Gavin Schmidt has caught Christopher Monckton in yet another fabrication. Monckton published graphs that purport to show that temperatures and CO2 concentrations haven't followed IPCC projections, but the IPCC projections Monckton plots are fictional. Schmidt graphs the actual projections, and surprise, surprise they give a very different picture.
And in comments there, Igor Samoylenko writes
With his latest shenanigans in the US, Monkton managed to catch the attention of Private Eye (a satirical current affairs magazine in the UK).
In the latest issue 1235, they noted several things (quite apart from his dodgy science).
One is his reference to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to two American senators. He is not of course and never has been. As Private Eye notes: "Since inheriting the title, Christopher has stood at a "by-election" for a hereditary Tory seat in the Lords, following the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton two years ago. He received precisely zero votes."
The other thing Private Eye notes is his logo, which he is using on his graphs and letters - a portcullis topped with a crown, bearing a striking resemblance to the insignia of the House of Parliament. This is also very dodgy indeed as the official parliamentary guide states very clearly that "the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by the others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House".
Compare Monckton's logo (left) with Parliament's (right).
 |
 |
He's replaced the royal crown with a viscount's coronet, produced a logo that would only be appropriate if he was a Viscount with a seat in the House of Lords.
See also his testimony to a US Congress Committee:
I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your "athletic democracy".
He again implies he has a seat in Parliament. Which he doesn't.
- Log in to post comments
Is this typical behavior of a fraud, someone who is delusional, or both?
Monckton's logo seems to have several screws loose. Is he trying to tell us something?
Tim Ball and his Magic Resume can't touch Monckton.
(Maybe that's why we've heard so little lately from Canada's 1st PhD in climatology)
Isn't there laws against pretending to be a member of the UK government? Doing it in private seems harmless enough, but falsely representing your own status in contacts with foreign governments to me seems like treason.
Delusional is the right term for Monckton. In his mind, he is, by all rights, a member of Parliament and a climate scientist.
I heard him on the Michael Savage show last week or so. It was a lunatic's duel. Savage was obsequious as hell and kept calling Monckton a scientist (may have even said Dr. Monckton a few times). The Viscount never bothered to correct him.
Boris - is that the same Michael Savage who's appeared on the "Banned from the UK" list the UK government released today?
First of all, if it's between Smith and Monckton, I'm going with Monckton. Secondly, the UN IPCC has already had to correct one report thanks to the watchful eye of Lord Christopher Monckton, The third Viscount of Brenchley.
This seem to be a rather short piece Tim, if you want to report on lies, why do you review An Inconvenient Truth. From a lie standpoint that should keep you busy for quite some time. Oh wait, Gore's deliberate lies probably don't interest you.
You've obviously been trusting the wrong people Tim. Here is a collection of Monckton's works available at SPPI:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/ My favorite is a paper entitled Chuck It Again Schmidt in reference to your hero. The feud goes back a long way and I wouldn't be so quick to put my professional reputation on the line by siding with Smith if I were you.
Dash RIPROCK III
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
http://www.liberalmadenss.com
7 Dash,
Who is "Smith"?
Do you *really* want us to look at Lord Munchkin's "works"? Do we have to explain each of his lies and errors to you, as you appear to be incapable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking and genuine scepticism?
Or is your post just a parody of AGW "scepticism"?
Dash RIPROCK III,
One look at Monckton's 'climate science' work: http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.htm
And an interview with the man: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climat…
You should really save your energy for defending the handful of people who have some climate science qualifications, because Monckton is nothing more than an unqualified, delusional, scientifically illiterate liar.
Although, it is tough finding anyone credible to defend your denial of climate science - so good luck with that.
Yes, it's the same michael savage, and it's a pity, I'd rather have him in the UK than one state south ...
My favourite Monckton piece is his speech at this year's Heartland Conference:
Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.
It starts:
WHERE are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency â those Greens too yellow to admit theyâre really Reds?
The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth
remains unalterable.
A truly astonishing intellectual accomplishment. I never grow tired of citing it.
(Obs! This comment contains irony.)
#5 Boris:
Yup, I heard the Discount on the Savage show as well. Monckton kept referring to the flawed Scafetta & West paper as though it meant something, and Savage (doesn't he have a Ph.D. or something?) swallowed it lock, stock and barrel. Must have been a slow news day for the conservatives...
True Sceptic,
I rather suspected some pedantic "can't see the forest for the trees" liberal would be more concerned with that typing error (Smith) than the point being made.
I refuse to have some Al Gore Kool-Aid drinker attack my critical thinking. Please forgive me for not taking the word of a group (UN IPCC) headed by a railroad engineer as the gospel truth.
To answer your question, I do need you to point out Monckton's errors if you can. I'd love to hear what
you comes up with.
For the record True Sceptic, are you stating that the UN IPCC did not have to correct a deliberate exaggeration thanks to Monckton's keen and watchful eye? Do I need to educate you on this incident??? Just let me know. No problem as long as I'm here.
Boris, I've seen Monckton speak in person. He began by making it clear that he is not a scientist and that he doesn't want his audience to simply believe anything he
says or for that matter anything that Gore says either.
He encourages his audience to think independently which
is more than I can say for the former V.P. referred to as
Ozone Man by the right. Boris, if you don't believe me, I
have a recent Monckton presentation on my website. He gave this presentation four days after Gore chickened out and wouldn't testify beside him (Monckton). Just click on the video tab.
David, I'll stack Monckton's credentials up against Al Gore's any day. You alarmists are such hypocrites. You constantly attack Monckton's lack of a formal science background while totally ignoring Al Gore's lack of credentials. Can't say I'd expect anything less from your kind.
Finally True Sceptic, you lefties throw that "Poe's Law" insult around a lot. In this case, you only implied it. I see it as proof that you people are now so far to the
left that even views in the center appear as a possible parody to you.
I can't wait to hear what errors you find in Monckton's work. What do you say we have an old fashion Gore supporter vs. Monckton supporter AGW smack down right here on
this very stage?
Dash RIPROCK III
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
(Note: I don't mind being confused with Gavin Schmidt, but we are indeed two distinct individuals!)
Believing anything Monckton has to offer is a sure-fire indicator that somebody has not being paying attention to any actual climate science, so he's a useful idiot in that sense. The more qualified denialists like Spencer or Lindzen or supposedly on-the-fence types like the Pielke's are usually a little too ambiguously wrong in their claims to accuse their followers of total naivete.
By the way, I received a note from somebody the other day asking about an article Monckton recently co-authored in a "professional insurance journal", which had similarly doctored graphs. I don't have the reference though - has anybody else seen this?
Check out Riprock's hilarious website ...
DASH RIPROCK III=Monckton?
Show me one piece of empirical evidence that they aren't the same person. Nothing? That's what I thought.
I WON THE ARGUMENT AGAIN!!!!
13 Dash,
Going through your message in sequence:-
It is interesting that you assume that I'm a "liberal" on no evidence whatsoever, but thanks for confirming that you are the ignorant, arrogant anti-science Gore-obsessed wingnut I suspected.
Your carelessness with spelling names reflects the carelessness of your treatment of matters of fact and science, but anyway you *might* have meant Arthur Smith.
Where do you guys stop with the Al Gore nonsense? We just don't care over here in Europe, and he's irrelevant to the science.
Your uncritical lapping-up of drivel from the likes of Monckton shows that you have no idea what critical thinking is, but it would be futile to attempt to educate the uneducable. As for "Lord Christopher Monckton, The third Viscount of Brenchley", you are impressed by these quaint and archaic titles, aren't you?
Monckton spotted a typo in an IPCC table. This had already been spotted by others. Your claim that the IPCC had to correct this because of Monckton is laughable.
Monckton is happy to let others call him "Dr." without correcting them. He's also happy to claim membership of the House of Lords, which has never been the case.
This is not about credentials, but anyone unable or unwilling to tell truth from falsehood can hardly be treated as a reliable source or commenter on any topic. It is about what people say, and when what they say is almost always dishonest or delusional they deserve nothing more than contempt and ridicule. You did know that Monckton is not treated as uncritically by all "sceptics" as he is by you? Lucia at The Blackboard, for instance, was not impressed by one of his recent fraudulent graphs.
Monckton vs Gore: again the Gore obsession.
I have never attacked Monckton *because* of his lack of credentials; I've attacked him for his dishonest and delusional "works" and think I speak for others here too.
Again the "far left" accusation. That tells us a lot more about you than me. To imply that your views are anything but far-right wingnuttery is just hilarious.
"AGW smackdown": once more, the Gore obsession. Just sad, really.
"I rather suspected some pedantic "can't see the forest for the trees" liberal would be more concerned with that typing error (Smith) than the point being made.
I refuse to have some Al Gore Kool-Aid drinker attack my critical thinking. Please forgive me for not taking the word of a group (UN IPCC) headed by a railroad engineer as the gospel truth."
Wow!! Three ad hominems in three sentences. How impressive is that?
First to Author Smith. I am familiar with you, but was referring to Gavin Schmidt. In paragraph three, I clearly referenced one of Monckton's works entitled "Chuck It Again Schmidt." In my haste, I not once but twice typed Smith by mistake. Given that, I'm going to do something that true sceptic probably never has, admit to making a mistake.
I've yet to meet an AGW alarmist who wasn't also Pro-Choice, against the death penalty, and for gun control. If any of these labels have been incorrectly applied to you, please let me know which ones. I'll print a correction immediately.
I judged you to be a liberal based on your position regarding AGW. You on the other hand judged me to be ignorant, arrogant, and anti-science based upon my labeling you as a liberal.
I wish I could learn to take the time to patiently research an opponent like you do before labeling them...LOL
You don't care about Gore in Europe. Really? I'm sorry, is Gore not an official advisor to the UK Government? He said he was. He is most definitely irrelevant to the science. This is particularly true since he refers to so very little of it (credible science) when defending his position.
It is however laughable to criticize Monckton for a lack of scientific credentials while giving Gore a free pass. If you look closely, you'll see that part of my response was clearly addressed to David who had called Monckton unqualified. Does this mean that your carelessness with names "reflects the carelessness of your treatment of matters of fact and science" or does that only apply when your opponent makes a name related mistake?
Regarding educating the uneducable, I'm feeling your pain right now as I respond to you. As for Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley, I am impressed
with his title but more amused by the response it brings
from AGW alarmists. You didn't disappoint.
I suppose one man's typo is another man's exaggeration. I'd be more willing to write it off as a typo if it had gone in the opposite direction. You claim other's brought it to the attention of the UN IPCC first. Would you happen to have their names? Upon receiving them, I'll contact the UN IPCC directly for verification.
I've never heard Monckton let anyone call him "Dr." without correcting them. Is there a video clip or an audio clip of a radio interview available in which he does this? Can you cite any specific examples of this?
Monckton is member of the House of Lords by right of succession, and certified as his father's valid successor by the Lord Chancellor, but (since 1999) without the right to sit or vote. He can, however, use the facilities of the House, and is of course allowed to extend polite wishes from your Parliament to our Congress. He is also fully entitled to the vicecomital coronet, and also to use the portcullis as an indication that he is a member of the Peerage of the United Kingdom; though, not being a sitting Member, he cannot use the Royal Crown. Hope that clears it up for you.
"This is not about credentials, but anyone unable or unwilling to tell truth from falsehood can hardly be treated as a reliable source or commenter on any topic."
Excellent point if you're referring to Al Gore.
OMG, Lucia at The Blackboard was not impressed by "one" of his graphs. I'll inform Lord Monckton immediately and ask that he never speak or write on this issue again. Good heavens, Lucia from the Blackboard. I didn't realize it was this serious.
For the record, is anyone who doubts AGW a far-right wing nut in your estimation or is that a title you've reserved for me? At least unlike sound and stable James Hansen, I'm not suggesting that Obama has four years to save the world or that those who contribute to global warming should be criminally prosecuted. Add that to his comment about sea level rising 246 feet by the end of the century and you have the picture of a real nut. You can save the title of "nut" for your glorious leaders.
What's sad is your willingness to accept this highly flawed theory as reality without questioning it. The UK is obviously ahead of the US when it comes to inculcating AGW related fears. Unfortunately, we are catching up here in the states.
Damn you, dhogaza @ 15. Now I've got to remove coffee from my monitor.
You can smell the lunacy at Hooterville, and I may never get it out of my nostrils.
Still, it's not quite as bad as the Time Cube ...
dhogaza, you mean someone got there before denialdipot?
Dash Riprock III said: "Monckton is member of the House of Lords by right of succession"
The formal list of members of the House of Lords is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm
Please point out where Monckton appears on it.
Sorry, the link above for the House of Lords members list as a tiny url:
http://tinyurl.com/adht4
dhogaza: "Yes, it's the same michael savage, and it's a pity, I'd rather have him in the UK than one state south ..."
Just keep that petition north of the border and we'll call it even. Or possibly we could send both to the UK?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-a…
Stefan Rahmstorf notified the IPCC of the error the day the SPM was released to the public: February 2, 2007.
I would ask Dash Riprock III to kindly provide a reference of Hansen declaring that sea level will rise 246 feet by the end of the century.
None of the following should be taken as an attack upon Texas, which actually does contain many rational people.
People unfamiliar with Petticoat Junction or Green Acres might want to look up Hooterville, a really small (TV) town.
"Dash RIPROCK III" would appear to be ~44-year-old Mark G* of Bryan, TX, right next to College Station (Texas A&M University). Bryan + College Station are ~190,000 people, within 1-2 hours of Houston and Austin. I've spoken at TAMU a few times, including about the time Mark would have graduated from Bryan H.S.. Like any university town I've ever visited, it didn't seem like Hooterville.
Texas A&M University has a credible Atmospheric Sciences Department, including the well-known Andrew Dessler, whose book I liked. The department says this about the IPCC, and has seminars, like this one in June.
He's been running hootervillegazette since ~Sept 2008, whereas Liberal madness is a few weeks old.
He's been spreading references to hootervillegazette across many blogs, and then added Liberal Madness, whose 9-person membership (seems to) have attracted Joanne Nova, although there is as yet not much action either place.
Apparently Monckton's April 28 talk at nearby Texas A&M for Young Conservatives of Texas. seems to have gotten him excited. The talk was sponsored by the well-known entity CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or or Sourcewatch version.
Mark is one of those truly-fortunate people who could easily attend (within 8 miles' drive) lectures by world-class people on climate, hear them, ask questions, and learn. However, he seems to prefer Monckton.
"The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. Itâs made up to look like science, but itâs PR."
David Archer
RipRock
"What's sad is your willingness to accept this highly flawed theory as reality without questioning it. The UK is obviously ahead of the US when it comes to inculcating AGW related fears. Unfortunately, we are catching up here in the states."
No, the UK doesn't have the wing nut extremist, anti science, anti reason right wing that we have in the U.S. They don't listen to far right raving blowhards like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the AGW theory. Your statements to the contrary are just sound bites repeated over and over enough times, that they are believed by the gullible and ideologically biased. Taking care of the environment is common sense. Opposing that effort is not common sense, and can only be due to some other bias. And it's absurd to think that scientists as a group would somehow be all of the same political stripe to have such motives to begin with. Do you honestly believe that the scientific world somehow became overwhelmingly socialist by some magic over the last 20 years?
I mean come on, get a grip!
Maybe the late Johnny Rook can help here.
"Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again."
"The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise. You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with ones that better describe the facts."
"Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct or not, since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war."
"I'm not talking about people who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue. Nor, am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists over the details of global warming."
"For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case. If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it. But for an conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL problems and that the solution to all problems is 'freedom'."
"Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the 'liberals' concerned about climate change of having invented it as an excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global warming need be taken seriously because it is the product of government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic masters' bidding, apparently forgetting that the current 'masters' are themselves Climaticide denialists."
(Bush was President when he wrote this)
"Government science is corrupt science because it's government science. 'Scientists' in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our 'freedom'."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/12/143145/743/173/513430
I think he pretty much nails it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most basic research in every branch of science at least partially funded by the government?
I would recommend reading "The Carbon Age" by Eric Roston where you will learn about all the fun things we are doing to the short term carbon cycle that may be unprecedented in the history of the planet. And then come back and tell us how it's all just a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.
And if you believe the oil companies are the heroes protecting our freedom, (while at the same time believing a preposterous conspiracy theory about scientists selling their souls to the socialist devil, a theory that isn't even plausible) you might at lest want to get the whole story from books like "Censoring Science", "The Heat is On" and "The Boiling Point". At least you will know who's paying who to fool you and many others.
As far as convictions for polluters. No, just for those deliberately waging a disinformation campaign to confuse the public on such a critical issue as our own survival as a species, for their own short term gain.
DRIII:
I think I know who the real nut is. Someone with the name of a character from a Pixar movie.
>Given that, I'm going to do something that true sceptic probably never has, admit to making a mistake.
Bang!
owwww...
I would put that gun away and get that foot to the hospital.
The only 'scientists' that have stated that sea levels would rise 246ft by the end of the century are the climate sceptic variety. Some people will have to think about that one, or maybe not?
Johnny Rook did leave out one component of the denial camp.
Religous fundamentalism plays a part for some climate change skeptics.
In the words of Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, Universtity of Oklahoma, who is on both Inhofe's list and the list of evolution deniers from the Discovery Institute.
"The predecessors of today's unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible's book of Genesis with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible's book of Revelation with the U.N.'s report Anthropogenic Global Warming."
And did you notice where he is a professor? With all that going for him, how could he not be a climate change denier?
I've never heard Monckton let anyone call him "Dr." without correcting them.
I've never heard Margaret Thatcher let anyone call her "Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet" without correcting them.
I have never heard anyone call Margaret Thatcher "Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet". But it's also therefore true that I have never heard Margaret Thatcher let anyone call her "Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet" without correcting them.
Is there a video clip or an audio clip of a radio interview available in which she does this?
Dash -- for a review of one of Monckton's pieces, look here:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Monckton.html
Dash writes:
Dash, Al Gore was one of Roger Revelle's students in the '60s. (Do you know who Revelle was? Do you know what he did?) We know, therefore, that Gore has taken at least one course in climate science. That's one more course than Monckton has taken.
Dash writes:
I'm someone who accepts the science on AGW, which in your view makes me an "AGW alarmist." I am pro-choice. I have no problem with the death penalty, and would certainly execute all multiple murderers, rapists, child molesters, and pirates. I think people have the right to own guns for self-defense but don't need to own assault weapons or other military hardware.
Sometimes things are a little more complex than left-right.
