But she never asked this expert IPCC reviewer about climate change! It was either a lost opportunity or she didn’t know what to do with it.
Today I emailed Michele Hewitson to learn whether she asked Lord Monckton anything about the climate and how he may have annoyed her. I hope she replies, but she may not, especially if she spots these comments, posted before she had a chance to reply to me. But I must comment — her journalistic behaviour was crude, unprofessional, unattractive, unfair and unworthy of Christopher Monckton. To specialise in painting a “personality” in her subject can be admired. A descent into hollow chatter and rambling, malicious gossip cheapens both subject and reader.
via Michele Hewitson interview: Christopher Monckton – NZ Herald:
There was one question I really wanted to ask Viscount Christopher Monckton, the visiting climate change sceptic, and it wasn’t about climate. It was about … giving those pesky Argies the squits … during the Falklands War…
She refuses to ask intelligent questions about his vast knowledge of climate change, which brings him here, and instead employs a 30-year-old scatalogical yarn to mock him against today’s values. To assert that this spicy question was her most important raises to a virtue either mere vapidity or a taste to scandalise, neither of which empty urges sits well with the formidable tradition of the Herald. And why does she use the inferior phrase “pesky Argies” except to diminish the gravity of the deadly peril the Argentinian cowards had brought upon the British citizens in the Falklands and thereby to diminish Monckton’s own stature?
Which is graceless journalism.
He says that when he began writing about climate change he was “immediately and very savagely attacked … in a manner which seemed to me to be disproportionate and unreasonable and unfair”. He “began talking to others who shared my doubts … and they were being subjected to the same things. So then I tried to see whether we were doing it back. And not really. Not to the same degree.”
Ahem. There was the episode with the youth activists in Copenhagen. He called them members of Hitler Youth. No, he didn’t. I didn’t happen to have the You Tube clip with me, so I amended this: He said they were being like members of Hitler Youth.
Michele strove to avoid the substance of his “writing about climate change,” instead needling him over an altercation during climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009. I revisited one of the videos. Some youthful environmental protesters, the previous evening, invaded a meeting Monckton attended and disrupted it with chanting, shouting and, according to Monckton, “shrieking.” Which were tactics adopted by the Hitler youth in the 1930s to intimidate the population.
Ben Wessell, an environmental activist, said that the science of global climate change had been “settled” for 20 years, which meant that global temperatures had been rising. Christopher asked him whether they had been rising for the last 15 years. Wessell said that the “agreed trend” was that they had been rising. He had said he “believed” temperatures were rising and made it clear that he had not bothered himself to check the facts in the global datasets.
Tempers frayed, as you might expect, as the exchanges became heated, but not noticeably. Only the petty-minded would still be criticising Christopher over this incident. Michele chose simply to bicker over the precise reference to Hitler youth and again ignored the opportunity to examine Christopher’s position on climate change.
At the very beginning I had asked what was the correct way to address him?
He said: “Well, you go down on one knee, put on your white gloves, touch your forelock, bow a little and you say: ‘My lord, would your lordship be so gracious to allow me to address your lordship?’ It’s really very informal. Ha, ha. Call me Christopher. It’s the easiest thing.”
The forelock tugging was a joke, obviously, but I can’t help thinking his lordship would have preferred a little more of that and a lot less of the pesky asking of questions. It’s only fair to say it was all my fault for mistaking an audience for an interview.
I can’t help thinking Michele prefers a little more that a well-spoken Cambridge graduate proves a vain, empty-headed fop and a lot less that he has a serious and well-intentioned message. It’s only fair to say this is my fault for mistaking a Herald writer for a journalist.
To send this woman to interview Christopher Monckton after botching so badly their introduction of him to the New Zealand public was to add abuse to insult.
Not so well done.
Views: 286
He gets ad hom from the lame-stream media wherever he goes. I’m sure the watery mud this ditzy journo is attempting to fling will in no way stick to LM, but rather soil her own reputation. (Love the alliterative title of your piece, RT).
Is this not the same ex Radio New Zealand staffer, Irish-born (nothing against the Irish), “highly intellectual, over-educated, left wing scribbler” (as WSC described such folk), [unverified allegation removed – RT]? 🙂
“who has [unverified allegation removed – RT]”
Links? References? (please)
Sorry, cannot recall precisely, and do not have link. May have been Whale (or Kiwiblog) about a year ago. But the statement is factual, and was never denied.
Cant find the reference, but sure my memory is correct.
It was in relation to a RNZ piece she did on UK/Europe person/event.
If wrong, I withdraw and apologise.
But that would not condone here actions over Monckton
Flipper,
Sorry, but I must remove your implied allegation, as you’ve provided no verification (I was waiting on you to do so following Mike’s query), and without a reference it can’t be relied on. It’s a serious charge against a professional writer. I can’t wait for proof that you’re wrong, you must provide proof that you’re right. Hope you understand.
Cheers.
It could well be that Michele had a whole range of questions lined up to ask about climate change.
But perhaps she wasn’t able to because the interview was cut short by his hissy fit and walkout?
Note: The IPCC doesn’t appoint its 3000 reviewers – they are self-selecting. So while Lord Monckton’s claims of expertise in the IPCC field look great on paper and on his CV, maybe people might be a little less impressed when they find out that he named himself as the expert reviewer?
Hi Patsi, thanks for visiting. You suggest the walkout cut short the questioning, and yes, that’s possible; I’ve asked Michele about her questions so she might elaborate.
You mention a childish-sounding “hissy fit” — so you deprecate the walkout but not its provocation (whatever it was — Michele is oddly silent on that single point). How one-sided of you.
The IPCC themselves describe their reviewers as “expert” and that’s not Monckton’s doing. But you could test it yourself: I suggest you try registering as an expert reviewer and let me know whether they inquire about your credentials. As there are only about 3000 reviewers in a population of 7 billion I would hazard a guess that they probably are keeping out the riff-raff, I mean the unqualified and trouble-makers. What do you think?
Well actually, if you read the article, Michele DID say what it was.
“He says that when he began writing about climate change he was “immediately and very savagely attacked … in a manner which seemed to me to be disproportionate and unreasonable and unfair”. He “began talking to others who shared my doubts … and they were being subjected to the same things. So then I tried to see whether we were doing it back. And not really. Not to the same degree”.”
So then Michele mentioned the Hitler Youth incident in Copenhagen, which she clearly thought might have been viewed by some as “disproportionate, unreasonable and unfair.” Monckton defended it saying some old bloke in the audience had been outraged and felt like he was back in Nazi days.
But Michele went on to question that statement:
“But my point was that he persisted in the Hitler Youth analogy even when one of the activists told him he was Jewish. We went back and forth on this for a bit until he said: “Let me finish. You don’t interrupt or I’ll end the interview.” And did.
Thing is, Monckton goes on and on about academic freedom. It’s one of his mantras. But when a scientist or anyone dares to question him, or an interview isn’t going his way, he threatens them, tries to shut them down – or walks out.
And when a journalist is asking questions, he should answer them. Sounds like she didn’t get much of an opportunity to ask him anything!
if he wants to be taken seriously, perhaps he should keep his temper in check? Or keep his public appearances to Tea Party type affairs where everyone thinks he’s a god.
Yes, well I did read the article. Michele implies he walked out then, immediately those things were said, but she does not plainly say so, and that imprecise description would not have been caused by lack of skill. Your assumptions lead you to infer that he did walk out then, with those things as the reason, but I cannot say. I would prefer to let Michele say, if she wants to, because she hasn’t yet.
Is it not one of yours, too?
You make a rare action sound like a habit. You’re being ridiculous. You haven’t even heard one of his presentations, have you? If you had, you would have heard him dealing with awkward questions, not walking out.
“he named himself as the expert reviewer”
Mind you he’s also named himself as a member of the House of Lords, and suggested he could be in running for the new pope as he had all the credentials.
And look at his pretentious letterhead!
Oh, almost forgot – he claims he also has won a Noble Prize!
Nobel Peace Laureate or Nobel Peace Prize? They are not one-and-the-same, the latter was the “joke”:-
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html
The former is this:-
“His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA”
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010022422270/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/lord-monckton-politely-responds-to-a-qglobal-warmingq-fanatic.html
BTW Ken, have you actually seen Monckton’s comments on AR5? There’s 104 of them and a link and selection of some of them here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-play-fair/#comment-186444
Do you have anything of substance to say about them Ken?
*note to self* go over to the AR5, list myself as an expert reviewer, make a whole range of comments then tell the world I’m part of the IPCC.
I’m more interested, to be honest, in where he thinks the UN-run concentration camps are going to be set up under Agenda 21. Not sure it’ll be Hamilton though – the first step they’ve taken under Agenda 21 are to set up worm farms near the car park http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8084651/Sustaining-belief Maybe the worms view these setups as concentration camps? I guess I might if I were a worm.
>” *note to self* go over to the AR5, list myself as an expert reviewer, make a whole range of comments then tell the world I’m part of the IPCC.”
Good idea. Then we can scrutinize your comments because they will all be in the public domain and your level of expertise will be on show for everyone to assess (as we can Monkton’s at this stage due to his participation).
But until you do that, or even address Monkton’s comments (and you seem reluctant on the latter), you’ve got nothing to back yourself have you? In that case your character assassination really has no bearing on questions of climate science or the upcoming AR5.
Thanks for the link, Patsi, that’s an interesting story. Have you read through Agenda 21 yourself?
Re UN power grabs, Agenda 21 and dissatisfaction about democracy among climate experts see this thread:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-find-monckton-no-easy-target/#comment-186234
Waikato Times:-
“To be fair, the Republicans just call it a threat to sovereignty,”
I would add – and democracy, as evidenced by dissatisfaction about democracy among climate experts.
I wonder Patsi, who are your elite climate-expert nominees to “arbitrate” globally as our unelected “representatives”?
The most laughable thing about Agenda 21 is its anodyne nature. It was cooked up at Rio to try to make it look like they were doing something. it’s been going for 20 years.
*looks round for UN-run concentration camps* – ah, is that one? No! It’s a worm farm!
Patsi,
You’re making funny remarks, but have you actually read Agenda 21?
Since Monckton is an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, he can probably claim to be a Nobel Prize winner, just like Micheal Mann has done for similar reasons.
Presumably the Pope thing was a joke, although making long winded speeches in Latin is quite a good foot in the door. However, a Latin American pope might have got in on a misunderstanding of his native tongue.
He is a Lord, but not entitled to sit in the house. He does seem rather keen on this. Matt Ridley is also an hereditary peer but didn’t call himself Lord until he was elected to sit.
>”So while Lord Monckton’s claims of expertise in the IPCC field look great on paper and on his CV, maybe people might be a little less impressed when they find out that he named himself as the expert reviewer?”
Have you actually seen Monckton’s comments on AR5 Patsi? There’s 104 of them and a link and selection of some of them here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-play-fair/#comment-186444
That is, his claims are not without substance and rather than less impressed by claims of expertise, people are likely to be more impressed by the actual expertise don’t you think Patsi?
Do you have anything of substance to say about Monckton’s AR5 comments Patsi? I mean at a comparable level of expertise exhibited in your responses to his commnts as opposed to your sideline criticism and denigration so far.
I read Michele’s piece and was not surprised by the ad hom, but I was surprised by the utter deflection and misdirection and that the NZH would publish such woeful meanderings. Journalism, not.
But it continues here! Let’s ad hom bomb him rather than pay any attention to what he says. Goodness, let’s do anything we can to avoid and deflect anyone hearing him….you must be very threatened by his message?
The same theme came out of the interview on on radio where a Greens MP spent the majority oh his time lambasting the interviewer for having the temerity to actually have Lord Monckton on the show.
There must be something important here? I advise everyone to go along and hear what you are being strenuously deflected from hearing!
That’s right. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, so thanks for the resistance!
RT…
Yep.
Will come back in due course.
The article under discussion was so flippant to the point of utter irrelevance that it was impossible to discern the intentions of the ‘journalist’, who seemed to flounder to the point of drowning in froth of her own making.
I suppose if one had an agenda that was determined to denigrate Lord Monckton, it could have been read as humour but, to me at least, the whole thing seemed utterly vapid, pointless and a general waste of space.
