Gavin Schmidt has caught Christopher Monckton in yet another fabrication. Monckton published graphs that purport to show that temperatures and CO2 concentrations haven’t followed IPCC projections, but the IPCC projections Monckton plots are fictional. Schmidt graphs the actual projections, and surprise, surprise they give a very different picture.

And in comments there, Igor Samoylenko writes


With his latest shenanigans in the US, Monkton managed to catch the attention of Private Eye (a satirical current affairs magazine in the UK).

In the latest issue 1235, they noted several things (quite apart from his dodgy science).

One is his reference to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to two American senators. He is not of course and never has been. As Private Eye notes: “Since inheriting the title, Christopher has stood at a “by-election” for a hereditary Tory seat in the Lords, following the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton two years ago. He received precisely zero votes.”

The other thing Private Eye notes is his logo, which he is using on his graphs and letters – a portcullis topped with a crown, bearing a striking resemblance to the insignia of the House of Parliament. This is also very dodgy indeed as the official parliamentary guide states very clearly that “the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by the others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House”.

Compare Monckton’s logo (left) with Parliament’s (right).

i-da60a2420ec584cbc1ded8c382a16bae-moncktonlogo.png i-02f4709e5d3134d94efddbbe2598214d-parliamentlogo.png

He’s replaced the royal crown with a viscount’s coronet, produced a logo that would only be appropriate if he was a Viscount with a seat in the House of Lords.

See also his testimony to a US Congress Committee:

I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your “athletic democracy”.

He again implies he has a seat in Parliament. Which he doesn’t.

Comments

  1. #1 t_p_hamilton
    May 13, 2009

    TimWells said:”Barton,the only point under scrutiny is number 5.As we both know,correlation does not mean causation.There is also a strong correlation for temp and solar cycle intensity AND an even stronger correlation for temp and solar cycle length.”

    Surely a skeptical person such as yourself investigated the correlation of temp and solar cycle intensity, and the temp and solar cycle length. Was this from scientific papers, or blog science?

  2. #2 Robster, FCD
    May 13, 2009

    Timmeh, You said that there is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of species going extinct. CO2 is a primary cause of global warming, QED. Deny it all you want, but the evidence is there. I gave you one mammal and over sixty species of harlequin frog. So, you made an absolutist statement and it was shown to be false. I can understand how this would be embarrassing to an honest person, but all you have to do is say you were wrong, not throw a hissy fit.

  3. #3 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2009

    Dash:

    Most of your posts have contained the word liar.

    Truth hurts, doesn’t it. In case you forget, here is your lie again:

    Hansen knows full well the headline is going to read: .. We’re All Going to Die!!!

  4. #4 t_p_hamilton
    May 13, 2009

    TimWells asks questions:”San, 1]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was due to CO2?Please quote your source. 2]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1975 to 1998 was due to CO2?Please quote your source.”

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif, based on the papers referenced in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    CO2 forcing from 1910 to 1940 increased by 0.4 W/square meter
    CO2 forcing from 1975 to 1988 increased by 0.8 W/square meter, over four times the rate because the time period is less than half.

    As you can see from the graph, the primary warming forcing is CO2. The other major factors are cooling, yet not rising as fast as CO2 is or transient.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    May 13, 2009

    Majorajam.

    I think that you are being flattering when you speak of “[t]he sound of one denialist synapse firing”…

    That implies two functioning neurons, and that is at least one more than most of them seem to possess.

    …although it may lead to temporary feelings of superiority among the ignoranti…

    Stewart, I think that you win the prize for my favourite word of the day!

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2009

    timwells:

    AGW believers START with the asumption that CO2 is a major driver of climate/temp

    AGW starts with the measurement of CO2′s infra-red absorption in the laboratory, from which a forcing of about 3.7 W/m^2/CO2 doubling can be calculated. With the existing level of CO2, this gives an existing forcing of about 1.7 W/m^2. This compares with a variable forcing over the solar cycle of about 0.25 W/m^2 and an average increase in solar forcing over the last 100 years of probably also about 0.25 W/m^2.

    If you can find something causing a forcing anything like CO2′s 1.7 W/m^2, please let the climate scientists know.

  7. #7 Lee
    May 13, 2009

    Riprock:
    “The Northwest Passage has been open at least twice before during the last 105 years.”

    Festering bullcrap.

    You should read and pay attention to the details fo northwest passage transits, before you say absurd things like “the northwest passage has been open.”

    A 3- year transit, achieved mostly be near-shore, shallow-water navigation during periods when offshore winds opened near shore leads, with forced overwintering for two winters because they were blocked by ice from continuing through – is NOT evidence of an open northwest passage.

    A passage achieved by skillful ice navigation, finding open leads and areas of patchy ice and using them, is not evidence of an open northwest pasage.

    Contrast those passages to reent years, when private fricking yachts have been transiting the NWP on a nearly routine basis – and by simply sailing through, with no more ice navigation required than simply standing an ice watch just in case.

    Try to apply at least some fraction of the distrust to claims that support your preheld position, as you show toward evidence that challenges your position.

  8. #8 Richard Simons
    May 13, 2009

    So Jeff,C3 and C4 cereals dont have greater yields in CO2 enhanced environments?They also dont need as much water?Is that right?

    Unfortunately, extra heat prevents the pollination that is required for grains to be produced. That is why wheat, a highly desirable crop, can’t be grown in the tropics except at high altitudes. A couple of years ago there were poor corn yields in parts of the US (e.g. Georgia) because of high temperatures at pollination. There also has been some concern about it affecting rice yields in SE Asia.

  9. #9 Pete Murray
    May 13, 2009

    I’m a humanities graduate student with an interest but really no expertise in science. I suspect it can be extremely tiresome to argue with climate skeptics as Barton, Jeff, and others have been doing in this thread. It might feel like your efforts are futile, and that you all are making no headway. So, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the wealth of citations in this thread, and the cogent responses to the skeptical worries. I, at least, have learned something, and I appreciate all of your efforts in the long series of comments above. Thanks.

  10. #10 DavidK
    May 13, 2009

    Pete

    I too have learned a lot from just watching the dialogue between posters on Deltoid. While we all have skills and expertise in various areas, it never ceases to amaze me when we get the likes of plumbers, bankers, lawyers, etc telling experts in ‘climate science’ they have got it all wrong – simply astounding. It’s like me telling my accountant he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    I particularly liked these two gems;

    the inimitable Curtin thread

    and the classic;

    another delusional fraud/hoax.

    I learned more from Jeff, Bernard, Chris and Co than ever I could in attending a bridging course at Uni.