James Hansen never said sea level would rise 246 feet by the end of the century. As far as I can tell, nobody but you ever said such a thing.
Ms or Mr RIPROCK, you're making yourself ridiculous in front of the whole world. This unhealthy obsession with Gore that the US AGW denialists have never ceases to amaze me. Outside the USA, most people haven't even seen his movie, nor is he perceived as a climatologist (which of course he isn't anyway).
But then, outside the USA, acceptance of science is not a left-right issue either.
The world is larger and more complicated than your philosophy can dream, Ms or Mr RIPROCK.
Further to cce's interesting observation at #25, about Stefan Rahmstorf's notifying the IPCC about that error, I am curious - when is Monckton first recorded as having found the error?
Unless he can provide incontrovertible time-stamped evidence of his own 'discovery', he can't claim to have 'found' it if the finding of the error had already been put into the public domain.
1) "Dash Riprock III" almost certainly is Mark G* of Bryan, TX, right next to College Station (Texas A&M University or TAMU), in the middle of a ~190,000-person metropolitan area.
I've spoken at TAMU a few times, including once about the time Mark graduated from Bryan H.S., and like any big university town I've ever visited, it is *not* a Hooterville. (Those unfamiliar with TV shows Petticoat Junction and Green Acres can look that up. I am curious if people would be pleased by the comparison.)
Mark has been busy broadcasting his message & advertising his websites (where posts are under "mark"):
Google: hooterville gazette ...
even turned up one in our local paper. Reading an article almost entirely about Chris Field (a fine scientist here locally, an Co-Chair of IPCC WG II), Mark took the opportunity to discuss Al Gore.
Mark apparently got excited by the April 28 visit of Viscount Monckton, sponsored by CFACT, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose banner includes a tree, with a background whose texture looks like (green) astroturf. This is somewhat ironic, in light of Sourcewatch on CFACT, as the experienced reader will recognize a few names.
2) TAMU is the home of a large (see p.2), credible Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, including Andrew Dessler, whose book I certainly liked. The department faculty has a statement on climate change, i.e., agrees with IPCC.
They offer frequent lectures and seminars open to the public. The next big one is a big 3-day session June 8-10 @ Annenberg Conference Center on campus, less than 8 miles' drive from Mark's house. Mark is one of the few people fortunate to be that close to a strong climate science department like this. That's a great deal for $60! I'd go if I were nearby.
3) Mark G *could* attend this (and other lectures) and:
a) listen to the talks
b) ask questions of the speakers, hear others' questions
c) talk informally with people during breaks
d) compare their credibility to that of Monckton
e) Learn some science from real scientists
f) And maybe, write the meeting up on his blogs
OR
f) he could take his Monckton-derived "knowledge", challenge these scientists, prove them wrong, in person, under his own name, which will make him famous ...
g) and if they don't agree with him, he could publicly campaign to get TAMU to stop wasting money and government funds on researchers who are clearly ignorant of Monckton's science, and somehow have turned the heart of Aggie-land into a hotspot of liberal madness. Who would have thought... :-)
SUMMARY:
If Mark wishes to learn, he is fortunate to have a strong climate science department about 20 minutes' drive away.
Unfortunately, Riprock appears to be real, though the Poe factor has to be considered.
I am not one of those "can't see the forest if it's been logged" liberals who believes in the existence of carbon.
6,000 years (the length of time the universe has existed) is simply not long enough to establish weather trends. Therefore, the prudent policy is to ignore the AGW communists and wait at least another 6,000 years before acting.
Umm, hate to tell you Marion ... the planet has only been around about 6k, the universe a tad longer at 15k. Which just goes to prove there was no such thing as the stone-age and Al G is still fat.
I'm not sure but wasn't Monckton's grandfather a labour politician who was granted a hereditary peerage? If thats correct it would've made his grandfather one of the last hereditaries. I also think Monckton is related by marriage to the ex journalist Nigel Lawson. If thats correct it explains a few things.
I think there only 90 places reserved for hereditaries in the House of Lords now, all the rest are Life Peers i.e. the UK government appoints you and you serve life.
Oh, and another thing. I saw via, the Marohasy blog that the caped crusader Marc Morano had labeled Monckton as previously a science adviser to Maggie Thatcher when she was British PM. I pointed out on Marohasy's blog that its a bit hard to believe Monckton was a science adviser as Maggie has a degree in chemistry and was one of the first leaders to point to the perils of climate change (perhaps the only constructive thing she ever did). I think it was that Monckton was one of a number of young policy wonks working in her offices but interesting that the caped crusader touted it (or perhaps expected).
I was very surprised to subsequently get a note from Marohasy thanking me for the info about Monckton not being a science adviser.
Dear Mr. Mashey,
Thank you so much for the kind advice. I am more than aware of Andrew Dessler's position at Texas A&M. I purchased his book a very short time ago and will have it completed before the June conference. There are a few other books I want to complete first, but The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change A Guide to the Debate is certainly on my short list. I will add a few of your papers on climate science to that list as well. I'll will also try my best to be at the conference. If you change your mind about attending, let me know and I'll save you a seat.
Given your extremely impressive credentials, I don't have to explain the fact that the internet is a global communication tool. I'm therefore curious as to why you of all people would assume that the name of my website has anything at all to do with the community in which I happen to reside? That's old school thinking my man.
It should be pointed out that the Hooterville Gazette name was chosen after Barack Obama made his famous remark regarding bitter small town Americans who cling to their guns, religion and antipathy toward those who are unlike them. After hearing his remark, I said to myself, this guy thinks everyone who lives in a small town is living in Hooterville. When I created the website, Hooterville Gazette was chosen as the name because the comment (by Obama) was still on my mind.
Speaking of assumptions, I assume if I have questions on computer climate modeling I may submit them to you?
Mark G.
P.S. Even though things can get a little wild at the Dixie Chicken, Liberal Madness has not set in yet :-)
I'm glad to hear that you'll be going. That looks to be a fine conference and a good deal,and certainly, anybody handy in TX should think about going. Fortunately, I'm lucky to be able to hear such people talk several times a month.
re: Bryant/College Station != Hooterville: I thought I was clear, but maybe not enough. In an Internet era, it's a lot easier for small towns to represent themselves if they want to.
Bryant/CS is "a really big, sophisticated city" by comparison, with a serious university, golf courses, nice suburbs, a large public school system. Its TM'd phrase is "The Good Life, Texas Style" and that seems plausible, especially as university towns often have stronger economies and more amenities than other similarly-sized towns, much less tiny rural towns.
Questions on climate modeling:
Sure, I can answer some questions, but... post them (in an open thread) at RealClimate or maybe Austin-based) Only In It For The Gold, so that you can hear from real climate modeling experts as well.
I'm certainly not one of those, just have architected supercomputers used for it, talked with relevant scientists and software engineers over the years, and looked at bits of code now and then.
But first, if you want to know about modeling (after reading Dessler) read RC FAQ #1, and RC FAQ #2 and maybe different kinds of simulations and why people get confused.
Of course, Dessler is an expert, and hopefully you'll be ready to ask him questions.
Oops, after all that, I forgot the other key thing to do:
TX has 3 big problems with climate change:
1) TX has a lot of seacoast, sea levels will rise, and hurricane intensities increase, buy at least Bryan isn't there. (And if I misspelled it earlier as Bryant, sorry).
2) Average temperature rises.
That means more air conditioning, but more importantly, higher evaporation rates.
3) As it gets warmer, Hadley Cell circulation expands, moving rain out of the SouthWest, which includes TX and (at least part of) CA.
1) = more water [in CA, we'll have the sea-level rise, not the hurricanes]
2)+3) = less water [in CA,we'll have that, although more of our problem is the lessening snowmelt in the Sierras]
Climate models are easily good enough to:
a) do long-term global forecasts [well, for average temperature, physicists did that without computers decades ago]
b)they are certainly good enough to predict the general effects above
c) but they are still working hard to refine the more detailed, higher-resolution models. TX is complicated. I'll give an example later.
TX has a bunch of good climate scientists, and just last month, they (and some other good ones) had a conference Effects of climate change on Texas Water Resources.
Even better, the presentations are here. CA residents are also obsessed with hydrology, so I looked at some, and you might also, as there are many good talks.
For example:
See TAMU's Gerald North, who explains the Hadley Cell issue I mentioned. He ends by asking "Is Texas the most vulnerable state?" He also asks:
"Is the dividing line I35 or I45?" meaning, to the West of one of those highways, it's going to rain less, (and to the East, more) but right now, the models aren't yet good enough to be sure where. Some of the (upstream) Brazos watershed is almost certain to lose rain, but the actual boundary may matter.
See Andrew Dessler on making decisions under uncertainty.
See Katharine Hayhoe of TexasTech, especially the Texas part, pp15-28, noting that the "high emissions scenarios" are more like where we're headed currently.
Anyway, there is a wealth of up-to-date material by good people from TX and elsewhere.
Some more [reading](http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf) for Mark G.
In fact, all of the [material](http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html) offered by Ray Pierrehumbert may be of benefit to both Mark G. and to Monckton, in their endeavours to learn some real climatology.
Hat-tip to [Geoff Russell](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/#comm…) at BraveNewClimate for the lead.
I wonder how long it will take for the "sceptics" to start a 'deconstruction' of this book about climate? I'll be curious to see their science...
Mr. Mashey,
As you noted, Liberal Madness was started a few weeks ago. All members are approved by me. The "action" is fine for a site just getting started. As for the Hooterville Gazette, all tracking is done internally so I'm curious as to how how you determined the "action" there?
Dash RIPROCK III
Bernard J.
Many thanks. I will read it. I recently ordered a few more books by AGW supporters. Unlike most of the people I meet who support one side or the other, I do believe in balancing the information I take in.
By thw way, which part(s) of the book did you find most impressive?
ooooooooh boy, "real climatology", I just can't wait to start turning those pages. (Seriously, I will read it.)
Mark
Monckton is happy to let others call him "Dr." without correcting them. He's also happy to claim membership of the House of Lords, which has never been the case.
- True Sceptic
Ezzthetic,
I'm very familiar with Monckton and have never observed anyone calling him Dr. He goes to great lengths at the beginning of each one of his presentations to make it clear that he is not a scientist. Given True Sceptic's comment above, he or she should be prepared to cite at least one example of Monckton having done this.
CCE & Barton,
I stand corrected. He didn't put a time line on the rise in sea level, but he did say it would be 246 feet. He was too smart to get caught putting a deadline on it. A lesson learned from Gore I'm sure. Never predict an event within your lifetime. It's harder to be proven wrong that way.
When Hansen makes these types of statements, the press picks them up and runs with them. The general public assumes the disaster is imminent. Still an example of fear mongering no matter how you slice it.
Dash writes:
Where and when did he say that? Cite, please.
It would be unwise to rely on "Real" Climate on any scientific matter: Schmidt, the blogger, has a substantial financial vested interest in promoting and exaggerating the "global warming" scare. A refutation of Schmidt's latest less-than-temperate, less-than-accurate posting will appear shortly at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.
Briefly, CO2 is indeed accumulating in the atmosphere at less than half the rate predicted by the IPCC, a fact with the IPCC itself admits in its 2001 report. Schmidt, take note. The IPCC also predicts that global temperature will rise more rapidly as a result of "global warming" than it had been doing for 300 years as a result of natural causes, but the rate of warming between 1975 and 1998 was no greater than that which had been observed from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 (see Lord Hunt's recent answer to a Parliamentary Question in the House of Lords), and, since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant "global warming" at all. Since a phase-transition in the global-temperature record late in 2001, all measures of surface temperature show a rapid and continuing cooling of seven and a half years' duration. For five years the oceans have also been cooling - and that, according to Hansen et al. (2005), cannot be happening if anthropogenic "global warming" is as significant as the IPCC and its adherents would like us to believe.
Other measures of the now-abject failure of the high-climate-sensitivity hypothesis are the absence of the predicted threefold differential between the warming rate at the tropical surface and in the tropical upper troposphere; and the escape of outgoing long-wave radiation to space at 7-10 times the predicted rate, implying a climate sensitivity approximately one-seventh to one-tenth of that imagined by the IPCC. Revisionist attempts by the usual suspects to overturn these two oft-repeated and well-established results are not, as you may think, compelling enough to warrant closing down five-sixths of the West's economies.
Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House. The portcullis is a generic heraldic device; the vicecomital coronet is a device that I have the specific right to use (and, indeed, I shall be wearing it when His Majesty King Charles III invites me, as he will invite all hereditary Peers, to his coronation). I am fully entitled to combine the portcullis and the vicecomital coronet and use it as a badge or logo, for the United Kingdom, unlike Deltoid, is a free country, whether you like it or not.
Finally, I do not claim, and have never claimed, to hold a doctorate or any other scientific qualification. However, I gave scientific advice to Margaret Thatcher on a number of questions, including the hydrodynamics of warships (resulting in the payment of $1 million to an inventor who would otherwise have been cheated by a public body), the prediction of election results (to one seat in 1983), the epidemiology of retroviral transmission (I predicted tens of millions of deaths worldwide unless HIV were treated like any other incurable, fatal infection and made notifiable, and - sadly - 25 million have since died, most of them needlessly), and the optimization of public-investment rates (leading to savings of £20 billion to the UK taxpayer: I wish I'd been on commission). And, until I retired through ill health three years ago, for 20 years I ran a very successful consultancy corporation that specialized in giving technical advice to governments and corporations. So far, my prediction that the temperature change arising from anthropogenic effects will be small, harmless, and generally beneficial seems to be very much closer to observed reality than the increasingly desperate predictions of the "global warming" profiteers. Who funds Planet Deltoid anyway? I think we should be told.
Can it be, perhaps, that those who - like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid - do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem? Magna est veritas, et praevalet. - Monckton of Brenchley
Can we dispense with the formalities and call you Chris, if that is really who you are?
Would you like to engage in some serious dialogue?
---"Can it be, perhaps, that those who - like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid - do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem?"
Pure Ad hominem drivel. Pot, meet kettle.
Chris,
I'd point out that giving political advice on scientific matters does not qualify as scientific advice, but I'm well aware that recognition of this fact would undermine the field of psychological projection upon which your ego depends, and isn't likely to happen.
@Monckton of Brenchley:
Is this correct; or did you give advice to the good Baroness on a number of scientific questions? If this is correct; where did you get the expertise to advise on, for example, hydrodynamics? And why would a chemistry graduate require scientific advice from a Journalism graduate?
While you're here; why did you describe yourself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" to two US Senators?
Again, you claim that:
Taking the second point first: I was under the clear impression that the 1999 Act removed all rights to use the facilities of the House from the non-excepted hereditaries, and the Explanatory Notes to the Act confirm that. How do you "have acccess [sic] to those facilities"?
Back to the first point; your testimony to the The Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, 25 March, 2009 started with the words "I BRING fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments". What exactly gave you the status to do so? I would say that this is an implication that you have some connection with, even membership of, "the Mother of Parliaments" - but you have no more connection than do I.
You may call this ad hominem; so be it. While you seek to rely upon some kind of authority from having been an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, or allegedly being a member of the House of Lords, you have put in issue those very points. You have also given reason to doubt - if those claims of authority are unwarranted - the credibility of your pronouncements of fact.
Christopher Monckton, I didn't have to take Gavin Schmidt's word for anything. I'd already checked the CO2 concentrations in the projections for AR4 and had discovered for myself that you had misrepresented them, just as Schmidt says.
Furthermore, [John Nielsen-Gammon](http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/JNielsen-Gammon) (Texas State Climatologist) has also checked your claims and [concluded](http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController…)
>Let's recap: (1) The graph lies by representing an envelope from a single scenario as "the" IPCC prediction. (2) The graph lies by asserting that an observed CO2 trend outside that envelope would require a downward adjustment in the IPCC's central temperature projection. (3) The graph lies by depicting the spread of IPCC projections for even this single scenario as zero, when the actual spread is 60 ppm. (4) The graph lies by creating an imaginary envelope of projections for this single scenario that does not correspond to the actual envelope of projections, thereby generating a supposed IPCC prediction of CO2 that increases much more rapidly than does even the IPCC projection for the most extreme emissions scenario. The only part of this graph that is correct is the observed CO2 concentration; the envelope labeled "IPCC" is completely and utterly bogus.
Deltoid is funded by Seed Media Group (did you bother to look at the page footer?), who sell ads on these pages to make their money.
Now, could you enlighten as to the funding of SPPI?
basically all of us could always claim, to be A (potential) MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
most of us don t need to do this. Monckton obviously needs these claims.
@Monckton of Brenchley:
Ooops - "Classics graduate"
I note that Monckton not only comes up with some new whoppers in his commentary here, but continues to repeat long-debunked ones as well.
This is a new one - but obviously false as documented here and at RealClimate (and why a reference to the 2001 (TAR) report? Page number, please?)
This is an old repeat (see my list of errors in his Physics and Society article for instance).
Another old one. Weather is not climate (also on my list).
Ah, the tropical troposphere confusion, not a new one at all, and Realclimate dealt with it perfectly well over a year ago (also on my list).
This is a new one to me. A 7-10-fold increase in outgoing longwave radiation would cool the Earth's surface close to absolute zero in less than a month. What on earth is his source for this claim? The satellite measurements I've seen are completely in accord with spectroscopy, it's very hard to get that theory wrong.
Obviously not a new argument at all, though I haven't seen those numbers quoted elsewhere. Wow, climate is totally non-predictable to the point that theories are off by a factor of 7 to 10, but economic theory is so accurate we can predict exactly how much policy changes that have not yet even been substantively agreed on yet will cause the world's economy to decline? Amazing stuff! In reality, *all* real economic analyses show at most small negative, and very likely positive, impacts from action on climate, not even taking into account the benefits from preventing massive warming, sea level rise, etc.
Nonsense, repeated ad nauseum. Perfect Monckton style.
Barton, as you wish:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-…
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090215_Damocles.pdf
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/02/16/james-hansen-the-sword-of-d…
http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=2265
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=656
Barton:
Hopefully this will clear the spam filter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-…
I put so many links in my last response to you that the spam filter is holding it for review.
Like many here, I look forward to Mr Monckton's papers on these issues in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. the message has been said so many times I (and no doubt others) are tired of hearing it. But if we are to take Mr Monckton seriously then he needs to publish all these points. So far he has done so only in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper (towards the tabloid end of the British broadsheets) and in various internet sites. I guess like all sceptics he isn't really interested in finding out about science, just in maintaining a policy of 'do nothing'.
