On top of the 21 climate scientists correcting the numerous errors in Christopher Monckton testimony to Congress, we also have Rachel Pinker and Ellsworth Dutton correcting Monckton’s misunderstanding of Pinker, Zhang and Dutton (2005):

1 Viscount Monckton attempts to directly link the change in surface solar radiation to a change in temperature. He states:

“What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most
recent period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites
confirmed measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and
naturally-occurring, global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005).”

This statement in effect equates temperature change with surface solar radiation change which, as noted in points 2 and 3 above, is only one input into a complex climate process. Also, it is not necessarily the case that global brightening is naturally-occurring; it can be caused by anthropogenic aerosols or changes in the atmospheric moisture content as well as clouds, possibly affected by increasing CO2 levels.


2 Viscount Monckton states the following about the data used in our study:

Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 W m-2 year-1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W
m-2 year-1 found by Dr. Pinker.”

In the Pinker et al. (2005) study, no use is made of outgoing radiative flux from ERBE observations; observations from ERBE are not used at all. The observations used are from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).

3 Viscount Monckton continues:

“Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface
global brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m-2 over the 18-year period of study
would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a
transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°). To put this naturally-occurring global
brightening into perspective, the IPCC’s estimated total of all the anthropogenic
influences on climate combined in the 256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m-2.”

It is difficult to comment on the above statement since the elementary radiative transfer
calculations are not presented. Possibly, the following was meant: the 1.9 W m-2 is
obtained by multiplying 0.106 W m-2 (obtained by modifying the 0.16 W m-2 value
quoted in Pinker et al. (2005)) by 18 and further by some climate sensitivity factor λ (not
specified) and using the relationship (from the IPCC report), namely:

ΔTs = λRF

The RF used here is not in line with the IPCC convention.

I made the same points back in May.

Comments

  1. #1 Stu
    September 28, 2010

    I want to continue Lars, if not for the benefit of my discussion with Wow, at least for my understanding of the topic at hand.

    MFS, TrueSceptic and Lotharsson are, for example, knowledgable enough to tell me whether what I posted is correct or whether I’ve missed something blindingly obvious. I’d certainly appreciate that.

    And I’ll thank TS especially for defending me, it’s nice to be vindicated even if all you do is provoke further ire from Wow.

  2. #2 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > But there is a base level of greenhouse effect, caused by the other non-condensible gases plus whatever water vapour is left if you took out all the CO2, which CO2 has no hand in.

    Irrelevant.

    If I exclude the 33C warming, THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE GAS.

    Not H2O, not CO2, not NH4, not O3, NOTHING.

    Pointless to go “but there are other gasses left there!” when the calculation has taken them ALL out.

    They don’t exist.

    They are no more.

    They have gone to the Choir Eternal.

    If you hadn’t nailed them to the perch, they’d be out of here.

    The ONLY way you can have other greenhouse gasses still there when you’ve taken out the 33C warming they contributed to is by removing the Greenhouse Effect.

    This is a very G&T proposition: the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist!

    I don’t agree to that. It does exist, therefore removing the 33C warming these gasses contribute to them means they don’t exist in the atmosphere any more.

  3. #3 Wow
    September 28, 2010

    > MFS, TrueSceptic and Lotharsson are, for example, knowledgable enough to tell me whether what I posted is correct or whether I’ve missed something blindingly obvious. I’d certainly appreciate that.

    So is Wow:

    [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/rachel_pinker_on_moncktons_tes.php#comment-2821618)

    Which you forgot being told before [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/rachel_pinker_on_moncktons_tes.php#comment-2822420).

    It’s not just Spots who runs the goldfish bowl, eternally surprised.

    But please, if we’re going to continue, let’s take it to the Open Thread.

  4. #4 Stu
    September 28, 2010

    >The ONLY way you can have other greenhouse gasses still there when you’ve taken out the 33C warming they contributed to is by removing the Greenhouse Effect.