Some people find this kind of stuff funny. Probably the same kind of people that find the Flat Earth Society heckling at his talks funny
Ironic given climate science considers a flat earth energy budget model to be realistic.
Very funny. Monckton and his show are just begging to be made fun of.
>”….to me at least, the whole thing seemed utterly vapid, pointless and a general waste of space.”
And to me Alexander.
As I mentioned on the other thread, this is Hewistons style of writing. I can’t help feeling Monckton needs a PR person to help him deal with the media.
No, Andy – don’t say that. The Potty Peer is his own PR person. I think he is doing a fantastic job.
Really good for a laugh! Without that he would be nothing.
Good strategy Ken. Stick to your strong suits – slime, trivia, irrelevancy, denigration etc.
Whatever you do don’t turn your attention to Monckton’s AR5 scientific comments, they’re way out of your depth and which BTW tend to be of a luke-warm nature in case you haven’t noticed i.e. he’s less a sceptic and denier than you think and he actually works within (actually participates in) the IPCC paradigms of review and RF and CS methodology, neither of which you have a clue about do you Ken?
Or perhaps you could go through all 104 comments and point out why he is wrong in each one? That would make an interesting post but I doubt we’ll ever see it.
Ken, please define ‘climate denier’, a term that betrays both your willingness to shout infantile nonsense that has very nasty connotations and your profound ignorance of ‘climate’.
I would suggest that the membership of the NZ Federated Farmers, who are sponsoring Monckton’s speaking tour, are quite intimately acquainted with the climate and would find the notion of denying it’s existence very strange indeed.
Federated Farmers sponsoring? I don’t think so.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1304/S00051/lord-monckton-tour-of-new-zealand.htm
“Federated Farmers of New Zealand has not invited Lord Monckton to tour. Nor is Federated Farmers of New Zealand sponsoring or organising his tour either directly or indirectly.”
Tut, Tut, Patsi – are you saying our Potty Peer has been telling porkies??
Never!!
No, that’s unfair. Christopher didn’t organise the tour, the locals did. He heard two descriptions at different times and they sound pretty much alike: Federated Farmers and “farmers.” If you don’t know the country too well, you don’t know the important difference between them. He made a genuine mistake and was happy to have been corrected.
I wonder how many other genuine mistakes Christopher made and whether he will continue to be happy about being corrected.
Simon, there are those who wonder the same about you. So don’t be slimy.
Ken and the other 2 people at his blog must be getting lonely, they’ve had to come out and visit others. Wait for the attempt to lure people back to his blog, it’ll be coming anytime now.
Touch not the Monckton. He’s perfect exactly the way he is. Don’t change a thing. I hope he continues to publically represent climate deniers for a very, very long time in as many places as possible.
Cedric:
While you’re trying to be ironic, I think he does a good job. I took two friends to see him when he was here in Auckland and they both enjoyed his talk very much.
The main point to remember is that nobody on the other side of the fence dares to debate him. You’d think that if the science was settled, a debate would be easy and devastating, yet they all run for cover when he appears. And whenever the alarmists discuss him, it’s only his eccentricities they want to talk about, not what he says. Thoughtful folk notice this.
The main point to remember is that nobody on the other side of the fence dares to debate him. You’d think that if the science was settled, a debate would be easy and devastating, yet they all run for cover when he appears.
“Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
I have followed his advice ever since, and I was reminded of it again in 2001 when I was invited by a third party to take part in a debate with, among several other evolutionists and creationists, the lawyer Phillip Johnson, high priest of the ‘Intelligent Design’ sect of creationists. I refused, as usual.”
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists
It’s a convenient excuse, but in reality the reluctance to debate is rooted in fear.
It’s a convenient excuse, but in reality the reluctance to debate is rooted in fear.
That does indeed seem to be the general reaction from creationists. I have no doubt that climate deniers would say the same thing. Or HIV deniers or anti-vaxxers etc.
Besides, some people just don’t want to debate.
“….publically [sic] represent climate deniers”
Except Monckton’s not a climate denier and he only represents the luke-warm position. I don’t “deny” climate or climate change either because I subscribe to natural cycle explanations without recourse to CO2 forcing so he certainly doesn’t “represent” me because he does subscribe to the IPCC’s CO2 forcing methodology.
As for Ken above:-
“i.e. he’s less a sceptic and denier than you think and he actually works within (actually participates in) the IPCC paradigms of review and RF and CS methodology,”
How do you reconcile that with him being (as you imply) a “climate denier” Cedric?
And do you completely understand and can expand on IPCC RF and CS methodology? If not, how can you even begin to criticize e.g. his AR5 comment submissions for example?
Isn’t it just that you really don’t know anything past your superficial and distorted character-based assessment of the man but haven’t a clue (as Ken) what Monckton’s AR5 comments actually are because you’ve never read them or even understand his relative position in the climate change debate spectrum? That would explain your propensity for inane trivia.
And do you completely understand (…) If not, how can you even begin to criticize…
I can’t and I don’t pretend to.
Nor do I know much about cancer.
However, there are scientific communties that do. I always refer to them because they do the work and have done so for decades.
NASA springs to mind.
How do you reconcile that with him being (as you imply) a “climate denier” Cedric?
Well, he does stuff like this which is at odds with the scientific community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nTUghG2Zwsk
>”….there are scientific communties that do. I always refer to them because they do the work”
The inference being that climate science (still in its infancy) is the only scientific sector you defer to in regard to say AO thermodynamic processes or radiation physics? No-one else knows anything about those?
It turns out Cedric that there are others on the planet that have done a lot of work on the heat transfer characteristics of CO2 (combustion engineering, HVAC) and the interaction of radiation with water (medical laser physics) and everything documented in the literature. Climate science does not defer to that work – why not if as you say “they do the work”?
BTW in both cases climate science in going their own merry way are making idiots of themselves as evidenced by the standstill in GAT and now the stabilizing of OHC. They’re “puzzled by the former and no doubt will be the same for the latter as time goes on.
Make that – “(combustion engineering, [refrigeration])?
The inference being that climate science (still in its infancy) is the only scientific sector you defer…
Oh no. That’s not the correct inference.
I’m happy to go to NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet for my climate change information.
I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.
I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.”
Great, So why doesn’t climate science act similarly?
Examples of their non-deferral:-
EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION
N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
1996
http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf
Which verifies the Leckner CO2 pathlength curve below (273K typical of lower mid tropospere but not the IPCC’s CO2 forcing simplification on the same graph:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
Or the results of commercial medical laser physics study of water penetration by radiation in the GHG relevant spectrum e.g. Hale and Querry 1973:-
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
That is, LWIR is not an effective water heating agent because it only penetrates 10 microns, corroborated by other papers in this compendium:-
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html
And I note that the IPCC’s detection and attribution is specifically GHG-centric i.e. any earth science or astrophysics that is not is ignored.
I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.”
Great, So why doesn’t climate science act similarly?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your non-deferral thing.
What branch of the Earth sciences are you claiming is not included with climate science?
Oceanography? Dendrochononlogy? Glaciology? etc. Which one?
RT and Mike J….
Oops, I was wrong.
It was Noelle McCarthy, not Hewitson. Withdraw and unreservedly apologise re plagiarism, but not in respect of the garbage approach by Hewitson and her defenders.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/738710/Radio-NZ-pulls-plug-on-Noelle-McCarthy
Very good. Thanks, Flipper.
Cheers Flipper
Its really good of Ken and Cedric to pop in. Their comments are a timely reminder of the difference between this blog and Hot Topic/Open Parachute/SKS. Here, their views get published but on the others, they get supressed, censored, deleted or abuse heaped upon them.
Personally I find Gareth and Kens blogs quite amusing. Especially as their beliefs just keep getting shot down and proved wrong but they just.dont.see.it. I mean really,how are Lewandowsky and Marcott these days? As for poor old Grant Foster, living alone with his cat, blogging away. Getting so desperate he’s copying McIntyres work! Its very sad.
What about “Rent Boy” Rob Taylor? Projection much? He needs help that one.
You guys can make fun of Monckton. Heck, hes certainly eccentric . But as every day goes by, and all your “theories” and “Papers” get discredited and nature keeps proving you wrong, the smiles on our faces get bigger and bigger.The anger and frustration is obviously boiling over and getting more evident every day on HT and OP. I’m sorry, but I think its funny. In a laughing at you sort of way.
http://www.myinstants.com/instant/the-simpsons-nelsons-ha-ha/
NASA’s views get published. Do you find NASA quite amusing? Do think NASA has “beliefs” that just keep getting shot down and proved wrong? NASA seems to be doing fairly well these days? NASA doesn’t have all that much to do with cats but they do have a blog (well, a website). NASA doesn’t copy McIntyres work!
Have all the “theories” and “Papers” have been discredited?
There’s an awful lot of them.
NASA studies nature and I’m not aware of NASA being in a state of “anger and frustration”.
NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
>”NASA studies nature”
Yes we know. Like for example that CO2 is a very efficient coolant in the thermosphere:-
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Strange how that energy wasn’t “trapped” isn’t it Cedric?
A superb piece of misdirection Richard.
Surely you are aware that CO2 absorbs only a finite amount of IR and then only at certain wavelengths? What do you think happens to the excess radiation? What would happen if it was absorbed? Discuss.
Not misdirection Simon but exactly the right direction
>”What do you think happens to the excess radiation?”
Exactly Simon, CO2 is an efficient coolant because it transfers energy very effectively. That doesn’t change from thermosphere to troposphere.
>”What would happen if it was absorbed?”
Once thermalized to heat capacity there’s no more absorption. From then on it’s a heat and radiation (energy) transfer medium i.e. a refrigerant, used as such, and that use is growing.
Also once thermalized, unless there’s re-absorption the molecule emits thereby losing energy – not “trapping” it obviously. Water vapour on the other hand has a greater heat capacity by far so it acts as a heat sink but also as an energy transfer medium, surface up through atmosphere. WV therefore is what modulates temperature. Extremes of hot and cold in arid locations, less extreme in humid locations. CO2 is incapable by its thermal characteristics of an effect anywhere near WV.
Yes we know. Like for example that CO2…
No, I’m sorry. I get my science information from NASA. Or alternatively, other major league scientific communities. I’d rather not have you interpret NASA. You might simply be wrong.
I’d rather have NASA interpret NASA data. That seems to be the easiest and most sensible way to go.
If the thermosphere whatnot is doing the energy thingy which radiates “X” amount of frizbees or whatever then great but…if that is vital to understanding about climate change then I’d expect it to show up in the usual place and…it doesn’t seem to.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Cedric, I suspect that had you been born in the 16th century, you would have been one of those persecuting Galileo. After all, the authority of the day had clearly declared him wrong, and who are you to question authority?
The fact is that NASA has been wrong recently in many things. Their predictions of the current solar cycle comes to mind. As does the dismal performance of their climate models in predicting anything at all, and specifically the lack of warming over the past 17 years.
For enlightenment, I suggest you read this page (specifically the bit on Clouds) from the Authority itself, and then have a think about how definitive you are prepared to be about AGW. Is there not just a little room in your mind for healthy scientific scepticism? Or do you always just blindly follow, never daring to think for yourself?
The flaw in your analogy is that Galileo was practicing science, which is actually what NASA does.
Cedric, I suspect that had you been born in the 16th century, you would have been one of those persecuting Galileo.
Oh, I’m sure I don’t persecute anyone by checking out the NASA website on climate change.
Besides, that’s the Galileo Gambit.
After all, the authority of the day had clearly declared him wrong…
The authority is not important to me. It’s the work that’s important. NASA does the work. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
The fact is that NASA has been wrong recently in many things.
Sure but that doesn’t mean that they faked the moon landings.
You can be wrong on stuff and be completely right on other stuff.
NASA is usually the first one to point out when they themselves get something wrong. Science is self-correcting. Peer review and lots and lots and lots of it. NASA is great that way.
All those satellites and supercomputers and decades of cutting edge research.
Plus there’s all the other scientific communities on the planet to pick from too. They are all good and they are all on the same page with regards to the issue of climate change and evolution and the age of the Earth and the efficacy of vaccines and the ozone layer etc.
For enlightenment, I suggest you read this page…
I’m not how to make myself any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. I’m mentioned this more than once. So, um, yes I’ve read that page. It’s just that I didn’t cherry pick that single page and leave it at that. I was much more thorough and fair-minded than that. I read all the rest of it too to get the full context. I started from here and read it all.