    Be warned: Don’t eat or drink while patiently reading – you’ll likely end up needing a new keyboard and monitor.

  11. #11 John Mashey
    May 13, 2009

    As is often the case, Monckton stirs up controversy and confusion.

    One input to people’s beliefs about AGW is where they live.
    If I lived in the Scotland (especially the highlands) where the average maximum summer temperatures are about 60F, where it rains 4-5 days a week, well above sea level and with PGR, in an area heavily dependent on fossil fuel business (North Sea oil) … I’d love the idea of +19-20F.

    So, rather than talking in all these generalities, it may be helpful to use examples that people might relate to more directly. Also, we could all learn more about the specific issues faced in different places, or if one believes Moncton, are no problem anywhere.

    We know Dash Riprock III (aka Mark Gillar) is in Bryan,TX, right next to Texas A&M.
    Mark: have you had a chance to look at any of those presentations by TX scientists yet? Can you
    tell us what you’ve learned from them or ask questions. Can you assess their credibility relative to Monckton’s? This might actually be useful, especially because TX has complex and interesting climate issues. Repeating cut-and-paste of long-debunked things people have seen numerous times does your cause no good.

    Note: This might even be relevant to an Australian blog, given that TX shares some climate issues with TX, like Hadley Cell expansion and it’s rain-motion effects.

    That leaves timwells, and it would be interesting to know his approximate location, and maybe someone could give him specific recommendations.

  12. #12 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    BernardJ,the numbers dont agree with you about C3 cereals.C3 cereals in 700ppm CO2 have a 49% greater yield AND require lees water.For C4 cereals it is 20%.

  13. #13 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    Ther are stacks of studies that show a high correlation between solar activty and Temperature.Here is just one.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_temperatures_and Climate factors_since1895.pdf.

    PS Barton, this link is also is for you in regads to your CO2/temp correltion.

  14. #14 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    Robster,you seem to have a comprehension problem.Lets then forget about CO2.My question then is…”Where is the PROVEN established link between observed global warming and the extinction of these species?”

  15. #15 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    t p hamilton
    The title is….. “Forcings in GISS Model”
    What’s the magic word?

  16. #16 Chris O'Neill
    May 14, 2009

    timwells:

    Ther are stacks of studies that show a high correlation between solar activty and Temperature.Here is just one. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/UStemperaturesand Climate factors_since1895.pdf.

    Sorry, that is a document on a science denial website so its credibility is zero. In any case, it doesn’t come up with any expected figure for solar forcing. If that’s the best you can come up with in “stacks of studies”, I wouldn’t hold much hope for any of the rest of them.

  17. #17 Fitz
    May 14, 2009

    @John Mashey: living in Glasgow I can assure you that the influx of English people would more than offset any benefits.

  18. #18 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    Chris O,your numbers for Co2 doubling are assuming high feedbacks and that is the whole point under scrutiny.With water vapor overlap on the low frequency end,the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is only 1.9W/m2.

  19. #19 timwells
    May 14, 2009

    Chris O,so let me get this straight.You cant dispute the message,so you just choose to shoot the messenger?How about you stop running and show us why the facts in that link are wrong.If you present a reasonable argument,I will be the first to applaud you.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    May 14, 2009

    And with no disrespect Jeff,the planet DOES exist merely to serve the needs of Homo Sapiens.

    Posted by: timwells | May 12, 2009 7:53 AM

    As you have pretensions to telling trained professionals in climatology, ecology and plant physiology that their understandings are wrong, perhaps you could explain exactly what you meant in the above statement.

    BernardJ,the numbers dont agree with you about C3 cereals.C3 cereals in 700ppm CO2 have a 49% greater yield AND require lees water.For C4 cereals it is 20%.

    Go back and read carefully what I wrote, and do some reading up on constraints to phtotsynthesis in ‘the real world’. Check out ‘Leibig’s Law of the Minimum’, and the complexities of ecosystem interactions, and the impacts of altered soil ecology and of disturbed symbioses. Look also to the nature of the biomass that can be produced when there are nutrient limitations apart from elevated CO2, and what such implies for many non-human species, as well as for humans.

    If you had read other threads on Deltoid you would know that I have not denied the impact of elevated CO2 of the photosynthetic rates of certain plants, in certain circumstances and over certain CO2 concentration ranges. The problem is that for every species that might benefit transiently from elevated CO2, there are many that will be outcompeted, or will be more severely negatively affected by the accompanying impacts of a warming planet.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that nitrogen and water are both certain to be much harder to provide to crops in the future, as oil supply (a source of fertiliser feed-stock, as well as of transport and processing energy) declines and as water availability is affected by climate change and by geopolitical wranglings. Without at least these two other essential components of photosynthesis freely available, the CO2 influence on productivity is going to be tenuous indeed.

    Of course, if you still say that “the numbers don’t agree” with me, supply your sources and let’s start dissecting their data and methodologies. I am curious to see exactly how many “numbers”, and of what quality, you are using to make your claims.

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    May 14, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris O,your numbers for Co2 doubling are assuming high feedbacks

    Nope, you’re wrong. Those numbers are the un-perturbed or zero feedback figures. Here is the definition:

    The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the UNPERTURBED values.

    “Unperturbed” means without feedback occurring.

    and that is the whole point under scrutiny.

    The point under scrutiny was the driving forces of global warming and, strangely enough, how they compare with each other.

    With water vapor overlap on the low frequency end,the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is only 1.9W/m2.

    I don’t know what you mean by “overlap on the low frequency end” but you’re wrong if you think the zero feedback forcing for 2XCO2 is 1.9 W/m^2. Most likely you confused it with the forcing from the currently existing level of CO2, about 387 ppm, rather than from a doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. The wikipedia page gives the citations for radiation forcing. And please, no whining about using wikipedia as an authority. I’m only using it to supply citations.

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    May 14, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris O,so let me get this straight.You cant dispute the message,

    I pointed out there was no message of any substance, i.e. “it doesn’t come up with any expected figure for solar forcing”.

    so you just choose to shoot the messenger?

    As well as pointing out that there was no message of any substance, I pointed out that the “messenger” makes up his own messages.

  23. #23 Robster, FCD
    May 14, 2009

    Timmeh,

    “Where is the PROVEN established link between observed global warming and the extinction of these species?”

    Ah, and now we reach to the root of the problem. No level of evidence will convince you that global warming is occurring or that human activity is causing it. That is not the position of a skeptic, but of an ideologue. It is a feature you share with creationists (purpose of earth is for humans, hmmm), germ theory denialists and any number of other anti science groups.

