# Monckton's triple counting

Thanks to Drudge, all the right-wing blogs have been touting a story alleging the American Physical Society has reversed its stance on global warming. Joe Romm has the sordid details. The basis for the story is an article published in an APS newsletter (not jornal) by our old friend Christoper Monckton. Monckton's article now carries a disclaimer saying:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

That's probably good enough for most people, but here at Deltoid we go that extra mile, so I've read Monckton's article and can explain what's wrong with it.

First, I should disclose that I am not a physicist and only did first-year physics and an honours level course in mathematical physics at uni. But that's way more than Monckton ever did, and more than enough to see where he went wrong.

Monckton is trying to make a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3°C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K. (Actually he says °K, which is wrong -- it's Kelvins, not degrees Kelvin.)

How does he come up with such a number?

He starts with an equation for forcing ΔTλ

ΔTλ = ΔF2xκf

where ΔF2x is the radiative forcing (in Watts per square metre) from doubling CO2, κ is the sensitivity (ignoring feedbacks) in units KW-1m2, and f is the feedback multiplier that takes account of feedbacks in the climate system. So far so good.

Then Monckton claims that the supposedly missing hotspot means that ΔF2x has to be reduced by a factor of three:

Since the great majority of the incoming solar radiation incident upon the Earth strikes the tropics, any reduction in tropical radiative forcing has a disproportionate effect on mean global forcings. On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models

ΔF2x ≈ 3.405 / 3 ≈ 1.135 Wm-2.

But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that ΔF2x "is about 3.5 watts per square meter". As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen:

we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm

This is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.

Next Monckton turns his attention to κ and argues it's too high as well:

We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near-identical; that all of the warming from 1980-2005 was anthropogenic; that the IPCC's values for forcings and feedbacks are correct; and, in line 2, that McKitrick is right that the insufficiently-corrected heat-island effect of rapid urbanization since 1980 has artificially doubled the true rate of temperature increase in the major global datasets.

With these assumptions, κ is shown to be less, and perhaps considerably less, than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).

Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity. If you also assume that the IPCC values for ΔF2x and f are correct, then their value of κ must be too high -- Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in the previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC value of ΔF2x was too high by a factor of three. If instead you use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of κ is too low.

What Monckton is doing is double counting his (dubious) evidence that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number. If he had two pieces of evidence that sensitivity is half the IPCC number he would multiply them together to claim that sensitivity is one quarter the IPCC number. This is not correct.

To put it another way, in this case, by making some unrealistic assumptions he came up with a sensitivity estimate 20% less than the IPCC number i.e. 2.4K. Logically he should have stopped there -- he has an estimate of sensitivity. Instead he uses this estimate of sensitivity in a chain of reasoning that leads him to conclude that sensitivity is 0.58K.

Anyway, Monckton goes on to pull the same stunt with f -- using arguments that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number to argue that f must also be lower than the IPCC number. So that's triple counting. Then he multiplies all his improved factors together to come with his final sensitivity of 0.58K.

The editor of the APS newsletter, Jeffrey Marque, actually invited Monckton to contribute this piece.

Tags
Categories

### More like this

##### Monckton flunks Latin
This is the very first paragraph of Monckton's response to Gavin Schmidt's demolition of Monckton's paper on climate sensitivity. For the second time, the FalseClimate propaganda blog, founded by two co-authors of the now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which the UN's climate panel tried…
##### The Australian's War on Science 42
Christopher Monckton will trouser \$20,000 for an Australian Tour with Ian Plimer on backing vocals. To celebrate both The Australian and The Daily Telegraph printed extracts from Monckton's letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd generously offering to brief Rudd about climate science. Monckton…
##### Monckton's McLuhan Moment
You know that famous scene in Annie Hall where a bore is going on and on about Marshall McLuhan's work and Allen produces McLuhan who tells the bore that he got McLuhan all wrong? Well, that's kind of what happened in my debate with Monckton. Based on what he had identified as his most important…
##### More Monckton
Duae Quartunciae has been more patient than me, and found even more problems with Monckton's paper. Monckton has struck back at the APS. Check out this press release from the SPPI Said, Monckton elsewhere, "Trying to duck the usual process of scientific discourse by arguments about peer-review…

You'll enjoy this, in which Monckton claims the piece passed scientific review by someone chosen by the APS, and in that wounded tone of voice that only the bloody poms can strike, demands that the APS remove their "this is crap" red-font warning from the front of his article.

dhogaza,
Address the facts. He was invited to make a submission. He made a submission. It was reviewed and corrected by "an eminent prof of physics". He did what they asked him to.
Then they did that without consulting him.
Do you think that's how the APS should operate?
If they did that to you, how would YOU feel?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

If I were Our Sweet Lord Monckton, I'd vacillate between the I-am-so-right fantasy in my head and the mocked-into-pouting crank of reality.

spangled drongo's question is interesting.

I believe if I behaved as Monckton did, I would wish the APS to send out a hit team and put me out of my misery. Then, without getting into the grubby specifics, I would want them to simply inform my shamed family that the nightmare was over at last.

spangled drongo: You seem to have left out the part where an organization that Monckton served as "chief policy advisor" for issued a press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) whose first sentence says: "Mathematical proof that there is no 'climate crisis' appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports". That's a lot of lies to pack into one sentence!

I think this is the point where the APS, probably even the editors of that newsletter, realized that they were being used by Monckton and his goal was not to convince physicists of his position but to try to use the APS's prestige, along with lots of lies about his paper and the circumstances under which it appeared in something sponsored by APS, as part of a propaganda campaign.

Frankly, I think the editors of the APS's Forum on Physics and Society (which I am a member of, by the way) were a bit naive and probably never imagined what Monckton would do once the article appeared in their newsletter.

By Joel Shore (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

spangly, bear in mind that we're talking about different "theys." On the face of it, the newsletter editors exceeded their remit. They should have done a real review of the contents of Monckton's piece, placed their own disclaimer on it or (best of all) not accepted a submission from someone who is not any kind of scientist, let alone a physicist. That last is perhaps the worst of it.

But that's taking the whole thing at face value. The more likely explanation is that there was a lobbying campaign by a handful of denialist members to have a debate in the newsletter, and the editors responded by publishing something that they expected will be comprehensively nailed to the wall. IMHO the editor's admionition that only "scientific" responses would be accepted is a degree of evidence for this view.

BTW, while Monckton claims there was a "peer review" by one editor, it couldn't have been much of one since editor (Al Saperstein) has never done any work remotely connected to climate science. Even Monckton's description of the "review" makes it sound more like an effort to make sure that the contents were clearly stated.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

You seem to have left out the part where an organization that Monckton served as "chief policy advisor" for issued a press release (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/provednoclimate_crisis.html) whose first sentence says..

Minor nitpick: Monckton continues to serve as "chief policy advisor". You are being a bit too kind in using the past tense re: Monckton's SPPI activities. The SPPI web-site "personnel" link currently lists only 8 members, one of them being Monckton.

By caerbannog (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

caerbannog: Good point. (I sort of got screwed up on my tenses there and didn't mean to imply that Monckton only used to be the chief policy advisor of that organization.)

By Joel Shore (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

Spangled drongo.

1) A newsletter is not a journal, and as such it may serve as a forum for 'ideas' that are more, well, 'imaginative' than scientific. Even if said newsletter is that of the APS. Monckton's piece hardly constitutes a 'published paper', and the rules of engagement are hardly those one would apply to a journal.

2) Joel Shore, who has indicated his membership of the APS's Forum on Physics and Society, demonstrates that the invitation to Monckton was probably in misapprehension of his intention (especially so when Monckton was, in hindsight, so vigorously pushing his vested interest), and thus Monckton is being mendacious in his heralding of the significance of the printing of his 'piece'.

3) If Monckton's science involves clumsy junior high-school triple-dipping, I think that it's entirely within the APS's rights to print it in that form, reviewed or not, to indicate to the world where the deficiencies in the denialists' understanding of AGW lie. And if they do not want anyone to think that they endorse Monckton's 'ideas', even if said ideas were invited for printing, then they are absolutely within their rights to tell people this.

4) Monckton stuffed up completely, three times over. He can hardly expect to be molly-coddled with kid-gloves and sugar-plums after this, even if he is a precious viscount.

Quinto) Anyone who uses 'primo', 'secundo', 'tertio', 'rapporteur' and 'ratio decidendi' in his correspondence to a physics society is probably demonstrating his capacity for classics, but rather less demonstrating his capacity for science...

Yours truly,

The Fivecount Bernard of J.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

Feedback from the Physics & Society editor posted by Monckton on the web does not rise to the level of peer review. Saperstein simply asked Monckton to make his letter accessible to the readers but made no comment on the validity of the arguments.

Shame on SPPI and Mockton for turning this opportunity for dialog into political theater.

By olegt@jhu.edu (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

Monckton says in his letter to Dr. Bienenstock: "an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail".

I wonder if he is referring to Larry Gould, a physics professor at the University of Hartford.

Here are some examples of the nonsense that Larry Gould is spouting on about on AGW. He seems to be an editor of another APS forum Newsletter.

He seems to be s right nutter and dishonest to boot. A merry band of dishonest slimeballs Monckton associates himself with.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

Thanks for the link to Monckton's letter. It sounds like the "peer review" was just some editorial red-line comments to clean up the copy.

Ahh, the oh so precious personal attacks against those who dare to debate.

By all means continue, I'm up in the air about all of this, but reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he's on to something big.

> reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he's on to something big.`

The same 'logic' obviously doesn't apply to Al Gore. Wheee.

1) SPPI is well-known here, and if it consists of much more than Robert Ferguson and a cast of the usual advisers, I'd be surprised. We still aren't sure who funds it, but it certainly is Viscount Monckton's homebase in the US. The Monckton-Schulete-Oreskes brouaha last year often happened here, and is summarized here. if you are not already familiar with the Viscount's style, go ahead and read the 40-pager of mine that Tim references.

2) The FPS is on-line, so one can peruse back issues. I'm really not sure what role it plays, but I find it odd to be publishing detailed technical papers that look like they should be referred papers, but aren't, that seem completely outside the editors' experience. As a group, the papers are a very mixed bag, and it seems a very strange venue in which to debate whether or not climate change is happening. It might be OK as a venue in which to argue about policy.

One can find a paper by Gerald Marsh, which says:

"I will argue that humanity faces a much greater danger from the glaciation associated with the next Ice Age, and that the carbon dioxide increases that we have seen during the past two hundred years are not sufficient to avert such glaciation and its associated disruptions to the biosphere and civilization as we know it."

On the other hand, the April issue has a favorable review of Joe Romm's "Hell and High Water". The July issue has a straightforward AGW article by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz.

OPINION:
Hence, this does not seem to be a denialist newsletter of the Energy & Environment ilk. One might recall Napoleon's words about malice and incompetence. I don't think this is the former, but it might be the latter.

Within large professional organizations, many committees/newsletters are staffed by volunteers, and sometimes can become a bit inbred, and possibly out-of-touch, and if not mainline within the larger organization, may not be watched very carefully. Sometimes a small group of people do this for many years, and that can either be good or bad.

Maybe Joel Shore can comment on the history, but my sense is that we've got a small group of people who've been involved with FPS for years, and it's not clear that a long-established newsletter has adapted to the current world, or that it's clear what its role should be.

But, it is *very* clear that FPS now has the *strong* attention of those who run the APS.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

You think this is just formal, scientific rejection?

