Academic rigour, journalistic flair
For curious minds
Expert news and views
Debate and ideas
From the curious to the serious

Hot Topics

23 June 2011, 6.50am AEST

The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Associate Professor John Abraham puts Christopher Monckton’s climate claims to the test. This summer, the people of Australia will yet again be treated to a circus tour. It will make light of one of the most pressing problems facing this planet. That problem, climate…

Author

John Abraham

Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering at University of St. Thomas

Disclosure Statement

Dr. Abraham has no conflicts of interest related to this story.

The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers.

Founding and Strategic Partners are CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS and UWA. Members are Deakin, Flinders, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS, and VU.

Articles by This Author

14 July 2011 Hear ye, hear ye – Monckton’s medieval warming tale is climate heresy

2 June 2011 ‘Very worried’ about escalating emissions? You should be

Aapone-20100203000217465644-climate_change_christopher_monckton-original — Christopher Monckton deliberately misleads the public on climate change. AAP

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Associate Professor John Abraham puts Christopher Monckton’s climate claims to the test.

This summer, the people of Australia will yet again be treated to a circus tour. It will make light of one of the most pressing problems facing this planet.

That problem, climate change, will not go away even though an orchestrated group of contrarians wishes it would.

The most outspoken leader of this troupe is Christopher Monckton, a person with excellent credentials in speaking but no credentials in real science (he has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on any scientific topic).

Christopher Monckton presents himself as a fair and accurate interpreter of the science, but a careful examination of his views shows that he is anything but fair and accurate.

He was most recently seen comparing Ross Garnaut, the Australian government’s climate change adviser (and author for this series) to a Nazi.

Monckton nazi — Monckton succumbs to “Godwin’s Law” and compares Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.

Real scientists have never taken Mr. Monckton seriously. This hasn’t stopped him from traveling the world, presenting his views on science to anyone who will listen.

Mr. Monckton has been shown to have his science wrong on many occasions. Many real scientists have spent untold hours of effort to carefully document his scientific nonsense.

The documentation is critically important because in Mr. Monckton’s speeches, he cites study after study which give the impression that either climate change is not happening, or if it is, we don’t need to worry about it.

Mr. Monckton artfully mixes self-deprecation and humour among slides laden with graphs and scientific images that seem convincing to his audience.

I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t?

Is he some Galileo shouting truth from the rooftops?

I had to find out. Last year, I performed a little investigation. I actually read the articles that Mr. Monckton used as evidence against the concerns of climate change.

What I discovered was astonishing.

None of the articles I read supported the claims or inferences that Mr. Monckton was promoting. Just to be sure, I began to write to the authors of the papers. Of the 16 authors I wrote to, all of them agreed with me: Mr. Monckton had misrepresented or misunderstood their work.

So, where does Mr. Monckton’s science go astray? Nearly everywhere.

Here are a few highlights of his mistaken understanding:

Mr. Monckton claimed that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had a symposium wherein they declared that recent warming was caused by the sun. I wrote to officials at the IAU and they stated that they made no such declaration. Mr. Monckton has twice admitted that he was in error on this claim.
Mr. Monckton claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses canvas buckets to measure ocean temperatures because more accurate methods are “not convenient, they go the wrong way”. I wrote to Sydney Levitus at NOAA and asked if this was true. He wrote back, “Mr. Monckton’s statement to the effect that NOAA uses temperature measurements gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false. In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements.”
Mr. Monckton claimed that “the medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than today”. He showed a number of papers which reportedly support his claim. Well, I wrote to a number of these authors and they all agreed that Mr. Monckton had not accurately presented their work. For instance, Dr. Anil Gupta told me, “You are right, we never said the medieval warm period was warmer than today". Another researcher, Dr. David Anderson, stated, “Your interpretation (of our work) is more correct”. Dr. Lloyd Kiegwin said that I was “absolutely right,” and Dr. David Frank stated, “temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than during medieval times”.
Mr. Monckton also wrote that Arctic sea ice is fine, it has been steady for a decade. Monckton used information from a research group called IARC-JAXA. I wrote to two scientists there, Dr. Larry Hinzman and Dr. John Walsh. They both agreed that Monckton had not correctly presented that data. Just to be sure, I wrote to Dr. Mark Serreze from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He emphatically stated, “Monckton is wrong”.

I could go on and on … but we get the picture. Monckton’s science is wrong and Monckton’s interpretation of others’ work does not agree with the originators of the data.

He makes mistakes on polar bears, claims that the ocean is cooling, claims that the planet is cooling, claims that ocean rises will not be significant, claims that ocean acidification is not a concern, claims that recent global warming is caused by cloud changes, and so on.

It would be one thing if Mr. Monckton just gave speeches to partisan audiences.

It is an entirely different matter when he testified to the US Congress as an “expert” on climate change.

That testimony, in May 2010, presented nine key assertions that were without merit. Mr. Monckton’s assertions were so misleading that a group of 26 scientists (myself included) wrote a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal.

Scientists are generally a reserved group.

Despite this reservation, statements used to describe Mr. Monckton’s testimony included, “Mr. Monckton’s assertions on acidification are remarkable … the basics of this subject have been understood for a long time”.

Another scientist stated, “Monckton’s reasoning and calculation is incorrect … the remainder of his statement is simply chemical nonsense”.

Still another reported, “The submission from Monckton … is profoundly wrong … This is simply a red herring”.

What motivates scientists like myself to spend untold hours of time, without pay, to carefully document Monckton’s false claims?

The reason is simple.

We have a serious problem facing us. In order to make wise and informed decisions, we need accurate information.

Only with good information can we decide which pathway offers us the cheapest and most effective means to deal with climate change.

This is why CSIRO recently dropped sponsorship from an Australian conference at which Monckton will be speaking later this month. It’s also why Monckton was dumped from a private school networking event on the Gold Coast.

When people like Christopher Monckton misrepresent science, with an obvious agenda to delay action, they make our decisions more difficult and more expensive.

Instead of making light of the issue of climate change, instead of vilifying people who are genuinely concerned, instead of presenting inaccurate science, we should find ways to work together in a civil manner to collectively choose a path forward.

What Mr. Monckton doesn’t tell people is that the technology to deal with this problem is available right now. Enacting solutions now would provide many benefits.

Aside from addressing climate change, it would create jobs, improve national security and diversify our energy supply. Who can be against that?

Instead of fighting science and demeaning climate scientists, we should focus on solutions.

We really don’t need more Moncktons in this debate.

We need people who are respectful, scientifically literate and focused on solutions.

We need people who are not afraid of trusting in our own ingenuity to solve this problem.

We need people who have the courage to take action now for the sake of our future generations.

Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air?

This is the tenth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:

Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community.
Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why.
Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.
Part Four: Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet
Part Five: Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Part Six: Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Part Seven: When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up.
Part Eight: Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
Part Nine: A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Part Eleven: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
Part Twelve: Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality
Part Thirteen: The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change

You are free to republish this article, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

You can’t edit our material unless you have the author’s express permission or you are adjusting for relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits, please contact us
You can run the first few lines of the article only, if you say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
You must link to us and include links from our story, as well as our page view counter.
You can put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You can republish individual articles, but you can’t automatically republish all of our articles unless approved by us.
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Institution” (for example “Bruce Mapstone, CSIRO”).
You have to credit The Conversation and link back to our home page as provided in the HTML.

The full article is available here as HTML.

The Conversation

Comments (104)

Comments on this article are now closed.

Permalink

5

11 months ago

Claire Botman

(logged in via Twitter)

insightful unconstructive

It's about time real scientists started coming out & dealing with these deniers and their delaying tactics in the public domain & the popular media. Some of the public has been led to believe there's "another side" to the "debate" and it's doing us all a great deal of harm. I worry for my children and I worry for my local environment when I can see changes in the forest where I live. We're having the driest years here in Perth, what's left of the forest is dying, our waterways are drying up , the wildlife is moving into suburbia and it's all happening frighteningly fast. More of this please & more in the popular media please. There is no debate. I want action now.
Permalink

5

11 months ago

James Worth

(logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

One often overlooked source of evidence that the climate has warmed over the past 50 years or so are observations of the biological responses of plants and animals. This debate has focused almost entirely on the measurements that humans have been taking of temperature, their accuracy and interpretation. What do observations of the natural world say? Well, many papers have examined this topic and the major reviews on the topic overwhelmingly observe trends predicted by increasing average temperatures…

show full comment

One often overlooked source of evidence that the climate has warmed over the past 50 years or so are observations of the biological responses of plants and animals. This debate has focused almost entirely on the measurements that humans have been taking of temperature, their accuracy and interpretation. What do observations of the natural world say? Well, many papers have examined this topic and the major reviews on the topic overwhelmingly observe trends predicted by increasing average temperatures, including migration towards the poles, earlier flowering time, migration in altitude etc etc. These studies are of great importance because they can tell us a great deal about the magnitude of climate change and how animals and plants are likely to respond to future changes. In addition, I think that us humans have a poor ability to recognises that climate change is (or is not) happening because the day/night cycle dominates our senses and our urban lifestyles means that we are mostly disconnected from things that could indicate whether or not climate change is happening, such as growing or harvesting food. While plants and animals are being impacted by warming around the world it certainly is not all doom and gloom. There is an increasing recognition that plants and animals are more resilient to climate change than we expected due to plasticity (plants) and/ or the ability to survive in small areas of suitable habitat. However, the major concern with climate change is that the chance of survival of many organisms has been lessened by human fragmentation of natural habitats. Below are some very specific cases where biological changes have been observed, expected and unexpected, with a small description from the papers abstracts.
Expected change:
1. The length of the growing season of Gingko in Japan has increased by 12 days (as defined by the time between budding and leaf fall) since 1953 (data from 1953-2000) (Matsumoto et al., 2003).
2. The time of maturity of grapes in 35 out of 44 Australian vineyards studied displayed a statistically significant trend to earlier maturity for the periods 1993–2009. For ten vineyards with longer term data (average last 50 years) the average advance was 1.7 days a year over the 1993–2009 period, whereas for the period 1985–2009 the rate of advance was 0.8 days year on average (Webb et al., 2011).
3. There have been marked advances in the timing of flowering, leaf unfolding, and fruiting in 29 perennial plant species in Spain since the mid-1970s (study based on 200,000 observations between 1943–2003) (Gordo and Sanz, 2009).
4. In Yosemite National Park the altitudinal distributional range of 28 small mammal species was monitored 100 years ago and at the present over an elevational gradient of 60-3000m. It was found that the range of half of the species had moved upwards by 500 m on average, a finding consistent with the observed ∼3°C increase in minimum temperatures for the Park. Formerly low-elevation species expanded their ranges and high-elevation species contracted theirs, leading to changed community composition at mid- and high elevations (Moritz et al., 2008).
Unexpected change:
1. A study of the regeneration dynamics of a tree-line fir tree in Tibet using ring counting found that the warming in the past 200 years had no effect on the position of the tree-line but had a significant impact on the population density of the trees (Liang et al., 2010).

