# 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 theo
July 20, 2008

Steven Mosher:

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.

And you get an F for poor punctuation: “get’s” [sic].

In science the hierarchy of correctness is:

Correct results >>> correct math > correct explanations >>>>>>>>> correct references >> correct spelling.

No one gives a sh*t, except for general convenience, whether people get their references right.

But if your assumptions are stupid, like Monckton, and you get the wrong result, like Monckton, then you’re stupid, and discredited.

P.S. Are you the ex-anthropologist? You’re now teaching freshman composition?

2. #2 chip
July 20, 2008

At the end of the day, AGW proponents have to provide proof that their computer models are correctly explaining temperature trends.

So far, they’re not. The models didn’t predict the current cooling, they cannot account for the lack of significant warming in the troposphere and they don’t address the slight cooling of the oceans. Until the empirical data starts to consistently follow the models, it is reasonable to remain skeptical of AGW.

3. #3 quraina
July 20, 2008

I’ve found one small typo in Monckton’s APS paper at http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm. In the sentence that begins “From 1995-2005, CO2 concentration rose 5%, from 360 to 378 W m-2, …” Those units are wrong. It should say “360 to 378 ppm.” Minor, but easily caught on a casual reading by this layman.

4. #4 Rattus Norvegicus
July 20, 2008

Webler, Webler, Webler…

You do show your ignorance. I checked out the post at American Thinker and was particularly delighted by the reference to “a man of Monckton’s measure”, which I guess is about 3 inches given his propensity for having a thin skin and constant threats to sue people for criticising him.

As far as RealClimate is concerned, people cite it because it is run by a group of active and respected climate scientists who comment on current issues in climate science in a clear and understandable manner. It is widely considered to be the go to source for commentary on climate science. And yes, Mike Mann is considered to be a respected researcher, complaints from Stevie Mac notwithstanding.

As far as the mainstream view of climate science losing credibility daily — this sounds like the creationists claiming that the Altenberg 16 have laid open a huge wound in evolutionary theory. It just ain’t true.

Finally, while I know many tradespeople who have excellent educations in a wide variety of disciplines you are clearly not one of them. Your final sentence clearly shows that you do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Why should we take you seriously when you clearly do not understand the subject you are talking about?

5. #5 James Haughton
July 20, 2008

To all those offended by being called “Denialists”; for some time now, I have been referring to you as “Adullamites”. Hope that helps.
PS: If you are the sort of Adullamite that a) doesn’t get the reference and b) can’t be bothered finding it out, then yes, I do have nothing but contempt for your intelligence.

6. #6 chip
July 20, 2008

I’m not sure people are offended by the term Denialist. Instead, people point to its use as an example of a close-mindedness that should have no place in science. In what other scientific subject are skeptics of a theory described with such loaded, even demagogic, language? It’s especially strange that theorists so dependent on the guesswork inherent in computer modeling should attempt to shout down their skeptics.

You flaunt your contempt, James, but why would people not question AGW when even the head of the IPCC had to admit he couldn’t explain the current cooling. Unanswered questions deserve more questions, not petty dogmas silly name-calling.

7. #7 Webler
July 20, 2008

Well, number 104, this is the usual response I get from those protecting their jobs and credibility.

Realclimate is a site owned by Michael Mann who is so embarrassed that he caught with his hand in the cookie jar and now he will do anything to try and salvage what’s left of his dignity. He hires a bunch of radicals who have clearly have hitched a free ride on someone who is sinking so fast, that they have slowly realized their blunder. But don’t feel bad, there are so many of those people that the commonsense people will forget about you fast enough.

Silly you, the reference to the carpenter and not walking on water was a little lightheartedness — you know, a reference to Jesus, since some of you have the Goracle complex about anyone disagreeing with you.

Silly you again, when you can’t tell that the MMGW scientists are being put in Michael Mann’s data mining scam. Okay, if you are such a stickler for details –although you don’t let facts get in the way of the your truth– let me rephrase for you. No thanks needed.

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 and the same for the next 6 months. ðŸ˜‰

You need to come out of your conspiracy theories group and enjoy the sunlight.

Hey, if you liked my last article, here’s another one for the group.

No smoking hot spot

Ciao to the misguided, but friendly folks.

8. #8 Daprez
July 20, 2008

Duae – Again thanks for the links. I’ve spent the afternoon on the GISS page and will be moving on to your recommended link for HadCRUT3.

Steve Bloom – Your knickers are way too tight. I was asking questions about Duae’s post #60 so why would I be citing anything. Are questions not permitted here? Jeez… go take a walk and enjoy some of this lovely warm weather we are having.

James Haughton – Why resort to name calling at all? Haven’t we grown past the days of forming cliques and chasing others off the playground?. The offense I find isn’t so much in the name itself but rather the immaturity it brings to the discussion.

9. #9 Brother Rat
July 20, 2008

I won’t try to huff and puff about my educational background since I could be lying about it.

Tim, you skimmed the paper, but you didn’t understand it. I can see from the comments that not many of your reader understood it either. Also, I have never heard of degrees Kelvin referred to as “Kelvins”. That may be the terminology that you sheep-shaggers use, but it is not in use here in the good old USA.

The purpose of the paper was to investigate the IPCC claim that their numbers had a 90% confidence level. As such, he investigated the factors that went into the IPCC publication and attempted to recreate the results.

Simple facts you should note:
1) The IPCC has assigned a 90% confidence level to factors which cannot be idependently measured in the field or in a laboratory.
2) The laboratory measurements (forcing fingerprints at the tropics) have not been confirmed with any measurements.
3) Without explanation, the forcing factor was changed from 2001 to 2007 by the IPCC which resulted in a doubling of predicted temp increase due to CO2.

Your belief in AGW and the IPCC is clearly based on faith rather than observation and understanding.

10. #10 John Hollenberg
July 20, 2008

> Hey, if you liked my last article, here’s another one for the group.

> No smoking hot spot

Funniest article I have read for a long time. Can you provide a link to your article that shows smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer?

11. #11 Zarquon
July 20, 2008

Also, I have never heard of degrees Kelvin referred to as “Kelvins”

Kelvin is the SI unit that all scientific papers use. A proper peer-reviewed article would not make that mistake.

July 20, 2008

It never ceases to amaze me that one of the first tasks of the world’s first commercial supercomputers were for weather modeling and yet the “consensus” of the world’s eminent scientists has reduced Climate Change to the single variable of CO2 concentration…I’ll bet Cray has been laughing all the way to the bank…

I am a believer in Climate Change as our Climate has been changing every year ad infinitum.

But you know what, when my chicken overcooks in my oven the first thing I go check is the heat source…I wouldn’t go check anything else until I verified the heat source is stable and unchanging. If it changes, then I’ve introduced a rather pesky variable that I need to account for…and if the heatsource’s heat isn’t evenly distributed within my oven, Whoops! there’s another pesky variable…and so forth…not to mention the truly significant variable of water vapor and it’s effect on both heating/cooling of the earth’s surface. It’s content/distribution is impossible to predict 1 week into the future (hence the task for supercomputers) yet alone a decade or more…

13. #13 John Hollenberg
July 21, 2008

> But you know what, when my chicken overcooks in my oven the first thing I go check is the heat source…I wouldn’t go check anything else until I verified the heat source is stable and unchanging.

I guess that is why you are a cook, and not a climate scientist. If you want to educate yourself, try:

http://skepticalscience.com/

You can see a list of debunked arguments. Not surprisingly, your “argument” is #1 on the list.