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

If that's not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin'.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

If one looks at Monckton letter, page 2:

The reviewer was Co-editor Saperstein.
The words in black are from him, and they include, with [notes by me]:

"Fig. 7 is clear. Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims."

[no, it doesn't]

"Other anthropogenic forcings": What is meant by his? Why are they net-negative?

"Forcing": I don't understand why forcing can't be measured. that shows I don't understand the difference between solar flux incident on top of atmosphere and "forcing",...

"Feedback": I don't know the difference between "forcing" and "feedback". If "forcing" is not just external energy flux, than I would assume it includes "feedback".

[Well, do I need to articulate the level of climate science competence displayed? Of course, the Viscount labels this "peer review", which of course shows what he knows about peer review.]

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

the review was pretty obviously purely editorial. (add labels to graph x)

no physical details were discussed at all.

and the reason for this is obvious: discussing the physics would have lead to the paper NOT passing the "peer review" process. and so not getting published.

i am pretty suprised that Monckton would publish this letter. the complains about his paper would be a shame for most first year students...

---------------

if you are interested in errors in the paper, don t look further than Figure 1:

In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles.

http://tinyurl.com/6ncshu

the arctic sea-ice extent doesn t show a record last winter.

> If that's not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin'.

In spangled drongo's cloud-cuckoo universe, when someone says that something doesn't exist, then that's conclusive proof that the something exists.

Spangled drongo, you wrote, with regard to the APS statement: "If that's not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin'."

Well, I won't comment on your epistemic capabilities, but I will suggest the APS statement is nothing of the sort. I suspect the APS is wisely and responsibly, uh, covering its butt. Methinks that in the days to come you will see a number of physicists and climate scientists blow Monckton's piece to shreds. Tim has fired one of the first salvos, and I suspect there will be more. Gavin Schmidt debunked Monckton's climate sensitivity stuff a year-and-a-half ago (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/)
. . . and he has suggested he might have another go.

Some seem to be gleefully rejoicing in Monckton's piece, suggesting it has upset the entire AGW hypothesis. I fear their glee will be short lived.

Well, let's see, the APS states that Monckton's piece was not peer-reviewed.

This is a true statement.

Spangled Drongo states that this factual, true, statement is "denialism".

Gee, we're convinced!

Ahh, the oh so precious personal attacks against those who dare to debate.
By all means continue, I'm up in the air about all of this, but reading the level of vitriol directed at him, I think in in of itself is evidence he's on to something big.

John, it would help your cause if you would resist the temptation to post this claim which has been used by every denialist movement of every branch of science that has ever existed, AFAICT.

Creationists claim that the fact that scientists are rude to those who claim the earth is 6,000 years old proves that creationists are "on to something", i.e. poor manners by scientists proves that the earth is young.

Stupid, eh?

So, John, hearing this argument that poor manners proves science wrong is not only illogical, but has been repeated to a tiresome degree by people who are equally stupid as you.

For the edification of readers here, I offer the home page of U of Hartford Professor Larry Gould, who happens to be the co-editor of the newsletter of the new England Section of the APS.

1) You can see his views from the web page. A perusal of his C.V. reveals nothing in the way of actual climate science research, but he has clearly discovered Viscount Monckton [who talked at Hartford.]

2) Monckton aficionados may find fruitful reading in the 271-page (that's not a typo) PDF of the Viscount's talk at Hartford.

3) Google: Larry Gould Monckton APS

Larry thinks well of the Viscount's work.

4) I have no data, but I speculate that possibly Gould is the connection between Monckton and the FPS editors. I had been puzzled by that.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

[Well, do I need to articulate the level of climate science competence displayed? Of course, the Viscount labels this "peer review", which of course shows what he knows about peer review.]

i think you are too harsh with the guy who had the pleasure to review this piece of nonsense.

to me, it looks like he did a good job. he gave advice on the most obvious problems, without taking it apart completely.
"i don t understand" in this context means.it is not understandable, from the information that you are giving...

ps, did you notice this gem:

References: Will be needed

so Monckton was adviced that his piece needs references and now calls such advice "peer review"?
could this all turn out to be a practical joke?

re: # 24
oops, that was a typo: it was 371 pages, not 271.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

re: #25
Well, maybe I'm harsh ... but I've edited journal issues, run program committees, refereed papers, and occasionally sent back papers saying "I'm not competent to referee that." I've had to hunt referees who might know something about a topic.

All of that is real basic stuff, which any "distinguished physicist" should be able to do in his sleep.

Practical joke: not a chance. Again, without evidence, I speculate on the connection via Larry Gould, as mentioned above.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

this is from the APS homepage:

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

http://www.aps.org/

so Monckton claims to have been peer reviewd, by a paper that doesn t do peer review..

pretty absurd, eh?

So far the "shredding" is done by a guy who "took a physics course once". Hehehe. My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

Do you all realize that your collective responses are exhibiting the type of panic one would have found in the once fortified medieval castle on the verge of being stormed by the outside hoard.

From a psychology perspective, this is all quite fascinating.

So far the "shredding" is done by a guy who "took a physics course once". Hehehe.

hm. it did take me exactly ZERO physics courses at university, to notice that Monckton got the very first figure wrong!

In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles.

again:

http://tinyurl.com/5t7wqf

there was no record sea-ice extent in the arctic last winter!!!

My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

you might want to teach your cousin the basics, like checking a graph and the captions, once in a while. at least before spreading nonsense. that is, in case that cousin does exist...

Do you all realize that your collective responses are exhibiting the type of panic one would have found in the once fortified medieval castle on the verge of being stormed by the outside hoard.

funny. what panic are you talking about?
the Lord was told, that his piece is considered bullshit. we told him so in advance. no surprise, no panic.
did you read the letter he wrote? now, that sounds like panic to me!!!

"Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community".

Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it's conclusions are well supported scientifically.
If you blokes on this blog don't believe that you're in cloud cuckoo land.
Even Al and Jim aren't interested in debating that.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

it's conclusions are well supported scientifically.

what part of the APS response do you NOT understand?

Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

anon:

> My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring [sic] over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

If you print out Monckton's "scientific paper" and then pour some coffee over it, the results can look quite impressive. Actually, you may get some pretty impressive artwork, by putting coffee stains on a printout of Monckton's piece.

spangled drongo:

> Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it's conclusions are well supported scientifically.

Is it a coincidence you're using the same "even if ..." trick that Monckton's using in his "conclusion"?

Lambert made what appear to me, as a non-physicist, to be valid criticisms of Monckton's arguments. Surely it would be better to discuss them rather than all the other stuff. I have no way of judging the validity of Monckton's physics for myself, but suspect that there could be serious problems with it. If anyone on my side of the debate (the sceptics) has a response to Lambert then I would like to read it.

However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

By Bernard Blyth (not verified) on 19 Jul 2008 #permalink

I'm cross-posting the below Climate Progress comment since Tim didn't cover the Figure 7 issue.

-------------------------------------

I do notice that Saperstein [the editor who reviewed Monckton's piece] seems to step beyond editing, though, in his comment on Figure 7: "Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims."

Here's how Monckton made more of it:

"Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22 Â°C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. If so, then the instability inherent in the IPCC's high-end values for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, implying that the high-end estimates, and by implication the central estimates, for the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks may be substantial exaggerations. Source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese; CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).

"Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested. The implications for climate sensitivity are self-evident. Figure 7 indicates that in the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration was ~25 times that which prevailed in the IPCC's reference year of 1750, the temperature was some 8.5 Â°C higher than it was in 1750. Yet the IPCC's current central estimate is that a mere doubling of CO2 concentration compared with 1750 would increase temperature by almost 40% of the increase that is thought to have arisen in geological times from a 20-fold increase in CO2 concentration (IPCC, 2007)."

But is any of that right?

First of all, there's the small issue of Figure 7 itself. It's from a denialist source and is not peer-reviewed or even produced by a scientist, although it's supposedly constructed from two sources that are. So who knows if it's right, but let's take it a face value. Of those sources, the one showing CO2 levels (GEOCARB III) was still considered current in the AR4, but the Scotese temperature data was not. So even if the construction of Figure 7 is correct, Monckton is attacking a superseded straw man. Worse than that, he's doing something quite dishonest by referencing the AR4 analysis and not being clear that he's comparing it with substantially different data. (See the IPCC's parallel discussion in AR4 WG1 Ch. 6 pp. 440-1, which includes a similar although much more detailed graphic that Monckton could have used instead.)

Had Monckton (or Saperstein) looked at the peer-reviewed literature on this subject, it would have been impossible to miss this recent paper ("Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years") that tied up the last loose ends on deep-time climate sensitivity.

Neither analysis goes back far enough to cover Monckton's example of the Cambrian, though, so let's look at that separately to see if he did it right within his own terms.

First of all he has a graph-reading problem: His 8.5C temp difference is really 10.5C, although he did get the 7000 ppm CO2 number right. So taking the pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppm) and the IPCC central sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling, we need about 4-1/2 doublings to get to 7000 ppm, but the 10.5C is more like 3-1/2. So Monckton is right! Ah, but there has been some legerdemain. He'e taking the IPCC "central" sensitivity rather than considering the entire range. A number around 2.2C (more than the 2.0C bottom of the range) works very nicely, so we can't say the IPCC is at all wrong. But actually Monckton did something much worse -- his 7000 ppm figure has error bars on the order of +/- 4000 ppm! Now we see why the the IPCC and the paper I linked didn't try to do anything with most of the Paleozoic: The errors are just too large to draw meaningful conclusions.

So basically Monckton's whole deep-time analysis was a fraud from top to bottom. He had to have known that, but I suppose it's not clear that Saperstein did.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Lindzen wrote in his paper: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

"...For the models used for Figure 4, we see that a doubling of CO2 leads to surface warming of from about 1.5-3.5Â° K (or C). By contrast, the observed warming over the past century or so amounts to only about 0.6-0.8Â° C (not all of which need be due to increased greenhouse gases). On the face of it, this would seem to confirm that current models are much too sensitive to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing greenhouse gases. Moreover, we have already shown that such warming actually accounts for only a half or less of the observed warming..."

So the temperature increase measurd is only approx. 1/3 of projections and greenhouse gasses contributed only 1/2 or less.

I understand your critics and the difficulty of seperating effects onto the three parameters. However, a half or less of a third, is only 1/6 of the temperature increase of AGW projections and this is a fundamental point that needs clarification.

Maybe you will also have a look at one of your comments from 2006, which I think is also an error. (last comment in http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php )

My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics...

How, exactly, does this differ from a basic doctorate in physics?

(the obvious conclusion being that you're lying about your cousin, of course!)

However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

Nice. Monckton lies by proclaiming that his paper was peer-reviewed and appeared in a prestigious, learned journal - both lies.

And the problem is the response by the APS?

John M., I think Gould is at least part of the answer. It seemed clear enough when I first saw his materials last year that he was engaged in some sort of campaign within APS. I think we now know one target of that campaign.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Manfred:

1) We're only about 40% of the way to the initial doubling.

2) There's a big lag (mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans).

You can read up on this stuff.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Also, Manfred, is there any particular reason you assign godlike correctness to a single, non-reviewed, paper by one researcher over a consensus reached by a very large number of researchers all attacking the problem in different ways?

Have you asked yourself why Lindzen didn't make the two points made by Steve Bloom above? Do you see how doing so is terribly misleading and an outright misrepresentation of what climate science tells us?

Of course, it's possible that he mentions these facts later and that it's YOU who is quote-mining and therefore YOU, not Lindzen, is the dishonest party.

But somewhere, somehow, dishonesty lies at the foundation of the snippet you've posted.

