The most damning thing about Christopher Monckton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on global warming science (video here), is the fact that the Republicans could not or would not get a single scientist to testify.
His main argument is based on the same confusion that I dealt with in my debate with him -- the idea that Pinker (2005) which found an increase in short wave radiation at the surface, actually found an increase in radiative forcing. Rachel Pinker herself explained the difference: (my emphasis)
The CO2 "radiative forcing" value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth's Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.
But Monckton ignored this correction from Pinker in his testimony:
"This is from a paper by Dr Claire Pinker and her colleagues in 2005 showing a very rapid increase in global brightening, the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. Enough global brightening to cause a warming of one Celsius degree, though only 0.37 Celsius degrees of warming was observed over that 18 year period. So if anyone tries to tell you that we cannot explain the global warming of the past 30 years except by reference to carbon dioxide, this graph, and many others like it in the scientific literature should suggest otherwise. And if we now include that data from Dr Pinker together with the various forcings and temperature increases from the individual greenhouse gasses, what we end up with is a fourfold overstatement of the rate of increase in global temperature over what was actually observed -- if we use the IPCC's methods to calculate what the warming would have been."
He did correct his mistake about her gender, but got her name wrong. Monckton also made a change to his key graph:
While he is still wrongly interpreting an increase in short wave radiation as radiative forcing, he has multiplied the number by 67%. To figure out why, I looked at his written testimony:
Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker's result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 Wm2year over the period, compared with the 0.16 W m-2 year-1 found by Dr. Pinker. Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m-2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected - using the IPCC's own methodology - to have caused a transient warming of 1K (1.8 F). To put this naturally-occurring global brightening into perspective, the IPCC's estimated total of all the anthropogenic influences on climate combined in the 256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m-2.
OK, the ERBE correction for orbital decay is this
During an instrument performance study, Lee et al. (2003) discovered that the ERBE nonscanner inversion algorithm did not correctly account for the decay in the ERBS altitude over its mission lifetime; this can have a small but significant effect on the reported decadal changes of nonscanner TOA fluxes. The ERBE nonscanner inversion algorithm is used to convert nonscanner measurements at satellite altitude (approximately 611 km at the start of the mission) to TOA measurements at a reference altitude of 30 km. While these altitude changes over the 15-year period are small (on the order of 25 km) and do not affect the overall quality of the large regional fluxes, they do, however, have significant effect on the smaller changes associated with the observed large scale decadal changes in Earth radiation budget (Wong et al., 2005).
But the graph Monckton uses, figure 1 of Pinker (2005), isn't based on ERBE data:
Specifically, the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) (14, 15) data have been used to derive surface radiative fluxes for about 20 years.
So instead of correcting the error explained by Pinker, Monckton added a new one of his making.
The rest of Monckton's science is just as bad. He repeats his wildly false claim that "Snowball Earth" proves that CO2 has little warming effect:
If the warming effect of CO2 were anything like as great as the vested-interest groups now seek to maintain, then, even after allowing for greater surface albedo and 5% less solar radiation, those glaciers could not possibly have existed
In our debate, I challenged Monckton to do the calculation of the forcing from the albedo change, but apparently he still hasn't managed it. If we increase the Earth's albedo from 0.3 (current value) to 0.5 (sea ice), the forcing is 342*(0.5-0.3) = 68 W/m2. Compare with the forcing from a factor of 1000 increase in CO2. That's 10 doublings or 37 W/m2, so the planet is much colder, even with 1000 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere.
And look at this howler:
It has been suggested that the oceans have "acidified" - or, more correctly, become less alkaline - by 0.1 acid-base units in recent decades. However, the fact of a movement towards neutrality in ocean chemistry, if such a movement has occurred, tells us nothing of the cause, which cannot be attributed to increases in CO2 concentration. There is 70 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere, and some 30% of any CO2 we add to the atmosphere will eventually dissolve into the oceans. Accordingly, a doubling of CO2 concentration, expected later this century, would raise the oceanic partial pressure of CO2 by 30% of one-seventieth of what is already there. And that is an increase of 0.4% at most. Even this minuscule and chemically-irrelevant perturbation is probably overstated, since any "global warming" that resulted from the doubling of CO2 concentration would warm the oceans and cause them to outgas CO2, reducing the oceanic partial pressure.