    Well that’s where you have misunderstood me. I have mentioned neither removing the whole greenhouse effect, nor the magic 33C figure. In fact, in a couple of my posts I have asked what the greenhouse effect would be if you removed just the CO2 (or all GHGs except WV), which is a completely different but relevant proposition, and is what I consider to be the pertinent point here.

    The point is that if you remove all the CO2, you don’t remove all the greenhouse effect (after allowing the system to equilibriate to the new CO2-free conditions). This indicates to me that the total greenhouse effect is not tied to CO2 in exactly the manner you describe.

    Is this not a relevant consideration when using your method to estimate climate sensitivity?

  5. #5 MFS
    September 28, 2010

    Stu,

    It seems a little pointless to me to be speculating what would happen to the temperature and water vapour if we removed all the CO2. For starters it serves no useful purpose, and for seconds, it’s unlikely to happen in the sort of timescale that could concievably affect us, or for the sort of reasons we’re likely to have control over it.

    As to being knowledgeable enough to tell you weather what you posted is correct, I don’t know enough about feedbacks to be confident of my opinion, so I think you’re overestimating me.

  6. #6 Stu
    September 28, 2010

    Well it’s just a hypothetical MFS – never mind.

    I may have overestimated you, or maybe you’re modest. Or both!

  7. #7 adelady
    September 28, 2010

    Hypothetical? I’ve just reread these last few posts.

    If you want to know about how an atmosphere would behave if it were not Earth’s atmosphere, your only option is to look up the stuff on other planet’s atmospheres and see if there’s anything relevant there. I certainly don’t know this stuff.

    My simple answer to your question would be, if things were completely different, then other things would be completely different. And it doesn’t matter anyway. We’re not interested in a rock that sails through the solar system unable to sustain mammalian life. We’re people and the climate that’s sustained us for the last tens of thousands of years looks to be the one that suits us best. If we need to evolve in response to changing climate, we’d want that to be on the geological timescales needed for that evolution, not half a dozen generations.

  8. #8 LogicallySpeaking
    September 28, 2010

    The temperature of Venus and the fact that its atmospheric composition is 97% CO2 seems somewhat relevant to the discussion here. Just saying..

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    September 28, 2010

    [LogicallySpeaking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/rachel_pinker_on_moncktons_tes.php#comment-2825343).

    Ah, Venus…

    We all know that it’s the gravity engine wot heats up the planet. Anthony Cox, Jo Codling and her team of experts, Watts and Steve Goddard, and a host of other eminent Internet Physicalists have already explained this.

  10. #10 Byron Smith
    September 29, 2010
  11. #11 CS
    October 4, 2010

    Lord Monckton is still citing this study. He was at a debate on climate change here in University College Cork tonight, and he cited Pinker et al. 2005, to back up his argument.

  12. #12 Monckton of Brenchley
    Edinburgh
    June 25, 2014

    My attention has been drawn to this posting and I should be grateful to be allowed to make the following observations:

    1. Dr Pinker and Dr Dutton say that I “in effect” equate temperature change with surface solar radiation change, which is “only one input into a complex climate process”. Well, what their paper actually reports is that “a global-scale decrease in cloudiness based on ISCCP D1 data was found, which is consistent with an increase in surface solar radiation found in this study, because clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface”. Perhaps they didn’t mean that when they wrote it. I did not equate temperature change with surface solar radiation change: I merely calculated how much temperature change would be expected in consequence of the solar radiation change.

    2. Dr Pinker and Dr Dutton say I was wrong to say that their result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite. Well, what their paper actually said was that “On the basis of observations made from CERES and a 16-year record from the ERBS mission, a decrease in reflected short-wave flux at the ToA was found. This could result in an increase in S (assuming no variations in the solar output or in atmospheric absorption).” Perhaps they didn’t mean that when they wrote it. It seemed to me that in making that statement they were finding their ISCCP result consistent with then then ERBE result, which was subsequently corrected for orbital degradation.