Whether the paper is right or wrong in scientific detail, it's conclusions are well supported scientifically. If you blokes on this blog don't believe that you're in cloud cuckoo land.

Um, if the paper is wrong in scientific detail, exactly how can it's "conclusions [be] well supported scientifically"?

Spangled drongo, Monckton is wrong, beyond wrong, and your thrashing attempts to prop him up are just an embarrassment to the denialist cause.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

However the critics of Monckton are on shaky ground when they support the way APS reacted to his article. It is possible to behave properly and conduct a debate with courtesy. Truth is not help by bad manners.

the APS reply became necessary, when countless denilaist blogs were making the claim, that APS changed their position on the subject.

those posting such nonsense decided to ignore all evidence, that this was a false claim.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-posi…

it took a DISCLAIMER IN RED, to make them understand...

anon posts:

My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

What did he pour over it? I'd use molasses, myself.

In addition to Monckton's Figure 7 fiddling, discussed by Steve Bloom in post #36, I am curious about what the total solar output would have been at the time of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppm, and how this would relate to the understanding of warming sensitivity to CO2.

Any of the physics/climate folk here able to answer off the cuff?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

I'd just like to point out that I was discussing Monckton's incompetence in climatology long before it was fashionable:

BPL on Monckton

Readers will note that I make one error in my essay, conflating the Wegman report with the NAS report.

Lindzen's comment is also wrong because he is assuming CO2-temperature is a simple linear relationship, with no other factors applying. There are other forcings out there, including aerosols, which caused temporary cooling in the '40s. Thus trying to determine Earth's CO2 temperature sensitivity by simply comparing the increase in CO2 with the rise in temperature are simplistic and misleading.

This all reminds me very much of the "State Climatologist" scam that Michaels concocted in the USA to gain credibility.

Simple question for all the "unbiased scientific" minds here.

Has the temperature of the earth, as a means measured by the IPCC in its initial and subsequent referenced reports, increased or decreased as the amount of CO2 has increased, especially in the last decade say?

Yes or no?

Thanks,
Glenn

especially in the last decade say?

Oops, the denialist #1 cherry pick, the 1998 El NiÃ±o event.

Man, are you guys ever going to get tired of our rubbing your nose in the 2008 La NiÃ±a low temp phase when the next El NiÃ±o comes along and blows the roof off the temp records.

"Look it's warming 3.21x as fast as IPCC projections, with a 95% confidence level!".

Won't it be fun to watch y'all squeal?

The internets haz long memories ...

OK, now it's time to ask the question:

Who Will Monckton Threaten To Sue Now?

Will the 50,000-strong APS finally join the Club of Illustrious Folks Whom Monckton Have Threatened To Sue?

On the other side... will the APS be suing Monckton? Or Milloy? Or Watts, who's still writing nonsense? Perhaps it should -- and we'll see if garbage is a good defence to defamation.

Not a denialist. I believe in climate change, I am just skeptical at the means some proponents of global warming/cooling use to infer their prejudice. I asked the question because none of the global atmospheric and tropospheric temperature measurements I find are definitive. One supports global warming, another disputes it. Who/what to believe?

Your response is typical of why many who are looking for answers get tired of the partisanship in the debate. Your attempt to silence my questions by calling me a denialist, like in holocaust denier, is futile.

I'll keep being a skeptic for now and luckily I am young enough to call bullsh!t on you and other like thinkers or give you the credit for being correct. Internet, long memory indeed. I look forward to the next 50 years or so, time will tell. Agree?

Cheers,
Glenn

For clarification, I used the last decade as a time reference because most people can reflect on that mount of time period and have, in basic terms at least, some recollection of the amount of global economic growth and the consequential of CO2 added to the atmosphere because of such.

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

Glenn

The internets haz long memories ...

He he he.

Man, are you guys ever going to get tired of our rubbing your nose in the 2008 La NiÃ±a low temp phase when the next El NiÃ±o comes along and blows the roof off the temp records.

Yes, it constantly amazes me how completely oblivious many of these folk are to the longer term logical consequences of their statements. I am patiently waiting for Andrew Bolt to conveniently try to dismiss the next round of record temps as 'too short a time period to reliably determine a temp trend'. I want to see his head explode from the inconsistency.

Tim.

I don't agree with Moncktons arguments. However, your post perhaps gets one thing wrong and you need to correct it.

In your post you claim that Monckton cites McKitrick and that
LONG before the McKitrick article that Monckton cites.

IN short. Monckton sites McKitrick 2007, and you link
to a criticism you wrote of an early McKitrick paper.

Anyone can go read the Monckton paper, see that he cites a 2007 paper by McKitrick. Then they can hit your link where you claim that Ross is wrong.

http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

and find out that there is an interesting question.

How exactly does your post in 2004 show that McKitricks 2007 paper is wrong.

Now, I have no opinion on Ross's 2007 paper. I thought it interesting. However, When Monckton cites the 2007 paper
and you debunk him by pointing to an earlier McKitrick paper, Then I think you need to learn some V&V.

By steven mosher (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

For clarification, I used the last decade as a time reference because most people can reflect on that mount of time period

No, it is because only by cherry picking 1998 as your starting point, and ignoring the rules of statistics, can you even attempt to claim that the warming trend has stopped.

But you are still wrong.

OK, now it's time to ask the question:

Who Will Monckton Threaten To Sue Now?

It might even be me, for defamation. Um, I might have referred to him as the 'Viscantcount' over at Marohasy's parody of debate and discussion on the issue.

"Bernard J.

Please enrol yourself in a remedial English class.

I have no intention of rebutting Tim Lambert's criticisms of Monckton's article - (why did you not state this exclicity [sic] in your post above, rather then [sic] weasel it in by referecence [sic] to a url)"

because he could not tell from my question:

"Can you address the serious deficiencies in Monckton's piece, dissected in detail at the link above that Nexus 6 posted on July 20, 2008 05:11pm?" (where Nexus 6 had said: "Tim Lambert spotted the glaring hole(s) in Monckton's diatribe", followed by a link to this thread)

nor from my invitation several sentences later:

you merely have to address and rebutt the content of the many critiques of Monckton on the Deltoid link

to which site I was referring.

I think Louis only follows his nose to where he wants to go, and not to where he'll find the truth...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Glenn, of #55; the trend over the last ten years has been for warming. You can check this with a regression over HadCRUT3v, or GISS, or other temperature records. It comes to about 0.5C per century in the HadCRUT3v dataset, and 1.5C per century in the GISS dataset. That's a slow down of the trend; but that's normal. There's no expectation of a rock steady trend. The variation in those trends sounds a lot, but over such a short time period its not really that exceptional.

I guess Louis will sue me too, for my reference to him as 'Hissinkfit'...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Steve Bloom:
1) We're only about 40% of the way to the initial doubling.

2) There's a big lag (mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans).

1) Lindzen wrote this to reason an upper limit of only 1/3 of the temperature increase projected by the IPCC. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
And this was before the steep cooling during last year and (I suppose) on the basis of the highly questionable data set of Hansen's temperature measurements and "adjustments":

"...We see that the trend in the troposphere does have a relative maximum near 300 hPa of about .1Â° C per decade, and judging from the results in Figure 5, this should
be associated with a surface trend of between 0.033 and somewhat less than 0.05Â° per decade. Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for
Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4Â° over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate. Greenhouse warming must appear in the neighborhood of 300 hPa, but warming at 300 hPa does not have to be greenhouse warming..."

2) How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it's cool phase?

Your attempt to silence my questions by calling me a denialist, like in holocaust denier, is futile.

He trots out one of the crown jewels of the denialist attempts to deflect the argument from science then claims he's not a denialist.

They used to have better liars on their side, man, the quality is down substantially.

How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it's cool phase?

The CO2 isn't going away, therefore will continue to be a warming forcing as the oceans themselves. The physics aren't that the oceans will contribute to future warming - it's that they'll do less cooling.

when they are actually cooling ...

And this is very much a matter of debate. Why do *you* think the oceans continue to rise if they're cooling?

Duae #60, thanks.

The rest LOL. I almost bookmarked this site. I'll keep looking though. Buh bye.

Duae of #60. Can you help illuminate why there is 3X factor in the regressed temperature increases as derived from the HadCRUT3v and GISS datasets respectively? It is concerning that these two datasets are so far apart in the results that are coming from the stat analysis. Is this not a reason to be concerned with the conclusions of the analytical methods used or even the datasets themselves?

Deltoid obliquely references a Sherwood etal (via Realclimate) that pretends to install the necessary tropical tropisphere warming by assigning a hidden heat signature derived from windspeed. Is that standard climate science? The rest of us talk about wind chill factors, this might be the first time I've seen wind heat factors.
Because I'm wondering if Neptune, with it's 800 mile per hour prevailing winds, might be habitable.
Hell it might be applicable here on Earth too. The wind whips around pretty fast down in Antarctica. Maybe those people down in MacMurdo will need to be issued sunscreen and t-shirts.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

anon wrote:

So far the "shredding" is done by a guy who "took a physics course once". Hehehe.

Let's see... In your world, Tim is not qualified to judge Monckton's article because, in your opinion, he lacks sufficient educational background in physics. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to trouble you at all that Monckton has no significant formal training in physics. Do you realize how incredibly foolish this double standard makes you appear? And in the future, can you at least post one sensible sentence before you disgrace yourself with an idiotic comment?

By cyrus pinkerton (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Maybe when the Sherwood correction is applied Chicago becomes the warmest city in America. Mount Washington is only pretending to be the coldest point in the contiguous states, but when you factor in the wind...
Drink plenty of water and watch for heat stroke. Heh

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

The rest of us talk about wind chill factors, this might be the first time I've seen wind heat factors.

Some of us understand the difference between wind chill (an effect of wind) vs. what causes wind (energy, as in heat from the sun, plus earth's rotational speed).

I don't supposed you're the least bit embarrassed by how stupid your clever little post was, are you?

And, Duprez, don't forget that error bars are larger for shorter-term analysis, and 10 years is only 1/3 of the 30-year period that's standard in climatology. That number isn't simply pulled out of one's statistical ass, it falls out of the analysis of what's necessary to tease out signal from noise.

dhogaza
So you're telling me that Mount Washington is really cold because it magicly converts all of that monsterous heat into wind power? Gotta stick with your lie. lol
Ride that horse man. Yehaw
Don't let it buck.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

dhogaza of #70 - Thank you for your reply. My name is Daprez, not Duprez. You suggest that the reason for 3X factor in difference in values that Duae mentions is from larger error bounds resulting from differences in the analysis period. I never implied it was "pull out of one's statistical ass" so I have to wonder why you are so defensive. I can see how that can occur if it is truly the case. Can any provide some links to references verifying this? Duae did not give the 0.5 and 1.5 trend numbers with associated error bounds and include the differentials of the analytical periods. I would be interested in what a comparable time period analysis of these two data sets yields for trend values, with error bounds bounds of course.

James Mayeau,

Wind chill is an effect of the latent heat of evaporation. It is what makes a swamp cooler work, and how certain large hairless primates control their body temperature. For objects that don't have this characteristic, blowing air against them actually makes them warmer.

Consider a hot summer day in Chicago when the relative humidity is 100%. Standing under a fan is no help. Except maybe you can fool your brain into thinking it's cooling you off.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

I never implied it was "pull out of one's statistical ass" so I have to wonder why you are so defensive.

I think you misread, I said that the 30 year period isn't simply pulled out of one's statistical ass, but falls out of the analysis due to the relatively weak signal to noise ratio in the earth's climate. I wasn't referring to you when I said that, but referring to where that number comes from.

