Andrew Bolt takes back “nice words”

Andrew Bolt responded to my debate with Monckton by defaming me, calling me “vituperative, deceptive, a cherrypicker, an ideologue, a misrepresenter and a Manichean conspiracist only too keen to smear a sceptic as a crook who lies for Exxon’s dollars”. You’ll be glad to hear that Bolt now says I take back my nice words about Lambert. Even though he admitted that “Many of these issues are over my head” he is now utterly convinced by a dishonest post from Joanne Nova that I somehow tricked Monckton.

Nova quote mines Pinker’s explanation for this phrase:

if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”

And claims it means exactly the opposite of what it does:

An honest look at the Pinker statement says Monckton may have gotten the terminology wrong, but allowing for this, his analysis “passes”:

An honest look at the Pinker statement says that his terminology can pass but that his analysis is wrong, because as Pinker writes:

The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.

Nova then tries to explain away the fact that Pinker wrote

Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report (2007)

Watch the spin here:

Monckton never claimed the IPCC misrepresented Pinker. He said they actively ignored the bigger meaning; so Monckton agrees with what the IPCC said about the paper, but not with what it omitted to say. Pinker has not addressed this point at all.

Pinker was responding to this, from my email to her:

Later he [Monckton] accuses the IPCC of a fraudulent cover up of the implications of your paper.

Which was my summary of this statement from Monckton:

[The IPCC admits] that they don’t really understand clouds. One of the reasons why they are willing to make that extremely rare admission that they don’t understand something is that they want to conceal that they understand perfectly well the implications of Dr Pinker’s paper and of a number of other papers like it, Wild et al is another one, the early satellite results is another, there’s several of these papers out there all of which show for that period exactly what caused the warming which is a reduction in cloud cover. And when you see the conclusion of the chapter on Observations and the sub-chapter on Clouds in chapter 3 of the IPCC report. The only conclusion that you can come to is that they were deliberately avoiding the very clear implications of Dr Pinker’s paper. They knew perfectly well that if they took proper account of that paper they would have to evaluate climate sensitivity as low by the remarkably simple calculation that I showed you on the screens or something very very close to it. And they simply fudged it because if they did that and admitted that all their previous reports were wrong they’d be out of business before you could say “Jack Robinson”.

I suppose we should Nova points for trying, but there is no wiggle room there. And notice that Monckton is citing Wild et al as well, so we should also look at Wild says on the subject in Global dimming and brightening: A review: (my emphasis)

The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1-2 W m−2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade (Tables 1-3). Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W m−2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m−2 decade−1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface. Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause. Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates (this would only be valid in a purely scattering atmosphere). SSR change estimates based on surface observations should therefore not be used to challenge the IPCC radiative forcings [Liepert et al., 2007], even if these SSR changes would be free of biases from upscaling the surface point observations to global numbers.

Nova then quotes this confused email from Monckton

The only point that Lambert scored was that I had gotten Pinker’s sex wrong in my Melbourne presentation (which, from memory, is the only one in which I mentioned her sex). Otherwise, his stuff was gibberish, as the audience swiftly understood when I explained it to them. During the debate, I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows.
However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover. And that means just about zero climate sensitivity, which, within the usual error margins, is about the same as the 0.12 K/W/m2 that my previous method had calculated. The common-sense point, as I explained to the audience, is that with that amount of warming from a natural source there was not much room for CO2 to have made much of a contribution.

Presumably by “use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change” Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity.

Comments

  1. #1 SBVOR
    March 1, 2010

    1) The phony Photoshop claims strike me as typical of Lambert’s acolytes.

    2) Since my multi-link comments are not getting published, let’s try another tack to get to the same point.

    3) There are two charts in this post which present 10,000 years of temperature data. The data are peer reviewed and published on NOAA’s web site. Anybody can drop that data into an Xcel spreadsheet and get the same result.

    In the Vostok example, I have appended data from a British weather station on the exact same location as the Petit, et al study site.

    In the Greenland ice sheet example, I have approximated 100 years of warming based upon Box, et al. If anything, this is an exaggeration of the recent warming at the GISP2 site.

    At Vostok, we see — just in the last 10,000 years — 10 periods which were warmer than today.

    In the case of Greenland, we see — just in the last 10,000 years — 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today.

    In both cases, we see an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend and we can CLEARLY see that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming.

    Now, if any of you believe the Photoshop LIES, my post provides direct links to all the cited data. Check it for yourselves (if ANY of Lambert’s acolytes are even remotely honest).

  2. #2 Neil
    March 1, 2010

    I wonder – was Jones’ “95% confidence level” quote a deliberate trap, designed to capture and expose credulous dittoheads? Because it’s working. It’s working *brilliantly*.

  3. #3 Ben Breeg
    March 1, 2010

    “The phony Photoshop claims strike me as typical of Lambert’s acolytes.”

    Oops, was it perhaps PAINT.NET?

  4. #4 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    SBV you cherry pick two sites, [I linked you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo.php#comment-2313330) to the [global reconstruction](http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Obrien.html) for that 10k year period.

  5. #5 SBVOR
    March 1, 2010

    Jakerman (March 1, 2010 5:18 PM)

    1) Click here for the link which you botched.

    2) The temperature proxy chart at the top of that page presents 12,000 years of data. As the world emerged from the last glacial maximum, temperatures rose rapidly until about 10,000 years ago. When one examines the last 10,000 years (the period most commonly, and most correctly, described as Holocene), your chart agrees with mine. The only remaining difference is that the Y axis on your chart is more compressed — thereby better concealing the 10,000 year cooling trend.

