Monckton’s triple counting

Thanks to Drudge, all the right-wing blogs have been touting a story alleging the American Physical Society has reversed its stance on global warming. Joe Romm has the sordid details. The basis for the story is an article published in an APS newsletter (not jornal) by our old friend Christoper Monckton. Monckton’s article now carries a disclaimer saying:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

That’s probably good enough for most people, but here at Deltoid we go that extra mile, so I’ve read Monckton’s article and can explain what’s wrong with it.

First, I should disclose that I am not a physicist and only did first-year physics and an honours level course in mathematical physics at uni. But that’s way more than Monckton ever did, and more than enough to see where he went wrong.

Monckton is trying to make a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3°C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K. (Actually he says °K, which is wrong — it’s Kelvins, not degrees Kelvin.)

How does he come up with such a number?

He starts with an equation for forcing ΔTλ

ΔTλ = ΔF2xκf

where ΔF2x is the radiative forcing (in Watts per square metre) from doubling CO2, κ is the sensitivity (ignoring feedbacks) in units KW-1m2, and f is the feedback multiplier that takes account of feedbacks in the climate system. So far so good.

Then Monckton claims that the supposedly missing hotspot means that ΔF2x has to be reduced by a factor of three:

Since the great majority of the incoming solar radiation incident upon the Earth strikes the tropics, any reduction in tropical radiative forcing has a disproportionate effect on mean global forcings. On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models

ΔF2x ≈ 3.405 / 3 ≈ 1.135 Wm-2.

But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that ΔF2x “is about 3.5 watts per square meter”. As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen:

we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm

This is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.

Next Monckton turns his attention to κ and argues it’s too high as well:

We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near-identical; that all of the warming from 1980-2005 was anthropogenic; that the IPCC’s values for forcings and feedbacks are correct; and, in line 2, that McKitrick is right that the insufficiently-corrected heat-island effect of rapid urbanization since 1980 has artificially doubled the true rate of temperature increase in the major global datasets.

With these assumptions, κ is shown to be less, and perhaps considerably less, than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).

Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity. If you also assume that the IPCC values for ΔF2x and f are correct, then their value of κ must be too high — Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in the previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC value of ΔF2x was too high by a factor of three. If instead you use Monckton’s number, the IPCC value of κ is too low.

What Monckton is doing is double counting his (dubious) evidence that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number. If he had two pieces of evidence that sensitivity is half the IPCC number he would multiply them together to claim that sensitivity is one quarter the IPCC number. This is not correct.

To put it another way, in this case, by making some unrealistic assumptions he came up with a sensitivity estimate 20% less than the IPCC number i.e. 2.4K. Logically he should have stopped there — he has an estimate of sensitivity. Instead he uses this estimate of sensitivity in a chain of reasoning that leads him to conclude that sensitivity is 0.58K.

Anyway, Monckton goes on to pull the same stunt with f — using arguments that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number to argue that f must also be lower than the IPCC number. So that’s triple counting. Then he multiplies all his improved factors together to come with his final sensitivity of 0.58K.

The editor of the APS newsletter, Jeffrey Marque, actually invited Monckton to contribute this piece.

1. #1 pough
July 21, 2008

Ahem. Missed a “not” in that last sentence.

I don’t think any of it would have been an issue had the denialists not jumped all over it as though it were official APS material.

Where are the damn APS editors when you need them?

2. #2 Brian Macker
July 22, 2008

Luminous Beauty,

“James Mayeau, Wind chill is an effect of the latent heat of evaporation.”

Wrong. Try again. Wind chill works by blowing away the insulative layer of air that surrounds a body. Natural convection due to the body heating (or cooling) the surrounding air just doesn’t move the air as fast so it acts as an insulator. Wind tears that layer away. The exact reverse effect happens with hot air blowing on an object. That’s why convection ovens cook food faster. Convection ovens don’t use “convection” they use forced air.

“Ignorant as dirt about physics? Obviously. Dumb?”

See now that you’ve made a mistake about physics maybe your ponder being more polite in the future.

Dhogaza,
“I mentioned another, energy imparted by the rotation of whichever planet you wish to discuss.”

Well since wind is relative to the body in question how does it impart energy into it’s atmosphere? What with still air being still relative to the thing that’s suppose to be pushing it around.

Seems like somebody else doesn’t fully grasp their physics while insulting the intelligence of others.

I know why wind speeds are much higher on other planets. Denser atmospheres allow for potentially higher pressure gradients for one thing. Nothing to do with total heat.

Now I understand that a lot of the others making mistakes but at least they are not compounding them by calling the others idiots.

Of course, I expect no less from anonymous cowards.

3. #3 John Mashey
July 22, 2008

4. #4 Tim Lambert
July 22, 2008

5. #5 Webler
July 22, 2008

Hello folks, I’m back again to check out the rantings of some of the posters here. I’m not sure why some of them are rude, but I guess it is their nature when challenged by commonsense.

I see I have a few questions to answer, so let get my coffee and we shall continue.

And if you feel you need to be rude, be my guest. It just shows you are lacking in other areas of your life when –someone– doesn’t agree with you.

@ Tim Lambert, as this is your site I’m surprised that you are agreeing that there are trolls here. It is my understanding that many of the posters here have been posting for months.

6. #6 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posted: You global warning scientists should be a little nicer — in a few years time you may be asking me for work. π

GP posted: Nah. Too busy preparing their Nuremberg testimony. Here’s to hoping this blog keeps IP numbers π

Webler posted: Kudos to GP, I didn’t see this the first time around. Funny stuff and best line of the thread so far.