1. I don't consider the phrase offensive

2. I wasn't claiming that *you* believed it, but was stating it because denialists claim 30 years is essentially a made-up number, so I was just saving time, 'cause there appear to be plenty of denialist parrots here and someone's bound to make the claim.

LB, Mayeau's gotta be a troll. Not even someone who rots their brain at places like freerepublic or wattsupwiththat can be THIS dumb.

James, would you mind telling us what you think supplies the energy for winds to blow?

Daprez,

The short answer is that gistemp includes more northern latitude data than Hadcru.

For the last ten years, specifically, that means that the ENSO signal, which has a strong effect on mid-latitude temperatures, but not so much above the Arctic Circle, is slightly more exaggerated in the Hadley data.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

The term "denialist" is pejorative as well as cliche. It utterly diminishes points made when used in discourses on climate change. It establishes the user of the term as lacking objectivity and clearly identifies the defensive nature of the user towards anyone with any questions that are not in line with the groupthink consensus viewpoint regarding climate change.

Luminous Beauty of #77 - Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure I would agree with summary point of 3x factor and 1.0 degree difference being "slighty more exaggerated." If we are trying to determine the effect of increase C02 and reporting values in ranges of 1.5 to 3.0 degrees, associated analytical results with variance of 1.0 degree is anything but slight.

Steven Mosher, you're right Monckton wasn't citing Mckitrick's 2004 paper rather than his 2007 one, which oddly enough comes up with the same "correction" factor as the 2004 one with the degrees/radian screw up. I still think the association is spurious for the other reason given in my 2004 post, but in any case Monckton is wrong, since McKitrick's "correction" is for land-based temperatures and Monckton wrongly applies it to the globe (which is mostly water).

Daprez, that is a 1 degree difference in the trend per century. 0.1 / decade, 0.01/year. Pick your period to get the large or small number you want in the trend. In any case, the trends are not statistically different over that short time period.

The actual difference in reported deltas in the temperature anomalies is small, and is of a sign consistent with the fact that GISS includes the arctic amplification, and the other products are a bit more sensitive to ENSO because they don't include high latitude surface area.

dhogaza,

No doubt Mayeau is a troll.

Ignorant as dirt about physics? Obviously.

Dumb?

If he comes back with a retort that indicates he has a learning curve that is essentially flat, we may plausibly conclude that he is dumber than dirt.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Steven Mosher, you're right Monckton wasn't citing Mckitrick's 2004 paper rather than his 2007 one, which oddly enough comes up with the same "correction" factor as the 2004 one with the degrees/radian screw up. I still think the association is spurious for the other reason given in my 2004 post, but in any case Monckton is wrong, since McKitrick's "correction" is for land-based temperatures and Monckton wrongly applies it to the globe (which is mostly water).

If that's not crude, rude denialism, I dunno nuthin'."

ah, the long elusive consensus is finally attained.

Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppmv has been estimated by a number of methods, and it is very hard to argue on physical or observational grounds that it is lower than 1.5K or higher than 4.5K.

An excellent summary of the evidence was given by Stephan Rahmstorf as one chapter of the book Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, edited by Ernesto Zedillo. Rahmstorf's chapter is a refutation of another chapter by Richard Lindzen, who thinks sensitivity may be only 0.5K. Lindzen felt very roughly used by Rahmstorf (which he was), and posted a response to Rahmstorf's refutation. You can find the whole thing here, with Rahmstorf's chapter as the meat in the sandwich.
For me, the choicest two bits from Lindzen were his account of the Barton hearing as it transpired in Bizarro-world:

Both the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union protested Barton's request. One need not go into the merits of this controversy to see that the response of professional organizations sends a chilling message. Only the defenders of the orthodoxy will be defended against intimidation.

and his mention of

hundreds of peer reviewed papers that document the medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Optimum, as it was referred to before it became fashionable to fear warmth).

And remember -- Lindzen is the most respected of this bunch.

My betters are patiently explaining to me how wind works.
You can't imagine how much I appreciate that.
Mount Washington would be warm and toasty with outdoor swimming pools and such, if only we could get the wind to stop blowing. Wind is masking the climate change.
Boy if that jet stream ever stops, we will be hit with some double plus ungood hotness.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

One problem is still niggling at my brain. If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun?
Help me out Luminous beauty. I'm stuck in a quandry.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

James -- did you ever notice how your betters try explaining stuff to you for a while, then give up? That's because they were overwhelmed by the force of your logic.

Did James here just try to argue that winds are not related to heat?

Excuse me while I recover from my astonishment...

James,

What is the purpose of your public displays of ignorance?

By Cyrus Pinkerton (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Posted by: James Mayeau | July 20, 2008 3:52 PM
Posted by: James Mayeau | July 20, 2008 3:58 PM

quod erat demonstrandum

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun?

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

Yeah, you're right, it's obvious, it's because Venus is further from the Sun than Earth.

Dolt.

if every man, woman, and child, were deleted from the planet, along with their space heaters,cars,trucks,air conditioners,coalplants,movie studios,beach bonfires,planes,trains and cow farts, leaving only one scientist on the planet to read the co2 gauge, the co2 readings would still be going up due to ocean outgassing, animal respiration, and bacterial decomposition.

OK, Mayeau, if the ocean's outgassing sufficient CO2 to increase concentrations in the atmosphere ...

1. Why is it outgassing more than it absorbs?

2. What is causing oceans to acidify?

This should be fun....

Hi Dparez, #66,

I don't have any detailed insight to to differences between GISS and HadCRUT3v temperature products; but I've downloaded these and others to play with myself for a while now.

The real difference between the datasets is comparatively small, and within their respective error bars. They have a similar shape, picking up the same rises and falls, but not always the same precise values. When you take a regression line over a short period, a difference in slope is not that surprising to me.

I'd also be interested in reasons for differences; especially in the last year. But I don't think it is actually all that significant. A longer regression gives a pretty close match in slopes.

Duae #94,
Thank you very much for your reply. Can you post a link to both these datasets? I would like to explore them.

Re #62: Manfred, there's a reason Lindzen can't get stuff like that published in the legitimate literature. If you really care about the answer, go to the AR4 and see how the calculation is supposed to be done.

You also said: "How can the suggested thermal inertia of oceans contribute to future warming, when they are actually cooling and PDA switching to it's cool phase?"

Yeah, it's great how with some models you can just change the sleeve color to stay in style. :) Seriously, your question makes it clear that you don't understand what the PDO is. There are a lot of claims on the web to the effect that it's some sort of climate driver, but if you look at the literature you'll see that there is no basis for such claims.

You also completely misunderstand the thermal inertia concept. It's the amount of warming the oceans have to do to catch up with the forcing that's already been added to the clinate system. This takes a long time since the deep oceans are pretty isolated from the atmosphere and ocean mixing layer. You would find it helpful to look up the difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity.

Regarding the cooling, bear in mind that we only have measurements for the upper oceans, and that those have become comprehensive only recently. It is not settled that even the measured part of the ocean is cooling (or more to the point failing to warm at the expected rate). We should have a much better idea of what's going on in the ocean in a few years when there has been an opportunity to integrate sufficient gravity and altimetric data from satellites with the ARGO data. This combination will allow conclusions to be drawn without having to directly measure deep ocean temperatures.

Re #79: Daprez, your rhetoric ("associated analytical results" -- what pray tell, did the word "analytical" add to that phrase?) and lack of any citation for your claims leads me to think you're blowing smoke.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

Here you can also check out the the email from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Arthur Bienenstock.

Btw, someone mention realclimate.org -- why would anyone bring up a Web site that is own by Michael Mann whose hockey stick theory has been thoroughly debunked.

When reality comes crashing on your heads, where will you people find work? Politicians will just blame the scienctists, but what will be your excuse.

Are you sure you are not fighting for your lives, rather than for the planet, cause your credibility has taken a big hit. And continues to do so, everyday.

I'm just a carpenter, but I don't walk on water -- no need to really as the sea levels will rise the same for the last few centuries and as they will continue do so long after I'm gone. Sorry folks, no el-Gorish sea level panic will happen. Nn el-Gorish MMGW is coming, nor is it here.

Let me predict the future on my own climate models --no data mining here-- sunny and warm for the next few days, clouds rolling in for the weekend with a slight chance of precipitation.

Cheers folks.

Re #45: "I am curious about what the total solar output would have been at the time of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppm, and how this would relate to the understanding of warming sensitivity to CO2."

Bernard, the Sun will range from about 75% to 135% of current irradiance during its time on the main sequence, so iradiance during the Cambrian would have been on the order of 3% less than at present. Between the fact that we're talking about a quite different planet at that time (IIRC it's not even clear that climate sensitivity would have been the same) and the very large error bars on the data, I don't think any firm conclusions have been drawn from looking at the early Phanerozoic alone. I think all that can really be done at this point is to determine whether there's anything about that early climate that's inconsistent with what we've learned from looking at the Ordovician forward. There could be more recent results I don't know about, so to be sure or if you want more you should do a search of the literature (which shouldn't take long given this subject matter). The Wikipedia paleoclimate article would also be a good place to look since it's kept fairly up to date.

While I'm on the subject I should mention that the pre-Phanerozoic "snowball earth" is getting quite a bit of research attention.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Tim.

Then we are largely agreed. You got it wrong by fumbling the citation. A mistake I would fail a freshmen english student for. Monckton gets the math wrong, arguably a less stupid mistake, by mistaking the land record for the global record.
You get an F, he get's a D. As for Ross's work, I would say you havent shown anything, except an error in an old a paper.
You've asserted that the two results are similiar. but given your aforemention citation ineptitude, I'm less than inclined to pay any mind to your assertions. Ross, has published his data and his code. Go, ahead, make my day.

By Steven Mosher (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

Comment #94 requested links to datasets...

There is one heck of a lot of data online for people who want to try looking at things for themselves. Surface temperature data comes in various forms. The basic underlying datasets are huge; they give monthly anomalies distributed as a grid over the whole globe. The time series data, which is what you usually see being plotted, are actually "diagnostics" of the full data sets; and to start with you are best to look at those. You can get monthly, or annual data.

My fave. The HadCRUT3 datasets (can also get CRUTEM3 for land only and HadSST2 for sea surface only) at the Hadley Centre in the UK. See HadCRUT3. Reading the associated reference is a good idea, but technical. Here is a useful diagnostics subpage, with ready access to the annual and monthly timeseries: nh+sh HadCRUT3 diagnostic timeseries.

Very well known in the USA is the NASA GISS products. (This is James' Hansen's group.) The main page is GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, and you can find links down near the bottom to ascii tables of time series data. A bit of work will allow both to be put into one spreadsheet to compare for yourself and run your own regressions... which is what I have done.

There are more datasets around, but these are two of the best known.

Steven Mosher:

You got it wrong by fumbling the citation. A mistake I would fail a freshmen english student for. Monckton gets the math wrong, arguably a less stupid mistake, by mistaking the land record for the global record. You get an F, he get's a D.

And you get an F for poor punctuation: "get's" [sic].

In science the hierarchy of correctness is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webler, Webler, Webler...

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

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

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

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

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

By James Haughton (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me predict the future on my own climate models --no data mining here-- sunny and warm for the next few days, clouds rolling in for the weekend with a slight chance of precipitation and the same for the next 6 months. ;-)

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

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

No smoking hot spot

Ciao to the misguided, but friendly folks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Brother Rat (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

> No smoking hot spot

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

By John Hollenberg (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://skepticalscience.com/

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

By John Hollenberg (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

Strawman. Are you just pig ignorant or maliciously lying?