All of it. Not just one lonely page.
Is there not just a little room in your mind for healthy scientific scepticism?
Oh yes but it has to be genuinely healthy. Skepticism is a process; not a position. Firmly grounded in work and the process of peer review covering decades with input from every scientific community on the planet. Plus NASA. You have to have a really good reason to turn your back on all that.
Or do you always just blindly follow, never daring to think for yourself?
I don’t think that checking out the NASA website qualifies as “blindly following”. I do think for myself but I have to allow for the possiblity of being wrong. Dunning-Kruger Effect and all that..
That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”
(HIV Denial in the Internet Era)
Cedric:
I’m glad to hear that you consider carefully all NASA scientists, because you should have a read of these two:
Roy Spencer (Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. – Wikipedia)
John Christy (1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer) – Wikipedia)
Both of these gentlemen do not accept the hypothesis (for that’s all it is) of Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming.
They certainly have a point, since there has been no global warming for the past 17 years, despite rising CO2 levels, something admitted by the head of the IPCC himself. We are seeing scientists scurrying around now, some admitting that climate sensitivities are lower than they thought, others trying to find “missing heat” in the deep oceans.
Science is indeed self-correcting, but it often takes many years for the scientists to admit they were wrong, especially those who have built careers on this sort of hypothesis.
I’m glad to hear that you consider carefully all NASA scientists, because you should have a read of these two…
I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists.
It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
Somebody may have worked in some capacity years ago for NASA and then has since retired but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need retired scientists. I can focus on the active ones and their communities.
They certainly have a point…
Well, I’m sure those two may think they have a point or something and that’s great but then there’s NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. Anybody may have a point to make but they have to enter the scientific area in the usual manner and do the work and defend it in front of their peers and then collect their Nobel Prize.
Only the work counts.
Science is indeed self-correcting, but it often takes many years for the scientists to admit they were wrong…
That’s very true. Yet that applies to all scientists, even Spencer and Christy. No system is perfect but it’s a good idea to insist that any points or notions or objections or theories or whatever have been run past your peers and check and verified. Only the work counts.
Cedric, could you quote from NASA what it is exactly that you actually subscribe to in terms of AGW/climate change rather that just wave us off to their website where I see this:-
Evidence
Climate change: How do we know?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
First up is this:-
“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”
But that’s not the case in the atmosphere this century is it?
Followed by,
“Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere”
The major effect being as a very efficient energy transfer medium once thermalized (especially thermosphere – see NASA, Langley article)
Then it gets even more problematic:-
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise [no acceleration, nothing “rapid”, everything normal and consistent with higher solar input (1930 inflexion coincides with 1930 TSI rise but not 1950 CO2 rise]
Global temperature rise [now at standstill, certainly not “rapid”]
Warming oceans [now stabilizing, upper Pacific and Atlantic cooling in the ARGO era but not “rapid”]
NASA’s out-of-date on climate Cedric. Not really the best source of climate information after all.
Cedric:
Quite correct. The difference between someone like yourself and a scientist is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data. It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up. If it fails to predict, it fails. No amount of teeth-gnashing will change it.
The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed (using NASA’s own 15-year rule) to predict the global temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing. The theory is therefore invalid.
Now they can go back and re-do their model predictions using lower sensitivities, but since James Hansen was responsible for most of the GISS ones and he’s just resigned, I’m not sure who will do it. Whatever though, they must be re-done sometime soon, because as of right now they’re just plain wrong, and the world can make no sensible policy decisions using invalid models.
Cedric, could you quote from NASA what it is exactly that you actually subscribe to in terms of AGW/climate change rather that just wave us off to their website…
Well, not really. I’m not a NASA scientist.
It all looks pretty good to me. Now, they could be wrong on something or other but I’d expect that to be revealed in the usual way.
…where I see this…
I’m sure you do. But your view may be wrong. I have no reason to just blindly trust you. To me, you are just some guy on the Internet. You have your questions for NASA and you seem to think things are problematic for some reason or other and that’s great but I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
You may just be hunting for anomalies. As a skeptic, I have to take that into consideration.
“They imagine that if they can find (broadly defined) anomalies in that data that would point to another phenomenon at work. They then commit a pair of logical fallacies. First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
What pseudoscientists often fail to recognize is that if you take any complex natural phenomenon, historical event, object or process and you look for apparent anomalies (broadly defined), you will find them. Humans are great at pattern recognition, and so if you look for coincidence in the data you will detect them. You will also find features that resulted from a complex interplay if unique events and therefore will be impossible to prove a specific explanation.
The JFK conspiracy theorists are masters of anomaly hunting. The events of that day were confused and panicked, on all sides. It would be amazing if you couldn’t find many unusual features.
But the absolute king of anomaly hunting must be Richard Hoagland. He can turn anything into a conspiracy – and not just any conspiracy, but his specific bizarre belief system in alien civilizations, NASA cover ups, and tetrahedrons.
I was recently pointed to this essay by Hoagland on the Saturnian moon Iapetus. Iapetus is genuinely a cool world, with very unusual geology. We are still in the process of exploring this moon, generating hypotheses as to what processes could have created its unique features, and then testing those hypotheses.
(…)
Pseudoscientists, like Hoagland, abuse the concept of anomalies in many ways. They look for apparent anomalies, then prematurely conclude they are true anomalies, and use them to confirm a conclusion they already had in mind.
They fail to recognize that finding apparent anomalies or coincidences is not predictive that a new phenomenon is actually at work. Life is full of apparent anomalies and coincidence, and we evolved the pattern-recognition software to find them and be compelled by them. That is the ultimate cognitive pitfall of anomaly hunting, and why we need science and skepticism to ward against such pitfalls.”
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/
The difference between someone like yourself and a scientist is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data.
Oh I agree. I am not a scientist. That’s why I’m very careful about where I get my science information from. I might read something scientific and think I understand and disagree with it but I might be completely wrong.
It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up.
Consensus does not “back anything up” Consensus is a result. It doesn’t happen by magic. The scientific consensus on evolution HIV (for example) happened the boring, old-fashioned way.
The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed…
If this is true then I’d expect NASA to say so. It would be something impossible to hide anyway.
There are any number of scientific communities out there who would cheerfully grab the lead in climate science research and point out how NASA is not doing a good job.
… because as of right now they’re just plain wrong, and the world can make no sensible policy decisions using invalid models.
Perhaps you are right but you can’t expect me to just blindly believe you. You may be wrong.
>”Now, they could be wrong on something or other but I’d expect that to be revealed in the usual way.
…where I see this…
I’m sure you do.”
Yes I do. The evidence they are wrong is in every climate metric now and even the MSM are picking up on it. The “usual way”, as Bob points out (quoting him):-
“…..is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data. It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up. If it fails to predict, it fails. No amount of teeth-gnashing will change it.
The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed (using NASA’s own 15-year rule) to predict the global temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing. The theory is therefore invalid.”
GCMs vs reality (only 2 or 3 actually mimic 21st century temperature):-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/clip_image0042.jpg
http://www.mutantblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dailymail.jpg
That’s a fail for most of them Cedric, The best (blue line top link) being the RAS INM-CM4 (an institution that BTW, does not consider CO2 to be a major climate driver).
Cedric:
But they have said it. It is impossible to hide.
Source
We’ve now had 17 years of no warming (head of IPCC said so). Therefore the models are invalidated.
Yes I do. The evidence they are wrong is in every climate metric now…
I’m sure you feel that way but you could be wrong. I can’t just take your word for it.
… and the even the MSM are picking up on it.
I never get my science information from the MSM. They make too many mistakes. I’m a skeptic so I only every use the best scientific sources. They have to do the work. Cancer information? I’d go to the NIH. Information on volcanos? Well, the USGS would be a good place to go. Climate Science? NASA.
http://wattsupwithth….
I don’t get my science information from a blog, no matter how popular. Only the work counts.
All of it.
From all the Earth Sciences and all the scientific communities on the planet.
But they have said it. It is impossible to hide.
Then perhaps you have it wrong. There’s still the NASA website on climate change and it’s updated daily. If something happened back in 2008, I’d expect it to be factored in already.
We’ve now had 17 years of no warming (head of IPCC said so). Therefore the models are invalidated.
Are you sure that’s what NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is saying. I look at their websites and I don’t see it. Is it possible that there’s something else going on?
>”I look at their websites and I don’t see it”
You’re looking in the wrong place Cedric. Look in the scientific literature that Bob cited. Peer-reviewed too for your edification.
This is one of the big issues for AR5 to address (no hiding from It). Monckton gave the example in #1 of 104 comments in his submission and that’s entirely appropriate:-
Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0
To restore some link between IPCC reports and observed reality, the
report must address – but does not at present address – the now pressing
question why the key prediction of warming in earlier IPCC
reports have proven to be significant exaggerations.
Reason: The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged by its premature adoption
and subsequent hasty abandonment of the now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph as
its logo; by its rewriting its Second Assessment Report after submission of the
scientists’ final draft, to state the opposite of their finding that no discernible human
influence on climate is detectable; by its declaration that all Himalayan ice would be
gone in 25 years; and by its use of a dishonest statistical technique in 2007 falsely to
suggest that the rate of global warming is accelerating. But the central damage to its
credibility arises from the absence of anything like the warming it had predicted.
Example: In 1990 the IPCC’s central estimate was that warming would occur at 0.3
K/decade and that by now some 0.6 K warming would have occurred. Since then
observations show warming has occurred at 0.14 K/decade and 0.3 K warming has
occurred. There has been no global warming for 16 years.
>>>>>> #2 – #104
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ar5-expertreview-cm12.pdf
>”I don’t get my science information from a blog, no matter how popular. Only the work counts.”
Great because that diagram, although hosted by a blog, was actually uplifted from a submission to the US House Energy and Power Subcommittee, 20 September 2012:-
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/EP/20120920/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf
The earlier but incomplete graph is here:-
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622
That was uplifted from a submission to the Senate Committee Environment & Public Works 1 August 2012:-
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-testimony-2012.pdf
That’s the work that the US government gets its information from Cedric – like it or not. Whether the Obama administration accepts it or not is another question entirely.
You’re looking in the wrong place Cedric. Look in the scientific literature that Bob cited. Peer-reviewed too for your edification.
That’s great. But I’m not a scientist. I don’t read that much peer-reviewed scientific literature.
It would be a pity if I made a mistake just because some anonymous person waved something technical in my face and tried to emotionally manipulate me into pretending that I understood it and accepted it.
Even worse if I thought I really did understand it and then leapt to a false conclusion and became wedded to it.
Far better to be wary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and get as much independent verification as humanly possible.
However, NASA does understand peer-review and is heavily involved in the scientific literature.
If there’s something really important that changes everything on climate change then I would expect it to pop up in the usual manner and be right there on the NASA climate change website. No need for me to go hunting for it. If NASA didn’t keep their climate change webpage up-to-date and miss something super important then I’d expect some other scientific community to mention it on their webpage for the benefit of those who are not scientists.
Reason: The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged…
I’m sure you feel that is the case. However, NASA does not agree with you.
Great because that diagram…
What diagram? Did I link to a diagram?
That’s the work that the US government gets its information from Cedric…
What about NASA or the NAAS or the AAAS? Seems a bit strange for the US government to support those scientific communities to get information from and then not use them at all when it’s important.
>”NASA does not agree with you.”
Actually it does:-
‘Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Event.’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nasa-we-may-be-on-the-verge-of-a-mini-maunder-event-is-a-planetary-cooling-spell-straight-ahead/5318725
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/
‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’
Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
[…]
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center [NASA] described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
[…]
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
[…]
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.
# # #
Basically there understanding of solar change and its effects is still in its infancy. Given solar output is plummeting right now, NASA will have ample opportunity to study the effects real-time.
They could research a little history to speed things up, those who lived through the Maunder Minimum (or Dalton) knew the effects first hand and it’s all been documented.
>”NASA does not agree with you.”
Actually it does…
No, you are not getting this.
I don’t get my science information from anonymous individuals on the internet.