14. #14 WotWot
July 21, 2008

Kelvin is the SI unit that all scientific papers use. A proper peer-reviewed article would not make that mistake.
Posted by: Zarquon

Papers in medical science tend to use Celsius, for obvious reasons.

15. #15 Bernard J.
July 21, 2008

Also, I have never heard of degrees Kelvin referred to as “Kelvins”. That may be the terminology that you sheep-shaggers use, but it is not in use here in the good old USA.

Brother Rat, the fact that you have never heard of the SI unit ‘Kelvin’ in “the good old USA” may be in part a sad reflection of another fact – that this same USA participated in a project that recently smashed one of its landers into Mars a little faster than intended…

Please write this on the back of your hand: ‘USA â‰  World’ – that’s why it is called Le SystÃ¨me International d’UnitÃ©s.

16. #16 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

It never ceases to amaze me that one of the first tasks of the world’s first commercial supercomputers were for weather modeling and yet the “consensus” of the world’s eminent scientists has reduced Climate Change to the single variable of CO2 concentration…

Strawman. Are you just pig ignorant or maliciously lying?

Climate Science does not, has never, and will never claim that CO2 concentrations are the only driver of climate change.

I’ll bet Cray has been laughing all the way to the bank…

I am a believer in Climate Change as our Climate has been changing every year ad infinitum.

And I’m a believer that you’re pretty damned ignorant if you don’t understand the difference between climate variability and climate trends.

This nice thing about the intertubes is that the ENTIRE WORLD gets to see just how pig ignorant you are.

But you know what, when my chicken overcooks in my oven the first thing I go check is the heat source…I wouldn’t go check anything else until I verified the heat source is stable and unchanging. If it changes, then I’ve introduced a rather pesky variable that I need to account for…

Presuming that you’re talking about that big ‘ole heat source in the sky … it HAS been checked. Of COURSE it has been checked. What makes you think scientists are stupid? It’s been checked and over the last 50 years there has been no appreciable change in solar output, no change that can explain recent warming.

and if the heatsource’s heat isn’t evenly distributed within my oven, Whoops! there’s another pesky variable…

Climate scientists are so dumb that they’re unaware that Antarctica is colder than the Sahara. Right. They couldn’t POSSIBLY be bothered to take the uneven distribution of heat on earth into consideration, could they? I mean, clearly they predicted polar amplification while simultaneously imagining that temperatures are the same worldwide. Like, DUH! They’re DUMB!

17. #17 Webler
July 21, 2008

Funniest article I have read for a long time. Can you provide a link to your article that shows smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer?

I agree, David Evans, presents truthful information in a simple light manner. You’re welcome.

I’m not sure why you think I smoke. I don’t, and never have. If you can get past the waste of money to start, then possibly catching some disease or getting black lung — I’m not sure why anyone would want to smoke. I don’t know why you would think that I smoke?

Ahh, okay, I get it know. You are suggesting that researchers and scientists would lie in order to make money off someone else’s misery. How very crafty of you, John Hollenberg.

I have never thought of it in that light before. So you are suggesting that USA researchers and scientists will say there is cataclysmic global warming so that they can collect part of the 1.9 billion (that’s with a b) of research money that’s available, even though these scientists want to take us back to the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ era. I pity the women who must churn butter for 16 hours a day. And the men who must spend as much time walking the donkey around the grinding mill crushing wheat.

You sly old dog. I never thought of the connection between those two groups of scientists. Score one for you.

18. #18 James Mayeau
July 21, 2008

Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2008 5:36 PM

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

Venus jetstream wind speed is 100 m/s. That’s comparable to Earth wind speed say on Mount Washington (103 m/s) or the South polar vortex (100 m/s), not an order of magnatude stronger.
But no, what I am talking about are the 530 m/s wind speeds of Neptune, the 490 m/s windspeeds of Saturn, and the 180 m/s windspeeds of Jupiter.

Those places are all colder then Earth.
Explain please how these colder places have the higher “like an order of magnatude stronger” windspeed if wind is an expression of latent heat?

19. #19 James Mayeau
July 21, 2008

JRE, Lee, Cyrus Pinkerton, and Luminous Beauty, all self proclaimed to be my better, but dhogaza is the only one manning up to post a reply. True it was horseshit and exhibited an incomplete grasp of the facts, but hell I love seeing the raw courage of a dhogaza, rushing in when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
dhogaza would make a great fireman.
The rest of you can hang back and say “good show, dhogaza” , “gave him what for, old boy” , “pip pip and all that”, til the end of time, it doesn’t change the fact that your boy Deltoid is perpetrating the fraud using Lanzante and Free, Sherwood et al, and Haimberger et al. – three papers that didn’t survive peer review btw –
Deltoid is a bit of the coward in that he hides this main point of his critism by obliquely linking to Realclimate to have them do his dirty work of presenting the wind = temperature change in the tropical troposphere argument.
Deltoid seems too manly a name for such a weasel.
How about Gluteous Max? – Yes has a ring of truth about it.

20. #20 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Those places are all colder then Earth. Explain please how these colder places have the higher “like an order of magnatude stronger” windspeed if wind is an expression of latent heat?

As I mentioned in my first post, heat is *one* source of energy. I mentioned another, energy imparted by the rotation of whichever planet you wish to discuss.

Idiot.

21. #21 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

The atmosphere of Venus is about 250 km (155 mi) thick. The atmosphere circulates in a westerly direction about every 4 days.
The windspeed in the highest cloud layer reach 355 km/hr (220 mi/hr) which is roughly equal the Earth’s jet stream.

Score one for our denialist friend. Mea culpa. Mea idiot!

Oh, but wait:

The middle cloud layer has the fastest winds. These winds can reach 724 km/hr (450 mi/hr.) That is faster than the fastest tornado on Earth!

Not only that, but they’re relatively steady on Venus. And the lower level winds clock in at an average 100 mph.

Point stands. Distance from the sun does not itself correlate with average wind speed on a planet. A planet can be closer to the sun than earth and have higher average winds.

Of course, I suppose you’re going to point out that the wind speed on mercury is zero, despite it’s being bloody hot, therefore proving wind strength is totally unrelated to latent heat of the atmosphere …

22. #22 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Deltoid is perpetrating the fraud using Lanzante and Free, Sherwood et al, and Haimberger et al. – three papers that didn’t survive peer review btw

Really?

Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
Steven Sherwood 1*, John Lanzante 2, Cathryn Meyer 1

Submitted on June 2, 2005
Accepted on July 27, 2005

Science Magazine …

23. #23 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Oh, I assume he means that Motls and McIntyre have “peer-reviewed” it on their blogs …

24. #24 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Mayeau, genius; Sherwood, idiot?

You decide.

Sherwood’s list of publications

Mayeau’s:

This space intentionally left blank.

25. #25 Bernard J.
July 21, 2008

James Mayeau.

Do you understand the drivers of the winds on the giant planets? Is so, perhaps you could provide a precis here and educate us all. There are many who would wait with anticipation for your version of the knowledge…

And by the way, neither JRE, Lee, Cyrus Pinkerton, nor Luminous Beauty proclaimed themselves your ‘better’ [sic]. However, I have no compunction in saying that from where I am observing the discourse, they are all very much your betters.

Of course, I may be comdemning them with faint praise by saying this. C’est la vie.

26. #26 Webler
July 21, 2008

http://skepticalscience.com/

So let me get this clear. This Web site clears up “all the misconceptions” that us –who require proof– should just pack our packs and fall in line with the other sheep. Please, those, as usual, are not conclusive in themselves.

