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.

Comments

  1. #1 dhogaza
    July 19, 2008

    You’ll enjoy this, in which Monckton claims the piece passed scientific review by someone chosen by the APS, and in that wounded tone of voice that only the bloody poms can strike, demands that the APS remove their “this is crap” red-font warning from the front of his article.

  2. #2 spangled drongo
    July 19, 2008

    dhogaza,
    Address the facts. He was invited to make a submission. He made a submission. It was reviewed and corrected by “an eminent prof of physics”. He did what they asked him to.
    Then they did that without consulting him.
    Do you think that’s how the APS should operate?
    If they did that to you, how would YOU feel?

  3. #3 pough
    July 19, 2008

    If I were Our Sweet Lord Monckton, I’d vacillate between the I-am-so-right fantasy in my head and the mocked-into-pouting crank of reality.

  4. #4 Marion Delgado
    July 19, 2008

    spangled drongo’s question is interesting.

    I believe if I behaved as Monckton did, I would wish the APS to send out a hit team and put me out of my misery. Then, without getting into the grubby specifics, I would want them to simply inform my shamed family that the nightmare was over at last.

    But your mileage may vary.

  5. #5 Joel Shore
    July 19, 2008

    spangled drongo: You seem to have left out the part where an organization that Monckton served as “chief policy advisor” for issued a press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) whose first sentence says: “Mathematical proof that there is no ‘climate crisis’ appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports”. That’s a lot of lies to pack into one sentence!

    I think this is the point where the APS, probably even the editors of that newsletter, realized that they were being used by Monckton and his goal was not to convince physicists of his position but to try to use the APS’s prestige, along with lots of lies about his paper and the circumstances under which it appeared in something sponsored by APS, as part of a propaganda campaign.

    Frankly, I think the editors of the APS’s Forum on Physics and Society (which I am a member of, by the way) were a bit naive and probably never imagined what Monckton would do once the article appeared in their newsletter.

  6. #6 Steve Bloom
    July 19, 2008

    spangly, bear in mind that we’re talking about different “theys.” On the face of it, the newsletter editors exceeded their remit. They should have done a real review of the contents of Monckton’s piece, placed their own disclaimer on it or (best of all) not accepted a submission from someone who is not any kind of scientist, let alone a physicist. That last is perhaps the worst of it.

    But that’s taking the whole thing at face value. The more likely explanation is that there was a lobbying campaign by a handful of denialist members to have a debate in the newsletter, and the editors responded by publishing something that they expected will be comprehensively nailed to the wall. IMHO the editor’s admionition that only “scientific” responses would be accepted is a degree of evidence for this view.

    BTW, while Monckton claims there was a “peer review” by one editor, it couldn’t have been much of one since editor (Al Saperstein) has never done any work remotely connected to climate science. Even Monckton’s description of the “review” makes it sound more like an effort to make sure that the contents were clearly stated.

  7. #7 caerbannog
    July 19, 2008


    You seem to have left out the part where an organization that Monckton served as “chief policy advisor” for issued a press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/provednoclimate_crisis.html) whose first sentence says..

    Minor nitpick: Monckton continues to serve as “chief policy advisor”. You are being a bit too kind in using the past tense re: Monckton’s SPPI activities. The SPPI web-site “personnel” link currently lists only 8 members, one of them being Monckton.

  8. #8 Joel Shore
    July 19, 2008

    caerbannog: Good point. (I sort of got screwed up on my tenses there and didn’t mean to imply that Monckton only used to be the chief policy advisor of that organization.)

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    July 19, 2008

    Spangled drongo.

    1) A newsletter is not a journal, and as such it may serve as a forum for ‘ideas’ that are more, well, ‘imaginative’ than scientific. Even if said newsletter is that of the APS. Monckton’s piece hardly constitutes a ‘published paper’, and the rules of engagement are hardly those one would apply to a journal.

    2) Joel Shore, who has indicated his membership of the APS’s Forum on Physics and Society, demonstrates that the invitation to Monckton was probably in misapprehension of his intention (especially so when Monckton was, in hindsight, so vigorously pushing his vested interest), and thus Monckton is being mendacious in his heralding of the significance of the printing of his ‘piece’.

    3) If Monckton’s science involves clumsy junior high-school triple-dipping, I think that it’s entirely within the APS’s rights to print it in that form, reviewed or not, to indicate to the world where the deficiencies in the denialists’ understanding of AGW lie. And if they do not want anyone to think that they endorse Monckton’s ‘ideas’, even if said ideas were invited for printing, then they are absolutely within their rights to tell people this.

    4) Monckton stuffed up completely, three times over. He can hardly expect to be molly-coddled with kid-gloves and sugar-plums after this, even if he is a precious viscount.

    Quinto) Anyone who uses ‘primo’, ‘secundo’, ‘tertio’, ‘rapporteur’ and ‘ratio decidendi’ in his correspondence to a physics society is probably demonstrating his capacity for classics, but rather less demonstrating his capacity for science…

    Yours truly,

    The Fivecount Bernard of J.

  10. #10 olegt@jhu.edu
    July 19, 2008

    Feedback from the Physics & Society editor posted by Monckton on the web does not rise to the level of peer review. Saperstein simply asked Monckton to make his letter accessible to the readers but made no comment on the validity of the arguments.

    Shame on SPPI and Mockton for turning this opportunity for dialog into political theater.

  11. #11 bernard J.
    July 20, 2008

    Remember when Ockham’s Razor featured Don Aitkin, and Jennifer Marohasy suggested that Robyn Williams apologise to him, even though Aitkin himself saw no reason for one?

    Now she’s demanding that the APS apologise to Monckton.

    Jennifer, Jennifer…

  12. #12 Ian Forrester
    July 20, 2008

    Monckton says in his letter to Dr. Bienenstock: “an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
    reviewed it in meticulous detail”.

    I wonder if he is referring to Larry Gould, a physics professor at the University of Hartford.

