Recent Comments

Prev  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  Next

Comments 97951 to 98000:

97951. LandyJim at 11:30 AM on 20 January 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       I'm intrigued by the Hurricane story. If the atmosphere is getting warmer then one would expect tropical storms to increase in both frequency and intensity as there would be more energy in the system to power them, therefore one would expect more to become Hurricane force too, so overall average numbers should go up along with their average power. I have decided to do my own research on this, and it hasn't been easy finding reasonably reliable data that goes back a decent amount of time. As it is I have found archive data from ships reports and later monitoring reports of Hurricanes from 1851 to 2010, this later data, from 1995 does indeed see a marked increase in both tropical storms, hurricanes and their relative energy, based on wind speeds, I appreciate that until the more modern era wind speed assumptions for such events have a degree of error in them..afterall people on a ship were a little busy to be doing too much science! I'll be honest, I did not see any real rise or fall in the figures until I got to the 1990's, then both the number of events and the average wind speed has increased. I will plot this information into graphs and publish it for everyone to look at..but it will take a little while..I will also try to get some information, accurate, on how wind speeds were reported, if there has been a change to which tropical storms are recorded, such as a lowering of the minimum speed for recording purposes as this will allow a better understanding of the increase from 1995 on. If there has been no recording change, then the number has most definitely increased, as has the power of the events...and this would certainly imply that there is more energy in the system to power these storm, and that certainly indicates a rise in temperature over this period. I will try to get it online in the next few days..as this intrigues me..
       Moderator Response: Read the original post carefully. Notice that not all researchers agree with you that "one would expect tropical storms to increase in both frequency and intensity as there would be more energy in the system to power them." It's more complicated than that.
97952. Berényi Péter at 11:29 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       "we are not currently at equilibrium as there is a planetary energy imbalance, and thus further warming 'in the pipeline' from the carbon we've already emitted" Except there's no "planetary energy imbalance" there for the last eight years. There's a huge upward shift in OHC data before 2003, however, en masse ARGO float deployment only began in that very year, therefore OHC was not measured properly before 2003. Net TOA (Top of Atmosphere) radiative imbalance is also measured by satellites. Accuracy of that measurement is extremely poor, but its precision is much better. That is, there's an unknown additive constant for the entire measurement period, but otherwise measurement of relative changes is pretty reliable. Now, OHC is proportional to the temporal integral of TOA imbalance. This latter quantity, as all climate indicators, fluctuates, but if its long term average is above zero, the integral should have an upward trend with a steady slope. Unfortunately, as I have said, satellite data tell us nothing about the sign (if any) of the imbalance. But they do tell us there was no downward shift in average imbalance at TOA around 2002-2003. That is, the increase in OHC data at that time is an artifact indeed. If there's no planetary energy imbalance, the pipeline is empty. If it is empty, we already had the bulk of warming that may come from the slight increase in atmospheric opacity in the 14-16 μm CO₂ thermal IR band due to past emissions. If climate response is that fast, equilibrium sensitivity is low. Q.E.D.
97953. Marcus at 11:21 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Here are the key points, as I see them-of the 100ppm rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times, about *half* has been within the last 30 years. Of that 50ppm, around 20ppm has been within the *last decade alone*! So that alone debunks the whole "Linear Growth in CO2" argument. The 2nd point is that, of the roughly +0.7 degrees of warming we've seen in the past 60 years, around +0.5 degrees has been in the last 30 years alone-that, in spite of the fact that the last 30 years has seen an overall downward trend in total solar irradiance (on the order of -0.02W/sq. meter/year). So, even *if* CO2 emissions don't grow at a faster rate, & even *if* solar irradiance levels off or continues to fall, we're still looking at a lot of warming over the next 30 years. Yet everything suggests that-if we continue the BAU approach-CO2 levels will rise much faster over the next 30 years than they did in the previous 30 years!