7. #7 dhogaza
July 22, 2008

IMHO, since APS invited the article, it would have been nice if they had more seriously reviewed it before posting it. It seems somewhat unfair to have invited a non-peer-reviewed paper, and then posted it, and then subsequently prepended a red “not peer-reviewed” disclaimer to it.

Monckton himself has claimed that he’s published a “major, peer-reviewed paper in an APS Journal mathematically proving that AGW is not a problem …”

And you’re suggesting the APS should not publish a disclaimer pointing out that the solicited OPINION PIECE is 1) not a “paper” 2) not “peer reviewed” 3) not published in an APS Journal?

You are seriously suggesting the APS is wrong to correct Monckton’s lies?

8. #8 dhogaza
July 22, 2008

Seems like somebody else doesn’t fully grasp their physics while insulting the intelligence of others.

At least you’re not claiming that it’s due to distance from the sun, as our carpenter does. Will you at least agree that he’s wrong to claim that some magical quality of distance to the sun is NOT the driver of wind on various planets in the solar system.

I admit to having been in error. As it turns out, you are, too. Someone above pointed out the energy source – planetary heat – for neptune, for instance. It appears that heat indeed is the reason.

Here, for instance, is an interesting abstract regarding Jupiter:

Meteorologists have long wondered whether solar energy or heat energy from within the planet predominates in driving Jupiter’s powerful weather engine. In two papers in this week’s issue of Nature, researchers provide an answer: Deep heat funneled upward by local storms is a major driver of jovian weather. They show that much if not all of the deep heat escaping the interior flows up through towering thunderstorms that eventually give up their energy to larger storms such as the Great Red Spot.

Note that there’s absolutely no hint of a disagreement over heat being the source of energy. Just WHERE the heat is coming from.

Come to think of it, you do understand that there must be a source of energy for winds to blow, right? Work is being done …

I know why wind speeds are much higher on other planets. Denser atmospheres allow for potentially higher pressure gradients for one thing. Nothing to do with total heat.

Where are the pressure gradients coming from? What’s the energy source for the work done in shoving masses of atmosphere around?

9. #9 Webler
July 22, 2008

luminous beauty posted: Here is a copy of the latest IPCC paleoreconstruction graph. Note: first listed study is MBH99.

Now, the only question I have for you is: Are you lying intentionally or just ignorantly repeating the lies of others?

Webler posted: Interesting. I say that I’m not interested in anything from RealClimate –I’m looking for objectivity– and you post an image from RealClimate. Tsk .. tsk. Of course there is only one image, so if someone who didn’t trust your motives might be suspicious of your Criss Angel slight-of-hand.

With the amount of posters trying to bury the truth and silence me, you can see why I’m leery of you only posting one image. What is the context?

Lucky for you I have seen the image before. I just don’t know why you didn’t post the pdf file?

Btw, I still stand by my original comment that when the IPCC 2007 AR4 first came out — Mann’s hockey stick graph was missing.

More on that later.

You have been quite obnoxious to me, one would guess, because I challenge your closed world. However, there is no need to be rude. I have no interest in being rude back to you as that isn’t my style. Plus, I have a feeling you are just a high school person on summer break and I don’t want to discourage your foray in the sciences or whatever else your into.

So unless you can learn some netiquette — I afraid I’m going to have to dismiss you.

So until then — you are dismissed.

10. #10 Webler
July 22, 2008

Mr VonDoog posted: To Mr. Webler, I understand your frustration with this poorly kept dialogue.

Webler posted: Yeah, you nailed their attitude with your post. The rabid fanaticism some posters show is beyond the pale. I think that they have so much invested in this major hoax of theirs, that the more the layers that get peeled away, the more vitriol they exhale with every post.

They are scared, they see themselves in the dust bin of history. Perhaps the younger ones might be able to salvage something when the lights get turned back on — but from what I seen in this forum is pretty much the same as in all global warming alarmist forums.

This is what happens when you start off with a selected conclusion and try to make the facts fit the mold. Anyone who dares challenges them they get quite upset.

Why can you do?

11. #11 Webler
July 22, 2008

Because the carpenter doesn’t know enough to realise when he’s been proved wrong.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan

Let me direct the sock puppet of the great Satan to post number 143.

12. #12 Webler
July 22, 2008

Hey Webler- you might like to reconsider what you have been told by some people. Can they be trusted when they lie to you? After all, if you go to chapter 6, on paleoclimate, on the latest IPCC report, pages 467 and 468, you’ll find a host of hockey sticks.
It would be good if you had a look and came back to us with your comments.

Posted by: guthrie

Now here is a another civilized post. Those are rare in this neck of the woods. π

Yes, I had a look at the pdf file some time ago, so I know it existed. However, as I mentioned above I still say that all evidence of Mann’s hockey graph was erased from it.

It was only after the outcry of Dr Mann, and his minions and all those other alarmists seeing the ball of string beginning to unwind — that the alarm cry went up.

Many people who thought the global warming cry was completely overrated and saw this as the beginning of the end. Now judging by some of those earlier adages I posted you can see how the IPCC and henchmen had to get the disbelievers under control.

They needed to re-insert a hockey stick graph even though the IPCC knew it was full of holes. The goal was to silent the masses.

Now I have seen the argument that the graph was always there, but I have heard personally from 2 people that had hard copies that, that wasn’t the case.