    3. Dr Pinker and Dr Dutton say I was wrong to suggest that they had found a global brightening amounting to 1.9 Watts per square meter over the 18 years 1983-2001. Well, here is what their paper said: “On a global scale, the linear slope (solid line) in the surface solar radiation is positive at 0.16 Watts per square meter per year.” Perhaps they did not mean that when they wrote it. For caution, in the light of the orbital degradation in the ERBE satellite, with which they had found their own calculations consistent, I had reduced their annual value to 0.106 Watts per square meter per year. That gives 1.9 Watts per square meter. However, if one adheres to their original value, then the total forcing was more like 2.9 Watts per square meter. For comparison, the entire anthropogenic from 1750-2011, according to AR5, was less than 2.3 Watts per square meter.

    4. Dr Pinker and Dr Dutton say they could not determine the climate-sensitivity parameter I was using, but they were nonetheless confident it was non-standard. The implicit c.s.p. may of course be determined by a simple division sum. 1 K of global warming divided by 1.9 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing implies a c.s.p. of a little above 0.5 Kelvin per Watt per square meter. The instantaneous value of the c.s.p. is given as 0.31 K/W/m^2. The implicit central estimate of the equilibrium value in the CMIP3 model ensemble (little changed in CMIP5) is 0.88 K/W/m^2. Since short-acting feedbacks cause a rapid increase in the c.s.p. in the decades immediately following the forcing, an estimate of a tad over 0.5 is in the right ballpark (see the evolutionary profile of temperature feedbacks in a simple model in Roe, 2009).

    5. Mr Lambert says one should not talk of surface forcings at all, but instead one should adjust for the cooler temperatures prevalent at the characteristic-emission altitude. Well, I did that in my paper for the Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists in 2010. The conclusion of the paper was that more warming arose from the naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover than from anthropogenic influences over the 18-year period 1983-2001. Dr Pinker and Dr Dutton say I should not assume that the reduction in cloud cover was natural. Well, if it had been caused by us, it might have been expected to have persisted. However, their own paper reports that it did not. But perhaps they did not mean that when they wrote it.

    6. Moral: don’t pick nits. Since 1990 global warming has occurred at exactly half the then central near-term prediction of the IPCC. For the past 10-25 years, depending on which dataset one favors, there has been no global warming distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties. Oh, and Mr Lambert, when debating these matters with me in Australia some years back, played a recording which he represented at the time as Dr Pinker’s voice. It was in fact a stunt recorded by an actress. Fewer stunts, less sneering, less selectivity and more science in future, Tim, baby.

  13. #13 chek
    June 26, 2014

    For the past 10-25 years, depending on which dataset one favors,(sic) there has been no global warming distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties.

    M’lud Fuckwit of Brenchley, of House Pennychaser and Arselicker of Petroleum Interests, Certified Loon who neither Understands nor Abides by the Laws of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom let it be known that anyone claiming that there has been no warming in your ludicrously loose timescales understand that the loss of Arctic sea ice and the concurrent collapse of the WAIS while claiming ‘ no warming’ in the period is lower than a fool.

    Who dost HMS Lordship think he’s fucking kidding?
    You’re not in dumb Kansas now, you toxic, paid for swivel-eyed loon.

  14. #14 Monckton of Brenchley
    Edinburgh
    June 27, 2014

    The pseudonymous “chek” hurls childish insults from behind the safety curtain of anonymity, a cravenly cowardly approach that is all too common.

    Whether this anonymous coward knows it or not, there has been no global warming at all on the UAH dataset for approaching 10 years; none at all on the man of the two satellite or of the three terrestrial datasets for 13 years 5 months; none at all on the RSS dataset for 17 years 9 months; none statistically distinguishable from zero on the mean of all five datasets for approaching 20 years; and none statistically distinguishable from zero on the RSS dataset for more than 26 years.

    It also talks of the loss of Arctic sea ice, but is culpably silent on the growth of Antarctic sea ice and on the near-zero trend in global sea ice throughout the satellite era. It also talks of the supposed “collapse” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Such loss of grounded ice there as has occurred is attributable in part to the anomalously warm climate of the Antarctic Peninsula and in part to the subsea volcanic activity in the region of the Thwaites Glacier. More balance and less childishness, please, whoever of whatever you are. And why not find the cojones to publish under your own name? Most well-regulated websites do not allow anonymous commenters to make cowardly ad-hominem remarks.