    3) See my previous comment and follow the links to the NOAA provided raw GISP2 data and verify the facts for yourself — unless, of course, like all so-called “Progressives”, you are a victim of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority and, thereby, unable to think for yourself.

  6. #6 SBVOR
    March 1, 2010

    Jakerman (March 1, 2010 5:43 PM) claims I:

    “cherry pick two sites [Vostok (Antarctic) & GISP2 (Arctic)]”

    Fine, if Jakerman or anybody else has any other equally credible temperature data for the entire 10,000 to 12,000 year period of the Holocene, let’s see it.

    Fair warning — present the infamous Hockey Stick and I’ll just laugh.

  7. #7 Paul UK
    March 1, 2010

    >Your buddy Lambert is censoring my comments (hence, only Lambert and I will ever see this one).

    Erm, a bit of paranoia creeping in. Amongst other things.

    Why are American fanatical sites so badly designed?
    Actually why are all ‘fanatical’ sites badly designed?

    Is it because the paranoia and brain explosions play havoc with the sense of aesthetics?

  8. #8 Paul UK
    March 1, 2010

    SBVOR:
    >Is that why some of my comments are not published and others are?

    Maybe you are just incompetent at using any technology.

  9. #9 SBVOR
    March 1, 2010

    Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:20 PM sez:

    “Erm, a bit of paranoia creeping in.”

    When Lambert’s site fails to advise new commentators what will and will not throw a post into moderation, what do you expect?

    Lambert should (and easily could) openly advise his commentators of the policy.

    But, that would eliminate the fun of childishly smearing those who are new commentators, eh?

  10. #10 Paul UK
    March 1, 2010

    I’ve just had a look at SBVOR’s blog post about climate and noticed that most of the comments are his own??

    Opposing comments with the exception of one have been removed, but SBVOR’s replies to them, remain. A bit of control freakery going on.

    This is quite common in America. I’m amazed how free speech goes out the window with these extremist web sites.

  11. #11 Andrew
    March 1, 2010

    Fran Barlow #96 …I laughed and laughed. I want to post it in Andrew Bolt’s “send me a tip” section

  12. #12 Paul UK
    March 1, 2010

    Re: my comment @110

    I take it back.
    It doesn’t look like comments have been deleted. It’s just SBVOR likes his own words and comments at least 3 times to every comment made by someone else.

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    March 1, 2010

    From SVBOR,

    In both cases, we see an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend and we can CLEARLY see that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming.

    The only remaining difference is that the Y axis on your chart is more compressed — thereby better concealing the 10,000 year cooling trend.

    So, there *has* been a cooling trend during this interglacial. Who knew?

  14. #14 SBVOR
    March 1, 2010

    Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:49 PM sez:

    “SBVOR likes his own words and comments at least 3 times to every comment made by someone else.”

    Nope, I simply took pains to comprehensively debunk on my site the lies which the propagandists at RealClimate would not allow me to debunk on their site.

    Blogger.com imposes a limit on comment size. That required me to breakup my rebuttal into multiple comments. If I were as inclined to smear you as you are inclined to smear me, I could launch a pretty vicious attack right now on your failure to comprehend. But, that would be childish, eh?

  15. #15 Michael
    March 1, 2010

    SBVOR,

    Sorry, but I’m easily confused – what was your point about Andrew Bolt’s latest fibs?

  16. #16 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    SBV writes

    >*Jakerman (March 1, 2010 5:43 PM) claims I: *“cherry pick two sites [Vostok (Antarctic) & GISP2 (Arctic)]”*

    Wrong SB I claim you *“cherry pick two sites [Vostok (Antarctic) & GISP2's Greenland]”*

    I then linked you to GISP2 [global reconstructions](http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Obrien.html). Note: layer count ages at top depths (in yr BP) where 0 BP represents AD
    1950 SUMMER to AD 1949 SUMMER, the data end at BP = -30 = 1980.

    Now try reasserting your claims using the GISP2 global data.
    I.e. please use the global data to critique your claims that:

    >*At Vostok, we see — just in the last 10,000 years — 10 periods which were warmer than today.*

    >In the case of Greenland, we see — just in the last 10,000 years — 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today.

    I.e. these warmer periods disapars when you use global resolution.

    SBV continues:

    >Fine, if Jakerman or anybody else has any other equally credible temperature data for the entire 10,000 to 12,000 year period of the Holocene, let’s see it.

    Combine GSP2 global reconstructions with the [best avaliable higher resolution reconstructions](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/pcn.html).

  17. #17 Dave C
    March 1, 2010

    @87:

    FYI, I have a very solid academic background in statistics.

    Is that how you came to equate (on your site) an absence of statistical significance with 95% confidence in a completely different hypothesis? One marvels at what hitherto unknown rules of probability you must have discovered.

  18. #18 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    >*So, there has been a cooling trend during this interglacial. Who knew?*

    Ian Plimer didn’t, he reckons the current warming is interia from the rise of out the last glacial.

  19. #19 HAMLOCK
    March 1, 2010

    when and why did global warming become climate change .to a laymen this seems to of happened to make the population one step closer to doom . what is the meaning of changing the agenda. very easy to get sceptical

  20. #20 Tim Lambert
    March 1, 2010

    SBVOR, I didn’t say that anyone who disagreed with me was a troll. I said that you are a troll. You have tried to disrupt the discussion with abuse, complaints about censorship and off-topic rants.