    Would you mind reposting the link to the icecap page? Perhaps using tinyurl? It didn’t come through right.

  24. #24 John Mashey
    May 14, 2009

    @217 Fitz

    True, I hadn’t trought of that. Although, selling off tiny plots of land at high prices to the English might bring in good revenue to offset any downturn in North Sea oil&gas. :-) I sympathize, living in Northern California, when considering the possibility of mass migration from SoCal.

    In any case, though, if I think about the potential migration pressures around the world potentially caused by AGW, England => Scotland isn’t as high on my list of worries as those places with real water problems (either too little, from Hadley Cell expansion, or too much from sea level rise.

  25. #25 t_p_hamilton
    May 14, 2009

    TimWells said:”t p hamilton The title is….. “Forcings in GISS Model” What’s the magic word?”

    Hard to tell. Given your irrational rejection of global temperature anomalies derived from thermomemter measurements, GISS?

    “How about you stop running and show us why the facts in that link are wrong.”

    Sorry, it is up to you to show Joe Blows blog science that goes against peer reviewed scientific literature is correct. That would be a first for a denialist – dare to be different!

    “Chris O,your numbers for Co2 doubling are assuming high feedbacks and that is the whole point under scrutiny.With water vapor overlap on the low frequency end,the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is only 1.9W/m2.”

    Maybe you shouldn’t defend the blog science you quoted, given that you don’t know what the magic word “forcing” means.

  26. #26 Majorajam
    May 14, 2009

    Timmeh, we’ve been monitoring solar output for over 50 years, and there’s been no discernable trend. Please explain to me how to account for a trending variable with a trendless one. Granted I am no applied chemist but my reading of econometrics doesn’t get me there from here.

  27. #27 timwells
    May 15, 2009

    Robster,are you a complete idiot or what?Kindly point out to me Where I claimed that global warming has not occurred? Grow up son!

  28. #28 timwells
    May 15, 2009

    TP hamilton,the magic word is,as if I need to point that out.And you are still using argument from authorty as the basis of proving facts.I once again ask the basic question.Where is the crisis?

  29. #29 timwells
    May 15, 2009

    Majorrajam,so there has been no change in the strength of the solar magnetic field in the last century?What about solar wind intensity?I am all ears.

  30. #30 timwells
    May 15, 2009

    Bernard J,the plain fact is that the areas that are currently used for agriculture will have increased yields in a CO2 enheanced atmosphere.This is demonstrated both in laboratory tets and in commercial greenhouses where the optimum CO2 level is about 1000 ppm.The other fact is that plants use less water at higher CO2 levels,which suggests that areas which are currently marginal due to low precipitation will come into production or have increased yields.Not true?

  31. #31 DavidK
    May 15, 2009

    Tim Lambert

    Can Tim Wells and Tim Curtin have their own one thread – this is getting boring.

  32. #32 Chris S.
    May 15, 2009

    timwells. I’ll see your single study (stacks? hmmm…) and raise it to 14, courtesy of scruffy dan

    http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2339#more-2339

    All 14 are in the peer reviewed literature, how many of your ‘stacks’ are there there?

  33. #33 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 15, 2009

    Tim Wells posts:

    Ther are stacks of studies that show a high correlation between solar activty and Temperature.Here is just one. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/UStemperaturesand Climate factors_since1895.pdf.

    PS Barton, this link is also is for you in regads to your CO2/temp correltion.

    Tim, I regressed temperature anomaly on ln CO2, dust veil index, and four different measures of solar activity (taken one at a time to avoid multicolinearity)–TSI, sunspot number, years since minimum, and years since maximum, for the years 1880-2007 (N = 128). Ln CO2 accounted for 76% of variance. DVI accounted for 2%. NONE of the Solar measures showed a significant effect. TSI came closest at t = 1.4. So forgive me if I take your assertion about the sun with a grain of salt.

  34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 15, 2009

    Sorry, I got that wrong above–it was sunspot number that had t = 1.4, not TSI, although TSI came in second.

  35. #35 Richard Simons
    May 15, 2009

    timwells:

    My question then is…”Where is the PROVEN established link between observed global warming and the extinction of these species?”

    What would you accept as proof? Presumably, as you are so insistent on proof, you have a clear idea of what you need (you have heard the saying that proof is for mathematics and alcohol?).

  36. #36 sod
    May 15, 2009

    Bernard J,the plain fact is that the areas that are currently used for agriculture will have increased yields in a CO2 enheanced atmosphere.This is demonstrated both in laboratory tets and in commercial greenhouses where the optimum CO2 level is about 1000 ppm.

    yes, and optimal plants, under optimal conditions and with that extremely high CO2 concentration add an extra 30 to 40% to yield. (those numbers are directly out of the advertisements of the CO2 enrichment industry)

    the real outside effect will be tiny, 5% increase looks like a pretty optimistic guess to me..

  37. #37 t_p_hamilton
    May 15, 2009

    TimWells said”TP hamilton,the magic word is,as if I need to point that out.And you are still using argument from authorty as the basis of proving facts.I once again ask the basic question.Where is the crisis?”

    Translation: I don’t like the inconvenient facts from the authoritative sources.

  38. #38 Robster, FCD
    May 15, 2009

    Timmeh,

    What is it exactly that you believe? It is rather difficult to determine. In one post, it seems that you believe that global warming is not occurring, while in another, it is negligible. The only consistent theme is that CO2 is not involved in any way. Another interesting item that you seem to offer is that CO2 only offers positive effects, and no negative ones.

    So lets narrow it down. Is CO2 connected to the extinction of these species?

    Human activity is increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2, partly through use of fossil fuels and deforestation. Can we both agree on this?

    CO2 is capable of efficiently absorbing and storing heat energy, and acts an an insulating gas. This is very well established, and I would be surprised that anybody would attempt to claim that is not. I find it quite humorous that you accuse others of having difficulty with reading comprehension when this seems to escape you. If you deny that CO2 is capable of acting as an insulating gas, then what other insulating gases do you deny? CFCs? HCFCs? Methane? H2O?

    So, we are increasing the concentration of CO2, an insulating gas, in the atmosphere. More heat energy is going to be retained in the atmosphere, hence, higher global temperature.

    What can we expect to happen from this? Species that are climate sensitive will be hard pressed to survive. Ice, which makes up the vast majority of glaciers and ice packs, will melt and run into the ocean. Ocean levels will rise as the glaciers melt, and while the rate of melt and rise is open to debate, the property of ice to melt is not.