  15. #15 Mack
    June 28, 2014

    ….”more science in future, Tim , baby”
    Chris, ..This tread here is about 3 1/2 yrs old ! Things happen. Look at Deltoid. Since then I think Tim has, shall we say ..”come on your side.” There’s no need to attack him anymore. It would be a pleasant change now to have an atmosphere of reconciliation.

  16. #16 chek
    June 28, 2014

    Thanks Lord Bonkers for laying out your stall (but wait – you left out the latest bilge you’re punting from Dave Rocketscientist. WTF? Lost faith already?)
    There’s nothing you’ve raised that won’t fail to raise a grin from anyone with the slightest familiarity with denierdom.

    Your service to the CABCD (Church of Anything But Carbon Dioxide) never ceases to amuse.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    June 28, 2014

    Well of course the silly (one too many ‘l’s perhaps) tricks that TVMOB has employed before have been well and truly rebutted for example here:

    Lord Christopher Monckton 2013 – The Republican poster boy.

    Does TVMOB understand the meaning of ‘devious’?

  18. #18 Mack
    June 28, 2014

    Looney Lionel links us off to Citizens Challenge. You go there and scroll down the whole first page and there isn’t a single comment. Poor old Citizens Challenge..seems nobody is bothering to rise to the challenge. He must be getting quite lonely now….still, he’s got those Hiroshima Atomic Bombs going off, so that must be providing some amusement.

  19. #19 chek
    June 28, 2014

    Of course Lionel, what M’lud Fucknuts deliberately fails to recognise is that his own “stunt” – the implied pally and gainsaying use of the word ‘he’ – was completely and devastatingly destroyed by the fact that Professor Pinker was in fact a ‘her’, as demonstrated so effectively by Dr. Lambert..

    I do hope these fake ‘charities’ in the obvious money-spinning service of the richest industries the world has ever seen – operated by the by such as those of the fake would-be tax-avoiding Lord’s confection, rather than in the interests of the people of the world, will be subject to punitive and recursive fines by HMRC.
    Or the independent nation of Scotland’s Land Tax.

  20. #20 chek
    June 28, 2014

    Not as much amusement as double digit IQ cheerleaders such as you Karenmacksunspot.

    Still, maybe one of your defencees might permit you a night’s rest on their stable straw one night after push becomes shove.

  21. #21 bill
    June 29, 2014

    Since then I think Tim has, shall we say ..”come on your side.”

    Proof? (Anyone think he’ll produce any? Didn’t think so…)

    Hey, Chris, did you ever figure out that the whole ‘faked birth certificate’ thing was a scanning artifact?

  22. #22 Lionel A
    June 29, 2014

    Mack @#18

    Looney Lionel links us off to Citizens Challenge.

    WTF? Where? Now whose the loon?

    Whatever whilst on CC I found this excellent Feynman quote which makes it look as if Feynman had Monckton in mind:

    “Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools – guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus locus -THAT, I CANNOT STAND!

    which can be found in more correct form

    Ordinary fools are alright; you can talk to them and try to help them out. But pompous fools – guys who are fools and covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus – THAT, I CANNOT STAND!

    here:

    Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Quotes

    I’ll just check my 1992 PB edition for veracity.

    BTW I have commented on ‘The Lord Monckton Foundation’ (unbelievable brass neck) on the June Open Thread.

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    June 29, 2014

    Mr Monckton, you said:

    For the past 10-25 years, depending on which dataset one favors, there has been no global warming distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties.

    Tell me, do you know what the various forcings are that affect the mean annual temperature of the planet? More importantly, do you know what relative contributions these various forcings make to the recorded inter-annual variation of global temperature, and what are the magnitudes of these different forcings to the inter-annual variation of mean global temperature? How do these magnitudes compare to the scientifically-derived value of the rate of warming caused by human carbon emissions?