    Here are some examples of the nonsense that Larry Gould is spouting on about on AGW. He seems to be an editor of another APS forum Newsletter.

    http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/NES-APS%20Newsletter_Spring08.pdf

    http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/NES-APS%20Newsletter_Spring08.pdf

    He seems to be s right nutter and dishonest to boot. A merry band of dishonest slimeballs Monckton associates himself with.

  13. #13 Ian Forrester
    July 20, 2008
  14. #14 Ron Broberg
    July 20, 2008

    Thanks for the link to Monckton’s letter. It sounds like the “peer review” was just some editorial red-line comments to clean up the copy.

  15. #15 john
    July 20, 2008

    Ahh, the oh so precious personal attacks against those who dare to debate.

    By all means continue, I’m up in the air about all of this, but reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he’s on to something big.

  16. #16 bi -- IJI
    July 20, 2008

    > reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he’s on to something big.`

    The same ‘logic’ obviously doesn’t apply to Al Gore. Wheee.

  17. #17 John Mashey
    July 20, 2008

    1) SPPI is well-known here, and if it consists of much more than Robert Ferguson and a cast of the usual advisers, I’d be surprised. We still aren’t sure who funds it, but it certainly is Viscount Monckton’s homebase in the US. The Monckton-Schulete-Oreskes brouaha last year often happened here, and is summarized here. if you are not already familiar with the Viscount’s style, go ahead and read the 40-pager of mine that Tim references.

    2) The FPS is on-line, so one can peruse back issues. I’m really not sure what role it plays, but I find it odd to be publishing detailed technical papers that look like they should be referred papers, but aren’t, that seem completely outside the editors’ experience. As a group, the papers are a very mixed bag, and it seems a very strange venue in which to debate whether or not climate change is happening. It might be OK as a venue in which to argue about policy.

    One can find a paper by Gerald Marsh, which says:

    “I will argue that humanity faces a much greater danger from the glaciation associated with the next Ice Age, and that the carbon dioxide increases that we have seen during the past two hundred years are not sufficient to avert such glaciation and its associated disruptions to the biosphere and civilization as we know it.”

    On the other hand, the April issue has a favorable review of Joe Romm’s “Hell and High Water”. The July issue has a straightforward AGW article by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz.

    OPINION:
    Hence, this does not seem to be a denialist newsletter of the Energy & Environment ilk. One might recall Napoleon’s words about malice and incompetence. I don’t think this is the former, but it might be the latter.

    Within large professional organizations, many committees/newsletters are staffed by volunteers, and sometimes can become a bit inbred, and possibly out-of-touch, and if not mainline within the larger organization, may not be watched very carefully. Sometimes a small group of people do this for many years, and that can either be good or bad.

    Maybe Joel Shore can comment on the history, but my sense is that we’ve got a small group of people who’ve been involved with FPS for years, and it’s not clear that a long-established newsletter has adapted to the current world, or that it’s clear what its role should be.

    But, it is *very* clear that FPS now has the *strong* attention of those who run the APS.

  18. #18 spangled drongo
    July 20, 2008

    You think this is just formal, scientific rejection?

    “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.”

    If that’s not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin’.

  19. #19 John Mashey
    July 20, 2008

    If one looks at Monckton letter, page 2:

    The reviewer was Co-editor Saperstein.
    The words in black are from him, and they include, with [notes by me]:

    “Fig. 7 is clear. Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims.”

    [no, it doesn’t]

    “Other anthropogenic forcings”: What is meant by his? Why are they net-negative?

    “Forcing”: I don’t understand why forcing can’t be measured. that shows I don’t understand the difference between solar flux incident on top of atmosphere and “forcing”,…

    “Feedback”: I don’t know the difference between “forcing” and “feedback”. If “forcing” is not just external energy flux, than I would assume it includes “feedback”.

    [Well, do I need to articulate the level of climate science competence displayed? Of course, the Viscount labels this “peer review”, which of course shows what he knows about peer review.]

  20. #20 sod
    July 20, 2008

    the review was pretty obviously purely editorial. (add labels to graph x)

    no physical details were discussed at all.

    and the reason for this is obvious: discussing the physics would have lead to the paper NOT passing the “peer review” process. and so not getting published.

    i am pretty suprised that Monckton would publish this letter. the complains about his paper would be a shame for most first year students…

    —————

    if you are interested in errors in the paper, don t look further than Figure 1:

    In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles.

    http://tinyurl.com/6ncshu

    the arctic sea-ice extent doesn t show a record last winter.

  21. #21 bi -- IJI
    July 20, 2008

    > If that’s not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin’.

    In spangled drongo’s cloud-cuckoo universe, when someone says that something doesn’t exist, then that’s conclusive proof that the something exists.

  22. #22 Charles
    July 20, 2008

    Spangled drongo, you wrote, with regard to the APS statement: “If that’s not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin’.”

    Well, I won’t comment on your epistemic capabilities, but I will suggest the APS statement is nothing of the sort. I suspect the APS is wisely and responsibly, uh, covering its butt. Methinks that in the days to come you will see a number of physicists and climate scientists blow Monckton’s piece to shreds. Tim has fired one of the first salvos, and I suspect there will be more. Gavin Schmidt debunked Monckton’s climate sensitivity stuff a year-and-a-half ago (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/)
    . . . and he has suggested he might have another go.

    Some seem to be gleefully rejoicing in Monckton’s piece, suggesting it has upset the entire AGW hypothesis. I fear their glee will be short lived.

  23. #23 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    Well, let’s see, the APS states that Monckton’s piece was not peer-reviewed.

    This is a true statement.

    Spangled Drongo states that this factual, true, statement is “denialism”.

    Gee, we’re convinced!

    Ahh, the oh so precious personal attacks against those who dare to debate.
    By all means continue, I’m up in the air about all of this, but reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he’s on to something big.

    John, it would help your cause if you would resist the temptation to post this claim which has been used by every denialist movement of every branch of science that has ever existed, AFAICT.

    Creationists claim that the fact that scientists are rude to those who claim the earth is 6,000 years old proves that creationists are “on to something”, i.e. poor manners by scientists proves that the earth is young.