I have deliberately not stated that the warming is due to humans because I do not know. What I do know, however, is that the argument that we should reduce our emissions of methane, C02 and other greenhouse gases is very strong. Models of climate require the rise of C02 and other greenhouse gases to explain the observed warming in the industrial age. There are also many other impacts of rising C02 such as ocean acidification or change in the nutrient cycle (as a result of some plants actively reducing the amount of nitrogen they invest in photosynthetic machinery (mainly Rubisco) because the higher CO2 concentration means they don't actually need as much Rubisco to give the same C assimilation). People can be skeptical of climate change but they should realise that the possible consequences of rising C02 does not just involve temperature but can also effect many parts of the earth system. We can`t wait around for all the fine details of the science to be settled any longer (it will probably never happen), we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions now.

Gordo O, Sanz JJ. 2009. Long term temporal changes of plant phenology in the Western Mediterranean. Global Change Biology, 15: 1930-1948.
Liang E, Wang Y, Eckstein D, Luo T. 2010. Little change in the fir tree line position on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau after 200 years of warming. New Phytologist.
Matsumoto K, Ohta T, Irasawa M, Nakamura T. 2003. Climate change and extension of the Ginkgo biloba L. growing season in Japan. Global Change Biology, 9: 1634-1642.
Moritz C, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Parra JL, White GC, Beissinger SR. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science, 322: 261.
Webb L, Whetton P, Barlow E. 2011. Observed trends in winegrape maturity in Australia. Global Change Biology.
1. Permalink
  
  1
  
  In reply to James Worth, 11 months ago
  
  Anthony Cox
  
  (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Amazing! Warming gives pronounced benefits as listed by your examples and yet you still subscribe to the witless belief that AGW is bad even if we don't know if AGW is responsible for the warming which delivers the benefits.
  1. Permalink
    
    4
    
    In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
    
    James Worth
    
    (logged in via email @kw8.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Firstly, I said that I do not know if the warming is due to humans. This is a scientific view point. You cannot find proof in science. You can only observe whether the evidence in the natural world supports your theory or not. I have read widely the scientific literature and I see that most observations support the theory of AGW. People who want proof of AGW will not get it. That is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding about climate science. Surely to act we need proof they say? We can only…
    
    show full comment
    
    Firstly, I said that I do not know if the warming is due to humans. This is a scientific view point. You cannot find proof in science. You can only observe whether the evidence in the natural world supports your theory or not. I have read widely the scientific literature and I see that most observations support the theory of AGW. People who want proof of AGW will not get it. That is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding about climate science. Surely to act we need proof they say? We can only have probabilities and the probability that we are affecting climate by increasing C02 is high. This is the same in all disciplines of science including my own which is why I pursue as many lines of evidence as I can in my own research.
    You give a simplistic assessment of what I wrote. A full assessment of the impacts of increased C02 and warming on plants, animals and human agriculture is needed here. There will be winners and losers. Not only winners as you would like to believe. Some plants and animals will do very well and so will some crops. In the examples I gave there were winners and losers. For example, some small mammals increased their ranges while others contracted theirs (you missed this point). Gingko and the plants in Spain would presumable be advantaged by an increased growing season but would the associated animals and insects be advantaged too? Some organisms probably would not be able to change their lifecycles to match the change in time of flowering etc. As per the wine issue, maybe it is an advantage to have earlier ripening grapes but you would have to ask a wine grower that question. The examples I gave represent only a few of hundreds of studies finding changes consistent with a warming planet.
    The reason that biologists are concerned about climate change is very simple. Firstly it is likely to result in a simplification of the flora and fauna with some species becoming less common or extinct while some species become more common. Secondly, there are many cascading effects of increased warming and C02 that we do not understand. For example, how will the ocean biota respond when shelled animals cannot make their shells as efficiently as present? How will changing nutrient content of leaves effect the ecosystem in tropical rainforests? How will wine taste when the growing season is different than present? You would have to be extremely optimistic to trust that all responses would be favourable. In a world with great problems such as increasing population, decreasing water availability, food shortages and fragmentation of natural habitats the human race cannot afford the uncertain effects of climate change. We have the power to reduce the uncertainty in the future by reducing our emissions now.
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to James Worth, 11 months ago
      
      Anthony Cox
      
      (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      "A full assessment of the impacts of increased C02 and warming on plants, animals and human agriculture is needed here"
      
      I agree; one such study has been done By Lomborg in his book 'Cool It'; figure 11 on page 41 is informative.
      
      My point is that even if AGW is real, which I don't think it is, the overarching approach by AGW supporters has been to emphasise the apocalyptic interpretation, that it will be all bad. This is patently wrong because a warmer world will offer many benefits. Certainly the mass extinction idea has some problems:
      
      http://landshape.org/enm/massive-extinctions-an-update/
Permalink

4

11 months ago

Andrew Glikson

(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)

insightful unconstructive

I append a quotation from Al Gore's a new article:

"Climate of DenialCan science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real…

show full comment

I append a quotation from Al Gore's a new article:

"Climate of DenialCan science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.

This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."

But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!

And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it's entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.

Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them.

To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.

After World War II, a philosopher studying the impact of organized propaganda on the quality of democratic debate wrote, "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false."
Permalink

2

11 months ago

Will J Grant

(Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University)

insightful unconstructive

Great article.
Permalink

2

11 months ago

Justin H

(logged in via Twitter)

insightful unconstructive

It is a concern for a non-academic reader that the scientists who should be debunking selective reporting spend so much time arguing amongst themselves and fail to grasp opportunities.

The bulk of the skeptical debate seems to be just a step or two away from being a Harold Camping style hysterical debate. People are profiting from being outwardly skeptical, yet no-body seems willing to raise that as an issue.

Why can't you get the message across, climate change is undoubtedly real, climate stability…

show full comment

It is a concern for a non-academic reader that the scientists who should be debunking selective reporting spend so much time arguing amongst themselves and fail to grasp opportunities.

The bulk of the skeptical debate seems to be just a step or two away from being a Harold Camping style hysterical debate. People are profiting from being outwardly skeptical, yet no-body seems willing to raise that as an issue.

Why can't you get the message across, climate change is undoubtedly real, climate stability is the myth. Who ever said climate never changes?

Whether humans contribute minimally or excessively to this change is not the relevant question. The question is should something be done to minimize or eliminate humanities impact on climate.

Next time a skeptic stands up and claims climate change is bogus, the logical question should be;

"So your saying the climate change doesn't happen?"

If they answer "Yes" they will be discredited as that is obviously the case. Your reply should be;

"Well your saying the Ice Ages never happened?"

Even Joe Average understands that the ice ages are real.

If they answer "No" that is the only grab you need for them to be ridiculed by the radical skeptics. You reply;

"So then you conceed that climate change can occur or has occurred in the past, could it be happening again?"

They cannot win this type of debate, the human impact need not even be part of the debate.

Finally, in regards to Mr Monkcton and his up and coming tour in Perth. Your immediate target must surely be Tony Abbott, as Mr Monckton is but a fleeting presence and as such an irrelevance in the Australian Political landscape. Make the issue a political death knell, and the politicians will leave the debate. Is Tony Abbott really going to support a conference that delivers a platform to a skeptic who labels Australian scientists fascists and links them with Nazi icons?
1. Permalink
  
  4
  
  In reply to Justin H, 11 months ago
  
  Paul Richards
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Who needs Monckton? - We have our own.
  
  Are we ever going to see our local climate change deniers actually write and get peer reviewed?
  
  I don't believe so.
  
  All campaigns by deniers use guerilla tactics, frequently discrediting honest, hard working scientists for personal gain with what amounts to pseudo science.
  
  If their is contrary information to over 100 years of accumulated climate data, publish, be peer reviewed and validated.
  This is not religious dogma, science accepts change and adds to the knowledge base.
  
  That's the point of difference. The climate deniers mindset reads like religion.
2. Permalink
  
  3
  
  In reply to Justin H, 11 months ago
  
  Gavin Fialkowski
  
  Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  human contribution is the point unfortunately. Their main thrust cutting CO2 will have no affect in reducing temperatures, regardless if they are going up down or sideways - at least that is the argument of one of the main strands of the skeptics. I have sadly found that no matter how much you argue with them, they are quite inclined to refuse to believe basic GHG principles, and look at climate statistics like inkblots, they see all sorts of wierd and wonderful patterns that prove their point of…
  
  show full comment
  
  human contribution is the point unfortunately. Their main thrust cutting CO2 will have no affect in reducing temperatures, regardless if they are going up down or sideways - at least that is the argument of one of the main strands of the skeptics. I have sadly found that no matter how much you argue with them, they are quite inclined to refuse to believe basic GHG principles, and look at climate statistics like inkblots, they see all sorts of wierd and wonderful patterns that prove their point of view.
  
  What they seem to do is identify cycles in temperature patterns, and they overlay these cycles with even more cycles to be able to make the statistics fit their point of view. ie there can be a 60 yr cycle overlaid with a 900yr cycle and god knows what else to manage to account for things like the little ice age and the plateu in temperatures between the 40's and 70's.
  
  So there really is no convincing them. If they believe the gravitational pull of planets or the Inca Gods are somehow involved in recent changes in temperature, there is no way you'll convince them otherwise. I just wish they'd actually explain the physical principles behind it in plain english in the comments section, rather than posting links to dodgy websites that make no sense or copy and pasting large sections of text full of long statistical numbers that noone is going to be able to check over.
3. Permalink
  
  1
  
  In reply to Justin H, 11 months ago
  
  helen stream
  
  teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  JustinH:
  
  Are you serious?
  
  I think you‘re making the sceptics’ case for them.
  
  Most sceptics don’t say that the climate doesn’t change, but the opposite.
  
  They say it’s always changing, and they want to see the views and research of those scientists who claim that this change is part of natural processes and not catastrophic and due to CO2.
  