One point...If he can prove that climate sensitivity is low then he has to explain the glacial/interglacial record as well as the recent historic record of climate change. I look forward to him doing this!
Tune in next week for what the House of Lords says about Moncktons claims.
As for heraldry, what is the coat of arms of the Monckton family anyway? All the internet throws up is something without any portcullis's, and anyone who takes their heraldry seriously wouldn't use a random cheesy logo like Monckton does, unless they are trying it on, which we know Monckton is. Using the Portcullis as a logo seems to be alright, as long as the device including the portcullis is not already claimed as someone elses coat of arms.
I look forwards to the inevitable legal threats against Private Eye, Seed media and anyone else. For reference, it is Private Eye number 1235, 1 to 14th May, page 7, titled 'The crowned clown'.
Is this really the same Monckton that advocated the use of biological weapons in the Faulklands conflict? I think anyone who advocates ignoring bans on biological weapons shows a lack of understanding that actions have consequences beyond the obvious. Such as that burning lots of fossil fuels can have results like changing climate as well as powering our apparent prosperity.
Dash Incredible:
So no-one should mention the consequences of burning all the fossil fuel into the atmosphere. Is that because no-one would be stupid enough to burn it all?
No.
Schmidt and Lambert do have the technical competence and the scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the "scientific" questions nonsense that you raise.
If you disagree, you could remind us exactly how it is that you have the required technical understanding, and they don't.
Note: repetition of your claims to having been a "scientific adviser" for Thatcher does not demonstrate in any way, shape or form that you have actually acquired the requisite scientific understanding. That's just hot air.
Chris,
Do you think the period of time over which it is burned would make any difference at all?
I'm sure Gore and Hansen know they are working with a very narrow window of opportunity. I'd say they have less than four years to make it happen. In their minds that justifies
the fear mongering and exaggeration they employ.
Dash
Dash:
The time line related to the the time over which the sea level rise would occur, not the time it takes to burn the fossil fuel. Please try not to be confused.
Christopher Munchhausen--I'm sorry, Monckton--writes
Why don't you bring up one of the "scientific questions" and see what happens?
Dash writes:
Dash, I went to that site and could not find any mention of a 246 foot rise in sea-level. I thought I might have missed it, so I did a text search for "246" and "two hundred." It isn't there.
Barton,
Search for 75 meters. It is there.
Dash
Chris,
The issue here is that once making that comment, Hansen knows full well the headline is going to read: Expert Says Sea Level to Rise 246 Feet!!! We're All Going to Die!!! The majority of time, the press leaves out a reference to time line unless it's very short. (See comment below.)
I would put this up there with his other statement to the press: Obama Has Four Years to Save The World!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
It is this quote that resulted in my saying they (Gore and Hansen) have a narrow four year window.
Dash
Mr. Mashey,
Thank you for gathering the links for me.
My apologies to Christopher Monckton. He did indeed bring up some science-related points in his post. I guess I just missed them in the wake of the long bit sniping at Gavin and James Hansen.
I'll just deal with one. The Viscount writes:
Well, I took the annual land-ocean temperature index from NASA GISS for 1995-2008 and regressed the 14 figures against elapsed time, using the year as the independent variable. The coefficient is 1.516 (temperature advancing 0.15 K per decade) with t = 2.557, which is significant at the p < 2.5% level. This is highly statistically significant, so the Viscount's point here is falsified.
SLR of "246 feet" is what you'd get if there was no ice left on the planet. Incidentally, this was the state of the earth the last time temperatures were as high as they are expected to go if we stay on a BAU track. The question is how long it will take for the ice sheets to disintegrate. The papers published since AR4 are clustering around a 1 meter rise this century, which is more than enough to cause misery for millions of people. Of course, SLR would not stop in 2100, and would continue for centuries until each ice sheet (Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica in that order) fully disintegrates.
Dash:
Where do they say "We're All Going to Die!!!"? Why should Hansen try to hide the expectation of a 75 metre sea level rise. Shouldn't responsible people know about this? Are you saying everyone should be treated like children?
Christopher Monckton, I find it amusing that you reject a claim by Private Eye that is based on an open letter you yourself wrote.
If you can't be bothered to stick to the truth on such a simple matter, why should we think you have any credibility at all? Add to this the fact that not once have you been right when discussing global warming, and your credibility lies in tatters. It turns out that a classical education is not a substitute for a scientific education â but I would hope that a classical education would give you the ability to know when you are wrong, and the grace to admit it.
Please stop being an embarrassment to the United Kingdom, and find some other subject to waste your time with.
Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there.
Balony.
you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature ...
Letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
For five years the oceans have also been cooling
Balony.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant "global warming" at all.
Balony
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1995/trend
After three instances of 'making stuff up' I normally stop reading ...
Ooops! Try this for the OHC numbers http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
I think this blog software will manage to get a URL correct John if you use a backslash before the underscore character, "\\_". Thus \_HEAT\_. Otherise it takes it upon itself to read underscores as italicizers, who knows why?
Where do they say "We're All Going to Die!!!"? Why should Hansen try to hide the expectation of a 75 metre sea level rise. Shouldn't responsible people know about this? Are you saying everyone should be treated like children?
First of all, the words "We're all going to die" don't have to be written, they're implied. Here's a pic of what that(a 75 meters sea level rise) would look like. http://www.liberalmadness.com/photo/if-hansen-is-right
Chris, do think there would be any survivors? Does an article suggesting such a rise is possible have to state the obvious?
Chris, why can you not see that Hansen and Gore are engaging in alarmism. I notice you steered clear of Hansen's "Obama has four years to save the world" remark.
Can't say that I blame you.
Yes responsible people should be allowed to hear Hansen's point of view. They should also be told by the media that many disagree with him. Only giving one side of the story is treating the general public like children.
Many disagree with Hansen about the four years part? You don't think the public is that childlike that it needs to have that explained as being his opinion not a consensus scientific position do you Dash? You must have been hot on the case of the Cheney gang when they were getting unbalanced headlines for the urgency of their intention to go get Saddam. Come to think of it most of the stuff Cheney got away with saying without counteropinion must have had you fulminating for more fairness and balance in journalism.
I think anyone who can move faster than the Washington monument will survive an inundation that will take centuries.
Frankis, for the record I do think the public needs to have that explained. As for Cheney, I don't recall taking a public position on that. You're so right, the media was so in the tank for Bush and Cheney the entire eight years. Disgusting wasn't it? Please tell me that you're not suggesting it's ok for the media to present only one side of the global warming debate because in your opinion they gave Cheney favorable coverage regarding WMD?
CCE,
Then there is obviously nothing to worry about.
Thanks for letting us know.
Dash
Please enjoy this free reading material:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/monckton_rebutted.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.html
Lord Monckton Thrashes DeSmog Blog Editor in High-Profile Global Warming Debate:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23673/Lord_Monckton_Thrashes…
Dash:
So when you wrote:
, you were lying to us.
It's not obvious because it's just not true. For a start it's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
Finally. That was like getting blood out of a stone.
Thanks for the strawman.
By the way, thanks for not showing there were any mistakes in the pointing out of Monckton's lies above.
cce said:
Only if they have somewhere they can go to. To give just one obvious example, which country is going to welcome with open arms 150 million Bangladeshis? The US? But they will be trying to resettle millions of Floridians and other coastal dwellers. Look at the difficulties there already are in resettling just a few hundred thousand people from the Maldives.
"As for Cheney, I don't recall taking a public position on that. "
That comes as a surprise.
"You're so right, the media was so in the tank for Bush and Cheney the entire eight years."
Way to move those goalposts, Dash.
Dash,
The debate occurred within the scientific literature, and that debate is over. AGW is happening. The scientific literature is solidly in favor of this point. There are a handful of contrarians, but their work is lacking in credibility or any form of broad support.
Also, referring to someone as alarmist is a bit of a pointless ad hom. If a building is on fire, is the person who pulls the fire alarm an alarmist? What about the firemen? You see, there is evidence of global warming and that human activity is greatly contributing to it. Since we can change our activity, we can do something about it.
To follow the above metaphor, the alarmists are trying to save the building, while the denialists, with their PR label of sceptic (in this case, the c should be silent) have a grand time fiddling.
Am I a liberal? Yes. But I am first and foremost a scientist. Evidence informs by positions, not the other way around. Pro choice policies can decrease the number of abortions, and where abortion is outlawed, women's health care is lessened. The death penalty is applied unevenly when examined for race and socio economic status, and if such an extreme punishment is to be used, it must be used fairly.
I am a gun owner, hunter and an accomplished target shooter. My dream guns are a custom bullpup muzzleloader that is in the design stage right now (I will have to completely rework the trigger system), and the P90S for target shooting (partly the inspiration for the former). But I am for responsible gun ownership, in the interest of gun owners, not the version that the NRA supports, which is in the interest of the gun manufacturer.
Chris,
I have, since I became aware of you and your disconnect from reality, wanted to say this.
Sod off, wanker.
Dash,
When every major coastal city, low lying country and island, and countless trillions of dollars of infrastructure is erased from the map decade by decade, that might be a problem. But I suppose it's easier to lie about what Hansen has said, lie about the implications, and then move the goalposts.
Anyone who wants to see "alarmism" need only turn on CSPAN or talk radio and listen to know-nothings go on and on about how doing anything about Global Warming will throw everyone out of work and destroy capitalism.
And the 4 years to "save the world" is the amount of time Hansen thinks is left to put us on a track that avoids breaching the tipping points. One fact that skeptics apparently don't understand is the inertia and cumulative nature of the problem. If these policies are not in place in the next several years, it will be virtually impossible to prevent the worst effects of global warming no matter how hard people try after the fact.
Richard,
I am perfectly aware of the refugee problem, which has little to do with the constant lies about "everyone dying." So-called skeptics paint a picture of SLR as if it were a tsunami that no one can "survive," and then accuse them of "alarmism."
We never pay much attention to things that Hansen hasn't actually said.
We do pay attention when people like you *lie* about what Hansen actually said.
Dhogaza,
I guess you missed the fact that I had a link in the original post (73) or are you suggesting the Guardian is
making stuff up about Hansen now. Please at least follow the links before you call someone a liar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
Robster,
Just when I began to think that I wouldn't find anyone here who agreed with me on anything, along comes the Robster. Like you I am a gun owner and like you I think Chris is a wanker.
Hopefully with two pieces of common ground we can agree on some other things.
The science is seldom settled on anything. I'm sure the global cooling supporters of the 1970s thought the science was settled also. As we learned, it was not. Science is not settled by consensus. There was once a consensus that the world was flat. There was once a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth. I believe that there was once a consensus that objects of different weight did not fall at the same rate of speed or acceleration. The handful of contrarians as you've called them now numbers nearly 32,000.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html
I'm sure if you boil the list down, not all were qualified to sign the petition. The same could be said of the 2,500 so called climate experts at the UN IPCC.
Is there a particular contrarian you'd like to single out as having lacked credibility in his or her work? While you're at it, what's your opinion of the Mann hockey stick graph?
I do consider Hansen's "Obama has four years to save the world" remark to be alarmist.
There are so many examples of it in the press. Global warming is blamed for everything from
a higher divorce rate to large snakes. My favorite title was "Large Spider's Getting Larger!"
Here is a link to a site that his found 600 issues being caused or exacerbated by global warming.
You seem honest. Review this list and tell me some of it doesn't fall under the category of alarmism. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I don't know a single skeptic on this issue who does not agree that the earth went through a significant warming during the last quarter of the last century. The disagreement is over whether or not the warming is anthropogenic. When you state that human activity is greatly contributing to it, what do you consider the most impressive piece of evidence that this is true. If you have trouble narrowing down to one piece of evidence, feel free to cite more.
By the way, hasn't the Hadley center acknowledged that warming has slowed greatly in the 21st century?
Following your metaphor, I'll remind you that it is illegal to pull a fire alarm when the building is not truly burning. Stating that there is a trend that suggests the building might burn in a century or that a computer models says the building is burning probably wouldn't cut it with the local fire marshal.
The death penalty is not the only thing not evenly applied when examined for race. Planned parenthood is much more likely to provide a white female true counseling while often times
rushing young black girls to the abortion table without so much as a pre-abortion physical. A group of college students recently made news by calling planned parenthood and asking if they
could donate money for black abortions only. Planned parenthood was quick to accept the money and promised the money would be used to abort a black baby. Robster, if you look back into the history of that organization and the ideals of the founders, you'll see that there is more than a little racism going on there.
As for the death penalty, I'll add a complaint to yours. As anyone who has ever taken Psychology 101 will tell you, in order for a punishment to be effective, the penalty must
follow the undesirable behavior as quickly as possible. In the case of irrefutable video
evidence, I'm for flipping the switch a little quicker. Your comment regarding extreme punishment being used fairly is on the money. Sorry, you'll get no argument from me on that.
If it can't be applied more fairly, the death penalty shouldn't be used at all. This lack of fairness
can be tracked at every level of the judicial system, not just cases where the death penalty might apply.
I'm not a hunter, but have enjoyed target shooting from time to time. That's not because I'm a member of PETA, it because I simply do not enjoy it. You didn't mention if you support
concealed carry licenses. What's your take on that? Just wondering.
I have a few other questions I'd like to ask you because unlike Chris you seem capable of
intelligent answers.
Dash:
There wouldn't be someone else with the name "Chris" in this thread, would there? Hint: have a look in the title.
In any case I'd rather be called a wanker than be what you are which is a bare-faced liar.
By the way, thanks for not disagreeing that Monkton, like you, is a bare-faced liar.
Riprock or whoever you are:
This comes straight from a senior scientist (me). Learn a little bit about scientific protocol before making fatuous remarks. When you write, "Science is not settled by consensus" you are in fact correct. But you are missing the point. Science is never based on consensus, but *public policy must be based on it*. This is the crux of the matter. If public policy had to based on scientific consensus, then we'd never have seen any regulatory laws passed protecting the environment. The planet would be in an even worse state than it is now.
Given the uncertainties, there is a very strong agreement amongst *most* of the scientific community that humans are forcing climate. This support is probably quite unprecedented in scientific history. Of course there will always be, for whatever reason, outliers. But the fact that we know most of them by name should be an indication that their actual number is remarkably small.
As for global cooling in the 1970s, when will people like you give up this dead turkey? This was one scenario that was proposed at the time, based on the effects of aerosols on climate, and not an actual large scale prediction. Like most scientists, we change our minds as empirical data comes in supporting an alternate hypothesis. A few years ago there was a debate regarding the fitness of hybrid zones. Papers were published supporting the argument that hybrids had higher inclusive fitness than the original species. Then papers came in which contradicted this assumption and showed that it was, in fact, association dependent. Scientists originally positing the former hypothesis changed their opinions on the basis of the empirical evidence. A similar debate is now occurring over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Once more data comes in that may support one or other hypothesis, we can expect scientists to fall in line with the prevailing theory. This is what 'good science' is all about.
If we were to wait until 'all the data are in', as you appear to propose, then it would be far too late to take any kind of action to mitigate the most serious effects go AGW. Again, most scientists are well aware of this, even if the lay public (sounds a bit like you) are not.
cce writes:
The trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure of coastal cities does not move faster than the Washington monument.
Dash writes:
There was never a consensus on global cooling in the 1970s the way there is now on global warming. Here's what really happened:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Locally, the world is flat. It was a good empirical generalization for the quality of observation possible 3,000 years ago, and is more sophisticated than the obvious inference from visual evidence that the Earth is wrinkled and lumpy.
Again, best interpretation of the evidence available at the time. And did you know that geocentric astronomical math is still used for Earth satellites, since it works?
True again, and again from observation, since in general, in our environment, dense things do fall quicker than light things. Air resistance.
Nearly none of the people listed are climatologists, and what in the world do polls prove? I'm getting the impression from all you've written above that you think "scientific consensus" means "what the majority vote of scientists in on an issue." Not quite. It's what has been acknowledged by the majority of the scientists as not worth debating any more. Nobody is researching the shape of the Earth or geocentric astronomy any more because there's a scientific consensus that they're not fruitful areas. You can tell the scientific consensus from how much a subject appears in the peer-reviewed science literature and how often those articles in turn get cited.
Why do you think that? What's the connection? The IPCC searched out qualified scientists. The Oregon Petition was broadcast to anyone who would sign it, and includes signatures from dentists, chiropracters, engineers, and even corporations (how does a corporation sign a petition?).
Tim Ball, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen (except for the original iris paper, which was a legitimate study), Steve McIntyre, Christopher Monckton, the late Michael Crichton and John Daly, and pretty much all American right-wing talk radio comes to mind.
The first paper of its kind in the historical-temperature-reproduction field, used some suboptimal statistics, but has since had its conclusions validated by dozens of independent studies.
Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton (on and off), Rush Limbaugh (on and off).
Not among people who know what they're talking about.
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859)
* CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958 et seq.)
* The new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Suess and Revelle 1957)
* Temperature is rising (more sources than I can comfortably list, but let me know if you want them)
* The variations in temperature for the last 130 years correlate closely (r = 0.86) with the variations in CO2.
Not that I'm aware of.
Barton,
Read 93.
Dash,
The UK alone produces about 40,000 graduates with a science degree each year (i.e. about 400,000 per decade). Imagine how many that represents once all of Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, S, America, etc are included.
In that context, 32,000 signatories worldwide is actually rather pathetic, representing a tiny proportion of potential signers.
Dr. Dave, I've yet to see a petition urging politicians to move forward with a Kyoto style agreement that has more signatures. The science is not settled. 9,000 of those who signed had earned their doctorate. A little respect for them please. The science has never been close to being settled. Even if there were a consensus it wouldn't mean a thing. Google global cooling, flat-earth, or sun revolves around the earth for more detail.
Speaking of global cooling, you might want to try to find one of the scientists from the 70s that supported it in order to get advice on how to back away gracefully and save your career once it becomes even more obvious the planet isn't going to cooperate the computer models.
Barton,
You're still ticked that Hansen did make that comment.
Unless you don't trust the Guardian either.
Dash
CCE, I guess you missed Obama's comment that under his cap and trade policy, people could build coal plants if they wanted to but it's going to bankrupt them" and his other comment that electricity rates "would necessarily skyrocket." Who needs talk radio when Obama is doing a good job of ringing the alarm bells himself? I'm posting the video links since Barton, Dhogaza and Chris will accuse me of making it up if I don't post my source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzNUZVv0A0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs&feature=related
Can't wait to hear I lied about this one. I'm sure you'll come up with something.
Barton,
You wrote: "The variations in temperature for the last 130 years correlate closely (r = 0.86) with the variations in CO2."