    Following on from the above, do you know what is the mean number of years required in going back through the temperature record before it is possible to detect an underlying warming signal emerging from the inter-annual ‘noise’ resulting from the aforementioned multiple forcings? For bonus points, do you know what is the statistical variance around this mean value?

    Taking all of the above into consideration, are you able to understand why your comment is nothing more than a meaningless strawman that either reflects a deliberate intention to mislead the unwary, or is an indication of your lack of competence to comment on a complex scientific discipline in which you have no tertiary-level training or professional scientific experience?

    Oh, and Mr Lambert, when debating these matters with me in Australia some years back, played a recording which he represented at the time as Dr Pinker’s voice. It was in fact a stunt recorded by an actress.

    Ahem, that would be Dr Lambert to you, Mr Monckton.

    And you are wrong that it was simply a “stunt”. It would be a no more than a stunt if Dr Pinker was a man, as you believed her to be in your ignorance of her background, but in fact Dr Lambert was simply broadcasting in audio Dr Pinker’s words to reflect the gender of the owner – a point that Dr Lambert made immediately priot to playing the quote. Dr Lambert did not say that the recording was Dr Pinker, but simply that he asked her who was “right, IPCC or Monckton”, after which he played an audio reading of Pinker’s response (~0:30+).

    It would have been a stunt if Dr Pinker’s words were other than those that Dr Lambert had recorded and played, but they were not. What Dr Lambert’s device was, was a clever rhetorical stratagem to emphasis that you were not only twisting Dr Pinker’s meanings, but you didn’t even know enough about Dr Pinker to know her gender.

    It’s unbecoming that you are so querulously and ungraciously petulant in response to exactly the sort of rhetorical manoeuvring to which you yourself are so partial, but in a far, far more illegitimate fashion. Face it – Dr Lambert cleverly reinforced the fact that you did not know much at all of Dr Pinker, and emphasised that Pinker herself reaffirmed to Dr Lambert that the IPCC was “right”. Dr Lambert played Dr Pinker’s words verbatim, and it is those words that are the material part of the matter – and those words refuted your incorrect understanding of Pinker’s work.

    Everything else is just a juvenile tantrum at being well and truly pwned.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    June 29, 2014
  25. #25 Lionel A
    June 29, 2014

    Drat!

    Maybe it is because by a number of other metrics, over the time frame cherry picked there is a rising trend in temperature.

    If your foundation were truly educational you would not use such a device, one which looks intended to confuse.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    June 29, 2014

    TVMOB may like to peruse the excellent article at Real Climate:

    Global temperature 2013 and take particular note of the response from Ray Ladbury at #49

    When I see folks advocating RSS without mention of any other dataset or the fact that RSS is inconsistent with any other dataset, my spider sense starts tingling, and I wonder if I’m dealing with someone wearing blinders.

    Or, should that end, “I wonder if I’m dealing with someone trying to put blinders on others.”

  27. #27 Lionel A
    June 29, 2014

    I wonder how Monckton now reconciles his part in getting Richard Lindzen to speak in UK government buildings in 2010 with his educational mission given the assessments of that Lindzen talk that have come to the fore since at,

    Real Climate and at Skeptical Science ?

    I included the SkS link as a commenter at Real Climate linked there but the one found therein now goes off into the weeds.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    June 30, 2014

    Mr Monckton,

    Could you please enlighten us by informing as to in which scientific journal the following paper (as to why you failed to link to same I can only guess) was published:

    Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists in 2010., pier reviewed I suppose.

    Moral, don’t expect too much from nuts. Particularly those who spray out facties as if from an Uzi and vanish into the night.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    July 2, 2014

    I guess that Monckton will come back in another four years, once he’s had time to formulate a half-arsed answer…

  30. #30 Lionel A
    July 2, 2014

    I guess that Monckton will come back in another four years, once he’s had time to formulate a half-arsed answer…

    and having consulted a tea-leaf reading solicitor, i.e. one on the same page as he in the Journal of Dog Astrology.

Current ye@r *