    No more comments, please, unless they are on the topic of this post.

  21. #21 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    >*I simply took pains to comprehensively debunk on my site the lies which the propagandists at RealClimate would not allow me to debunk on their site.*

    By cherry picking from two sites and claiming the results were valid for global comparison.

  22. #22 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    Sorry, I just read Tim’s latest post.

  23. #23 Fran Barlow
    March 1, 2010

    Some Hamfisted troll reiterated for the umpteenth time …

    when and why did global warming become climate change to sica laymensic this seems to ofsic happened to make the population one step closer to doom sic

    [prolonged groan]

    This is one of the more annoying features of the agnorati — their failure to keep up with the stuff they are whining about. Anyone who has paid attention on any side would know the answer to this question, so really it is just an irritating strawman disguised as a question.

    Hamfisted, it is time for you to do some homework:

    1. Look up UNFCCC in google …
    2. Find out what the initialism stands for
    3. Note the date
    4. Read the UNFCCC founding document
    5. Report back with your findings

    Extra credit:

    1. Seek out the name “Frank Luntz”
    2. Find out who he was and what he had to say about the term “climate change” and when he said it
    3. Compare it with your thesis
    4. Report back

  24. #24 frankis
    March 1, 2010

    [I started out writing this with plentiful apologies and euphemisms to spare SBVOR's feelings but somewhere along the way - perhaps through having read more of SBVOR's comments on Deltoid today - that mood just ummm evaporated I guess]

    SBVOR

    FYI, I have a very solid academic background in statistics.

    You wouldn’t lie to us would you SBVOR? I’m afraid I’m going to need to see an audited copy of your official academic transcript before I’d be (half) willing to believe your story. Maybe in your own mind you believe that your SBVOR character construct has actually undertaken the statistical studies that you never have but this would be your delusion I’m sorry, not ours. That quote from you is a lie.

  25. #25 jakerman
    March 1, 2010

    Correction: GISP is Greenland only and has no global reconstruction. I’ll take it to [Open Thread 43](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php).

  26. #26 Chris O'Neill
    March 1, 2010

    SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:01 PM:

    Adios, Lambert!

    SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:07 PM:

    Hey! Lambert!

    And I was so looking forward to SBVOR not coming back. Oh, well, guess you can’t trust these nutcases.

  27. #27 Gaz
    March 1, 2010

    when and why did global warming become climate change .to a laymen this seems to of happened to make the population one step closer to doom . what is the meaning of changing the agenda. very easy to get sceptical

    HAMLOCK the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, so it’s not a new term. it refelcts the fact that global warming is not the only thing that changes in atmospheric consituents can cause – there’s changed precipitation patterns and changes in regional climatic conidtions for example.

    Occasionally someone will claim it used to be called “global warming” and now it’s “climate change” because the warming has stopped, which of course it hasn’t, but the weak-minded are often sucked in by this argument.

  28. #28 hamlock
    March 1, 2010

    thank you gaz a true gentleman fran on the other hand is typical of why this debate has become so harmful playing the man and not the ball.i am justed puzzeled with the weather right now. we seem to be in a cycle just as the weather was in the 70s same rain same temps. all the forcasts of drought cyclones dying reefs bushfires etc etc arent happining. so then, you can see how people are becoming sceptical

  29. #29 Fran Barlow
    March 1, 2010

    As a teacher, Gaz, I am disappointed that you did Hamfisted’s homework for him/her. The text he offers strongly recommends the inference that he or she skyved off at school too.

    How will they ever learn if they expect others to do their thinking for them? That surely is one reasonwhy they repeat such crap.

    That, or the desire to be annoying …

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    March 1, 2010

    hamlock:

    all the forcasts of drought cyclones dying reefs bushfires etc etc arent happining.

    What are you talking about? Melbourne’s water supply is still in a 13 year drought. (scroll to bottom of page).

  31. #31 Tim Lambert
    March 2, 2010

    Dave C says:
    >Tim, if you’re not already doing it, is it possible for you to work with Pinker to put out another, formal statement on the implications of Pinker’s research? Perhaps one that addresses remarks made since the debate (such as Nova’s).

    Even if she wrote another one that even Nova couldn’t pretend meant something else, Nova wouldn’t accept it. From her latest rant:

    >even if Pinker thinks Monckton is wrong, even if Lambert gets a quote from Pinker saying Monckton is totally, utterly wrong, or that the IPCC did interpret the full implications of her work, this doesn’t prove he is, or they did.

    And then she goes on to entirely ignore everything Pinker and Wild say about the science.

  32. #32 MadScientist
    March 2, 2010

    @Chris O’Neill #130: I don’t know if mentioning a drought would be effective. I saw some dumb article the other day claiming that the only recent drought in Australia was in 2005 or something like that. Some people have a very bizarre notion of the truth. Of course if the author was born 2004 they may have that impression. Also note how the other poster conveniently ignores the occurrence of bushfires (the 2009 fires in Victoria are so forgettable). Bushfires can occur whether there is a drought or not, but you know you’re dealing with someone with a tenuous grasp of reality when they essentially claim that there are no bushfires and therefore no global warming.

