Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

New presentation debunking Monckton's critique of IPCC predictions

Posted on 3 September 2010 by John Cook

Alden Griffith at Fool Me Once has released a new presentation, this one debunking Christopher Monckton's critique of the IPCC predictions of global warming. It's an in-depth critique where Alden directly compares the IPCC projections to observations and Monckton's graphs. He's also included  detailed notes and graphs beneath the video presentation (yes, I've already asked if I could use his notes as an Advanced Rebuttal so stay tuned for that). In the meantime, check out his fantastic presentation.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 9:

  1. Superb analysis. According to the Climate Scoreboard we are headed toward +4 C by 2100.
    0 0
  2. Alden is putting together some really great presentations here. I hope he keeps more of these coming.
    0 0
  3. Ditto to that.
    Great educational video.
    Keep them coming!

    Since we are on the topic of Monckton I'd like to mention my layperson's critique of SPPI and their braintrust Chris Monckton. I'm reviewing aspects of Monckton's message that are beneath the dignity of serious scientists to pursue. Claims and issues that are nonetheless relevant to the struggle against the "AGW is a Hoax" industry. If you curious please visit:

    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com



    Peter M.
    0 0
  4. factfinder... Can you direct us to where the greenhouse effect was disproved in 1909?
    0 0
  5. factfinder while you're at it, how about a little detail on the following:

    "Physics is based on Experimental data - not "empirical evidence that > Has Been Shown To Be Caused By Dozens Of Other Causes."

    What other causes have shown the physics of GHG's to be false?
    0 0
  6. "fact" finder - your comment about "fairy tales" is somewhat ironic. However, to have any sensible discussion here, perhaps you would outline what you think is a reasonable process for you to distinguish "fact" from "lie"? Then we might be able to help you sort out a few fictions.
    0 0
  7. The refutation of Monckton is, in essence, that the range of IPCC predictions is so broad as to include global warming so slight as to pose no serious problem, all the way to predictions that global warming is a dire problem. So when one wants to validate the IPCC one takes the data as being within the lower bound -- that global warming is not a problem -- validation. However, when one argues that global warming is a serious problem, one takes the midpoint or higher of the predictions.

    The trend for the last century is around the lower bound of the IPCC predictions. Skeptics argue that the relatively low rate of warming that started after the Little Ice Age was the trend likely to continue. That is denounced by crisis advocates as too low, but it is now supported as being within the range of model predictions.

    The refutation of Monckton asserts that nothing much can be said from seven years of data or even fifteen years. Why is that? Crisis advocates say that there is no solar activity going on, no ocean cycles, no paucity of volcanic activity -- that there is nothing to presently account for climate change other than CO2. Skeptics claim, by contrast, that climate is complex, with CO2 being one of many factors, and without all the factors being well modeled. Predictions that just about anything could happen supports the skeptics, not climate crisis.
    0 0
  8. Roy Latham @ 7 - "The trend for the last century is around the lower bound of the IPCC predictions."

    Doesn't make sense. The IPCC hasn't been around for a century.
    0 0
  9. Roy #7, you've just done the same thing Monckton does... rewrite things to a false narrative which you can 'disprove'.

    The "refutation of Monckton" in the linked video and writeup is that he took a formula for "long term" warming for a given rise in CO2 and treated it as IMMEDIATE warming once that level of CO2 was reached. He calculated that an assumed level of CO2 at 2100 would result in the formula's warming result immediately in 2100 (thereby misapplying the formula) and then took a linear slope towards getting to that point over the past ten years (thereby ignoring that warming is predicted to be, and thus far has been, increasing in rate, rather than linear).

    The rest of your analysis is equally inaccurate, and if you are really going to argue that a seven year 'trend' means anything in the face of a hundred year trend in the opposite direction on either side of those seven years then this stops being about any kind of reason.
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us