I also notice that this graph features lot less prominent.

As an aside: I noticed how those leaders of the global warming movement were crowing loudly that this was irrefutable proof that we had only 10-20 to live. Now, because it has been debunked, those same people are saying that the graph now means very little.

A strange occurrence indeed. One day you are riding the wave and next you are being crushed by the surf.

To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don’t buy it.

13. #13 dhogaza
July 22, 2008

Interesting. I say that I’m not interested in anything from RealClimate –I’m looking for objectivity– and you post an image from RealClimate.

So, our troll rests his claim that the latest IPCC report doesn’t include the “hockey stick” nor reference MBH on …

his unwillingness to look at Real Climate?

This is too funny.

Since our boy started off with (paraphrase): “I’m just a carpenter, and can’t walk on water…”

That possible jesus reference makes me wonder if he’s just pulling our leg …

He’s too stupid to be true, is my thought.

14. #14 Webler
July 22, 2008

I think the Webler furball is an excellent demonstration of why you should never wrestle with a pig.

Please do not feed the troll.

Regards Luke

Posted by: Luke Silburn

I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don’t believe in everything that is posted here.

As I stated earlier – I’m not sure where it states that I have to agree with everything that all the RealClimate people post.

15. #15 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

re: webler #209

You can find the original of that chart here, under “The Physical Science Basis” part six, “Paleoclimate”, on page 467, chart 6.10:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

16. #16 Webler
July 22, 2008

Post 197 — you are in the minority. The tables are turning. The commonsense people are starting to wake from their slumber. Many other scientists are starting to speak up. Other organizations are starting to raise their voices.

If you are so sure of your position then why do you global warming people call your peers names when they don’t agree with you.

Why don’t you challenge them? Have it out in the open. Let the public decide.

17. #17 Webler
July 22, 2008

Bernard J. posts: Yes, so smart that he can’t even muster junior high-school vocabulary.

Another shameful display by those who need to attack the person rather than his truth.

I can’t remember if it was the Philosopher Confucius or the Philosopher Anonymous who said — “Correcting spelling and grammar mistakes on a public forum is the last refuge of knaves.

18. #18 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

> Why don’t you challenge them? Have it out in the open. Let the public decide.

You do realize that this is the exact same argument that the Intelligent Design people use, right?

July 22, 2008

This is just too funny…while Western countries are in a race to bankrupt their economies with GreenHouse Gas Regulations, Ethanol production, obstruction of oil exploration, obstruction of construction of nuclear power plants…the Gulf States are building coal fired power plants…guess the rest of the world will just boycott their product, huh??

And yes, the Debate is far from over despite all of the Huffing and Puffing from dhogaza et al…

20. #20 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

> the Gulf States are building coal fired power plants…

Well, that’s probably because every time they try to build nuclear power plants, they get bombed by someone.

21. #21 Webler
July 22, 2008

re: webler #209

You can find the original of that chart here, under “The Physical Science Basis” part six, “Paleoclimate”, on page 467, chart 6.10:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Posted by: anonymous coward

Thanks, anonymous coward, that is the pdf I have. See my post 212 and the reason I say that it was added in after. As stated in that post I have seen the arguments on Web that state that it was always included. But I will have to go by those hard copies.

Nevertheless, thanks.

22. #22 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

webler #221:

Who has these hard copies and what are the dates on them?

23. #23 Webler
July 22, 2008

Well, it has been a fun few days. I probably will drop around again to see the topic articles that are posted. Contrary to what some of you think, I don’t argue for the sake of arguing.

No need to start an argument for argument sake. Life’s too short to discuss things that I have no interest in.

I always try to preserve the truth. And I never let the majority silence me.

Yippy-Ki-Yay Folks

Postscript. A must read. Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

I know some of you will love the Web site.

24. #24 Michael
July 22, 2008

Hmmmm, you can look at the PDF of the IPCC and see the graphs or believe that they were later re-inserted because an anonymous poster here says that someone told him that they had hard copies without them.

Tough call……

25. #25 anthony
July 22, 2008

Webler: I always try to preserve the truth. And I never let the majority silence me.
Yippy-Ki-Yay Folks
[exits, despite protestations, into broom closet]

26. #26 dhogaza
July 22, 2008

Life’s too short to discuss things that I have no interest in.

But clearly long enough to “discuss” things you have no knowledge of.

Though I really do think this dude’s just a troll having a good time at our expense.

The latest bit about the IPCC inserting the hockey stick after initial publication is quite funny.

July 22, 2008

Anonymous Coward said:

>Well, that’s probably because every time they try to build nuclear power plants, they get bombed by someone

Good attempt at obfuscating the argument…they have like 90% sunlight each day and lots of barren desert to put in solar but why don’t they? Because of their economy and their governments are basically autocracies so the Gulf States don’t subsidize solar like Eur or USA which makes very uneconomical when compared to coal…do they give a rats ass about any debate on Global Warming? What are you going to do about it? Boycott oil??

The irony here is just too rich…

28. #28 dhogaza
July 22, 2008

What do actions by middle east autocracies have to do with the accuracy of climate science?

We *know* governments worldwide have a history of ignoring science when they find its conclusions contradict policy. But this has nothing to do with whether or not scientific conclusion are accurate.

29. #29 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

re: weber #223

If I remember correctly, Senator Inhofe’s list of scientists included not a single reference to a publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

30. #30 Tim Lambert
July 22, 2008

Webler:

>They needed to re-insert a hockey stick graph even though the IPCC knew it was full of holes. The goal was to silent the masses.