You do understand that correlation does not establish cause and effect? Just thought I'd point that out before Jeff the Senior Scientist did. :-)
Dash
Dash, you can't seriously be saying "correlation does not establish cause and effect?" You do realize that that it is scientifically proven (over 100 years ago) that the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs infra red radiation at very specific wavelengths, which in turn causes the molecules to become excited which leads to warming of the air?
You just make yourself look very stupid by regurgitating the nonsense posted on denier web sites.
Dash:
Assuming there is such a scientist. On the other hand this might be just another one of Dash's bare-faced lies like saying someone said "We're all going to die".
By the way, just because you tell the truth sometimes doesn't mean you don't tell lies. Or don't you have the intelligence to understand that?
Anybody - and I mean ANYBODY - who still uses the "1970's global cooling scientific consensus" as a talking point against AGW after this Bulletin of the AMS article was published last September (see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/now_out_in_bams_the_myth_of_th.php) forfeits all credibility. Especially if he/she fails to acknowledge the error.
Stop lying, Dash.
Dash:
from coal
Just a quotation out of context this time.
Hansen actually said:
Four years to take the lead and to start doing what's necessary to forestall catastrophic warming.
Not four years to "save the world", i.e. accomplish all that's needed.
The difference between the two is a bit subtle for the likes of Dash.
Obama said that coal without carbon capture and sequestration would bankrupt those companies. There is no way that AGW will be held in check unless emissions from coal are either sequestered, or if the coal plants themselves are elminated. Those are the two choices the coal industry has, and everyone (except for "skeptics" reading from their talking points) understand this.
If the coal industry gets off of its ass and actually demonstrates the feasibility of CCS, then it will compete. If it can't do that, then someone else will provide that electricity and the money will go to them instead.
And yes, the cost of carbon intensive energy will increase, which is entirely the point. That money doesn't evaporate into nothing. The majority ill go back to public in the form of some kind of dividend, either through lower payroll taxes or a monthly deposit a'la the Alaska Permanent Fund. The remainder will go into energy R&D.
The studies that have looked into these things have found that the net cost will be minimal, shaving only a fraction of GDP every year.
Start here:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
Contrast that with the value of the snowpack that feeds the Colorado River basin throughout the summer. Or the cost of ever towering levies around every major coastal city, and/or the eventual abandonment of those cities. What's Florida worth as a piece of real estate? Trillions, I dare say.
I'm saying that a correlation in and of itself does not establish cause and effect.
I'm sure your familiar with the concept of a spurious relationship. Better not take a chance. Ok Ian, let's say that someone presented you with a study that indicated that there was a strong correlation between the number of churches in a community and the number of murders. Obviously the underlying cause of both would be population. No cause and effect between churches and murders. Do you get it now Ian? In the comment you referenced, I was merely making the point that correlation doesn't necessarily establish cause and effect.
Dash, are you so stupid that you are denying that there is a cause for warming? That cause is the radiative properties of carbon dioxide, a well established property.
Good grief, how can you be so stupid, can it be deliberate? Some people have no shame, they knowingly broadcast lies that will cause untold suffering to future generations. You are despicable, you and your dishonest cohorts such as the discount Monk are pathetic examples of the human race.
In 2006 there were over 45,000 PhD degrees awarded in the USA alone. In the UK there were 16,500. Again, 9,200 from the global pool is hardly a substantial proportion of the potential signatories. How many actually have a PhD in a relevant discipline, and thus are qualified to comment?
On the other hand, the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey of >3,000 earth scientists, more than 90% of whom had PhDs, found that 82% answered yes to the following question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Dash, as others have pointed out, "Sod off" was directed towards the upper class twit of the year, Monckton.
I for one, don't think you are lying. I actually think you don't have a strong enough handle on the information to know truth from fiction, which is a necessary capacity to be able to lie. For evidence, you repeat the ridiculous global cooling meme, and are plainly ignorant of the fact that Mann's hockey stick has been independently verified by other researchers using different models based on different data sets. When that happens, it is extremely likely that this is a correct or near correct hypothesis. Also, when corrected for errors pointed out, the graph didn't change appreciably. It has survived tests and come through stronger than before.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Problem is, your opinions are heavily filtering the information you take in, and as such, your arguments are functionally post-modernist.
Since some scientists disagree, no objective truth can exist in your worldview. Since consensus has been wrong before, no consensus can be correct in your mind, unless it is one you agree with, that is. Not a feature of the post modernist, but rather of an immature goof, you bandy about one list, while claiming that all others are worthless, demanding that we respect your bunch of PhDs, while denigrating those in opposition to you. Of course, you don't even seem to get that the list means nothing without the backing of evidence.
You can deny that the building is on fire all you like, and decry alarmism, but a scientist and a skeptic, when presented with evidence, put down their fiddle and evacuate. Perhaps you are sitting in one of Earth's exit rows, but I have yet to find one.
If you had evidence to support your claims, you would present it, but instead, you hunt for anomalies in the data, provide weak and long demonstrated false claims and rely on a long line of logical fallacies.
It wasn't the flat earthers who demonstrated that the world was round. It wasn't the heliocentrists that demonstrated that terra circles sol, and not the other way around. It hasn't been the creationists who demonstrated that the Piltdown man fossil was a hoax. For every Galileo that bucks the trend and demonstrates that strongly held beliefs are incorrect by applying the scientific method and the judicious use of evidence, there are a thousand pretenders to the name, full of sound and fury, but their data lacks significance.
Dash, one last point. Correlation does not prove causation, but that does not mean that correlation disproves causation. Rather it suggests that there may be something worthwhile to study. If, upon study, it turns out that there is something there, we refine our study further to make sure that there is not a spurious correlation. Different people examine the same problem using different methods. We check each other's work. If multiple lines of evidence support an idea, it is probably correct. If one line disputes it, we need to improve our understanding of the phenomenon. Are we wrong, or is this an interesting variable to toss into a new hypothesis?
If you bother looking into the global cooling meme, you will fine that rather than disproving the AGW theory, it actually enriches it. Go ahead. Educate yourself. Don't just wallow in ideological minitruth.
The whole problem is,is that there is NO global catastrophe happening.There isn't even the signs of one developing.Where's the fire,I ask?? A warmer planet with more CO2 will be a great benefit for humankind.Relax.
The whole problem is,is that there is NO global catastrophe happening.There isn't even the signs of one developing.Where's the fire,I ask?? A warmer planet with more CO2 will be a great benefit for humankind.Relax.
"A warmer planet with more CO2 will be a great benefit for humankind".
So says one Tim Wells, lacking any kind of understanding of rapid warming on complex adaptive systems that have already been simplified by humans in a range of other ways. Tim's statement, is, of course, utter nonsense, devoid of any empirical support whatsoever. The fact is that, along with other anthropogenic stresses, we can expect fraying and unraveling food webs, ecosystems to break down and a rapid increase in local (and global) extinction rates. Along with this there will be a concomitant reduction in the quality and reliability of critical ecosystem services, meaning that there will be huge social and economic costs. Tim's views are those a layman who think that its enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Sadly, this kind of simplistic view is all-too-common.
Jeff,.... "rapid warming..."
No,neither the rate nor the scale of warming is unusual.
As for the rest of your post....
1]"...we can expect..."
2]"Along with this there will be..."
3]"...meaning that there will be..."
ALL future tense.Look outside,the sky is still up there.
Tim,
Please tell me what qualifications you have to make rash, simple remarks. If the planet's ecological systems were ravaged, the sky would still be there.
The temporal rate of warming is much greater than usual at a global scale and particularly at a regional scale. The planet's climate control system is highly deterministic and it would take a major forcing to shift it at the rate that it has warmed since 1980. Already there are clear signs climate change is affecting phenological interrelationships in natural systems (e.g. migratory birds and their prime food sources; multitrophic interactions; predator-prey-plant interactions). The empirical literature is accumulating studies showing that trophic interactions are being disrupted, and that the populations of some species are in freefall. The prognosis is not good, given that humans have simplified nature in a wide range of other ways. You are saying that the current experiment - for that is what it is - is fine so let's continue. Your views are those I would expect of someone who doesn't have a clue as to the underlying science and who has been living in an artificial urban environment for far too long.
With no disrespect, the planet does not exist merely to serve the needs of Homo sapiens. We are as dependent, perhaps more so, on a range of vital services that emerge over variable spatio-temporal scales from natural systems. At the same time, climate change, along with habitat loss, various forms of pollution, biological homogenization etc. are is challenging natural systems in ways that that have not experienced in perhaps many millions of years. Given that nature sustains us, it does not take much logic to conclude that perhaps we ought to change course. I say this speaking as a senior scientist. On what qualifications do you base your 'all is fine' worldview, other to look out of the window and cross your fingers? Have you spent any time recently studying complex adaptive systems and the organisms in them? A patient can have cancer and not know it. The analogy is appropriate.
Jeff, don't forget the effect that warming is having on plant life, especially the change in spring growth patterns. Small changes in spring greening can and are beginning to have effects on the food web worldwide.
We are living in one of the planet's major extinctions, and this time it is human caused. The human race needs to restrain its more damaging effects or the comfortable life that we enjoy will simply not be available to us.
Beyond that, efficiency is good for our economy. Why do you hate America?
Apologies to Jeff, the why do you hate America question is directed towards oil producing dictatorship loving Tim and Dash.
So let me get this straight Jeff.You want to know what qualifications I have so you can use an argument based on "Authority".Is that right?Sorry pal,no can do,so lets talk reality.
1]Warming?1910 to 1940 was the same rate and scale as 1975 to 1998.
2]Species?They come and go due to natural AND human activty.There is no evidence that CO2 is the cause.
3]You are still just putting out scary future scenarios.
4]And with no disrespect Jeff,the planet DOES exist merely to serve the needs of Homo Sapiens.
Dash writes:
A doctorate in a different field means absolutely nothing. Shockley's doctorate in physics did not make him an authority on IQ and race, nor did Dawkins's doctorate in biology make him an authority on sociology.
On AGW the broad outlines are pretty much settled.
There was never a scientific consensus behind global cooling the way there is now on global warming. Please read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
And the rest of your argument seems to be, "people believed things in the past that were wrong, so they must be wrong now, as well." Sure. When they believed the Earth was flat, they were wrong, and when they believed the Earth was a sphere, they were wrong. But if you think they were just as wrong when they believed the Earth was a sphere, then you're wronger than both of them put together. Science does advance.
See above.
No, apparently I was wrong about that and you were write. Hansen did make such a comment. He was not saying, however, that it was going to happen overnight, or even within our lifetimes. Apparently the 246 foot figure refers to what you'd get if the entire cryosphere melted.
Dash writes:
Of course I do. But since the theory predicted the correlation, the presence of the correlation is a nice bit of confirmation.
AGW theory doesn't rest on climate correlations. It rests on radiation theory. Please review the full set of bullet points I made above.
Tim Wells posts:
Temperature is rising, droughts are increasing, there is more violent weather along coastlines, and glaciers and ice caps are melting. Have you been watching the news?
Global warming will lead to more droughts in continental interiors (ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agriculture production just in the past few years due to drought). It will lead to more violent weather along coastlines (ask the inhabitants of New Orleans). It will remove glaciers which one billion people in Asia and Latin America depend on for fresh water, which will create a "climate refugee" problem like nothing Earth has ever seen. And in the long run it will make trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure tied up in coastal cities disappear from the economy as those cities become uninhabitable.
1]Temperature is rising slowly.
2]Droughts show no long term increase.
3]no increase in violent weather.
4]Ice caps recovering 2008,2009.
None of these events can be attributed to an increase in CO2.
The second part of your post is worthless speculation and scare mongering.One thing is certain-increased CO2 will green the planet and feed the world.
Tim Wells posts:
Temperature is rising, droughts are increasing, there is more violent weather along coastlines, and glaciers and ice caps are melting. Have you been watching the news?
Global warming will lead to more droughts in continental interiors (ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agriculture production just in the past few years due to drought). It will lead to more violent weather along coastlines (ask the inhabitants of New Orleans). It will remove glaciers which one billion people in Asia and Latin America depend on for fresh water, which will create a "climate refugee" problem like nothing Earth has ever seen. And in the long run it will make trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure tied up in coastal cities disappear from the economy as those cities become uninhabitable.
Tim writes, "[Species] come and go due to natural AND human activty. There is no evidence that CO2 is the cause".
First of all, the current extinction rate is 100 to 10,000 times the natural background rate. Given that species and genetically distinct populations are the working parts of our global ecological life-support systems, this kind of ecological deficit cannot go on unchecked forever. You write as if humans are exempt from natural laws and constraints. I've got news for you "pal" - no species depends more on natural systems or on the services emerging freely from them than humans do. So the next time you shrug your shoulders and ignorantly exclaim that "Extinction is natural, so why worry?" I suggest that you think a bit deeper as to the social, economic and environmental consequences. They are profound already and will only get worse as natural capital depletes further. With respect to C02 and warming, this is a serious threat to natural systems in concert with the other processes I mentioned in my previous posting. Our species has paved, ploughed, dammed, dredged, slashed and burned, logged, biologically homogenized, polluted, fragmented, and chemically altered much of the biosphere. There have been and will continue to be ecological consequences from all of this.
3]"You are still just putting out scary future scenarios".
No, I am saying what we already know. Your first response to my last post proved what I knew to be true: you do not have a scientific background (i.e. you are a layman). Just because you don't apparently read the primary literature in no way supports any of your simple arguments.
4]"And with no disrespect Jeff, the planet DOES exist merely to serve the needs of Homo Sapiens".
Really? Who taught you this arrogant b*s? Besides, given that our existence hinges on conditions that emerge from complex adatpive natural systems, it does not seem very prudent to experiment on them does it? Your point is utterly devoid of logic.
As far as authority is concerned, as I said above your response shows that you haven't apparently got any aside from reading a few web sites and contrarian literature in books. Its clear that we stand on very uneven intellectual ground then. Thanks for making that clear.
"When they believed the Earth was flat, they were wrong, and when they believed the Earth was a sphere, they were wrong. But if you think they were just as wrong when they believed the Earth was a sphere, then you're wronger than both of them put together. Science does advance."
Isaac Asimov makes this point in "The Relativity of Wrong". Well worth as read for anyone who hasn't.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Timmeh,
You know, when you make an absolutist statement such as there have been no animals that have gone extinct due to global warming, you should google it before you hit post.
Harlequin frogs, which are a group of very important indicator species, are dying off due to a fungus that seasonal changes once kept in check.
Australia's lemuroid ringtail possum is probably gone, too. This time, it is entirely due to global warming changing their limited habitat to the point that it was no longer livable.
Thats just a quick search... I could go looking more if you like. Heh.
Dear All
The more I hear stupid sceptics like Dash and Timwells the more I think they are just here to waste time. All of their points have been answered and rebutted comprehensively....almost none of them have any science backgrounds (let alone PhDs in relevant subjects). Why don't we just ignore them? I know that baiting them is fun, but there is no substantive debate that we can have any more. The science is pretty well as settled as it's going to be in a complex subject like climate change. We will probably never have a handle on climate projections at the local scale, and we don't know all the impacts but all the large scale projections are robust.
Isn't it a bit like arguing with children? Let's be honest...the people that matter (majority of politicians, industrialists, planners, financial and insurance markets etc) are all signed up to AGW. Just because some flat-earthers like Dash and Timwells aren't is irrelevant.
Back to Monckton. Courtes of Dash, we have:
Monckton's talk in TX, April 28.
y
Can we also rename the argument from authority? It's the argument from UNRELATED authority. My Ph.D. gives me no special qualifications in climate science unless I've demonstrated those qualifications in my work or studies. Some (timwells, for example) want to use this to eliminate actual authority, so pulling stuff from their posterior is equivalent to actually knowing something about the topic. If you think so, perhaps you want to apply for one of those huge grants that keep your local climatologists in their sports cars.
timwells - ignorance is NOT a qualification.
(and with apologies to our esteemed host, what is it about cranks and the name Tim? It's almost as bad as Jason)
Barton, you might want to think about the New Orleans statement. I know Gore believes hurricanes should be measured by the amount of damage they cause instead of what category they fall in, but that's not the way to do it. In fact, given Gore's method, a hurricane destroying the exact number of homes in 1903 is much weaker than a hurricane (the same category) destroying the exact number of homes in 2009.
Certainly you understand that Katrina was only a category three hurricane. We have gotten better at putting more expensive real estate in hurricanes paths, but the hurricanes are neither more numerous nor more severe. I'll let San Quintin explain what happened in 2006 if he can.
You might also note that our ability of detecting hurricanes has improved. Many non-land-falling hurricanes that form then fizzle would at one point in our history not have been detected. Now they're detected and counted. More hurricanes being counted is a result of better detection not more hurricanes.
For a small fraction of what the United States will invest in an attempt to solve a non-problem (AGW) New Orleans could be prepared to easily withstand a cat 5 hurricane.
Do I need to quote Christopher Landsea or Kerry Emanuel here or are you already familiar with them. With regard to Emanuel, I'm referring to more recent quotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Emanuel
I'm sure San Quintin will try to claim that neither of them has the proper credentials.
San Quintin,
I feel the same way about you people.
Anyone who can't see through the lies in An Inconvenient Truth for example is a complete idiot. Anyone who can't see that Al Gore pushes that nonsense because he has set himself up to be the world's first green billionaire if cap and trade become a reality in the U.S. is also an idiot.
San Quintin writes:
....almost none of them have any science backgrounds (let alone PhDs in relevant subjects). Kind of sounds like the UN IPCC doesn't it? Let's see Pachauri was originally a railroad engineer. His science degree is honorary. Al Gore has no credentials at all. The media of course loves him because of the opportunity he provides them to sell advertising packaged around his fear mongering sound bites.
What a hypocrite you are San Quintin. A complete hypocrite satisfied to apply your criteria to those on the opposite side of the argument from you but not those who agree with you. Content to plug your ears and not listen to facts that contradict your devotion to the sick religion otherwise known as anthropogenic global warming THEORY.
I state for the record SQ that it is you who behaves like the flat-earther, the moon landing denier, the once scientific elite that believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Anyone who thinks the science is settle is also an idiot. Once again, that includes you S. Quintin. I can't wait to watch those who sold their souls for a little grant money try to crawl away from their predictions and save what's left of their careers once the truth is even more obvious than it is now.