    Stupid, eh?

    So, John, hearing this argument that poor manners proves science wrong is not only illogical, but has been repeated to a tiresome degree by people who are equally stupid as you.

  24. #24 John Mashey
    July 20, 2008

    For the edification of readers here, I offer the home page of U of Hartford Professor Larry Gould, who happens to be the co-editor of the newsletter of the new England Section of the APS.

    1) You can see his views from the web page. A perusal of his C.V. reveals nothing in the way of actual climate science research, but he has clearly discovered Viscount Monckton [who talked at Hartford.]

    2) Monckton aficionados may find fruitful reading in the 271-page (that’s not a typo) PDF of the Viscount’s talk at Hartford.

    3) Google: Larry Gould Monckton APS

    Larry thinks well of the Viscount’s work.

    4) I have no data, but I speculate that possibly Gould is the connection between Monckton and the FPS editors. I had been puzzled by that.

  25. #25 sod
    July 20, 2008

    [Well, do I need to articulate the level of climate science competence displayed? Of course, the Viscount labels this “peer review”, which of course shows what he knows about peer review.]

    i think you are too harsh with the guy who had the pleasure to review this piece of nonsense.

    to me, it looks like he did a good job. he gave advice on the most obvious problems, without taking it apart completely.
    “i don t understand” in this context means.it is not understandable, from the information that you are giving…

    ps, did you notice this gem:

    References: Will be needed

    so Monckton was adviced that his piece needs references and now calls such advice “peer review”?
    could this all turn out to be a practical joke?

  26. #26 John Mashey
    July 20, 2008

    re: # 24
    oops, that was a typo: it was 371 pages, not 271.

  27. #27 John Mashey
    July 20, 2008

    re: #25
    Well, maybe I’m harsh … but I’ve edited journal issues, run program committees, refereed papers, and occasionally sent back papers saying “I’m not competent to referee that.” I’ve had to hunt referees who might know something about a topic.

    All of that is real basic stuff, which any “distinguished physicist” should be able to do in his sleep.

    Practical joke: not a chance. Again, without evidence, I speculate on the connection via Larry Gould, as mentioned above.

  28. #28 sod
    July 20, 2008

    this is from the APS homepage:

    An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

    http://www.aps.org/

    so Monckton claims to have been peer reviewd, by a paper that doesn t do peer review..

    pretty absurd, eh?

  29. #29 anon
    July 20, 2008

    So far the “shredding” is done by a guy who “took a physics course once”. Hehehe. 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.

    Do you all realize that your collective responses are exhibiting the type of panic one would have found in the once fortified medieval castle on the verge of being stormed by the outside hoard.

    From a psychology perspective, this is all quite fascinating.

  30. #30 sod
    July 20, 2008

    So far the “shredding” is done by a guy who “took a physics course once”. Hehehe.

    hm. it did take me exactly ZERO physics courses at university, to notice that Monckton got the very first figure wrong!

    In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles.

    again:

    http://tinyurl.com/5t7wqf

    there was no record sea-ice extent in the arctic last winter!!!

    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.

    you might want to teach your cousin the basics, like checking a graph and the captions, once in a while. at least before spreading nonsense. that is, in case that cousin does exist…

    Do you all realize that your collective responses are exhibiting the type of panic one would have found in the once fortified medieval castle on the verge of being stormed by the outside hoard.

    funny. what panic are you talking about?
    the Lord was told, that his piece is considered bullshit. we told him so in advance. no surprise, no panic.
    did you read the letter he wrote? now, that sounds like panic to me!!!

  31. #31 spangled drongo
    July 20, 2008

    “Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”.

    Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it’s conclusions are well supported scientifically.
    If you blokes on this blog don’t believe that you’re in cloud cuckoo land.
    Even Al and Jim aren’t interested in debating that.

  32. #32 sod
    July 20, 2008

    it’s conclusions are well supported scientifically.

    what part of the APS response do you NOT understand?

    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.

  33. #33 bi -- IJI
    July 20, 2008

    anon:

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

    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.

    spangled drongo:

    > Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it’s conclusions are well supported scientifically.

    Is it a coincidence you’re using the same “even if …” trick that Monckton’s using in his “conclusion”?

  34. #34 Bernard Blyth
    July 20, 2008

    Lambert made what appear to me, as a non-physicist, to be valid criticisms of Monckton’s arguments. Surely it would be better to discuss them rather than all the other stuff. I have no way of judging the validity of Monckton’s physics for myself, but suspect that there could be serious problems with it. If anyone on my side of the debate (the sceptics) has a response to Lambert then I would like to read it.

    However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

  35. #35 bi -- IJI
    July 20, 2008

    Bernard Blyth: Yawn.

  36. #36 Steve Bloom
    July 20, 2008

    I’m cross-posting the below Climate Progress comment since Tim didn’t cover the Figure 7 issue.

    ————————————-

    I do notice that Saperstein [the editor who reviewed Monckton’s piece] seems to step beyond editing, though, in his comment on Figure 7: “Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims.”

    Here’s how Monckton made more of it:

    “Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22 °C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today’s near-record-low concentration. If so, then the instability inherent in the IPCC’s high-end values for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, implying that the high-end estimates, and by implication the central estimates, for the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks may be substantial exaggerations. Source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese; CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).

    “Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested. The implications for climate sensitivity are self-evident. Figure 7 indicates that in the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration was ~25 times that which prevailed in the IPCC’s reference year of 1750, the temperature was some 8.5 °C higher than it was in 1750. Yet the IPCC’s current central estimate is that a mere doubling of CO2 concentration compared with 1750 would increase temperature by almost 40% of the increase that is thought to have arisen in geological times from a 20-fold increase in CO2 concentration (IPCC, 2007).”

    But is any of that right?