>Now I have seen the argument that the graph was always there, but I have heard personally from 2 people that had hard copies that, that wasn’t the case.

Now **that’s** what I call trolling. Other trolls: pay attention. You have to write something so outrageous that folks just *have* to slap you down. And the by the way the hockey stick is [in the draft AR4 report](http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch06_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf).

31. #31 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

Webler posts: Sure it has. The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion — that Mann’s methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

You didn’t actually go to the link I provided, did you? All that you say above is crap. The NAS report concluded that while Mann’s statistical procedure may not have been the best (it was the first paper of its kind), it was not wrong and it came to the right conclusion — as have at least 14 similar papers since. Your accusing Mann of deliberate dishonesty breaks the ninth commandment.

Webler posts: I don’t think so, unless you can turn this charade around to your advantage I think many of you will be will be looking for work in a new field.

The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning.

You’ve told more whoppers than Burger King has sold, that your career is in jeopardy.

Don’t accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. If anyone has been dishonest here, it’s you. Don’t project your failings on me.

Webler posts: I’m a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being. Unlike you, I read both sides of the issue

You have no way of knowing what I’ve read or haven’t read.

and I come to a sound conclusion — that man-made catastrophic global warming is the big hoax the world has ever seen.

Maybe the Jews are behind it? How about the Bilderbergers? Wait! I have it! The Illuminati!

no need to really as the sea levels will rise the same for the last few centuries and as they will continue do so long after I’m gone. Sorry folks, no el-Gorish sea level panic will happen. Nn el-Gorish MMGW is coming, nor is it here.

Levenson posts: Scientists seem to disagree with you.

Hardly.

Then who are you arguing with? Yes, scientists disagree with you that the present rate of sea level rise will stay the same. Crack a book, for Christ’s sake.

32. #32 Vagueofgodalming
July 22, 2008

May I just draw attention to GoDaddy’s implication (227) that autocracies, unlike democracies, make rational economic decisions. What goes around comes around. The question is, who is bringing it round this time.

33. #33 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

Really, if money wasn’t the issue why all the lies to get you hands on the money.

That’s the second time you’ve accused me of lying. You make the baby Jesus cry with your false accusations.

34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

von Doog posts:

I am now a skeptic. I believe the sun has a lot more to do with this than CO2

How can that be, since the Solar constant hasn’t changed appreciably in 50 years?

TSI Time Series

It’s hard to see how a flat input for the last 50 years could cause a sharp upturn in global warming over the last 30.

35. #35 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Von Doog posts:

He commented that the solar input in a matter of days was greater than the total amount of energy we burn in a year.

So from that point I became a skeptic.

Thanks for that classic example of a non sequitur.

Were you under the impression that global warming results from the heat released by combustion? If so, you don’t know anything about the theory you’re criticizing.

36. #36 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Von Doog posts:

All core data shows an ~800 year lag behind temperature regarding CO2 changes.

Yes, in a natural deglaciation, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. What makes you think that is what’s happening now?

To say that CO2 is the only forcing is bad science.

But no actual climatologist says it is the only forcing. Again, you don’t seem to know anything about the theory you’re criticizing.

37. #37 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don’t buy it.

Translation: I don’t care what the evidence is, I’m going to stick to my beliefs. Evidence doesn’t matter.

38. #38 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don’t believe in everything that is posted here.

No, Webler, that’s not why. It’s because you’re rude, obnoxious, and hostile, and have repeatedly accused everyone here of being liars and hoaxers. That’s a far cry from “not believing in everything that is posted here.”

39. #39 Webler
July 22, 2008

Now that’s what I call trolling. Other trolls: pay attention. You have to write something so outrageous that folks just have to slap you down. And the by the way the hockey stick is in the draft AR4 report.

Posted by: Tim Lambert

Tim, I’m surprised you didn’t comprehend what I wrote. I said that wasn’t in the original AR4 –the hard copy– it was missing. They then released the it too the public (or a larger group of those who were going to assess the document). I read a copy from google some time ago.

If I’m not mistaken, and there is another Tim Lambert that is blogging, I recall that you entered in the debate that was on line. I think in the same post who also commented on a Wall Street Journal op/ed piece.

So, I go with my original claim. That Mann’s graph was not in the original papers that were sent out to the select group, and only put back in after the outcry.

Really folks, you act if it is magic to change a document then put in on the Web.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you posters put up a link to the pdf file — make no difference to me, since I’ve seen it a long time ago

40. #40 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: Sure it has. The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion — that Mann’s methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

Levenson posts: You didn’t actually go to the link I provided, did you? All that you say above is crap. The NAS report concluded that while Mann’s statistical procedure may not have been the best (it was the first paper of its kind), it was not wrong and it came to the right conclusion — as have at least 14 similar papers since. Your accusing Mann of deliberate dishonesty breaks the ninth commandment.

Webler posts: I disagree with you. I have read many books and online sites. What I posted it the truth. It is not my fault the Mann did what he did. That is reason he started RealClimate — to save his reputation.

==========

Webler posts: I don’t think so, unless you can turn this charade around to your advantage I think many of you will be will be looking for work in a new field.

Levenson posts: The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning.

Webler posts: What scientists, or any career minded person, will be able to retain a job in their chosen field if in the end all the numbers don’t add up after they have been promoting something that is outrageously grand or unbelievable in this case. Seriously, how long to you think an investment banker will be able to keep his job if he keeps throwing wildly insane numbers around to his clients — only for them to see the light and bring it to the right authorities.