  33. #33 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    chris im up here in qld the rain is breaking records 100 year old records.i think some of it is heading your way.remember last year south east qld the dams went aslow as 20% this year after this rain around 80% plus some.isnt it just typical of weather patterns weve had for 100 years because it has happened before.with out any great big theory AS FOR FRAN some ofus can barely type (notice),spelling might be bad to.i didnt go to uni and study science i left school in year 11.FRAN im not wanting you to do my thinking for me i can make up my own mind quite easily it just a shame there are people of your arrogance in this debate

  34. #34 Gaz
    March 2, 2010

    How will they ever learn if they expect others to do their thinking for them?

    Fran, if someone else is going to do hamlock’s thinking for him/her, it might as well be someone sensible.

    Hamlock, do you really think it’s the same as it was in the 1970s? You don’t notice the [nights being a little warmer](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmin&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0)?

  35. #35 John
    March 2, 2010

    Hamlock is the eptiome of the anti-intellectual “I know better than any paid-off scientist!” brigade.

    Hamlock, I apologise if this sounds patronising and elitist but you know nothing about nothing.

  36. #36 Fran Barlow
    March 2, 2010

    Gaz said:

    Fran, if someone else is going to do hamlock’s thinking for him/her, it might as well be someone sensible.

    In theory yes, but in practice, I’d have liked Hamfisted to actually have to confront the information he’d chosen to ignore so that he/she could be forced to deal with it. In your answer he/she still ducked and refused to retract his/her absurd claim.

    My grandmother, a lovely woman let it be said, was one of those people who always agreed with the last person she heard. As a 10-year-old, it used to annoy me immensely to hear her change her opinion every ten minutes and as an exercise one day I asked if I could write down her opinion on something a piece of paper and put it in a draw with the date and time on it. When I’d hear her change her mind, I’d get out the piece of paper and say “excuse me but didn’t you say the following just yesterday? and read from the notes…”

    It made no difference because she’d simply say: “Oh yes, that’s quite right …”. I realised then and there that someone who attaches no importance to the integrity of the process leading to the formation of an opinion really isn’t worth persuading of anything. I eventually gave up serious discussion with her. When she would ask me what I thought I’d snort and say “don’t you think so?” and giggle. To her credit, she saw the parody and would play along saying “you’re probably right”.

    I suspect Hamfisted isn’t really like my grandmother. She changed her mind to avoid conflict but basically had no interest in the state of the world or any matter at all. Hamfisted however, is simply a troll, who wants to pretend to plebeian insight but has nothing but the recycled half-remembered drivel he/she has read on the internet.

  37. #37 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    FRAN WHY CANT I HAVE MY OWN POINT OF VIEW. because it not your view i must be wrong in your opinon.the truth of the matter there has been mistakes made in the ippc report some call them minor.some call them major there has been the email thing you know climate gate. there has been al gore movie mistakes(which is not in the report) and more all these things are making people wonder if they will uncover any more errors. iam only but a common person searching for the truth.the internet is probably the forum for finding some truths but there is a more crap as well .if i was ajury memeber ruling on the case of global warming i simply could hold up the assumtion beyond reasonable doubt

  38. #38 Steve Short
    March 2, 2010

    One can post some real hard science explication – complete with an Excel spreadsheet showing how the global climate system works with clouds – of why Monckton is essentially right but, as Pinker rightly points out, for partly the wrong reasons, on Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog and the warmists all ignore it because they are mentally lazy:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php#comments

    Here’s the fascinating part. One can post the very same stuff on Jo Nova and the effect is exactly the same!

    Could the problem with this great global warming debacle be simply that we have inadvertently under-educated a whole generation (is it X? is it Y? or both?) with those easy soft options degrees (at best) and good doses at uni of post-modernist claptrap so badly that they all get a headache whenever asked to actually exercise their brains and all they can do is poor quality science or resort to endless nit picking disputes based more-or-less on the political spin surrounding the whole subject.

    Or am I just another grumpy old (well educated) Generation Vee Dubya?

  39. #39 Chris O'Neill
    March 2, 2010

    hamlock:

    chris im up here in qld the rain is breaking records 100 year old records.

    Lucky you.

    i think some of it is heading your way.

    Promises promises. We had a low producing Melbourne’s record wettest day in 2005 which was handy but it didn’t mean the end of the drought.

    spelling might be bad to.i didnt go to uni and study science i left school in year 11

    Continuing to year 11 didn’t help your spelling much, so you probably wouldn’t have learnt much about science either if you had stayed on. You can stop your trolling now.

  40. #40 Fran Barlow
    March 2, 2010

    Hamfisted said”

    FRAN WHY CANT I HAVE MY OWN POINT OF VIEW

    You can. I’m not stopping you. I have the view that you are either a moronic troll, or doing an excellent impression of one.

    because it not your view i must be wrong

    Because your “view”, such as you have one, not only conflicts with what I know to be the case, but is self-evidently based on your obvious ignorance of matters salient. Your “view” has no ground to rest upon.

    The rest of your stream of consciousness is every bit as vapid as what you posted earlier. Nobody but a moron could confuse what you have said with anything a rational person of average intelligence and erudition should deem as data.

    The last sentence doesn’t even make an unambiguous claim, making it entirely in keeping with the drivel you posted above.

  41. #41 Dave C
    March 2, 2010

    Even if she wrote another one that even Nova couldn’t pretend meant something else, Nova wouldn’t accept it. From her latest rant:

    even if Pinker thinks Monckton is wrong, even if Lambert gets a quote from Pinker saying Monckton is totally, utterly wrong, or that the IPCC did interpret the full implications of her work, this doesn’t prove he is, or they did.