Monckton doesn't seem to be aware of what Roger Revelle found. The oceans aren't well mixed -- it's just the surface water that will be acidified.
Monckton continued to dissemble about his claims to being a member of the House of Lords.
I have never sat or voted in the House of Lords. Nor have I pretended otherwise.
Compare with his earlier statements:
Finally, 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 either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
I'm a member of the House of Lords, though, being merely hereditary, I don't have a seat there
- Log in to post comments
"Iâm a member of the House of Lords, though, being merely hereditary, I donât have a seat there".
Well, I'm sorry but he may be a Lord but he aint a member unlie Valeri Amos the present uk high commissioner to Australia.
What does he think we are, stupid or something?
He's as bad as Mandelson - those two statements do not necessarily contradict one another, and thus to the casual listener who doesn't know any better they would imagine there was some odd British thing going on and leave it at that. Whereas in reality he lied to make himself more important and now changes the words to avoid any backlash from the lie.
He did correct his mistake about her gender, but got her name wrong.
WTF is it with deniers and climate scientists' names? Not as spectacular as Allegre, mind... Dr. Georgia Tech says 'hello'.
The ocean acidification thing is stupid on so many levels. Besides the mixing effects Tim mentions, I'm really struggling to get where he imagined this '30% of a seventieth' thing comes from. In the simplified Henry's law case, surely an increase in 30% would occur both in and out of the water?
But besides that, he does seem to be comically ignorant of the relationships between p(CO2), pH, buffering and carbonate bioavailability in the ocean. It would have taken a mere cursory glance of a textbook to get the basics on the causes and effects of acidification, but instead he just went out and made a complete tit out of himself. What. A. Buffoon.
Was he paid to make this appearance?
Is Monckton testifying to Congress the 21st Century equivalent of the Visigoths sacking Rome?
You've got to be f**king kidding me.
Is it true that Al Gore refuses to debate his critics and has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton?
Monckton testifying before Congress on the subject of climate science is the equivalent of Barney the Dinosaur narrating a documentary on species extinction: a massive miscalculation of the audience's expectations and an insult to their intelligence.
>*Is it true that Al Gore refuses to debate his critics and has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton?*
Its better to debate in peer review where liars and bullshit artist find it harder and where they get called out when they slip through the cracks.
Gish Gallopers prefer a "debate" format where they get equal time to spout discredited crap to people who don't know better.
Surley we are likely to see in the very near future a public statement, or a submission to Congress from Dr Pinker, disowning Monckton's interpretation of her research. Such a move should prove fatal to Mockton's reputation. But it wont, because he's telling too many what they want to hear. Watching the video I was struck by how the Democrats and Republican congressmen neatly divided on this issue. When will the right side politics wake up to the fact that mother nature is apolitical. Severe weather events or rising sea levels do not disinguish between Democrat or Rebublican, left or right.
Check out the first two stories on the [Republican committee member's site](http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/), which were posted __before__ the hearing, and you'll see that they had already made up their minds.
Tim, you seem to be making a habit of taking Lord Monckton to task and showing him to be what he is â a liar and a fraud who manipulates data to get the ârightâ outcomes supportive of his views.
Technically, Monckton may be right in claiming that ocean water is not becoming acidic but less alkaline. However, the problems, ignored by Monckton, are both the reduction of alkalinity (falling pH) and the speed with which it is happening. The former damages calcifying marine life, the latter gives it no time to adapt. The result: Serious damage to the marine environment and adverse affects on the ability of crustaceans and fish to survive.
Typically, Monckton assures us that CO2 is not the problem but remains silent on what the causes of falling ocean surface pH are. One only needs elementary chemistry to understand that CO2 dissolving in water forms carbonic acid, causing falling pH at least in the top 500m of cooler ocean waters. Instead he introduces an unexplained nonsense calculation that is supposed to prove increasing atmospheric CO2 has no significant effect on ocean pH.