97954. MarkR at 11:19 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Albatross: you can determine equilibrium climate sensitivity from the feedback parameter Lindzen and Choi calculate (by combining it with the other known feedback parameters, water vapour/lapse rate/albedo). L&C09 suggest the equilibrium value is low. Their method ignores much of the planet and their choice of dates seems to have no objective justification and their results are very sensitive to this: i.e. it's not rigorous. It's almost certainly wrong. Plus they got their calculations wrong and had to boost their answer by 60% or something anyway. (although, if they are right it's still not a problem, but I'm pretty confident they've been shown to be thoroughly wrong)
97955. MarkR at 11:17 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR, you can tell CO2 is increasing FASTER THAN EXPONENTIAL very easily. Plot ln(CO2) vs year. Then take the residuals. If the differential of the residuals is positive, then the acceleration is FASTER THAN EXPONENTIAL, if it is zero then it is exponential, and if it is negative then it is slower than exponential. The residuals show it is faster than exponential. Even if it were only exponential, then radiative forcing would increase linearly. That isn't the same as temperatures increasing linearly unless the Earth reaches equilibrium in each year. Which it doesn't.
       Moderator Response: Please don't use all caps. Use italics or, if necessary, bold.
97956. Ken Lambert at 11:14 AM on 20 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       johnd #28 Excellent chart - is there an electronic copy available?
97957. MrAce at 10:52 AM on 20 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       RW1 (RE: 103), I agree that more CO2 below the cloud has little effect, because all the radiation is absorbed by the cloud anyway. But this is exactly my point. More CO2 means less energy escaping to space, so the surface warms up, radiates more and we will reach an equilibrium with a higher temperature. When the surface warms below the clouds, there will not be any increase in radiation to space, because the clouds absorb it all. To reach equilibrium the surface has to warm even more. This is off course only the case when the clouds do not warm up significantly. What does happen when the clouds tend to warm? Do they evaporate? Rise and cool again?
97958. Neutrino at 09:44 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       I can't seem to follow your math here NETDR, You seem to be saying that going from a linear(y = 1.43127x + 313.26) to a quadratic(y = 0.0122x^2 + 0.8138x + 311.64) only marginally changes the outcome. Yet if I run the numbers on the two i get significantly different results. Today CO2 (from mlo) is 389.78ppm, in 2100(90 years from now) your linear projects it to be 516.50ppm and your quadratic projects 673.20ppm, a 30% difference! Now the radiative forcing(as I understand it) is proportional to the ln of the change in the CO2(ie ∆F = 5.35*ln(C/Co)). If we take today as the baseline and look 90 years into the future there is a significant difference between the two. For your linear: ∆F = 5.35*ln(516.50/389.78) = 1.51 For your quadratic: ∆F = 5.35*ln(673.20/389.78) = 2.92 So If CO2 is raising at your quadratic rather than your linear then we should expect to see almost double the temperature rise over the next 90 years. To say that is a trivial difference just seems plain wrong to me.
97959. archiesteel at 09:23 AM on 20 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @LandyJim: muoncounters didn't make any personal attacks towards you. Please have the courage to defend your opinions without whining when someone challenges them! As the effect of Milankovitch cycles on cliamte are well-understood, you're going to need to provide some evidence to support your extraordinary claims that the varying insolation caused by the various wobbles doesn't in fact significantly affect the climate. In other words, if you're going to challenge current science, you better not all hat and no horse.
97960. Eric (skeptic) at 09:22 AM on 20 January 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       Chris, here's my suggestion FWIW. Preparation for storms is essential regardless of averages and predictions. Alt energy will work well with a smart grid. Arguing about whether "CAGW" is a religion doesn't advance science and most of his examples are red herrings, the science is not capricious or extreme. The article at the top of this thread is a good example of that.
97961. LandyJim at 08:57 AM on 20 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @ Response: Yes I did, your correct. The Milankovic cycle is a real phenomena, however I do not accept the assertions of many that it is a dominant factor is our planet's climate. I do not need to make my mind up as I know exactly what I mean. I actually agree with many climate scientists on this important point, but feel that they have failed to publicly really kill this point, that's why some people keep bringing it up. @Muoncounter. I am not impressed with your personal attack, you are a moderator here and I would have expected better from you. My comments are clear and in obvious English. For your information, my comment about an "arbitrary effect" is one that on it's own has little overall impact... Regarding reading all the threads on here, do you think I have lived in a cocoon for 44 years? Your making an assessment of me based on something that, forgive this comment..rather arbitrary :) I subscribe to several Science Journals, and stay up to date, at least with Astronomy/Space related research, but I have interests in Nuclear and particle physics too. I am slowly working through SkS.I think you will agree it's not a 5 minute job to read all the posts in every thread...and I do have to go to work to! You see your assuming that I am in a state of denial, your making this a religious discussion in effect. I used the words "Not Convinced", that means I have an open mind and am open to being convinced, but having a science background means I require more evidence as I personally feel that the argument is not there, there is compelling evidence, I am not against reducing CO² or any other gas or poison being put into the environment, but the arguments have not proved their case for me personally, but I accept that the arguments posed against it are generally lacking in detail and quality...so I am on the fence. The anti AGW camp actually drive me as mad as the ardent Pro camp does. That is not the same as Denial. However clearly you have an issue with my ability to think for myself...so you might like to know I own and Drive Land Rovers...:) Now please, lets not allow this to get personal, we are all above that and mature adults, if the arguments are weighted correctly, match up with the science, then they will carry the day...whichever side ultimately proves to be correct...
