Bolt lost in stratosphere

John Quiggin catches Andrew Bolt pointing to stratospheric cooling as evidence against global warming. Stratospheric cooling is one of the pieces of evidence that suggest that the warming at the Earth’s surface (where people other than Andrew Bolt live) is caused by greenhouse gasses rather than the sun (which would warm the stratosphere as well). Eli Rabett has a post on the attribution of stratospheric cooling.

Also, Rabett finds another Monckton blunder and comes up with Needy Rapacious Scientists and Publicists for our favourite Canadian astroturfers.

Comments

  1. #1 Chris O'Neill
    November 11, 2006

    The graphs that Bolt reports are from Spencer and Christy derived data. I haven’t yet checked whether this has had the latest correction for previously undetected radiosonde error applied.

  2. #2 Tim Lambert
    November 11, 2006

    IF you click on the graph you’ll see it’s version 5.2 which is the corrected one. But the web page that the graphs are on hasn’t been updated it still says the trend is 0.08, which os no longer true.

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    November 11, 2006

    The Rabett Labs wordsmith unit has been closely monitoring the response, and on reflection is upgrading to v1.1 Needy Reprehensible Scientist and Publicists. We believe that this is almost ready for a major holiday release but would appreciate feedback from users.

  4. #4 Ian Forrester
    November 11, 2006

    Eli, how about No Real Science only Propaganda?

  5. #5 Ian Gould
    November 12, 2006

    “I challenge you to challenge your beliefs. What do you make of the fact that water vapour, far and away more so than CO2, is the most significant greenhouse gas?’

    I “make” of it that this is a well-known fact which is in every science text and which is factored into every climate model.

    I “make” of it that the current level of water vapor in the atmosphere effectively absorbs all re-emitted infrared radiation at the frequencies which it absorbs meaning the total greenhouse effect is relatively insensitive to fluctuations in water vapor levels.

    I “make” of it that the total greenhouse effect (both natural and manmade) is responsible for increasing the temperature of the Earth by about 30 degrees celsius, and that scientists have been predicting that a doubling in the gases responsible for the other 10% of global warming will increase average temperatures by around 10% – or 3 degrees celsius- for over a century.

    I “make” of it that just because some group proclaim themselves to be skeptics that doesn’t exempt their claims from a healthy skepticism.

  6. #6 Ian Gould
    November 12, 2006

    How odd, the previous post was in response to a post on another thread.

  7. #7 darwin
    November 12, 2006

    Funny you only commented on one aspect of my post Ian (a post for which, it seems, the author has gone through and removed from every thread that contained it, and other comments I had made). Healthy skepticism is just fine Ian, and to be expected of thinking people.

    Would that you would grant our side the same right – instead of censorship by outright removal of posts. No wonder Copernicus and Galileo had to capitulate.

  8. #8 Ian Gould
    November 12, 2006

    “Funny you only commented on one aspect of my post Ian”

    Funny that you don’t even attempt to rebut my counterargument on that one point.

    When I have more time I may respond the others, if I provide satisfactory answers to your questions will you actually modify your position?

    Posting the same post to multiple threads is considered psam, not just by Tim L but by most bloggers and will get you deleted regardless of the content of said spam.

  9. #9 Ian Gould
    November 13, 2006

    Darwin, since your posts were deleted I don;t recall the thrid point you made but I believe the second was a claim – and I’m paraphrasing here – that Greenland was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than currently.

    There’s simply very little evidence that this was the case – the Norse colony established in the late 10th century never numbered more than approximately 5,000 people and was mainly involved not in farming but in seal and walrus hunting. Icelandic accounts of the Greenlanders describe them trading walrus tusks; seal meat and furs for salted fish and grain.

    Archaeological digs show their diet was dominated by cattle, caribou and seal meat – not grain. They weren’t farmers – they were hunters and herders.

    Moreover the colony survived until sometime in the 15th century, well after the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the onset of the Little Ice Age. Think of the colony’s extinction as an illustration of the impact of that relatively minor and localised climate shift on humans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

    By the way, there’s been limited farming in southern Greenland pretty much ever since the colony there was re-established, so the limited farming activity in the same area in the 10-14th centuries doesn’t prove that it was radically warm there then than now.