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

I'll bet Cray has been laughing all the way to the bank...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

Idiot.

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

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

Oh, but wait:

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

Science Magazine ...

Oh, I assume he means that Motls and McIntyre have "peer-reviewed" it on their blogs ...

James Mayeau.

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jul 2008 #permalink

http://skepticalscience.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these "skeptic" scientists are dead." -- James Hansen, 2006 : talking about achieving consesnus

Koyoto is "the first component of an authentic global governance." -- Jacques Chirac, The Hague, 2000

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

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

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

Thanks to y'all.

Cheerio!

Luminous Beauty wrote

quote Wind chill is an effect of the latent heat of evaporation. It is what makes a swamp cooler work, and how certain large hairless primates control their body temperature. For objects that don't have this characteristic, blowing air against them actually makes them warmer. unquote

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

JF

Webler says:

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

Blah blah blah...

[KillFile]

Glenn writes:

For clarification, I used the last decade as a time reference because most people can reflect on that mount of time period and have, in basic terms at least, some recollection of the amount of global economic growth and the consequential of CO2 added to the atmosphere because of such.

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

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

Why Tim Ball is Wrong

Why Tilo Reber is Wrong

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

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

Daprez writes:

Duae did not give the 0.5 and 1.5 trend numbers with associated error bounds and include the differentials of the analytical periods. I would be interested in what a comparable time period analysis of these two data sets yields for trend values, with error bounds bounds of course.

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

James Mayeau posts:

One problem is still niggling at my brain. If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun? Help me out Luminous beauty. I'm stuck in a quandry.

"Quandary."

Windspeed doesn't increase with distance from the sun. Wind speeds are high on Neptune because Neptune is internally heated from tidal friction from its largest satellite, Triton, as I demonstrated in a paper in 1989. All the giant planets except Uranus have significant internal heat sources, though their nature is different. On Jupiter, contraction is still generating heat; on Saturn, contraction plus the phenomenon of "helium rainout" is responsible.

Your contention that wind is not caused by heating an atmosphere is unique in the annals of climate and planetary science. What do you think does cause wind?

Webler posts:

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

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

Tamino's Open Mind Blog

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

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

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

What makes you think we'll need an excuse?

Are you sure you are not fighting for your lives, rather than for the planet, cause your credibility has taken a big hit. And continues to do so, everyday.

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

I'm just a carpenter,

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

but I don't walk on water -- no need to really as the sea levels will rise the same for the last few centuries and as they will continue do so long after I'm gone. Sorry folks, no el-Gorish sea level panic will happen. Nn el-Gorish MMGW is coming, nor is it here.

Scientists seem to disagree with you.

"where the deficiencies in the denialists' understanding of AGW lie."

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

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

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

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

By Brian Macker (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Chip posts:

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

So far, they're not.

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

The models didn't predict the current cooling,

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

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

There has been significant warming in the troposphere.

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

Maybe because that cooling isn't well established yet?

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

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

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

2) Carbon dioxide is increasing

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

Which of those three do you dispute?

Brother Rat writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the "consensus" of the world's eminent scientists has reduced Climate Change to the single variable of CO2 concentration...

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

Webler posts an especially stupid couple of denialist tropes:

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

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

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

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

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

Your contention that wind is not caused by heating an atmosphere is unique in the annals of climate and planetary science. What do you think does cause wind?

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

By James Haughton (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

"They correctly predicted the magnitude of the temperature increase."

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

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

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

"There has been significant warming in the troposphere."

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

"Maybe because that cooling isn't well established yet?"

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

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

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

2) Carbon dioxide is increasing

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

Which of those three do you dispute?"

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

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

Blah blah blah...

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

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

I would kindly suggest you by-pass my posts...

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

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

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

Tamino's Open Mind Blog

Webler posts: Sure it has. The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion -- that Mann's methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

=========

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

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

Webler posts: I don't think so, unless you can turn this charade around to your advantage I think many of you will be will be looking for work in a new field.

=========

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

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

Webler posts: Science is on your side.

========

Webler posts: Are you sure you are not fighting for your lives, rather than for the planet, cause your credibility has taken a big hit. And continues to do so, everyday.

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

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

=========

Webler posts: I'm just a carpenter,

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

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

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

==========

Webler posts: but I don't walk on water -- no need to really as the sea levels will rise the same for the last few centuries and as they will continue do so long after I'm gone. Sorry folks, no el-Gorish sea level panic will happen. Nn el-Gorish MMGW is coming, nor is it here.

Levenson posts: Scientists seem to disagree with you.

Hardly.

Webler:

You sound like a character from a Charlie Brown special.

Is that where you get your scientific education from?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion -- that Mann's methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, but you didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our carpenter seems to be suffering from a similar delusion.

Ha! Right on cue!

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

I couldn't've planned that better if I'd ...

planned it!

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

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

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

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

=========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call Poe's Law.

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

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

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

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

Yet Al Gore leads by this example.

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

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

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

Webler,

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

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Number 144

Not very original of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm, scientists who masquerade as hoodlums.

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

I am unwilling to pat you on the pack.

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

Barton,

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

dhogaza posts: Ha! Right on cue!

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

It is a known fact. You fear what you can't control. Kinda like you fear the weather -- oops, or is that climate. ;)

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

Webler,

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

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

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

That's a fact.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

You global warning scientists should be a little nicer -- in a few years time you may be asking me for work. :)

Nah. Too busy preparing their Nuremberg testimony.

Here's to hoping this blog keeps IP numbers :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would think so.

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

Anyone seeing a pattern here is delusional.

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

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

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

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

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

They didn't.

When did Webler quit beating his wife?

He didn't.

Internet war won!

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

Rhetorical because it isn't true?

Not the foundation of AGW either.

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

dhogaza posts: They didn't.

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

dhogaza posts: When did Webler quit beating his wife?

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers folks

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

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

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

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

Trolls:

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

Webler,

Here is a copy of the latest IPCC paleoreconstruction graph. Note: first listed study is MBH99.

Now, the only question I have for you is: Are you lying intentionally or just ignorantly repeating the lies of others?

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By John Hollenberg (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

"Yet dhogaza can't prove the carpenter wrong, much less his peers who totally disagree with dhogaza."

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

By Sock Puppet of… (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

Someone's lying, because academia doesn't say "it is CO2 and nothing else".

Tch tch - you've been caught out in your first few words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. CO2 physics is wrong.

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

Hello Guthrie,

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

I had a professor who shot some of my ideas down. He was a solar physicist and a pretty good one. He commented that the solar input in a matter of days was greater than the total amount of energy we burn in a year.

So from that point I became a skeptic.

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

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

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

Hey Webler- you might like to reconsider what you have been told by some people. Can they be trusted when they lie to you?
After all, if you go to chapter 6, on paleoclimate, on the latest IPCC report, pages 467 and 468, you'll find a host of hockey sticks.
It would be good if you had a look and came back to us with your comments.

I had a professor who shot some of my ideas down. He was a solar physicist and a pretty good one. He commented that the solar input in a matter of days was greater than the total amount of energy we burn in a year.

So from that point I became a skeptic.

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

You must be a troll.

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

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

Wow.

I think the Webler furball is an excellent demonstration of why you should never wrestle with a pig.

Please do not feed the troll.

Regards
Luke

By Luke Silburn (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Hello Dhogaza,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"CO2 physics is wrong."

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

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

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

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

Hey again Daprez, #72.

You asked: "Duae did not give the 0.5 and 1.5 trend numbers with associated error bounds and include the differentials of the analytical periods. I would be interested in what a comparable time period analysis of these two data sets yields for trend values, with error bounds bounds of course."

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

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

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

0.181 (0.094) GISS

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

0.145 (-0.38) GISS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further...

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

Dave,

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

Well, duh.

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

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

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

Maybe you misunderstood him.

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

IMHO, since APS invited the article, it would have been nice if they had more seriously reviewed it before posting it. It seems somewhat unfair to have invited a non-peer-reviewed paper, and then posted it, and then subsequently prepended a red "not peer-reviewed" disclaimer to it.

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

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

IMHO, since APS invited the article, it would have been nice if they had more seriously reviewed it before posting it. It seems somewhat unfair to have invited a non-peer-reviewed paper, and then posted it, and then subsequently prepended a red "not peer-reviewed" disclaimer to it.

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

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

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

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

"Tim, you skimmed the paper, but you didn't understand it. I can see from the comments that not many of your reader understood it either.
...
2) The laboratory measurements (forcing fingerprints at the tropics) have not been confirmed with any measurements"

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

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

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

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

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

Webler posts:

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

Bernard J. posts:

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

therefore

Bernard J. posits:

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Ahem. Missed a "not" in that last sentence.

I don't think any of it would have been an issue had the denialists not jumped all over it as though it were official APS material.

Where are the damn APS editors when you need them?

Luminous Beauty,

"James Mayeau, Wind chill is an effect of the latent heat of evaporation."

Wrong. Try again. Wind chill works by blowing away the insulative layer of air that surrounds a body. Natural convection due to the body heating (or cooling) the surrounding air just doesn't move the air as fast so it acts as an insulator. Wind tears that layer away. The exact reverse effect happens with hot air blowing on an object. That's why convection ovens cook food faster. Convection ovens don't use "convection" they use forced air.

"Ignorant as dirt about physics? Obviously. Dumb?"

See now that you've made a mistake about physics maybe your ponder being more polite in the future.

Dhogaza,
"I mentioned another, energy imparted by the rotation of whichever planet you wish to discuss."

Well since wind is relative to the body in question how does it impart energy into it's atmosphere? What with still air being still relative to the thing that's suppose to be pushing it around.

Seems like somebody else doesn't fully grasp their physics while insulting the intelligence of others.

I know why wind speeds are much higher on other planets. Denser atmospheres allow for potentially higher pressure gradients for one thing. Nothing to do with total heat.

Now I understand that a lot of the others making mistakes but at least they are not compounding them by calling the others idiots.

Of course, I expect no less from anonymous cowards.

By Brian Macker (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

By John Mashey (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Hello folks, I'm back again to check out the rantings of some of the posters here. I'm not sure why some of them are rude, but I guess it is their nature when challenged by commonsense.

I see I have a few questions to answer, so let get my coffee and we shall continue.

And if you feel you need to be rude, be my guest. It just shows you are lacking in other areas of your life when --someone-- doesn't agree with you.

@ Tim Lambert, as this is your site I'm surprised that you are agreeing that there are trolls here. It is my understanding that many of the posters here have been posting for months.

Webler posted: You global warning scientists should be a little nicer -- in a few years time you may be asking me for work. :)

GP posted: Nah. Too busy preparing their Nuremberg testimony. Here's to hoping this blog keeps IP numbers :)

Webler posted: Kudos to GP, I didn't see this the first time around. Funny stuff and best line of the thread so far.

IMHO, since APS invited the article, it would have been nice if they had more seriously reviewed it before posting it. It seems somewhat unfair to have invited a non-peer-reviewed paper, and then posted it, and then subsequently prepended a red "not peer-reviewed" disclaimer to it.

Monckton himself has claimed that he's published a "major, peer-reviewed paper in an APS Journal mathematically proving that AGW is not a problem ..."

And you're suggesting the APS should not publish a disclaimer pointing out that the solicited OPINION PIECE is 1) not a "paper" 2) not "peer reviewed" 3) not published in an APS Journal?

You are seriously suggesting the APS is wrong to correct Monckton's lies?

