said 0.312 2009: I said 0.4, HadCRUT3 said 0.439 2010: I said 0.6, HadCRUT3 are currently saying 0.546 after 7 months of data.
If 2010 cools off a few tenths, socold probably beats me (he was ahead after 2009). If 2010 warms, or stays the same, I think I'll try to claim victory. Its kind of hilarious how meek the CAGW advocates have become. Steve"s prediction (which looks like it probably over shot actual) averages out to .4333 over the 3 years. The 7 years before that filling out the full first decade of the 21st century averaged .4429. So we had the warmists in effect predicting cooling and still likely overshooting the mark (or at least its on track to through the first 7 months) Oh yeah there was a La Nina. Thats right. And an El Nino. Now looking forward we are facing uh another La Nina. So whats the prediction Steve? More cooling? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 19, 2010 6:09:10 GMT
You can fit a negative trend from 1800 to the Present within the uncertainty ranges of McShane and Wynter GLC!
Possibly - but it's about the probabiities.
Don't you understand the first thing about data?
I do - you don't. Nor does Akasofu.
You don't just take the central tendency as Gospel!
Thanks for that.
Anything that fits within the bars of uncertainty is a possibility.
But not necessarily with a high probability. You can rest assured I understand uncertainty ranges, how they are calculated and how they should be interpreted.
If you want to make a case a construction is a remote possibility you have to do it mathematically not just show a picture of central tendency.
Th picture is suggestive. The trend(s) can be calculated from long term records. As I pointed out earlier the CET trend for 1800-1900 is virtually zero as are the trends for Uppsala, Stockholm and many other long term records.
Socold's right Akasofu has simply grabbed a version of the surface temperature record and extrapolated back to 1800. There is no justification for it . You've come out wih some nonsense about "His graph is a composite interpretation from several sources" .
Since we can't find any sources which show that a 0.5 deg increase during the 19th century is likely, Akasofu must have some as yet unknown sources which reveal strong warming during the 19th century. The sources he cites in his 'paper' come from either GISS or Hadley - neither of which supports his suggestion of a 19th century warming trend. This paper is supposedly what convinces you that current warming is a natural recovery from the LIA, so let me ask again.
Which sources show that the global trend during the 1800-1900 was 0.5 deg? [Bearing in mind we have several sources which show there wasn't]
Please, let me know if you don't understand the question.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 19, 2010 7:34:15 GMT
I most certainly do remember this. The prediction was made in March 2008 after the notably cold January and February (remember the "cooling equivalent to a whole century of warming" stories.)
2008: I said 0.3, HadCRUT3 said 0.312 2009: I said 0.4, HadCRUT3 said 0.439 2010: I said 0.6, HadCRUT3 are currently saying 0.546 after 7 months of data.
If 2010 cools off a few tenths, socold probably beats me (he was ahead after 2009). If 2010 warms, or stays the same, I think I'll try to claim victory. Its kind of hilarious how meek the CAGW advocates have become. Steve"s prediction (which looks like it probably over shot actual) averages out to .4333 over the 3 years. The 7 years before that filling out the full first decade of the 21st century averaged .4429. So we had the warmists in effect predicting cooling and still likely overshooting the mark (or at least its on track to through the first 7 months) Oh yeah there was a La Nina. Thats right. And an El Nino. Now looking forward we are facing uh another La Nina. So whats the prediction Steve? More cooling? LOL! It's not about being "meek" its about being right or wrong! As you say, my 3 year average was 0.433 and the actual average if the current year stays the same is 0.432! Remarkable eh! Natural variability is difficult to predict, so a slightly later and slightly bigger El Niño might have got temperatures close to my last year's and this year's guesses. Of course, as I might have said before, my guess was based on my interpretation of the published decadal forecast (at the time it seemed that the cooler members of the ensemble rather than the ensemble averages were the ones to follow). The out-turn was that the cooling dip - which was just about over when I made my guess - stayed just within the range of the ensembles before heading up back to the ensemble mean. The ensemble mean of the latest decadal forecast (released earlier this year) roughly follows the long term trend, but the ensemble mean shows a big spread at the moment presumably based on variations in ensembles for the El Niño to La Niña transition. How La Niña looks like it will turn out will affect my judgement (guess). (PS. I used the Met Office forecast purely because apart from the Keenlyside one it seems to be the only one around, and the Keenlyside forecast always looked a bit suspect).
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 19, 2010 7:44:53 GMT
Icefisher - Asafufu himself used unsmoothed value for 2008 and marked it on the graph.