    First of all, there’s the small issue of Figure 7 itself. It’s from a denialist source and is not peer-reviewed or even produced by a scientist, although it’s supposedly constructed from two sources that are. So who knows if it’s right, but let’s take it a face value. Of those sources, the one showing CO2 levels (GEOCARB III) was still considered current in the AR4, but the Scotese temperature data was not. So even if the construction of Figure 7 is correct, Monckton is attacking a superseded straw man. Worse than that, he’s doing something quite dishonest by referencing the AR4 analysis and not being clear that he’s comparing it with substantially different data. (See the IPCC’s parallel discussion in AR4 WG1 Ch. 6 pp. 440-1, which includes a similar although much more detailed graphic that Monckton could have used instead.)

    Had Monckton (or Saperstein) looked at the peer-reviewed literature on this subject, it would have been impossible to miss this recent paper (“Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years”) that tied up the last loose ends on deep-time climate sensitivity.

    Neither analysis goes back far enough to cover Monckton’s example of the Cambrian, though, so let’s look at that separately to see if he did it right within his own terms.

    First of all he has a graph-reading problem: His 8.5C temp difference is really 10.5C, although he did get the 7000 ppm CO2 number right. So taking the pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppm) and the IPCC central sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling, we need about 4-1/2 doublings to get to 7000 ppm, but the 10.5C is more like 3-1/2. So Monckton is right! Ah, but there has been some legerdemain. He’e taking the IPCC “central” sensitivity rather than considering the entire range. A number around 2.2C (more than the 2.0C bottom of the range) works very nicely, so we can’t say the IPCC is at all wrong. But actually Monckton did something much worse — his 7000 ppm figure has error bars on the order of +/- 4000 ppm! Now we see why the the IPCC and the paper I linked didn’t try to do anything with most of the Paleozoic: The errors are just too large to draw meaningful conclusions.

    So basically Monckton’s whole deep-time analysis was a fraud from top to bottom. He had to have known that, but I suppose it’s not clear that Saperstein did.

  37. #37 Manfred
    July 20, 2008

    Lindzen wrote in his paper: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

    “…For the models used for Figure 4, we see that a doubling of CO2 leads to surface warming of from about 1.5-3.5° K (or C). By contrast, the observed warming over the past century or so amounts to only about 0.6-0.8° C (not all of which need be due to increased greenhouse gases). On the face of it, this would seem to confirm that current models are much too sensitive to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing greenhouse gases. Moreover, we have already shown that such warming actually accounts for only a half or less of the observed warming…”

    So the temperature increase measurd is only approx. 1/3 of projections and greenhouse gasses contributed only 1/2 or less.

    I understand your critics and the difficulty of seperating effects onto the three parameters. However, a half or less of a third, is only 1/6 of the temperature increase of AGW projections and this is a fundamental point that needs clarification.

    Maybe you will also have a look at one of your comments from 2006, which I think is also an error. (last comment in http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php )

  38. #38 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics…

    How, exactly, does this differ from a basic doctorate in physics?

    (the obvious conclusion being that you’re lying about your cousin, of course!)

    However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

    Nice. Monckton lies by proclaiming that his paper was peer-reviewed and appeared in a prestigious, learned journal – both lies.

    And the problem is the response by the APS?

  39. #39 Steve Bloom
    July 20, 2008

    John M., I think Gould is at least part of the answer. It seemed clear enough when I first saw his materials last year that he was engaged in some sort of campaign within APS. I think we now know one target of that campaign.

  40. #40 Steve Bloom
    July 20, 2008

    Manfred:

    1) We’re only about 40% of the way to the initial doubling.

    2) There’s a big lag (mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans).

    You can read up on this stuff.

  41. #41 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    Also, Manfred, is there any particular reason you assign godlike correctness to a single, non-reviewed, paper by one researcher over a consensus reached by a very large number of researchers all attacking the problem in different ways?

    Have you asked yourself why Lindzen didn’t make the two points made by Steve Bloom above? Do you see how doing so is terribly misleading and an outright misrepresentation of what climate science tells us?

    Of course, it’s possible that he mentions these facts later and that it’s YOU who is quote-mining and therefore YOU, not Lindzen, is the dishonest party.

    But somewhere, somehow, dishonesty lies at the foundation of the snippet you’ve posted.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2008

    Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it’s conclusions are well supported scientifically. If you blokes on this blog don’t believe that you’re in cloud cuckoo land.

    Um, if the paper is wrong in scientific detail, exactly how can it’s “conclusions [be] well supported scientifically”?

    Spangled drongo, Monckton is wrong, beyond wrong, and your thrashing attempts to prop him up are just an embarrassment to the denialist cause.

    But of course, by your own admission, you know nothing…

  43. #43 sod
    July 20, 2008

    However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

    the APS reply became necessary, when countless denilaist blogs were making the claim, that APS changed their position on the subject.

    those posting such nonsense decided to ignore all evidence, that this was a false claim.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

    it took a DISCLAIMER IN RED, to make them understand…

  44. #44 Barton Paul Levenson
    July 20, 2008

    anon posts:

    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.

    What did he pour over it? I’d use molasses, myself.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2008

    In addition to Monckton’s Figure 7 fiddling, discussed by Steve Bloom in post #36, I am curious about what the total solar output would have been at the time of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppm, and how this would relate to the understanding of warming sensitivity to CO2.

    Any of the physics/climate folk here able to answer off the cuff?

  46. #46 Barton Paul Levenson
    July 20, 2008

    I’d just like to point out that I was discussing Monckton’s incompetence in climatology long before it was fashionable:

    BPL on Monckton

    Readers will note that I make one error in my essay, conflating the Wegman report with the NAS report.

  47. #47 Barton Paul Levenson
    July 20, 2008

    Lindzen’s comment is also wrong because he is assuming CO2-temperature is a simple linear relationship, with no other factors applying. There are other forcings out there, including aerosols, which caused temporary cooling in the ’40s. Thus trying to determine Earth’s CO2 temperature sensitivity by simply comparing the increase in CO2 with the rise in temperature are simplistic and misleading.

  48. #48 Bugs
    July 20, 2008

    This all reminds me very much of the “State Climatologist” scam that Michaels concocted in the USA to gain credibility.