    And then she goes on to entirely ignore everything Pinker and Wild say about the science.

    I stand in awe. One moment we see her parsing Pinker’s response to support her claims; the next we see her complaining that “those who promote alarm end up discussing opinions and the minutia of who-said-what, rather than the science itself”. What does the word “science” even mean to such a person?

    This is precisely why (I thought) another statement from an actual expert might help to settle the matter. Nova must have thought so as well, and it prompted her to issue this bizarre pre-emptive rebuttal.

    She’s playing games. She’s trying to portray herself and Monckton as the experts, while laughing off the idea that a real expert might intervene in the debate.

    I’d call her bluff. I still think a formal public statement from Pinker would not be in vain. Nova will carry on, of course, but it might help to further illuminate the issue for the sake of ordinary people.

  42. #42 Mattb
    March 2, 2010

    Tim, not sure if you noticed but Jo Nova picked up on your comment “Presumably by “use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change” Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity.”

    by saying that of course the earth is not a black body and so you use an emissivity term as Monckton has done in eq 18 of [this](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.html)

    however Moonckton in that same piece goes on to say (about half a page later):
    “Since the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1,”

    So he does indeed revert to treating the earth as a black body.

    Do you or anybody have any comment about the validity of treating emissivity as 1 – I note Monckton provides nothing to back up his claim that using 1 “will not introduce any significant error”.

    Cheers

    Matt

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    March 2, 2010

    [Hamlock said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo.php#comment-2314071):

    …all the forcasts [sic] of drought cyclones dying reefs bushfires etc etc arent [sic] happining [sic]. so then, you can see how people are becoming sceptical.

    Two quick points Einstein…

    1. many of the forecasted changes are occurring; it’s simply that an untrained eye cannot appreciate that this is so
    2. if some of the forecast changes occurred at the rate required that they manifest between the time of first forecasting, and now, then we’d be in so much do-do that there’d be no point attempting to do something about the global warming problem – or many other environmental problems, for that matter.

    im [sic] not wanting you to do my thinking for me i [sic] can make up my own mind quite easily it [sic] just a shame there [sic] are people of your arrogance in this debate

    1. no-one wants to think for you
    2. some here might want you to learn to think properly for yourself
    3. you may well be able to “make up [your] own mind” – so what?
    4. it seems that your own (uneducated/untrained) arrogance in challenging that which you do not understand goes unnotice by yourself

    if i was ajury [sic] memeber [sic] ruling on the case of global warming i [sic] simply could hold up the assumtion [sic] beyond reasonable doubt

    …and this is exactly why our judicial system is flawed…

  44. #44 Dave C
    March 2, 2010

    Mattb:

    So he does indeed revert to treating the earth as a black body.

    Indeed – I noticed that as well, and then I saw your comment. Monckton clearly isn’t treating the Earth as a grey body.

    It’s also not clear from Nova’s comments whether she realises that a “grey body” is another idealised situation. It isn’t a catch-all category for anything that isn’t a black body.

    It’s possible the Earth might be approximated as a grey body for certain purposes, but I don’t think it’s something you can just assume.

  45. #45 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    FRANNY whats a troll mean to you

  46. #46 Fran Barlow
    March 2, 2010

    Hamfisted continued:

    whats a troll mean to you

    Trolls come in many forms. You are for the most part what is called a “concern troll” (CT). One well-worn CT tactic is to pretend to be an innocient asking questions and to take umbrage when people object to you posting recycled nonsense, and to try to make the argument about tone rather than substance. If people take you up on it, you succeed in a thread hijack. The ee cummings syntax and poor typography adds to the insult and screams for a spelling/typo flame which allows you to act all bothered by “rudeness”. If you watched Ian Plonker on Lateline with Monbiot, he was doing your CT schtick here.

    Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they like, no matter how absurd, but they aren’t entitled to a supporting set of “facts” of their own choice. If you talk rubbish and get called on it, it’s not your right to an opinion that is in question but your sanity or your insight. How you resolve that matter is up to you.

    Personally I don’t much care whether you really are a moron or are simply pretending to be one because you have personal problems. Either way you have no legitimate business here.

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    March 2, 2010

    Actually, I am very concerned about this – Hamfisted reckons it reached Year11, and yet its grasp of the English language doesn’t even reach my 4th-grader’s level of ability.

    Personally, I believe morons who cannot grasp the basics of spelling, grammar, and punctuation should not be entitled to any sort of an opinion under any circumstances. There should be a bit of quality-control preventing demonstrable cretins from accessing any form of public forum until they have some basic literacy skills.

  48. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    March 2, 2010

    Incidentally, you’ll find some interesting comment on cretins and their opinions here:

    < http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2010/02/11/ultra-hyperjingoism/>

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    March 2, 2010

    however Moonckton in that same piece goes on to say (about half a page later): “Since the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1,”

    I seem to recall noting (all by myself! ;-) Monckton pulling that same trick a few years ago, and thus figuring out that his fantastical claims were…bull emissions.

  50. #50 Tim Lambert
    March 2, 2010

    No Steve Short, you can’t post a hard science explanation of how Monckton is “essentially right”, because no such explanation exists.

  51. #51 JasonW
    March 2, 2010

    I’m still flabbergasted by this quote from Nova:

    “[...]even if Pinker thinks Monckton is wrong, even if Lambert gets a quote from Pinker saying Monckton is totally, utterly wrong, or that the IPCC did interpret the full implications of her work, this doesn’t prove he is, or they did.”