In his February 2010 interview on the ABC Program âCounterpointâ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2800684.htm#transcri… Monckton assures us that âthere has been very, very sharp global cooling on all measures since 2001â, a demonstrable lie since The Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and leading climate scientists tell us that the last decade has been the warmest on record and that 7 out of its 10 years have been the hottest ever recorded. No less significantly, they tell us that every decade since 1940 has been warmer than the one before it.
So how does Monckton explain away these facts? Simple! He tells us that this is due to an international conspiracy led by the IPCC and scientists placed in meteorological offices world-wide who âhave been linked together in what can only be described as a small but powerful conspiracy to bend, distort, invent, manufacture, fabricate, budge, shift, tamper with, tinker with and even destroy scientific evidence for the sake of over-sexing the dossierâ.
Claims like that should have long since put paid to any fanciful suggestion that Moncktonâs views on climate change and knowledge of related science have any credibility. It would of course be nice if Dr Rachel Pinker were to enlighten the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming of the way in which Monckton has misused her data and finding.
Political views may chop and change. Well founded science does not.
"Is it true that Al Gore refuses to debate his critics and has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton?"
Why the obsession with Al Gore? It's not like he invented climate change or anything.
JamesA @ 14,
It's a funny one, but a climate science debate is not usually complete until the denier brings up Al Gore, usually following the (un)logical path of "Al Gore believes in climate change therefore it must be a big communist lie".
Apologies to EG, since [in this case](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres…) he's not following that line of rhetoric.
It never fails to crack me up, the final resort of some trolls to "... but... but... Al Gore!!!"
Take that back! You owe an apology to titmice everywhere. No self-respecting tit would act the twit like Monckton does.
"Is it true that Al Gore refuses to debate his critics and has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton?"
Posted by: el Gordo
Is it true el Gordo is a serial child rapist caught on hidden camera anally violating a five--year-old?
What are the penalties for knowingly lying to Congress?
This Victoria Monckton needs to get her facts straight.
Sorry Ed, tits are made for childish suckers
> Check out the first two stories on the Republican committee member's site, which were posted before the hearing, and you'll see that they had already made up their minds.
Surprise, surprise. And they refer to ClimateGate (more surprise).
And you'll see they're referring to M&M's attack on the hockey stick, which is why the investigations into the providence and strange scholarship of the Wegman Report - despite the subsequent research providing similar results to the original hockey stick - might still prove useful.
He needs to be asked that if he never claimed he was a member of the House of Lords, why does he still contiue to use a bastardised parliamentry logo?
re: #18
By odd chance, I have looked into this recently, for erason people might guess.
It is 1USC1001.
Misleading Congress can be a felony, up to 5 years.
Honestly, its sad to see such an intellectual fraud get promoted to such a level.
Despite his repeated errors, lies (intentional? fantasy?) and mistakes he is still trotted out as an expert.
Comes down to the fact that he tells people what want to hear.
Please excuse my off-topic comment.
2 questionable denier talks at GeoCanada 2010 this week.
If you attend the meeting, please visit the session an ask critical questions.
Info here: http://friendsofginandtonic.org/
It's easier to attack a person than an idea or movement. People can appear unlikeable, flawed and remote where movements and ideas are like whisps of vapour -- hard to put your finger on. This is something every astroturfer and special pleader knows.
Gore is an identifiable liberal and most who are bothered by mitigation are on the right, so choosing Al Gore gets you a base constituency independent of the force of your claim. Lots of people hate/distrust politicians or ostensible intellectuals and anyone who fits this description is a qualified recruit, which can then be additive.
Monckton's graphic is labelled "cloud effect" IIRC Pinker's findings were on total brightness and did not attribute the change to clouds. Coincidently 1983 to 2001 was a period with a lot of work was done to cap the growth of SO2.
Wild looked at this [well documented brightening](http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf) . Take note of figure 6 showing DTR. The DTR anomaly is below model estimates, suggesting that that raising of minimums is more significant compared to raising of maximums (more consistent with EGHE than brightening). DTR is also more erratic than expected (perhaps due to feedbacks?).