Seems like somebody else doesn't fully grasp their physics while insulting the intelligence of others.

At least you're not claiming that it's due to distance from the sun, as our carpenter does. Will you at least agree that he's wrong to claim that some magical quality of distance to the sun is NOT the driver of wind on various planets in the solar system.

I admit to having been in error. As it turns out, you are, too. Someone above pointed out the energy source - planetary heat - for neptune, for instance. It appears that heat indeed is the reason.

Here, for instance, is an interesting abstract regarding Jupiter:

Meteorologists have long wondered whether solar energy or heat energy from within the planet predominates in driving Jupiter's powerful weather engine. In two papers in this week's issue of Nature, researchers provide an answer: Deep heat funneled upward by local storms is a major driver of jovian weather. They show that much if not all of the deep heat escaping the interior flows up through towering thunderstorms that eventually give up their energy to larger storms such as the Great Red Spot.

Note that there's absolutely no hint of a disagreement over heat being the source of energy. Just WHERE the heat is coming from.

Come to think of it, you do understand that there must be a source of energy for winds to blow, right? Work is being done ...

I know why wind speeds are much higher on other planets. Denser atmospheres allow for potentially higher pressure gradients for one thing. Nothing to do with total heat.

Where are the pressure gradients coming from? What's the energy source for the work done in shoving masses of atmosphere around?

luminous beauty posted: Here is a copy of the latest IPCC paleoreconstruction graph. Note: first listed study is MBH99.

Now, the only question I have for you is: Are you lying intentionally or just ignorantly repeating the lies of others?

Webler posted: Interesting. I say that I'm not interested in anything from RealClimate --I'm looking for objectivity-- and you post an image from RealClimate. Tsk .. tsk. Of course there is only one image, so if someone who didn't trust your motives might be suspicious of your Criss Angel slight-of-hand.

With the amount of posters trying to bury the truth and silence me, you can see why I'm leery of you only posting one image. What is the context?

Lucky for you I have seen the image before. I just don't know why you didn't post the pdf file?

Btw, I still stand by my original comment that when the IPCC 2007 AR4 first came out -- Mann's hockey stick graph was missing.

More on that later.

You have been quite obnoxious to me, one would guess, because I challenge your closed world. However, there is no need to be rude. I have no interest in being rude back to you as that isn't my style. Plus, I have a feeling you are just a high school person on summer break and I don't want to discourage your foray in the sciences or whatever else your into.

So unless you can learn some netiquette -- I afraid I'm going to have to dismiss you.

So until then -- you are dismissed.

Mr VonDoog posted: To Mr. Webler, I understand your frustration with this poorly kept dialogue.

Webler posted: Yeah, you nailed their attitude with your post. The rabid fanaticism some posters show is beyond the pale. I think that they have so much invested in this major hoax of theirs, that the more the layers that get peeled away, the more vitriol they exhale with every post.

They are scared, they see themselves in the dust bin of history. Perhaps the younger ones might be able to salvage something when the lights get turned back on -- but from what I seen in this forum is pretty much the same as in all global warming alarmist forums.

This is what happens when you start off with a selected conclusion and try to make the facts fit the mold. Anyone who dares challenges them they get quite upset.

Why can you do?

Because the carpenter doesn't know enough to realise when he's been proved wrong.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan

Let me direct the sock puppet of the great Satan to post number 143.

Hey Webler- you might like to reconsider what you have been told by some people. Can they be trusted when they lie to you? After all, if you go to chapter 6, on paleoclimate, on the latest IPCC report, pages 467 and 468, you'll find a host of hockey sticks.
It would be good if you had a look and came back to us with your comments.
Posted by: guthrie

Now here is a another civilized post. Those are rare in this neck of the woods. ;)

Yes, I had a look at the pdf file some time ago, so I know it existed. However, as I mentioned above I still say that all evidence of Mann's hockey graph was erased from it.

It was only after the outcry of Dr Mann, and his minions and all those other alarmists seeing the ball of string beginning to unwind -- that the alarm cry went up.

Many people who thought the global warming cry was completely overrated and saw this as the beginning of the end. Now judging by some of those earlier adages I posted you can see how the IPCC and henchmen had to get the disbelievers under control.

They needed to re-insert a hockey stick graph even though the IPCC knew it was full of holes. The goal was to silent the masses.

Now I have seen the argument that the graph was always there, but I have heard personally from 2 people that had hard copies that, that wasn't the case.

I also notice that this graph features lot less prominent.

As an aside: I noticed how those leaders of the global warming movement were crowing loudly that this was irrefutable proof that we had only 10-20 to live. Now, because it has been debunked, those same people are saying that the graph now means very little.

A strange occurrence indeed. One day you are riding the wave and next you are being crushed by the surf.

To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don't buy it.

Interesting. I say that I'm not interested in anything from RealClimate --I'm looking for objectivity-- and you post an image from RealClimate.

So, our troll rests his claim that the latest IPCC report doesn't include the "hockey stick" nor reference MBH on ...

his unwillingness to look at Real Climate?

This is too funny.

Since our boy started off with (paraphrase): "I'm just a carpenter, and can't walk on water..."

That possible jesus reference makes me wonder if he's just pulling our leg ...

He's too stupid to be true, is my thought.

I think the Webler furball is an excellent demonstration of why you should never wrestle with a pig.
Please do not feed the troll.
Regards Luke
Posted by: Luke Silburn

I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don't believe in everything that is posted here.

As I stated earlier - I'm not sure where it states that I have to agree with everything that all the RealClimate people post.

Post 197 -- you are in the minority. The tables are turning. The commonsense people are starting to wake from their slumber. Many other scientists are starting to speak up. Other organizations are starting to raise their voices.

If you are so sure of your position then why do you global warming people call your peers names when they don't agree with you.

Why don't you challenge them? Have it out in the open. Let the public decide.

Bernard J. posts: Yes, so smart that he can't even muster junior high-school vocabulary.

Another shameful display by those who need to attack the person rather than his truth.

I can't remember if it was the Philosopher Confucius or the Philosopher Anonymous who said -- "Correcting spelling and grammar mistakes on a public forum is the last refuge of knaves."

> Why don't you challenge them? Have it out in the open. Let the public decide.

You do realize that this is the exact same argument that the Intelligent Design people use, right?

By anonymous coward (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

This is just too funny...while Western countries are in a race to bankrupt their economies with GreenHouse Gas Regulations, Ethanol production, obstruction of oil exploration, obstruction of construction of nuclear power plants...the Gulf States are building coal fired power plants...guess the rest of the world will just boycott their product, huh??

And yes, the Debate is far from over despite all of the Huffing and Puffing from dhogaza et al...

> the Gulf States are building coal fired power plants...

Well, that's probably because every time they try to build nuclear power plants, they get bombed by someone.

By anonymous coward (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

re: webler #209
You can find the original of that chart here, under "The Physical Science Basis" part six, "Paleoclimate", on page 467, chart 6.10:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Posted by: anonymous coward

Thanks, anonymous coward, that is the pdf I have. See my post 212 and the reason I say that it was added in after. As stated in that post I have seen the arguments on Web that state that it was always included. But I will have to go by those hard copies.

Nevertheless, thanks.

webler #221:

Who has these hard copies and what are the dates on them?

By anonymous coward (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Well, it has been a fun few days. I probably will drop around again to see the topic articles that are posted. Contrary to what some of you think, I don't argue for the sake of arguing.

No need to start an argument for argument sake. Life's too short to discuss things that I have no interest in.

I always try to preserve the truth. And I never let the majority silence me.

Yippy-Ki-Yay Folks

Postscript. A must read. Gore's (Really) Inconvenient Timing - 'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

I know some of you will love the Web site.

Hmmmm, you can look at the PDF of the IPCC and see the graphs or believe that they were later re-inserted because an anonymous poster here says that someone told him that they had hard copies without them.

Tough call......

Webler: I always try to preserve the truth. And I never let the majority silence me.
Yippy-Ki-Yay Folks
[exits, despite protestations, into broom closet]

Life's too short to discuss things that I have no interest in.

But clearly long enough to "discuss" things you have no knowledge of.

Though I really do think this dude's just a troll having a good time at our expense.

The latest bit about the IPCC inserting the hockey stick after initial publication is quite funny.

Anonymous Coward said:

>Well, that's probably because every time they try to build nuclear power plants, they get bombed by someone

Good attempt at obfuscating the argument...they have like 90% sunlight each day and lots of barren desert to put in solar but why don't they? Because of their economy and their governments are basically autocracies so the Gulf States don't subsidize solar like Eur or USA which makes very uneconomical when compared to coal...do they give a rats ass about any debate on Global Warming? What are you going to do about it? Boycott oil??

The irony here is just too rich...

What do actions by middle east autocracies have to do with the accuracy of climate science?

We *know* governments worldwide have a history of ignoring science when they find its conclusions contradict policy. But this has nothing to do with whether or not scientific conclusion are accurate.

re: weber #223

If I remember correctly, Senator Inhofe's list of scientists included not a single reference to a publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

By anonymous coward (not verified) on 21 Jul 2008 #permalink

Webler:

>They needed to re-insert a hockey stick graph even though the IPCC knew it was full of holes. The goal was to silent the masses.

>Now I have seen the argument that the graph was always there, but I have heard personally from 2 people that had hard copies that, that wasn't the case.

Now **that's** what I call trolling. Other trolls: pay attention. You have to write something so outrageous that folks just *have* to slap you down. And the by the way the hockey stick is [in the draft AR4 report](http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch06_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf).

Webler posts:

Webler posts: Sure it has. The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion -- that Mann's methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

You didn't actually go to the link I provided, did you? All that you say above is crap. The NAS report concluded that while Mann's statistical procedure may not have been the best (it was the first paper of its kind), it was not wrong and it came to the right conclusion -- as have at least 14 similar papers since. Your accusing Mann of deliberate dishonesty breaks the ninth commandment.

Webler posts: I don't think so, unless you can turn this charade around to your advantage I think many of you will be will be looking for work in a new field.

The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning.

You've told more whoppers than Burger King has sold, that your career is in jeopardy.

Don't accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. If anyone has been dishonest here, it's you. Don't project your failings on me.

Webler posts: I'm a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being. Unlike you, I read both sides of the issue

You have no way of knowing what I've read or haven't read.

and I come to a sound conclusion -- that man-made catastrophic global warming is the big hoax the world has ever seen.

Maybe the Jews are behind it? How about the Bilderbergers? Wait! I have it! The Illuminati!

no need to really as the sea levels will rise the same for the last few centuries and as they will continue do so long after I'm gone. Sorry folks, no el-Gorish sea level panic will happen. Nn el-Gorish MMGW is coming, nor is it here.

Levenson posts: Scientists seem to disagree with you.

Hardly.

Then who are you arguing with? Yes, scientists disagree with you that the present rate of sea level rise will stay the same. Crack a book, for Christ's sake.

May I just draw attention to GoDaddy's implication (227) that autocracies, unlike democracies, make rational economic decisions. What goes around comes around. The question is, who is bringing it round this time.

Webler posts:

Really, if money wasn't the issue why all the lies to get you hands on the money.

That's the second time you've accused me of lying. You make the baby Jesus cry with your false accusations.

von Doog posts:

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

How can that be, since the Solar constant hasn't changed appreciably in 50 years?

TSI Time Series

It's hard to see how a flat input for the last 50 years could cause a sharp upturn in global warming over the last 30.

Von Doog posts:

He commented that the solar input in a matter of days was greater than the total amount of energy we burn in a year.

So from that point I became a skeptic.