    Eh, say WHAT? Black is white! Up is down! Monckton knows a researcher’s research better than the researcher! Fun times! *off to bash his head against a wall*

  52. #52 Mike
    March 2, 2010

    @138, the reason that people are ignoring you, Steve Short, is that Roy Spencer’s theories on cloud cover influences have been looked at over and over.

    The lazy people are the ones who cannot be bothered looking up the discussions which show why Spencer’s arguments were rejected.

    However, I can’t explain why people are still trotting it out all these years after being discredited. I guess for much the same reasons they recycle all the other previously rejected anti-GW arguments, hoping one day if they repeat them enough times they’ll stick.

  53. #53 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    good explanation franny now i know what a troll is thanks you taught me something today

  54. #54 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    Isn’t SBVOR fun?

    I’ve already discussed what Jones said with SBVOR, but found it impossible to convince him(her?) that a trend of +0.12C/decade does not equal a trend of 0.0C/decade. Oh well.

    As for the alleged ‘gang rape’ of Lubos Motl, did you read what Motl wrote in that thread to provoke such a response!? Is such venom acceptable from someone who you agree with, just because you agree with them? What Lubos got thrown back at him was perfectly reasonable given what he posted, IMO.

    When someone approaches the debate reasonably, regardless of the side they’re on, I do my best myself (and encourage others) to respond reasonably. When someone is unreasonable or just flat out insulting, have at it!

  55. #55 TrueSceptic
    March 2, 2010

    118 jakerman,

    I love interia. Can I quote that?

  56. #56 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    that it stu you sould teach a few of your mates that.this sould be a forum on trying to find true facts.not a personal attack on how they spell type or how smart they are some the people on this site are probably getting retrabution for things that happened to them at school. move on were all here to learn because one way or another this is going to cost you me and everybody else a fair bit of money in rising taxes and cost of living.so souldnt we all know what we are paying for

  57. #57 TrueSceptic
    March 2, 2010

    123 Fran,

    This is nice because of the comment number but even nicer because you nailed the whole stoopid thing so succinctly.

  58. #58 TrueSceptic
    March 2, 2010

    128 Poe,

    Yes?

  59. #59 TrueSceptic
    March 2, 2010

    156 Poe,

    Ditto?

  60. #60 Chris O'Neill
    March 2, 2010

    hamlock:

    were all here to learn

    In the unlikely event that you want to learn anything about the science behind global warming, you should look for what you want to know in the index at realclimate.org. The Deltoid blog is mainly for exposing the lies and other types of dishonesty that are told about the science behind global warming. e.g. this thread was about some of the hypocritical lying by Andrew Bolt and also about some of the dishonesty by Joanne Nova. If you ignore those lies and dishonesty then it doesn’t reflect very well on your honesty either.

  61. #61 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    TS, Yes :)

    You can quote all my mis-spellings, as long as you do so with love.

    ;)

    But come to think of it, why didn’t interia make it into Heaven + Earth. It could snuggle in as an appropriate partial descriptor of figure 3.

    >*I was suffering dire interia when I foolishily decided to included Martin Durkins fabricated chart (figure 3 above) to make claims about temperature that were less clear with genuine data.*

  62. #62 hamlock
    March 2, 2010

    thanks for that site chris ill be there after i type this.have you seen catastrophe denied on the climate skeptics site.if not can you watch and then can you give me your opinion on what he says. it goes for 90 min.he raise some very intresting points.i watched with a opened mind,you on the other hand know a lot more than i do on this matter

  63. #63 MattB
    March 3, 2010

    Folks, some assistance please.

    in the last paragraph in the initial blog post Tim has a go at Monckton for assuming earth is a black body. Jo Nova has a go at Tim on her blog by showing that Monckton uses emissivity = grey body. But as I’ve shown above Monckton then reverts to black body approximation as earth is practically a black body in the infra-red so it is ok to do this.

    Either Monckton is correct, and it is ok to use a black body estimation, or he is wrong. If he is wrong why is he wrong? I assume from Tim’s comments in the post that Tim thinks it is wrong, and significantly enough to make a fuss over it.

    Cheers, Matt

  64. #64 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    Matt, poor fellow you are at a disadvantage, in that you care if you get things correct, thus you get stuck with doing Nova’a homework.

    Did you catch [Arthur's post](http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/)?

    Arthur takes Monckton to task of on his previous [use and abuses](http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html).

    My laypersons take is that:

    1) Monckton says he had “*kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere.*” This was wrong as pointed out by Pinker via Lambert and later Wild cited by Lambert.

    >*radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface. Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause. Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates*

    2) *[The Stefan–Boltzmann law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law), states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature*

    So the SB Law has nothing to do with the atmosheric effect describe by Wild, and hence applying some Stefan–Boltzmann correction factor dose not address nor correct the errors of Monckton assumption that “surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere”.

    Its complete farce. But what would I know, like Monckton I’m no scientist.

  65. #65 SBVOR
    March 3, 2010

    Dave C | March 1, 2010 8:27 PM,

    I just updated the first line in my post so as to reduce the likelihood of others becoming as confused as you.

  66. #66 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    In short:

    Monckton writes:

    >*I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows.*

    Which is wrong as stated by Pinker, explained by Wild and cited by Lambert (i.e. wrong becasue of atmospheric effects).