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please stay on the topic of the post. Thanks!
97962. muoncounter at 08:51 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       #48: "I forgot alarmists never plot anything" As you clearly missed it, the graph is in #46. As you clearly don't understand it, those blue deltaT curves are temperatures calculated from forcing functions based on natural log CO2 as a function of time. Since you clearly still don't understand what that means, here's an easy-to-read wiki link. The relevant lines begin with Delta T_S = and Delta F = . The big triangle is 'Delta'. And since you clearly don't see the importance of any of this, those red dots are actual temperature anomalies (shifted to 0 in 1880). Sure looks like the red stuff is coming up between two of the blues, matching the rate of change pretty well. That's what's called a match of observation to model -- and it's a sign that the model is pretty good. Thank you for demonstrating so admirably the total failure of this denialist argument and the total abandonment of reality that is needed to cling to it. But I do agree with you, this discussion is over.
97963. Bibliovermis at 08:09 AM on 20 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       The problem occurs when people join this discussion who truly have nothing to contribute besides strawmen, red herrings, and "nuh uh, I don't believe that" when their claims are addressed. Maintaining a civil discussion is essential for a productive end; however, patience (mine, at least) is a finite resource.
97964. Chris3699 at 08:08 AM on 20 January 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       Recently I was talking to a skeptic I know in the USA (the same one I've mentioned here on other threads)and I was telling him about how the massive floods we're having in Australia are linked to climate change and this was his response: "In another time your Green MP upon seeing an eclipse of the sun would have jumped upon a soap box and proclaimed, “Give me your money now or I shall blot out the sun again!” You can see how far we’ve come, today’s MP upon seeing a flood, says in effect, “give me power or there will be no one to protect you from the evil forces of greedy industrialists!” Ah, progress! You should take heart though, after hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Greens were coming out of the woodwork predicting a new era of increased severe hurricane activity caused by global warming. Not only has there not been another severe hurricane to hit the U.S. but all hurricane activity has dropped off precipitously. Of course the way is now clear for Greens to point out the “fact” that the unnatural drop-off in hurricane activity is an example of rampant global warming! Four years ago, the area of California around L.A. was experiencing a drought. Greens were quick to point out that global warming was turning California into a desert and that California should brace itself for perpetual drought. Yes … currently, the rains in California have been so drastic that mudslides are what threaten humanity, not lack of water. Still Californians, who must be the holy grail for con-men the world over, rushed to pass laws aimed at curbing emission standards, ransacking their homes for anything of value to throw on the pile of wealth in hopes that the wizard will be pleased and the sun will not be blotted out again. And it goes without saying that the Greens have pointed out that the above average rainfall of the last two years in California is an example of the kind of “Global chaos” that we should come to expect from increased Co2 emisions. Mankind is responsible for about .28% of all of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If the entire U.S. stopped producing Co2 gas completely tomorrow the effect could not be measured yet here we have a Green in Aus passionate that Melbourne reduce its Co2 emissions so that floods will be prevented. The fact that people are still threatening to blot out the sun unless they are paid off isn’t what’s surprising, the surprising thing, and the very sad thing, is that people are still lining up to give away their wealth and freedom to the latest Hucksters." What do you guys make of that?
97965. NETDR at 08:07 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       mouncounbter So from 1958 to 2010 [52] years the increase in CO2 has gone from 1 PPM per year to 2 PPM per year. Big deal. In the next 50 years if it goes from 2 PPM per year to 4 PPM per year that is a very small amount. The flattening effect of the LN function is very strong. A straight line increase rolls over to look like a horizontal asymptote as each molecule does less and less warming. The CO2 curve even with the minuscule rate increase is essentially a straight line [linear] function. Plot the values for the 52 year and see it is almost a horizontal asymptote. Plot it and see for yourself. Oh I forgot alarmists never plot anything or think for themselves do they ? Computing the 90 year effect of CO2 using a linear function results in a tiny error. Since the effect is logarithmic the real effect change between 1958 and 2010 was actually [Including the slight increase in rate] Ln(CO2-2010) – Ln (CO2-1958)/Ln(CO2-1958) = 4 % change in 52 years. Big deal ! Admit it this discussion is over and you lost.