  49. #49 Glenn
    July 20, 2008

    Simple question for all the “unbiased scientific” minds here.

    Has the temperature of the earth, as a means measured by the IPCC in its initial and subsequent referenced reports, increased or decreased as the amount of CO2 has increased, especially in the last decade say?

    Yes or no?

    Thanks,
    Glenn

  50. #50 Michael
    July 20, 2008

    Glenn,

    It’s increased.

    Glad to help.

  51. #51 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    especially in the last decade say?

    Oops, the denialist #1 cherry pick, the 1998 El Niño event.

    Man, are you guys ever going to get tired of our rubbing your nose in the 2008 La Niña low temp phase when the next El Niño comes along and blows the roof off the temp records.

    “Look it’s warming 3.21x as fast as IPCC projections, with a 95% confidence level!”.

    Won’t it be fun to watch y’all squeal?

    The internets haz long memories …

  52. #52 Duae Quartunciae
    July 20, 2008

    Congratulations on being the first to give a substantive blog comment on the content of this article. I hope there will be more.

    I’ve made an attempt myself — and have linked back to you also in credit for the doubling dipping issue. My attempt is The APS and global warming: What were they thinking?

  53. #53 bi -- IJI
    July 20, 2008

    OK, now it’s time to ask the question:

    Who Will Monckton Threaten To Sue Now?

    Will the 50,000-strong APS finally join the Club of Illustrious Folks Whom Monckton Have Threatened To Sue?

    On the other side… will the APS be suing Monckton? Or Milloy? Or Watts, who’s still writing nonsense? Perhaps it should — and we’ll see if garbage is a good defence to defamation.

  54. #54 Glenn
    July 20, 2008

    Not a denialist. I believe in climate change, I am just skeptical at the means some proponents of global warming/cooling use to infer their prejudice. I asked the question because none of the global atmospheric and tropospheric temperature measurements I find are definitive. One supports global warming, another disputes it. Who/what to believe?

    Your response is typical of why many who are looking for answers get tired of the partisanship in the debate. Your attempt to silence my questions by calling me a denialist, like in holocaust denier, is futile.

    I’ll keep being a skeptic for now and luckily I am young enough to call bullsh!t on you and other like thinkers or give you the credit for being correct. Internet, long memory indeed. I look forward to the next 50 years or so, time will tell. Agree?

    Cheers,
    Glenn

  55. #55 Glenn
    July 20, 2008

    For clarification, I used the last decade as a time reference because most people can reflect on that mount of time period and have, in basic terms at least, some recollection of the amount of global economic growth and the consequential of CO2 added to the atmosphere because of such.

    You know since the basic premise of global warming is increase in CO2 = increase in temperature.

    Glenn

  56. #56 WotWot
    July 20, 2008

    The internets haz long memories …

    He he he.

    Man, are you guys ever going to get tired of our rubbing your nose in the 2008 La Niña low temp phase when the next El Niño comes along and blows the roof off the temp records.

    Yes, it constantly amazes me how completely oblivious many of these folk are to the longer term logical consequences of their statements. I am patiently waiting for Andrew Bolt to conveniently try to dismiss the next round of record temps as ‘too short a time period to reliably determine a temp trend’. I want to see his head explode from the inconsistency.

  57. #57 steven mosher
    July 20, 2008

    Tim.

    I don’t agree with Moncktons arguments. However, your post perhaps gets one thing wrong and you need to correct it.

    In your post you claim that Monckton cites McKitrick and that
    McKitrick is wrong. Your link takes us to a post that you made
    LONG before the McKitrick article that Monckton cites.

    IN short. Monckton sites McKitrick 2007, and you link
    to a criticism you wrote of an early McKitrick paper.

    Anyone can go read the Monckton paper, see that he cites a 2007 paper by McKitrick. Then they can hit your link where you claim that Ross is wrong.

    http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

    and find out that there is an interesting question.

    How exactly does your post in 2004 show that McKitricks 2007 paper is wrong.

    Now, I have no opinion on Ross’s 2007 paper. I thought it interesting. However, When Monckton cites the 2007 paper
    and you debunk him by pointing to an earlier McKitrick paper, Then I think you need to learn some V&V.

  58. #58 WotWot
    July 20, 2008

    For clarification, I used the last decade as a time reference because most people can reflect on that mount of time period

    No, it is because only by cherry picking 1998 as your starting point, and ignoring the rules of statistics, can you even attempt to claim that the warming trend has stopped.

    But you are still wrong.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2008

    OK, now it’s time to ask the question:

    Who Will Monckton Threaten To Sue Now?

    It might even be me, for defamation. Um, I might have referred to him as the ‘Viscantcount’ over at Marohasy’s parody of debate and discussion on the issue.

    This same link where, I might add, Louis Hissinkfit had a conniption about my apparent lack of reference to Deltoid, a la:

    “Bernard J.

    Please enrol yourself in a remedial English class.

    I have no intention of rebutting Tim Lambert’s criticisms of Monckton’s article – (why did you not state this exclicity [sic] in your post above, rather then [sic] weasel it in by referecence [sic] to a url)”

    because he could not tell from my question:

    “Can you address the serious deficiencies in Monckton’s piece, dissected in detail at the link above that Nexus 6 posted on July 20, 2008 05:11pm?” (where Nexus 6 had said: “Tim Lambert spotted the glaring hole(s) in Monckton’s diatribe”, followed by a link to this thread)

    nor from my invitation several sentences later:

    you merely have to address and rebutt the content of the many critiques of Monckton on the Deltoid link

    to which site I was referring.

    I think Louis only follows his nose to where he wants to go, and not to where he’ll find the truth…

  60. #60 Duae Quartunciae
    July 20, 2008

    Glenn, of #55; the trend over the last ten years has been for warming. You can check this with a regression over HadCRUT3v, or GISS, or other temperature records. It comes to about 0.5C per century in the HadCRUT3v dataset, and 1.5C per century in the GISS dataset. That’s a slow down of the trend; but that’s normal. There’s no expectation of a rock steady trend. The variation in those trends sounds a lot, but over such a short time period its not really that exceptional.