    Beyond this, there are a wide variety of climate effects that we can expect. Changes in precipitation patterns. Changes in greening patterns of plants. Melting of permafrost (which will release methane, another greenhouse gas).

    Theories, such as AGW theory, have predictive power. As such, we can make predictions regarding the above expected effects, and we are seeing them. What is your competing hypothesis that explains these observations equally well or better? What supporting evidence in peer reviewed journals do you have? You are making extraordinary claims, and these will need extraordinary evidence for proof.

  39. #39 Chris O'Neill
    May 15, 2009

    timwells:

    so there has been no change in the strength of the solar magnetic field in the last century?What about solar wind intensity? I am all ears.

    So has someone come up with an estimate of the climate forcing generated by these changes? I am all ears.

  40. #40 Majorajam
    May 15, 2009

    fyi, Timmeh, 50 != 100, and solar wind/solar magnetic field/GCRs are not known forcings outside denialists delusional minds, as Chris has patiently pointed out to you again and again as if to a wall. So my comment stands, and maybe you could try not to address it via inane question next time. While you’re at it you could explain the sun’s culpability for global warming in the context of the cooling stratosphere. I’m most certainly all ears.

  41. #41 timwells
    May 16, 2009

    Majorajam,the full effects of solar activity is only just being understood now.The IPCC does not sufficiently address the question of solar influence on climate,so the science is not settled.TSI has not varied much but other solar parameters have.Sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2000,for example,show a strong correlation with global temperature.Cooling stratosphere can also be due to ozone depletion[IPCC].The most direct proof of a lack of AGW is the missing hotspot in the lower troposphere.

  42. #42 timwells
    May 16, 2009

    Robster,I am beginning to think that you have a serious iodine deficiency mate!Why do you keep mis-quoting me and/or attributing to me statements that I have not made?
    Lets go through your post.
    Your first paragraph is just plain stupid.I have Never said that global warming is not occurring.I have never said that it was negligible.I have never said that CO2 in not involved.I have said that CO2 offers benefits,it is only harmful to life at very high concentrations.Ie 5000 ppm and that level cannot be reached even if we burn all the hydrocarbons on the planet.
    Next:Is CO2 connected to the extinction of these species?You show me the TANGIBLE connection and I will give you an answer.
    Next:Your third paragraph only convinces me that you are a dumbass!Read this Carefully—CO2,H2O,CH4,CFC’s and several other are compounds ARE GREENHOUSE GASES you moron!
    Next:Adding more CO2 will increase SWR and result in heating of the atmosphere.Maybe 1C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.The scary scenarios from this small warming are just pure conjecture.Where is the crisis in 2009?

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    May 16, 2009

    timwells:

    the full effects of solar activity is only just being understood now.

    In that case the full forcing effects of solar activity are understood now. Could you give us a citation showing what value in W/m^2 this forcing is now understood to be?

    Sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2000,for example,show a strong correlation with global temperature.

    Sunspot numbers from 1955 to 2000,for example,show a very strong negative correlation with global temperature. i.e. opposite in sign from the correlation of 1750 to 1955.

    The most direct proof of a lack of AGW is the missing hotspot in the lower troposphere.

    The only thing a missing hotspot in the upper troposphere could prove (assuming it really is missing) would be a lack of any type of global warming which we all agree is not true.

  44. #44 Lee
    May 16, 2009

    timwells:

    “Adding more CO2 will increase SWR and result in heating of the atmosphere.Maybe 1C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.”

    Only if you deny the existence of water vapor, albedo, and other feedbacks.
    And only if yo deny the various lines off evidence that point to a 3C /2xCO2 sensitivity. You do know that we aren’t dependent on the models to determine that value, don’t you?

    “Sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2000,for example,show a strong correlation with global temperature”
    Not since 1960 – 1970, they don’t. The most recent 40-50 years show a complete divergence, a reversal of the sign in fact. Using that correlation to explain modern global warming since 1970, only works if you somehow explain whey the sign of the effect reversed in 1960. Good luck.

    “Cooling stratosphere can also be due to ozone depletion[IPCC].”
    Only in a non-quantitative analysis.

    “The most direct proof of a lack of AGW is the missing hotspot in the lower troposphere.”
    I am consistently astounded that you denialists have such an absurdly high, high standard for evidence that supports AGW, but accept nearly any data if it might be used to argue against AGW. One, the evidence that the ‘trop trop hotpsot is missing is shaky at best – nearly all the evidence is consistent with the predicted hotspot, if you look at the errors involved. And two, a missing hotspot is evidence against AGW ONLY if you use it to argue that there has been no warming at all – because the trop trop hotspot is predicted for any warming, not just AGW. IOW, use that very shaky evidence to dispute all the various lines of evidence, nearly all of them with better data, that the planet is warming. Gaaaahhh.

  45. #45 Lee
    May 16, 2009

    timwells:
    “CO2 offers benefits,it is only harmful to life at very high concentrations.Ie 5000 ppm”

    Not in the oceans. Acidificatin is basic chemistry.

  46. #46 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 16, 2009

    Tim,
    Sorry to leave you in a room full of alarmists for three days. From the looks of things, you’ve held your own very well. Funny, it doesn’t take many people armed with the truth to keep a room full of alarmists busy…LOL
    Dash

  47. #47 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 16, 2009

    I have dedicated a new page on my website to
    those of you who frequent Deltoid:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com

    Once there, just click on the pic of Lord Monckton.
    Despite Tim Lambert’s implied claim that every word ever
    written or spoken by Lord Monckton has been refuted
    on the great Deltoid Blog, I would suggest much of it
    has not been seen my those posting on this thread.
    For had you reviewed it, you’d be skeptics now instead
    of alarmists.

    Feel free to attempt to refute anything you think you can.
    There is a lot there for your review: papers, video, audio.
    Unless of course you’re afraid of anything that might shake your faith which is what AGW boils down to for most of you.

  48. #48 cce
    May 16, 2009

    Here’s a link for Deltoid readers who aren’t aware of Tim’s categories on the left. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/

  49. #49 timwells
    May 17, 2009

    Lee,is the value for climate sensitivity known?The IPCC values go from 2 to 6.5.The Stefan_Boltzman is value about 1.Lindzen’s value is about .8—-Pick a card-any card!

    Sunspots:It is not 40-50 years.As far as I know the correlation did diverge around 1980-85[Friis-Christiansen] until recently when the correlation has returned.Other studies[Solanki,I think] suggest a lag of 6-12 years between changes in solar activity and the resultant effect on earth’s climate.Nir Shaviv’s attributed 2/3 of temperature change in the last decades to solar.