Again, I will point out that there is no consensus. Everyday more of the man-made global warming nonsense is falling by the wayside. Like an onion, your arguments are getting refuted and leaving you with tears in your eyes. (may be due to the onion).

Although I think he should expand his “About Us” page. The NYT has had a total of 5 major climate changes since the late 1900 hundreds. gw, gc, gw, gc and now gw.

Or he could add these comments to his “about us” page, about the IPCC, et al, crushing dissent and achieving consensus. You have a serious image problem — that tags along with your numbers crunching.

“The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take the action and we can’t have people trying to undermine it.” — Royal Society of London, 2006, commenting on ways to stop those people from disagreeing with them.

“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

“When we’ve finally gotten serous about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in full worldwild scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg” — David Roberts, Grist.

“Lets just say global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” — Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe

“Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies” — Christine Stewart, Canada’s former environmental minister

“Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these “skeptic” scientists are dead.” — James Hansen, 2006 : talking about achieving consesnus

Koyoto is “the first component of an authentic global governance.” — Jacques Chirac, The Hague, 2000

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” — Sephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC, wrote in 1989 : and he lead the global cooling scare in the 1970’s.

I also noticed in the last sentence that he has reached his conclusion before he has check the facts. I didn’t think scientists worked that way. Don’t you think it is on the underhanded and unscientific side to make “some facts” fit your preconceived outlook. I do. Just dig up the arguments that fit your agenda. I would call that sloppy and highly unethical workmanship.

Yes, I know, I got a little off topic, but as you can see, with these adages, I don’t think you will be winning many to your side. Hey, not only is it junk science, but insulting those who disagree with you is not an admirable trait. You global warning scientists should be a little nicer — in a few years time you may be asking me for work. ðŸ™‚

Thanks to y’all.

Cheerio!

27. #27 Julian Flood
July 21, 2008

Luminous Beauty wrote

quote 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. unquote

Perhaps you are confusing evaporative cooling and wind chill. The former depends on evaporation, the latter depends on the relative temperatures of the blown-upon body and the airstream as well as the windspeed. In a simple illustration, a wind at -10 deg will cool a body faster than still air at the same temperature — by a body here I mean any lump of matter: you can do the experiment with a lump of iron if you like, there is no evaporation involved. I have not seen anything other than empirical derivation of the effect, but can attest to its approximate truth: a walk in the woods at Goose Bay on a -20 day was a wonderful experience until the wind got up.
Moving air contains energy and, if that air is brought to a stop, that energy will be expressed as heat. So, go to the top of a cold mountain and strip. You will lose heat as the wind evaporates away your sweat, you will lose heat as wind chill strips heat directly from your skin, and you will die. However, there will be a minor compensation in that your corpse will equilibrate with a slightly higher temperature at the upwind side where you interrupt the smooth flow of your killer.

JF

28. #28 WotWot
July 21, 2008

Webler says:

Again, I will point out that there is no consensus. Everyday more of the man-made global warming nonsense is falling by the wayside.

Blah blah blah…

[KillFile]

29. #29 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Glenn writes:

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.

Why not because it’s a nice, round number? That would be equally valid.

The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. That is the length of time necessary to separate the signal from the noise. Ten years mean nothing. And even the ten years show an INCREASE, not a DECREASE, if you do the math correctly:

Why Tim Ball is Wrong

Why Tilo Reber is Wrong

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

No, the premise is, increase in a greenhouse gas raises the temperature of the surface all else being equal. Do you understand the difference?

30. #30 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Daprez writes:

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.

Over a period of time as short as ten years, it’s not surprising that two different data sets show a widely different trend. You would expect more such divergence, just due to random chance, with a shorter period of analysis. Over the long run, however, you would expect the trend estimates to converge — and they do.

31. #31 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

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?

32. #32 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Webler posts:

why would anyone bring up a Web site that is own by Michael Mann whose hockey stick theory has been thoroughly debunked.

It hasn’t been. You don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to find a detailed analysis of the Mann et al. 1998 and 1999 papers, try here:

Tamino’s Open Mind Blog

When reality comes crashing on your heads, where will you people find work?

Probably at the same places we’re working now. (Or not working, for those of us who are unemployed.)

Politicians will just blame the scienctists, but what will be your excuse.

What makes you think we’ll need an 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.

My life is in danger because I argue for AGW? I don’t quite understand your reasoning here.

I’m just a carpenter,

Then what makes you think you know more about climatology than professional climate scientists? If you were building a wooden cabinet, and someone who had obviously never held a drill or a hammer in his life came up to you and said, “You’re doing that all wrong, stupid,” how would you react? Does your training and experience in carpentry make no difference to your expertise in the subject?

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.

Scientists seem to disagree with you.

33. #33 Brian Macker
July 21, 2008

“where the deficiencies in the denialists’ understanding of AGW lie.”

Let me fix that for you: denialist’s. That’s just one guy. There are plenty of other people who understand this better who don’t buy the warming fascists idea that the sky is falling and that we need to take drastic action including locking everyone who disagrees with warmists in jail.

What? You don’t like me lumping everyone together with the few people who have expressed such fascist ideas, like James Hansen? You don’t like it when I use derogitory terms like fascist? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Fact of the matter is that there are lots of valid reasons to doubt the political hysteria over global warming and the fact that there is an incompetent who doesn’t believe the hype doesn’t mean it isn’t still hype.

One of those valid reasons is that in fact climatologist don’t yet understand climate and their computer models are useless. The fact that they mislead people on this issue makes me distrust them. That and the many other things they do that is NOT in the spirit of science. Things like not making public their methodologies, data, etc.

34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Chip posts:

At the end of the day, AGW proponents have to provide proof that their computer models are correctly explaining temperature trends.

So far, they’re not.

Sure they are. They correctly predicted the magnitude of the temperature increase, the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warmed, the decreased diurnal temperature difference, polar amplification, and the magnitude and duration of the cooling due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

The models didn’t predict the current cooling,

That’s because there isn’t a current cooling. See my posts above, especially the links to the Ball and Reber papers.

they cannot account for the lack of significant warming in the troposphere

There has been significant warming in the troposphere.

and they don’t address the slight cooling of the oceans.

Maybe because that cooling isn’t well established yet?

Until the empirical data starts to consistently follow the models, it is reasonable to remain skeptical of AGW.

No, it is not. The models are not why people predicted anthropogenic global warming. The first paper on the subject was by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and he did not use a computer model. AGW is predictable on the basis of the following well established facts:

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

2) Carbon dioxide is increasing

3) The new carbon dioxide is from human technological sources.

Which of those three do you dispute?

35. #35 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Brother Rat writes:

Also, I have never heard of degrees Kelvin referred to as “Kelvins”. That may be the terminology that you sheep-shaggers use, but it is not in use here in the good old USA.

It is by scientists in the good old USA. You’re just wrong.

The purpose of the paper was to investigate the IPCC claim that their numbers had a 90% confidence level. As such, he investigated the factors that went into the IPCC publication and attempted to recreate the results.

But failed abysmally since he clearly didn’t know what he was doing.

Simple facts you should note: 1) The IPCC has assigned a 90% confidence level to factors which cannot be idependently measured in the field or in a laboratory.

You can assign statistical confidence levels to any set of data points, Rat. It’s really not a very complicated procedure. And your idea that climate sensitivity can’t be measured in the field is just wrong, since it has been. Try googling “paleoclimatology” + “climate sensitivity”

36. #36 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Man, the Denialists are really coming out of the woodwork on this one, aren’t they? One incompetent post after another.

the “consensus” of the world’s eminent scientists has reduced Climate Change to the single variable of CO2 concentration…

No, it hasn’t. Where did you get that silly idea?