As for the people on board, one important group isn't. The general public can sniff the B.S.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/ene…
Those in power better start reflecting the opinion of the general public or they will not be in power for long. Democrats seem to be waking up. Did you see this one coming SQ?
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Dana_Perino_BBA4A76A-EA58-43F2-AA5D-… and Democrats jumping ship on climate bill:
Your most famous cheerleader is terrified of Lord Monckton. Gore has a yellow stripe down his back a mile wide. What a coward. You might also note that even Littlemore (DeSmogBlog) admits Monckton kicked his butt. As long as Gore runs from Monckton, the general public will note him to be a man with no confidence at all that the science is on his side.
Barton wrote:
No, apparently I was wrong about that and you were write. Hansen did make such a comment. He was not saying, however, that it was going to happen overnight, or even within our lifetimes. Apparently the 246 foot figure refers to what you'd get if the entire cryosphere melted.
Barton, I'm not trying to rub your nose in the fact that you were unaware of this comment. I too had to issue a correction regarding the time line.
I'm merely trying to point out that Hansen and Gore seem to enjoy alarmism and the attention it brings them. Certtainly you didn't approve of Gore's sea level rising by 20 feet remark.
Katrina was a cat 5.
This is quite the specticle here. I mean, Dash Riprock? U guys can't possibly not have better things to do with your time than leading this sterile offspring of horse and mule to water. Surely there is a pair of old shoes in the closet with some crusted crevaces that need tending. Or grass that needs to be watched growing. This is to say nothing of the fact that many of u appear to be scientists whose time and expertise are an order of magnitude more valuable than most. Really, u owe it to society if not all that is holy to ignore this cautionary tale.
Katrina was a cat 3. Look it up.
Major, you really seem like more of a minor to me.
I'm sorry, but is someone called MajorJam actually laughing at my blogger name? Too Funny!
Monckton catches more Gore lies:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/monckton_on_gore.html
Hot Off The Presses:
Chuck It Yet Again Schmidt by
Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Visount of Brenchley
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/chuck_it_yet_agai…
Let's try it again:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/chuck_it_yet_agai…
Dash on yet another series of trolls:
Don't you ever pay attention? We already know this person is a liar as was shown at the beginning of this very thread. You must think we're as stupid as you are to care what he says.
Chris,have you read the link?Or are you afraid of what it might say?
Stewart,with all due respect you do not understand what the "authority" issue is.The number of degrees a person holds does not change scientific fact!And trying to shore up the strength of ones case by refering to "qualifications" only suggests intellectual weakness.
Dash.
You're good at setting up strawmen. I don't accept the science behind AGW because Gore or Pachauri say so. Neither do they! They accept it because thousands of scientists over the past century have showed them that there is a problem. Neither do I accept it because grant money is available (you clearly haven't ever tried to obtain a research grant. If you had you would realise that it isn't so simple!)
I'm a scientist and accept AGW because the science is clear. You can shout and scream as much as you like but until you provide an alternative theory with as much explanatory power as AGW you are irrelevant. Sceptics have had decades to do this and have failed. Half of the experts you cite either aren't credible scientists (does Courtney have a PhD?...for that matter do you?) or in unrelated fields (Bellamy?).
I know that some people find it terribly upsetting that climate change is likely to overturn their neoliberal, free-market world view but this doesn't invalidate 160 years of careful science.
As I said in my post, it's very entertaining watching you thrash around in this debate, but your clear lack of comprehension means that you have failed to engage with the science. The message from scientists is clear: engage with us by doing science. That means publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You will have to show (amongst other things) that:
CO2 is less effective as a GHG than we thought
Climate sensitivity is low
Given the above you will need to explain an alternative mechanism for glacial/interglacial transitions
Scientists from half a dozen disciplines (physics, maths, chemistry, palaeoclimatology etc) have somehow got this all wrong.
Until you do this your views are pointless.
Chris O'Neill,
You really are the weak link among the alarmists here.
I guess every group needs a lackey.
This article by Monckton addresses some of the questions
originally brought up by Schmidt.
Most of your posts have contained the word liar. How old are you? You argue like a naive college student.
If you want to look for errors, try viewing Gore's film. It will keep you busy for some time.
BTW, you suggested in a previous post that I took Obama out of context. I would challenge you to put that Skyrocketing costs line into what you believe is the proper context, a context that does not make Obama look bad on this one. Can't wait to read what you come up with. Hey save time, just call me a liar. Despite the video clip, tell me he never said it. Then call me a liar one more time for good measure. That seems to be the extent of the insults thou has wit enough to cast. I usually don't borrow part of a famous line, but I figured "hey, what are the odds of Chris recognizing it?"
Hmmm...looks like posts are getting a bit mangled. Mine should have had a list at the end, or at least semi-colons.
San quintin,are you sure that you are a scientist?With a statement like...."You will have to show that CO2 is less effective as a GHG than we thought...."
San buddy,science does not work by proving negatives.It works the other way.Like this-
1]AGW theorists are the ones who have to show the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG.[and they have not]
2]AGW theorists are the ones who have to validate their estimates of climate sensitivity.[and they have not]
3]Glacial/interglacial transitions have not been proven to be due to CO2.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution,not the defence.
Timwells
You said:
1]AGW theorists are the ones who have to show the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG.[and they have not] 2]AGW theorists are the ones who have to validate their estimates of climate sensitivity.[and they have not] 3]Glacial/interglacial transitions have not been proven to be due to CO2.
If you can show how we are wrong on these then you are going to make yourself very famous indeed. If you can overturn (1) then you will also probably win the Nobel Prize for Physics by rewriting 100 years of physics. Why don't you do this?
Hey Robster,can you read OK?I only ask because you have wildly mis-quoted me.Did I actually say ...no animals have gone extinct because of global warming..."??If you want to talk about waht I really said,then post your correction.Smarten up my son!
San Quintin, Talk about cherry-picking. I provide a list of names and you pull two of them off the list and attack...LOL So typical.
Isn't it interesting that you post didn't contain one piece of proof. Just a bunch of inaccurate general statements.
160 Years of careful science my ____. You mean GIGO computer models and incomplete surface data don't you.
I'm sure you have a very good explanation as to why the first UN IPCC report contained a graph which clearly acknowledged the existence of a medieval warm period, but was removed from all later reports. Given your impressive credentials you can explain in an instant why red noise pumped into Mann's model spit out a hockey stick every time.
That hot spot predicted by the computer models really is there, we're just not looking hard enough right? Cooling in the seventies took place during a time when CO2 continued to rise, I'm sure you've got that covered too. The Northwest Passage has been open at least twice before during the last 105 years. Man survived. Polar Bears did too. This time around, polar bears will be wiped out. Four have died already if you haven't seen AIT. Scary stuff isn't it San.
Here's a list of nearly 600 articles citing things caused by AIG. None of these things happened before AIG kicked in right San?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I'm not going to prove a negative. If you're really a scientists, you should understand that. Offer up what you believe are the major pieces of evidence supporting AIG and I'll gladly point out the error of you thinking on each one. Then you can return back to your colleagues red-faced and explain how you managed to get your butt kicked by a non-scientist.
San,
1]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was due to CO2?Please quote your source.
2]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1975 to 1998 was due to CO2?Please quote your source.
San Quintin, thanks for your thoughtful posts. One thing is for certain - Tim Wells and Dash Riprock are NOT scientists. Its likely that both rarely if ever read the primary literature, don't attend conferences where these issues are debated and argued, and don't have relevant qualifications. Like many armchair 'experts', they think that reading a few contrarian web sites that distort science to promote a pre-determined worldview and political agenda gives them enough information to qualify them as being 'informed'.
DRs list is just one example of scraping the barrel. Once I start to see the 'usual suspects' crop up - names like Courtney, Bellamy etc. - then I cringe. People like Inhofe, Barton and others in the US Senate recieve huge donations from corporations anxious to promote denial, and they will look under any rocks they can find names to join them in promoting it.
As I have said before, anyone who writes utter claptrap such as "And with no disrespect Jeff, the planet DOES exist merely to serve the needs of Homo Sapiens" in no way should be taken seriously. These are the words of a layman. If the planet's systems were exclusively functioning to support Homo sapiens, then we can draw two conclusions: (1) Our species is doing a pretty lousy job of managing the global commons because we are simplifying nature at an astonishing rate and thereby reducing the ability of the planet's life-support systems to support us; (2) The maintenance of biodiversity and a healthy functioning biosphere requires input from trillions of individual organisms representing billions of populations and millions of species. Humans exist because these biological processes PERMIT it; they do not function to solely support a single species of bipedal primate; no, these systems generate conditions that permit humans to exist and to persist. This distinction is not a subtle one.
Dash, please stay on topic. This thread is for discussion of Monckton's dishonesty. I appreciate your providing us with links to more examples of Monckton's dishonesty. But please refrain from dumping here random stuff that you think the scientists got wrong. (Especially since it has all been refuted here before.) If you want to bring up something new, you can use an Open Thread.
Tim,
Since the article from Monckton is new, I doubt you've refuted any of it before.
I'll gladly start an open thread in the future after taking care of one last piece of business.
Dash
"Then you can return back to your colleagues red-faced and explain how you managed to get your butt kicked by a non-scientist".
That'll be the day. In your dreams, pal.
Here is some advice. 1. Read the entire IPCC last draft. 2. Log into ther Web of Science and then go through any number of the many peer-reviewed journals, - rather than to sit on your lazy butt reading non-peer-reviewed web sites. Your strategy is "because I ain't read it, it ain't true". 3. Read the Global Ecosystem Assessment (2006). The entire thing.
Unlike the contrarians here, I am a busy scientist and I do science. Its not my job here to do your reading for you or to provide lengthy lists. The references are available - thousands of them - in journals like Nature, Science, PNAS, Global Change Biology, Ecology Letters, Ecosystems, Climate Science, Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Proceedings of the Royal Scoiety B, Ecological Monographs, Functional Ecology et al. Many of them look at biological indicators of warming. Others look at the human fingerprint which is all over the current warming episode.
Have you read that link article Tim?
Yes Jeff, once again you've shown how one sided you are. The deniers are all about money and Gore who is poised to be the first green billionaire is in it for the science and for saving the world. How willing you are to speculate about financial incentive among the deniers while avoiding the obvious money trail evident with the alarmists. Like San Quintin, a total hypocrite. BTW, there has been nothing thoughtful about his posts.
You know Jeff, I'm not sure you're worthy of shining Bjorn Lomborg's shoes.
Hey Jeff,why are "dash and tim" not scientists??Is it because we ask for proof that CO2 has caused the warming from 1975 to 1998?That seems to be the question that you keep avoiding.I refuse to tell you my qualifications because the facts are what matter.You seem to desperately want to argue your case based on how many pieces of paper you have on your wall.How about you lower yourself down to our level and discuss a specific question such as..."What is the single piece of evidence[NOT THEORY] that demostrates that antrpogenic CO2 is responsible for the warming of the late 20th Century." Your serve Jeff.
Timwells
Produce a formal attribution study that demonstrates CO2 isn't the major forcing for the last couple of decades. Once you've done this, then get the results published in a mainstream science journal. Then we'll have a look.
Tim Wells,
The ball is in your court. The IPCC document is the most rigidily peer-reviwed document in scientific history. SQ nails it in his last post. Its you and your ilk who ar bucking the scientific consensus. Its you who need to go through the literature - not me. This is because it overwhelmingly supports the AGW theory.
Dash does what the contrarians do best: suggest they are mangling science to promote a political agenda (which is true, true, true) then watch them create an army of straw men.
As for Bjron Lomborg, Dash, you can wallow in your ignorance. Why does Lomborg appeal to guys like you? First of all, he targets an audience who don't understand much about environmental science or but are anxious to think that everything is not only going to be fine, but will actually get better. Lomborg doesn't aim his views at scientists in his book because he is well aware that we will demolish his one-dimensional arguments that mostly exclude the natural economy. No, just like Elmer Gantry, Lomborg aims his book at people who know just a little bit less than he does (Dash, this means people like you). That is the secret. Most people living in the rich world with our enormous ecological deficits do not like hearing bad news, more so since our overconsumptive lifestyles are what is driving ecological destruction on a vast scale. Moreover, there are those, mostly on the libertarian far right (which includes commerical elites) that like the way things are and these will promote people like Lomborg.
I debated Lomborg here in 2002 and from all accounts I hammered him. It was easy - how hard is it to debate a guy who doesn't really understand what ecosystem services are, who cherry picks studies while ignoring many others with different conclusions, who mangles area-extinction models and who misquotes scientists to distort the meanings of what they said? I was invited twice to Denmark, once to give a keynote lecture at Lomborg's own University (Aarhus) and once to give the last but one talk at a conference on climate change in Copenhagen. Lomborg did not show up at my first talk (but his student's did) and he backed out of the second at the last minute, which pissed off the organizers. I do not fear him or his 'science'. Dash, laypeople like you can lap it all up.
San,you have got a serious problem mate if you believe what you just wrote.Science is NOT about proving negatives. The onus of proof is the other way round,we all know it,and you are just running away.Science links cause and effect.AGW believers say that CO2 is the cause and warming is the effect.PLease now produce a formal attribution study that demonstrates that CO2 IS the major forcing for the last couple of decades.
OK San,lets try another angle.I dont know of any studies that demonstrate that CO2 is NOT the major forcing of the last couple of decades.So lets assume that there are none.What does that leave us with?Does that therefore "prove" that CO2 IS the major forcing of the last couple of decades?No,ofcourse it doesn't.What is needed is positive attribution,not negative attribution to prove the AGW theory.This is how science is done.
Jeff,your posts are full of an awful lot of ideology but again no real facts.Tell me this,why,if you have read the IPCC document,cant you answer my simple question about the evidence for CO2?
Timwells.
Read Chapter 9 of AR4.
So San,what specifically in Chapter 9 of AR4 impressed you the most in regard to Co2 warming attribution?
Timwells.
No climate attribution can recreat the warming of the last few decades without having GHG as a major component. Natural forcing doesn't achieve this. We also know that CO2 is a GHG...we know from the palaeo record that the climate is sensitive to changes in the forcings. We know that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the highest for 650ka and probably for over 20Ma. We know that elevated CO2 should produce warming. We know warming is happening. We know that all the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.
Given these facts, how do you explain the recent warming? What do you think will happen once we get to 550ppm? What do you think will be the impact of this on ice sheets, permafrost, coral reefs, biodiversity?
Dash
How about we have a closer look at your list?
Dr Kiminori Itoh, in his own words says:
Dash maaate, this guy publishes things like;
âComputer simulations of seasonal outbreak and diurnal vertical migration of cyanobacteriaâ
and;
âMathematical modelling of colony formation in algal blooms: phenotypic plasticity in cyanobacteria.â
Iâm sure even you can see the âdisconnectâ. On 2nd thoughts ... probably not.
Would any other regular like to pick a name on the Dash-Trash list and enlighten us?
San the problem is,is that we dont have a really good handle on most of the forcings or on the terrestrial and solar influences.The science is still very much in the knowledge accumulation phase.We dont know much about the quanta of CO2 's effect,or about aerosols[positive or negative],or about clouds,or about variations in solar activity.Eg We dont really know why we are going through a cooling phase just now.
Lets go through your statements.
"No climate attribution can recreate the warming....without GHG..."
Well this based on computer modelling which may or may not have value.This however still does not positively identify CO2 as the causitive agent-the reason being that we still dont have a full under standing of the processes involved.Warming has occurred but the primary cause is yet to be identified.
"elevated CO2 should produce warming"
Yes,it should,but how much has always been the sticking point.We still dont know what the NET effect is.We had CO2 levels many times higher during cold periods and vice versa.
"rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic"
Yes it is mainly.
The recent warming?Well it appears to be in 30 year cycles and probably due to variation in solar activity.Increased GHG's would also have played a part,but how much is not accurately known.
550ppm??Well that should give us about a 1C rise in temperatures-not a problem at all.Infact the increase in agricultural productivity from CO2 enrichment will be a bonus for the worlds food supply.
Ice sheets,permafrost??Icesheets take centuries to melt and 1C will not adversely affect permafrost areas.
Tim Wells writes:
Sure, but faster than we've ever known it to rise before. Fast enough to do us a lot of damage. That's as fast as it needs to be.
Are you sure? What does the FAO say? I'd check before making a statement like that.
Are you sure? What does the WMO say? I'd check before making a statement like that.
Are two years enough to make a trend? Are you sure? I'd check before making a statement like that.
No, increased CO2 will increase drought to the point where human agriculture may collapse.
Dash rants:
What lies? Specify.
How has he done that? Specify.
The IPCC was summarizing the peer-reviewed science literature. They didn't do the research themselves, they merely put it together. All the people they cited were people who knew what they were talking about, which was not true for the Oregon Petition.
Al Gore was one of Roger Revelle's students in the '60s. Do you know who Revelle was? Do you know what he did?
THEORY is the highest level a body of scientific knowledge can attain. Thus atomic theory, quantum theory, theories of relativity. It doesn't mean "guess." The old creationist argument "Evolution is just a THEORY!" just betrays the scientific illiteracy of those who use it. Ditto for climate deniers like yourself.
As far as the broad outlines of AGW go? The science is settled. Are there details still not known? Sure there are. No one ever said otherwise. But some things are well known. The Earth does go around the sun, things do get shorter as they go faster, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Nobody on Earth is terrified of Lord Monckton.
He served in Viet Nam. Did Monckton?
He doesn't debate Monckton for the same reason most biologists refuse to debate creationists--such debates don't mean anything, and scientific issues aren't settled by rhetoric. It's also not a good idea to give crackpots like Monckton or Duane Gish a platform. They get enough exposure already.
Well, Dash has/had a denia(list) somewhere here.
Tim Wells,
As I said, why should I do your homework for you? Have you read the IPCC report? It is you who are bucking the prevailing scientific view on the subject, not me. I am a population ecologist and I have research to do. Once you've read the IPCC report in its entirety then respond. Given that the denialists like to snipe away from the sidelines and don't apparently publish much, its no wonder that the vast majority of scientists ignore them.
You write as if you are an expert on climate science. How many climate scientists have you actually spoken to? Have you been to any conferences or workshops in this field? What gives you the impression that you know more than thousands of scientists who have spent years studying their fields of research?
Barton,temperatures have not risen "faster than we have ever known it to rise before" I am sorry but that is absolute rubbish.1910 to 1940 was the same slope and scale as 1975 to 1998.Older thermometer records show even greater slopes and scales.Temperatures have now flattened and even dropped.
Please tell us what the FAO and WMO say about points 2] and 3].