  It’s the warmist side of the debate that’s hysterical, and it’s the warmists who are more prone to ad hominem and demonisation of those who have different…
  
  show full comment
  
  JustinH:
  
  Are you serious?
  
  I think you‘re making the sceptics’ case for them.
  
  Most sceptics don’t say that the climate doesn’t change, but the opposite.
  
  They say it’s always changing, and they want to see the views and research of those scientists who claim that this change is part of natural processes and not catastrophic and due to CO2.
  
  It’s the warmist side of the debate that’s hysterical, and it’s the warmists who are more prone to ad hominem and demonisation of those who have different views, not to mention corruption of process, as articles and comments here show.
  
  Sceptics don’t say humans don’t contribute to the warming, but they do dispute the extent of the role of CO2, and that is most certainly relevant, considering these consensus scientists are advising the Australian government to completely reconstruct Australia’s economy around a carbon tax, an ETS, administered by Garnaut’s Carbon Bank, that he says should have similar powers to the Reserve Bank of Australia.
  
  That’s definitely relevant.
  
  Sceptics also are not the ones who deny the Little Ice Age. That’s something the warmists had to do , along with disappearing the Medieval Warm Period, to make the now discredited hockey stick graph that started this whole issue, look alarming.
  
  Most sceptics believe climate change does occur in the natural course of things, that there is some human impact, because there have been billions of extra people added to the earth’s population since pre-industrial times, and with them came land use changes, destruction of forests, burning of wood and biomass in other forms, concrete all over the place replacing rural land, roads , urban heat island etc.
  
  Sceptics are not sceptical about human impact , but about the primacy of CO2 in that impact, and the damaging and drastic measures promoted for its mitigation.
  
  Tony Abbott has already repudiated Monckton’s remark.
  
  It should be noted however, that the people on the warmist side of this issue, have no problem with delivering very nasty smears and character assassinations aimed at people who differ in views from them, as you illustrate when you liken sceptics to Harold Camping, and his ‘end of world’ cult, and as the scientists themselves do here, with their name-calling and vilification.
  
  It should also be noted that Lord Monckton has himself been smeared, sneered at and vilified around the world, and that Australians have actually been treated as though they live in an authoritarian one party state with only one view permitted or tolerated by Labor and the media for years on this issue…with journalists respecting only one view, and vilifying and ridiculing the other, with information damaging to that government-sanctioned, media-enforced view suppressed, and Australians kept in the dark.
  
  The only view tolerated is the ‘consensus’, and any scientist or politician who questions it risks reputation ruin.
  
  The blog of AGW central , Real Climate, itself is a perfect example of this….they’ve now banished dissenters to ‘The Bore Hole’, so Gavin et al don’t have to answer inconvenient questions.
  
  In the Chief Scientist’s words:
  
  ‘…..calling people names ought not be acceptable in a flourishing democracy like Australia."
  
  His colleagues are some of the worst offenders.
Permalink

1

11 months ago

Mark Andrew Willis

Scholarship Student (logged in via email @dodo.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Having spent some time trying to lodge here I checked your source. Whoever is responsible for your web pages needs a metaphorical kick up the r's. HTML basics have been ignored, perhaps in the belief that a sacred cause floated on faith requires no rigour.
kind regards, mark andrew willis, mug, punter etc.,
Permalink

1

11 months ago

Douglas Cotton

(B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)

insightful unconstructive

Sorry - one more - your old friend ...

http://www.earth-climate.com/abstract.html
1. Permalink
  
  8
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Felix MacNeill
  
  Felix MacNeill (logged in via email @grapevine.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Ah, Douglas, you really are priceless: you make Don Quixote look like a quitter (and a windmill expert as well).
  I have never before seen anyone so indefatigably determined to prove that nonsense squared equals evidence. Perhaps you should found a whole new school of mathematics?
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Felix MacNeill, 11 months ago
    
    Watching the deniers
    
    (logged in via Twitter)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    ...well put Felix
2. Permalink
  
  4
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  James Harrison
  
  (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Douglas,
  
  The FIRST SENTENCE of this abstract is just blatant idiocy, or not-so-innocent ignorance.
  
  "Adding CO2 and greenhouse gasses to the air does not add energy to the Earth and so CAN NOT cause global warming..."
  
  The warming of the planet attributed to CO2 is due to IR (infra-red) RETENTION.
  
  NOT THE CREATION OR ADDITION OF ENERGY!
  So, your abstract starts by missing the point. ENTIRELY.
  
  In fact, the first line, the title: "Scientific Summary of Abstract" goes a long way in demonstrating just how little of science you and Mr Dodds know. An abstract, by its very nature is a scientific summary.
  
  Continue on like this and you'll discredit the entire basis for AGW denial single-handedly.
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to James Harrison, 11 months ago
    
    Gavin Fialkowski
    
    Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    yup
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
      
      Watching the deniers
      
      (logged in via Twitter)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Seconded
Permalink

1

11 months ago

Dean Moriarty

(logged in via Twitter)

insightful unconstructive

Christopher Monckton = Al Gore.
Permalink

1

11 months ago

Gavin Fialkowski

Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Great Article. You'd think these authors that have been misrepresented by Monckton would have a case for some kind of legal action? Any laywyers who could comment on that?
1. Permalink
  
  1
  
  In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
  
  Anthony Cox
  
  (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Yeah; good luck to them; they'll need it.
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
    
    Anthony Cox
    
    (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    I must confess, I'm a bit out of step with the status of the Abraham/Monckton 'dispute'; is this the latest:
    
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427
    
    Well John, what was your response, or is this bit of condescending rhodomontade it?
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
      
      Hayley Smith
      
      4th Year Science Student (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Monckton - no more qualified to be making conclusive statements on scientific theories than any other bloke with a Degree in Journalism. Were you aware that that's the extent of his qualifications?
      
      Now, you'll have to pardon me, but I'd rather get my science FROM scientists, not mangled patchwork science from someone profiting off being a 'sceptic'.
      
      We can all dream Monckton is right, and it would be lovely if he were; the fact that climate change is happening is nothing to celebrate. Unfortunately it just isn't so... not if you listen to those who are educated in relevant fields, that is.
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Hayley Smith, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        OK, start your education here:
        
        http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lindzen_Choi_APJAS_final.pdf
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Anthony, that paper was rejected by PNAS as being fundamentally flawed after several utterly devastating reviews. Lindzen tried to get two of his pals and former co-authors (remember how so-called skeptics complained about Jones et al publishing using "pal review"? Well, we have documented proof that Lindzen tried to do the same with this paper.) to review this paper before publication in PNAS, but PNAS refused to bend to Lindzen's wishes.
        
        It seriously damages Lindzen's case that he refers to…
        
        show full comment
        
        Anthony, that paper was rejected by PNAS as being fundamentally flawed after several utterly devastating reviews. Lindzen tried to get two of his pals and former co-authors (remember how so-called skeptics complained about Jones et al publishing using "pal review"? Well, we have documented proof that Lindzen tried to do the same with this paper.) to review this paper before publication in PNAS, but PNAS refused to bend to Lindzen's wishes.
        
        It seriously damages Lindzen's case that he refers to Douglass et al 2007 (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf) when Santer et al 2008 (https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf) demolished the statistical test that Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer developed.
        
        See, what happened with Douglass et al 2007 is that they neglected to verify their test with synthetic data that had a known trend, known ENSO and volcanic impacts, and then random noise added to it. If they had, they would have discovered that trends with noise that should have been detected at the 95 percentile were rejected as if they were only at the 65 percentile. In other words, Douglass et al 2007's statistics missed enough things that they would reject nearly every trend even when a trend was known a priori to exist. Santer et al exposed this problem and published a correction.
        
        Douglass et al 2007 is so bad that Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer should have voluntarily retracted it. They haven't. This does not speak well for their credibility as scientists, I'm afraid.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Cheap shots; substantiate them; L&C are in a prestigious Journal; in the mean time the Douglass/Santer 'dispute' has been resolved:
        
        http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
        
        Who got demolished?
        
        Permalink
        
        4
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Hayley Smith
        
        4th Year Science Student (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=11200153502&tip=sid&clean=0
        
        Are you aware that in the scientific process, you send your paper to 'top' journals first, and if they get rejected it gets sent to journals that are generally accepted as of a lower standing? The journal this paper was posted in was classified as a 3rd quartile journal by the SJR index. Eg. it was likely rejected by many journals who were unimpressed by the quality of the data presented or the subsequent analysis.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Hayley Smith, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        So, not all peer reviews are equal Hayley? What a hoot.
        
        Permalink
        
        2
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        How about Judy Curry's blog, Anthony: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/
        
        She writes:
        "PNAS deemed Lindzen’s reviewers to be unsuitable, and then recommended 5 potential reviewers which Lindzen found to be unsuitable. The PNAS send the paper out to 4 reviewers, with only two of them deemed to be marginally suitable by Lindzen."
        and
        "The editor is correct in that this is a potentially important paper. With regards to the scientific merit of the paper, the PNAS reviews were…
        
        show full comment
        
        How about Judy Curry's blog, Anthony: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/
        
        She writes:
        "PNAS deemed Lindzen’s reviewers to be unsuitable, and then recommended 5 potential reviewers which Lindzen found to be unsuitable. The PNAS send the paper out to 4 reviewers, with only two of them deemed to be marginally suitable by Lindzen."
        and
        "The editor is correct in that this is a potentially important paper. With regards to the scientific merit of the paper, the PNAS reviews were actually quite thorough and do not seem unfair to me; they raise many valid concerns. LC chose not to submit a revised version to PNAS and instead went with another journal."
        
        Now, she doesn't think that Lindzen's paper was treated fairly by PNAS (given how many problems Lindzen and Choi's original paper had, I think PNAS was entirely justified in their response), but she does confirm the bulk of what I said. And Lindzen himself published that he'd selected Happer and Chou as his reviewers here: http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Stop hiding behind the chinese boxes of peer review Brian and comment on the paper; I always find Christopher Game's comments interesting; Christopher was and still is to a certain degree, an advocate of Miskolczi.
        
        Permalink
        
        2
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Oh, and as for that white paper by McKitrick (that isn't peer reviewed, BTW), it says the following about the statistical test Douglass et al used:
        
        "In our example on temperatures in the tropical troposphere, on data ending in 1999 we find the trend differences between models and observations are only marginally significant, partially confirming the view of Santer et al. (2008) against Douglass et al. (2007)."
        