       Moderator Response: The original post is about Monckton's claim of linear warming. muoncounter showed you (again) the nonlinear warming caused by nonlinear increases in CO2. You keep saying the extra (more than linear) increases are not a problem, without addressing the actual problem of more than linear increases in warming. The difference of even "just" one more degree of warming on top of the linear warming is quite important in consequences. If you want to argue that is not important, type "It's not bad" in the Search field at the top left of the page.
97966. heystoopid at 07:51 AM on 20 January 2011
       Zvon.org guide to Skeptic Arguments at Skeptical Science
       Thank you very much, for your time and effort. Some has done a lot of research to assemble such a large lines of coherent information in one place, in order to counter the bad incoherent science "WUWT" award winners slim cherry pickings, lousy context and all too numerous bloopers along with paid political science 101 misinformation.
97967. dana1981 at 07:45 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       I'm not going to argue with NETDR anymore, except to point out that his claim that ocean heat content is no longer building is false and was refuted in Monckton Myth #1. He's wrong, as will be obvious to anyone reading this comment thread. But he's clearly not willing or able to realize that he's wrong, so arguing with him further is a waste of time.
97968. Ron Crouch at 07:34 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       At least Monckton is true blue by drawing upon the likes of Lindzen. I think Wally Broecker put it best when it comes to climate sensitivity. 'The Climate System Is an Angry Beast, and We Are Poking at It with Sticks' The one question we all want to know. Just how far can we push the planet before abrupt climate change takes place?
97969. muoncounter at 07:08 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       #41: "As I showed above the rate is just a little faster than linear." Stunning. The annual rate of change at MLO is given here; for the past 5 years its been between 1.7 and 2.3 ppm/year. From 1970-1974 (also 5 years) it averaged 1.1 ppm/year. That means the rate of increase has nearly doubled in less than 40 years. This 'accelerating' or concave up behavior for CO2 as a function of time is critical, as it overwhelms the slightly concave down behavior of the log function. What you calculate when you take log CO2 is the forcing. Increasing forcing results in increasing rates of temperature change, as shown by Dikran Marsupial. Here's what you get with increasing forcing: --- from comment here. Those temperature anomaly curves increase in slope regardless of the sensitivity used (those shown are 0.6, 1.7 and 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2). So your attempt to minimize the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is utterly incorrect; as jhudsy says, the gloomy predictions are indeed fully justified.
97970. Albatross at 07:06 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR @44, So rather than admitting you are wrong, the goal posts get shifted and a number of red herrings get trotted out. Sorry, that is not good enough, and to me suggests that you are not here to debate the science in good faith. Also, it seems that you are trying to squeeze in as much misinformation as you can in one post. Peak oil is not the primary concern, coal is-- we still have mountains of the stuff to mine and burn. "The warming in the pipeline argument is probably not true since the heat which is supposedly building up in the ocean isn't building up at all." Again, you need to back this up with some actual facts (and not some half-baked paper published in a dodgy journal by Knox and Douglass). For now, you have simply made an unsubstantiated assertion. "See the "missing heat" argument which Trenberth seems to be losing." Trenberth has not "lost" the heat. Just because one cannot find something because of incomplete data sampling, doesn't mean that it is not there. Maybe it is time to resurrect "DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) that George Bush Jnr. scrapped. "Even if the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean it isn't going to do much warming until it comes to the surface is it?" Well, actually that may already be happening (see here), and it will most certainly be something for future generations to worry about.
97971. Albatross at 06:48 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
       Sailrick @18, Weird, I thought UAH data was the darling product of the "skeptics". Could it be that they are now turning on UAH because it is no longer showing them what they wish to see? Someone recently corrected me on this, but the UAH data is apparently the only true global product out there. The RSS data are truncated near the poles because of issues issues with reliably retrieving the temperature data from the MSU data, so they choose to avoid those areas. The persons 'defense' is irrelevant, because non of the surface products are truly global. Yet, encouragingly (and unfortunate for the person you are debating), there is remarkable agreement between the reanalysis data ( model output data highly constrained by observations), satellite data and various surface temperature records (e.g., NDCD, NOAA, JMA, NASA). In the UAH data 1998 and 2010 are in a statistical tie for warmest year. That said, rankings, while interesting, do not tell the whole story. What counts is the long-term trend, and on that front there is excellent agreement between the products that the warming the last 30 years or so is the greatest rate of warming since circa 1850.