Your last statement is once again just futuristic scare stories.Read the language...
'increased CO2 will increase..'
'human agriculture may collapse.'
Tim Wells writes:
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas was first demonstrated in the lab by John Tyndall in 1859. Every similar experiment since has confirmed it. There is no doubt about it at all.
Unless you assume 2xCO2 is about 3 degrees, you can't account for the ice ages or other paleoclimates.
No, the trigger is Milankovic Cycles. But the differences in energy delivered are not enough to account for the known swings in temperature. You need CO2 as an amplifier.
Tim Wells,
You also do not appear to read very well. You write, "In fact the increase in agricultural productivity from CO2 enrichment will be a bonus for the worlds food supply". This garbage was comprehensively debunked on the recent Tim Curtin threads (it was one of his silly views as well).
Increased primary productivity depends on a whole suite of biotic and abiotic parameters over variable scales of space and time. These include soil chemistry and biota, pollinators, other multitrophic interactions, plant biology and ecology, edpaphic factors such as precipitation regimes et al. It won't be possible to turn vast swathes of boral forests on acid soils into an agricultural utopia as temperatures rise.
I KNOW someone is a complete neophyte in the field when they have to dredge up this dead turkey.
Timwell said: "we dont have a really good handle on most of the forcings or on the terrestrial and solar influences". We have a very good idea....we know that solar forcing can affect climate but there is no evidence that the effect is any where near big enough to drive recent T increases.
"We dont know much about the quanta of CO2 's effect,or about aerosols[positive or negative],or about clouds,or about variations in solar activity". Ditto above...the majority of solar physicists disagree with you. There are uncertainties re clouds, but none big enough to change the overall puicture.
"We dont really know why we are going through a cooling phase just now". Ever heard of weather? At the moment it's a cold, wet May day. Two weeks ago (earlier in the year!) we had lovely warm sunshine. Does this mean that the sun isn't the most important factor in seasonal variations? Even if the climate cooled considerably, it still wouldn't invalidate the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Only new insights in science can do that...not weather.
"(Climate attribution) is based on computer modelling which may or may not have value" How would you do an attribution study then? I'm intrigued. I have written a number of papers on the problems of climate models....but they are still the best tool we have and robust at the large scale.
"This however still does not positively identify CO2 as the causitive agent-the reason being that we still dont have a full under standing of the processes involved". Cluthching at straws here....a classic do-nothing position. We also don't know exactly how smoking causes lung cancer, but do know enough to make policy.
"The recent warming?Well it appears to be in 30 year cycles and probably due to variation in solar activity". So you've done an attribution study showing this have you? Well publish the results then...we'd love to see this.
"550ppm??Well that should give us about a 1C rise in temperatures-not a problem at all". Really? Then how can you have low sensitivity and Quaternary ice sheets?
"Infact the increase in agricultural productivity from CO2 enrichment will be a bonus for the worlds food supply". Most people who work on this disagree with you. Have you published this?
"Ice sheets,permafrost??Icesheets take centuries to melt and 1C will not adversely affect permafrost areas". You know this do you? Our understanding of sea level rise in the past shows that it can be very rapid...ice sheets are unstable once they interact with the sea.
Dash writes:
The theory of global warming was first advanced by Svante Arrhenius in a paper in 1896. I'm pretty sure he didn't use computer models. Neither did G.S. Callendar in 1938.
With the curve 1/16th the magnitude of the one he actually published, yes. And dozens of independent studies since then have also produced "hockey stick" type curves. Attacking Mann's paper is kind of a waste of time. It was the first paper of it's kind, and the science has advanced since then--but it has never disproved Mann et al.'s original contention.
There was cooling about 1940-1970, not "in the seventies." It was most likely due to the huge increase in industrial aerosols created by expanding industry before pollution controls became widespread.
OK Barton,so show us the math that proves your claim about CO2 being needed as an amplifier.Because everytime I ask for these numbers all I get is more theoretical mumbo-jumbo.You have put the claim out there Barton,so now show us your math.
Tim Wells writes:
Well, if you actually have a science degree, like Jeff or myself, it becomes pretty obvious. Denigrating AGW because it's a "THEORY" is something no scientist would ever do, because scientists are taught a specific definition of "theory" that doesn't equate to the pop meaning of "educated guess." Nor would a scientist deny basic scientific facts like CO2 being a greenhouse gas--at least not a scientist who knew anything about radiative transfer or quantum mechanics or climatology or planetary astronomy.
So Jeff,C3 and C4 cereals dont have greater yields in CO2 enhanced environments?They also dont need as much water?Is that right?
It amuses me to see someone who is patently not scientifically trained make a statement such as this.
Whilst 'science' cannot ever 'prove' a positive (instead, 'science' can support an hypothesis), it can 'prove' (refute) a negative (i.e.hypothesis).
To illustrate, if I have an hypothesis that my magic beans will cure all Denialists of their ignorance, and I conduct a clinical trial that demonstrates that 95% of Denialists are just as ignorance after the course of magic bean treatment, I have "proved a negative".
It is interesting to see the pseudoscientific description of scientific methodology, promulgated by timwells at post #151, taken up so quickly (26 minutes later) and inadvisedly by Mark G at #154.
Timwells bleats furiously about appeals to authority at post #162, but by doing so he demonstrates that he confuses such appeals with demonstrations of bona fides, a perfectly valid request in these circumstances; and to this end both he and Mark G have demonstrated that they lack these very bona fides when is comes to commenting on matters of science.
Mark G, I have a question for you. Given that you intend to go to the June meeting at the Annenberg Conference Center, will you endeavour to put your refutations to the scientists during the question times of their presentations, and faithfully record their responses, for example with digital voice records of the exchanges?
Better still, you could organise meetings with the scientists with whom you disagree, and organise both you and the other parties to each record the exchanges, including documentation of the supporting material and references.
It's all well and good for you to throw ambit claims around, but how about you demonstrate how they stack up in the real world of science, against those of the scientists whom you so disparage, but whom you seem not to engage in any reviewable forum?
You are situated on the doorstep of a sizable nexus of such scientists - show us what you are really made of.
Oh, and how is your critique of [Pierrehumbert's](http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html) text coming along?
Tim Wells writes:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mostly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955, Suess and Revelle 1957).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH, RSS, etc., etc.).
5. The changes in temperature correlate closely (r = 0.86) with the changes in CO2.
What more do you want? Which of the above points do you disagree with, and why?
Barton,I am sorry my friend but I am beginning to think you may a screw loose.Where in all of my post did I say that CO2 is not a green house gas???Wake up my boy!!
And here we are back to the qualifications issue.So answer me this.If,just for argument sake,I said that I have a degree in applied chemistry with a specialty in Human metabolism.Would that then "qualify" me to express an opinion on this blog?
To point out the importance of working in the right field, DavidK quotes one of Dash's "qualified" deniers, Itoh Kiminori. It would of course just be an ad hominem to say, "Sumimasen ga, Itoh-san wa bakayaro des'." So I'll just take a look at what he says:
Maybe because there has been no trend in solar output for 50 years, whereas global warming turned up sharply in the last 30? And, BTW, there have been plenty of solar-climate studies. Itoh-san just doesn't appear to have read the relevant literature.
That must be interesting. Perhaps the Japanese patent office is like ours, which once issued a patent for a perpetual motion machine. (To be fair to the patent office, they now have an automatic rule excluding machines which violate conservation of energy.)
Anyone can be an "expert reviewer" of the IPCC AR4 report. All you have to do is request a copy. This is a qualification that is calculated to impress a lay audience, but has no real meaning. Disingenuous.
No, Doc, working in a field, A, with a name that sounds like the name of another field, B, does not really give you any expertise in field B.
Barton,the only point under scrutiny is number 5.As we both know,correlation does not mean causation.There is also a strong correlation for temp and solar cycle intensity AND an even stronger correlation for temp and solar cycle length.By the way what are the start and end dates for your correlation analysis?
Tim Wells writes:
I regressed temperature anomaly on ln CO2, dust veil index, and four different possible measures of solar activity (TSI, sunspot number, years since minimum, and years since maximum, one at a time for the latter four to avoid multicolinearity). Ln CO2 accounted for 76% of the variance and DVI for another 2%. None of the solar measurements was statistically significant. Sunspot number came closest, but only at t = 1.4. So it's not "probably due to variation in solar activity" at all.
Dash Riprock the turd, Katrina achieved category 5 status, as did the strongest ever recorded Atlantic hurricane the same season. I've little doubt that in your mind that nothing exists outside US sovereign dry land, but science is less inclined to see it that way.
It looks like the inmate coup d'etat is at full swing at this asylum. On a thread that catches Monckton out impersonating a member of the House of Lords, something that would humiliate anyone with an ounce of shame and trouble any third party with an ounce of intellectual honesty, we have a shameless non sequitur Monckton appearance and Monckton worship. Meanwhile the two stooges parroting the latter nonsense together with some of the oldest and most inane denialism continue to have takers. This thread should be retitled 'The sound of one denialist synapse firing, or how I learned to love the killfile'.
Back tot the topic for a second.
Monckton lies, is delusional, or both. Those who quote Monckton approvingly are lying, delusional, or ignorant. See above. I hope its ignorant, as that's curable. Lying can also be cured by changing the contingencies.
timwells, with all due respect, some people and organizations are authorities, because they actually have the knowledge and do the work in the area. (Where are you - what does your local science academy say about AGW?) The attempt to counter them by the argument from stupidity is not successful, although it may lead to temporary feelings of superiority among the ignoranti.Google scholar is your friend. And science DOES work by proving negatives - it's a gigantic mechanism for squeezing out error, one bit at a time. Conveniently, what's left can be taken for provisional truth. Oh, and insert ad hominem insult here.
Tim Wells writes:
Surely. Try here:
Royer D.L., R.A. Berner, I.P. Montanez, N.J. Tabor, and D.J. Beerling 2004. "CO2 as a Primary Driver of Phanerozoic Climate." GSA Today 14, 4-10.
Or just go to Google Scholar and type in "ice ages carbon dioxide amplifier." I get over 8,000 hits.
Tim Wells writes:
Anyone can express an opinion on a blog. But whether their opinion carries any weight depends on whether they've studied the subject in question or not. No, I don't think an applied chemist would have anything to say about climate science that couldn't be said by anything else. They just don't teach climatology in chemistry classes, to my knowledge. Not any of the ones I've taken, anyway.
Look, you don't have to remain ignorant about climatology and global warming. You can get yourself up to speed pretty quickly if you put some effort into it. You could start with some good non-quantitative overviews:
Weart, Spencer 2003. The Discovery of Global Warming.
Philander, S. George 1998. Is the Temperature Rising?
Then go on to some quantitative texts and (this is very important) work the problems:
Houghton, John T. 2002. The Physics of Atmospheres.
Petty, Grant W. 2006. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.
Hartmann, Dennis L. 1994. Global Physical Climatology.
That should give you a good basic overview. To get up to speed on the AGW issue itself, you could do worse than to read the individual issue threads on RealClimate. Ignore the ones about policy or debunking ignorant climate deniers, just read the ones about the science.
Bernard J,you just nailed it for us sceptics!
To your "illustration"... Your hypothesis is about the CURE by the USE of magic beams,but your problem is that you have come to a premature conclusion.IE,that the magic beams did not perform the cure.However you have STARTED your trial with the ASSUMPTION that your magic beams both EXIST and will have some EFFICACY.If it has been established that the beams do exist AND have some clinical effect,then your final conclusion may have some merit.Until such time,you cannot link the beams and denialists ignorance.
And in a strange way this is what the global warming debate is about.AGW believers START with the asumption that CO2 is a major driver of climate/temp and then interpret all evidence based on that assumption.We sceptics do not believe that CO2 is a major driver and we would love to see the emperical evidence that it is.
Tim Wells writes:
Quite right. But if you have a theory beforehand that predicts such a correlation, and you then find that it appears, that's nice confirmation.
I haven't found either when I looked.
The one on my web site about it is 1880-2007 (N = 128):
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html
Barton,I am sorry but I really dont trust Hansen's numbers for the temperature.I will check for others.
If the "CO2 enhanced environments" are also hotter and drier as a consequence of AGW, ecological competition and non-CO2 physiological constraintsare bad news for C3 metabolisers.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
"We sceptics do not believe that CO2 is a major driver and we would love to see the emperical evidence that it is".
"We sceptics" are a small coterie of ostensibly right wing individuals most of whom are not scientists and are on the academic fringe.
As climate scientist David Viner said some years ago, in the late 1980s and early 1990s the climate change denialists said that AGW was a 'doomsday myth'. Most have shifted since then, saying that change is occurring or that it is 'natural' and the result of forcings that have little or nothing to do with atmospheric concetrations of C02 (C02 has been considered a major factor in forcing climate since the late 1800s, but Tim Wells, being a layman, ignores that).
Mark my words: as the empirical evidence grows further in support of AGW, the deniers will shift their arguments again, and say that it is too late to do anything except to try and adapt (Michaels is starting to go in this direction). Otherwise they will start saying (as Tim W and Tim C have done) that in an enhanced C02 world the planet will become a green paradise. In every scenario, nothing is done to address the problen: it is business as usual.
As for the empirical evidence, Tim's strategy is simple: do not read the primary literature, and then claim that, since he hasn't read anything, its up to those defending the science of AGW to come to him with the answers. Until then, he will crow that there is 'no proof'. I've seen this tactic used by contrarians in denying a range of other environmental problems and their consequences: biodiversity loss, acid rain, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, pollution. Without 100% unequivocol proof they claim that the problem does not exist. I am used to this kind of stalling tactic, as I have had to debate contrarians who rely on it.
Well, Tim, I have news for you: science rarely provides 100% proof for any process, and this is even more true in a highly non-linear field such as ecology. The fact is that we do know enough now to broadly accept that humans are forcing climate. Humans are by now a global force: we have drastically altered biogeochemical cycles that operate over vast spatio-temporal scales, we have certainly had profound effects on local climatic conditions and on primary productivity and freshwater flows. Why is it so inconceivable that we are not a major factor in affecting the planet's climate control system?
Timwells at #195.
I'm sorry to disabuse you of the 'triumph' of your twist on the establishment of an hypothesis and of its testing, but your comment is a contextual red herring.
Plenty of valid hypotheses are tested and proved negative as I (and stewart at #192) described, and this is sufficient to put paid to your incorrect statement that "[s]cience is NOT about proving negatives".
I can see though that if you are claiming qualification in science, it is an embarrassing statement to have made.
Just get over it and move on.
TimWells said:"Barton,the only point under scrutiny is number 5.As we both know,correlation does not mean causation.There is also a strong correlation for temp and solar cycle intensity AND an even stronger correlation for temp and solar cycle length."
Surely a skeptical person such as yourself investigated the correlation of temp and solar cycle intensity, and the temp and solar cycle length. Was this from scientific papers, or blog science?
Timmeh, You said that there is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of species going extinct. CO2 is a primary cause of global warming, QED. Deny it all you want, but the evidence is there. I gave you one mammal and over sixty species of harlequin frog. So, you made an absolutist statement and it was shown to be false. I can understand how this would be embarrassing to an honest person, but all you have to do is say you were wrong, not throw a hissy fit.
Dash:
Truth hurts, doesn't it. In case you forget, here is your lie again:
TimWells asks questions:"San, 1]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was due to CO2?Please quote your source. 2]How much[what percentage]of the warming from 1975 to 1998 was due to CO2?Please quote your source."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif, based on the papers referenced in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
CO2 forcing from 1910 to 1940 increased by 0.4 W/square meter
CO2 forcing from 1975 to 1988 increased by 0.8 W/square meter, over four times the rate because the time period is less than half.
As you can see from the graph, the primary warming forcing is CO2. The other major factors are cooling, yet not rising as fast as CO2 is or transient.
Majorajam.
I think that you are being flattering when you speak of "[t]he sound of one denialist synapse firing"...
That implies two functioning neurons, and that is at least one more than most of them seem to possess.
Stewart, I think that you win the prize for my favourite word of the day!
timwells:
AGW starts with the measurement of CO2's infra-red absorption in the laboratory, from which a forcing of about 3.7 W/m^2/CO2 doubling can be calculated. With the existing level of CO2, this gives an existing forcing of about 1.7 W/m^2. This compares with a variable forcing over the solar cycle of about 0.25 W/m^2 and an average increase in solar forcing over the last 100 years of probably also about 0.25 W/m^2.
If you can find something causing a forcing anything like CO2's 1.7 W/m^2, please let the climate scientists know.
Riprock:
"The Northwest Passage has been open at least twice before during the last 105 years."
Festering bullcrap.
You should read and pay attention to the details fo northwest passage transits, before you say absurd things like "the northwest passage has been open."
A 3- year transit, achieved mostly be near-shore, shallow-water navigation during periods when offshore winds opened near shore leads, with forced overwintering for two winters because they were blocked by ice from continuing through - is NOT evidence of an open northwest passage.
A passage achieved by skillful ice navigation, finding open leads and areas of patchy ice and using them, is not evidence of an open northwest pasage.
Contrast those passages to reent years, when private fricking yachts have been transiting the NWP on a nearly routine basis - and by simply sailing through, with no more ice navigation required than simply standing an ice watch just in case.
Try to apply at least some fraction of the distrust to claims that support your preheld position, as you show toward evidence that challenges your position.
Unfortunately, extra heat prevents the pollination that is required for grains to be produced. That is why wheat, a highly desirable crop, can't be grown in the tropics except at high altitudes. A couple of years ago there were poor corn yields in parts of the US (e.g. Georgia) because of high temperatures at pollination. There also has been some concern about it affecting rice yields in SE Asia.
I'm a humanities graduate student with an interest but really no expertise in science. I suspect it can be extremely tiresome to argue with climate skeptics as Barton, Jeff, and others have been doing in this thread. It might feel like your efforts are futile, and that you all are making no headway. So, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the wealth of citations in this thread, and the cogent responses to the skeptical worries. I, at least, have learned something, and I appreciate all of your efforts in the long series of comments above. Thanks.
Pete
I too have learned a lot from just watching the dialogue between posters on Deltoid. While we all have skills and expertise in various areas, it never ceases to amaze me when we get the likes of plumbers, bankers, lawyers, etc telling experts in 'climate science' they have got it all wrong - simply astounding. It's like me telling my accountant he doesn't know what he is talking about.
I particularly liked these two gems;
the inimitable Curtin thread
and the classic;
another delusional fraud/hoax.
I learned more from Jeff, Bernard, Chris and Co than ever I could in attending a bridging course at Uni.