Thanks for that classic example of a non sequitur.

Were you under the impression that global warming results from the heat released by combustion? If so, you don't know anything about the theory you're criticizing.

Von Doog posts:

All core data shows an ~800 year lag behind temperature regarding CO2 changes.

Yes, in a natural deglaciation, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. What makes you think that is what's happening now?

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

But no actual climatologist says it is the only forcing. Again, you don't seem to know anything about the theory you're criticizing.

Webler posts:

To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don't buy it.

Translation: I don't care what the evidence is, I'm going to stick to my beliefs. Evidence doesn't matter.

Webler posts:

I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don't believe in everything that is posted here.

No, Webler, that's not why. It's because you're rude, obnoxious, and hostile, and have repeatedly accused everyone here of being liars and hoaxers. That's a far cry from "not believing in everything that is posted here."

Now that's what I call trolling. Other trolls: pay attention. You have to write something so outrageous that folks just have to slap you down. And the by the way the hockey stick is in the draft AR4 report.

Posted by: Tim Lambert

Tim, I'm surprised you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said that wasn't in the original AR4 --the hard copy-- it was missing. They then released the it too the public (or a larger group of those who were going to assess the document). I read a copy from google some time ago.

If I'm not mistaken, and there is another Tim Lambert that is blogging, I recall that you entered in the debate that was on line. I think in the same post who also commented on a Wall Street Journal op/ed piece.

So, I go with my original claim. That Mann's graph was not in the original papers that were sent out to the select group, and only put back in after the outcry.

Really folks, you act if it is magic to change a document then put in on the Web.

So it doesn't matter how many times you posters put up a link to the pdf file --- make no difference to me, since I've seen it a long time ago

Webler posts: Sure it has. The evidence is overwhelming that Mann got caught doctoring the numbers, not forgetting that he was guilty of data mining. The 2 Canadians who first destroyed him in search for the truth. Then the US Congress hired some of the best around the world. Independently, (like all good scientific analysis) them ALL came to the same conclusion -- that Mann's methodology was criminal or at the very least disgraceful.

Levenson posts: You didn't actually go to the link I provided, did you? All that you say above is crap. The NAS report concluded that while Mann's statistical procedure may not have been the best (it was the first paper of its kind), it was not wrong and it came to the right conclusion -- as have at least 14 similar papers since. Your accusing Mann of deliberate dishonesty breaks the ninth commandment.

Webler posts: I disagree with you. I have read many books and online sites. What I posted it the truth. It is not my fault the Mann did what he did. That is reason he started RealClimate -- to save his reputation.

==========

Webler posts: I don't think so, unless you can turn this charade around to your advantage I think many of you will be will be looking for work in a new field.

Levenson posts: The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning.

Webler posts: What scientists, or any career minded person, will be able to retain a job in their chosen field if in the end all the numbers don't add up after they have been promoting something that is outrageously grand or unbelievable in this case. Seriously, how long to you think an investment banker will be able to keep his job if he keeps throwing wildly insane numbers around to his clients -- only for them to see the light and bring it to the right authorities.

==========

Webler posts: You've told more whoppers than Burger King has sold, that your career is in jeopardy.

Levenson posts: Don't accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. If anyone has been dishonest here, it's you. Don't project your failings on me.

Webler posts: You can dish it out, but you can't take a joke back. Then you should stop projected your fears on the public.

========

Webler posts: I'm a smart carpenter, thereby a smart human being. Unlike you, I read both sides of the issue

Levenson posts: You have no way of knowing what I've read or haven't read.

Webler posts: Exactly, like you, et al, have no idea what I've read or haven't read. Just because I can't do advance mathematics doesn't mean that I can weigh the evidence between to opposing sides and reach my own conclusion. Now, someone will probably pipe up and make reference to that last line, but let me remind the forum that their are countless of scientists that don't you with the principle put form on this or many other global warming alarmist blogs.

====

Webler posts: and I come to a sound conclusion -- that man-made catastrophic global warming is the big hoax the world has ever seen.

Levenson posts: Maybe the Jews are behind it? How about the Bilderbergers? Wait! I have it! The Illuminati!

=========

Webler posts: Hardly.

Levenson posts: Then who are you arguing with? Yes, scientists disagree with you that the present rate of sea level rise will stay the same. Crack a book, for Christ's sake.

Webler posts: I have cracked a book -- even have read it. It stated that on average the sea levels have been rising the same for centuries and will continue to do so. No need for alarm.

Webler posts: Really, if money wasn't the issue why all the lies to get you hands on the money.

Levenson posts: That's the second time you've accused me of lying. You make the baby Jesus cry with your false accusations.

Webler posts: "you" was a reference to "those climatologists" in he original post -- albeit, not very clear.

It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day's work I guess.

Webler posts: To recap. Though I have seen the arguments that the graph was always there, I don't buy it.

Levenson posts: Translation: I don't care what the evidence is, I'm going to stick to my beliefs. Evidence doesn't matter.

Webler posts: Translation: If Webler disagree with me it is clear that evidence does not matter to him.

Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don't agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites. Some of it I do agree with, other material I would call junk science. If that offends you then that is your problem. It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those 'spokespeople' in TV land --for global warming-- have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

The chasm was/is created by those people, not I.

Webler posts: I must be throwing the fear of g-d and commonsense in many people. They have made it their mission to attack me. Why? Because I don't believe in everything that is posted here.

Levenson posts: No, Webler, that's not why. It's because you're rude, obnoxious, and hostile, and have repeatedly accused everyone here of being liars and hoaxers. That's a far cry from "not believing in everything that is posted here."

Webler posts: My very first post on this forum -- I got attacked. I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

You just don't like people standing up to you. I have noticed the common theme of this thread is to call anybody a troll who doesn't totally march to the same beat as the rest of you. Some of you have been so rude to other posters who have offered up their opinion, that they have just left. It is the regulars of this forum that have a serious problem.

As far as the term "liars" I think we have already cleared that up. As far as MMGW -- yeah, it is a hoax.

Well folks, I gotta run, so once again I will sign off.

Have a pleasant day.

Webler

From #209:

Btw, I still stand by my original comment that when the IPCC 2007 AR4 first came out -- Mann's hockey stick graph was missing.

Not true. How do we know? Because the report was archived when it was released. See p. 467.

Even going to the Wayback Machine and looking this up was a waste of ten minutes that I'll never get back. Why, I wonder, do we spend any time on the Mayeaus and Weblers of this world, when there are Masheys and Levensons standing by, waiting to add real value to the discussion? I think it is because a kind of Gresham's Law operates on blog threads, where trolls drive out serious commenters.

Monckton's ostensibly making a case for a given climate sensitivity, correct? So he uses a non-existent finding of a non-peer reviewed paper to challenge the CO2 forcing claimed by the IPCC as optimum point estimate, only to turn around and use the IPCC's supposedly erroneous estimate of forcing, (together with some further nonsensical 'science'), to estimate climate sensitivity and the IPCC's supposedly erroneous estimate of forcing and sensitivity to estimate feedback. And we need to know squat about physics to debunk that malarkey? I am tempted to put it in front of my 1 and a half year old when she has trouble come potty time.

This is not triple counting, this is naked fraud and more revealing of the heart of 'skepticism' than anything else could be. If this loon-job is one of their leading lights, if they have no more concern about appearances than not to disavow someone who would publicly tout something so prima facie false, so utterly shameless, than there really isn't anything separating these people from geocentrists or those that deny HIV causes AIDS.

What makes that even more frightening is the legions of, presumably, people that can't even bring themselves to face such corporeal facts as that this paper is patently fraudulent, and can be shown thus to anyone possessing even of a high school diploma. It's borderline madness.

This is not triple counting, this is naked fraud and more revealing of the heart of 'skepticism' than anything else could be. If this loon-job is one of their leading lights, if they have no more concern about appearances than not to disavow someone who would present something so primie facie false, there really isn't anything separating these people from those that deny HIV causes AIDS.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

Strike that last paragraph. Edit gone wrong.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

Webler posts:

It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day's work I guess.

That's the third time you've accused me of dishonesty. Three strikes and you're out.

Webler posts:

Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don't agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites.

That's your prerogative. You can disagree with anything. You can disagree with evolution or the Big Bang. Doesn't mean we have to respect your opinion.

It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those 'spokespeople' in TV land --for global warming-- have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

You have called everyone here liars and hoaxers and have accused Dr. Michael Mann, a respected climatologist, of scientific misconduct and deliberate fraud. Is that not "outrageously derogatory?" Why is it okay for you to be nasty and unpleasant, but wrong when people respond in kind?

Webler posts:

I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

That was hilarious! Do it again!

Webler- you'd be doing a better bit of trolling if you actually knew what you were talking about. You do know that the MBH referenced in the 6th chapter, page 467, is in fact a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that superseedes and extends the analysis of the previous hockey stick graph?

Therefore, your claim is completely false. At this point I can only say that you need to go away and read up on the actual science. That the IPCC can give a page of different hockey sticks, all showing roughly the same thing, and yet you claim that MBH doesn't exist, ignoring the fact that their graph doesn't need such prominence amongst all the other confirmatory data, indicates that you are so far wrong you aren't even on the same planet.
Science builds on older results; they naturally get overtaken and left behind and eventually only ezist as footnotes. ONly ideologues think this is odd.

An update of the Monckton controversy. The weasels at APS have changed the disclaimer. Now no red letters only black.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Webler posts: It would seem to me that you are looking to stir up trouble by making something from nothing. All in a day's work I guess.

Levenson posts: That's the third time you've accused me of dishonesty. Three strikes and you're out.

Webler posts: If want to equate stirring up trouble to dishonesty then far be it from me to correct you.

Webler posts: Barton Paul Levenson, you are just going to have to accept the fact that I don't agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites.

Levenson posts: That's your prerogative. You can disagree with anything. You can disagree with evolution or the Big Bang. Doesn't mean we have to respect your opinion.

Webler posts: I never said you had to respect your opinion. Just like I don't have to respect the opinions of many on this forum when it come to their man-made catastrophic global warning. Don't you think it is time to grow up and stop your pettiness -- people are going to disagree with you on all sorts of topics.

========

Webler posts: It would seem to me that those in this forum, or those 'spokespeople' in TV land --for global warming-- have no problem throwing outrageously derogatory remarks to anyone who disagrees with them.

Levenson posts: You have called everyone here liars and hoaxers and have accused Dr. Michael Mann, a respected climatologist, of scientific misconduct and deliberate fraud. Is that not "outrageously derogatory?" Why is it okay for you to be nasty and unpleasant, but wrong when people respond in kind?

Webler posts: I haven't called everyone liars, that's just your defensive mode kicking to turn the heat off yourself. As far a Mann goes he may be respected to you, but I don't have to have the respect for him that you think he deserves. It would seem that you are willing to criticize those scientists that you don't agree with -- shouldn't you follow your own advice instead of displaying your hypocrisy?

Another point that you and a few others are unable to understand. I am not attacking any posters in this forum. I totally disagree with Mann and have said so. I also think he has sullied his reputation as many other people have pointed out. I have been up front about what I think of what the global warming alarmists say. I think it is a hoax perpetrated by many scienctists. And you know very well that others highly agree with that. I also think many fall into lock-step --with their opinion-- to the will of others, so not be outcast from the science community. I also think some scientists have overreached and see the results as they want to see them and not as they really are. They see stars, but stars with their names on them.

That is a far cry from verbally attacking posters. If you don't understand, then let me give you another example.

I don't like Hollywood. Nothing wrong with saying what I don't like about it.