97972. NETDR at 06:45 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Dana The key word is eventually. The rate of CO2 buildup even including the acceleration is quite small. Some people think we have passed "peak oil" and we will have to convert to alternative fuels in the next 50 years. Their prices will come down and the conversion will be relatively painless. The warming in the pipeline argument is probably not true since the heat which is supposedly building up in the ocean isn't building up at all. See the "missing heat" argument which Trenberth seems to be losing. Even if the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean it isn't going to do much warming until it comes to the surface is it ?
97973. muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 20 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       #224: "models our planet's motion in space over the last 4 billion years ... " A complete and utter red herring strawman. There is more than enough understanding of the current orbital dynamic to fully describe the orbit's control over solar insolation. There is more than enough measurement of insolation to fully describe its input to earth climate. "... to see whether, at any time, the disparate cycles have ever coincided enough to have anything more than an arbitrary effect." What does that even mean? What is an 'arbitrary effect'? "I am not convinced by AGW" Let's try to establish credibility rather than make declarations. Have you read each of the SkS threads relevant to whatever aspects of AGW you disagree with? Have you weighed the arguments of actual scientific research against 'I am not convinced'? What specifically do you disagree with? Can you mount credible cases against the points made in the relevant SkS threads to qualify as scientific arguments? Those who arrive at SkS already in a confirmed state of denial usually wind up with little more to do than pose red herrings and make blanket 'no its not' statements. Nobody said understanding AGW was easy; being a competent skeptic certainly isn't easy either.
97974. sailrick at 06:07 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
       In a discussion at Grist with a skeptic, I referred to this article and Table 1 in particular, saying that 1998 was only the warmest year, in data sets that were not global, or which didn't include 2010. His reply questioned UAH not having global coverage. Is there an error here, or is he wrong. Thanks
97975. Albatross at 05:40 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       KL, All the literature critiqued in my 'random postings' is peer reviewed.Think of me as a particularly hard marker First, do not flatter yourself. Second, a perusal of said threads shows that you and BP are by no stretch of the imagination experts on OHC. Third, publish a paper in a leading peer-reviewed journal on OHC and then you can crow about having had something "peer-reviewed". The fact is both the ARGO and XBT data have issues. But do not presume that the researchers and experts in the field are not aware of this and that they are not working incredibly hard to address the issues. And another error in Monckton's statement is that there were not 3000 active ARGO floats in 2003. As BP has noted, by the end of 2003 there were about 1000 active floats, the "magic" 3000 number was not achieved until sometime in 2007.
97976. Eric (skeptic) at 05:23 AM on 20 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       Camburn, I think a critique of climate models should go here: climate-models-intermediate.htm
       Moderator Response: Absolutely. Thank you for helping wrangle!
97977. Dikran Marsupial at 05:15 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR@41 "As I showed above the rate is just a little faster than linear. In 90 years it is just a few percent and the (Ln) effect is even less. " Which is entirely irrelevant. It is the slope of log(CO2) that is the immediate problem, not the curvature. log(co2) being linear means that the eventual equilibrium temperature of the planet is also rising linearly, at a rate determined by climate sensitivity (hence the three degrees per doubling of CO2). A linear log(CO2) is bad enough, worrying about a slight acceleration over linear is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
97978. Albatross at 05:11 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       KL, Have you volunteered to be the peanut gallery on this thread, or are you actually going to try and contribute something of substance concerning Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (EQS)? EQS is an important issue in climate science, and an issue that Monckton got horribly wrong (and I would argue not by chance either) by electing to believe Lindzen's extremely low estimate of transient climate sensitivity (which is not the same as EQS, it is lower than EQS). Given the importance of EQS, I do not think it is something for you to be glib about.
97979. Albatross at 05:01 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Rob @13, "As such, since the responses to LC09 have been so strong the journal is unlikely to publish LC10." That would be very telling Rob. Also, when Andy Dessler decimated Lindzen last year, Lindzen was whining about having fixed L&C09. IIRC, that debate was held on 11 October 2010-- yet still nothing has appeared in GRL, or will be anytime soon according to their list of papers in press. It would be nice to know what is going here. Did the journal reject his "correction", or is Lindzen still stubbornly trying to convince the reviewers and editor that he has a case?