==========

Webler posts: You’ve told more whoppers than Burger King has sold, that your career is in jeopardy.

Levenson posts: Don’t accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. If anyone has been dishonest here, it’s you. Don’t project your failings on me.

Webler posts: You can dish it out, but you can’t take a joke back. Then you should stop projected your fears on the public.

========

Webler posts: I’m a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being. Unlike you, I read both sides of the issue

Levenson posts: You have no way of knowing what I’ve read or haven’t read.

Webler posts: Exactly, like you, et al, have no idea what I’ve read or haven’t read. Just because I can’t do advance mathematics doesn’t mean that I can weigh the evidence between to opposing sides and reach my own conclusion. Now, someone will probably pipe up and make reference to that last line, but let me remind the forum that their are countless of scientists that don’t you with the principle put form on this or many other global warming alarmist blogs.

====

Webler posts: and I come to a sound conclusion — that man-made catastrophic global warming is the big hoax the world has ever seen.

Levenson posts: Maybe the Jews are behind it? How about the Bilderbergers? Wait! I have it! The Illuminati!

=========

Webler posts: Hardly.

Levenson posts: Then who are you arguing with? Yes, scientists disagree with you that the present rate of sea level rise will stay the same. Crack a book, for Christ’s sake.

Webler posts: I have cracked a book — even have read it. It stated that on average the sea levels have been rising the same for centuries and will continue to do so. No need for alarm.

41. #41 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: Really, if money wasn’t the issue why all the lies to get you hands on the money.

Levenson posts: That’s the second time you’ve accused me of lying. You make the baby Jesus cry with your false accusations.

Webler posts: “you” was a reference to “those climatologists” in he original post — albeit, not very clear.

It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day’s work I guess.

42. #42 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don’t buy it.

Levenson posts: Translation: I don’t care what the evidence is, I’m going to stick to my beliefs. Evidence doesn’t matter.

Webler posts: Translation: If Webler disagree with me it is clear that evidence does not matter to him.

Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don’t agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites. Some of it I do agree with, other material I would call junk science. If that offends you then that is your problem. It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those ‘spokespeople’ in TV land –for global warming– have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

The chasm was/is created by those people, not I.

43. #43 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don’t believe in everything that is posted here.

Levenson posts: No, Webler, that’s not why. It’s because you’re rude, obnoxious, and hostile, and have repeatedly accused everyone here of being liars and hoaxers. That’s a far cry from “not believing in everything that is posted here.”

Webler posts: My very first post on this forum — I got attacked. I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

You just don’t like people standing up to you. I have noticed the common theme of this thread is to call anybody a troll who doesn’t totally march to the same beat as the rest of you. Some of you have been so rude to other posters who have offered up their opinion, that they have just left. It is the regulars of this forum that have a serious problem.

As far as the term “liars” I think we have already cleared that up. As far as MMGW — yeah, it is a hoax.

44. #44 Webler
July 22, 2008

Well folks, I gotta run, so once again I will sign off.

Have a pleasant day.

Webler

45. #45 jre
July 22, 2008

From #209:

Btw, I still stand by my original comment that when the IPCC 2007 AR4 first came out — Mann’s hockey stick graph was missing.

Not true. How do we know? Because the report was archived when it was released. See p. 467.

Even going to the Wayback Machine and looking this up was a waste of ten minutes that I’ll never get back. Why, I wonder, do we spend any time on the Mayeaus and Weblers of this world, when there are Masheys and Levensons standing by, waiting to add real value to the discussion? I think it is because a kind of Gresham’s Law operates on blog threads, where trolls drive out serious commenters.

46. #46 Majorajam
July 22, 2008

Monckton’s ostensibly making a case for a given climate sensitivity, correct? So he uses a non-existent finding of a non-peer reviewed paper to challenge the CO2 forcing claimed by the IPCC as optimum point estimate, only to turn around and use the IPCC’s supposedly erroneous estimate of forcing, (together with some further nonsensical ‘science’), to estimate climate sensitivity and the IPCC’s supposedly erroneous estimate of forcing and sensitivity to estimate feedback. And we need to know squat about physics to debunk that malarkey? I am tempted to put it in front of my 1 and a half year old when she has trouble come potty time.

This is not triple counting, this is naked fraud and more revealing of the heart of ‘skepticism’ than anything else could be. If this loon-job is one of their leading lights, if they have no more concern about appearances than not to disavow someone who would publicly tout something so prima facie false, so utterly shameless, than there really isn’t anything separating these people from geocentrists or those that deny HIV causes AIDS.

What makes that even more frightening is the legions of, presumably, people that can’t even bring themselves to face such corporeal facts as that this paper is patently fraudulent, and can be shown thus to anyone possessing even of a high school diploma. It’s borderline madness.

This is not triple counting, this is naked fraud and more revealing of the heart of ‘skepticism’ than anything else could be. If this loon-job is one of their leading lights, if they have no more concern about appearances than not to disavow someone who would present something so primie facie false, there really isn’t anything separating these people from those that deny HIV causes AIDS.

47. #47 Majorajam
July 22, 2008

Strike that last paragraph. Edit gone wrong.

48. #48 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day’s work I guess.

That’s the third time you’ve accused me of dishonesty. Three strikes and you’re out.

49. #49 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don’t agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites.