37. #37 Barton Paul Levenson
July 21, 2008

Webler posts an especially stupid couple of denialist tropes:

So you are suggesting that USA researchers and scientists will say there is cataclysmic global warming so that they can collect part of the 1.9 billion (that’s with a b) of research money that’s available,

Oh, yeah. Just look at all those climatologists tooling around in Mercedes Benzes and Caddys. Oh. Wait. They could make three times as much money in private industry as they make working at a university or for the government. Maybe money isn’t their primary motivation?

even though these scientists want to take us back to the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ era. I pity the women who must churn butter for 16 hours a day. And the men who must spend as much time walking the donkey around the grinding mill crushing wheat.

The old lie, “mitigating AGW means getting rid of advanced technology.” No, Webler, it doesn’t. It means switching away from fossil fuels to other power sources. Now, was that hard?

38. #38 Bernard J.
July 21, 2008

Barton, I very much admire the deftness with which you respond to the spotfires of Denialism, but in one case I was hoping that James Mayeau might have posited his theory of giant planet wind first…

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?

I really think that Mayeau’s answer would have been ‘cabbage’.

39. #39 James Haughton
July 21, 2008

Chip & Daprez, who object to my “name calling”: I do acknowledge that there are some people (very few) who honestly think that the science is just not certain enough yet – that 99% is not certain enough – or have been honestly misled. I reserve the honoured title of skeptic for them.
The rest, however, push the same lies repeatedly, after they have been disproven, because they aren’t skeptics, they are political operators out to make a buck from “Big Carbon”, to coin a phrase, or they are deluded, much like creationists. For them, Adullamite. Like creationists, it’s rarely worth debating them.
A good way to tell the difference is if they’ll bet money on their beliefs. If they show a willingness to read the relevant papers (hat tip, daprez), that’s a sign of the first not the second, too. Words like “eco-fundamentalist”, “pagan zealot”, “Goracle”, and “Galileo” are usually a sign of an Adull mind.

40. #40 chip
July 21, 2008

“They correctly predicted the magnitude of the temperature increase.”

No, the 1990 prediction was wildly off the mark. The IPCC’s amendments in subsequent years were closer but only because they included current observations in their predictions.

“That’s because there isn’t a current cooling. See my posts above, especially the links to the Ball and Reber papers.”

RSS, UAH and UMET all show cooling. GISS doesn’t but 89% of their temperature stations don’t meet their own standards for location away from heat sources.

“There has been significant warming in the troposphere.”

RSS, UAH and CRU all show temps in the troposphere are falling and below the 30-year average.

“Maybe because that cooling isn’t well established yet?”

Or maybe because someone hasn’t concocted an algorithm to tweak the observable data?

“AGW is predictable on the basis of the following well established facts:

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

2) Carbon dioxide is increasing

3) The new carbon dioxide is from human technological sources.

Which of those three do you dispute?”

I dispute none. And therein lies your problem. AGW proponents such as yourself see those three points and proceed to an unverifiable fourth point: that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate change and a massive change in behaviour is required now.

It is this fourth point that has yet to be supported by the observable data. It’s quite telling that you omitted it from your considerations.

41. #41 Webler
July 21, 2008

Blah blah blah…

You sound like a character from a Charlie Brown special. I would expect a little better from you. At least, the very least, a few whaw, whaw, whaw.

If my truth is making you react funny, then I would kindly suggest you by-pass my posts.

42. #42 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

I would kindly suggest you by-pass my posts…

My guess is that your wish has been granted by the science literate people who read this blog.

43. #43 Webler
July 21, 2008

Webler posts: why would anyone bring up a Web site that is own by Michael Mann whose hockey stick theory has been thoroughly debunked.

Levenson posts: It hasn’t been. You don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to find a detailed analysis of the Mann et al. 1998 and 1999 papers, try here:

Tamino’s Open Mind Blog

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.

=========

Webler posts: When reality comes crashing on your heads, where will you people find work?

Levenson posts: Probably at the same places we’re working now. (Or not working, for those of us who are unemployed.)

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.

=========

Webler posts: Politicians will just blame the scienctists, but what will be your excuse.

Levenson posts: What makes you think we’ll need an excuse?

Webler posts: Science is on your side.

========

Webler posts: 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.

Levenson posts: My life is in danger because I argue for AGW? I don’t quite understand your reasoning here.

Webler posts: It’s a figure of speech. You’ve told more whoppers than Burger King has sold, that your career is in jeopardy.

=========

Webler posts: I’m just a carpenter,

Levenson posts: Then what makes you think you know more about climatology than professional climate scientists? If you were building a wooden cabinet, and someone who had obviously never held a drill or a hammer in his life came up to you and said, “You’re doing that all wrong, stupid,” how would you react? Does your training and experience in carpentry make no difference to your expertise in the subject?

Webler posts: I’m a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being. Unlike you, I read both sides of the issue and I come to a sound conclusion — that man-made catastrophic global warming is the big hoax the world has ever seen. I’ll go you one better, just take out the word “catastrophic” in the previous sentence.

For some reason, the proponents of AGW think that they are so smart that no other scientists disagree with their findings. Vanity is not a very attractive trait, when so many of your peers disagree with you.

==========

Webler posts: 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.

Levenson posts: Scientists seem to disagree with you.

Hardly.

44. #44 Chris O'Neill
July 21, 2008

Webler:

You sound like a character from a Charlie Brown special.

Is that where you get your scientific education from?

45. #45 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

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.

The “guilty of data mining” claim is funny since denialist hero Wegman has published recently on … data mining! As being a necessary and positive thing.

However, Mann didn’t data mine in any pejorative sense. He sought meaning from his data, and in that sense all analysis is “data mining”. Without it, there’d be no science.

I count six (6) lies in that tiny snippet there.

Did I miss any? Go for seven or eight, folks, and clue me in, please!

46. #46 Webler
July 21, 2008

My guess is that your wish has been granted by the science literate people who read this blog.

Of course, but you didn’t.

People like me make you scientists nervous. I am unwilling to pat you on the pack. You can put up your fancy numbers on fancy graphs, but guess what — so can other scientists who disagree with you.

If you want to win me over and the other billion or two who don’t believe in AGW, then bring it to the table to prove once and for all that you are correct. The trouble is I have never been on this band-wagon, and on a almost weekly basis, sound and reasonable arguments are coming out that you are incorrect.

47. #47 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Webler posts: I’m a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being.

Reminds me of the electrician on Ira Glass’s show recently, did anyone catch it?

The guy who has “proven” that Einstein and modern physics are wrong, that E=mc, not E=mc*c?

Ranting about how physicists are all misled due to their education and their insistence on complex math, because, really, as he shows, you don’t need the math to prove all of modern physics wrong!

Our carpenter seems to be suffering from a similar delusion.

48. #48 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Ha! Right on cue!

People like me make you scientists nervous. I am unwilling to pat you on the pack. You can put up your fancy numbers on fancy graphs…

I couldn’t’ve planned that better if I’d …

planned it!

49. #49 Webler
July 21, 2008

Levenson posts: Webler posts an especially stupid couple of denialist tropes:

Webler: So you are suggesting that USA researchers and scientists will say there is cataclysmic global warming so that they can collect part of the 1.9 billion (that’s with a b) of research money that’s available,

Levenson posts: Oh, yeah. Just look at all those climatologists tooling around in Mercedes Benzes and Caddys. Oh. Wait. They could make three times as much money in private industry as they make working at a university or for the government. Maybe money isn’t their primary motivation?

