Have we recovered yet (Pt 3)

This is the third and final part of my critique of Syun-ichi Akasofu's recent article.  In the first part I showed that temperature variations in the 20th century can not be accurately described as a "recovery" from the Little Ice Age; while in the second part I showed that no consistent assignment of sensitivity to solar forcing can plausibly explain both the recovery from the LIA and the late 20th century warming, even with the aid of oceanic oscillations.  Together, the two posts refute Akasofu's central claims.

Have we recovered yet (Pt 2)

In my first post on Syun-ichi Akasofu's recent article, I showed that his claims about recent temperature variations are not justified.  In particular, I showed that temperature increases since the Little Ice Age do not increase linearly with a sixty year fluctuation superimposed.  I did not, however, examine his proposed mechanism for the increase in temperatures in the late twentieth century.  That is the purpose of this post.

Have we recovered yet

Syun- Ichi Akasofu has a new article ("On the recovery from the Little Ice Age", Natural Science Vol. 2, No.11, 2010) which is likely to be influential in the pseudo-debate on Global Warming, if not on the actual debate.  The reason I do not think it will be influential amongst scientists studying Global Warming is the purpose of this post.