I’m sure you believe that but , of course, you will understand me when I say that you are just some guy on the internet. There’s no good reason for me to trust you blindly. You may be wrong. It could well be a case of the blind leading the blind and I have no interest in going down that garden path. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
NASA seems to be fine with the IPCC.
>”I don’t get my science information from anonymous individuals on the internet.”
The citations were your preferred information source Cedric – NASA, not me:-
SABER
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/
Wilson, Robert M. (nd) “Volcanism, Cold Temperature, and Paucity of Sunspot Observing Days (1818-1858): A Connection?”, The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, accessed February 2009.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998nasa.reptY….W
Authors:
Wilson, Robert M.
Affiliation:
AA(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center)
Publication:
Technical Report, NASA/TP-1998-208592; M-889; NAS 1.60:208592
# # #
That’s starting to become a lengthy NASA compendium Cedric, are you denying NASA science too now?
The citations were your preferred information source Cedric – NASA, not me.
Which is great but if whatever article you find from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now. Otherwise, they risk being embarassed by some other scientific community.
That’s starting to become a lengthy NASA compendium Cedric, are you denying NASA science too now?
Oh no. I check out their website all the time. NASA is a great place for climate science information.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
>”…probably already factored in by now”
Not even close Cedric and they explicitly state otherwise. If you’d read the NASA report you would have seen that.
“Which is great but if whatever article you find from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now. Otherwise, they risk being embarassed by some other scientific community..
Not even close Cedric and they explicitly state otherwise. If you’d read the NASA report you would have seen that.
Then you have no problem giving the quote where they explicitly state that the article is relevent to the climate change website yet they have not factored it in yet. I’d like to read their reason why. Can you actually find it?
>”Then you have no problem giving the quote”
Quotes:-
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps……….
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
They’re just getting started Cedric so obviously what has not been researched yet cannot be “factored in”.
Cedric: “Which is great but if whatever article you find from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now. Otherwise, they risk being embarassed by some other scientific community.”
Richard: “Not even close Cedric and they explicitly state otherwise. If you’d read the NASA report you would have seen that.”
Cedric: Then you have no problem giving the quote where they explicitly state that the article is relevent to the climate change website yet they have not factored it in yet. I’d like to read their reason why. Can you actually find it?
Richard: “(..gives quotes on (..)unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle (…)The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”(..) the researchers identified a number of possible next steps (..) Some attendees stressed the need to(…) Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated(…) Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF(..)“lots of interesting possibilities(..) Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.”
(…awkward silence..)
Richard, that’s , um, great but I was hoping for something, y’know, explicit.
As in an explicit quote.
That’s why I said “Then you have no problem giving the quote where they explicitly state that the article is relevent to the climate change website yet they have not factored it in yet. I’d like to read their reason why.”
Why the bait and switch?
They’re just getting started Cedric so obviously what has not been researched yet cannot be “factored in”.
Oops, sorry! Missed the last bit.
Thought you were trying to pull a fast one.
Well, if and when they get around to it then I look forward to them factoring it in if they think it’s relevent.
Take your pedantics elsewhere Cedric, it’s perfectly clear from that NASA article that solar study has a long way to go before the as-yet unstudied can be factored in. That is what the National Research Council (NRC) report “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate” and the NASA article reporting it was all about:-
“Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.”
>”Oops, sorry! Missed the last bit”
OK Cedric, got that.
>”I get my science information from NASA.”
That article was from NASA Cedric. So you got it from your preferred science source.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
>”If the thermosphere whatnot is doing the energy thingy which radiates “X” amount of frizbees or whatever then great but…if that is vital to understanding about climate change then I’d expect it to show up in the usual place and…it doesn’t seem to.”
So you get your science from NASA but can’t make head or tail of it when you do. The reason it doesn’t show up in the “usual” place is that NASA is a very large organization but not all of it is as highly politicized as it’s climate operation (not it’s primary role note) i.e. NASA does not necessarily present information consistently and in fact contradicts itself, Langley Research Center vs Goddard Space Flight Center.
BTW Cedric, the head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make “reaching out to
the Muslim world” one of the space agency’s top priorities. Is that science? politics? what?
That article was from NASA Cedric. So you got it from your preferred science source.
Yes, I know. I’m not sure how to make it any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. I’ve mentioned this more than once. So, um, yes I’ve read that page. It’s just that I didn’t cherry pick that single page and leave it at that. I was much more thorough and fair-minded than that. I read all the rest of it too to get the full context. I started from here and read it all.
All of it. Not just one lonely page. Not just one article.
I go to google and type in “NASA” and then “climate change” and the NASA climate change site pops right up.
So you get your science from NASA but can’t make head or tail of it when you do.
Well, I’m not a NASA scientist so I have to be very careful about what I understand or think I understand about what I read on the internet.
Very careful.
That’s why I go to the NASA climate change website. for example. I’m very lucky. They’ve taken the time to break things down for the layman. Other scientific communities have done the same thing and I can freely compare and contrast them. They are all on the same page.
The reason it doesn’t show up in the “usual” place…
I’m sure you believe that but , of course, you will understand me when I say that you are just some guy on the internet. There’s no good reason for me to trust you blindly. You may be wrong. It could well be a case of the blind leading the blind and I have no interest in going down that garden path. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Correction re “Goddard Space Flight Center”. Make that JPL or GISS.
“They’ve taken the time to break things down for the layman”
And got it wrong and internally contradictory, see this comment:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187649
How are Hansen from NASA’s predictions working out for you Cedric?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/hansen-the-broken-record-of-spectacularly-failed-predictions/
http://climateobserver.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/dr-james-hansens-failed-prediction.html
And on & on it goes. No wonder you’re going down the garden path if you listen to that crackpot. You should suggest to The James Randi Educational Foundation that they investigate him for ‘pseudoscientific claims’. If you think Monckton’s funny then Hansen is hilarious.
‘The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.’ – Hahaha, that’s a classic one.
Good ole NASA eh Cedric?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/the_end_of_an_illusion_117795.html
And,
“The oceans will begin to boil……”
– Dr James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
How are Hansen from NASA’s predictions working out for you Cedric?
I know very little about Hansen.
I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists nor even just from one scientist such as Hansen or whoever.
There are no prophets in sciences. I don’t care about the personalities.
It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
Somebody may have worked in some capacity for years ago at NASA but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need individual scientists. I can focus on all the active ones and their communities and the way their work has been reviewed and worked on by all their peers.
That’s why I always check out the NASA website on climate change and all the other scientific communities.
Good ole NASA eh Cedric?
I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I’m talking about NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. They do the work.
>”I get my science information from NASA”
And they’ve got it wrong (in the politicized aspects of climate), are out of date, and are internally contradictory, see this comment:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187649
>”…and every single scientific community on the planet”
No you don’t and neither does climate science. I’ve already demonstrated that here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187636
It’s becoming clear Cedric, that you’re not paying attention.
And they’ve got it wrong (in the politicized aspects of climate), are out of date, and are internally contradictory, see this comment…
So you keep saying. You are entitled to your opinion but you may be completely wrong.
I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
They have websites and everything. It’s all written in plain English.
No you don’t and neither does climate science. I’ve already demonstrated…
I’m sure you feel that way but there’s no reason for me to just trust you. You may be wrong.
I can go to the NASA webpage and read it all for myself. I’ve got no good reason not to.
It’s there.
NASA’s quite famous and they’ve been doing climate science for an awful long time.
Maybe they are wrong but I’d expect some other scientific community to point that out.
However they are all on the same pages.
Assurances from anonymous individuals or possible contrarians don’t mean much in comparison.
The same methodology applies to the Moon Landing, vaccines, Germ Theory, Evolution etc.
Very clear now that you’ve got nothing Cedric. Just vacuous hand waving (argument from an authority that is being proved wrong month-by-month now) and denial of the verdict that the actual climate is delivering in the DAGW case.
As David Rose puts it “who are the deniers now?”
Very clear now that you’ve got nothing Cedric.
I’m not a scientist. I never claimed to have anything.
However, I can go to the NASA website and read what they have to say.
You have your views but maybe you are completely wrong. Maybe you are just suffering from the Dunning-Kurger Effect. I have no good reason to just blindly follow you.
I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
I’m careful that way.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
>”I get my science information from NASA”
So you keep saying. It must be religious dogma in you view – not to to be questioned by heretics.
>”..and every single scientific community on the planet”
BS again as I’ve already demonstrated.
I like this about Cedric: he’s consistent, dogged and courteous, though we seem to try hard to discombobulate him. If there’s a flaw, it could be an incipient reluctance to view observations and conclude something from them. But then, as he says, he’s not a scientist. Perhaps that’s where I personally go wrong, stepping over the line into practising science without a licence.
I have no problem with people exhibiting sheep-like behaviour; after all, most of the planet’s people do exactly that. But I have a problem with Cedric trying to dismiss those folk who can actually use their brains, such as Lord Monckton.
From what we now know, Lord Monckton is ten or a hundred times the thinker that Cedric is – Cedric knows nothing, and is happy that way. Good on him, but having a conversation with someone who just keeps repeating a mantra is somewhat tedious.
“I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet”
Do you get it from, for example, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires?
‘Sudden transitions and grand variations in the solar dynamo,
past and future’
Cornelis De Jager1,* and Silvia Duhau2
1 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, PO Box 59, 1790 AB Den Burg, The Netherlands
2 Departamento de Fı´sica, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Received 21 February 2012 / Accepted 11 June 2012
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-sudden-trans-JSWSC-2-A073.pdf
“…while the path in the right-hand diagram indicates that around 2008 a
Grand Minimum episode might start, the left-hand diagram
indicates that the new episode will be of the Regular type,
and so only a Dalton-type Minimum might then develop.”
Dalton Minimum? That doesn’t seem like warming to me Cedric:-
Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. During that period, there was a variation of temperature of about 1°C.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
Wait, what’s this? A NASA link?
Wilson, Robert M. (nd) “Volcanism, Cold Temperature, and Paucity of Sunspot Observing Days (1818-1858): A Connection?”, The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, accessed February 2009.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998nasa.reptY….W
Authors:
Wilson, Robert M.
Affiliation:
AA(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center)
Publication:
Technical Report, NASA/TP-1998-208592; M-889; NAS 1.60:208592
Abstract
During the interval of 1818-1858, several curious decreases in the number of sunspot observing days per year are noted in the observing record of Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, the discoverer of the sunspot cycle, and in the reconstructed record of Rudolf Wolf, the founder of the now familiar relative sunspot number. These decreases appear to be nonrandom in nature and often extended for 13 yr (or more). Comparison of these decreases with equivalent annual mean temperature (both annual means and 4-yr moving averages). as recorded at Armagh Observatory (Northern Ireland), indicates that the temperature during the years of decreased number of observing days trended downward near the start of’ each decrease and upward (suggesting some sort of recovery) just before the end of each decrease. The drop in equivalent annual mean temperature associated with each decrease, as determined from the moving averages, measured about 0.1-0.7 C. The decreases in number of observing days are found to be closely related to the occurrences of large, cataclysmic volcanic eruptions in the tropics or northern hemisphere. In particular, the interval of increasing number of observing days at the beginning of the record (i.e., 1818-1819) may be related to the improving atmospheric conditions in Europe following the 1815 eruption of Tambora (Indonesia; 8 deg. S), which previously, has been linked to “the year without a summer” (in 1816) and which is the strongest eruption in recent history, while the decreases associated with the years of 1824, 1837, and 1847 may, be linked, respectively, to the large, catacivsmic volcanic eruptions of Galunggung (Indonesia; 7 deg. S) in 1822, Cosiguina (Nicaragua) in 1835, and, perhaps, Hekla (Iceland; 64 deg. N) in 1845. Surprisingly, the number of observing days per year, as recorded specifically b), SchAabe (from Dessau, Germany), is found to be linearly correlated against the yearly mean temperature at Armagh Observatory (r = 0.5 at the 2 percent level of significance); thus. years of fewer sunspot observing days in the historical record seem to indicate years of probable cooler clime, while years (if many sunspot observing days seem to indicate years of probable warmer clime (and Vice versa). Presuming this relationship to be real, one infers that the observed decrease in the number of observing days near 1830 (i.e., during “the lost record years” of 1825 to 1833) provides a strong indication that temperatures at Armagh (and, perhaps, most of Europe, as well) were correspondingly cooler. If true, then, the inferred cooling may have resulted from the eruption of Kliuchevsoi(Russia; 56 deg. N) in 1829.