DTR rose in the period from mid 1980s to 1990 (the period that Pinker found a [trend of global dimming](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/850) (I would have expected the opposite in response to dimming). None the less in general DTR followed a trend down (consistent with the EGHE) including a downward trend int he period 1990 to 2001 (where pinker found a brightening trend).
If we consider the brightening to be at partly due to could effects (as well as SO2 capping), we must consider the published work suggesting that cloud effects as a well expected feedback to climate change. [Trenberth explains](http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL037527.pdf) that cloud feedbacks is expected and essential for the moderate range sensitivity estimates for CO2 doubling. This cold be occurring earlier than anticipated.
@Robert
I know el gordo is disingenuous, off-topic and wrong almost all the time - but seriously, way to cede the moral and intellectual high ground...
@El Gordo
It is true that Al Gore refused to debate Monckton in much the same way that it is true that Jim refused to fix it for me.
Agnostic @ 13,
Note that his lordship does not say there has been a reduction in alkalinity. He says that seawater has become less alkaline, and I know that's confusing but it does not mean the same.
Alkaline can be used as a synonym os basic, and an antonym of acidic, but alkalinity has a narrowly defined meaning, which I explained recently [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/plimer_busted_by_media_watch.ph…), on a separate topic.
I suppose Monckton's usage of terms that are widely confused is not by accident.
Robert @ 17, I've got to agree with Dave H @28. el gordo has been caught quote-mining several times and frequently repeats memes and themes long debunked, and it's obviously irritating and annoying.
Feel free to blow holes el gordo's arguments and assertions, but please, keep a civil tone.
Lord Monckton to Al Gore; 'Why won't you debate me?'
Al Gore to Lord Monckton; 'That might look good on your CV; not so good on mine.'
I'm wondering whether Monckton and Al Gore etc. can be made into a part of a Climate Change version of the game Mornington Cresent??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
'Al Gore' could replace 'Mornington Cresent'
A typical game might go:
'Volcanoes'
'Cosmic Rays'
'Global Cooling'
'Greenhouse Gas', are we using the Arrhenius rules then?
'Monckton'
'Hansen'
'Arctic ice extent'
'Mauna Loa', ah clever, you deployed the Keeling manoeuvre!
'Infra-red Spectrography', you can't go that way, it's blocked??
'AL GORE!'
'Audience cheers and claps'
Hmmm my Mornington Crescent link didn't work. Try this instead:
[Mornington Crescent Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_%28game%29)
I have to confess to being completely baffled.
I mean...they had the great Lord Monckton there, in the flesh, and no-one thought to ask him about all the work he has done on finding a cure for HIV? Or even the common cold?
I mean absolutely everyone would have taken him completely seriously then!
What a wasted opportunity, I tell you!
Here is a good new ABC show that's all about Christopher Monckton. Implicitly.
I've already devised a fun game to play: Global Warming Bingo!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24897388/Global-Warming-Denial-Bingo-A-fun-ga…
So the Al Gore thing gets 20 points...
Eye's down...
"Who should captain England? And win tickets to see them face the Baa-baas"
Asks The daily Telegraph's foremost climate science expert, rugby correspondent Eric Janssen,
An ex=Cambridge cricket captain and Marylebone President would demonstrably fill the bill, but one would not wish to see the risk run by someone not demonstrably immune to further brain damage in a scrimmage
I think we know just the man , and making the viscount a permanent feature of the sporting scene down under would leave the remaining 32,000 Oregon petition signatories free to make lesser fools of themselves on Capitol Hill in his absence.
Besides, with Ian Plimer in conspicuous need of an experienced science advisor, it would be heartless of the Heartland Institute to keep Brenchley north of the equator
Tim,
I don't know if the simple doubling rule for the CO2 forcing applies that far out.
[Agnostic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres…)
With respect to:
I would have to say that technically, Monckton is wrong, no matter which way one considers it.
He says that:
There are no ifs or buts about it - the oceans have "acidified" by about 0.1 pH unit in recent times. No-one is saying that they are now actually acid: rather, that they are merely becoming more acidic.