That’s your prerogative. You can disagree with anything. You can disagree with evolution or the Big Bang. Doesn’t mean we have to respect your opinion.

It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those ‘spokespeople’ in TV land –for global warming– have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

You have called everyone here liars and hoaxers and have accused Dr. Michael Mann, a respected climatologist, of scientific misconduct and deliberate fraud. Is that not “outrageously derogatory?” Why is it okay for you to be nasty and unpleasant, but wrong when people respond in kind?

50. #50 Barton Paul Levenson
July 22, 2008

Webler posts:

I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

That was hilarious! Do it again!

51. #51 guthrie
July 22, 2008

Webler- you’d be doing a better bit of trolling if you actually knew what you were talking about. You do know that the MBH referenced in the 6th chapter, page 467, is in fact a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that superseedes and extends the analysis of the previous hockey stick graph?

Therefore, your claim is completely false. At this point I can only say that you need to go away and read up on the actual science. That the IPCC can give a page of different hockey sticks, all showing roughly the same thing, and yet you claim that MBH doesn’t exist, ignoring the fact that their graph doesn’t need such prominence amongst all the other confirmatory data, indicates that you are so far wrong you aren’t even on the same planet.
Science builds on older results; they naturally get overtaken and left behind and eventually only ezist as footnotes. ONly ideologues think this is odd.

52. #52 harold
July 22, 2008

An update of the Monckton controversy. The weasels at APS have changed the disclaimer. Now no red letters only black.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

53. #53 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day’s work I guess.

Levenson posts: That’s the third time you’ve accused me of dishonesty. Three strikes and you’re out.

Webler posts: If want to equate stirring up trouble to dishonesty then far be it from me to correct you.

54. #54 Webler
July 22, 2008

Webler posts: Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don’t agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites.

Levenson posts: That’s your prerogative. You can disagree with anything. You can disagree with evolution or the Big Bang. Doesn’t mean we have to respect your opinion.

Webler posts: I never said you had to respect your opinion. Just like I don’t have to respect the opinions of many on this forum when it come to their man-made catastrophic global warning. Don’t you think it is time to grow up and stop your pettiness — people are going to disagree with you on all sorts of topics.

========

Webler posts: It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those ‘spokespeople’ in TV land –for global warming– have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

Levenson posts: You have called everyone here liars and hoaxers and have accused Dr. Michael Mann, a respected climatologist, of scientific misconduct and deliberate fraud. Is that not “outrageously derogatory?” Why is it okay for you to be nasty and unpleasant, but wrong when people respond in kind?

Webler posts: I haven’t called everyone liars, that’s just your defensive mode kicking to turn the heat off yourself. As far a Mann goes he may be respected to you, but I don’t have to have the respect for him that you think he deserves. It would seem that you are willing to criticize those scientists that you don’t agree with — shouldn’t you follow your own advice instead of displaying your hypocrisy?

Another point that you and a few others are unable to understand. I am not attacking any posters in this forum. I totally disagree with Mann and have said so. I also think he has sullied his reputation as many other people have pointed out. I have been up front about what I think of what the global warming alarmists say. I think it is a hoax perpetrated by many scienctists. And you know very well that others highly agree with that. I also think many fall into lock-step –with their opinion– to the will of others, so not be outcast from the science community. I also think some scientists have overreached and see the results as they want to see them and not as they really are. They see stars, but stars with their names on them.

That is a far cry from verbally attacking posters. If you don’t understand, then let me give you another example.

I don’t like Hollywood. Nothing wrong with saying what I don’t like about it.

I may totally dislike the actors, and will criticize them for the lousy acting job.

However, If they where posting on a Hollywood forum and I starting verbally calling them names because they disagree with me — then that would be nasty.

I have tried to keep the analogy(I’m sure I will be attacked for using that word in that way) simple so that you many be able to see the difference.

55. #55 Webler
July 22, 2008

Mr Levenson, your post at number 250 is childish.

56. #56 Webler
July 22, 2008

guthrie posts: Webler- you’d be doing a better bit of trolling if you actually knew what you were talking about. You do know that the MBH referenced in the 6th chapter, page 467, is in fact a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that superseedes and extends the analysis of the previous hockey stick graph?

Webler posts: I think you and a few others are not understanding my point or my claim. I don’t know how much more clear I can make it.

It is hardly trolling because I have a different opinion than yours.

I will tell you what. If you or anyone else in the forum can prove that no hard copies go out to a select group before they are published on the Web — then I will investigate this more.

However, I have no reason to doubt the claims of the two people that said they saw the hard copies and it wasn’t in there.

Someone one else already asked the names, but I never mentioned because I’m sure they would come under attack as “big oil,” or some such other claim.

But fair is fair. You prove to me that no hard copies get passed around and then I will take the issue up with those that have stated this.

And to your claim that I don’t think that the “MBH doesn’t exist,” is something I never have stated.

57. #57 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

> However, I have no reason to doubt the claims of the two people that said they saw the hard copies and it wasn’t in there.

Do you really think that this qualifies as “evidence” of your claim?

If you want to be believed, provide scans of these versions of AR4 which lack the MBH graph. Alternatively, provide the publication date of these specific editions so that those of us who have access to university libraries can verify your claim. Or maybe you can just tell us the names of the people who told you MBH wasn’t in AR4, so that we can ask them for this information.