        Where McKitrick and others disagree with Santer et al 2008 is in the significance of the trends in the troposphere, not in the criticism of Douglass et al's bad statistics.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I really want to say "Shazzam!" but that would be a bit childish on my part. However, it is a friday afternoon after all.
        
        Good form old chap.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I wouldn't be shazzaming yet gavin old chap; the McKitrick paper, which is peer-reviewed, was designed to address the dispute between the Douglass analysis of mid to upper troposphere temperature trends and the Santer one; these trends are crucial to AGW theory which says that extra warming will lead to increased evaporation and since more evaporation will take place in the tropics, this extra water in the tropical atmosphere will create a tropical hot-spot [THS], with warming in the THS at a greater…
        
        show full comment
        
        I wouldn't be shazzaming yet gavin old chap; the McKitrick paper, which is peer-reviewed, was designed to address the dispute between the Douglass analysis of mid to upper troposphere temperature trends and the Santer one; these trends are crucial to AGW theory which says that extra warming will lead to increased evaporation and since more evaporation will take place in the tropics, this extra water in the tropical atmosphere will create a tropical hot-spot [THS], with warming in the THS at a greater rate than surface trends.
        
        Douglass's paper did have a problem with the 'error bars' on the range of data and it was this fault which allowed Santer to claim that the model predictions of a THS were still valid because Douglass's analysis of the actual temperature data did not properly preclude this.
        
        The point about error bars is that by widening them all data will be included so that a different result will be generated if they are narrowed so that parts of the data are excluded; this is a form of lateral cherry-picking which is the flip-side of the data truncation, cherry-picking method.
        
        If Douglass et al were guilty of the first form of cherry-picking then Santer was guilty of the former because he used a truncated data stream.
        
        What McKitrick et al's peer-reviewed paper does is rectify both Douglass's and Santer's faults.
        
        Unfortunately Brian is also guilty of cherry-picking of the quote-mining variety; the releveant part of McKitrick's conclusions are:
        
        "Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two
        to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level."
        
        What this means folks is that there is no THS and the models are wrong, again.
        
        Shazamm!
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        First off, I missed the "in press - Atmospheric Science Letters". So I stand corrected on the not-peer reviewed.
        
        However, that's about as much as I'm going budge on this one. Douglass et al's test is fundamentally flawed and was shown to be such. It's not an issue of error bars, it's an issue of statistics and not properly calculating trend significance. Santer et al demonstrated this. Period. As such, Douglass et al should be retracted.
        
        Whether or not Santer et al's tropospheric analysis…
        
        show full comment
        
        First off, I missed the "in press - Atmospheric Science Letters". So I stand corrected on the not-peer reviewed.
        
        However, that's about as much as I'm going budge on this one. Douglass et al's test is fundamentally flawed and was shown to be such. It's not an issue of error bars, it's an issue of statistics and not properly calculating trend significance. Santer et al demonstrated this. Period. As such, Douglass et al should be retracted.
        
        Whether or not Santer et al's tropospheric analysis is accurate or not is a second, independent issue.
        
        As you brought the tropospheric hot spot (THS) into the discussion, I'll add a few notes on it. The THS isn't a result of global warming due to changes in greenhouse gases. Instead, it's a result of any heating due to the effects of convection - warming of any kind produces a hot spot in the upper troposphere. This warming is expected simply because of the fact that hot air rises (due to the simple physics of lower density fluids floating atop denser fluids, and hot air is a less dense fluid than cold air is). Stratospheric cooling while there is simultaneously tropospheric warming is the actual fingerprint of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling simultaneously with tropospheric warming has been observed, so even if models are wrong about the magnitude of warming, there is no other hypothesis that matches the actual observations to date.
        
        Finally, given the problems with measuring the temperature of the upper troposphere, there is significant uncertainty in the measurements. This uncertainty results from the fact that radiosonde data has a host of thermometer problems, there's very little radiosonde data from the tropics to begin with, and there's not agreement on how to separate the influence of the cooling lower stratosphere from the warming upper troposphere in the satellite data. However, given that the THS relies on the some of the most basic of physics (again, "hot air rises"), it's more likely that the models are correct and the measurement techniques are not yet available to prove it and it is likely that the THS doesn't exist and the models are wrong.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Brian, you do not know what you are talking about; the McKitrick et al analysis used the SAME statistical methods and data which Santer used; the difference was Santer stopped the data stream in 2000; why? Noone knows; ask him. McKitrick et al updated it to 2009 and got the result which differed so markedly from what the models had predicted.
        
        What I have said about the error bars is correct for distinguishing between Douglass and Santer.
        
        You are also wrong about the THS and Stratosphere cooling;…
        
        show full comment
        
        Brian, you do not know what you are talking about; the McKitrick et al analysis used the SAME statistical methods and data which Santer used; the difference was Santer stopped the data stream in 2000; why? Noone knows; ask him. McKitrick et al updated it to 2009 and got the result which differed so markedly from what the models had predicted.
        
        What I have said about the error bars is correct for distinguishing between Douglass and Santer.
        
        You are also wrong about the THS and Stratosphere cooling; a THS is NOT due to convection but the LAPSE rate and water vapor feedback. These are not a first order forcing. You don’t see it in MODTRAN as implemented on line because a surface temperature offset entered in MODTRAN only affects the temperature up through 10 km and it’s constant. You get the THS only if the lapse rate decreases as temperature goes up because the moist lapse rate gets lower as specific humidity goes up (higher energy content/kg). A decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapor is supposed to more than make up for that.
        
        Say the lapse rate is 6.5 K/km and the surface temperature is 300 K. Then the temperature at 10 km would be 235 K (300-6.5*10). Now let’s raise the surface temperature by 10 K and lower the lapse rate to 6 K/km. Now the surface temperature is 310 K and the temperature at 10 km is 250 K (310-6*10). So the surface has warmed by 10 K and the 10 km temperature has gone up by 15 K. That’s the source, but with smaller numbers, of the THS.
        
        The problem for you and AGW is 2-fold; firstly, a THS does depend on a temperature signature; Fig 9.1 of AR4 makes this plain; and this temperature signature is distinct to ghg’s; that is unequivocal; and that temperature signature is not there. The second problem is more convoluted and depends on there being more atmospheric water vapor [SH] at particular levels and for that increased SH to have a +ve feedback to temperature. Initially, despite all the Santer and Soden modeling, it is problematic that SH is increasing at all or where it should be [see Soloman and Paltridge]; secondly, does increased SH have a positive feedback; increased SH should increase the latent heat of the atmosphere but this paper says otherwise:
        
        http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/
        
        Now, let’s look at Stratospheric cooling, the other alleged half of the THS;
        
        http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series
        
        If you look specifically at TLS and TLT you will first note the following for TLS:
        1978-1982 average flat
        1982 El Chicon large volcao and following 2 years of spike up
        1984-1991 drop to lower level than 1978-1982 and average flat
        1991 Mt. Pinatube large volcano and 2+ years of spike up
        1994-2010 drop to lower level than 1978-1982 and average flat
        Now note for TLT:
        1978-1997 up and down for several reasons, but average level
        1998 very large ENSO
        1999-2010 up and down for several reasons but average higher than 1978-1997 and essentially not varying in average. Most recent year high due to ENSO, but drop expected to follow from LaNino. Questionable where it will go from there.
        
        The point of all of this information is that even though CO2 had a steady and large increase over this entire period, nothing that happened seems to be related to the CO2. The TLS has been essentially constant since 1994, and this period included the largest increase in TLT. In fact, essentially all of the increase in TLT occurred after 1998. Maybe this visual depiction will make it clearer for you:
        
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Stratosphere
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        And in case you don't believe me about the dry (or saturated) adiabatic lapse rate, here's the definition at the AMS: http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=dry-adiabatic-lapse-rate1
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Chicken and egg Brian, lapse rate convection; which comes first; extra heat changes the lapse rate and therein convection; the lapse rate is the chicken Brian.
        
        Figure 9.1 is the product of MODELS; it is a MODEL prediction. Based on the best OBSERVED evidence Figure 9.1 is wrong.
        
        The RC equivalence between a THS from 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in TSI which is discussed here is quite simply impossible:
        
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
        
        In turn the RC…
        
        show full comment
        
        Chicken and egg Brian, lapse rate convection; which comes first; extra heat changes the lapse rate and therein convection; the lapse rate is the chicken Brian.
        
        Figure 9.1 is the product of MODELS; it is a MODEL prediction. Based on the best OBSERVED evidence Figure 9.1 is wrong.
        
        The RC equivalence between a THS from 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in TSI which is discussed here is quite simply impossible:
        
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
        
        In turn the RC comment is based on the Hansen 1984 paper:
        
        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha07600n
        
        To say a THS would occur equally in signature from 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in TSI is astounding since increases in CO2 have any forcing effect constrained by Beers Law which produces the logarithmic decline so that there are diminshing returns in respect of extra heating for all additional CO2; how can solar forcing be so prescribed? Well, obviously it can’t and there immediately is a difference in the linearity, or lack thereof, between the 2 major forcing agents recognised by the IPCC.
        
        The jest becomes richer when we look at solar main sequence increases in output; the sun over history increases its average energy output 4% every BILLION years; so what RC is suggesting is that 2XCO2 is eqaul to 500 million years of solar main sequence evolution!
        
        Look at it this way; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun heats the surface to 287K (384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power) for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1, while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from 2XCO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing.”
        
        By this reckoning 2XCO2 = an 8% increase in solar energy. Sorry, that is impossible
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I just realized something - "the t" came down on me pretty hard for some admittedly boneheaded math errors on my part. Yet he didn't come down on Anthony for his math mistakes or for the fact that Anthony didn't read the RC link he provided me closely enough.
        
        I wonder why that is.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        What mistakes?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        The ones above where you miscalculated the amount of energy the Earth will radiate using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Look again Brian, I have responded above; the mistakes are yours.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Anthony, hot air rises because it's less dense. That's only a step above foundational physics of the F=ma variety. The lapse rate is a derived property of the fact that hot air rises. If you want to say that, as the lapse rate changes that air circulation and energy transfer from the tropics toward the poles changes, that's fine. But you've got the cause and effect backwards on the lapse rate.
        
        Note also that I never claimed that a 2% increase in solar output was possible. You're the one who…
        
        show full comment
        
        Anthony, hot air rises because it's less dense. That's only a step above foundational physics of the F=ma variety. The lapse rate is a derived property of the fact that hot air rises. If you want to say that, as the lapse rate changes that air circulation and energy transfer from the tropics toward the poles changes, that's fine. But you've got the cause and effect backwards on the lapse rate.
        