In the context of Arrhenius/Lowry-Brønsted acids, increasing acidity and decreasing basicity are two sides of the same coin. [I pointed this out to Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…): a basic solution that becomes less basic is simultaneously becoming more acidic. The two concepts are inseparable, and the acid-chemistry deniers' wont to use the point of 'neutrality' is a specious one anyway, as neutrality is not actually exactly pH 7.0 at the standard 25 C.
Further, the actual concentration where H+ ions equals the concentration of OH- to give 'neutrality' changes with changes in temperature. It is thus quite possible to have solutions whose pH, by technical definition, is greater than 7.0, and whose concentration of H+ ions is greater than its concentration of OH-.
The simple fact is that Monckton, and any of his chemistry-challenged denialist cronies, should not be given any quarter when their errors are pointed out to them.
A person who is gaining fat is growing 'fatter', regardless of whether they are 'fat' to start with, or not. A person who is growing 'older' need not be 'old' to start with. A solution whose pH is decreasing is acidifying - it's as simple as that.
A solution need not be an actual 'acid' in order to be acidifying. To say otherwise, as Monckton et al do, is to be dissembling (to put it nicely) about the process.
"Is it true that Al Gore refuses to debate his critics and has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton?"
I heard William Dembski recently held a seance in order to get Herbert Spencer to defend evolution, and Spencer never showed up!
So much for the "settled science" of descent with modification.
10 ff ad hominem subthread:
However, El Gordo is by his own claim fat.
I have to ask the question no-one's asking: What ON EARTH was Monckton doing there in the FIRST place?
Also, has anybody noticed that the Laird seems to be the only person NOT in the group picture at the bottom of the globalwarming.gov site? I can just picture the scene preceding the shoot:
The Laird: "Ooh golly, a picture! Whre should I stand?"
Dr Graumlich: "Piss off, Chris."
Dr McCarthy: "Monckton, get out of our air!"
Photographer: "Please step aside, sir."
The Laird: *walks off in a huff and sulk, not quite hiding the little tear rolling down his cheek*
Why was Monckton invited? My guess is because Michael Crichton is dead.
Bernard W@38
"Monckton, and any of his chemistry-challenged denialist cronies, should not be given any quarter when their errors are pointed out to them."
Quite right! Particularly when, like Lord Monckton, they commit their errors knowingly in order to deceive and mislead.
> No-one is saying that they are now actually acid: rather, that they are merely becoming more acidic.
Tim Curtin thinks so when he wants to "discredit" others. He [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that when the NAS members who signed the recent open letter said:
> Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans **more acidic**...
...that it means that:
> ...none of the 255 has any scientific grasp whatsoever, as the oceans are **not acidic now** and never have been.
(my emphasis).
It's Teh Mind-boggling Stupid. And astonishingly, it's not even the *most* stupid thing he claimed on that thread. According to Tim, if you add enough CO2, seawater becomes both potable and suitable for irrigation in Australia. (Bernard J. has been addressing this point...)
Video is available as an .mp4 [here](http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs)
I guess based on [THIS](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/27/climate-change-water), we could say that the Oceans are more drier!
As Deltoid pointed out, Lord Monckton claims to be a member of the House of Lords who doesn't have a seat or vote. I recently wrote the House of Lords Information Office and asked whether there is such a thing. There isn't, and they explicitly told me that Monckton has never been a member. See [this blog post](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/dance-monckey/) for details.
Agnostic
In the context of Arrhenius/Lowry-Brønsted acids, increasing acidity and decreasing basicity are two sides of the same coin. I pointed this out to Tim Curtin: a basic solution that becomes less basic is simultaneously becoming more acidic. The two concepts are inseparable, and the acid-chemistry deniers' wont to use the point of 'neutrality' is a specious one anyway, as neutrality is not actually exactly pH 7.0 at the standard 25 C.
Further, the actual concentration where H+ ions equals the concentration of OH- to give 'neutrality' changes with changes in temperature. It is thus quite possible to have solutions whose pH, by technical definition, is greater than 7.0, and whose concentration of H+ ions is greater than its concentration of OH-.
Something I've pointed out on numerous occasions, in the Arctic for example water at a temperature of 0ºC is neutral at pH=7.5.