That's fine but you complain bitterly when I do the same and mark 2009 on the chart?
More tonight, you've interpreted the graph completely wrong. The red line as he says is entirely from figure 1a and 1b. 1d-1f don't enter it and with sneaky wording he never says they do (he says the red line is an "interpretation" of 1a-1f, which doesn't mean he uses anything but 1a and 1b.
Face it this graph is looking fraudulent by blog-audit standards. If it wasn't a conclusion you liked you would be calling for Dr asufooofoo to be thrown in prison for fraud.
Tonight I will also take a look at exactly where the "IPCC prediction" line comes from in his graph. Want to bet there's something he's done wrong with that too?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 19, 2010 10:10:12 GMT
Well from a professional forecaster we get: "Over the coming decades, I expect to see the earths temps retreat back to where they were in the late 70s."www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweatherSo now we have Joe Bastardi vs the 'team' glc, steve and SoCold. Faites vos jeux!! Its nice seeing people getting so excited about validation testing. Normally its about as exciting as watching planks warp.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 10:58:13 GMT
Which sources show that the global trend during the 1800-1900 was 0.5 deg? [Bearing in mid we have several sources which show there wasn't] Please, let me know if you don't understand the question. Bear in mind no reliable records exist but antedotal information suggests it was more than one degree cooler during the Little Ice Age, among that evidence presented by Akasofu are various ice records dating back to the LIA. Is that good evidence of another .5 degree? Why do you care so much? Your argument here is exceedingly weak. One only has to look at how bad GISTEMP is botching Arctic temperatures in the presence of instrument records to understand how bad off AGW theory is based upon assumptions of warming starting with the industrial age and being flat before that. Sure McShane and Wynter are flatter than Akasofu but by how much? A 1/4 degree with reconstructions based upon what? Ultimately the instrument record only covers post LIA during a time when wider instrumentation was being accompanied with consistent measurements of retreating ice. But the ice advanced in the LIA and that suggests it was colder. You might consider that an unreasonable hypothesis but the fact is there are nothing but hypotheses regarding pre-mid 19th century global temperatures. If you really believe that CET stuff to the extent that it gives you heartburn for somebody to suggest something else I would say your mind has been closed. . . .but of course we already knew that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 19, 2010 10:59:12 GMT
I understand the Bastardi outlooks disappear after a bit, so I'll quote the section that includes his prediction:
Joe Bastardi's Europe Column POSTED: 3:44 p.m. August 18, 2010
The 1950's La Niña was negative MEI for about 3 years, including below -1.5 for 9 full months in a row, and were coupled with a temporary temperature drop of about 0.2C.
As my 2010 prediction guess differs markedly from socolds, and as glc hasn't made a prediction, there is no "team" here. Also I have said I'm not guessing further till I've watched the La Niña for a bit longer, so my short term prediction is not against Bastardi (even if I think his prediction as a whole is full of it).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2010 12:36:08 GMT
Icefisher - Asafufu himself used unsmoothed value for 2008 and marked it on the graph. That's fine but you complain bitterly when I do the same and mark 2009 on the chart? I probably would not complain if GISTEMP was not being such an outlier recently. Akasofu may have selected the GIS shape and when he did it was representative of the other sources which Akasofu states in his paper. Which for GLC's benefit since he can't seem to get himself to read the paper and keeps on going on about how his favorite reconstructions are not included here is a partial list of sources Akasofu uses for his linear 1800 to 2000 reconstruction. Fritzche et al., 2006 Polyakov et al., 2002 Isaksson et al. (2003) Asami et al. (2005) Jones and Braley, 1992 (Tarand and Nordli, 2001). Magnuson et al., 2000 Burroughs, 2001 Thompson, 1992 Ito, 2003 Harada, 1977 Lamb, 1982 f*gan, 2000 Maruyama, 2008 Gribben, 1978 Lamb, 1982 Crowley and North, 1991 Serreze and Barry, 205 Nunn, 2007 Holmes, et al, 2007 Liu et al, 2007 Frank et al, 2007 Esper et al, 2002 Van Engelen et al, 2001 Aono and Kazui, 2008 Richey et al, 2007 Several of these suggest figures as high as 5 deg C from the heart of the LIA and most suggest a linear recovery from somewhere between 1700 and 1850. Yet as we see in the focus on the hockey stick if you cherry pick enough you can torture the data into saying something else (though not quite a Hockey stick as we can see from the McShane et al work as that requires fudging of the cherrypicked data)
|
|