        Note also that I never claimed that a 2% increase in solar output was possible. You're the one who just made that claim, and you just showed, correctly, that it's impossible. What I did claim is the model demonstrates that the pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is unique to GHG-caused warming. I also claimed that the model demonstrates that tropospheric warming is not unique to GHG-caused warming, but rather is a function of both solar and GHG-caused warming.
        
        Do you realize that you just demonstrated that the only way that the sun could be causing the observed global warming is by being impossibly more luminous than it really is or by climate sensitivity being at least 6 deg C/2xCO2? Thanks for the quick and dirty proof that GHGs are causing the observed warming. I may borrow your math for use against spurious "it's the sun" arguments in the future.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Am i allowed to say Shazzam yet? :P
        
        I'm more and more convinced on my own theory related towards global warming - that the hard core deniers are narcissistic conspiracy theorists. They are convinced that their own research of the avaialable information is able to completely debunk the collective brain power of all the worlds top universities and scientific organisations - thats the narcissistic part.
        
        Of course, this means that there must be a world wide conspiracy between all the worlds scientific bodies to falsify evidence and gang up on the poor deniers, a conspiracy that has been going on for generations across many different governments of vastly different political persuasions no less. This is possible only in a Dan Brown novel of course, but not in a denier's eyes.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I find your pointed use of the term 'denier' repugnant and, given the faux outrage about Monckton's comparison of Garnaut's undemocratic dictates with fascism, grossly hypocritical.
        
        I bet you vote green.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I apoligise for my childish comments wherever they occur throughout these comments. I know i havent budged anyone one iota, perhaps just caused some general irritation. Im not getting any work done so im going to have to more or less bow out. Ciao
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        never once voted green, they are left wing nutters. I am purely in these chatrooms as a means to exercise my brain and learn a few things about climate change. I would not expect to be smarter than many people in here including yourself, but i do think i am reasonably good at picking the common sense arguments being put forward.
        
        Deniers or whatever you want to call them, just havent done it for me. Some in here are outright nutters im sure youll agree - see Douglas Cotton - but others such as yourself seem a lot more grounded, but where your argument falls down is that by default there must be some form of global conspiracy for so many organisations to be so firmly in support of AGW theory, OR, they are all stupid. That is why i am saying that those opposed to AGW, display some level of narcissism and/or conspiracy theory tendancies.
        
        I simply cannot believe that there are large numbers of scientists and whole research organistations running around with disingenuous intentions.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        By all means borrow my maths Brian; my maths shows that by the correct application of Stefan-Boltzman the IPPC accepted temperature result for 2XCO2 is both incorrect and much higher than the RC stated temperature increase for a 2% increase in TSI; that's 2 wrongs Brian.
        
        It is your RC link and Hansen who claim that there is an EQUIVALENCE between 2XCO2, which is the measure of equilibrium sensitivity, and a 2% increase in TSI; THEY claim that Figure 9.1 shows this.
        
        Back in reality I didn't prove that the sun cannot explain the temperature increase over the 20thC because if you have bothered to check that temperature increase of 0.74C since 1900:
        
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/trend
        
        You will find it is about 1/2 what it should be if 2XCO2 is right; the graph shows a total trend of 0.74C; this when CO2 has increased, apparently, by 45%; 45% of 3C is 1.35C; where is the missing 0.61C Brian; when you find it perhaps you can let Trenberth know.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Actually, looking at your math again (hey "t"! - I failed to read it closely enough again - sorry about that), it's WAY off.
        
        Stefan-Boltzmann says that J=sigma*T^4, where J is in W/m^2. Sigma is 6.669 x 10^-8 W/m^2/K^4. Substituting the Earth's temperature (287 K) in for T, we get J = 452 W/m^2. at 290 K, we get 471 W/m^2, about an additional 19W/m^2.
        
        The irradiance of the sun at the Earth is about 1366 W/m^2. A 2% increase is about 27 W/m^2.
        
        Now, we need to consider that the earth absorbs…
        
        show full comment
        
        Actually, looking at your math again (hey "t"! - I failed to read it closely enough again - sorry about that), it's WAY off.
        
        Stefan-Boltzmann says that J=sigma*T^4, where J is in W/m^2. Sigma is 6.669 x 10^-8 W/m^2/K^4. Substituting the Earth's temperature (287 K) in for T, we get J = 452 W/m^2. at 290 K, we get 471 W/m^2, about an additional 19W/m^2.
        
        The irradiance of the sun at the Earth is about 1366 W/m^2. A 2% increase is about 27 W/m^2.
        
        Now, we need to consider that the earth absorbs sunlight about as a circle while it radiates into space as a sphere, we need adjust the solar number down (or the earth number up) by 4/3, the difference between the area of a circle and the area of a sphere. When we do that, we find that the 2% solar increase is about 20.49 W, compare to the earth radiation increase of about 19.22 W.
        
        That's pretty close. Close enough that the comparison is reasonable, contrary to what you said.
        
        I'm curious how you got your 384.7 and 341.5 numbers, though.
        
        Actually, scientists know pretty well where the "missing" temperature rise is, Anthony - it's in the oceans. Water has a huge thermal heat capacity, and so it takes years for the ocean to heat up or cool down. This heat capacity slows the rise in atmospheric temperature just as a capacitor slows the rise in voltage in an electronic circuit. This means that the extra warming is being stored in the oceans and will be released at some point in the future. This also means that we should be looking back years or decades to find the CO2 concentration that corresponds to today's temperature, not at today's CO2 concentration.
        
        We can estimate how far back we need to look by estimating the time constant of the upper layers of the ocean. I don't remember what the number was when I calculated it (used a hand calculator), but it was somewhere in the range of 15-25 years. So when you calculate sensitivity using the CO2 concentrations from 15-25 years ago, you get a number that's really close to 3 C/2xCO2 (I calculated 2.8, IIRC).
        
        This is why scientists say that a certain amount of warming is "committed" - the ocean is storing energy that has to come out of storage back into the atmosphere eventually.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Brian; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun [which you get by dividing TOA TSI of 1366 by 4] at the surface heats the surface to 287K [384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power as calculated by using Stefan-Boltzman].
        
        Got that? OK, now, the above gives a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1C [by reconverting from power back to temperature], while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and…
        
        show full comment
        
        Brian; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun [which you get by dividing TOA TSI of 1366 by 4] at the surface heats the surface to 287K [384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power as calculated by using Stefan-Boltzman].
        
        Got that? OK, now, the above gives a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1C [by reconverting from power back to temperature], while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from 2XCO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing. That is nuts but it is not me saying it.
        
        You have not addressed this contradiction. As for OHC increasing; ho, ho, ho.
        
        I recently co-authored an article on this:
        
        http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1031292.html
        
        This was subject to a critique by Geoff Davies at the same site which you can find yourself; David Stockwell and I were not given the opportunity to respond at Unleashed but we did at David's site:
        
        http://landshape.org/enm/rejoinder-to-geoff-davies-at-abc-unleashed/
        
        Roy Spencer puts it even more succinctly:
        
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-false-alarm-a-model-simulation-of-the-last-40-years-of-deep-ocean-warming/
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Given your argument relies on two numbers that you haven't justified, I'd like to know how you justify them. First, explain the division by 4 from the TOA to the surface. Second, show me the equation you used to get the 384.7 W/m^2 from the surface, as J=sigma * T^4 (Stefan-Boltzman law) doesn't produce that number.
        
        I'll address the OHC once I've had a chance to read the links you provided.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Actually, if you've got a link to where you got all your equations, I'd like to look it over. The more that I look at your math, the less it makes sense. 384.7 W/341.5 W = 1.13, but it's dimensionless, so your point "by reconverting from power back to temperature" doesn't make any sense at all without at least another step you're not showing.
        
        Again, J=sigma*T^4 with an additional 3C heating doesn't equal 401.1 W/m^2 unless you have some scaling factor you haven't explained that reduces the actual value down to yours.
        
        Point me to your equations, Anthony, because without it, nothing you wrote makes any sense whatsoever.
        
        I'm still looking over what you published at The Drum, so I'm not ready to discuss that yet, but I find it interesting that you're unwilling to accept model outputs when they disagree with you, but when Spencer uses a model to produce results you agree with, you're all for it.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Brian, for your use, a Stefan-Boltzmann calculator which as you appear to know can convert temperature to emitted radiation which is power and vice-versa:
        
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
        
        Plug in the temperature and you get emitted radiation or power; I don't know how I can explain it any simpler than this:
        
        "Brian; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun [which you get by dividing TOA TSI of 1366 by 4] at the surface heats the surface to 287K [384.7 W/m^2 of…
        
        show full comment
        
        Brian, for your use, a Stefan-Boltzmann calculator which as you appear to know can convert temperature to emitted radiation which is power and vice-versa:
        
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
        
        Plug in the temperature and you get emitted radiation or power; I don't know how I can explain it any simpler than this:
        
        "Brian; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun [which you get by dividing TOA TSI of 1366 by 4] at the surface heats the surface to 287K [384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power as calculated by using Stefan-Boltzman]."
        
        You agree that the amount of insolation hitting the TOA is 1366 w/m^2? Dividing this by 4 was I thought an accepted way of reaching a total of what insolation or incident solar radiation hits any part of the surface; dividing by 4 compensates for curvature as Arthur Smith's famous paper purporting to prove the greenhouse effect shows:
        
        "Note that from Eq. 21 the temperature scale varies with latitude as cos(ξ)1/4, while the value of λ varies as cos(ξ)3/4. So finally, integrating over the whole planet we have an average temperature value of:
        Tave = ((1 − a)Sπσ)1/4 Z /20 cos(ξ)1/4yave(λ(ξ)) cos(ξ)dξ (31)"
        
        See: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
        
        If you have a better method by all means show it to us unwashed sceptics.
        
        As for this: "but I find it interesting that you're unwilling to accept model outputs when they disagree with you, but when Spencer uses a model to produce results you agree with, you're all for it."
        
        That is not quite right; I agree with model outputs which makes sense full-stop; I don't have an agenda; do you?
        