+ + +
NASA says: “thus. years of fewer sunspot observing days in the historical record seem to indicate years of probable cooler clime, while years (if many sunspot observing days seem to indicate years of probable warmer clime (and Vice versa).”
Given there’s now fewer sunspots than in the recent past, NASA is implying cooling in the near future Cedric. Unless NASA is wrong and an unreliable source of scientific information of course.
“I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet”
Do you get it from, for example, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires?
I don’t see why not. What’s their official position on climate change?
Dalton Minimum? That doesn’t seem like warming to me Cedric…
i accept that you don’t think something about something but…I’m not a scientist and you are just some person over the internet.
I get my science from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
I have no reason just to blindly follow you.
You may simply be wrong.
Wait, what’s this? A NASA link?
Which is great but if whatever article you find from 2009 from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now.
Given there’s now fewer sunspots than in the recent past, NASA is implying…
No, it’s you that is doing the implying. I don’t rely on interpretations from anonymous people from the internet for my science information.
I rely upon NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
I don’t even rely upon their “implying” anything.
I prefer what they have to say in blunt, plain English on their website.
Unless NASA is wrong and an unreliable source of scientific information of course.
I don’t have any reason to think that NASA (of all orgainisations) is wrong or an unreliable source of information. I’m sure they sometimes do get thing wrong. Nobody’s perfect. Yet they have a good track record of being responsible and issuing corrections where needed. If they didn’t, other scientific communities would be more that happy to correct them.
It must be religious dogma in you view – not to to be questioned by heretics.
No, there’s nothing religious about going to the NASA website or any other website run by all the other scientific communities on the planet.
“Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence . South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256
I have no problem with people exhibiting sheep-like behaviour…
My behaviour is to go to google and type in “NASA” and then type in “climate change”.
I don’t see how that makes me a sheep.
But I have a problem with Cedric trying to dismiss those folk who can actually use their brains, such as Lord Monckton.
I have a choice. I can either check out NASA and every single scientific community on the planet or…I can meekly follow some anonymous guy on the internet or some blog or some link to a paper that he picked out for some reason.
From what we now know, Lord Monckton is ten or a hundred times the thinker that Cedric is…
Maybe Monckton is a “thinker”. Maybe he’s a hundred and twenty-two times the “thinker” I am.
However, I’m not just going to blindly follow him.
He could be wrong.
Only the work counts.
You are offering Monckton. I, however, am checking out NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
My methodology seems the safer and more reasonable course.
There’s nothing particularly “mantra-ish” or “sheep-like” about it.
You could (for example) choose Duesberg over the NIH on the issue of HIV but I don’t recommend it.
NASA: Climate Change; A Warming World (HD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68E3SubjFY
Cedric:
Your sheep-like behaviour is exhibited in your inability to think outside what the NASA website then tells you.
You refuse to accept that any peer-reviewed finding is valid unless and until NASA tells you it is. You also refuse to accept that there is the possibility that NASA and other organizations may be made up of people wedded to an idea or position, people who cannot (for political reasons) abandon the idea easily, despite hard evidence contradicting that same idea. For NASA, feel free to substitute Royal Society, yada yada.
That, my friend, is where you behave like a sheep. Stimulus, response, no brain.
One day, when this whole sorry episode is over and the history-writing begins, people like you will just wander away and justify yourselves with “but it wasn’t MY fault. I just believed what I was told.”
How about this scientific community Cedric?:
‘To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.’ (IPCC 2007).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-2.html
‘In summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979-2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.’ (2012)
(Section 9.4.1.3.2, p. 9-27, lines 31-33)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116938885/Ch9-Models-WG1AR5-SOD-Ch09-All-Final
If that’s true it means there’s no tropospheric hotspot, and if there’s no tropospheric hot spot there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, and if there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour the AGW theory fails.
That’s the AGW theory as outlined by the IPCC and those are the observations according to the IPCC. After all, who are we mere mortals to question the IPCC?
How about this scientific community Cedric?
Which one?
Oh you mean the IPCC?
If that’s true it means there’s no tropospheric hotspot, and if there’s…
Yes, I’m sure you have you interpretation on things. Yet you may be wrong.
The strength of your conviction and all the links in the world do not mean that I should just blindly accept what you say.
Dunning-Kruger Effect, you have to allow for it and make it part of your methodology.
I don’t get my scientific information from some anonymous person on the internet.
It doesn’t happen.
I don’t get my cancer information that way either.
After all, who are we mere mortals to question the IPCC?
Who are we mere mortals to question the NIH?
Who are we mere mortals to question the USGS?
Who are we mere mortals to question the CDC?
Science does not work like that. Science is the study of reality.
There are people out there that will not accept the science on a particular topic.
Some of these people are simply being unreasonable. That’s where methodology comes in.
Your methodology and the way you argue must be a world apart from the genuine kooks out there.
>”Science is the study of reality”
Something the IPCC is becoming increasingly at odds with month-by-month now.
But as Magoo points out, they do at least acknowledge some problematic deficiencies in their diagnostics. Maybe one day collectively they will be able to bring themselves to concede their scientific assessment and attribution of climate change was not focussed on the climate drivers that actually do bring about observed change i.e. the IPCC has not been studying reality but a preconceived misconception of it.
In other words, they have proceeded on the assumption that their theory was rock-solid but the reality test is proving otherwise and they’re puzzled by that:-
‘Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled ‘
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
No puzzlement for those of us acquainted with natural cyclicity on the other hand.
“Science is the study of reality”
Something the IPCC is becoming increasingly at odds with month-by-month now.
I’m sure that you personally believe that. Yet you can’t just expect me to take your word for it.
I’m a skeptic.
Skepticism is a process; not a position.
I’m sure that any scientific community (including the IPCC) do get things wrong. Nobody’s perfect. Yet they have a good track record of being responsible and issuing corrections where needed. If they didn’t, other scientific communities would be more that happy to correct them.
I check out NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet and they all seem to be pretty much on the same page.
I’m not a scientist but those scientific communities have taken a lot of time and effort to communicate their findings to the average layman.
It’s not a good methodology to allow some anonymous person to “help” me understand what they are “implying” or whatever. You may simply be wrong.
>”I check out NASA”
Have you checked out NASA’s GISTEMP last decade?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend
Even Dr James Hansen (now retired from NASA) acknowledged the standstill while in the employ of NASA:-
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
“Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
How about you Cedric? Do you concede the “Global Warming Standstill” and “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”?
Or are you in denial?
Have you checked out NASA’s GISTEMP last decade?
No I have not.
However, I’m sure that NASA has.
Even Dr James Hansen (now retired from NASA) acknowledged…
I’m not sure how to make myself clearer on this subject of personalities but I’ll try again.
I know very little about Hansen.
I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists nor even just from one scientist such as Hansen or whoever.
There are no prophets in sciences. I don’t care about the personalities.
It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
Somebody may have worked in some capacity for years ago at NASA but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need individual scientists. I can focus on all the active ones and their communities and the way their work has been reviewed and worked on by all their peers.
That’s why I always check out the NASA website on climate change and all the other scientific communities.
How about you Cedric? Do you concede the…
Hmm. We seem to have a failure to communicate.
I’m not a scientist. I never claimed to have anything.
However, I can go to the NASA website and read what they have to say.
Or are you in denial?
I have no good reason to believe that NASA is in denial about anything nor is there any reason to think that just by going to the NASA website makes one a denier.
Methodology is important.
If there’s a flaw, it could be an incipient reluctance to view observations and conclude something from them. But then, as he says, he’s not a scientist.
On the other hand, NASA is full of scientists. Scientists working across different disciplines using multiple, independent lines of evidence and successfully defending their work in the peer reveiwed literature. They are in a position to view observations and make conclusions.
Other scientific communities are in a position to do the same.
Perhaps that’s where I personally go wrong, stepping over the line into practising science without a licence.
It’s not the “licence”.
That’s not how science works.
Anyone might have a breakthrough even without a degree. It does happen.
But…
Various individuals have been mentioned here by others. I’m sure you could say that they have a “licence” based on their Phd or their accolades recieved from yesteryear or because they have a blog…but only the work count. Sitting in your armchair and blogging does not count as practicing science. You could simply be wrong. You could be under the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Whatever methodology you use to get at the truth has to take the Dunning-Kruger Effect into consideration, otherwise you are not really being a genuine skeptic.
Really? That sounds quite interesting. Or important, so I might even look it up.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect sounds just as interesting as the argumentum ad verecundiam, the argument from authority.
At least three people on this thread have accused me multiple times of using the Argument from Authority.
For example:
“I suggest you read this page (specifically the bit on Clouds) from the Authority itself(…)Or do you always just blindly follow, never daring to think for yourself?”
“…you would have been one of those persecuting Galileo. After all, the authority of the day had clearly declared him wrong, and who are you to question authority?”
“No wonder you’re going down the garden path if you listen to…”
“Just vacuous hand waving (argument from an authority that is being proved wrong…”
“It must be religious dogma in you view – not to to be questioned by heretics.”
“I have no problem with people exhibiting sheep-like behavior…”
“After all, who are we mere mortals to question the IPCC?”
“…sounds just as interesting as the argumentum ad verecundiam, the argument from authority.”
And all that from just googling NASA?
Ouch.
However, it’s an important issue so let’s examine it.
Imagine (for example) if I got my history information on WW2 from the Holocaust Museum? Would I be guilty of the fallacious Argument from Authority?
Or if I took my dentist’s advice on getting my wisdom teeth removed? Or if I accepted NASA’s account of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon?
Hmm.
Well, as it happens, there’s a website that’s dedicated to combatting Holocaust Denial and they have a very hard look at fallacious arguments as you can imagine. The one on the Argument from Authority is especially good.
According to that very detailed definition, by referring to NASA and every single scientific communtiy on the planet, I seem to be on safe ground.
Behold…
Really? That sounds quite interesting. Or important, so I might even look it up.
I’d be delighted if you did.
There’s a rather good youtube vidoe on it too.
I think the Dunning-Kruger Effect neatly matches up with the advice given by Feynman.
(Not that I’m claiming to be an expert on Feynman or anything! I just like the quote.)
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
This seems as good a point as any so I’ll leave it here.
Thank you for your time and letting me reply to people. Feel free to contact me if you wish.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
-Albert Einstein
Oh, blast. What a shame he’s gone. I was just working up the courage to ask if he wouldn’t mind telling me about the Dunning-Kruger Effect in his own words. Just to give me an idea what he was talking about without wandering helplessly yet again all over the internet with this disability of being unable to discriminate truth from untruth, like him. But never mind. He probably wouldn’t admit that he knows anything, anyway.
Yes Cedric, but it is nonetheless true that you ARE arguing from authority. Many peer reviewed scientific facts have been presented to you exposing the holes in AGW, but you just counter them by saying it can’t be right because NASA doesn’t say so.
That, my friend, is an argument from authority – peer reviewed empirically proven facts are irrelevant, because NASA doesn’t mention them.
It’s true, scientific institutions do back AGW, but many of the members don’t and it only takes one fact by one person to disprove a theory – e.g. Galileo ‘But it does move’ vs the scientific establishment of his day.
Many scientists have resigned from the scientific institutions because they don’t agree with the institution’s official line on the matter. A scientific institution’s official stance on a matter does not make the matter right (as history has shown us over & over), and as a result of disagreement among the ranks of the institutions there is no consensus (not that a consensus makes it right either, as history also shows). The reason these scientists resign from the scientific institutions is because they know the points previously raised to you are empirical evidence that AGW is wrong.
Many scientists don’t agree with the official line and have the facts to back them up through the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that NASA doesn’t officially & specifically mention these scientists or the facts as being right doesn’t mean they are wrong. The peer reviewed facts they present speak louder than an accepted official stance as we all learnt from Galileo’s experience, and it is due to these facts that more and more scientists are abandoning AGW theory & resigning from the scientific institutions that endorse it.