97980. jhudsy at 04:15 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR @41 The CO2 analysis Tamino and I did doesn't support the supposed rapid increase in the rate of CO2 emission which gloomy predictions are based. Take a look at the graph in the original article. Most "gloomy predictions" are based (in the worst case) on the A1FT emission scenario. It's obvious (again, just by eyeballing that graph) that CO2 emissions are growing even faster than that. Therefore, the "gloomy predictions" are (unfortunately) more than justified. Or am I missing something?
97981. Camburn at 04:06 AM on 20 January 2011
       OK global warming, this time it's personal!
       Ken@31: I agree. There are many holes in the AGW theory. One of the main things that a lot of people tend to forget is that GCM's are not ready for prime time, but are useful as a tool to eventually show more of what we don't know about climate.
97982. dana1981 at 03:57 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       KL #5 and skywatcher #7 - Monckton actually did get one point right in his response to Stekelee - his #8. It's a minor point about how much atmospheric CO2 has increased over the past few years. He also made some correct (and some incorrect) statements in his point #23, but his correct statements were based on a strawman. Since the point of this series is to correct Monckton's Myths, and point #8 is trivial, we'll probably skip that one. When I do point #23, I'll point out Monckton's correct statements. As a few other commenters have noted, the fact that Monckton makes such an incredibly high percentage of mistakes should perhaps make people question relying on him as an accurate source of climate-related information. funglestrumpet #8 - Lindzen has admitted that LC09 contains a number of errors. He has also claimed that addressing these errors doesn't change the results, which frankly is simply untrue. I don't think his correction of the errors has been published yet, as Rob #13 notes.
97983. Phila at 03:57 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak #11: Feedback - response to a doubling of CO2 - but this is still subject to great debate. For those who can't be bothered to click yet another of Arkadiusz Semczyszak's bizarre links, let the record show that his first link goes to a science blogger's account of Jeffrey Kiehl's recent Science paper. The second link goes to Marc Morano's interpretation of an anonymous blogger's interpretation of Lubos Motl's interpretation of Lewis Page's interpretation of Lahouari Bounoua et al (2010). (Page's approach is deconstructed at length here.) "Subject to great debate," indeed.
97984. LandyJim at 03:55 AM on 20 January 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       @ Response...surely you have a name :) I am unsure why you feel I was arguing about Milankovic cycles, and I wonder if you read my post correctly? I am not arguing against Milankovic cycles in the slightest, on the contrary, I am a firm believer that these cycles can and have played a part in the varying climate here on Earth, but I think this is only when they coincide with other effects that are "home grown" on Earth and simply add to it. My comments are self explanatory, the axis of the planet does not shift beyond the natural variance I noted and firmly believe that many get this mixed up with magnetic pole displacement, which is a proven scientific event in Earth history. Many seem to misunderstand the motion of the planet in space, and seem to think these changes have a greater impact on Earth than they do. Combined they may well have a big effect, but as far as I am aware, no-one has created a model of the solar system accurate enough to models our planet's motion in space over the last 4 billion years to see whether, at any time, the disparate cycles have ever coincided enough to have anything more than an arbitrary effect. That is why the last paragraph of my post was worded the way it was. I am not convinced by AGW, but if one is to argue against something, then one must do it with credible arguments that at least are worth research time, and polar shift of the planet is not one of them
       Moderator Response: You just now did argue against the dominant role of Milankovich cycles in triggering ice ages. Make up your mind.
97985. NETDR at 03:45 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Dana The CO2 analysis Tamino and I did doesn't support the supposed rapid increase in the rate of CO2 emission which gloomy predictions are based. As I showed above the rate is just a little faster than linear. In 90 years it is just a few percent and the (Ln) effect is even less.