    Hotspot:No,AR4 chapter 9 page 675 gives all the signatures.Figure C is the SPECFIC signature for a well mixed greenhouse warming.The observations from hundreds of radiosonde measurements reveal the absence of the hotspot predicted by the IPCC models.
    Acid seas:Carbonic acid is very weak[ie high buffer],and there is no great change in ocean PH now.No species are under threat from a lower PH at the moment.

  50. #50 timwells
    May 17, 2009

    Sod,where did you get the 5% figure from?Is that the same for C3 cereals,C4 cereals,vegatables,legumes and roots.Please explain.

  51. #51 sod
    May 17, 2009

    Sod,where did you get the 5% figure from?Is that the same for C3 cereals,C4 cereals,vegatables,legumes and roots.Please explain.

    we don t have 1000 ppm.

    our food is a mix of C3 and C4.

    the 30%-40% number is under ideal conditions (the plants don t lack anything else)

    the 30-40% number is from an advertisement.

  52. #52 timwells
    May 17, 2009

    Jeff and Bernard J,in response to your question about the correct role of humanity on this planet,I believe we could follow 2 lines of thought.Bear in mind however,that this is only opinion,I cannot back this up with any emperical evidence.OK,here we go.
    1]The first line-Humanity is THE absolute dominant species of the earth-nothing else even comes close.There is so much evidence that this is true that we really dont need to dicuss it.
    2]The second line-Genesis chapter 1,verse 26
    “And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness,and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,and over all the earth,…”

  53. #53 timwells
    May 17, 2009

    Sod,no you are wrong.That is for CO2 enhanced[600ppm] conditions ONLY.If you add a water stress,the yield is even BETTER!My source is IDSO.Where did you get the 5% figure?

  54. #54 DavidK
    May 17, 2009

    TW 252

    1. Dominant yes … and we’re fucking it up. So much for our so called ‘intelligence’.

    2. What has this got to do with it? Btw, I think you got 1st, 2nd & 3rd ‘person’ wrong … us, our, etc.

  55. #55 Chris O'Neill
    May 17, 2009

    timwells:

    Sunspots:It is not 40-50 years.

    It is 50 or more years. Sunspots have been on a declining trend since 1955 while global temperature has either not changed much at times or risen at times.

    As far as I know the correlation did diverge around 1980-85[Friis-Christiansen] until recently

    At least you admit there is no consistent correlation. Of course, that means that it cannot be the main cause of global warming.

    Hotspot:No,AR4 chapter 9 page 675 gives all the signatures.Figure C is the SPECFIC signature for a well mixed greenhouse warming.

    Figure A is the SPECIFIC signature for the existing solar forcing (in 1999 relative to 1890). It’s signature also has an upper troposphere hotspot. Since you believe that no hotspot proves there is no greenhouse gas-caused warming, you must also believe that no hotspot proves there is no solar-caused warming.

  56. #56 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    timwells:
    “Acid seas:Carbonic acid is very weak[ie high buffer],and there is no great change in ocean PH now.No species are under threat from a lower PH at the moment.”

    Guffaw.
    Averaged ocean pH has dropped from a pre-industrial of ~ 8.2, to a 1990s value of 8.1. Ocean pH is currently dropping at a rate of ~0.2 pH / decade, and delta [CO2] in the atmosphere is increasing. By 2050, ocean pH will be ~8.0.
    I’ll leave for you the exercise of calculating the delta [H+], and determining if that is a significant change or not.

  57. #57 Robster, FCD
    May 17, 2009

    Timmeh, thanks for the laugh. The only thing clear from your posts is that you don’t understand chemistry, biology or physics well enough to even keep your story straight.

    And your grasp of theology is laughable, too.

    Does dominion offer a complete lack of responsible stewardship?

    No level of proof will be good enough for you. Its pitiful that you pretend to the title of skeptic.

    Oh, and where is that peer reviewed and published support for your position?

  58. #58 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    re my 256 – that rate should be ~ 0.02 pH / decade, not 0.2. Sorry for the typo – the math works with this correct value.

  59. #59 Phil.
    May 18, 2009

    Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House. The portcullis is a generic heraldic device; the vicecomital coronet is a device that I have the specific right to use (and, indeed, I shall be wearing it when His Majesty King Charles III invites me, as he will invite all hereditary Peers, to his coronation). I am fully entitled to combine the portcullis and the vicecomital coronet and use it as a badge or logo, for the United Kingdom, unlike Deltoid, is a free country, whether you like it or not.
    Monckton of Brenchley

    However you have claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature”, the House of Lords Information office has confirmed to me that you are not a member (of any sort). You do not have the “right of access to all other facilities of the House” although you may have been granted permission to use them. As to the use of the crowned portcullis”: “In 1996, the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House.” Your usage of the coronet and portcullis is likely to be viewed as breaching the latter provision.

  60. #60 timwells
    May 19, 2009

    Chris,the correlation for sunspots is still strong over the long term.From 1955 to 1975 temperatures were stable or falling as were sunspot numbers,and then,as said before there was a divergence in the 80′s.It is a similar or stronger correlation for solar cycle length vs temperature..Temperatures are again now falling after a relatively weak[and long]cycle 23.

    Figure A is the signture for increased TSI,and it shows a mild warming,NOT a hotspot.The important ones are figure C[geenhouse warming],and figure F[ALL forcings].Both C and F show a distinct hotspot in the troposhpere.The observations from radiosonde data show no hotspot.

  61. #61 timwells
    May 19, 2009

    Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn’t it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can’t see where the fire is.

  62. #62 timwells
    May 19, 2009

    Robster,
    “Does dominion offer a complete lack of responsible stewardship” No on the contrary,dominion demands responsible stewardship.It is to our great advantage to preserve the riches of nature.

  63. #63 Phil.
    May 19, 2009

    Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn’t it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can’t see where the fire is.

    Obviously because, as shown above, you don’t realize that pH is a log scale.
    Specifically a decrease in pH by 0.2 represents an increase in [H+] by 60%!
    A decrease in pH by 0.3 would double the [H+].

  64. #64 Chris O'Neill
    May 19, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris,the correlation for sunspots is still strong over the long term.

    It reverses over periods of 50 years. Somehow you think a strong reversal lasting 50 years is OK, yet when the CO2 correlation goes weakly into reverse for just 11 years that brings down the whole theory. I’m sorry but you’re standards of proof are blatantly inconsistent.

    By the way, anyone with half a mathematical brain knows that as you reduce the period to zero over which the correlation between CO2 and temperature is calculated that the correlation will drop to zero. Short term climate correlation (<20 years) proves nothing.