More importantly, how do you deal with the fact that this draft, released on March 7th, 2006, far before the hardcopy edition of AR4 was printed, contains the MBH reference? You’ll note that it’s hosted on a “climate skeptic” site so it’s unlikely that it’s been edited in some way. It’s on page 6-92 of this draft.

http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch06_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf

Did they remove the MBH reference in between March 2006 and late 2007, print the books, and then put the MBH reference back in for the web version? Is that your claimed scenario?

58. #58 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

The link to the AR4 draft got broken in #257. Here it is corrected.

59. #59 Tim Lambert
July 22, 2008

Webler, you are a troll because you post obviously false claims to disrupt discussion. Enough. No further posts will be accepted from unless you provide evidence along the lines suggested by ac in post 257.

60. #60 J E Twinkieglidden
July 22, 2008

Have the current IPCC models accounted for clouds yet?

61. #61 anonymous coward
July 22, 2008

> Have the current IPCC models accounted for clouds yet?

Why not go find out for yourself?

62. #62 z
July 22, 2008

Gould et al have, of course, violated the Wallingford Accords of 2007 (universally regarded as the beginnings of the modern era of climate policy), which unequivocally ban quoting of Monckton in any non-humorous context.

63. #63 z
July 22, 2008

” guilty of data mining”

nailed it on the first try:

“Data mining: Discovery mode of data analysis, or analyzing detail data to unearth unsuspected or unknown relationships, patterns and associations that might be of value to the organization. Advanced analysis used to determine certain patterns within data. Most often associated with predictive analysis. A process of analyzing large amounts of data to identify patterns, trends, activities, and content of data content relationships. ”

any other damning accusations up your sleeve there?

64. #64 J E Twinkieglidden
July 22, 2008

Gould et al have, of course, violated the Wallingford Accords of 2007 (universally regarded as the beginnings of the modern era of climate policy), which unequivocally ban quoting of Monckton in any non-humorous context.

“This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

— Frederick Seitz

A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

I suppose the Accords will need to add this guy to the list too? In any context, of course.

65. #65 Brian D
July 23, 2008

JE Twinkieglidden: Wiki “Ben Santer”.

Mind you, Seitz’s earlier employers, Phillip Morris, had a rather bemused take on him about twenty years ago now. Worth a read.

I know, speaking ill of the dead and all that, but still…

66. #66 James Mayeau
July 23, 2008

osted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 21, 2008 8:10 AM

James Mayeau posts:
One problem is still niggling at my brain. If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun? Help me out Luminous beauty. I’m stuck in a quandry.
“Quandary.”
Windspeed doesn’t increase with distance from the sun. Wind speeds are high on Neptune because Neptune is internally heated from tidal friction from its largest satellite, Triton, as I demonstrated in a paper in 1989. All the giant planets except Uranus have significant internal heat sources, though their nature is different. On Jupiter, contraction is still generating heat; on Saturn, contraction plus the phenomenon of “helium rainout” is responsible.
Your contention that wind is not caused by heating an atmosphere is unique in the annals of climate and planetary science. What do you think does cause wind?

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW, (ala the Sherwood Allen paper) which takes us all the way back to the beginning of Lambert’s post, where Tim obliquely references “that the supposedly missing hotspot means that ?F2x has to be reduced by a factor of three” via realclimate.
Congradulations you have just discovered the real world observation which justifies Lord Monckton’s estimation of the negative feedback.
Perhaps this is the reason Lambert didn’t link it directly?

You have no scars on your face, and you can not handle
pressure.

Hey Bart, you really measured tidal friction between Neptune and Triton?
That’s hella cool. Send a link to that paper, please. If you have any comment to offer regarding Enceladus, I’d be interested to see that too.

67. #67 WotWot
July 23, 2008

Trees regulate their internal temperature.

Apparently, independent of any external factors.

Which, of course, would explain the vast forests on the Antarctic high plateau.

68. #68 Nick
July 23, 2008

Didn’t you know trees were warm-blooded,Mayeau? They move around at night when we’re all asleep….

July 23, 2008

“You can’t have my trolling any more, you’re not worthy!”

uh, what?

July 23, 2008

Nick:

Dr. Ronald Reagan, who studied even more advanced physics than the advanced physics doctorate above, in 1980 poured over a report that showed trees cause pollution – so don’t just think active nightlife, think arboreal Vegas, baby!

71. #71 dhogaza
July 23, 2008

Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW

It’s not a fingerprint of AGW, we expect the “fingerprint” from *any* source of warming, solar, CO2-forced …

So, we know it’s warming as we have three different ways of measuring the increase – satellite data, radiosondes, and ground stations.

We know that we should be seeing the tropical “fingerprint”.

So, where has the heat gone? Just got up and disappeared? No, it’s been converted to work, and yes, people have been able to show so somewhat conclusively.

What you and many others seem to be missing is that this only addresses a small question which arises from *observed* global warming. Nothing to do about the *cause* of said warming at all …

72. #72 Barton Paul Levenson
July 23, 2008

Webler posts:

I am not attacking any posters in this forum.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

He did it again! I love it!

73. #73 Barton Paul Levenson
July 23, 2008

James Mayeau posts:

Hey Bart, you really measured tidal friction between Neptune and Triton? That’s hella cool. Send a link to that paper, please. If you have any comment to offer regarding Enceladus, I’d be interested to see that too.

You can do it, too. Just go to the NASA fact sheets on Neptune and Triton, then apply Webster’s (1925) equation for the mean height of mid-ocean tides:

h = 0.85 Mb Rb4 / (Mb r3)

It’s trivial to show that the tides exerted on Neptune by Triton are many orders of magnitude greater than that, e.g., exerted on Earth by the Moon, or even than that exerted by Earth on the Moon.