    >*Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, etc., etc.*

    Monckton continued:

    >*However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover.*

    The Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculates raditaion as a function of temperature of a body. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not correct Monckton’s error in equating the Surface radition with radiation at the Top Of Atmosphere. It does not addresss the atmospheric effects described by Wild.

  67. #67 Mattb
    March 3, 2010

    Cheers Jakerman. My own investigations lead me down the path of wondering why Monckton thinks that a black body is a good approximation of the earth – ie emissivity. Wikipedia to the rescue explains that terrestrial surfaces of the earth do indeed have an emissivity close to 1, but clouds only 0.5… leading to an earthly figure of 0.64… hardly close to 1.

  68. #68 MattB
    March 3, 2010

    Guys I know whan I’m likely out of my depth:)

    But Nova has added to her post:
    “UPDATE: Monckton includes emissivity, then assumes it’s unity, because Earth is considered to be very close to a black body radiating in the IR. This is standard practice and even pro-AGW modellers Kiehl & Trenberth (1997, 2008) assume emissivity is 1 also. (Thanks Mattb for spotting the issue.)”

    Tim after your comment above “resumably by “use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change” Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity.”

    It would be appreciated if someone could head to nova’s site and explain why Monckton has it wrong. I get my words mixed up:) Cheers

    Matt

  69. #69 Dave C
    March 3, 2010

    SBVOR:

    I just updated the first line in my post so as to reduce the likelihood of others becoming as confused as you.

    I did see the point you were trying to make, but it rests on a logical fallacy.

    The models rule out a zero trend in temperature at the 95% level, over a period of 15 or more years. Sure enough, the data is consistent with this, showing a positive trend over this period of time, even if not statistically significant.

    Finding a non-significant positive trend is very different from finding a zero trend. It certainly does not contradict the models.

    To properly test the validity of the models, all you have to do is compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures. If that test were to be statistically significant, then you might have reason to bother us.

  70. #70 Tim Lambert
    March 3, 2010

    MattB, it’s error number 68 in Arthur Smith’s [list of Monckton's errors](http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec12):

    >E68

    >>the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation

    >Wrong: Uh, no it isn’t. That’s sort of the whole point of the influence of greenhouse gases on radiative transfer. If Earth was a black body this would be much simpler. Earth’s surface (not including any atmosphere) isn’t far from a black body (though it doesn’t ever carry a single uniform temperature, another issue for this), but Monckton specifically includes the troposphere here. Wrong.

  71. #71 Mattb
    March 3, 2010

    Cheers Tim. not surprisingly that was treated with howls of derision:)

  72. #72 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    >*not surprisingly that was treated with howls of derision:)*

    I suppose we couldn’t have expected a clear, evidenced based rebuttle so, noise and bluster is what they’re left with. Heaven forbid that they accept Moncton’s error and , and correct the record on Monckton’s misuse of Pinker’s paper. That would be a bit too sciency in process.

    Instead this will go down in their Post-Normal-Narrative as a glorious victory for Monckton, and yet another reason to distrust scienctist for not accepting that Monckton has once again overtuned IPCC estimates.

    Huraagh for Nova and her Post-Normal-Science following.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    Huraagh for Nova and her Post-Normal-Science following.

    She had an article in The Drum at the ABC today, and a few of her followers turned up.

  74. #74 Stu
    March 4, 2010

    “Huraagh for Nova”

    Is that a cheer or a retch?

  75. #75 John
    March 4, 2010

    Lotharsson, intellectual heavyweight Graeme Bird turned up. Who else does she need for support?

  76. #76 Louis Hissink
    March 4, 2010

    Thanks folks,

    Your comments are noted.

  77. #77 jakerman
    March 4, 2010

    Louis, I’ve been wondering, how do you feel about Monckton throwing half of Plimer’s talking points [under the bus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2256694)?

    And why did Plimer sit there and allow it?

  78. #78 Stu
    March 4, 2010

    Louis, you may have noted them but have you taken them on board? Are you going to leave the bloody obvious pseudoscience alone?

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2010

    Graeme Bird is…entertaining, if you like that sort of thing.

  80. #80 jakerman
    March 4, 2010

    >*Is that a cheer or a retch?*

    I choked, I thought I could push out a cheer but gagged in disgusts.

  81. #81 MattB
    March 4, 2010

    You know I actually thought Bird sounded quite reasonable… I agreed with a few of his posts. Chalk up a first. FYI he does not post at JoNova’s site, I seem to recall her saying she would not have his general behaviour would not be tolerated.

  82. #82 Stu
    March 4, 2010

    Jakerman, what’s the code for that nested quote deely? Perhaps use M to represent < and > for example, so it doesn’t disappear :-D

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    March 5, 2010

    I do wonder how Nova – and especially her acolytes – found the experience of putting forth and defending her wisdom in a more neutral-ish forum at the ABC – right after she said “follow the evidence” which was very handy to remind people of…

    She dissed me for using Google, cutting and pasting links, and for not making my own arguments up (if I understood her correctly), at one point. Follow the evidence, Ms Nova…it matters not its URL or who wrote it if it’s valid and accurate. Besides, people post links to your website to make arguments…

    I thought Nova had gumption to try on “McIntyre destroyed the hockeystick” in front of an audience some of who would be guaranteed to know better. I saw jakerman riposte, and I added more. But of course it doesn’t count if you link to RealClimate or Tamino ;-) I also did a bit on the hotspot (including “see that stratospheric cooling in your *own graph*”? What’s that about? ;-)

    It’s still going on last I looked but I weary of it. I’m sure she personally is rusted on to her views so nothing will change there. She’s commenting a fair bit last I saw, maybe to try and keep her brand intact with the faithful.