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    July 20, 2008

    I guess Louis will sue me too, for my reference to him as ‘Hissinkfit’…

  62. #62 Manfred
    July 20, 2008

    Steve Bloom:
    1) We’re only about 40% of the way to the initial doubling.

    2) There’s a big lag (mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans).

    1) Lindzen wrote this to reason an upper limit of only 1/3 of the temperature increase projected by the IPCC. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
    And this was before the steep cooling during last year and (I suppose) on the basis of the highly questionable data set of Hansen’s temperature measurements and “adjustments”:

    “…We see that the trend in the troposphere does have a relative maximum near 300 hPa of about .1° C per decade, and judging from the results in Figure 5, this should
    be associated with a surface trend of between 0.033 and somewhat less than 0.05° per decade. Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for
    Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4° over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate. Greenhouse warming must appear in the neighborhood of 300 hPa, but warming at 300 hPa does not have to be greenhouse warming…”

    2) How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it’s cool phase?

  63. #63 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    Your attempt to silence my questions by calling me a denialist, like in holocaust denier, is futile.

    He trots out one of the crown jewels of the denialist attempts to deflect the argument from science then claims he’s not a denialist.

    They used to have better liars on their side, man, the quality is down substantially.

    How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it’s cool phase?

    The CO2 isn’t going away, therefore will continue to be a warming forcing as the oceans themselves. The physics aren’t that the oceans will contribute to future warming – it’s that they’ll do less cooling.

  64. #64 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    when they are actually cooling …

    And this is very much a matter of debate. Why do *you* think the oceans continue to rise if they’re cooling?

  65. #65 Glenn
    July 20, 2008

    Duae #60, thanks.

    The rest LOL. I almost bookmarked this site. I’ll keep looking though. Buh bye.

  66. #66 Daprez
    July 20, 2008

    Duae of #60. Can you help illuminate why there is 3X factor in the regressed temperature increases as derived from the HadCRUT3v and GISS datasets respectively? It is concerning that these two datasets are so far apart in the results that are coming from the stat analysis. Is this not a reason to be concerned with the conclusions of the analytical methods used or even the datasets themselves?

  67. #67 James Mayeau
    July 20, 2008

    Deltoid obliquely references a Sherwood etal (via Realclimate) that pretends to install the necessary tropical tropisphere warming by assigning a hidden heat signature derived from windspeed. Is that standard climate science? The rest of us talk about wind chill factors, this might be the first time I’ve seen wind heat factors.
    Because I’m wondering if Neptune, with it’s 800 mile per hour prevailing winds, might be habitable.
    Hell it might be applicable here on Earth too. The wind whips around pretty fast down in Antarctica. Maybe those people down in MacMurdo will need to be issued sunscreen and t-shirts.

  68. #68 cyrus pinkerton
    July 20, 2008

    anon wrote:

    So far the “shredding” is done by a guy who “took a physics course once”. Hehehe.

    Let’s see… In your world, Tim is not qualified to judge Monckton’s article because, in your opinion, he lacks sufficient educational background in physics. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to trouble you at all that Monckton has no significant formal training in physics. Do you realize how incredibly foolish this double standard makes you appear? And in the future, can you at least post one sensible sentence before you disgrace yourself with an idiotic comment?

  69. #69 James Mayeau
    July 20, 2008

    Maybe when the Sherwood correction is applied Chicago becomes the warmest city in America. Mount Washington is only pretending to be the coldest point in the contiguous states, but when you factor in the wind…
    Drink plenty of water and watch for heat stroke. Heh

  70. #70 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    The rest of us talk about wind chill factors, this might be the first time I’ve seen wind heat factors.

    Some of us understand the difference between wind chill (an effect of wind) vs. what causes wind (energy, as in heat from the sun, plus earth’s rotational speed).

    I don’t supposed you’re the least bit embarrassed by how stupid your clever little post was, are you?

    And, Duprez, don’t forget that error bars are larger for shorter-term analysis, and 10 years is only 1/3 of the 30-year period that’s standard in climatology. That number isn’t simply pulled out of one’s statistical ass, it falls out of the analysis of what’s necessary to tease out signal from noise.

  71. #71 James Mayeau
    July 20, 2008

    dhogaza
    So you’re telling me that Mount Washington is really cold because it magicly converts all of that monsterous heat into wind power? Gotta stick with your lie. lol
    Ride that horse man. Yehaw
    Don’t let it buck.

  72. #72 Daprez
    July 20, 2008

    dhogaza of #70 – Thank you for your reply. My name is Daprez, not Duprez. You suggest that the reason for 3X factor in difference in values that Duae mentions is from larger error bounds resulting from differences in the analysis period. I never implied it was “pull out of one’s statistical ass” so I have to wonder why you are so defensive. I can see how that can occur if it is truly the case. Can any provide some links to references verifying this? Duae did not give the 0.5 and 1.5 trend numbers with associated error bounds and include the differentials of the analytical periods. I would be interested in what a comparable time period analysis of these two data sets yields for trend values, with error bounds bounds of course.

  73. #73 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2008

    James Mayeau,

    Wind chill is an effect of the latent heat of evaporation. It is what makes a swamp cooler work, and how certain large hairless primates control their body temperature. For objects that don’t have this characteristic, blowing air against them actually makes them warmer.

    Consider a hot summer day in Chicago when the relative humidity is 100%. Standing under a fan is no help. Except maybe you can fool your brain into thinking it’s cooling you off.

  74. #74 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    I never implied it was “pull out of one’s statistical ass” so I have to wonder why you are so defensive.

    I think you misread, I said that the 30 year period isn’t simply pulled out of one’s statistical ass, but falls out of the analysis due to the relatively weak signal to noise ratio in the earth’s climate. I wasn’t referring to you when I said that, but referring to where that number comes from.