I may totally dislike the actors, and will criticize them for the lousy acting job.

However, If they where posting on a Hollywood forum and I starting verbally calling them names because they disagree with me -- then that would be nasty.

I have tried to keep the analogy(I'm sure I will be attacked for using that word in that way) simple so that you many be able to see the difference.

Mr Levenson, your post at number 250 is childish.

guthrie posts: Webler- you'd be doing a better bit of trolling if you actually knew what you were talking about. You do know that the MBH referenced in the 6th chapter, page 467, is in fact a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that superseedes and extends the analysis of the previous hockey stick graph?

Webler posts: I think you and a few others are not understanding my point or my claim. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

It is hardly trolling because I have a different opinion than yours.

I will tell you what. If you or anyone else in the forum can prove that no hard copies go out to a select group before they are published on the Web -- then I will investigate this more.

However, I have no reason to doubt the claims of the two people that said they saw the hard copies and it wasn't in there.

Someone one else already asked the names, but I never mentioned because I'm sure they would come under attack as "big oil," or some such other claim.

But fair is fair. You prove to me that no hard copies get passed around and then I will take the issue up with those that have stated this.

And to your claim that I don't think that the "MBH doesn't exist," is something I never have stated.

> However, I have no reason to doubt the claims of the two people that said they saw the hard copies and it wasn't in there.

Do you really think that this qualifies as "evidence" of your claim?

If you want to be believed, provide scans of these versions of AR4 which lack the MBH graph. Alternatively, provide the publication date of these specific editions so that those of us who have access to university libraries can verify your claim. Or maybe you can just tell us the names of the people who told you MBH wasn't in AR4, so that we can ask them for this information.

More importantly, how do you deal with the fact that this draft, released on March 7th, 2006, far before the hardcopy edition of AR4 was printed, contains the MBH reference? You'll note that it's hosted on a "climate skeptic" site so it's unlikely that it's been edited in some way. It's on page 6-92 of this draft.

http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch06_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf

Did they remove the MBH reference in between March 2006 and late 2007, print the books, and then put the MBH reference back in for the web version? Is that your claimed scenario?

By anonymous coward (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

Webler, you are a troll because you post obviously false claims to disrupt discussion. Enough. No further posts will be accepted from unless you provide evidence along the lines suggested by ac in post 257.

Have the current IPCC models accounted for clouds yet?

By J E Twinkieglidden (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

Gould et al have, of course, violated the Wallingford Accords of 2007 (universally regarded as the beginnings of the modern era of climate policy), which unequivocally ban quoting of Monckton in any non-humorous context.

" guilty of data mining"

nailed it on the first try:

"Data mining: Discovery mode of data analysis, or analyzing detail data to unearth unsuspected or unknown relationships, patterns and associations that might be of value to the organization. Advanced analysis used to determine certain patterns within data. Most often associated with predictive analysis. A process of analyzing large amounts of data to identify patterns, trends, activities, and content of data content relationships. "

any other damning accusations up your sleeve there?

Gould et al have, of course, violated the Wallingford Accords of 2007 (universally regarded as the beginnings of the modern era of climate policy), which unequivocally ban quoting of Monckton in any non-humorous context.

"This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

-- Frederick Seitz

A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

I suppose the Accords will need to add this guy to the list too? In any context, of course.

By J E Twinkieglidden (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

JE Twinkieglidden: Wiki "Ben Santer".

Mind you, Seitz's earlier employers, Phillip Morris, had a rather bemused take on him about twenty years ago now. Worth a read.

I know, speaking ill of the dead and all that, but still...

osted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 21, 2008 8:10 AM

James Mayeau posts:
One problem is still niggling at my brain. If wind is caused by heat, why is it that the windspeed increases on planets the further they are away from the sun? Help me out Luminous beauty. I'm stuck in a quandry.
"Quandary."
Windspeed doesn't increase with distance from the sun. Wind speeds are high on Neptune because Neptune is internally heated from tidal friction from its largest satellite, Triton, as I demonstrated in a paper in 1989. All the giant planets except Uranus have significant internal heat sources, though their nature is different. On Jupiter, contraction is still generating heat; on Saturn, contraction plus the phenomenon of "helium rainout" is responsible.
Your contention that wind is not caused by heating an atmosphere is unique in the annals of climate and planetary science. What do you think does cause wind?

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW, (ala the Sherwood Allen paper) which takes us all the way back to the beginning of Lambert's post, where Tim obliquely references "that the supposedly missing hotspot means that ?F2x has to be reduced by a factor of three" via realclimate.
Congradulations you have just discovered the real world observation which justifies Lord Monckton's estimation of the negative feedback.
Perhaps this is the reason Lambert didn't link it directly?

You have no scars on your face, and you can not handle
pressure.

Hey Bart, you really measured tidal friction between Neptune and Triton?
That's hella cool. Send a link to that paper, please. If you have any comment to offer regarding Enceladus, I'd be interested to see that too.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 22 Jul 2008 #permalink

Trees regulate their internal temperature.

Apparently, independent of any external factors.

Which, of course, would explain the vast forests on the Antarctic high plateau.

Didn't you know trees were warm-blooded,Mayeau? They move around at night when we're all asleep....

"You can't have my trolling any more, you're not worthy!"

uh, what?

Nick:

Dr. Ronald Reagan, who studied even more advanced physics than the advanced physics doctorate above, in 1980 poured over a report that showed trees cause pollution - so don't just think active nightlife, think arboreal Vegas, baby!

Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW

It's not a fingerprint of AGW, we expect the "fingerprint" from *any* source of warming, solar, CO2-forced ...

So, we know it's warming as we have three different ways of measuring the increase - satellite data, radiosondes, and ground stations.

We know that we should be seeing the tropical "fingerprint".

So, where has the heat gone? Just got up and disappeared? No, it's been converted to work, and yes, people have been able to show so somewhat conclusively.

What you and many others seem to be missing is that this only addresses a small question which arises from *observed* global warming. Nothing to do about the *cause* of said warming at all ...

Webler posts:

I am not attacking any posters in this forum.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

He did it again! I love it!

James Mayeau posts:

Hey Bart, you really measured tidal friction between Neptune and Triton? That's hella cool. Send a link to that paper, please. If you have any comment to offer regarding Enceladus, I'd be interested to see that too.

You can do it, too. Just go to the NASA fact sheets on Neptune and Triton, then apply Webster's (1925) equation for the mean height of mid-ocean tides:

h = 0.85 Mb Rb4 / (Mb r3)

It's trivial to show that the tides exerted on Neptune by Triton are many orders of magnitude greater than that, e.g., exerted on Earth by the Moon, or even than that exerted by Earth on the Moon.

Reference:

Webster, A.G. 1925. The Dynamics of Particles and of Rigid, Elastic and Fluid Bodies. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.

Webler:

You sound like a character from a Charlie Brown special.

Not very original of you.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Jul 2008 #permalink

Mayeau says:
"Heat is converted to wind energy erasing the tropical fingerprint of AGW, (ala the Sherwood Allen paper)"

Oh, man...

No, that is NOT what the linked paper says. It detects a tropical troposphere warming, using wind velocity trends to bypass the problematic, very spotty, and very heterogeneous temp readings from the sondes.

And no, trop trop warming is NOT "the tropical fingerprint of AGW."

I rushed that last post and as a result I made two mistakes:

1) I superscripted stuff that shouldn't have been superscripted,

2) I wrote a term wrongly, and, more importantly

2) I DIDN'T DEFINE THE TERMS IN THE EQUATION. Bad poster! bad!

h = 0.85 Ma Rb4 / (Mb r3)

Mb is the mass of the body causing the tides.
Rb is the radius of the body experiencing the tides.
Mb is the mass of the body experiencing the tides.
r is their separation.

The proportionality constant is for figures in the SI.

Webler posts: My very first post on this forum - I got attacked. I am not rude, obnoxious, or hostile in any way, shape or form.

OK, so you're a Deltoid newbie, but one with a fountain of opinions...

It is the regulars of this forum that have a serious problem.

Oh, so you've been lurking for some time then, to know regulars from droppers-in?

But hang on, you're a newbie...

Matey, with your form, you're either a troll who must have wet his pants for quite a while before he opened his trap, or you're a sock-puppet for a denialist who has been flagellated here for past indiscretions, or you were hollered over from some other swamp by a troll-mate seeking reinforcements.

Or maybe something else. I doubt though that you're an innocent wandering 'sceptic' who just happened upon this discussion and felt the need to educate the stupid, deluded folk with scientific/mathematical/statistical understanding whom you found here.

After all, that would be quite a feat for a carpenter who can't even walk upon water.

But whatever the truth is, there are inconsistencies in your dialogue, quite apart from the gargantuan factual dung-heap that you strut upon.

You're great with the length, but short on girth, and I was always told that long and thin goes too far in...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jul 2008 #permalink

After reading the Deltoid threads on Monckey's farcically juvenile excursion into climatology, and the associated threads of Realclimate, Duae Quartunciae, and others, I pondered for a while on the dismay many people demonstrate because the Viscantcount is being promoted as the final proof of the denialist case.

It seems to be though, that as the Monckton tripe is assimilated into the denialist case, they are ultimately scuppering their long-term credibility. Little, or nothing, of substance of the denialist's rebuttals of the case for AGW has been shown to have substance, but the roll-call of ineptitude, deception, ignorance and ideological contorting demonstrated by the denialists grows longer than the annual tolling of the Devil's Knell at Dewsbury.

Surely, being on record as having presented tripe of this nature to fora ultimately as serious as Congress is worse even that rocking up in court with a streamer of used dunny-paper trailing from one's trousers...

The smell has to be a whole lot worse.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jul 2008 #permalink

Anon commnted

My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics and after pouring over it, he seems very impressed and forwarded it on to his colleagues.

to which bi replied

If you print out Monckton's "scientific paper" and then pour some coffee over it, the results can look quite impressive. Actually, you may get some pretty impressive artwork, by putting coffee stains on a printout of Monckton's piece.

Not only that, if you fold the Monkton manuscript in half before pouring coffee over it, it makes a very interesting pattern when you open it up that can be used for psychological evaluation (perhaps even to diagnose mental illness).

I believe the version where coffee is used is called the "Caddyshack coffee-blot test", but the more traditional version is the Rorschach inkblot test

"My cousin is finishing his advanced doctorate in physics..."

Not just any doctorate, an *advanced* doctorate!

Not just any doctorate, an advanced doctorate!

are really,
really smart (you know)

*Not to be confused with "PhA.D.", which refers to a "posthumously awarded doctorate" (often given when the concern is that awarding the degreewhile the individual is still alive could actually bring on early death: via the exploded big head syndrome.)

sonde data from Hadley still doesn't show any of that Sherwood & Allen virtual warming.

Thanks for the primer on tidal force computing, Bart.
Think I'll give it a try.

Lee is that going to be the extent of your rebuttal?
No no? Maybe you should stick an "oh" in there.

By James Mayeau (not verified) on 24 Jul 2008 #permalink

I don't agree with a lot of material posted on these types of sites. Some of it I do agree with, other material I would call junk science.

Webler, do you see any irony in a carpenter saying this to scientists who are trained in the fields that you disparage?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jul 2008 #permalink

Hey, this Monckton fellow appears to be a member of the House of Lords, no? Newspaper reports describe him as 'Lord' or 'Viscount'. So he's a Peer of the Realm.

That must be what they meant when they said it was 'peer reviewed' - he presumably looked it over himself and he's a Peer, hence 'peer reviewed'!