Can anyone explain how the albedo calculation was done? I don't really understand where the 342 is from in this equation:
342*(0.5-0.3) = 68 W/m2
Neil, IIRC the sun's radiation is about 1368 W/m^2 across a perpendicular plane in space at the earth's distance from the sun - but since it's radiating onto (roughly) a sphere, some high school calculus shows that the average across the entire surface area of the earth is 1/4 of 1368 = 342 W/m^2.
Obviously Barry it is the House Of Lords who are lying and I encourage Monckton to take them to court and force them to admit that he is, in fact, a sitting member.
According to Myhre et. al 1998, present radiative forcing is about 2W/m^2. This seems far too high. If we were to have a 1m^3 column of air stretching from the earthâs surface up through the atmosphere, how long would it take 2 watts of energy to heat this by 1 degree C.
The heat capacity of air is 1 joule / gram / degree C.
The weight of air would be equivalent to 760mmHg by 1 sq meter. So the air would weigh 10 tonnes, or 10000000 grams, therefor it would take 10000000 joules to raise 10000000 grams of air by 1 degree C.
2 watts x 5000000 seconds = 10000000 joules
so it would take 5 million seconds for 2 watts of energy to increase the temperature of this 10 tonnes of air by 1 degree C. 5 million seconds is nearly two months, but if the IPCC average is 1 degree C rise every 33 years, what happens to all the heat over the remaining 32 years and 10 months. (33 years minus 2 months)
According to this, 99% of the heat created through CO2 raditive forcing is NOT used in raising the temperature of the atmosphere. I have heard that a lot of the heat created through CO2 radiative forcing gets absorbed by the oceans, but I didnât realise 99% of it was. Is this so, or have I placed a decimal point in the wrong place?
Chris
Itschrisnow,
Without checking the math I'd suggest looking at rise in OLR.
The imbalance between OLR and SAR is not in dispute here. I am trying to use a different and yet simple methodology for calculating temperature-increase over time, against radiative forcing, but my results do not agree with the IPCC and I want to know why. I would be very surprised if the IPCC is wrong, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to check my methodology and maths, which I have made very straight forward.
Itschrisnow, almost all of the heat is going into warming the oceans. There's also warming the ground and melting ice. Your calculations seem to me to be in the ball park.
[Itschrisnow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres…),
A 1m^3 column of air could hardly weight 10 tonnes, could it? I suppose you mean a 1m^2 column of air?
Also, I'm not so sure about your calculation. Assuming you're talking about a 1 m^2 column, you might have to consider that there may be more mass than your calculation suggests, as the effect of gravity decreasing with increasing distance from the earth would presumably have an effect. 1m^2 of mercury 760mm deep might weigh 10 tonnes, but the differential effect of gravity over the height of the mercury column would be negligible, not so on a column of air.
Admittedly, I doubt this would result in a error of orders of magnitude. I am not a physicist, btw.
MFS, thank you for pointing out my silly error. It is mistakes like that which give warmists a bad name! Further, you are right, I didnât take gravitational effect into acoount. I calculate gravity to be about 9.6m/s^2 at 20km. My calculation is already very rounded for simplicity, so this decrease in gravity is already lost in my rounding of numbers. Hey, Iâm not a physicist either!
Tim, thanks for your feedback. Iâd always assumed that the radiative forcing would effect the atmosphere first, so itâs been a great learning curve for me to do the maths and discover my assumption was wrong. Unfortunatly, I think 99% the general public assume that any radiative forcing would have an effect on the atmosphere first. Just to reassure myself, I have also calculated how long 2W/m^2 would take to heat a column of ocean 1m^2 x 500m by 1 degree C (500m being the thermocline). See caclulation below.
1m^2 x 500m = 500 tonnes
Assuming SHC of water = 4j/g/degreeC
That would be 2Gj required = 2W x 1bln seconds
So it would take 31 years for 2W to heat a column of ocean 1m^2 x 500m by 1 degree C, which incidentally agrees with the IPCC average.
Wow! For the first time I understand why the situation is going to get worse before it gets better, and my calculation was only assuming todayâs radiative forcing levels.