        Permalink
        
        2
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I dont mind you having a tussle with Brian, its quite educational whether the onlooker is a sceptic, believer or inbetween. But your last sentence made me laugh: "I don't have an agenda; do you? "
        
        You are the Secretary of the Climate Sceptics Party after all, which is none to pleasant towards people with views different to you own - see your own website for demonstrations of this:
        
        http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/06/truth-about-power-stations.html
        
        Dont pretend you arent biased, everyone is, and you are clearly heavily biased towards the AGW so much so you have gone political about it. Im not having a go at you, thats your prerogative to get politically active if you hold a belief so strongly just as the greens have done.
        
        So please continue to debate the physics, but dont go accusing anyone of being biased in here, thats just poor form that can be levelled straight back at you.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        When I say I don't have an agenda I mean I am not a front for any business or vested interest; I pay my own way; Geoff at the blog takes no prisoners and good luck to him.
        
        There is a saying in legal practice that if you want to know who is doing what and what is being done just follow the money; follow the money gav:
        
        http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/other-resources/investing-in-clean-power-329295
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        No vested interest! Political parties do not survive without donations, your own website has a donations page - nothing wrong with that by the way, but no your party does not pay its own way, you are the secretary of it, if you show any weakness in the climate debate your party will suffer.
        
        Arguments such as bias, follow the money, corruption, collusion and all the rest can get thrown at both sides of the argument and is a complete waste of breath. Stick to the science.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Just a follow up to this point of yours which I overlooked:
        
        "Again, J=sigma*T^4 with an additional 3C heating doesn't equal 401.1 W/m^2 unless you have some scaling factor you haven't explained that reduces the actual value down to yours"
        
        That temperature base for conversion by Stefan-Boltzmann to radiation power is 390K which is made up of the surface average temperature of 387K plus the supposed temperature increase caused by 2XCO2 of 3C/K which is straight from the IPPC; if you disagree with the amount of 401.1 W/m^2 what figure do you get?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I see the problem - when I did my math, I copied down the Stefan-Boltzman Constant wrong. I wrote down 6.669 x 10^-8 when the correct value is 5.67 x 10^-8. So that was an error on my end - thank you for helping me identify what the error was.
        
        Thanks for the link to Smith's paper - I'll walk through that in gory detail at some point. But Equation 31 doesn't have a 1/4 factor anywhere in it - what you typed is a function raised to the power of 1/4 (0.25). This is the same as taking the square…
        
        show full comment
        
        I see the problem - when I did my math, I copied down the Stefan-Boltzman Constant wrong. I wrote down 6.669 x 10^-8 when the correct value is 5.67 x 10^-8. So that was an error on my end - thank you for helping me identify what the error was.
        
        Thanks for the link to Smith's paper - I'll walk through that in gory detail at some point. But Equation 31 doesn't have a 1/4 factor anywhere in it - what you typed is a function raised to the power of 1/4 (0.25). This is the same as taking the square root of the square root. 16^(1/4) = 2, as an example.
        
        I strongly urge you to recheck your math, because it seems to me that you're doing a lot of math blind, without a good understanding of the physics underlying the math. That's never a good idea.
        
        Comment threads are never a good place to try to introduce advanced math simply because anything complicated get's rendered unintelligible by converting it into straight text. So if you have a .pdf or some other site where the equations are rendered into LaTeX or something similar, I'd love to see the details.
        
        Just as a quick point of interest, when I take the 1366 W/m^2 from the sun at the Earth's orbit (yes, we agree on that number) and determine what the added power would be from a 2% increase, we get 27.32 W/m^2 (1366*.02). Reducing that by about 30% due to the Earth's bond albedo gets us to 19.1 W/m^2. The change in emitted power from 287 K to 290 K is 16.3 W. The difference between the two values is 2.8 W, and that' pretty close. So again I think that the RealClimate images are reasonable and correct.
        
        Copy a link in a response to me to your derivations and equations if you have them. And thanks for the interesting discussion.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Sorry, I've done nothing special, just back of envelope calculations; the 287K is the global average temperature which compares with the typical figure of 288K of which 33K is supposed to be the greenhouse effect; that figure of 287K is derived from the TOA 1366 w/m^2/4; this is exactly the same approach which Smith derives his 288K as shown in his paper.
        
        The point is again, is that the 2XCO2 amount of 3C/K, when added to 287K gives 290K [I typoed 390K above]; a temperature of 290K gives off 401…
        
        show full comment
        
        Sorry, I've done nothing special, just back of envelope calculations; the 287K is the global average temperature which compares with the typical figure of 288K of which 33K is supposed to be the greenhouse effect; that figure of 287K is derived from the TOA 1366 w/m^2/4; this is exactly the same approach which Smith derives his 288K as shown in his paper.
        
        The point is again, is that the 2XCO2 amount of 3C/K, when added to 287K gives 290K [I typoed 390K above]; a temperature of 290K gives off 401.1 W/m^2 which is 16.4w/m^2 more than the 384.7 W/m^2 radiated from the GAT of 287K.
        
        Where you are going wrong is applying Stefan-Boltzmann to 3C/K as a stand-alone amount; this is incorrect as the radiation from temperature increases by ^4 which is to say the radiated power increase from increases in temperature is non-linear and the radiated power from the 2XCO2 increase in temperature will vary depending on the base to which the 3K is added; an example of my point is:
        
        From 200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2.
        
        From 300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I should add that this non-linear radiation emission/power from variation in temperature is the basis of my point about the error by Hansen and RC in equating 2XCO2 with a 2% increase in TSI; a 2% increase in TSI comes from a much higher base than 2XCO2.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        And what is the physics that defines the lapse rate? Adiabatic cooling as hot air rises, aka convection.
        
        Your interpretation of Figure 9-1 is incomplete. Look at image (a) - notice that there is a very slight increase in the troposphere over the surface temperature. Now look at this image taken from a simulation run where the only forcing change was by dramatically increasing insolation: http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif
        
        Notice that the THS shows up both in the GHG…
        
        show full comment
        
        And what is the physics that defines the lapse rate? Adiabatic cooling as hot air rises, aka convection.
        
        Your interpretation of Figure 9-1 is incomplete. Look at image (a) - notice that there is a very slight increase in the troposphere over the surface temperature. Now look at this image taken from a simulation run where the only forcing change was by dramatically increasing insolation: http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif
        
        Notice that the THS shows up both in the GHG heating scenario shown in Figure 9-1 (c) and in the 2% increase in solar heating image from RealClimate. Thus climate scientists expect that the THS is not the real fingerprint.
        
        Now look at Figure 9-1 again and the difference between (a) and (c). Notice how there is no cooling of the stratosphere in the solar heating part (a), but there's a lot of cooling in the GHG part (c). Now look at this image from RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif
        
        See the difference between the two? Solar heating has no accompanying cooling in the stratosphere, GHG heating has cooling in the stratosphere.
        
        The IPCC is a document that describes what's projected for the real world, not a compilation of simulation experiments of the "what would happen if I did this...." variety. For more information, I refer you here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
        
        I agree with your general description of the TLT and TLS images shown at the RSS site you linked to. However, general descriptions don't equal data analysis. And the commentary you linked to at FoS only has data through 2005 even though it was revised in 2011. As I recall, you were castigating Santer for doing the same thing a moment ago....
        
        I can't follow your "SH" argument at all, I'm afraid, so I have no comment positive or negative on it.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Thanks for taking the time to respond to these guys Brian. I particularly like your thread going with the T. Even if you dont win them over, commoners like myself are getting a great crash course in the wide ranging evidence supporting AGW and the methods the deniers are using to muddy the waters.
Permalink

11 months ago

Reva Wheeler

(logged in via Twitter)

insightful unconstructive

I used to believe the fearmongering about climate change, until I began to connect the dots and found out it is all about SELLING AIR! Trillions to be made (see Chicago Climate Exchange) setting up a system to buy & sell carbon credits, GM making the measurement devices, etc.... If man is making any impact go here for eye-opening facts: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4204 Also consider that it may be a solar system wide occurrence if you look at the other planets as well. Finally, even if we all did our part it doesn't make an iota of a difference due to the other countries worldwide. Check out the facts for yourself and stop believing the nonsense, check the sources--most are biased, paid for by those who have an interest in making money!
1. Permalink
  
  In reply to Reva Wheeler, 11 months ago
  
  Reva Wheeler
  
  (logged in via Twitter)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Forgot to also mention another possible reason for the differences being seen in temperatures worldwide--HAARP. It was created to alter the weather and is proven to be able to do so. When it heats up the ionosphere the area rises, pulling up the air below it and thereby it can redirect the gulf stream by several hundred miles...this makes a HUGE difference in weather. There are I believe 12 known HAARP stations around the globe. Add that into the money making air selling equation....I'm just sayin'
  1. Permalink
    
    In reply to Reva Wheeler, 11 months ago
    
    James Harrison
    
    (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Thank you Ms Reeves.
    
    It may also be that aliens in deep space are blasting us with long-wave radiation as a slow yet subtle way to ensure our demise.
    
    It may be that Pinky and The Brain are trying to take over the world.
    
    It may be that a purple tentacle mutated in radioactive waste, turned evil, grew limbs, and is hell-bent on mankinds destruction. Day of the Tentacle, anyone?
    
    Or it could just be us emitting a hell of a lot of CO2?
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to James Harrison, 11 months ago
      
      Anthony Cox
      
      (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Don't be patronising James; I'm sure you are aware of the similarities between the theory of AGW and the Eden myth; I prefer the sinuosity of a serpent to a tentacle, purple or otherwise.
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        James Harrison
        
        (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        *Ms Wheeler, apologies.
      2. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        James Harrison
        
        (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Anthony, you're right, that was patronising. Ms Reeves I apologise.
Permalink

11 months ago

Douglas Cotton

(B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)

insightful unconstructive

Here are 27 more scientists you could write about ...

http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

I'm really going now! (Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this)
1. Permalink
  
  9
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Except that Bast, Bell, Brill, Chesser, Goreham, Haapala, Horner, Inhofe, Mendelsohn, Morano, Nothdurft, Taylor, Tuerck, and Watts aren't scientists. That leaves 13 actual scientists, many of whom haven't done any climate-related science in years, if ever.
  
  As for the Heartland Institute, I've reported on at least two examples where employees (including Heartland's President Joseph Bast and senior fellow James Taylor, editor of Heartland's "Environment and Climate News") misrepresented facts and scientific papers as well as made false allegations against scientists.
  
  Furthermore, Joseph Bast called for the banning of a scientist "from future debates on this topic [climate disruption]." So much for the ideals of a supposedly libertarian organization dedicated to free speech.
2. Permalink
  
  5
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Rod_Hagen
  
  (logged in via Twitter)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Why, Douglas Cotton, do I find myself feeling somewhat suspicious about a "scientific" conference run by a free market organisation that praises the "genius" of Ayn Rand on its web site front page, and whose president's primary aim in life seems to be to shut down government run schools and push everyone into the private system?
  