    From 1955 to 1975 temperatures were stable or falling

    Wrong, from 1955 to 1975 temperatures were stable.

    as were sunspot numbers

    Wrong, from 1955 to 1975 sunspot numbers were falling in trend. There is a difference between stable and falling. Please don’t lump them together.

    Figure A is the signture for increased TSI,and it shows a mild warming,NOT a hotspot.

    It’s only a mild warming because solar forcing is only a mild forcing compared with greenhouse gases. Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing.

    The observations from radiosonde data show no hotspot.

    Not even a mild one which means you must believe there is no solar forcing.

  65. #65 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 19, 2009

    Chance for an Easy $US2 million!

    All one has to do is solve Lord Christopher Monckton’s Eternity II Puzzle.

    Given the fact that so many people in this room think they’re a lot smarter than the Viscount, this should be a piece of cake for most of you. I suppose the only real question is which one of you will solve it first?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/feature-archive/older-features-26503/51606/The-maker-of-Eternity-II

  66. #66 Robin Levett
    May 19, 2009

    @Dash RIPROCK III (#265):

    Shorter Dash:

    “Crikey, look, a wombat”.

  67. #67 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    timwells:

    “Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn’t it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can’t see where the fire is.”

    Well no, it isn’t. pH is on a log scale. That you aren’t aware of this, and what it means, and you are nonetheless offering a strongly held opinion about the impact on the oceans – well, lets just say it doesn’t surprise me.

    BTW, I know several people who keep some pretty amazing reef aquaria. They work really hard to keep pH at 8.2 – 8.3, start worrying if it drops to 8.1 – and will take major steps to intervene if pH drops to near 8.0, because that is where they start to see a significant impact on the health of their reef tanks.

  68. #68 Majorajam
    May 19, 2009

    Timmeh, I think you’ll find that surface temperatures correlate very highly with NFC victories in the Super Bowl- even more so when you control for the second order effect of AFC victories in Pro Bowls. Sure, the correlation breaks down for long stretches and we haven’t identified or demonstrated, let alone measured, any mechanism by which NFC prowess affects surface temperatures, the fit is so good relative to any other non-C02 driver of warming, we’re confident this is down to a lack of understanding of nature’s mysteries.

    It’s funny, people often take the view that ‘climate skeptics’ is a misnomer because their credulousness typically outweighs their skepticism by orders of magnitude, (as for example Chris O’Neil has so deftly exposed on this thread). However, I think that misjudges the real reason why the modifier doesn’t apply. The real problem with the label is that skeptics perform a real service in society. They are society’s break on the momentum and poor decision making of mob rule. In the sciences, their perception and demonstration of problems in the going understanding has proven essential to moving the ball forward throughout human history.

    ‘Skeptics’ on the other hand have no progressive function, but exist as parasites on the contributing members of society, like so many barnacles on an ocean liner. Their interest is in policy and pop understanding, as made evident by their obsession with Al Gore. Had they a meritous case to make, they would make it in a way that would improve our understanding and ultimately, the quality of people’s lives. But ‘skeptics’ interests are far more narrow, and there is no case forthcoming.

    So, just as a ship’s hull must ritually washed down, contributors to society like Gavin Schmidt and others must take time away from the work of their contribution to clean noxious barnacles like one loony fraud-prone Viscount from the ship of state. Of course, the work is never done and ever unrewarding, but such is the way of things I guess.

  69. #69 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    I can confirm Lee’s comment at #276 about reef aquaria. The denizens of mine were decidedly peaked on the occasion where the pH dropped to 8.0, even though the nitrogen forms were all below thresholds. They were right as rain within 2 hours of adjusting it back to 8.2.

    One area that many folk, including some scientists, are not informed about is the sensitivity to pH of the sperm, and especially of the eggs, of aquatic/marine species. For some species a difference of 0.2 pH units can completely interfer with the maintenance of the internal/external H+ gradients required for the egg/zygote/early embryo’s viability.

    So even in instances where adult organisms are not demonstrating overt stress to alterations of pH, their capacity to recruit the next generations may be severely compromised.

    Timmie, I suggest that you UTFSE. As a special hint, include ‘foraminifera’ in the trawl.

    And a word of advice: literature reviewing does not mean that one reads a few denialist sites that tells one what one desires to hear. Rather, it means that one reads a comprehensive and representative selection of the relevant primary literature in a field of research, and that one carefully keeps one’s ideology separate from a critical analysis and synthesis of the consistencies and inconsistencies in the literature.

  70. #70 John Mashey
    May 20, 2009

    Sigh.
    Dash (Mark Gillar)

    1) Have you yet read Dessler’s book?

    2) Have you signed up for the June 8-10 symposium yet?

  71. #71 jemima
    May 20, 2009

    “… so many people in this room think they’re a lot smarter than the Viscount” Dash RIPRROCK

    Dash: after this from you there’ll be people in this room, and a few more peering through the windows, who think they’re smarter than _you_. Is Monckton the first bloke you’ve met who’s intellectually bright yet making a fool of himself over something? Alternatively – what is an idiot-savant?

  72. #72 timwells
    May 20, 2009

    Chris,I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I dont think it is all that accurate.For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.Cycle 19 was one of the strongest cycles in history and cycle 20 was very weak.Cycles 21 and 22 were a bit stronger than average.The general trend for both is stable/falling numbers until about 1980.It was not a strong reversal.
    I agree that 11 years does not prove anything,but neither does 20 years[1980 to 2000].

    “Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing”
    Chris,read carefully.Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for “solar forcing”.It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.
    “…you must believe that there is no solar forcing.”
    How many times does this need to be said before you understand it?The HOTSPOT in Figures C is the signature for a GREENHOUSE WARMING.IE IF the observed warming was due to greenhouse gases then the hotspot would show up in our observations.It does not show up,which demonstrates that the IPCC models for the warming do not fit the data from observations.

  73. #73 timwells
    May 20, 2009

    Chris,I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I dont think it is all that accurate.For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.Cycle 19 was one of the strongest cycles in history and cycle 20 was very weak.Cycles 21 and 22 were a bit stronger than average.The general trend for both is stable/falling numbers until about 1980.It was not a strong reversal.
    I agree that 11 years does not prove anything,but neither does 20 years[1980 to 2000].

    “Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing”
    Chris,read carefully.Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for “solar forcing”.It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.
    “…you must believe that there is no solar forcing.”
    How many times does this need to be said before you understand it?The HOTSPOT in Figures C is the signature for a GREENHOUSE WARMING.IE IF the observed warming was due to greenhouse gases then the hotspot would show up in our observations.It does not show up,which demonstrates that the IPCC models for the warming do not fit the data from observations.