Be warned: Don't eat or drink while patiently reading - you'll likely end up needing a new keyboard and monitor.
As is often the case, Monckton stirs up controversy and confusion.
One input to people's beliefs about AGW is where they live.
If I lived in the Scotland (especially the highlands) where the average maximum summer temperatures are about 60F, where it rains 4-5 days a week, well above sea level and with PGR, in an area heavily dependent on fossil fuel business (North Sea oil) ... I'd love the idea of +19-20F.
So, rather than talking in all these generalities, it may be helpful to use examples that people might relate to more directly. Also, we could all learn more about the specific issues faced in different places, or if one believes Moncton, are no problem anywhere.
We know Dash Riprock III (aka Mark Gillar) is in Bryan,TX, right next to Texas A&M.
Mark: have you had a chance to look at any of those presentations by TX scientists yet? Can you
tell us what you've learned from them or ask questions. Can you assess their credibility relative to Monckton's? This might actually be useful, especially because TX has complex and interesting climate issues. Repeating cut-and-paste of long-debunked things people have seen numerous times does your cause no good.
Note: This might even be relevant to an Australian blog, given that TX shares some climate issues with TX, like Hadley Cell expansion and it's rain-motion effects.
That leaves timwells, and it would be interesting to know his approximate location, and maybe someone could give him specific recommendations.
BernardJ,the numbers dont agree with you about C3 cereals.C3 cereals in 700ppm CO2 have a 49% greater yield AND require lees water.For C4 cereals it is 20%.
Ther are stacks of studies that show a high correlation between solar activty and Temperature.Here is just one.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_temperatures_and Climate factors_since1895.pdf.
PS Barton, this link is also is for you in regads to your CO2/temp correltion.
Robster,you seem to have a comprehension problem.Lets then forget about CO2.My question then is..."Where is the PROVEN established link between observed global warming and the extinction of these species?"
t p hamilton
The title is..... "Forcings in GISS Model"
What's the magic word?
timwells:
Sorry, that is a document on a science denial website so its credibility is zero. In any case, it doesn't come up with any expected figure for solar forcing. If that's the best you can come up with in "stacks of studies", I wouldn't hold much hope for any of the rest of them.
@John Mashey: living in Glasgow I can assure you that the influx of English people would more than offset any benefits.
Chris O,your numbers for Co2 doubling are assuming high feedbacks and that is the whole point under scrutiny.With water vapor overlap on the low frequency end,the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is only 1.9W/m2.
Chris O,so let me get this straight.You cant dispute the message,so you just choose to shoot the messenger?How about you stop running and show us why the facts in that link are wrong.If you present a reasonable argument,I will be the first to applaud you.
As you have pretensions to telling trained professionals in climatology, ecology and plant physiology that their understandings are wrong, perhaps you could explain exactly what you meant in the above statement.
Go back and read carefully what I wrote, and do some reading up on constraints to phtotsynthesis in 'the real world'. Check out 'Leibig's Law of the Minimum', and the complexities of ecosystem interactions, and the impacts of altered soil ecology and of disturbed symbioses. Look also to the nature of the biomass that can be produced when there are nutrient limitations apart from elevated CO2, and what such implies for many non-human species, as well as for humans.
If you had read other threads on Deltoid you would know that I have not denied the impact of elevated CO2 of the photosynthetic rates of certain plants, in certain circumstances and over certain CO2 concentration ranges. The problem is that for every species that might benefit transiently from elevated CO2, there are many that will be outcompeted, or will be more severely negatively affected by the accompanying impacts of a warming planet.
Another thing to keep in mind is that nitrogen and water are both certain to be much harder to provide to crops in the future, as oil supply (a source of fertiliser feed-stock, as well as of transport and processing energy) declines and as water availability is affected by climate change and by geopolitical wranglings. Without at least these two other essential components of photosynthesis freely available, the CO2 influence on productivity is going to be tenuous indeed.
Of course, if you still say that "the numbers don't agree" with me, supply your sources and let's start dissecting their data and methodologies. I am curious to see exactly how many "numbers", and of what quality, you are using to make your claims.
timwells:
Nope, you're wrong. Those numbers are the un-perturbed or zero feedback figures. Here is the definition:
"Unperturbed" means without feedback occurring.
The point under scrutiny was the driving forces of global warming and, strangely enough, how they compare with each other.
I don't know what you mean by "overlap on the low frequency end" but you're wrong if you think the zero feedback forcing for 2XCO2 is 1.9 W/m^2. Most likely you confused it with the forcing from the currently existing level of CO2, about 387 ppm, rather than from a doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. The wikipedia page gives the citations for radiation forcing. And please, no whining about using wikipedia as an authority. I'm only using it to supply citations.
timwells:
I pointed out there was no message of any substance, i.e. "it doesn't come up with any expected figure for solar forcing".
As well as pointing out that there was no message of any substance, I pointed out that the "messenger" makes up his own messages.
Timmeh,
"Where is the PROVEN established link between observed global warming and the extinction of these species?"
Ah, and now we reach to the root of the problem. No level of evidence will convince you that global warming is occurring or that human activity is causing it. That is not the position of a skeptic, but of an ideologue. It is a feature you share with creationists (purpose of earth is for humans, hmmm), germ theory denialists and any number of other anti science groups.
Would you mind reposting the link to the icecap page? Perhaps using tinyurl? It didn't come through right.
@217 Fitz
True, I hadn't trought of that. Although, selling off tiny plots of land at high prices to the English might bring in good revenue to offset any downturn in North Sea oil&gas. :-) I sympathize, living in Northern California, when considering the possibility of mass migration from SoCal.
In any case, though, if I think about the potential migration pressures around the world potentially caused by AGW, England => Scotland isn't as high on my list of worries as those places with real water problems (either too little, from Hadley Cell expansion, or too much from sea level rise.
TimWells said:"t p hamilton The title is..... "Forcings in GISS Model" What's the magic word?"
Hard to tell. Given your irrational rejection of global temperature anomalies derived from thermomemter measurements, GISS?
"How about you stop running and show us why the facts in that link are wrong."
Sorry, it is up to you to show Joe Blows blog science that goes against peer reviewed scientific literature is correct. That would be a first for a denialist - dare to be different!
"Chris O,your numbers for Co2 doubling are assuming high feedbacks and that is the whole point under scrutiny.With water vapor overlap on the low frequency end,the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is only 1.9W/m2."
Maybe you shouldn't defend the blog science you quoted, given that you don't know what the magic word "forcing" means.
Timmeh, we've been monitoring solar output for over 50 years, and there's been no discernable trend. Please explain to me how to account for a trending variable with a trendless one. Granted I am no applied chemist but my reading of econometrics doesn't get me there from here.
Robster,are you a complete idiot or what?Kindly point out to me Where I claimed that global warming has not occurred? Grow up son!
TP hamilton,the magic word is,as if I need to point that out.And you are still using argument from authorty as the basis of proving facts.I once again ask the basic question.Where is the crisis?
Majorrajam,so there has been no change in the strength of the solar magnetic field in the last century?What about solar wind intensity?I am all ears.
Bernard J,the plain fact is that the areas that are currently used for agriculture will have increased yields in a CO2 enheanced atmosphere.This is demonstrated both in laboratory tets and in commercial greenhouses where the optimum CO2 level is about 1000 ppm.The other fact is that plants use less water at higher CO2 levels,which suggests that areas which are currently marginal due to low precipitation will come into production or have increased yields.Not true?
Tim Lambert
Can Tim Wells and Tim Curtin have their own one thread - this is getting boring.
timwells. I'll see your single study (stacks? hmmm...) and raise it to 14, courtesy of scruffy dan
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2339#more-2339
All 14 are in the peer reviewed literature, how many of your 'stacks' are there there?
Tim Wells posts:
Tim, I regressed temperature anomaly on ln CO2, dust veil index, and four different measures of solar activity (taken one at a time to avoid multicolinearity)--TSI, sunspot number, years since minimum, and years since maximum, for the years 1880-2007 (N = 128). Ln CO2 accounted for 76% of variance. DVI accounted for 2%. NONE of the Solar measures showed a significant effect. TSI came closest at t = 1.4. So forgive me if I take your assertion about the sun with a grain of salt.
Sorry, I got that wrong above--it was sunspot number that had t = 1.4, not TSI, although TSI came in second.
timwells:
What would you accept as proof? Presumably, as you are so insistent on proof, you have a clear idea of what you need (you have heard the saying that proof is for mathematics and alcohol?).
Bernard J,the plain fact is that the areas that are currently used for agriculture will have increased yields in a CO2 enheanced atmosphere.This is demonstrated both in laboratory tets and in commercial greenhouses where the optimum CO2 level is about 1000 ppm.
yes, and optimal plants, under optimal conditions and with that extremely high CO2 concentration add an extra 30 to 40% to yield. (those numbers are directly out of the advertisements of the CO2 enrichment industry)
the real outside effect will be tiny, 5% increase looks like a pretty optimistic guess to me..
TimWells said"TP hamilton,the magic word is,as if I need to point that out.And you are still using argument from authorty as the basis of proving facts.I once again ask the basic question.Where is the crisis?"
Translation: I don't like the inconvenient facts from the authoritative sources.
Timmeh,
What is it exactly that you believe? It is rather difficult to determine. In one post, it seems that you believe that global warming is not occurring, while in another, it is negligible. The only consistent theme is that CO2 is not involved in any way. Another interesting item that you seem to offer is that CO2 only offers positive effects, and no negative ones.
So lets narrow it down. Is CO2 connected to the extinction of these species?
Human activity is increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2, partly through use of fossil fuels and deforestation. Can we both agree on this?
CO2 is capable of efficiently absorbing and storing heat energy, and acts an an insulating gas. This is very well established, and I would be surprised that anybody would attempt to claim that is not. I find it quite humorous that you accuse others of having difficulty with reading comprehension when this seems to escape you. If you deny that CO2 is capable of acting as an insulating gas, then what other insulating gases do you deny? CFCs? HCFCs? Methane? H2O?
So, we are increasing the concentration of CO2, an insulating gas, in the atmosphere. More heat energy is going to be retained in the atmosphere, hence, higher global temperature.
What can we expect to happen from this? Species that are climate sensitive will be hard pressed to survive. Ice, which makes up the vast majority of glaciers and ice packs, will melt and run into the ocean. Ocean levels will rise as the glaciers melt, and while the rate of melt and rise is open to debate, the property of ice to melt is not.
Beyond this, there are a wide variety of climate effects that we can expect. Changes in precipitation patterns. Changes in greening patterns of plants. Melting of permafrost (which will release methane, another greenhouse gas).
Theories, such as AGW theory, have predictive power. As such, we can make predictions regarding the above expected effects, and we are seeing them. What is your competing hypothesis that explains these observations equally well or better? What supporting evidence in peer reviewed journals do you have? You are making extraordinary claims, and these will need extraordinary evidence for proof.
timwells:
So has someone come up with an estimate of the climate forcing generated by these changes? I am all ears.
fyi, Timmeh, 50 != 100, and solar wind/solar magnetic field/GCRs are not known forcings outside denialists delusional minds, as Chris has patiently pointed out to you again and again as if to a wall. So my comment stands, and maybe you could try not to address it via inane question next time. While you're at it you could explain the sun's culpability for global warming in the context of the cooling stratosphere. I'm most certainly all ears.
Majorajam,the full effects of solar activity is only just being understood now.The IPCC does not sufficiently address the question of solar influence on climate,so the science is not settled.TSI has not varied much but other solar parameters have.Sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2000,for example,show a strong correlation with global temperature.Cooling stratosphere can also be due to ozone depletion[IPCC].The most direct proof of a lack of AGW is the missing hotspot in the lower troposphere.
Robster,I am beginning to think that you have a serious iodine deficiency mate!Why do you keep mis-quoting me and/or attributing to me statements that I have not made?
Lets go through your post.
Your first paragraph is just plain stupid.I have Never said that global warming is not occurring.I have never said that it was negligible.I have never said that CO2 in not involved.I have said that CO2 offers benefits,it is only harmful to life at very high concentrations.Ie 5000 ppm and that level cannot be reached even if we burn all the hydrocarbons on the planet.
Next:Is CO2 connected to the extinction of these species?You show me the TANGIBLE connection and I will give you an answer.
Next:Your third paragraph only convinces me that you are a dumbass!Read this Carefully---CO2,H2O,CH4,CFC's and several other are compounds ARE GREENHOUSE GASES you moron!
Next:Adding more CO2 will increase SWR and result in heating of the atmosphere.Maybe 1C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.The scary scenarios from this small warming are just pure conjecture.Where is the crisis in 2009?
timwells:
In that case the full forcing effects of solar activity are understood now. Could you give us a citation showing what value in W/m^2 this forcing is now understood to be?
Sunspot numbers from 1955 to 2000,for example,show a very strong negative correlation with global temperature. i.e. opposite in sign from the correlation of 1750 to 1955.
The only thing a missing hotspot in the upper troposphere could prove (assuming it really is missing) would be a lack of any type of global warming which we all agree is not true.
timwells:
"Adding more CO2 will increase SWR and result in heating of the atmosphere.Maybe 1C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels."
Only if you deny the existence of water vapor, albedo, and other feedbacks.
And only if yo deny the various lines off evidence that point to a 3C /2xCO2 sensitivity. You do know that we aren't dependent on the models to determine that value, don't you?
"Sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2000,for example,show a strong correlation with global temperature"
Not since 1960 - 1970, they don't. The most recent 40-50 years show a complete divergence, a reversal of the sign in fact. Using that correlation to explain modern global warming since 1970, only works if you somehow explain whey the sign of the effect reversed in 1960. Good luck.
"Cooling stratosphere can also be due to ozone depletion[IPCC]."
Only in a non-quantitative analysis.
"The most direct proof of a lack of AGW is the missing hotspot in the lower troposphere."
I am consistently astounded that you denialists have such an absurdly high, high standard for evidence that supports AGW, but accept nearly any data if it might be used to argue against AGW. One, the evidence that the 'trop trop hotpsot is missing is shaky at best - nearly all the evidence is consistent with the predicted hotspot, if you look at the errors involved. And two, a missing hotspot is evidence against AGW ONLY if you use it to argue that there has been no warming at all - because the trop trop hotspot is predicted for any warming, not just AGW. IOW, use that very shaky evidence to dispute all the various lines of evidence, nearly all of them with better data, that the planet is warming. Gaaaahhh.
timwells:
"CO2 offers benefits,it is only harmful to life at very high concentrations.Ie 5000 ppm"
Not in the oceans. Acidificatin is basic chemistry.
Tim,
Sorry to leave you in a room full of alarmists for three days. From the looks of things, you've held your own very well. Funny, it doesn't take many people armed with the truth to keep a room full of alarmists busy...LOL
Dash
I have dedicated a new page on my website to
those of you who frequent Deltoid:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
Once there, just click on the pic of Lord Monckton.
Despite Tim Lambert's implied claim that every word ever
written or spoken by Lord Monckton has been refuted
on the great Deltoid Blog, I would suggest much of it
has not been seen my those posting on this thread.
For had you reviewed it, you'd be skeptics now instead
of alarmists.
Feel free to attempt to refute anything you think you can.
There is a lot there for your review: papers, video, audio.
Unless of course you're afraid of anything that might shake your faith which is what AGW boils down to for most of you.
Here's a link for Deltoid readers who aren't aware of Tim's categories on the left. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/
Lee,is the value for climate sensitivity known?The IPCC values go from 2 to 6.5.The Stefan_Boltzman is value about 1.Lindzen's value is about .8----Pick a card-any card!
Sunspots:It is not 40-50 years.As far as I know the correlation did diverge around 1980-85[Friis-Christiansen] until recently when the correlation has returned.Other studies[Solanki,I think] suggest a lag of 6-12 years between changes in solar activity and the resultant effect on earth's climate.Nir Shaviv's attributed 2/3 of temperature change in the last decades to solar.
Hotspot:No,AR4 chapter 9 page 675 gives all the signatures.Figure C is the SPECFIC signature for a well mixed greenhouse warming.The observations from hundreds of radiosonde measurements reveal the absence of the hotspot predicted by the IPCC models.
Acid seas:Carbonic acid is very weak[ie high buffer],and there is no great change in ocean PH now.No species are under threat from a lower PH at the moment.
Sod,where did you get the 5% figure from?Is that the same for C3 cereals,C4 cereals,vegatables,legumes and roots.Please explain.
Sod,where did you get the 5% figure from?Is that the same for C3 cereals,C4 cereals,vegatables,legumes and roots.Please explain.
we don t have 1000 ppm.
our food is a mix of C3 and C4.
the 30%-40% number is under ideal conditions (the plants don t lack anything else)
the 30-40% number is from an advertisement.
Jeff and Bernard J,in response to your question about the correct role of humanity on this planet,I believe we could follow 2 lines of thought.Bear in mind however,that this is only opinion,I cannot back this up with any emperical evidence.OK,here we go.
1]The first line-Humanity is THE absolute dominant species of the earth-nothing else even comes close.There is so much evidence that this is true that we really dont need to dicuss it.
2]The second line-Genesis chapter 1,verse 26
"And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness,and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,and over all the earth,..."
Sod,no you are wrong.That is for CO2 enhanced[600ppm] conditions ONLY.If you add a water stress,the yield is even BETTER!My source is IDSO.Where did you get the 5% figure?
TW 252
1. Dominant yes ... and we're fucking it up. So much for our so called 'intelligence'.
2. What has this got to do with it? Btw, I think you got 1st, 2nd & 3rd 'person' wrong ... us, our, etc.
timwells:
It is 50 or more years. Sunspots have been on a declining trend since 1955 while global temperature has either not changed much at times or risen at times.
At least you admit there is no consistent correlation. Of course, that means that it cannot be the main cause of global warming.
timwells:
"Acid seas:Carbonic acid is very weak[ie high buffer],and there is no great change in ocean PH now.No species are under threat from a lower PH at the moment."
Guffaw.
Averaged ocean pH has dropped from a pre-industrial of ~ 8.2, to a 1990s value of 8.1. Ocean pH is currently dropping at a rate of ~0.2 pH / decade, and delta [CO2] in the atmosphere is increasing. By 2050, ocean pH will be ~8.0.
I'll leave for you the exercise of calculating the delta [H+], and determining if that is a significant change or not.
Timmeh, thanks for the laugh. The only thing clear from your posts is that you don't understand chemistry, biology or physics well enough to even keep your story straight.