    1. I don’t consider the phrase offensive

    2. I wasn’t claiming that *you* believed it, but was stating it because denialists claim 30 years is essentially a made-up number, so I was just saving time, ’cause there appear to be plenty of denialist parrots here and someone’s bound to make the claim.

  75. #75 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    LB, Mayeau’s gotta be a troll. Not even someone who rots their brain at places like freerepublic or wattsupwiththat can be THIS dumb.

  76. #76 Lee
    July 20, 2008

    James, would you mind telling us what you think supplies the energy for winds to blow?

  77. #77 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2008

    Daprez,

    The short answer is that gistemp includes more northern latitude data than Hadcru.

    For the last ten years, specifically, that means that the ENSO signal, which has a strong effect on mid-latitude temperatures, but not so much above the Arctic Circle, is slightly more exaggerated in the Hadley data.

  78. #78 Daprez
    July 20, 2008

    The term “denialist” is pejorative as well as cliche. It utterly diminishes points made when used in discourses on climate change. It establishes the user of the term as lacking objectivity and clearly identifies the defensive nature of the user towards anyone with any questions that are not in line with the groupthink consensus viewpoint regarding climate change.

  79. #79 Daprez
    July 20, 2008

    Luminous Beauty of #77 – Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure I would agree with summary point of 3x factor and 1.0 degree difference being “slighty more exaggerated.” If we are trying to determine the effect of increase C02 and reporting values in ranges of 1.5 to 3.0 degrees, associated analytical results with variance of 1.0 degree is anything but slight.

  80. #80 Tim Lambert
    July 20, 2008

    Steven Mosher, you’re right Monckton wasn’t citing Mckitrick’s 2004 paper rather than his 2007 one, which oddly enough comes up with the same “correction” factor as the 2004 one with the degrees/radian screw up. I still think the association is spurious for the other reason given in my 2004 post, but in any case Monckton is wrong, since McKitrick’s “correction” is for land-based temperatures and Monckton wrongly applies it to the globe (which is mostly water).

  81. #81 Lee
    July 20, 2008

    Daprez, that is a 1 degree difference in the trend per century. 0.1 / decade, 0.01/year. Pick your period to get the large or small number you want in the trend. In any case, the trends are not statistically different over that short time period.

    The actual difference in reported deltas in the temperature anomalies is small, and is of a sign consistent with the fact that GISS includes the arctic amplification, and the other products are a bit more sensitive to ENSO because they don’t include high latitude surface area.

  82. #82 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2008

    dhogaza,

    No doubt Mayeau is a troll.

    Ignorant as dirt about physics? Obviously.

    Dumb?

    If he comes back with a retort that indicates he has a learning curve that is essentially flat, we may plausibly conclude that he is dumber than dirt.

  83. #83 Tim Lambert
    July 20, 2008

    Steven Mosher, you’re right Monckton wasn’t citing Mckitrick’s 2004 paper rather than his 2007 one, which oddly enough comes up with the same “correction” factor as the 2004 one with the degrees/radian screw up. I still think the association is spurious for the other reason given in my 2004 post, but in any case Monckton is wrong, since McKitrick’s “correction” is for land-based temperatures and Monckton wrongly applies it to the globe (which is mostly water).

  84. #84 z
    July 20, 2008

    If that’s not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin’.”

    ah, the long elusive consensus is finally attained.

  85. #85 jre
    July 20, 2008

    Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppmv has been estimated by a number of methods, and it is very hard to argue on physical or observational grounds that it is lower than 1.5K or higher than 4.5K.

    An excellent summary of the evidence was given by Stephan Rahmstorf as one chapter of the book Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, edited by Ernesto Zedillo. Rahmstorf’s chapter is a refutation of another chapter by Richard Lindzen, who thinks sensitivity may be only 0.5K. Lindzen felt very roughly used by Rahmstorf (which he was), and posted a response to Rahmstorf’s refutation. You can find the whole thing here, with Rahmstorf’s chapter as the meat in the sandwich.
    For me, the choicest two bits from Lindzen were his account of the Barton hearing as it transpired in Bizarro-world:

    Both the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union protested Barton’s request. One need not go into the merits of this controversy to see that the response of professional organizations sends a chilling message. Only the defenders of the orthodoxy will be defended against intimidation.

    and his mention of

    hundreds of peer reviewed papers that document the medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Optimum, as it was referred to before it became fashionable to fear warmth).

    And remember — Lindzen is the most respected of this bunch.

  86. #86 James Mayeau
    July 20, 2008

    My betters are patiently explaining to me how wind works.
    You can’t imagine how much I appreciate that.
    Mount Washington would be warm and toasty with outdoor swimming pools and such, if only we could get the wind to stop blowing. Wind is masking the climate change.
    Boy if that jet stream ever stops, we will be hit with some double plus ungood hotness.

  87. #87 James Mayeau
    July 20, 2008

    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.

  88. #88 jre
    July 20, 2008

    James — did you ever notice how your betters try explaining stuff to you for a while, then give up? That’s because they were overwhelmed by the force of your logic.

  89. #89 Lee
    July 20, 2008

    Did James here just try to argue that winds are not related to heat?

    Excuse me while I recover from my astonishment…

  90. #90 Cyrus Pinkerton
    July 20, 2008

    James,

    What is the purpose of your public displays of ignorance?

  91. #91 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2008

    Posted by: James Mayeau | July 20, 2008 3:52 PM
    Posted by: James Mayeau | July 20, 2008 3:58 PM

    quod erat demonstrandum

  92. #92 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun?

    You mean, like, why does Venus have a jetstream something like an order of magnitude stronger than Earth’s.

    Yeah, you’re right, it’s obvious, it’s because Venus is further from the Sun than Earth.

    Dolt.

  93. #93 dhogaza
    July 20, 2008

    Fun in Google:

    if every man, woman, and child, were deleted from the planet, along with their space heaters,cars,trucks,air conditioners,coalplants,movie studios,beach bonfires,planes,trains and cow farts, leaving only one scientist on the planet to read the co2 gauge, the co2 readings would still be going up due to ocean outgassing, animal respiration, and bacterial decomposition.