Facts and observations speak louder than any scientific institution’s official stance, and any attempt to ignore obvious peer reviewed facts or the sound scientific conclusions they lead to raised by members of the scientific community in the peer reviewed literature because they don’t agree with a scientific institution’s official stance is nothing other than intentional & deliberate ignorance. In addition to this, an appeal to a scientific institution’s official stance on the matter is nothing other than the argument from authority, especially when the appeal intentionally ignores the disagreement within that institution on the issue.
An argument from authority is not an argument at all, but rather an attempt to avoid the many peer reviewed scientific facts by those from the scientific community that prove the AGW theory untenable. In other words, your argument holds no water when confronted with the facts. The fact that you admit you’re too ignorant to understand the facts is the reason why you place your faith in a theory that has no scientific basis beyond a tiny warming of 1.2C maximum per doubling of total CO2 levels. Ignorance and its resulting argument from authority are nothing more than that – ignorance and an argument from authority, both faulty arguments when confronted by peer-reviewed scientific facts & conclusions from the scientific community. Observations and empirical evidence trump official stance & scientific speculation in the form of failed computer models every time, that’s the way science works, and that’s why support for AGW is weakening amongst the scientific community as evidenced by the revolt amongst the members of the scientific institutions.
As for your faith in the institutions whose official stances are at odds with the empirical and peer reviewed scientific facts & many of their members, there’s an old saying – ‘ignorance is bliss’. But might I add that ignorance is no defence or justification, it is what it is – pure, unadulterated ignorance, made worse by the fact that it is intentional and deliberate. The real truth lies in the peer reviewed empirical evidence and the conclusions based on these scientific facts that are drawn by those in the scientific community who accept them rather over and above institutional dogma. This truth is what trumps any arguments from authority and the ignorance associated with it.
After Bob (other sub-thread) and Magoo, cue Rupert Wyndham:-
‘Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society’
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/rupert-wyndham-takes-on-paul-nurse-and-the-royal-society/
“The impertinence implicit in your suggestion that the GWPF may not have access to climate science advice of the highest calibre is in keeping with the thrust of your letter as a whole. It is also equally wide of the mark. The distinction between their climate specialists and those favoured by the RS, however, lies in the objectivity which the former bring to the task of assessing possibly dangerous climate change in contrast, that is, to the edifying displays of integrity in, say, the climategate emails and pronouncements of the IPCC – and let’s not overlook, within only the last few days, the work of such paladins of scientific rectitude as Messrs. Marcot et al 2013 with yet another dodgy hockey stick. The allusion, I’m sure, is familiar to you.”
Magoo,
A penetrating analysis, well expressed.
Slightly off topic, whilst everyone and his dog is castigating CM for daring to say CO2 mitigation is pointless and ridiculously expensive, Bjorn Lomborg is saying the same:
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/04/08/attempts-to-cut-co2-are-futile-and-expensive/
Epiphanies everywhere:-
Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
By Geoffrey Lean.
Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html
Here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
Follow Mad Monckton’s Waikato meeting onTwitter – use hashtag #MoncktonLive
Bloody good for a laugh.
Ken:
As are you, me old thing.
What’s with the report that the Potty Peer has announced he is throwing in the towel? Has his “Freedom Tour” in Australia and NZ disillusioned him?
Hi Ken. Could you give a reference, please?
The Waikato Times, apparently
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8524043/Monckton-tilting-at-windmills
Ken
Judging by the way ever increasing numbers of newspapers and voters (eg UK/Germany/Australia)are turning away from alarmist views, I would say Moncktons work is pretty much done. And what a good job he has done too.
Still you had an opportunity. You could have set up a debate with him through Sci Blogs. If you are so sure of your views, why didn’t you?
I suspect you are going to be even more bitter over the next few years as you and Gareth slide into irrelevance.
Except of course for the Psychological studies to be done on your behaviour and how Group Think almost ended the Age of Reason. Maybe then your star will shine again. But not in a good way….
David, sloppy work there. I have no executive function at SciBlogs. My role is completely passive through syndication of my blog – a similar situation with Secular News. You should have known that. Did you guys even approach SciBlogs with any proposal?
I did actually debate with the Potty Peer in the Waikato. I thought I won and I am sure he thought he won. But the experience showed me he is not a scientist – he’s a politician. For example not reasoning to a point that is made by his opponent, but rephrasing the point to his own advantage. Not honest. But then what do you expect from debates, especially with scoundrels. My impression of him is briefly in my last blog post (see http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/potty-peer-in-waikato/). I think one word describes him accurately – narcissist.
As a scientist my views are not a matter faith, they change with evidence. And especially in the extremely complex area of climate, which we still have to learn a terrific amount about, and where the science is not settled (whenever is it?), I am happy to change my ideas as new evidence comes in. And as the specialists in the area reveal more of their discoveries.
I abhor dishonest slandering of scientists that local climate change deniers go in for. Despite them being shown malicious by the High Court they refuse to accept that rejection and continue the slander. (Have they paid NIWA’s expense yet?). They are the ones committed to their views, who have shown a complete inability to respond honestly to new information. Perhaps you should be talking to them.
For example, the current slow down in land surface temperatures could indicate that there is a fundamental flaw in our understanding about the role of greenhouse gases. I can’t imagine what it could be as it is such a fundamental property of these molecules – and it would also mean we have to revise a lot of our chemistry. But if this was shown to be the case I am happy to accept the new knowledge. No skin off my nose. I don’t rely on faith and have often had to change my views during my research career. It’s an experience common in scientific research – and I must say an exhilarating one. Lawrence Krauss often makes the point that everyone training in science hauls experience having to change their mind on an important belief because if evidence.
I personally suspect the problem is nowhere near as fundamental as misunderstanding if greenhouse gases – especially as we have observed such “pauses” in the past. And there are a number if far more reasonable candidates for explanation. I am sure we will learn a lot from it and you can be sure our models are going to improve as a result. It is this very sort if thing which helps advance science.
But I will listen to the experts on this, not a group of politically motivated slanderers. That is of course the objective and sensible thing to do.
You have a funny attitude on this question – seemingly committed to a mantra whatever the evidence and whatever the experts tell us. Oh, I do mean the real experts, not the pretenders. This phenomena does interest me as a psychological effect, and also as an example of the irrationality of our species. That’s basically the only reason I sometimes glance over the comments here, and do a bit of stirring to observe the reactions. I am starting to feel as if I know the personality of some of the players here.
>”For example, the current slow down in land surface temperatures could indicate that there is a fundamental flaw in our understanding about the role of greenhouse gases.”
THANK YOU Ken Perrott, EXACTLY what we’re saying.
>”I can’t imagine what it could be as it is such a fundamental property of these molecules”
Simply that the “fundamental property” has been misunderstood by climate science. Not so other sciences and industrial applications where CO2 is employed as a refrigerant (coolant). Rather than “trapping” heat, CO2 is actually a very efficient energy transfer medium e.g. in the thermosphere.
Quoting NASA source:-
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
>” – and it would also mean we have to revise a lot of our chemistry.”
Well no, only climate science/IPCC radiant heat transfer and their oversimplification of CO2 radiant heat absorption (a simplification of a simplification):-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
The IPCC curve is log, the Leckner curve is log-log and verified in this paper:-
EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION
N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
1996
http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf
There are other simplifications assessed and verified in that paper (from combustion engineering), the IPCC over-simplification is not one of them. In other words, the IPCC curve does not conform to established radiant heat transfer science – their “fundamental flaw”.
Richard – you illustrate exactly the dishonesty and misrepresentation I refer to – a good reason to look to experts for information.
I said there “could be” a fundamental flaw in our understanding of the properties of greenhouse gases – but because these are fundamental properties I could not imagine what such a flaw could be. Either can you.
So don’t dishonestly cherry pick me to support your crackpot stupidness.
Chemists understand the absorption/emission properties of such molecules very well – you don’t. I have yet to see any evidence that this understanding is flawed. None at all.
>”I have yet to see any evidence that this understanding is flawed. None at all.”
Not even – in your words – “the current slow down in land surface temperatures”?
>”Chemists understand the absorption/emission properties of such molecules very well – you don’t”
As I’ve shown by recourse to established radiative heat transfer science and the thermal characteristics of CO2 (not necessarily chemistry Ken), it’s climate science and the IPCC that have the misunderstanding, not the wider and more rigourous disciplines.
I challenge you to cite a comparable paper to Lallemant, Sayret and Weber
1996 by “Chemists” Ken i.e. back up your hand waving.
BTW, bet you’re regretting that Freudian slip? A very frank and revealing disclosure in its inadvertence – getting doubts Ken (despite your backpeddling)?
Turns out that of Lallemant, Sayret and Weber, at least Weber is a chemical engineer and the others probably are too:-
Prof. Dr.-Ing. R. Weber, M.Sc. in chemical engineering from the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice, Poland
Research Topics e.g. Mathematical models based on CFD: The task is to develop models that enable us to predict turbulent flows occurring during chemical reactions. The models are used in various industrial processes in the energy using and chemical industries.
Teaching Duties e.g. Lectures:
* Heat Transfer and Advanced Heat Transfer
* Combustion Technology
* High Temperature Processes
* Introduction in Process Technology, Chemical Engineering and Environmental Protection Technology
The Lallemant, Sayret and Weber paper was out of the International Flame Research Foundation:-
# Advanced Power Generation Chemical Looping Combustion For Fossil Fuel Utilisation with Carbon Sequestration
Validation of combustion modelling for practical combustion systems
# In flame measurements of aerodynamic and chemical composition profiles
http://www.research.ifrf.net/research/search.html?search=chemical&stype=OR&what=keywords&submit1=Search
Thermochemical applications requiring research of the thermochemical characteristics of combustion gases including CO2.
Richard – the specific situation with global temperature is not at all evidence for a flaw in our understanding of the fundamental properties of these molecules. Only a idiot would say that.
Global temperature is an extremely complex thing – incompletely understood. The influence of greenhouse gases is only one feature, although an important one for life on this planet. The fundamental properties of these molecules is well understood and well illustrated every day of the week.
Com on – show me an IR absorption spectrum of CO2 to illustrate you Nobel winning discovery that our understanding of these molecules is so mistaken.
What a fool – you are incapable of understanding such issues and of absolutely no value in discussions.
Except for humour.
>”..show me an IR absorption spectrum of CO2 to illustrate you Nobel winning discovery that our understanding of these molecules is so mistaken.”
The issue is not the absorption spectrum (and I haven’t said it was – you’ve misunderstood as usual Ken), the issue is CO2’s performance as an energy transfer or forcing medium. The forcing is exhausted past 200ppm (see literature below) but the transfer properties are utilized in refrigeration and the thermosphere i.e. the notion that GHGs “trap” heat is only valid up to the point of thermalization (but only if it is re-energized) but after that the gas is an effective transfer medium (a coolant and used as such by industry).
I’ve provided verification from the literature (thermochemical – Lallemant, Sayret and Weber
1996) of the log-log nature of the CO2 forcing curves but the IPCC oversimplification from Myhre et al is log. What you have to demonstrate is that the IPCC’s curve representation is superior to those of Lallemant, Sayret and Weber 1996. The Leckner curve at 273K from that paper is graphed here alongside the IPCC curve:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
So far all you’ve done is misunderstand the issue, wave your hands, and hurl insults as usual Ken. Lets see some substance for a change.
Richard, the fundamental properties relevant here relate to the symmetry and vibrational/rotational modes of these molecules. These are well understood as basic physical/chemical issues – with the chemists saying the most on this matter.
These properties explain the greenhouse effect of these molecules, and why life is even possible on the planet. Without the greenhouse effect the temperatures would be very much lower.
And these properties are fundamental to explaining emissions of energy involving these gases from the upper atmosphere during solar storms, or for engineering modelling of heat transport around flames.
It is stupid to use any “slow down” in global temperatures which occur every so often as a “proof” that our understanding of the symmetry, vibration and rotation of these moleculeles is wrong. Very stupid.
The hot links you keep quote show only how low your understanding is. You are like a monkey who has been taught to type, google and hot link. But you don’t understand the issues at all.
Bloody hell, to say “the current slow down in land surface temperatures” is “evidence that this understanding [of fhe cundamental properties of greenhouse gas moelcules] is flawed” is bloody idiotic.
Any discussion with such stupidity is a waste of time.
Ken,
It seems that only now that the global temperature has hit a hitherto-unheralded hiatus has it become complex. Yet James Hansen said years ago it is impossible to discern a global temperature. He said it right there on his web site and nobody believed him. Still, at least now we all agree on something.