Webler posts: I can’t help it if you don’t know you to money manage. Really, if money wasn’t the issue why all the lies to get you hands on the money. It would seem that others can get attacked about the money, but when it is thrown back at you, you become indigent. I have had to listen to big oil conspiracies from your fellow travelers. There is a lot of pie to share and you want your share of it.

=========

Webler posts: even though these scientists want to take us back to the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ era. I pity the women who must churn butter for 16 hours a day. And the men who must spend as much time walking the donkey around the grinding mill crushing wheat.

Levenson posts: The old lie, “mitigating AGW means getting rid of advanced technology.” No, Webler, it doesn’t. It means switching away from fossil fuels to other power sources. Now, was that hard?

The trouble is — it is not a lie. One only has to pick up the local paper and see those alarmists demanding that we go back to simply times to “save the planet.” Of course then you have the politicians jumping on those statements and wanting to bring back the horse and buggy by taxing the common folk back to the “olden days.”

There is no way we can get rid of fossil fuels right now. We need a comprehensive package including fossil fuels. I can find articles from the late 70’s that say we are just around the corner from never having to use oil again. I let you all figure out how long ago that was. We might be on second or third generation, but we are nowhere near oil independence.

Why is it that every “new” renewable source is getting attacked by environmentalists? They scream that we can’t have nuclear energy, windmills are eye pollution and kill migratory birds — dams, they just kill fish — ethanol type fuel uses up arable land.

Until you people can get it together, we need oil. Lots of it. We needed to start drilling in the late 70’s, but of course we hear the same lines today and they did back then — it will take 3-5 years to get the oil to market. I will again, let you do the math on that nonsense.

We have about 168 years worth of oil in the USA, lets use it until you people can figure out what you aren’t going to protest against.

And since fossil fuels are not harming the earth, then lets use them. Even you must admit today’s technology is som much better at getting these resources in a much cleaner and safer way.

Aside: Why is it that even the hippie, elitist Europeans are drilling for oil in the Arctic. The sames ones that aren’t going to make their Kyoto agreements without buying carbon credits off Russia. The same Europeans that mock the US, but are actually going to be higher in their CO2 omissions target than from where they started.

50. #50 Vagueofgodalming
July 21, 2008

It would seem that others can get attacked about the money, but when it is thrown back at you, you become indigent.

I call Poe’s Law.

51. #51 Webler
July 21, 2008

Words like “eco-fundamentalist”, “pagan zealot”, “Goracle”, and “Galileo” are usually a sign of an Adull mind.

That usually is the response to narrow-minded know-it-all scientists who can’t accept that there are others who disagree with them.

After years of being attacked, not with the truth, but with cheap name calling — terms like the Goracle just come naturally for a rebuttal.

And you people what me to trade in my pick-up truck for a Toyota Prius with roof racks to haul the building lumber around?

Yet Al Gore leads by this example.

Americans for Prosperity rallied taxpayers outside Al Gore’s big global warming speech in Washington, and found that some Gore followers didn’t exactly practice what he preached.

There would have been a lot more commonsense on the issue if some of your members hadn’t played bigshot on TV and called others who disagree with them “Holocaust Deniers,” “Flat eathers,” and host of other names.

You got back what you dished out. And still all these years later you verbally attack those laymen, and scientists who disagree with your conclusions.

52. #52 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

Webler,

You seem to be under the impression that research grants go to the personal enrichment of the researchers.

This isn’t the case. The money goes to the institutions for which the researchers are employed at salaries generally rather less than what you can make as a carpenter.

Your understanding of basic scientific concepts is so low as to make the expectation bias of your personal beliefs the key criteria of whom you accept and reject as authoritative. In logic this is known as the fallacious use of argumentum ad verecundiam.

In other words, you ain’t got nothin’.

53. #53 Webler
July 21, 2008

Number 144

Not very original of you.

Btw, where is it written that you people are correct and can not be challenged?

Since I’m not in the scientist business, I read what others have to say and then come to my own conclusions. You would think that if you disagreed with your peers –and for a fact are correct– then you would have no problem showing them were they are wrong. But you don’t do this.

Instead you treat those scientists like outcasts. Threaten their livelihood with cheap innuendo all because they disagree with you.

54. #54 Webler
July 21, 2008

dhogaza posts: Our carpenter seems to be suffering from a similar delusion.

Yet dhogaza can’t prove the carpenter wrong, much less his peers who totally disagree with dhogaza. All these years later you people are not gaining any support through tough analysis and tough fact finding missions — you are getting the weak-kneed people through your constant brow-beating.

Facts would be a good way of getting people to believe in your cause, but they [facts] just aren’t there for you. So you people turn nasty and try to squash dissension.

Hmmm, scientists who masquerade as hoodlums.

Sorry folks, I just don’t buy into you nonsense. In a few more years you will be screaming about global cooling. But hey, maybe there will be additional grants for that or as I suggested earlier you will be looking for work in a different field.

55. #55 StuV
July 21, 2008

I am unwilling to pat you on the pack.

I wouldn’t let you if you were, you creep.

56. #56 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

Barton,

The planet has warmed by ~0.8C in the last century. No one can quantatively explain this increase without considering the enhanced greenhouse effect.

57. #57 Webler
July 21, 2008

dhogaza posts: Ha! Right on cue!

Well, it is true. Since I’m not part of your circle I don’t have to concern myself with being ostracized by the close-knit and close-minded community you have set up. So I’m free to continue on with the truth, no matter how ugly your, et al, words can get.

It is a known fact. You fear what you can’t control. Kinda like you fear the weather — oops, or is that climate. ðŸ˜‰

It is what it is. A cycle that has repeated itself throughout history.

58. #58 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

Webler,

“Facts would be a good way of getting people to believe in your cause, but they [facts] just aren’t there for you. So you people turn nasty and try to squash dissension.”

If this were true then Tim would be deleting your posts. You are being given a free opportunity to express your dissension.

However you are using this opportunity to prove you are as ignorant as a rock.

That’s a fact.

59. #59 GP
July 21, 2008

You global warning scientists should be a little nicer — in a few years time you may be asking me for work. ðŸ™‚

Nah. Too busy preparing their Nuremberg testimony.

Here’s to hoping this blog keeps IP numbers ðŸ™‚

60. #60 Webler
July 21, 2008

dhogaza posts: The “guilty of data mining” claim is funny since denialist hero Wegman has published recently on … data mining! As being a necessary and positive thing.

However, Mann didn’t data mine in any pejorative sense. He sought meaning from his data, and in that sense all analysis is “data mining”. Without it, there’d be no science.

Webler posts: Lets start off with those Canadians who found out that Mann was up to no good. After asking nicely for Mann to show the methodology he used — he hid for many years. Those two Canadians wouldn’t be put off. Finally Mann had no where to run to, so he gave it up.

These 2 Canadians ran a thousand sets of random numbers and a pattern of deceit emerged. Oh boy, Mann’s legacy was starting to unravel. These 2 Canadians also proved that once Mann’s errors were corrected the ‘hockey stick’ disappeared. I also see that those two Canadians were able to get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Mann had but no choice to go on the offensive as the foundation of the global warming base was starting to crack — not to mention his integrity was on the line, which to my satisfaction he lost. He should try to cheat the public. He got what he deserved.

You mention Wegman. He also found countless errors in Mann’s work. Also, he hired some of the greatest statisticians from around the world and they also found fault with Mann’s methodology.

What is even more shocking is why didn’t the peer review process work. That was Wegman question.