And your grasp of theology is laughable, too.
Does dominion offer a complete lack of responsible stewardship?
No level of proof will be good enough for you. Its pitiful that you pretend to the title of skeptic.
Oh, and where is that peer reviewed and published support for your position?
re my 256 - that rate should be ~ 0.02 pH / decade, not 0.2. Sorry for the typo - the math works with this correct value.
Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House. The portcullis is a generic heraldic device; the vicecomital coronet is a device that I have the specific right to use (and, indeed, I shall be wearing it when His Majesty King Charles III invites me, as he will invite all hereditary Peers, to his coronation). I am fully entitled to combine the portcullis and the vicecomital coronet and use it as a badge or logo, for the United Kingdom, unlike Deltoid, is a free country, whether you like it or not.
Monckton of Brenchley
However you have claimed to be "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature", the House of Lords Information office has confirmed to me that you are not a member (of any sort). You do not have the "right of access to all other facilities of the House" although you may have been granted permission to use them. As to the use of the crowned portcullis": "In 1996, the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House." Your usage of the coronet and portcullis is likely to be viewed as breaching the latter provision.
Chris,the correlation for sunspots is still strong over the long term.From 1955 to 1975 temperatures were stable or falling as were sunspot numbers,and then,as said before there was a divergence in the 80's.It is a similar or stronger correlation for solar cycle length vs temperature..Temperatures are again now falling after a relatively weak[and long]cycle 23.
Figure A is the signture for increased TSI,and it shows a mild warming,NOT a hotspot.The important ones are figure C[geenhouse warming],and figure F[ALL forcings].Both C and F show a distinct hotspot in the troposhpere.The observations from radiosonde data show no hotspot.
Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn't it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can't see where the fire is.
Robster,
"Does dominion offer a complete lack of responsible stewardship" No on the contrary,dominion demands responsible stewardship.It is to our great advantage to preserve the riches of nature.
Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn't it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can't see where the fire is.
Obviously because, as shown above, you don't realize that pH is a log scale.
Specifically a decrease in pH by 0.2 represents an increase in [H+] by 60%!
A decrease in pH by 0.3 would double the [H+].
timwells:
It reverses over periods of 50 years. Somehow you think a strong reversal lasting 50 years is OK, yet when the CO2 correlation goes weakly into reverse for just 11 years that brings down the whole theory. I'm sorry but you're standards of proof are blatantly inconsistent.
By the way, anyone with half a mathematical brain knows that as you reduce the period to zero over which the correlation between CO2 and temperature is calculated that the correlation will drop to zero. Short term climate correlation (<20 years) proves nothing.
Wrong, from 1955 to 1975 temperatures were stable.
Wrong, from 1955 to 1975 sunspot numbers were falling in trend. There is a difference between stable and falling. Please don't lump them together.
It's only a mild warming because solar forcing is only a mild forcing compared with greenhouse gases. Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing.
Not even a mild one which means you must believe there is no solar forcing.
Chance for an Easy $US2 million!
All one has to do is solve Lord Christopher Monckton's Eternity II Puzzle.
Given the fact that so many people in this room think they're a lot smarter than the Viscount, this should be a piece of cake for most of you. I suppose the only real question is which one of you will solve it first?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/feature-archive/older…
@Dash RIPROCK III (#265):
Shorter Dash:
"Crikey, look, a wombat".
timwells:
"Lee,the delta[H+]is nothing more than the PH value isn't it?There is no observable damage to aquatic ecosystems due to a very slight lowering of PH.Once again I can't see where the fire is."
Well no, it isn't. pH is on a log scale. That you aren't aware of this, and what it means, and you are nonetheless offering a strongly held opinion about the impact on the oceans - well, lets just say it doesn't surprise me.
BTW, I know several people who keep some pretty amazing reef aquaria. They work really hard to keep pH at 8.2 - 8.3, start worrying if it drops to 8.1 - and will take major steps to intervene if pH drops to near 8.0, because that is where they start to see a significant impact on the health of their reef tanks.
Timmeh, I think you'll find that surface temperatures correlate very highly with NFC victories in the Super Bowl- even more so when you control for the second order effect of AFC victories in Pro Bowls. Sure, the correlation breaks down for long stretches and we haven't identified or demonstrated, let alone measured, any mechanism by which NFC prowess affects surface temperatures, the fit is so good relative to any other non-C02 driver of warming, we're confident this is down to a lack of understanding of nature's mysteries.
It's funny, people often take the view that 'climate skeptics' is a misnomer because their credulousness typically outweighs their skepticism by orders of magnitude, (as for example Chris O'Neil has so deftly exposed on this thread). However, I think that misjudges the real reason why the modifier doesn't apply. The real problem with the label is that skeptics perform a real service in society. They are society's break on the momentum and poor decision making of mob rule. In the sciences, their perception and demonstration of problems in the going understanding has proven essential to moving the ball forward throughout human history.
'Skeptics' on the other hand have no progressive function, but exist as parasites on the contributing members of society, like so many barnacles on an ocean liner. Their interest is in policy and pop understanding, as made evident by their obsession with Al Gore. Had they a meritous case to make, they would make it in a way that would improve our understanding and ultimately, the quality of people's lives. But 'skeptics' interests are far more narrow, and there is no case forthcoming.
So, just as a ship's hull must ritually washed down, contributors to society like Gavin Schmidt and others must take time away from the work of their contribution to clean noxious barnacles like one loony fraud-prone Viscount from the ship of state. Of course, the work is never done and ever unrewarding, but such is the way of things I guess.
I can confirm Lee's comment at #276 about reef aquaria. The denizens of mine were decidedly peaked on the occasion where the pH dropped to 8.0, even though the nitrogen forms were all below thresholds. They were right as rain within 2 hours of adjusting it back to 8.2.
One area that many folk, including some scientists, are not informed about is the sensitivity to pH of the sperm, and especially of the eggs, of aquatic/marine species. For some species a difference of 0.2 pH units can completely interfer with the maintenance of the internal/external H+ gradients required for the egg/zygote/early embryo's viability.
So even in instances where adult organisms are not demonstrating overt stress to alterations of pH, their capacity to recruit the next generations may be severely compromised.
Timmie, I suggest that you UTFSE. As a special hint, include 'foraminifera' in the trawl.
And a word of advice: literature reviewing does not mean that one reads a few denialist sites that tells one what one desires to hear. Rather, it means that one reads a comprehensive and representative selection of the relevant primary literature in a field of research, and that one carefully keeps one's ideology separate from a critical analysis and synthesis of the consistencies and inconsistencies in the literature.
Sigh.
Dash (Mark Gillar)
1) Have you yet read Dessler's book?
2) Have you signed up for the June 8-10 symposium yet?
Dash: after this from you there'll be people in this room, and a few more peering through the windows, who think they're smarter than _you_. Is Monckton the first bloke you've met who's intellectually bright yet making a fool of himself over something? Alternatively - what is an idiot-savant?
Chris,I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I dont think it is all that accurate.For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.Cycle 19 was one of the strongest cycles in history and cycle 20 was very weak.Cycles 21 and 22 were a bit stronger than average.The general trend for both is stable/falling numbers until about 1980.It was not a strong reversal.
I agree that 11 years does not prove anything,but neither does 20 years[1980 to 2000].
"Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing"
Chris,read carefully.Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for "solar forcing".It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.
"...you must believe that there is no solar forcing."
How many times does this need to be said before you understand it?The HOTSPOT in Figures C is the signature for a GREENHOUSE WARMING.IE IF the observed warming was due to greenhouse gases then the hotspot would show up in our observations.It does not show up,which demonstrates that the IPCC models for the warming do not fit the data from observations.
Chris,I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I dont think it is all that accurate.For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.Cycle 19 was one of the strongest cycles in history and cycle 20 was very weak.Cycles 21 and 22 were a bit stronger than average.The general trend for both is stable/falling numbers until about 1980.It was not a strong reversal.
I agree that 11 years does not prove anything,but neither does 20 years[1980 to 2000].
"Thanks for agreeing that solar forcing is only a mild forcing"
Chris,read carefully.Figure A is the forcing for increased TSI ONLY!It is not for "solar forcing".It does not account for variations within the TSI such as solar wind,sunspots,solar magnetic field strength,increased UV,radio flux change etc.
"...you must believe that there is no solar forcing."
How many times does this need to be said before you understand it?The HOTSPOT in Figures C is the signature for a GREENHOUSE WARMING.IE IF the observed warming was due to greenhouse gases then the hotspot would show up in our observations.It does not show up,which demonstrates that the IPCC models for the warming do not fit the data from observations.
Majorajam,great post mate!Lots of irrefutable scientific fact in there.You win.
timwells:
tim if you can point to some scientific literature - _genuine_ scientific literature - that informs you in your belief that this list of things has any scientific point to make in your own argument's context, wouldn't now be late enough to produce it? Anyone can write laundry lists of denialist talking points into blog comments, it just doesn't help them make any kind of case!
Jemima,that information is from the IPCC.Your job is dispute the facts,if you cant,log off!
timwells:
You would think that, wouldn't you. Obviously research is your weak point beause I posted the reference to sunspot numbers the first time above.
For a start,using 1955 as your beginning point is plainly wrong as it was very close to the year of solar minimum between cycles 18 and 19.
I was referring to the TREND which peaked somewhere near 1955 from a visual inspection of the sunspot graph. The actual peak was just a few years different from this. Hardly significant to a 50 year trend.
Read the graph.
It doesn't need to be a strong reversal to amount to a disproving lack of correlation. For cause to be possible, correlation must be present ALL the time, barring climatically insignificant periods such as less than 20 years.
It's a pity you don't let some of your science denialiast cohorts know that.
50 years does.>
Then you had better let the IPCC climate scientists know because that is what they call it.
As I asked in #239, I'm still waiting for you to come up with any citation that gives an estimate for any of these other hypothetical sources of solar forcing. Asserting there is a significant forcing amounts to zero evidence of a significant forcing.
I know what your argument is and I'm trying to point out the defect in your argument but I'm prevented from doing that by the fact that you continue to ignore my argument about solar forcing. Do you agree that a lack of a hotspot proves there is no solar forcing or not? Your ignoring of my argument shows that you are suffering from cognitive failure. If you're argument about solar forcing is so substantial, when are you going to come up with citations for the values of these hypothetically significant other forms of solar forcing and while you're at it, how about a citation for the temperature fingerprint of your hypothetical forms of solar forcing. So far you've produced zero substance.
Chris,OK I think I know what you are getting at.You have asked for citations which is a fair request,and I will try to hunt them down.
"Do you agree that a lack of a hotspot proves there is no solar forcing or not." No,I do not agree.Here is why.
The hotspot is only predicted for greenhouse warming,it is not predicted for increased TSI.A lack of a hotspot does not exclude the existence of a solar forcing,but it strongly suggests that GHG's are not causing the warming predicted by the models.Solar forcing does not produce a hotspot because it is visible light and UV light which passes through the atmosphere all the way to the surface,it only has a small effect on the troposhpere in the form of re-radiation from the surface.The greenhouse signature should occur in the troposphere where CO2,CH4 etc intercept visible and UV light and re-radiate it as infra-red[heat].This is what produces the "hotspot" 8-12 km above the surface and it has not been observed.
timwells:
"The hotspot is only predicted for greenhouse warming,it is not predicted for increased TSI."
Bullshit. There is no polite way to say it.
The tropical troposphere 'hotspot' is a consequence of the moist adiabat, and is caused by ANY surface warming. The IPCC graph you seem to keep pointing at shows only a weak hotspot for solar forcing, because it is from a model run with weak solar forcing, and therefore with weak surface warming.
The hotspot is a prediction from tropical surface warming from ANY cause.
Water evaporation and condensation, and the saturation point of the air - the physical processes behind the trop trop hotspot - don't discriminate between causes of warming.
Now's your chance to engage in some hard science Tim. Observe your argument as it swirls the toilet bowl- which direction is it going? Is the Coriolis Effect at play?
But seriously, thanks for all that hard scientific falsehood. Next time though I suggest you stick to the specious correlations. They may not be persuasive, but at least they don't reveal you for the abject ignoramus this line went and did. Relatedly, you should investigate a pseudonym. Toodles.
timwells:
I'm sorry, it is predicted for solar forcing. If you can't see it in Figure A then you are blind.
Your ignorance is incredible. CO2 and CH4 DO NOT INTERCEPT VISIBLE LIGHT. To think that someone this ignorant is trying to lecture anyone on atmospheric physics is totally laughable.
Chris,yes you are right.It was indeed a "laughable" mistake.I meant to say infra-red,and not visible and UV.I accept that it was wrong factually.However, after including your correction[ie infra-red],the mechanism is correct.
Now about the Hot spot,the colour of figure A is yellow for very mild warming.Figure C has a RED hotspot right in the middle which indicates strong warming.That is the difference.There is no hotspot for Increased TSI.
timwells:
Yeah if you say so. You're the last person I'd rely on for an explanation of anything to do with atmospheric physics. Lee pointed out the reason the hotspot occurs above which has been repeated by atmospheric physcists for years.
The difference is because the solar forcing is only 0.2 W/m^2 while the GHG forcing is 1.7 W/m^2. This changes the magnitude of the hotspot in proportion to the forcing but doesn't remove it.
"In proportion" or "mild" does not mean the same as zero.
Lee,there are studies by Antoni[2005 and Herfort[2008]that contradict the idea that a lower oceanic PH will be harmful to aquatic ecosystems.Infact there is seen to be an INCREASE in the rate of photosynthesis for symbiotic coral algae when the concetration of HCO3- ions is increased.
"The hotspot is a prediction from tropical warming from ANY cause."
Lee,I am not sure that this is correct.
Figure C is for GHG warming ONLY.It shows the distinct hotspot.
Figure F is for all FIVE forcings:
A]Increased TSI
B]Volcanic
C]GHG
D]Oxone depletion
E]Industrial pollution.
Chris,this seems to be more about semantics.I agree with what you said in your post[excluding the ad hominem comment]."Mild" does not mean zero,but surely we agree that there is a difference in the warming predictions between Figure A and Figure C?
However,this has wandered from the main point,and that is,that the observations show no warming that is consistent with the predictions of Figure C.IE The observations do not match the theoretical signature.Therefore assuming our large body of radiosonde data is accurate,then the error must surely lay in the models and the assumptions built into them.Is this a reasonable conclusion?
timwells:
So now we're on the the "semantics" argument.
That's what I've already said so I don't know why you're asking.
Sure if you say so.
My main point is that if you think the observations have proven there is no GHG-caused hotspot then you must also think the observations have proven there is no solar-caused hotspot. Otherwise your thinking is blatantly inconsistent.
It might be large but that didn't stop it from being inaccurate.
The inconsistency is between the small, and easily overshadowed by short-term variation, long-term trend in sonde observations and the assumption of decreasing lapse rate as the troposphere gets warmer. The only thing that could be challenged IF there is no hotspot is THAT assumption, not that the troposphere is getting warmer. The degree of certainty in long-term trend measurement of the hotspot is still low.
Chris,
"...then you must also think that the observations have proven there is no solar caused hotspot."
No,the observations show slight warming in the troposphere,but they are not consistent with increased TSI induced warming.This is the whole point.None of the models really explain the observations very well,except for maybe ozone depletion induced stratospheric cooling.IE Figure D
So warming has been observed but it really cannot be attributed to increased GHG's.Soon[2005]found a strong correlation[r2.79]for TSI and Arctic temperatures.
Hoyt and Schaten[1993]showed that since the maunder minimum TSI may have increased by as much as .4 %.In addition Lockwood[1999]showed that magnetic solar flux has increased 2.3 times since 1901.Solar flux is a good proxy for UV,and Labitzke[1988]showed that the heat from the UV/ozone interaction in the stratosphere subsequently radiates to the troposphere.Schindell[1999]produced a model that reproduced this warming during high flux years.The high flux during the winter of 2001/2 and the subsequent warming were considered to be verification of the work of Schindell and Labitzke.
timwells:
And isn't that exactly what I'm saying? No hotspot -> no solar induced warming
BTW, to emphasize what I said before, the long-term hotspot trend has a very low signal to noise ratio. It's rather ironic that there are those who think the surface temperature record cannot be established with much certainty while at the same time they will accept a smaller change in the record measured by far fewer thermometers sent to the upper troposphere as being accurate.
Chris,
"No hotspot>no solar induced warming." NO!! It means no increased TSI induced warming,which is what the model is SPECIFIC for.
UV as a percentage of TSI can vary several percentage points over the length of a cycle and X-rays even more.Solar variations and their effects are still not fully understood,but the strong correlations[eg Cycle length VS temp]suggest cause and effect.
Personally, I think the argument ought to be less about Monckton and Gore...they're both very likely contained by their own agendas. Mine would be for free energy sources. Would probably eliminate the need for all this claptrap if everyone were just a touch less stressed out by ridiculous and rapidly rising energy bills, etc. We could always argue the old, and sadly outmoted "G-d gave us all we ever needed in the first place", but, per usual, rather than accept the simple truth of that matter, and turning off our TV's, going to raise a garden, and riding horses, we'll carry on fighting to maintain the current status quo of technology and economics. Sad state of affairs, really. Who knows what we could accomplish...what mountains we could move, if we spent more quality of time, and less money on one and other. Since most of it (the money) winds up in very particular hands, anyway, it is truly a sad state of affairs that people simply can't get past the ego long enough to co-operate. Someone, here, no doubt, will label me a lefty, a righty, an uppie, a downie, a hippie, liberal, neo-con, or what have you. In the end, rather than banding together with 'like minded' individuals, we'd all be better suited, in my humble estimation, to act in the spirit of co-operation. That doesn't sit well, of course with politicians of any kind, whatever their titles or credentials might be, as most of them seem to enjoy the limelight more than actually accomplishing anything. My 2c. Worth about that much, I imagine, to most of you chronic whiners. Shame, really, that 'love thy neighbor' so quickly died, and 'suspect thy neighbor of every wrongdoing' took its place.
The Name Of The Game is CO2.
The question is:
Does rising CO2 levels increase global temperature?
If the answer is NO! then the discussion is over.
All other discussion is useless !
If you fell for the Y2K bug, Swine flu, Bird flu, terrorism, Chilean tsunami, Obama's cap and trade and COMPULSORY health care, then you probably fell for the Global Warming plot as well.
CO2 does not raise global temperatures.
CO2 dilutes into water at a precise saturation point now known to be a constant in that equation.
see>>
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d1…
Now turn off the TV and have a happy life.
Hooray!