  74. #74 timwells
    May 20, 2009

    Majorajam,great post mate!Lots of irrefutable scientific fact in there.You win.

  75. #75 jemima
    May 20, 2009

    timwells:

    Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for “solar forcing”.It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.

    tim if you can point to some scientific literature – _genuine_ scientific literature – that informs you in your belief that this list of things has any scientific point to make in your own argument’s context, wouldn’t now be late enough to produce it? Anyone can write laundry lists of denialist talking points into blog comments, it just doesn’t help them make any kind of case!

  76. #76 timwells
    May 20, 2009

    Jemima,that information is from the IPCC.Your job is dispute the facts,if you cant,log off!

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris, I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I dont think it is all that accurate.

    You would think that, wouldn’t you. Obviously research is your weak point beause I posted the reference to sunspot numbers the first time above.

    For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.

    I was referring to the TREND which peaked somewhere near 1955 from a visual inspection of the sunspot graph. The actual peak was just a few years different from this. Hardly significant to a 50 year trend.

    The general trend for both is stable/falling numbers until about 1980.

    Read the graph.

    It was not a strong reversal.

    It doesn’t need to be a strong reversal to amount to a disproving lack of correlation. For cause to be possible, correlation must be present ALL the time, barring climatically insignificant periods such as less than 20 years.

    I agree that 11 years does not prove anything,

    It’s a pity you don’t let some of your science denialiast cohorts know that.

    but neither does 20 years[1980 to 2000].

    50 years does.>

    “Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing” Chris,read carefully.Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for “solar forcing”.

    Then you had better let the IPCC climate scientists know because that is what they call it.

    It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.

    As I asked in #239, I’m still waiting for you to come up with any citation that gives an estimate for any of these other hypothetical sources of solar forcing. Asserting there is a significant forcing amounts to zero evidence of a significant forcing.

    “…you must believe that there is no solar forcing.” How many times does this need to be said before you understand it?

    I know what your argument is and I’m trying to point out the defect in your argument but I’m prevented from doing that by the fact that you continue to ignore my argument about solar forcing. Do you agree that a lack of a hotspot proves there is no solar forcing or not? Your ignoring of my argument shows that you are suffering from cognitive failure. If you’re argument about solar forcing is so substantial, when are you going to come up with citations for the values of these hypothetically significant other forms of solar forcing and while you’re at it, how about a citation for the temperature fingerprint of your hypothetical forms of solar forcing. So far you’ve produced zero substance.

  78. #78 timwells
    May 20, 2009

    Chris,OK I think I know what you are getting at.You have asked for citations which is a fair request,and I will try to hunt them down.
    “Do you agree that a lack of a hotspot proves there is no solar forcing or not.” No,I do not agree.Here is why.
    The hotspot is only predicted for greenhouse warming,it is not predicted for increased TSI.A lack of a hotspot does not exclude the existence of a solar forcing,but it strongly suggests that GHG’s are not causing the warming predicted by the models.Solar forcing does not produce a hotspot because it is visible light and UV light which passes through the atmosphere all the way to the surface,it only has a small effect on the troposhpere in the form of re-radiation from the surface.The greenhouse signature should occur in the troposphere where CO2,CH4 etc intercept visible and UV light and re-radiate it as infra-red[heat].This is what produces the “hotspot” 8-12 km above the surface and it has not been observed.

  79. #79 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    timwells:

    “The hotspot is only predicted for greenhouse warming,it is not predicted for increased TSI.”

    Bullshit. There is no polite way to say it.

    The tropical troposphere ‘hotspot’ is a consequence of the moist adiabat, and is caused by ANY surface warming. The IPCC graph you seem to keep pointing at shows only a weak hotspot for solar forcing, because it is from a model run with weak solar forcing, and therefore with weak surface warming.

    The hotspot is a prediction from tropical surface warming from ANY cause.

    Water evaporation and condensation, and the saturation point of the air – the physical processes behind the trop trop hotspot – don’t discriminate between causes of warming.

  80. #80 Majorajam
    May 21, 2009

    Now’s your chance to engage in some hard science Tim. Observe your argument as it swirls the toilet bowl- which direction is it going? Is the Coriolis Effect at play?

    But seriously, thanks for all that hard scientific falsehood. Next time though I suggest you stick to the specious correlations. They may not be persuasive, but at least they don’t reveal you for the abject ignoramus this line went and did. Relatedly, you should investigate a pseudonym. Toodles.

  81. #81 Chris O'Neill
    May 21, 2009

    timwells:

    “Do you agree that a lack of a hotspot proves there is no solar forcing or not.” No,I do not agree.Here is why. The hotspot is only predicted for greenhouse warming,it is not predicted for increased TSI.

    I’m sorry, it is predicted for solar forcing. If you can’t see it in Figure A then you are blind.

    The greenhouse signature should occur in the troposphere where CO2,CH4 etc intercept visible and UV light and re-radiate it as infra-red[heat].

    Your ignorance is incredible. CO2 and CH4 DO NOT INTERCEPT VISIBLE LIGHT. To think that someone this ignorant is trying to lecture anyone on atmospheric physics is totally laughable.

  82. #82 timwells
    May 22, 2009

    Chris,yes you are right.It was indeed a “laughable” mistake.I meant to say infra-red,and not visible and UV.I accept that it was wrong factually.However, after including your correction[ie infra-red],the mechanism is correct.

    Now about the Hot spot,the colour of figure A is yellow for very mild warming.Figure C has a RED hotspot right in the middle which indicates strong warming.That is the difference.There is no hotspot for Increased TSI.

  83. #83 Chris O'Neill
    May 22, 2009

    timwells:

    However, after including your correction[ie infra-red],the mechanism is correct.

    Yeah if you say so. You’re the last person I’d rely on for an explanation of anything to do with atmospheric physics. Lee pointed out the reason the hotspot occurs above which has been repeated by atmospheric physcists for years.

    Now about the Hot spot,the colour of figure A is yellow for very mild warming.Figure C has a RED hotspot right in the middle which indicates strong warming.That is the difference.

    The difference is because the solar forcing is only 0.2 W/m^2 while the GHG forcing is 1.7 W/m^2. This changes the magnitude of the hotspot in proportion to the forcing but doesn’t remove it.

    There is no hotspot for Increased TSI.

    “In proportion” or “mild” does not mean the same as zero.