97986. skywatcher at 03:39 AM on 20 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       WHATDOWEKNOW: Why would you bother with trend analysis when you can understand the physical processes that drive global temperature (namely the forcings of GHGs, ENSO, volcanic and solar)? If I understand the range of these parameters and their trends (or lack of), then I can make a very good assessment of future climate. There will always be an uncertainty driven by the trendless factors (crucially ENSO), but we can have a very clear understanding of the boundaries within which our climate system operates based on these uncertainties, and rates of the known trends (dominantly GHG forcing). No need for blind trend analysis tools, which are only useful if you do not know the key underlying physical processes. For example, I can say that this year will probably be a little bit cooler than last year - I say so because the dominant controller of uncertainty, ENSO, is starting at a strong La Nina, has an inbuilt lag of 6 months or so, and is unlikely to be inducing relative warming or ENSO conditions until at least late in the year. Solar activity is likely to be low-moderate and increasing, and unless we have a large volcanic eruption, there will be no volcanic cooling. The GHG forcing has of course increased a bit from last year. So with that information, global mean temperature is likely to be a little bit lower than 2010 due to La Nina, but with CO2 and solar offsetting the strength of La Nina. The uncertainty in this forecast is actually quite small, and the UK Met Office do a similar forecast every year with considerable success. Projecting with this level of accuracy (~0.1C) more than a year ahead is near-impossible because you have no clue as to what ENSO will do, but your upper and lower boundaries will progressively rise, such that each decade is on average warmer than the last, and we can be confident that by the middle of the century (without mitigation) we will dream of years that are globally as cool as 1998 or 2010... All based on processes, not blind trends, and much more reliable than the stock market!
97987. Phila at 03:38 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       lord_sidcup: You are assuming Monckton’s errors are random. The Monckton Myths series demonstrates that his errors aren’t random at all, but are part of a deliberate effort to deceive. Lambert's comment underscores the point that even if the science were far more uncertain than it is, the average "skeptic" is not someone from whom you'd want to take lessons on logic or statistics. Even if they turned out to be right, it would be much more like a lucky guess than the result of a coherent intellectual approach to the evidence.
97988. dana1981 at 03:30 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Also, about 80% of the warming over the past century is anthropogenic. Again, that doesn't account for the warming yet to come from the CO2 we've already emitted.
97989. dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR, I suggest you actually read the article I wrote. The IPCC models various emissions scenarios, and in the 'business as usual' scenario which I presume you advocate, the planet warms approximately 4°C between 2000 and 2100. You also repeat Monckton's error of ignoring the 'warming in the pipeline'. Basically you're just repeating all the mistakes Monckton made, which makes me think you either didn't read the article, or didn't process anything it said.
97990. Phila at 03:26 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Ken Lambert: For AGW climateers with a statistical bent - could you calculate the odds of Monckton getting it wrong four times in a row, nay - make it five times in a row for I am sure that there will be a fifth Myth from the pen of John Cook tomorrow. I suspect that you or another "skeptic" will sneer reflexively at the next finding that reinforces the consensus on AGW. What are the odds that most of the world's climate scientists have it wrong, and that the data keep supporting them? A lot lower, I'd say, than the odds that false premises like Monckton's would lead him consistently to false conclusions. Which is a long-winded way of saying that your comment is extremely silly.
97991. Rob Honeycutt at 03:23 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Sphaerica @ 10... I can't locate where I read this but I believe the case with Lindzen and Choi's response is that, it's turned into a bit of an embarrassment on the part of the journal (GRL) that published LC09 in the first place. As such, since the responses to LC09 have been so strong the journal is unlikely to publish LC10. Also, likely this is an indicator that Lindzen's response does not adequately address the critiques. Again, I can't locate where I read this so I may have it wrong.
97992. Bob Lacatena at 02:47 AM on 20 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       WHATDOWEKNOW, You entire approach is flawed, because it is based on the premise that climate variables are so numerous, complex and intricate that we can never understand them, as is the case with the thousands and thousands of stocks. But this is not the case in climate science. There are known physical mechanisms that can be studied, understood, and incorporated into the model ("model" meaning the contemporary human understanding of the climate system, not "computer model," which is a specific, complex simulation based on that understanding). It will probably never be possible to predict exactly what the temperature is going to be on any day or even month in any particular location, but the interconnections and reasoning are even now far more developed and mature than they can ever be for stocks. Short term, accurate predictions may never be possible, but long term trends are very predictable. Your difficulty with the various periods of temperature changes are a perfect example. It is not fair, or accurate, to look at past periods (1900-1940, 1940-1980) and say that these have any bearing on the current situation. We know that CO₂, based on physics and chemistry, will induce warming. We know that levels of CO₂ did not start to reach a point to cause noticeable warming until the latter half of the 20^th century. We know that aerosol pollution in the period from 1940-1980 suppressed temperatures when some warming should have occurred. To ignore this knowledge and to look solely at trends (because in stocks there is no such knowledge to consider, at least, not in so cohesive and definitive a fashion) is simply flawed.