That’s the problem with you people. You have circled the wagons as you have realized that you have jumped on a faulty premise and have base other erroneous material on top of Mann’s deceit.

To steal a line from the kids, the proof is in the pudding.

Why did the IPCC take out the hockey stick theory in 2007? Btw, that was a rhetorical question.

The very foundation is not only cracked, it is missing.

61. #61 Webler
July 21, 2008

luminous beauty posts: You seem to be under the impression that research grants go to the personal enrichment of the researchers.

I read last year some time about an oceanographic company picking up 40 million dollars for some “studies” on the currents.

Translation: depending on the size of the company that means that they can pick up a paycheck for 40 years without producing anything meaningful.

Btw, this all started because of the claims that global warming alarmists are doing this for the better of humankind and everybody else who disagrees with the alarmists is in it for the money. So your argument to me — would that not cover the scientists who disagree with global warming?

I would think so.

62. #62 GP
July 21, 2008

Dhozaga #121: suggest you express those planetary wind speeds in machs rather than m/s (as you should): Venus is the winner, not Neptune. Jupiter is the loser and surprisingly low.

Anyone seeing a pattern here is delusional.

63. #63 Webler
July 21, 2008

StuV posts: I wouldn’t let you if you were, you creep.

64. #64 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Oh, good point, GP. I picked Venus for a reason but as far as the numbers go, I just went to the first source I could find quickly in Google.

Webler, you’ll convince the world of science that you’re right about the same time the electrician I mentioned wins the Nobel in physics for overturning E=mc*c.

Meanwhile, I think it’s safe to say the rest of us are willing to allow you to believe in your crockpottery in peace. May your farce stay with you.

65. #65 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

Why did the IPCC take out the hockey stick theory in 2007?

They didn’t.

When did Webler quit beating his wife?

He didn’t.

Internet war won!

66. #66 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

“Why did the IPCC take out the hockey stick theory in 2007? Btw, that was a rhetorical question.”

Rhetorical because it isn’t true?

Not the foundation of AGW either.

Amman & Wahl eat McKitrick & McIntyre’s lunch and spit out the bones.

The line you mangle is actually ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.

What you seem to be eating is moose-turd pie. Tastes good, though.

67. #67 Webler
July 21, 2008

Webler posts: Facts would be a good way of getting people to believe in your cause, but they [facts] just aren’t there for you. So you people turn nasty and try to squash dissension.”

luminous beauty posts: If this were true then Tim would be deleting your posts. You are being given a free opportunity to express your dissension.

Webler posts: If you can see what is happening around you –beside in a forum thread– then that is not my problem. But the truth of the matter is those who disagree with you are put to sea. Finally, more scientists are getting the courage to add their voice to the dissenting group. I think they have had enough of being bullied around.

luminous beauty posts: However you are using this opportunity to prove you are as ignorant as a rock. That’s a fact.

Webler posts: Some of you people are making my point much better than I ever could. I was just using anecdotal evidence. You people are bringing to life.

68. #68 Webler
July 21, 2008

Webler posts: Why did the IPCC take out the hockey stick theory in 2007?

dhogaza posts: They didn’t.

There sure did. Airbrushed the puppy right out of there. And those whacky IPCC people don’t even mention it. They just hoped that no one would notice.

dhogaza posts: When did Webler quit beating his wife?

dhogaza splits his personality and posts a rebuttal: He didn’t.

Webler posts: I’m not married. Again, these attacks against me because I disagree with you.

69. #69 Webler
July 21, 2008

I see I have brought out the nastiness in some of you by disagreeing with you. I take it these are the scientists “that are head & shoulders above the layman.” I would say not.

Since I have reduced some of you to less than kind opponents, I will be moving on today. Your insults are not up to par with other climate alarmists posters. I might check in tomorrow to see if there is any serious rebuttal to the disappearing hockey stick.

Oh yeah, not from RealClimate. I don’t need Michael Mann defending the indefensible.

Cheers folks

70. #70 Deano
July 21, 2008

I am not a scientist, although my undergraduate degree is in mathematics. This may be the forum to ask this question of some qualified AGW evangelists. I never seem to get a straight answer even though from a mathematical point of view it is a straightforward question.

Assuming no reduction in the current growth rate of global CO2 emissions, what amount of atmospheric cooling measured by say, Hadley CRU, over what time frame would you consider the AGW hypothesis falsified?

And no, I do want an absolute temperature, I refer to the anomalous trend because the hypothesis is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature change. And I cannot accept a time frame of greater than 30 years because that is approximately the largest historical period upon which the hypothesis is based.

The reason I ask is that it appears from websites such as this that AGW evangelists do not accept that the hypothesis can be falsified, in which case it is not an hypothesis at all.

July 21, 2008

Trolls:

Don’t flatter yourselves. Most of us killfile you.

72. #72 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

Webler,

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?

I don’t expect or desire an answer. I would be most grateful were you to privately ask the question to your self.

73. #73 VonDoog
July 21, 2008

To Mr. Webler,
I understand your frustration with this poorly kept dialogue. I too walked away from this in 1993. I graduated in Physics and felt it was a priority now that the Cold War had ended. A new frontier: find the problems, solve the problems. After three years of having a continuous one-sided bullhorn of this rhetoric that it is CO2 and nothing else, I decided to leave the life of acadamia and make a living solving industrial problems.

The problem that exists today is that you are encountering a generation of very talented and smart individuals, who only want to see things their way. Models, hype, funding, and that sort of malaise has led to what you are encountering now: opinionated views that if not shared by all, you are in the out.

This reminds me of the failure of the Drude Model in Solid State, or the ultraviolet catastrophe leading to Planck’s ideas.

I am now a skeptic. I believe the sun has a lot more to do with this than CO2. Not saying that CO2 has some influence. I just believe it is the same magnitude as a lit match in your car, with the windows rolled up, in July, in Arizona, during the day. It does contribute, but not a lot. Or put it more descriptively: when I see that temperature is a function of CO2 and the solar input (and some there factors), BUT CO2 is a greater contributor in the DATA, not computer driven models, I will be sold as well.

I am not holding my breath. The atmosphere may need my CO2, or someone may want my carbon outputs.

74. #74 John Hollenberg
July 21, 2008

> Assuming no reduction in the current growth rate of global CO2 emissions, what amount of atmospheric cooling measured by say, Hadley CRU, over what time frame would you consider the AGW hypothesis falsified?

I am not an expert in this area, but I would be concerned if the most recent 20 years did not show a positive trend in temperature. Anything less than 15 years is weather, not climate. Of course, this assumes that no major volcanic eruptions have occurred, which would cause some temporary cooling.

To translate into today: if the trend was not positive for 1988-2008, I would be concerned about the validity.

Note: I see no cause for concern about the validity of AGW.

75. #75 guthrie
July 21, 2008

Vondoog- obviously then the stratosphere is not cooling at all, since that is a prediction of increased CO2, but if the sun was causing the warming, then the entire atmosphere would be warming, and thats what is happening, right?

76. #76 Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
July 21, 2008

“Yet dhogaza can’t prove the carpenter wrong, much less his peers who totally disagree with dhogaza.”

Because the carpenter doesn’t know enough to realise when he’s been proved wrong. Read Barton Paul’s reply to you at #132 again. Right now, you’re just doing the Black Knight Defense.

77. #77 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

I graduated in Physics … After three years of having a continuous one-sided bullhorn of this rhetoric that it is CO2 and nothing else

Someone’s lying, because academia doesn’t say “it is CO2 and nothing else”.

Tch tch – you’ve been caught out in your first few words.