Reference:

Webster, A.G. 1925. The Dynamics of Particles and of Rigid, Elastic and Fluid Bodies. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.

74. #74 Chris O'Neill
July 23, 2008

Webler:

You sound like a character from a Charlie Brown special.

Not very original of you.

75. #75 Lee
July 23, 2008

Mayeau says:
“Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW, (ala the Sherwood Allen paper)”

Oh, man…

No, that is NOT what the linked paper says. It detects a tropical troposphere warming, using wind velocity trends to bypass the problematic, very spotty, and very heterogeneous temp readings from the sondes.

And no, trop trop warming is NOT “the tropical fingerprint of AGW.”

76. #76 Barton Paul Levenson
July 24, 2008

I rushed that last post and as a result I made two mistakes:

1) I superscripted stuff that shouldn’t have been superscripted,

2) I wrote a term wrongly, and, more importantly

2) I DIDN’T DEFINE THE TERMS IN THE EQUATION. Bad poster! bad!

h = 0.85 Ma Rb4 / (Mb r3)

Mb is the mass of the body causing the tides.
Rb is the radius of the body experiencing the tides.
Mb is the mass of the body experiencing the tides.
r is their separation.

The proportionality constant is for figures in the SI.

77. #77 Barton Paul Levenson
July 24, 2008

THREE MISTAKES! NOT TWO! AAAAARRGH!

My brain hurts.

78. #78 Bernard J.
July 24, 2008

Webler posts: My very first post on this forum – I got attacked. I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

OK, so you’re a Deltoid newbie, but one with a fountain of opinions…

It is the regulars of this forum that have a serious problem.

Oh, so you’ve been lurking for some time then, to know regulars from droppers-in?

But hang on, you’re a newbie…

Matey, with your form, you’re either a troll who must have wet his pants for quite a while before he opened his trap, or you’re a sock-puppet for a denialist who has been flagellated here for past indiscretions, or you were hollered over from some other swamp by a troll-mate seeking reinforcements.

Or maybe something else. I doubt though that you’re an innocent wandering ‘sceptic’ who just happened upon this discussion and felt the need to educate the stupid, deluded folk with scientific/mathematical/statistical understanding whom you found here.

After all, that would be quite a feat for a carpenter who can’t even walk upon water.

But whatever the truth is, there are inconsistencies in your dialogue, quite apart from the gargantuan factual dung-heap that you strut upon.

You’re great with the length, but short on girth, and I was always told that long and thin goes too far in…

79. #79 Bernard J.
July 24, 2008

After reading the Deltoid threads on Monckey’s farcically juvenile excursion into climatology, and the associated threads of Realclimate, Duae Quartunciae, and others, I pondered for a while on the dismay many people demonstrate because the Viscantcount is being promoted as the final proof of the denialist case.

It seems to be though, that as the Monckton tripe is assimilated into the denialist case, they are ultimately scuppering their long-term credibility. Little, or nothing, of substance of the denialist’s rebuttals of the case for AGW has been shown to have substance, but the roll-call of ineptitude, deception, ignorance and ideological contorting demonstrated by the denialists grows longer than the annual tolling of the Devil’s Knell at Dewsbury.

Surely, being on record as having presented tripe of this nature to fora ultimately as serious as Congress is worse even that rocking up in court with a streamer of used dunny-paper trailing from one’s trousers…

The smell has to be a whole lot worse.

80. #80 JB
July 24, 2008

Anon commnted

My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

to which bi replied

If you print out Monckton’s “scientific paper” and then pour some coffee over it, the results can look quite impressive. Actually, you may get some pretty impressive artwork, by putting coffee stains on a printout of Monckton’s piece.

Not only that, if you fold the Monkton manuscript in half before pouring coffee over it, it makes a very interesting pattern when you open it up that can be used for psychological evaluation (perhaps even to diagnose mental illness).

I believe the version where coffee is used is called the “Caddyshack coffee-blot test”, but the more traditional version is the Rorschach inkblot test

81. #81 Lee
July 24, 2008

“My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics…”

Not just any doctorate, an *advanced* doctorate!

82. #82 JB
July 24, 2008

Not just any doctorate, an advanced doctorate!

are really,
really smart (you know)

*Not to be confused with “PhA.D.”, which refers to a “posthumously awarded doctorate” (often given when the concern is that awarding the degreewhile the individual is still alive could actually bring on early death: via the exploded big head syndrome.)

83. #83 James Mayeau
July 24, 2008

sonde data from Hadley still doesn’t show any of that Sherwood & Allen virtual warming.

Thanks for the primer on tidal force computing, Bart.
Think I’ll give it a try.

Lee is that going to be the extent of your rebuttal?
No no? Maybe you should stick an “oh” in there.

84. #84 Bernard J.
July 28, 2008

I don’t agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites. Some of it I do agree with, other material I would call junk science.

Webler, do you see any irony in a carpenter saying this to scientists who are trained in the fields that you disparage?

85. #85 passerby
August 21, 2008

Hey, this Monckton fellow appears to be a member of the House of Lords, no? Newspaper reports describe him as ‘Lord’ or ‘Viscount’. So he’s a Peer of the Realm.

That must be what they meant when they said it was ‘peer reviewed’ – he presumably looked it over himself and he’s a Peer, hence ‘peer reviewed’!