<"…the fundamental properties relevant here relate to the symmetry and vibrational/rotational modes of these molecules"
You're still away with the fairies aren't you Ken? I haven't questioned the absorption spectroscopy or the "vibrational/rotational modes of these molecules" – you are misconstruing and introducing strawmen.
I'll try again, repeating with emphasis in the hope of getting through:-
The thermochemical literature “below” is this:-
From that paper comes one of the verified curves
The particular curve being Leckner at 273K graphed here alongside the IPCC curve:-
The IPCC curve is from Myhre et al. (1998) so the ball is in your court:-
That’s going to be difficult given you agree with NASA that CO2 is a very efficient coolant and transfer medium in the thermosphere rather than a “heat trapping” GHG and that the forcing property is extinguished at around 200ppm as determined by Lallemant, Sayre and Weber 1996 for engineering modelling of heat transport around flames (quoting yourself):-
So now that you’ve contradicted yourself and tied your argument into a hopeless knot, you’re back-peddling and looking for a way out of the mess you’re in.
But then, you’re an expert back-peddler Ken – I’ll give you that.
Pre-emptively, in case there’s a dispute over CO2 being a refrigerant (coolant):-
Carbon Dioxide (R744) The New Refrigerant
http://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Chapter9.html
PROPERTIES OF CO2 AS A REFRIGERANT
http://www.centrogalileo.it/NUOVAPA/Articoli%20tecnici/INGLESE%20CONVEGNO/CO2/Cavallini%20-%20Milano04CO2.pdf
Carbon Dioxide as Natural Refrigerant
http://www.ipublishing.co.in/jarvol1no12010/EIJAER1025.pdf
Coolant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A coolant is a fluid which flows through or around a device to prevent its overheating, transferring the heat produced by the device to other devices that use or dissipate it. An ideal coolant has high thermal capacity, low viscosity, is low-cost, non-toxic, and chemically inert, neither causing nor promoting corrosion of the cooling system. Some applications also require the coolant to be an electrical insulator.
While the term coolant is commonly used in automotive and HVAC applications, in industrial processing, heat transfer fluid is one technical term more often used, in high temperature as well as low temperature manufacturing applications. Another industrial sense of the word covers cutting fluids.
The coolant can either keep its phase and stay liquid or gaseous, or can undergo a phase transition, with the latent heat adding to the cooling efficiency. The latter, when used to achieve low temperatures, is more commonly known as refrigerant.
Coolant – Gases
Inert gases are used as coolants in gas-cooled nuclear reactors. Helium has a low tendency to absorb neutrons and become radioactive. Carbon dioxide is used in Magnox and AGR reactors.
Coolant – Liquid gases
Carbon Dioxide (chemical formula is CO2) – is used as a coolant replacement[4] for cutting fluids.
Refrigerants are coolants used for reaching low temperatures by undergoing phase change between liquid and gas. …………Carbon dioxide (R-744) is used as a working fluid in climate control systems for cars, residential air conditioning, commercial refrigeration, and vending machines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolant
# # #
Paraphrasing – A coolant [,CO2,] is a fluid which flows ……..around [the earth] to prevent its overheating, transferring the heat produced by the [sun] to [space, to] dissipate it
Yes, Richard, I can recognise such a false “olive branch” when I see one. Actions speak much louder than words and your actions have revealed your position. The judge did describe you continued activity that way – you don’t fool such people easily.
And for me slandering honest scientists and their science is a key point. The disgusting attitude towards our NIWA scientists and Mann is a key indicator.
Get back to me when you are honestly wanting to withdraw and apologise for that behaviour.
Richard, that is a silly thing to say – have you not read the AR4 document, for example? This certainly stresses the complexity of the systems and discusses the question of the degree of confidence we can have in our findings.
You can’t seem to help yourself – having the need to denigrate the science and honest scientists.
What a waste of electrons.
Ken, your reply is attached to a comment above from Richard C, but your content seems to address my comment, so I’ll say this: I mentioned only temperature, and it is a fact that for about 20 years we were told that, because the surface temperature could be seen to be rising, it was simple to conclude that there was a problem of our own making. From time to time people said we cannot derive an average temperature for such a complex and unbalanced system as the troposphere. Climate warmists weren’t much interested in discussing that and insisted it was simple: temperature up, make your oil use go down.
But now it’s different, because the problem must remain, even in the absence of clearly evident warming. So the temperature has become a complex issue and I agree it is complex.
Richard, you may have been told that by a voice in your head, or by one of your “science team” who wish to remain anonymous. But it is not what the experts have been saying.
Climate scientists, through the IPCC, have been very conservatice and qualified in their assessments. While they have agreed with everyone else that evidence for increasing global temperatures is unequivocal, they have said only in AR4 that human responibility for part of this warming was only probable. I expect their assessment will be firmer in the next review.
But please stop misrepresenting the science and the scientists.
Want the hell, am I asking. Isn’t that the whole purpose of this blog?
Sorry, Ken, I have misled you. Over the last 20 years I’ve been reading that kind of argument and listening to populist alarmism on the television news and in the newspapers, not in scientific papers. Did you not encounter it? In my considered opinion, although that might not have strictly reflected conclusions from any scientific papers, the scientists cannot stand free of responsibility for allowing those views to propagate. They could see their names and their views being misrepresented and yet I never heard them calming the rhetoric or diluting the anxiety of hundreds of thousands of thoughtful people around the world. And that’s just in New Zealand.
By the way, please don’t be rude — you mischaracterise the purpose of this blog. I will ask Richard C to stop being rude to you, but I ask you to play your part, too. We may disagree, but we needn’t be disagreeable.
Cheers.
I appreciate, Richard, your trained monkey with a keyboard is embarrassing. But I am not being rude. Just short of patience. I have enough going on in my life without responding to such childish arguments. As I said its a waste of electrons. And I don’t want to waste valuable and limited time on such rubbish.
So you admit scientists have not been misinforming you. Well what about withdrawing your silly article “Are we getting warm yet?”? And apologising for such dusgusting propaganda and lies. The high court found even your subsequent script was malicious, let alone that one.
Bit hypocritical of you to admonish scientists for not holding back extreme activists, isn’t it, considering your role in attacking scientists? You certainly haven’t held back Mad Monckton with his scandalous lies and attacks! Quite the opposite.
One good thing that has come out of this denial campaign, climategate etc., is that some really good scientists like Michael Mann have recognised that they need to front up and correct the misinformation. And especially to stand up for the integrity if scientists, and good faith science, currently under attack.
And these people are putting the science into context, with a strong recognition that somehow we must communicate the real nature of scientific knowledge – which doesn’t always answer questions completely. That we need to somehow get people to understand the actual degree of confidence we have in our findings and models.
All these things are honestly and openly being discussed in the scientific communities.
Ken, I found it hard to get past “your trained monkey with a keyboard is embarrassing.” But I made it to “So you admit scientists have not been misinforming you” and nearly choked on my coffee.
I have to say you missed the vital point again. Scientists have been misinforming everyone. What else is the result of their refusal to intervene? What else do we take from the hypocrisy that cherry-picked the dendro records and cynically slanted the mathematics that produced the hockey stick? Then you boldly libel us for our activities in trying to discover what NIWA did to the public temperature record. Remember this: they refused to tell us what they did. Have you ever asked yourself why they refused to tell us?
Don’t say the judge found something malicious, for he did nothing of the kind. Get your facts straight.
Anyway, if you can’t recognise an olive branch when it’s offered you deserve no further consideration. Now get lost. Go back to your own blog and make a fuss where nobody listens. You are actually most disagreeable.
It seems Ken’s parachute is wide shut. There is no reasoning with such zealots. He has his world view, firmly set in concrete and no amount of reason will soften him. He cannot read but that which blazes from the page to reinforce his carboncentric mania. All else is lost to him. He is a lost cause. As he points out, “don’t want to waste valuable and limited time on such rubbish.” As for defending Mann! OMG!!! Never mind, move along, he’s clogging the airspace with his closed parachute. Bye-bye Ken.
Bloody hell, did the Waikato Times learn about Mad Monckton throwing in the towel before you guys were told?
Apparently it’s something to do with money – as in he is not being paid enough.
That’s not a reference.
Here’s the reference RT:-
“However, Monckton is planning to wind up his role of climate change speaker shortly.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8524043/Monckton-tilting-at-windmills
Not sure that means “throwing in the towel” (Thomas at HT) do you Richard?
He can rest, the climate has taken over now.
The bit that interested me was “Monckton is on the record as saying that human-emitted carbon emissions were not warming the planet and that increased sun activity accounted for recent higher temperatures.”
I thought he had a bit more sense than that. The upswing in temperature has occurred during a period when solar irradiance has decreased. If you don’t believe me, read Foster and Rahmstorf (2011).
>”The upswing in temperature has occurred during a period when solar irradiance has decreased”
Rubbish. The upswing in temperature started post Maunder Minimum when TSI went from Grand Minimum to Grand Maximum levels that stayed elevated at the level of 1986 peak until about 2009.
There’s planetary inertia to consider Simon, calculated as anything from 8 to 20 years (Abdussamatov, Usoskin, Scaftetta to name some) i.e. maximum planetary enthalpy does not occur instantaneously as demanded by warmists who have no fundamental understanding of the sun -> oceanic heat sink -> space system, it is lagged, Foster and Rahmstorf are classic cases of this ignorance.
The energy deficit started at the solar peak:-
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6494147_f496.jpg
But the effect is minimal in terms of longer-term solar output e.g. this scenario:-
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-3-forecast.png?w=640&h=518
It is only now from 2012/13 onwards that solar output is going over a cliff, temperatures have up to now conformed with the 60 yr climate cycle. Now the quasi-200 yr solar cycle will take forcing precedence. GAT and SST are already on a cooling trend this century and OHC has reached maximum levels – it’s downhill for a while now out to the mid 2040s.
Clarifying “….temperatures have up to now conformed with the 60 yr climate cycle”
I mean over the modern solar Grand Maximum 1950s – 2000s:-
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/its-the-sun-stupid-the-maunder-minimum.jpg
The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle:-
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
i.e. there is no correlation so you need to create a lag and then vary that lag continuously to fit what you are trying to prove. Solar variation is only 0.1% or 1.3 W/m2 from solar maximum to solar minimum and is swamped by greenhouse gas and volcanic effects.
>”i.e. there is no correlation so you need to create a lag and then vary that lag continuously to fit what you are trying to prove.”
Wrong. The lag is established scientifically. That is why I named Abdussamatov, Usoskin and Scafetta as examples of those doing the establishing. They concur around 12 to 14 years plus or minus up to 6 years for the major response. Obviously the response ranges from instantaneous (radiation reflection – response is relatively minor) to perhaps hundreds of years for the ocean, but just over a dozen years is readily detected observationally and by calculation (see Abdussamatov 2012 for calcs). Scafetta argues for the introduction of a two-stage response paradigm of 1 yr and 12 yrs for example and Abdussamatov’s range is 8 to 20 years.
>”Solar variation is only 0.1% or 1.3 W/m2 from solar maximum to solar minimum and is swamped by greenhouse gas and volcanic effects.”
Wrong again if you are only referring to the 11 yr cycle which is basically an oscillation about a constant level (the solar “constant”). That’s this cycle:-
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/tsi11-200_eng.jpg
Just your 1.3 W/m2 variation. That cycle is irrelevant as a climate driver of any consequence. The significant variation occurs between GRAND Maximum and GRAND Minimum of the quasi-200 yr cycle (the bicentennial component), the variation of which is highly contentious among solar specialists and by no means at a definitive stage. Abdussamatov’s latest is 5.75 W/m2 going by this graph of his scenario (there are others e.g. De Jager and Duhau – Dalton Minimum conditions suggested rather than Maunder):-
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4F5cm2upE_Q/UNiB7JGm2wI/AAAAAAAABsw/kEEzi_me3sE/s1600/Abdussamatov.jpg
Big difference between that and the 11 yr variation. I should point out that Habibullo Abdussamatov is not just any solar researcher but along with solar observatory work is head of the Russian half of the International Space Station, their primary mission being study of the sun’s output.