  84. #84 timwells
    May 23, 2009

    Lee,there are studies by Antoni[2005 and Herfort[2008]that contradict the idea that a lower oceanic PH will be harmful to aquatic ecosystems.Infact there is seen to be an INCREASE in the rate of photosynthesis for symbiotic coral algae when the concetration of HCO3- ions is increased.

  85. #85 timwells
    May 23, 2009

    “The hotspot is a prediction from tropical warming from ANY cause.”
    Lee,I am not sure that this is correct.
    Figure C is for GHG warming ONLY.It shows the distinct hotspot.
    Figure F is for all FIVE forcings:
    A]Increased TSI
    B]Volcanic
    C]GHG
    D]Oxone depletion
    E]Industrial pollution.

  86. #86 timwells
    May 23, 2009

    Chris,this seems to be more about semantics.I agree with what you said in your post[excluding the ad hominem comment].”Mild” does not mean zero,but surely we agree that there is a difference in the warming predictions between Figure A and Figure C?
    However,this has wandered from the main point,and that is,that the observations show no warming that is consistent with the predictions of Figure C.IE The observations do not match the theoretical signature.Therefore assuming our large body of radiosonde data is accurate,then the error must surely lay in the models and the assumptions built into them.Is this a reasonable conclusion?

  87. #87 Chris O'Neill
    May 23, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris,this seems to be more about semantics.

    So now we’re on the the “semantics” argument.

    I agree with what you said in your post[excluding the ad hominem comment].”Mild” does not mean zero,but surely we agree that there is a difference in the warming predictions between Figure A and Figure C?

    That’s what I’ve already said so I don’t know why you’re asking.

    However,this has wandered from the main point,

    Sure if you say so.

    and that is,that the observations show no warming that is consistent with the predictions of Figure C.

    My main point is that if you think the observations have proven there is no GHG-caused hotspot then you must also think the observations have proven there is no solar-caused hotspot. Otherwise your thinking is blatantly inconsistent.

    IE The observations do not match the theoretical signature.Therefore assuming our large body of radiosonde data is accurate,

    It might be large but that didn’t stop it from being inaccurate.

    then the error must surely lay in the models and the assumptions built into them.Is this a reasonable conclusion?

    The inconsistency is between the small, and easily overshadowed by short-term variation, long-term trend in sonde observations and the assumption of decreasing lapse rate as the troposphere gets warmer. The only thing that could be challenged IF there is no hotspot is THAT assumption, not that the troposphere is getting warmer. The degree of certainty in long-term trend measurement of the hotspot is still low.

  88. #88 timwells
    May 24, 2009

    Chris,
    “…then you must also think that the observations have proven there is no solar caused hotspot.”
    No,the observations show slight warming in the troposphere,but they are not consistent with increased TSI induced warming.This is the whole point.None of the models really explain the observations very well,except for maybe ozone depletion induced stratospheric cooling.IE Figure D
    So warming has been observed but it really cannot be attributed to increased GHG’s.Soon[2005]found a strong correlation[r2.79]for TSI and Arctic temperatures.
    Hoyt and Schaten[1993]showed that since the maunder minimum TSI may have increased by as much as .4 %.In addition Lockwood[1999]showed that magnetic solar flux has increased 2.3 times since 1901.Solar flux is a good proxy for UV,and Labitzke[1988]showed that the heat from the UV/ozone interaction in the stratosphere subsequently radiates to the troposphere.Schindell[1999]produced a model that reproduced this warming during high flux years.The high flux during the winter of 2001/2 and the subsequent warming were considered to be verification of the work of Schindell and Labitzke.

  89. #89 Chris O'Neill
    May 24, 2009

    timwells:

    Chris, “…then you must also think that the observations have proven there is no solar caused hotspot.” No,the observations show slight warming in the troposphere,but they are not consistent with increased TSI induced warming.

    And isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? No hotspot -> no solar induced warming

    BTW, to emphasize what I said before, the long-term hotspot trend has a very low signal to noise ratio. It’s rather ironic that there are those who think the surface temperature record cannot be established with much certainty while at the same time they will accept a smaller change in the record measured by far fewer thermometers sent to the upper troposphere as being accurate.

  90. #90 timwells
    June 1, 2009

    Chris,
    “No hotspot>no solar induced warming.” NO!! It means no increased TSI induced warming,which is what the model is SPECIFIC for.
    UV as a percentage of TSI can vary several percentage points over the length of a cycle and X-rays even more.Solar variations and their effects are still not fully understood,but the strong correlations[eg Cycle length VS temp]suggest cause and effect.

  91. #91 anonymous
    January 8, 2010

    Personally, I think the argument ought to be less about Monckton and Gore…they’re both very likely contained by their own agendas. Mine would be for free energy sources. Would probably eliminate the need for all this claptrap if everyone were just a touch less stressed out by ridiculous and rapidly rising energy bills, etc. We could always argue the old, and sadly outmoted “G-d gave us all we ever needed in the first place”, but, per usual, rather than accept the simple truth of that matter, and turning off our TV’s, going to raise a garden, and riding horses, we’ll carry on fighting to maintain the current status quo of technology and economics. Sad state of affairs, really. Who knows what we could accomplish…what mountains we could move, if we spent more quality of time, and less money on one and other. Since most of it (the money) winds up in very particular hands, anyway, it is truly a sad state of affairs that people simply can’t get past the ego long enough to co-operate. Someone, here, no doubt, will label me a lefty, a righty, an uppie, a downie, a hippie, liberal, neo-con, or what have you. In the end, rather than banding together with ‘like minded’ individuals, we’d all be better suited, in my humble estimation, to act in the spirit of co-operation. That doesn’t sit well, of course with politicians of any kind, whatever their titles or credentials might be, as most of them seem to enjoy the limelight more than actually accomplishing anything. My 2c. Worth about that much, I imagine, to most of you chronic whiners. Shame, really, that ‘love thy neighbor’ so quickly died, and ‘suspect thy neighbor of every wrongdoing’ took its place.

  92. #92 PositivePaul
    February 28, 2010

    The Name Of The Game is CO2.
    The question is:
    Does rising CO2 levels increase global temperature?

    If the answer is NO! then the discussion is over.

    All other discussion is useless !

    If you fell for the Y2K bug, Swine flu, Bird flu, terrorism, Chilean tsunami, Obama’s cap and trade and COMPULSORY health care, then you probably fell for the Global Warming plot as well.

    CO2 does not raise global temperatures.
    CO2 dilutes into water at a precise saturation point now known to be a constant in that equation.
    see>>

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate

    Now turn off the TV and have a happy life.

  93. #93 John
    February 28, 2010

    Hooray!