    OK, Mayeau, if the ocean’s outgassing sufficient CO2 to increase concentrations in the atmosphere …

    1. Why is it outgassing more than it absorbs?

    2. What is causing oceans to acidify?

    This should be fun….

  94. #94 Duae Quartunciae
    July 20, 2008

    Hi Dparez, #66,

    I don’t have any detailed insight to to differences between GISS and HadCRUT3v temperature products; but I’ve downloaded these and others to play with myself for a while now.

    The real difference between the datasets is comparatively small, and within their respective error bars. They have a similar shape, picking up the same rises and falls, but not always the same precise values. When you take a regression line over a short period, a difference in slope is not that surprising to me.

    I’d also be interested in reasons for differences; especially in the last year. But I don’t think it is actually all that significant. A longer regression gives a pretty close match in slopes.

  95. #95 Daprez
    July 20, 2008

    Duae #94,
    Thank you very much for your reply. Can you post a link to both these datasets? I would like to explore them.

  96. #96 Steve Bloom
    July 20, 2008

    Re #62: Manfred, there’s a reason Lindzen can’t get stuff like that published in the legitimate literature. If you really care about the answer, go to the AR4 and see how the calculation is supposed to be done.

    You also said: “How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it’s cool phase?”

    Yeah, it’s great how with some models you can just change the sleeve color to stay in style. :) Seriously, your question makes it clear that you don’t understand what the PDO is. There are a lot of claims on the web to the effect that it’s some sort of climate driver, but if you look at the literature you’ll see that there is no basis for such claims.

    You also completely misunderstand the thermal inertia concept. It’s the amount of warming the oceans have to do to catch up with the forcing that’s already been added to the clinate system. This takes a long time since the deep oceans are pretty isolated from the atmosphere and ocean mixing layer. You would find it helpful to look up the difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity.

    Regarding the cooling, bear in mind that we only have measurements for the upper oceans, and that those have become comprehensive only recently. It is not settled that even the measured part of the ocean is cooling (or more to the point failing to warm at the expected rate). We should have a much better idea of what’s going on in the ocean in a few years when there has been an opportunity to integrate sufficient gravity and altimetric data from satellites with the ARGO data. This combination will allow conclusions to be drawn without having to directly measure deep ocean temperatures.

    Re #79: Daprez, your rhetoric (“associated analytical results” — what pray tell, did the word “analytical” add to that phrase?) and lack of any citation for your claims leads me to think you’re blowing smoke.

  97. #97 Webler
    July 20, 2008

    The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

    Here you can also check out the the email from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Arthur Bienenstock.

    Btw, someone mention realclimate.org — why would anyone bring up a Web site that is own by Michael Mann whose hockey stick theory has been thoroughly debunked.

    When reality comes crashing on your heads, where will you people find work? Politicians will just blame the scienctists, but what will be your excuse.

    Are you sure you are not fighting for your lives, rather than for the planet, cause your credibility has taken a big hit. And continues to do so, everyday.

    I’m just a carpenter, but I don’t walk on water — 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.

    Let me predict the future on my own climate models –no data mining here– sunny and warm for the next few days, clouds rolling in for the weekend with a slight chance of precipitation.

    Cheers folks.

  98. #98 Steve Bloom
    July 20, 2008

    Re #45: “I am curious about what the total solar output would have been at the time of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppm, and how this would relate to the understanding of warming sensitivity to CO2.”

    Bernard, the Sun will range from about 75% to 135% of current irradiance during its time on the main sequence, so iradiance during the Cambrian would have been on the order of 3% less than at present. Between the fact that we’re talking about a quite different planet at that time (IIRC it’s not even clear that climate sensitivity would have been the same) and the very large error bars on the data, I don’t think any firm conclusions have been drawn from looking at the early Phanerozoic alone. I think all that can really be done at this point is to determine whether there’s anything about that early climate that’s inconsistent with what we’ve learned from looking at the Ordovician forward. There could be more recent results I don’t know about, so to be sure or if you want more you should do a search of the literature (which shouldn’t take long given this subject matter). The Wikipedia paleoclimate article would also be a good place to look since it’s kept fairly up to date.

    While I’m on the subject I should mention that the pre-Phanerozoic “snowball earth” is getting quite a bit of research attention.

  99. #99 Steven Mosher
    July 20, 2008

    Tim.

    Then we are largely agreed. You got it wrong by fumbling the citation. A mistake I would fail a freshmen english student for. Monckton gets the math wrong, arguably a less stupid mistake, by mistaking the land record for the global record.
    You get an F, he get’s a D. As for Ross’s work, I would say you havent shown anything, except an error in an old a paper.
    You’ve asserted that the two results are similiar. but given your aforemention citation ineptitude, I’m less than inclined to pay any mind to your assertions. Ross, has published his data and his code. Go, ahead, make my day.

  100. #100 Duae Quartunciae
    July 20, 2008

    Comment #94 requested links to datasets…

    There is one heck of a lot of data online for people who want to try looking at things for themselves. Surface temperature data comes in various forms. The basic underlying datasets are huge; they give monthly anomalies distributed as a grid over the whole globe. The time series data, which is what you usually see being plotted, are actually “diagnostics” of the full data sets; and to start with you are best to look at those. You can get monthly, or annual data.

    My fave. The HadCRUT3 datasets (can also get CRUTEM3 for land only and HadSST2 for sea surface only) at the Hadley Centre in the UK. See HadCRUT3. Reading the associated reference is a good idea, but technical. Here is a useful diagnostics subpage, with ready access to the annual and monthly timeseries: nh+sh HadCRUT3 diagnostic timeseries.

    Very well known in the USA is the NASA GISS products. (This is James’ Hansen’s group.) The main page is GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, and you can find links down near the bottom to ascii tables of time series data. A bit of work will allow both to be put into one spreadsheet to compare for yourself and run your own regressions… which is what I have done.

    There are more datasets around, but these are two of the best known.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.