    But far more importantly I’m going away for the weekend any minute now :-)

    Stu – the word you want is “blockquote” without the double quotes and between angle brackets.

  84. #84 Fran Barlow
    March 5, 2010

    Stu

    sub “< " and ">” where you see “[" and "]”

    [blockquote]quoted text[/blockquote]

    You can also nest quotes:

    [blockquote]quoted text from me

    whereupon the interlocutor said …

    [blockquote]interlocutor’s response[/blockquote]

    [/blockquote]

  85. #85 Mattb
    March 5, 2010

    Lotharson – while it is nice to have the ABC give coverage to the issue I think that the comments there are next to useless – it is all posturing and no one is ever going to change their minds. IMO you are better saying what you have to say on her blog – but only if you are prepared to stick around through the hard yards and get some cred/rapport with the posters. The drum is all bluster and puffed chests and not a lot of substance.

  86. #86 jakerman
    March 5, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    My take is different to MattB’s, I think your time is better spent on a more neutral site like the Drum than on Nova’s site. If the the Novarian PNSs dominated the comments unchallenged on the Drum then it would give a different perception than as it stands now with their claims being challenged with evidence. Your work there was appreciated.

  87. #87 Mattb
    March 5, 2010

    yeah I guess it depends on numbers of people who read the comments other than those who are commenting. Make no mistake I have no dillusions that my time spent at the Nova site is contributing to a better planet:)

  88. #88 jakerman
    March 5, 2010

    ;)

  89. #89 TrueSceptic
    March 5, 2010

    179 Lotharsson,

    I post this link quite often, but in case you haven’t seen it, enjoy the [Extended Bird](http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/)

  90. #90 jakerman
    March 6, 2010

    A Nova fan Steve Short had a go in [open thread 43](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43#comment-2324703).

  91. #91 jakerman
    March 6, 2010

    TS, The extended Bird makes me giggle!

  92. #92 Steve Short
    March 6, 2010

    MattB #187

    “Make no mistake I have no DILLUSIONS that my time spent at the Nova site is contributing to a better planet:)”

    Never was a truer word spoken in jest.

  93. #93 TrueSceptic
    March 6, 2010

    191 jakerman,

    Some find it very offensive, but like you, I find it hilarious.

    BTW some of the comments were directed at me. GMB makes assumptions about all sorts of stuff, including the gender of commenters.

  94. #94 jakerman
    March 6, 2010

    Steve Short just rebutted Wild in what is possibly the [least convincing manner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2328921).

    Steve I appreciated the response none the less. Quite revealing.

  95. #95 Steve Short
    March 7, 2010

    I’ll take a rain check on Martin Wild et al for now – gotta mow the lawn!

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2010

    TrueSceptic – OMFG, I stopped reading The Extended Bird after a few pages. I figure I’d got the gist by then. He must have been on his meds again at The Drum ;-)

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2010

    I think your time is better spent on a more neutral site like the Drum than on Nova’s site. If the the Novarian PNSs dominated the comments unchallenged on the Drum then it would give a different perception than as it stands now with their claims being challenged with evidence.

    That was my calculation too. I suspect most of the Novarians are totally uninterested in flaws in her position, and my time is generally quite limited so it’s better spent where a more open audience may be lurking.

  98. #98 luminous beauty
    March 7, 2010

    [Stu](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo.php#comment-2321863),

    Here at Deltoid you can use [markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus) to produce blockquotes _(and other __stuff__)_ with a few less keystrokes.

    >Just put a forward chevron [>] in front of each block of text you want to blockquote.

    >>Put two chevrons in front for nested blockquotes.

    >>>Or three…

    Also, bracketing URLs with chevrons obviates markdown’s obnoxious tendency to break URLs containing underscores [_]

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2010

    I also found some delightful ad homs from Ms Nova (although the grammar and spelling appears to be deteriorating, and there was that vacuum gaffe reported on the other thread – so I think it plausible that someone is masquerading as Ms Nova to defend her honour or reputation or something…)

  100. #100 hamlock
    March 8, 2010

    How much credit do you give to computer modeling for AGW?In the reasearh i’ve undertaken thanks to Fran,they can’t be taken to seriously,the fact that they don’t take into acccount cloud cover ,is a real promblem.In my own research,i took note of the huge amount of evapouration we had from the months Aug 2009-Jan 2010.This in my theory was due to the unusually high amounts of Northerly winds we had.In the same period it was also noted that it was very dry and hot.Since then Feb and Mar have been humid and very wet.My question therefor is, if the temp and weather in my local area is this way ,how can any person feed in enough of the relevant amount of data to make a trust worthy model.Temperatures ,evapouration, clouds, winds, rain, snow they are never constant they are variable.No two days in weather are the same,so how can these models even come close to telling us what the climate will be like into the future.It does’nt matter how good or big these computers are they are only as good as the information they are feed.PERSONLY i can’t see how enough of each local weather paterns and the huge amount of variables could ever be included to come to a model we could 95% trust.Now i am not trolling ,iam looking for answers, the science is definitively not settled.Thanks to Fran i have reasearched and there are more questions than answers. This of course is SCIENCE.

Current ye@r *