Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
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.
Too 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.
Environment
Comments
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 19, 2008 4:30 PM
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?
Posted by: spangled drongo | July 19, 2008 9:29 PM
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.
Posted by: pough | July 19, 2008 9:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 19, 2008 9:42 PM
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/provednoclimate_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.
Posted by: Joel Shore | July 19, 2008 10:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | July 19, 2008 10:39 PM
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.
Posted by: caerbannog | July 19, 2008 10:45 PM
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.)
Posted by: Joel Shore | July 19, 2008 10:59 PM
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.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 19, 2008 11:36 PM
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.
Posted by: olegt@jhu.edu | July 19, 2008 11:57 PM
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...
Posted by: bernard J. | July 20, 2008 12:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 20, 2008 1:00 AM
My second link should have been:
http://units.aps.org/units/SNENG/news/upload/NESAPS_Fall07.pdf
Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 20, 2008 1:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Ron Broberg | July 20, 2008 1:25 AM
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.
Posted by: john | July 20, 2008 1:27 AM
The same 'logic' obviously doesn't apply to Al Gore. Wheee.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 20, 2008 1:30 AM
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.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 20, 2008 1:55 AM
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'.
Posted by: spangled drongo | July 20, 2008 1:58 AM
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.]
Posted by: John Mashey | July 20, 2008 2:33 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 2:40 AM
In spangled drongo's cloud-cuckoo universe, when someone says that something doesn't exist, then that's conclusive proof that the something exists.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 20, 2008 2:53 AM
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.
Posted by: Charles | July 20, 2008 2:57 AM
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!
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
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.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 20, 2008 3:42 AM
[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?
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 3:47 AM
re: # 24 oops, that was a typo: it was 371 pages, not 271.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 20, 2008 3:48 AM
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.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 20, 2008 4:03 AM
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?
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 4:12 AM
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.
Posted by: anon | July 20, 2008 4:26 AM
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!!!
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 5:01 AM
"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.
Posted by: spangled drongo | July 20, 2008 5:04 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 5:11 AM
anon:
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:
Is it a coincidence you're using the same "even if ..." trick that Monckton's using in his "conclusion"?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 20, 2008 5:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Bernard Blyth | July 20, 2008 5:44 AM
Bernard Blyth: Yawn.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 20, 2008 5:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | July 20, 2008 6:01 AM
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 )
Posted by: Manfred | July 20, 2008 6:04 AM
How, exactly, does this differ from a basic doctorate in physics?
(the obvious conclusion being that you're lying about your cousin, of course!)
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?
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2008 6:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | July 20, 2008 6:11 AM
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.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | July 20, 2008 6:18 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2008 6:35 AM
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...
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 20, 2008 6:41 AM
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...
Posted by: sod | July 20, 2008 6:55 AM
anon posts:
What did he pour over it? I'd use molasses, myself.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 20, 2008 7:13 AM
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?
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 20, 2008 7:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 20, 2008 7:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 20, 2008 7:23 AM
This all reminds me very much of the "State Climatologist" scam that Michaels concocted in the USA to gain credibility.
Posted by: Bugs | July 20, 2008 8:11 AM
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
Posted by: Glenn | July 20, 2008 9:14 AM
Glenn,
It's increased.
Glad to help.
Posted by: Michael | July 20, 2008 9:20 AM
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 ...
Posted by: dhogaza | July 20, 2008 10:10 AM
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?
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | July 20, 2008 10:29 AM
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.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
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
Posted by: Glenn | July 20, 2008 11:33 AM
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
Posted by: Glenn | July 20, 2008 11:38 AM
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.
Posted by: WotWot | July 20, 2008 11:40 AM
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.
Posted by: steven mosher | July 20, 2008 11:46 AM
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.
Posted by: WotWot | July 20, 2008 11:55 AM
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:
because he could not tell from my question:
nor from my invitation several sentences later:
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...
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 20, 2008 12:01 PM