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

Then why haven’t we been measuring an increase in solar output that would explain the rise in temps the last 50 years?

You claim to be a physicist. WHAT ARE WE MISSING THAT PHYSICISTS CAN’T MEASURE?

Because the fault here lies with your self-proclaimed profession. It is YOU GUYS who can’t come up with a measurable physical cause that would explain things.

Also, it is PHYSICS that explains CO2 forcing. You are a physicist. The energy due to CO2 absorption of IR has to be going SOMEWHERE. As a physicist, WHERE IS IT GOING.

Note that none of these questions have a damned thing to do about funding, hype, political beliefs … raw physics. If you disbelieve the physics underlying the CO2 warming hypothesis, you need to demonstrate:

1. where the energy causing observed temp increases is coming from. Solar? We can’t measure it.

2. CO2 physics is wrong.

3. You must explain stratospheric cooling, a prediction of climate physics based on CO2-forced warming, the opposite of what’s expected with solar warming.

78. #78 VonDoog
July 21, 2008

Hello Guthrie,

I am not one to tell you exactly these days. I have been so far removed from the details of the technical focus. I stopped reading the journals long ago as they were replaced with ones in industries. The car example was a poor analogy to describe scaling, but I do think it serves a pretty good point: what is coming in from outside is much, much larger than what we think is being witheld from CO2 contributions, or other GHGs(I have not seen anyone show what we know, please send me if there is).

I had a professor who shot some of my ideas down. He was a solar physicist and a pretty good one. 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.

I started to review the information. Semiconductors and software really changed the face of the world: I am glad I left academia. The search engines and now blogs are great for input and debate.

There is still a total disregard of pure scientific reasoning. If you are not on the wagon, you are wrong. Peer review seems to be a part of this attitude. It is what is reducing our innovations in a poignent one-sided debate. This is my opinion and I am not attacking anyone specifically here, I have just been observing this all around.

I have not viewed all the data regarding stratospheric temperature trends: I am listening to the debate out there and everyone seems to say that the atmosphere is getting hotter. Where I live, you really cannot tell the difference if it is 110 or 111F. Honestly, I can see a difference: I actually think it is getting cooler out here in the desert in the summer. But this is from my own observations.

79. #79 guthrie
July 21, 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.

80. #80 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

I had a professor who shot some of my ideas down. He was a solar physicist and a pretty good one. 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.

This is an incredibly stupid statement. The whole world KNOWS that the sun heats the earth. I can’t believe you actually graduated with a physics degree.

You must be a troll.

I have not viewed all the data regarding stratospheric temperature trends: I am listening to the debate out there and everyone seems to say that the atmosphere is getting hotter.

paraphrase: I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, but I know I’m right, and climate scientists are wrong.

Wow.

81. #81 Luke Silburn
July 21, 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

82. #82 Ian Forrester
July 21, 2008

VonDoog said: “There is still a total disregard of pure scientific reasoning”. This is the one true remark you have made in all your rantings.

However, the people who are disregarding scientific reasoning are the trolls, deniers and other dishonest purveyors of junk science nonsense who infect the scientific blogsphere.

You just show how dishonest you are with your every post.

83. #83 VonDoog
July 21, 2008

Hello Dhogaza,

Not too sure where you are coming from, but calm down. Stop frothing. Your comments appear scattered and skewed.

I never said the physics of CO2 was wrong. What I said was that the sun’s influence on this planet is extremely large. In fact, it is massive. Much more so than the output of mankind.

I am not going to stoop to your level, however, I will comment on your response:

IR absorption of CO2: it would radiate all about. Some heat towards earth, some towards space.

“where the energy causing observed temp increases is coming from. Solar? We can’t measure it.”

-We do measure solar input. It is in the form of irradiance, or W/m2. We have been tracking this. Compare this to overall or zonal temperatures. You probably have this information? This would be one significant point.

“CO2 physics is wrong.”

-I have never said this in my comments above. Only that if the sun has more of an inluence here, then we need to use the CO2 and other cycles to determine a way to change. All core data shows an ~800 year lag behind temperature regarding CO2 changes. Those are well published facts.

“You must explain stratospheric cooling, a prediction of climate physics based on CO2-forced warming, the opposite of what’s expected with solar warming.”

-This is a prediction. Obviously the climatologists are following trends and data. There must be relations in the data before going into a theory or more advanced model. That is sound science.

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

84. #84 Duae Quartunciae
July 21, 2008

Hey again Daprez, #72.

You asked: “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.”

That’s a good question. I wasn’t able to answer before, because all I did was whack a regression line onto a plot of my spreadsheet and read off numbers. Others have given some good replies, but after doing a bit of coding for myself, I can give a more quantified answer.

I have coded up a moving regression line over both datasets, using a 10 year window, from 1975 up to the present. I chose 1975 as that is roughly the start of the most recent comparatively consistent warming trend. This allowed me to get a sequence of slopes for each 10 year window, on the monthly time series; a bit over 340 windows in all.

With this, I can obtain a mean and standard deviation for all slopes over a ten year sliding window anywhere from 1975 to the present. Here are my own calculated results, for mean and (standard deviation) of slopes, in C/decade

0.181 (0.094) GISS

The the recent 10 year window, in C/decade (normalized as standard deviations from mean)

0.145 (-0.38) GISS

This shows several things. First; over a long term, both series have a very similar distribution of slopes. Second; the most recent slope, though a slowdown, is well within normal variations, in either series.

As far as the difference between HadCRUT3 and GISS, you should not really look at a “factor”, but at an absolute difference; because the the two time series have similar long term behaviours, and going near zero is normal, even though it gives you huge multiplying factors between values. Hence it is not important that one is three times the other, but rather that the difference in slope for the two series is about 0.11 C/decade… a bit over one standard deviation.

The variations in the two series are not independent of each other; since they measure temperatures over the same months. But the differences in the way they are obtained (especially wrt to the high latitudes, or the Arctic) does give some independent variation, and probably is the major source of a difference of 0.11 between HadCRUT3v and GISS for the slope over the most recent 10 year window. It is still not really remarkable; and we can expect them to continue to track reasonably close together into the future.

Bottom line. There certainly has been a slow down in the warming trend recently; but all within normal variation. It’s not any kind of conflict with the conventional picture of long term warming; not even if we get a bit of a reversal and cooling sometimes.

The classic comment about “warming has stopped” simply fails to understand what warming refers to…. a trend. A trend which (unfortunately) we can expect with high confidence to continue well into the future, barring unforseen supervolcanos or such eventualities, and including plenty of dips and humps along the way. As it stands; we’re still in a warming trend, which goes back to 1975 or so.

85. #85 Duae Quartunciae
July 21, 2008

VonDoog #183; a “forcing” is by definition a change in energy balance. It can be a change in the solar input, or a change in the longwave emission; but the fundamental point is that it has to be a change.

The Sun is, of course, the only source of actual heat energy worth considering; almost all the Earth’s warmth comes, ultimately, from the Sun. It is not the only source of change. The solar constant (we measure it) is very stable. The changes in solar input to the Earth — which is what you need for a forcing — are very small by comparison with the changes in longwave output from the Earth as a result of increased greenhouse gases.

Your argument is a bit like saying an overcoat on a warm day makes no difference, because the Sun is the source of the heat. So it is… but put on an overcoat on a sunny day and you’ll soon recognize that what changed is not the source of energy, but your capacity to radiate it away again. You can run the numbers pretty easily — in fact that was the basis of the paper in the recent APS newsletter than run in parallel with Monckton’s nonsense — and it falls out pretty easily. Things are warming up, and it is not the Sun that has been changing… certainly not enough to be the cause of increasing temperatures.