The good news is that although there was never observations from 1600 to the beginning of satellite era at a level achieved since the satellite era began (even then problematic and uncertain), solar science can now measure the sun’s output in real time as it goes from Grand Max to Grand Min.
I also refer you to the NASA article referenced up-thread for latest developments:-
‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
I’ve just been through the same exercise over the same misconceptions with Nick but in far more detail about a number of uncertainties even in the satellite era i.e. there is far more to it than this intro. I just wish you had followed that thread Simon, it would have saved me a great deal of time and effort. I hope after this you guys will have a better appreciation of solar issues particularly wrt AR5 and the IPCC’s less-than-exhaustive treatment of them.
In any event, the CMIP5/AR5 GCM simulations have the wrong parameterization (apart from only including TSI – see ‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’) for the 21st century anyway. The TSI series they have used just projected constant early 2000s levels out to 2100 but after 2012 all that changed and although SC 24 is at 11 yr cycle max at present, that level is nowhere near the SC 22 and 23 peaks and predictions from solar specialists are for solar output to plunge over the next 30 years from the already abnormally low SC 24 peak.
If GHG-centric climate scientists are puzzled by the 21st century hiatus (but easily explained by cyclicity), they’ll be dumbfounded by what’s to come.
Simon, you say “i.e. there is no correlation so you need to create a lag…” However, just because you cannot see a correlation does not mean others cannot.
For example, Bas van Geel who, for 40 years, has been studying correlations between solar activity and climate. From his university CV page:
Another example is What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection? wherein Friis-Christensen and Svensmark conclude, “Recent results have indicated strong correlations between the total cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux, indicating that this could be the missing link between solar activity variations and climate changes.”
Another example is Shindell et al. 2001 “We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century.” and concludes with: “These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by longterm solar variations.”
So, Simon, there are indications from scientific studies that there is a correlation.
I agree that there is evidence for solar forcing in past history over long time horizons. Unfortunately there is no way that solar forcing can explain the recent increase in temperature despite Richard C’s verbiage.
>Unfortunately there is no way that solar forcing can explain the recent increase in temperature despite Richard C’s verbiage.”
Twaddle. The recent increase in temperature stopped years ago (the “standstill”, “hiatus”, “pause”, etc). Temperature this century is actually exhibiting a small decrease e.g. RSS over the last decade:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend
HadSST2 SH,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2sh/from:2002/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2002/trend
OHC has stabilized too consistent with maximum planetary enthalpy occurring at the end of the modern solar Grand Maximum around 2009 – 2012. There is now no forcing to take GAT or OHC higher.
>Unfortunately there is no way that solar forcing can explain the recent increase in temperature despite Richard C’s verbiage.”
Simon you’ve obviously been conditioned and misguided by a notion being disseminated by authoritative sounding but thermally ignorant sources i.e. that a “trend” correlation is required for solar output to explain 1980 – 2000 temperature – that is completely spurious.
Refer: Sun’s Energy Output vs Global Surface Temperature 1978 – 2009:-
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif
Those ignorant of oceanic heat-sink characteristics see that comparison and immediately but erroneously discount the solar driver but the explanation is oceanic thermal inertia, not solar output vs atmospheric temperature trend.
First note that “Average” temperature reached maximum around 2004 and that “Average” solar output is at a maximum (relative to 1600s say) for the entire 1978 – 2009 period.
Now for an analogy. You do not, for example, have to keep progressively turning up a stove element (rising trend) in order to heat a pot of water to the desired temperature. All you do is turn the element up from ‘Low’ to ‘High’ (if you want to boil the water) or ‘Medium’ if you just want to heat the water without boiling it (maximum heat input).
The time lag from the initial introduction of extra heat by turning up the element (minimum temperature) to the time the water reaches a stable temperature (maximum temperature) is the thermal lag or inertia effect.
Given that the sun heats the ocean and (predominantly) the ocean heats the atmosphere in the sun -> oceanic heat-sink -> atmosphere system, the same temperature profile occurs in both the solar heat source and the ocean as it does in the pot-of-water-on-a-stove-element analogy.
This is the issue that Alec Rawls (AR5 reviewer) has been trying to get through to about a dozen IPCC solar specialists (“experts”) who although very knowledgeable about the solar side have no clue when it comes to oceanic thermal characteristics. Last I heard there is at least one of those solar specialists that has conceded to Alec but of the more prominent, for example Joanna Haigh, they cannot (or will not) grasp the concept.
Consequently, the more scurrilous climate science misinformation peddlers driven by ulterior motives (e.g. Skeptical Science), are very active maintaining the solar misconception among more malleable minds.
The lesson being that “experts” can be and often are, quite wrong when they venture outside their area of expertise i.e. they are then non-expert. And that relying on that non-expertise as your primary information source (let alone the promulgation of it by the less trustworthy) leads to fallacious understanding until their error becomes blatantly obvious as it is in the case outlined here.
Simon says:
April 9, 2013 at 11:23 pm
“i.e. there is no correlation…………”
If you just want a correlation Simon:-
A paper published in the journal of the Italian Astronomical Society finds that solar geomagnetic activity was highly correlated to global temperature changes over the period from 1856-2000. The authors “show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.”
Global temperature vs ak index of (solar) geomagnetic activity,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WNMCi3Hdfs8/UWTETYT0PlI/AAAAAAAAFGE/vXpZWaxUxqc/s400/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B492013%2B64440%2BPM.jpg
‘Once again about global warming and solar activity’
K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
1 Solar-Terrestrial influences Laboratory, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bl.3 Acad.G.Bonchev str. 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria
2 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma, Italy
Abstract. Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/paper-finds-solar-influence-on-climate.html
Yes, thanks, RC. I had already found that and I’m disappointed that Ken couldn’t. It’s an unsupported assertion by Kashka Tunstall, the reporter, so it’s not reliable, and even if it is, what does it mean?
From talking with Christopher over the last few days, although the chap’s obviously weary, having traipsed across Australia since January and with another three weeks to go in NZ, I saw nothing that said he was stopping public appearances. But I could be wrong, and he can do what he likes, so it would signify nothing about climate change.
Ken, I have been very patient, but I am still waiting for you to make a rational response to the question I asked you re your use of the term ‘climate deniers’. I am very curious as to your rationale for using the term.
After listening to Ken spout off I need some sauvignon blanc. There, I got it right! Count the day lost you don’t learn something.
As for Lord Monckton: I bow to no man as my lord, but I bow to Lord Monckton.
See the Mad Monckton support group in NZ is breaking apart. Apparently he has not been able to support all the different conspiracy theories. So the Chem Trail people are now bad mouthing him. Accusing him of being a double agent.
I’m sure you’re right, but just what are you talking about? Please give some references. Incidentally, it’s a big surprise to see you back.
“Incidentally, it’s a big unpleasant surprise to see you back.”
There, fixed.
God, the Potty Peer is such good value. He’s now made a public attack on Victoria University, jthreats and all. Puts the whole thing in writing.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/vuw.pdf
I can hear the laughter from here.
It’s not very funny keeping people out of the university because of prejudice, and telling bald lies about a man is wrong, even if you’re a professor. Anyway, universities have stood up for discussion and dissent for centuries. They’re supposed to keep everyone honest. Now, they are themselves devious and dishonest. But let’s see what they do in this case.
Will you explain your strange comment about conspiracy theories, “Chem Trail people” and double agent?
The irony is that Monckton goes on about academic freedom while trying to muzzle academics from speaking their mind.
UVic should call his bluff. He doesn’t appear to have sued UTas as he threatened to do to Tony Press. I suspect that Dr Press is probably employed by the Antarctic CRC rather than the university itself.
It would be interesting to know what the fraudulent graph is. If it’s the hockey stick, papers supporting it are running about 12:1 in favour.
You exhibit some cognitive dissonance, Simon — otherwise known as the inability to apologise. Monckton has not attempted to muzzle the academics and if you think he has, please say what he did. He appeals to their leadership to enforce its rules, for they have denied him the opportunity to speak there, in defiance of the rules. Rules, I might add, that were put in place by the university itself, without the compulsion of legislation. Why don’t they apply them equably, do you think?
But Monckton does not limit his letter to a complaint about being unable to speak at the University. He is perfectly entitled to speak on the university grounds, using a lecture theatre and equipment is another matter and is subject to availability.
Instead he alleges dishonesty, lack of integrity, and bringing the university into disrepute. Strong words and I’m unsure how one could lay a complaint of scientifc fraud to NZ police.
“I’m unsure how one could lay a complaint of scientifc fraud to NZ police.”
The same way these clowns took their stupid claim of NIWA fraud to the high Court – with as little chance of success.
Actually I think it did have a measure of success in that it exposed NIWA’s reluctance to show their working methods to the public and parliament (I wonder why they hid them). Interesting that National gutted the ETS shortly afterwards and refused to resign the Kyoto agreement – perhaps the 2 things are related. Maybe the govt. would’ve done it earlier if they’d known how NIWA had been arriving at their results, and how we don’t actually have an official national temperature record after all. I wonder what Gluckman had to say about the methods employed by them when advising the PM.
Ah well, water under the bridge and all that. The important thing is that the ETS exists pretty much in name only these days for cosmetic purposes to our trade partners, and NZ is no longer chained to the Kyoto protocol – much like the rest of the world.
Simon,
I believe you haven’t answered my question, which was: “Why don’t they apply [their own rules] equably, do you think?”
As to your other remarks, you are correct in saying he’s “entitled” to speak, but they told him he was unwelcome to speak. In addition, three professors made public remarks against him.
I speculate that, since he was refused permission to speak, he then raised the other injuries, which are substantial.
You really should read Christopher’s complaint to avoid further mistakes. The fraudulent graph is from the IPCC AR4. Surprised?
>”If it’s the hockey stick, papers supporting it are running about 12:1 in favour”
Are you including Marcott et al in your 12 Simon?
Also I see this at CA re Tingley and Huybers:-
“In keeping with the total and complete stubbornness of the paleoclimate community, they use the most famous series of Mann et al 2008: the contaminated Korttajarvi sediments, the problems with which are well known in skeptic blogs and which were reported in a comment at PNAS by Ross and I at the time. The original author, Mia Tiljander, warned against use of the modern portion of this data, as the sediments had been contaminated by modern bridgebuilding and farming. Although the defects of this series as a proxy are well known to readers of “skeptical” blogs, peer reviewers at Nature were obviously untroubled by the inclusion of this proxy in a temperature reconstruction.”
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/11/more-from-the-junior-birdmen/
BTW, do you use the word “favour” in political or scientific terms in this instance?
Irish Chronicle News (@irishchronicle)
12/04/13 8:07 PM
Lord Monckton BUSTED as Chemtrail Denier — Uncensored Magazine Interview youtu.be/pHsGlE9XKCU
That’s nonsense.
More sauvignon blanc please.
Yes, anything to dull the pain.
Just read Watts mangling Dellars:-
Apologise to Michael Mann, Anthony? I’d rather eat worms
By James Delingpole April 11th, 2013. 1273 Comments
“You see where I’m going with this? I want to say it in the nicest possible way for I’m a great respecter of Anthony Watts and when all this blows over I want us to remain friends. But if you’re going to criticise someone’s rhetoric the rules are no different from if you’re attacking their science: first be absolutely sure of your ground.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100211704/apologise-to-michael-mann-anthony-id-rather-eat-worms/
No, I won’t say sorry – even to a friend
James Delingpole 13 April 2013
“Sorry, Anthony mate, but if anyone needs to apologise here it’s you. I have far too much respect for you to call you a ‘useful idiot’. You are, rather, what Von Mises called a ‘useful innocent’. Not only have you needlessly conceded territory to a ruthless, implacable and dishonest enemy but you have unwittingly betrayed those virtues — courage, open-mindedness and intellectual rigour — which have made Watts Up With That so justly successful. When you’ve studied Areopagitica and Swift’s A Modest Proposal, when you’ve read up on Gramsci, the ‘Big Lie’ in Mein Kampf and Agenda 21, then get back to me. Till then, don’t presume to lecture me about the proper use of metaphor in the culture wars any more than I’d presume to lecture you on the correct siting of weather stations.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8885551/no-i-wont-say-sorry-even-to-a-friend/
Ouch.
Yes, I’m with James on that.