97993. NETDR at 02:30 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Moderator Apparently CO2 has very little effect. The huge amount your graph shows has at most caused .7 ° C and even that amount is overstated since the records began during a little Ice age when the sun was dormant. About half of the .7 was caused by solar increase and positive feedbacks. Or do positive feedbacks only work with CO2 warming ?
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] "Apparently CO2 has very little effect. Incorrect; see here. To address the rest of your misconceptions, use the search function in the upper left corner to find many posts addressing those issues.
97994. lord_sidcup at 02:02 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       "could you calculate the odds of Monckton getting it wrong four times in a row" (Chimpanzees, typewriters and Shakespeare come to mind). You are assuming Monckton’s errors are random. The Monckton Myths series demonstrates that his errors aren’t random at all, but are part of a deliberate effort to deceive.
97995. Rovinpiper at 01:58 AM on 20 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Our skeptics have been called out, and rightly so, for making ad hominem attacks against scientists. Something needs to be said about the mean-spirited criticism of other people posting on this forum. It seems to be committed mostly by...what do we call people who agree with AGW theory? In any event comments like, "You have nothing to contribute to the discussion and never have," do nothing to strengthen one's own argument. They just make the writer look like a jerk. Let's elevate the dialogue by arguing the science with copious reference to the published scientific literature and the data. "The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not be victory but progress." (Joseph Joubert)
97996. Rovinpiper at 01:46 AM on 20 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       The prize to FOX News raises and interesting point. How do we determine who is a large enough "side" of a story to warrant media attention? How do we measure this? Something like 3% of climate scientists are AGW skeptics. Among meteorologists only about 64% believe in AGW. What's the metric to determine who gets a megaphone? #88 muoncounter got most of the problems with this posting but, there's a few more. Billhunter made reference to the infamous climategate episode. This site and others have thoroughly debunked the idea that this non-event proved a criminal conspiracy to foist global warming onto an unsuspecting public. Here are some of the pages on this topic from skeptical science: Climategate CRU Emails Suggest Conspiracy CRU tampered with temperature data Peer review process was corrupted Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC? Climategate: Hiding the Decline? There are a lot of other pages for this, just type "climategate" without the quotes into the search field at the top left. Outside websites that pride themselves on their political neutrality and objectivity also found that climategate did not damage the evidence of AGW. So read: Factcheck Climategate Factcheck Climategate conclusions Politifact climategate debunks AGW Is global warming dangerous? That's a very multi-disciplinary question. Projections of changes in climate need to be provided to civil engineers, epidemiologists, and agronomists so they can analyze the effects on flooding, geographic ranges of diseases and crop yields. Then the economists need to say their piece about how that will affect society as a whole. From what I've read it seems like the economists regard AGW as dangerous. @96 mars, Straw actually has no nutritional value, except fiber I guess. So, the strawmen could provide comfy bedding for your herd of elephants, but to feed them you would need haymen.
97997. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 01:41 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Ken Lambert Yes, but until you publish your own findings in the peer-reviewed literature, and those findings are replicated by scientists, I have no way of knowing whether the points you make are valid. Well I could try and become an expert in the field but I don't really have the time. You said the pre-2003 data is probably highly unreliable - where in the scientific literature can I find an analysis that supports this assertion?
97998. Ken Lambert at 01:33 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
       Anne-Marie Blackburn #57 All the literature critiqued in my 'random postings' is peer reviewed. Think of me as a particularly hard marker.
97999. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:27 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       Feedback - response to a doubling of CO2 - but this is still subject to great debate. here is the claim that the IPCC report feedbacks are too little valued ... ... and here that more than twice as overestimated.
98000. Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       8, funglestrumpet, Lindzen would never, ever retract his work -- and there's no reason for him to do so. Although some responsible, respectable scientists might be inclined to do so, he's not required to, and I don't think doing so is in his nature. But people who work in the field know what has been discredited (or reinforced) by subsequent papers, and proceed accordingly. In this case, Lindzen and Choi came out with another paper in May 2010 (although I'm unsure if it was ever published), "correcting" (i.e. sidestepping/obfuscating) some of the flaws. I have not yet seen an official response to that paper yet (maybe because it was never officially published).

Prev  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  Next