86. #86 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

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

Posted by: VonDoog | July 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Since VonDoog is the only one saying CO2 is the only forcing, then only Von Doog is doing bad science.

87. #87 dhogaza
July 21, 2008

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

It’s also stupid. So, please stop posting stupid, and we’ll stop calling you stupid, OK?

You can’t reject science that you don’t understand.

Again, I think you’re lying when you say you have a physics degree.

88. #88 Dave
July 21, 2008

“The reason I ask is that it appears from websites such as this that AGW evangelists do not accept that the hypothesis can be falsified, in which case it is not an hypothesis at all.”

Well, the obvious answer is to compare the predictions with the observations. Statistically significant differences between the observations and the theory, TAKING PROPER account of the known respective uncertainties in both the observations and theory predictions would mean that something serious in our understanding is indeed lacking. For global temperature trends `weather noise’ (as one poster pointed out) means that you need something on the order of 15-20 yrs.

Further…

To disprove the idea that Anthro emissions of GHGs do not significantly affect climate, you could also try come up with convincing evidence that over 100 yrs of radiative transfer theory and spectroscopy is wrong despite being verified as being accurate through numerous lab and field observations. You could try that..

Assuming (just for the sake or argument) that you would be unsuccessful in such an endeavor, you could then attempt to discover and quantify some other currently unknown or grossly misunderstood mechanism(s) that both explain the observational record as well as simultaneously negating the known forcing from anthro. GHGs. Note: that the sun would not be a likely candidate as there is no observed long-term trend in extra-solar solar irradiance and in any case increased solar radiation would not produce anything like the observed stratospheric cooling.

At the end of the day though, if one is honest, one must admit that (in spite of observational and model uncertainties) that when we take into account what we know about physics, chemistry and geology etc. together with the large and varied observational data record that the case for the “AGW hypothesis” is indeed very very strong.

Personally I feel taht it would be nice if AGW could be proven to be something we do not have to worry about. However reality is reality and denial usually is not an effective way to deal with any problem.

Back on thread …. Monckton’s letter is transparently inaccurate on many levels. After learning a bit more about his record I have to wonder, is the man a fool (i.e. deluded) or a liar (knows he is spouting BS and just does not care).

Dave

89. #89 luminous beauty
July 21, 2008

Dave,

I wouldn’t discount the idea he is both. Soup and salad.

90. #90 trrll
July 21, 2008

I never said the physics of CO2 was wrong. What I said was that the sun’s influence on this planet is extremely large. In fact, it is massive. Much more so than the output of mankind.

Well, duh.

The temperature here on earth is over 200K above the temperature that the planet would be be at if there were no sun. That is most certainly a massive effect. Nobody disputes that. We are worrying about an average temperature change of maybe 10K–tiny compared to the total effect of the sun on the temperature of earth. But as it turns out, a few degrees can make a big difference when it comes to things like agriculture and sea level.

And of course, the argument is not that the heat from the energy of the fossil fuels that we burn is causing the temperature to rise–that’s as dumb as trying to calculate how much a blanket will warm you based upon how much energy went into its manufacture. Rather, the argument is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 reduces the rate at which the sun’s energy is radiated away from the earth. And because the input of energy from the sun is so “massive,” it only takes a small change in how much of that massive energy input is retained to have an impact on temperature.

And you claim to have heard that absurd argument from a physics professor?

Maybe you misunderstood him.

91. #91 quraina
July 21, 2008

I emailed Monckton about the typo I decribed in #103 above, and he quickly and cheerfully acknowledged the error. He says he’s been made aware of several such errors since the article was posted. Tim, have you corresponded with Monckton about the triple-counting error? He seems open and cordial to me.

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.

92. #92 guthrie
July 21, 2008

Vondoog-
I don’t care what examples you think of, I just gave you a cast iron prediction based upon real life physics, abnd observationally verified.
The rest of your post makes little sense to me. Instead of talking about global warming, how about you go and read the IPCC report? It is freely available online.

AS fro your professor, why don’t you get him to come over here, and we’ll try to understand what he is on about, but at the moment it seems to be irrelevant.
By the way, is English your first language? Some of your sentence construction seems a bit confused, and if it wasn’t your first language, that would explain it.

93. #93 pough
July 21, 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.

The problem is so many were referring to it as though it were 1) peer-reviewed and 2) a statement of the APS’s position and a reversal on their part. This is a newsletter and not a journal; it neither needs nor requires peer review. Since it’s not a peer-reviewed journal, it allows for a bit more free and lively discussion (which is good) but it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as it was (which was bad.)

94. #94 quraina
July 21, 2008

“THE problem is so many were referring to it as though it were 1) peer-reviewed and 2) a statement of the APS’s position and a reversal on their part.”

I fully agree with you that that is A problem, an important one. _Another_ problem is that a non-peer-reviewed newsletter invited a non-peer-reviewed article, posted it although it contained typos that even a layman can spot, and _then_ subsequently prepended a red warning to it that says This Is Not Peer Reviewed! Despite the non-formal nature of the newsletter, wouldn’t it have been better all around if APS had had more than one guy at least read the thing _before_ posting it? The newsletter isn’t a journal, but doesn’t it have editors and other folks who care about what they post, and have a bit of time to at least _read_ the submissions?

BTW, has Tim or anyone else contacted Monckton yet about the triple-counting?

95. #95 z
July 21, 2008

“Tim, you skimmed the paper, but you didn’t understand it. I can see from the comments that not many of your reader understood it either.

2) The laboratory measurements (forcing fingerprints at the tropics) have not been confirmed with any measurements”

Well, you can add that last one to the list of things i do NOT understand.

96. #96 z
July 21, 2008

“But you know what, when my chicken overcooks in my oven the first thing I go check is the heat source…I wouldn’t go check anything else until I verified the heat source is stable and unchanging.”

and when was the last time you did so, and found that in fact your chicken had overcooked, because your oven had suddenly become unstable?

97. #97 z
July 21, 2008

“If you want to win me over and the other billion or two who don’t believe in AGW, ”

have you considered going before them instead of us, and letting them annoint you spokesperson? because till then, you just fall into the “union of lonesome cranks” category, much as i may try to classify your import as greater and your utterances as worthier of my time.

98. #98 Bernard J.
July 21, 2008

Webler posts:

I’m a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being.

Bernard J. posts:

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

therefore

Bernard J. posits:

Webler is a ranting zealot of a troll with no capacity for a proper implementation of whatever education he has received.

Just extrapolating from the evidence, Webler, which seems to be more than you are objectively able to do…

99. #99 Tim Lambert
July 21, 2008

quraina, my [previous experience](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/more_monckton.php) with Monckton suggests that trying to get him to make substantive corrections is a waste of time.

100. #100 pough
July 21, 2008

Another problem is that a non-peer-reviewed newsletter invited a non-peer-reviewed article, posted it although it contained typos that even a layman can spot, and then subsequently prepended a red warning to it that says This Is Not Peer Reviewed!

Maybe the editor liked the cut of Our Sweet Lord Monckton’s jib and trusted it was all in order, but then some strange attention from the unwashed hordes caught the notice of the editor-in-chief, who didn’t much care for how it was all being perceived and – not wanting to actually censor anything – simply posted a little reminder that this was not something the APS was really backing.

If it’s nothing more than a newsletter, why on earth would they feel the need to review it to such a degree? I don’t think any of it would have been an issue had the denialists jumped all over it as though it were official APS material.