  Many thanks for your piece, John Abraham.
  1. Permalink
    
    5
    
    In reply to Rod_Hagen, 11 months ago
    
    Ian Enting
    
    (Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Not to mention their "TObacco and Freedom" activity:
    http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
    
    BTW. Of the remaining 13, I am pretty sure that Scott Denning is there as the token "establishment" scientist and does not support the heatland views.
Permalink

2

11 months ago

Douglas Cotton

(B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)

insightful unconstructive

and one more (note point 3 below) ...

ABSTRACT This paper disproves the IPCC and Global Computer Models global warming analyses and offers alternate theories. It identifies: 1. that the IPCC fails to follow basic principles of science when it misrepresents the Greenhouse Effect
(GHE) and claims that simply adding Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to the air results in warming, when the
original Arrhenius paper says that you must add an energy photon to a GHG to get GHE warming.

2. that the quantities of…

show full comment

and one more (note point 3 below) ...

ABSTRACT This paper disproves the IPCC and Global Computer Models global warming analyses and offers alternate theories. It identifies: 1. that the IPCC fails to follow basic principles of science when it misrepresents the Greenhouse Effect
(GHE) and claims that simply adding Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to the air results in warming, when the
original Arrhenius paper says that you must add an energy photon to a GHG to get GHE warming.

2. that the quantities of energy entering the Earth, not the amount of GHGs, dictates how much of GHE warming can occur

******************************* NOTE ******************************

3. that the physical conditions on Earth maintain an EXCESS of the GHGs in the air over that needed to satisfy the limited energy available for the GHE, thus invalidating the IPCC claim that just adding more GHGs means warming. This voids the idea of AGW& the justification for the Kyoto Treaty and Cap & Trade CO2 emissions control (see “Excess CO2 Scenario” paper at www.scribd.com)

************************************************************************
4. that the various forces of gravity from the sun moon and planets, and the gravitational potential energy
provide additional energy into the Earth that was not considered in the IPCC analyses. This energy is
much greater than the solar insolation used as the sole source by IPCC. The identification of these added
energy sources also solves a major problem with the Milankovitch Theory that solar insolation did not
provide sufficient energy to be able to cause ice age magnitude cooling. Identifying that these energy
sources were not used by the IPCC invalidates the IPCC analyses.

5. that the timing (60 year, 900 year etc natural cycles) and spatial distribution of the energy from gravity
and gravitational potential energy is imposed on the Earth by orbital variations and eccentricity. This
explains the time variations of the Earths temperature, and why the Earth’s temperature moves north to
south and back, in the NAO, PDO, El Nino/La Nina cycles. This will allow better predictability of future
climate changes droughts and hurricanes/cyclones etc.

This paper is structured in the following parts 1.Greenhouse Effect Mis-Application of the Science by IPCC
2.Other Energy Sources: Gravity and Gravitational Potential Energy - 100 year impacts
3.Longer Term Impacts -1000s of years
4.Shorter Term Impacts -1 to 10 years
5.Off Ecliptic (Sun-Earth) Plane Impacts on El Nino/La Nina etc

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/19476991/John-Dodds-Wobble-Theory-of-Global-Warming- atwww. scr i bd . com contains the more complete 150 page “Wobble Theory” version of the paper
1. Permalink
  
  6
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Michael J. Biercuk
  
  (Senior Lecturer in the School of Physics at University of Sydney)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Not peer reviewed = not a reasonable contribution to this debate. I'll let the climate science experts pull that one apart.
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Michael J. Biercuk , 11 months ago
    
    helen stream
    
    teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    The consensus scientists have a problem though.
    
    The Cru emails reveal quite a malicious intent on the part of the world’s most prominent climate scientists.
    
    They signal in the emails, their intention to manipulate the peer review process in order to prevent other scientists with opposing ideas from being published in peer review journals.
    
    This diminishes the trust in the peer review process itself, and devalues the ‘peer-reviewed’ tag as a credential.
    
    Your claim that peer review…
    
    show full comment
    
    The consensus scientists have a problem though.
    
    The Cru emails reveal quite a malicious intent on the part of the world’s most prominent climate scientists.
    
    They signal in the emails, their intention to manipulate the peer review process in order to prevent other scientists with opposing ideas from being published in peer review journals.
    
    This diminishes the trust in the peer review process itself, and devalues the ‘peer-reviewed’ tag as a credential.
    
    Your claim that peer review is the rolled gold standard has consequently lost its currency.
    
    People are left to wonder what useful and illuminating research may have been cast aside because it was a threat to the ‘consensus’.
    
    It’s not the only way climate scientists have undermined public trust with their behaviour and the behaviour they encourage in politicians on this issue, not by any means.
    
    This issue has enormous ramifications for our country in particular, and many Australians find themselves unable to trust people who treat the scientific process and other human beings in such a cavalier way, when so much is at stake.
2. Permalink
  
  6
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Ian Smith
  
  (CSIRO)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  One of the problems with many skeptics is that they do not recognize that enhanced greenhouse gases DO NOT directly raise the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system, nor do they directly INCREASE the amount of net radiation into or out of the system. They DO RAISE the surface and near-surface temperatures while DECREASING upper level atmospheric temperatures.
  
  Put simply, the enhanced greenhouse effect is analogous to adding more insulation in our ceilings. We get warmer while the roof space gets cooler.
  
  I suspect many skeptical arguments, like this one, may be off the mark because they assume that the greenhouse effect implies a change to the amount of radiation absorbed and emitted by the earth as a planetary system. IT DOESNT. It only affects the DISTRIBUTION of the radiation WITHIN the system.
  1. Permalink
    
    3
    
    In reply to Ian Smith, 11 months ago
    
    Ian Smith
    
    (CSIRO)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Additional comment.
    These comments refer to an equilibrium (and not a transient) situation. In the sort term there is actually a decrease in outgoing radiation as a result of entrapment in the surface layers. This extra trapped energy is manifest as an increase in heat content of the oceans and lower atmosphere. If greenhouse gases stopped increasing, eventually a new equilibrium would be reached with higher surface temperatures but with incoming and outgoing radiation the same as at the start. However, I doubt that there are any skeptics who argue within this framework.
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Ian Smith, 11 months ago
      
      Gavin Fialkowski
      
      Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      That makes perfect sense to me Ian, thankyou. I had a suspicion that is how it worked but i wasn't certain enough to say anything.
      
      I take it it is a bit like trying to force X litres of water out of a nozzle per minute. if you shrink the size of the nozzle - the pressure builds up behind it to force the water out at X L per min, much like the temperature on earth is building up on earth to force out IR energy through a thicker insulation blanket at X bazillion watts per minute??
    2. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Ian Smith, 11 months ago
      
      Anthony Cox
      
      (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      "However, I doubt that there are any skeptics who argue within this framework"
      
      Wrong.
      
      http://landshape.org/enm/solar-variability-does-explain-late-20th-century-warming/
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Ian Smith
        
        (CSIRO)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Wrong ????
        I stand by my original comment that NOT MANY argue within this framework - certainly not on this site or most other sites I have encountered.
        The site you refer to is off-topic. It seems to deal with the role of solar variability as a forcing of global temperatures. There are 2 major flaws with thsi line of argument:
        (1) It has been shown time and time again that solar energy fluctuations are very small compared to other forcings.
        (2) If you believe in solar forcing then you must admit that global warming has occurred and that the system must be very sensitive to external forcings. The latter requires you to also admit that enhanced greenhouse gases must be important since they have a larger radiative forcing effect than the sun.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Ian Smith, 11 months ago
        
        Anthony Cox
        
        (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Contact David Stockwell Ian; he has submitted his paper to Science; his paper contradicts your conclusions about solar and GHG forcing.
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Anthony Cox, 11 months ago
        
        Ian Smith
        
        (CSIRO)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        No thanks. I will wait with interest to see if it gets published first.
        If it contradicts all the published findings to date it should be a blockbuster.
    3. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Ian Smith, 11 months ago
      
      Brian Angliss
      
      climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      As an EE, I tend to think in terms of capacitors and resistors (which is part of why I sometimes forget to transition from current and voltage into watts and temperature when commenting on things). In the case of the Earth's temperature, the transient solution is mathematically the same as the transient solution of a capacitor charging. The time constants are a lot longer, and the Earth is a lot less homogenous than a capacitor is so that complicates the calculations, but the basics are the same.
3. Permalink
  
  3
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Interesting. Wrong, but still interesting.
  
  #1: The extra photons do not have to come from the sun, but rather may come from the surface. Planck's Law dictates how the spectral density of light from the Earth's surface is different from the spectral density of light from the Sun, and so there are abundant photons available from surface IR emissions.
  
  #2: Fundamentally true, but given the error made in #1, irrelevant. Conservation of energy requires that total energy incident on the Earth must…
  
  show full comment
  
  Interesting. Wrong, but still interesting.
  
  #1: The extra photons do not have to come from the sun, but rather may come from the surface. Planck's Law dictates how the spectral density of light from the Earth's surface is different from the spectral density of light from the Sun, and so there are abundant photons available from surface IR emissions.
  
  #2: Fundamentally true, but given the error made in #1, irrelevant. Conservation of energy requires that total energy incident on the Earth must be equal to the total energy radiated by the earth (plus a negligible amount due to heat escaping the core). Conservation of energy does not require that the spectral density of that energy be equivalent - incident energy could be 100% in the ultraviolet while radiated energy could be 100% in the infrared - conservation of energy doesn't care. And given that heat is IR, radiating most of the energy in IR would mean that my hypothetical (and unrealistic, but useful as an extreme example) body that converted energy from UV to IR would be very hot indeed.
  
  #3: Might have been true, but given the error in #1, false.
  
  #4: Having not reviewed the math, I can't be sure, but I highly doubt this one too. The inverse-square relation of the force of two bodies due to their gravitational attraction would be easy enough to calculate, and power = F*d. Compare power from insolation to power due to gravity (although it would be hard to calculate distance d - I suspect that determining d would be the greatest source of error).
  
  #5: Won't comment as I haven't seen the math and it relies entirely upon #4, of which I'm skeptical.
  
  Even without looking at your math, though, points 2 and 3 are wrong given the error in point 1.
  1. Permalink
    
    2
    
    In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
    
    Tristan Croll
    
    (logged in via Facebook)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    "#2: ... Conservation of energy requires that total energy incident on the Earth must be equal to the total energy radiated by the earth (plus a negligible amount due to heat escaping the core). "
    
    Actually, that's slightly off. Conservation of energy says that *at constant temperature* total energy in must equal total energy out. In a more general form:
    
    (Rate of Energy In) - (Rate of Energy Out) = (Rate of Energy Accumulated)
    
    And that's what's happening now. The added greenhouse gases slow…
    
    show full comment
    
    "#2: ... Conservation of energy requires that total energy incident on the Earth must be equal to the total energy radiated by the earth (plus a negligible amount due to heat escaping the core). "
    
    Actually, that's slightly off. Conservation of energy says that *at constant temperature* total energy in must equal total energy out. In a more general form:
    
    (Rate of Energy In) - (Rate of Energy Out) = (Rate of Energy Accumulated)
    
    And that's what's happening now. The added greenhouse gases slow the rate of infrared radiation loss, so that (Rate of Energy Out) is lower on average than (Rate of Energy In), and so we have a net positive accumulation of energy within the Earth's biosphere. Since (Rate of Energy Out) is a function of temperature as well as greenhouse gases, this situation will continue until the temperature gets high enough so that (Rate of Energy Out) once again equals (Rate of Energy In).
    
    * Note that when I say "at constant temperature" I should more accurately say "at constant total energy content". Energy that goes into melting ice, for example, doesn't change the temperature all that much, but dramatically increases the energy content.
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Tristan Croll, 11 months ago
      
      Brian Angliss
      
      climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Fair criticism. Thank you for the correction.
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Tristan Croll
        
        (logged in via Facebook)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        No problem. Glad to help.
  2. Permalink
    
    In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
    
    Douglas Cotton
    
    (B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Just one problem: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
      
      Justin H
      
      (logged in via Twitter)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      So you admit it has changed?
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Justin H, 11 months ago
        
        Watching the deniers
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        (Mike Marriott aka WTD)
        
        I think the non-peer reviewed stuff can simply be ignored, and treated for what it is... it is equivalent of the work of those cranks claiming to have invented "perpetual motion" machines.
    2. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
      
      Brian Angliss
      
      climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      And that has an impact on my criticism of your point #1 how, exactly?
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Brian Angliss, 11 months ago
        
        Douglas Cotton
        
        (B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        (a) There has been an increase in CO2 since 2003 but no increase in temperature - I thought that would have been the obvious implication.
        
        (b) You really should read and study the book before making irrelevant comments such as "there are abundant photons available from surface IR emissions." Obviously the author took into account photons travelling in and out of the atmosphere.
        
        (c) You have no peer-reviewed papers supporting your hypothesis
        
        (d) As this is such a make-or-break matter for GH…
        
        show full comment
        
        (a) There has been an increase in CO2 since 2003 but no increase in temperature - I thought that would have been the obvious implication.
        
        (b) You really should read and study the book before making irrelevant comments such as "there are abundant photons available from surface IR emissions." Obviously the author took into account photons travelling in and out of the atmosphere.
        
        (c) You have no peer-reviewed papers supporting your hypothesis
        
        (d) As this is such a make-or-break matter for GH theory, one would have thought there would be an abundance of papers on the subject.
        
        The "science" on this forum is degenerating badly. No GH advocate has presented a single model that explains any past temperature trends, especially those after the 1998-2002 warm period when the 11-year, 60-year cycles and maybe even the 900-year cycle hit simultaneous maxima., .
        
        Go to their conference and argue with them face to face if you're genuine! It starts June 30th and there's a link at the foot of http://earth-climate.com/media.html .
        
        I'm out of here.
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
        
        Brian Angliss
        
        climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        The reduced rate of increase since 2003 is well within the uncertainty bars. And I offered no hypothesis, just well established physics (Planck's Law, conservation of energy, the implied Stefan-Boltzman Law). No hypothesis was required to point out the error in #1, and even so, you're the one making extraordinary claims here, not me - the burden of proof is on you.
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
        
        James Harrison
        
        (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        No, Douglas, don't go!
        
        You still haven't told me why you think the theory of AGW assumes CO2 creates energy! Seriously, why do you think that?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Thanks Brian, I feel like im at least getting some kind of advanced diploma in climate change science by following these comments..
        
        James - if you can get him to answer your question, please then ask Douglas if he can explain the theory as to how the gravitational pull of planets is producing additional heat energy on earth, in laymans terms. Ive asked many times but he doesnt like to answer that question.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Gavin Fialkowski, 11 months ago
        
        James Harrison
        
        (Postgraduate student at Monash University)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Sorry Gavin, no reply has been forthcoming, on this question or any of the others I've posted so Douglas Cotton regarding his attitude towards science, peer review, his inability to explain the mechanism behind that ridiculous 60 year cycle, nor the validity of combining said mysterious 60 year cycle with our apparent belief that CO2 generates energy in order to refute AGW.
        
        But if he does I'll kick your query along for sure!
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to James Harrison, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Finally got an answer James - see point 2 of his long winded comment on this article http://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to James Harrison, 11 months ago
        
        Gavin Fialkowski
        
        Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Thanks James. Yes Cotton has gone quiet on me also which is a shame. Ive since been conversing with a guy called the T, but Brian is doing a far better job debating him than I am, so i am quite happy to watch how that goes. T has a bit of a temper though, doesnt like it when you refute evidence he shows that there is global warming is not occurring.
Permalink

11 months ago

John Coochey

Mr (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

SO ARE YOU PREPARED TO DEBATE HIM? If he is such a buffoon it should be easy to discredit him. The answer is of course no because you would go the same way as Readfearn did in Brisbane
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to John Coochey, 11 months ago
  
  Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer (logged in via email @spamcop.net)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  I don't think that anyone with half a brain thinks that Monckton is a poor debater. Lambert did pretty well against him, but generally speaking scientists lack the training and experience to deal with someone like Monckton in a debate setting.
  
  But give them the time to sit down and detail everything that Monckton's got wrong and the scientists can be devastating. I posted a bunch of links above to other folks who have done an excellent job showing Monckton to be scientifically vapid (use the find feature and type "Barry Bickmore" - I'd link directly to it, but this site's comments don't allow that).
Permalink

11 months ago

Douglas Cotton

(B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin)

insightful unconstructive

http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
1. Permalink
  
  1
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton, 11 months ago
  
  Justin H
  
  (logged in via Twitter)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  You keep providing us with evidence the climate is unstable, how does this help your no fault argument?
  
  If it has changed, and you have to admit is has because you provide the evidence, then how can you claim in won't change again?
  
  And if you cannot be sure it will remain stable, and you obviously doubt that it will, why wouldn't you do whatever is possible to ensure any potential detrimental influences we have control over are minimized.
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Justin H, 11 months ago
    
    Gavin Fialkowski
    
    Mr (logged in via email @abvconsultants.com.au)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    dont do it man, you'll only encourage him. Just ask him to explain in plain english how jupiter's gravitational pull can cause warming. You'll never get an answer.
Permalink

11 months ago

Oksanna Zoschenko

(logged in via Twitter)

insightful unconstructive

I have checked just two of Mr Monckton's claims, regarding glaciers and wind-farms. In both instances I found them accurate. It was the criticisms of him that were inaccurate, mostly by using "straw man" tactics, attributing statements to Monckton that he never made, and then critiquing (or getting unwitting scientists to critique) the concocted statements. Dr Abrahams has been criticised by Monckton and others for this very practise (see link below).

Do you think in the interests of fairness…

show full comment

I have checked just two of Mr Monckton's claims, regarding glaciers and wind-farms. In both instances I found them accurate. It was the criticisms of him that were inaccurate, mostly by using "straw man" tactics, attributing statements to Monckton that he never made, and then critiquing (or getting unwitting scientists to critique) the concocted statements. Dr Abrahams has been criticised by Monckton and others for this very practise (see link below).

Do you think in the interests of fairness (yes, I know, an outdated, somewhat redundant concept) that Christopher Monckton could be invited to respond to Mr Abraham's article and the criticisms contained therein? After all, a "conversation" requires more than a solitary point of view (unless a name change for the website to The Monologue is in order?) Or do we just continue to run him down and then exclude him?

Okay, he is to be smeared and ignored then. But in the interests of that archaic cultural relic of a bygone era (the fairness, I mean) some folk may be interested in getting both sides of the story. I found a link here to more of John Abrahams' presentations, and a rebuttal by Monckton:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/
Permalink

1

10 months ago

Chris Rogers

Consultant Mining Engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

I watched the Lord Monckton show last week in Sydney after seeing an opposite debate the previous week. I have read the article above and shake my head because it consists of just words. I am all too aware of how people can be manipulated by media in various ways. Whether one believes Monckton's claims or not, if half of what he says is true we should ask questions. For example, how appropriately placed are the temperature monitors around the globe? Are they so badly placed as to read falsely as…

show full comment

I watched the Lord Monckton show last week in Sydney after seeing an opposite debate the previous week. I have read the article above and shake my head because it consists of just words. I am all too aware of how people can be manipulated by media in various ways. Whether one believes Monckton's claims or not, if half of what he says is true we should ask questions. For example, how appropriately placed are the temperature monitors around the globe? Are they so badly placed as to read falsely as Monckton claims (and shows in photographs)? Have a large proportion of the worlds temperature monitors been "decommissioned? of late because they are not "towing the line" as Monckton claims? Are temperature graphs being manipulated to show worse case (that would never happen in the media would it)? The list goes on an on. I honestly do not know what to believe and am cynical enough to be suspicious with both sides of the climate change debate.

I do recall being told at school that we were heading into an ice age. Some of Moncktons charts and figures show this to be the case. Were we all taught wrongly at school or do these teachings simply not fit the agenda these days?

What I would like to see is an actual scientific debate with both sides presenting their evidence live and each side arguing the results. If this took two weeks it would be worth it. All I see is a non productive mud slinging match which benefits nobody except those who would gain from such a match.

I also see politics at present ruining the pro change debates credibility. If one believes the pro climate change faction then society as a whole must undergo a radical culture change driven by legislation and peer pressure - not tax designed to appease the Greens. The trouble is at present most people either could not care less because they are not convinced or their culture prevents action. Others simply cannot afford to do anything as they live from day to day.

Republish

The Conversation

Sections

Founding Partners

Strategic Partners

About us