JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Unleashed: Monckton releases his AR5 reviewer comments

Because the AR5 report is now leaked into the public domain, Christopher Monckton has released his AR5 review comments on the Lord Monckton Foundation site. Notably, Monckton does his absolute best to help the IPCC operate as a useful honest public service. In the most statesman-like manner, Monckton works from the principle that the IPCC’s credibility could theoretically be rescued. (How generous is he?) Monckton also provides a few peer reviewed papers that the team of hundreds of experts has missed — just the odd 450 references or so. As always, meticulously researched, carefully thought out, and with impeccable logic. The IPCC must be paying him well for this rigorous input… oh wait…

In order to produce a respectable useful document the IPCC has to improve:

  1. The IPCC needs to address the failure of their past key predictions.
  2. Split up the science from the politics. (Political appointee’s can write their own chapter*, not rewrite the scientists ones).
  3. The alterations to the scientists final draft need to be marked as such and sent back to the expert reviewers.
  4. All references from gray literature (eg activist press releases) should be removed.
  5. To stop the goal posts moving, the IPCC should update projections based on the original scenarios (it is hard to compare projections made to new, different scenarios).
  6. All data related to the report should be archived and publicly available.
  7. How did the IPCC arrive at the Planck or zero-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter? The details should be made explicit.
  8. We need to know the projected impact of climate feedbacks over time. (Which means we need a graph of the evolution of the value of the climate sensitivity parameter).
  9. Feedbacks are nearly twice as important as CO2 in the models — The IPCC needs to explicitly list all the feedbacks and make an estimate of each (with error bars)
  10. There has been 16 years of no statistically significant warming. The IPCC must stop ignoring this. (In 2008, modelers said a stasis of 15 years would mean the models were wrong. Ergo…? )
  11. On the economic front, the IPCC needs to do the cost-benefits on adapting to a warming world compared to the cost benefit of changing the weather.

Here is Lord Monckton’s Expert Review for the UN IPCC.  Written in his inimitable style of course.

(Australians and New Zealanders will be delighted to know that Monckton is coming to tour again in March 2013. Details coming.).

UPDATE: to clarify. I’m quite certain Monckton knows the IPCC was never supposed to be a “public service”. But it’s an excellent rhetorical technique to expose how far from that they are,  by carefully methodically documenting what they would be doing if they were such an institution. The contrast speaks for itself.

The IPCC need to pretend they are transparent, open to review, based on evidence, and unbiased.

Monckton’s strategy is to pretend that they might be those things.

*Suggests Jo.

—————————————————————————–

Christopher Moncktons top eleven points

(Read the full PDF for the other 93 comments)

General comments on the draft of WG1’s contribution to AR5

—————————————–

1. 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. Comment #2: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To restore lost credibility, all alterations by governments to the scientists’ final draft must be visibly distinguished from it and referred back to all expert reviewers for comment before publication.

Reason: Failure to make explicit the distinction between scientific and political content weakens the Assessment Reports by leaving readers wondering which findings are political. For this reason, I recommend the governments I advise to exercise caution before relying on the IPCC, which was founded as a political and not a scientific body.
Example: During preparation of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), governments’ political representatives decided by show of hands the “90% confidence” that more than half of the warming since 1960 was manmade. China had argued for no estimate; others had argued for 95%. Yet commentators unaware that this central decision was not scientific but political presented it as though it were a legitimate scientific finding.

—————————————–

3. Comment #3: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To prevent recurrence of past scientific dishonesty, all alterations to the scientists’ final draft after submission are to be visibly flagged and referred back to all expert reviewers for comment.

Reason: The IPCC’s Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, defended certain scientific errors in AR4 that exaggerated our influence on climate and had not been in the scientists’ final draft.
Example: The scientists’ final draft showed a graph of global mean surface temperature anomalies since 1850, with one linear trend-line covering the entire period. Later, someone added three additional trend-lines, starting in 1900, 1950 and 1975 respectively, and added a false conclusion that since the trend-lines that began later rose more steeply manmade warming was accelerating. The same artifice would show a sine-wave, which has a zero trend, rising (or, if desired, falling) at an ever-faster rate, depending on the chosen start-points for the added trend-lines. Dr. Pachauri did not have this error corrected when asked.

—————————————–

4. Comment #4: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To limit politicization of Assessment Reports, all material from non-peer-reviewed sources, such as environmental lobby groups, is to be excluded.

Reason: 30% of all references listed in AR4 were not from reviewed papers in the learned journals but from the “gray literature”: e.g. media handouts from environmental groups. While this practice continues, I cannot recommend the IPCC’s reports as scientifically credible to the governments I advise. The Inter-Academy Council was asked to ban this practice but failed to do so.
Example: For six months the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, Dr. Pachauri, asserted that anyone who doubted the conclusion in AR4 that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone within 25 years was “anti-science”. Yet the conclusion had no scientific basis. It came from a polemic by a travel journalist. The lead author of the relevant chapter said he had known of the error but had decided not to correct it.

—————————————–

5. Comment #5: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To make explicit the magnitude and sign of any revisions to central climate-change projections compared with previous Assessment Reports, projections on all six original SRES emissions scenarios should be included.

Reason: In the AR5 draft the goalposts have been moved by the use of scenarios incompatible with the original SRES scenarios. Yet governments need to have a clear idea of how fast the models’ key projections are changing, and in which direction. For backward compatibility, projections similar to those in Fig. 10.26 of the Fourth Assessment Report should be made under each of the six original scenarios.

—————————————–

6. Comment #6: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To respect the scientific method by enhancing the replicability of results shown in AR5, the data underlying all graphs in AR5, whether taken from cited learned papers or generated during the drafting, should be properly archived, with their data structures made explicit, and made available online to all.

Reason: The credibility of the IPCC has been damaged by its failure to verify that material it has cited had been properly archived.
Examples: The key projections on all six SRES emissions scenarios in AR4 were encapsulated in small-scale graphs at Fig. 10.26 (IPCC, 2007, p. 803). However, the data that underlay the graphs do not appear to have been archived. Also, the graph in TAR (IPCC, 2001) that purported to demonstrate the absence of the medieval warm period and the little ice age was withheld from researchers attempting to verify it for some considerable time after TAR was published.

—————————————–

7. Comment #7: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To clarify the process for determining climate sesitivity, the derivation and central estimate of the Planck or zero-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter should be made explicit.

Reason: The Planck parameter is that quantity in Kelvin per Watt per square meter by which, where temperature feedbacks are non-existent or have not yet begun to act or sum to zero, a radiative forcing is multiplied to give the resultant temperature change. The magnitude of the contribution of feedbacks themselves to warming is separately dependent upon it. It is, therefore, a crucial quantity.
Example: The only mention of the value of the Planck parameter in any previous Assessment Report is in a footnote on p. 631 of AR4, where its derivation is not made as clear as is desirable. It should also be expressed in Kelvin per Watt per square meter as an element in the climatic reference frame, rather than in Watts per square meter per Kelvin as though it were itself a feedback (Roe, 2009).

—————————————–

8. Comment #8: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To demonstrate the projected impact of temperature feedbacks over time, central estimates, with error-bars, of the evolution of the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter over the period from the instant when a forcing is applied to the time when equilibrium is attained should be evaluated, discussed, and presented as a graph.

Reason: The impact of temperature feedbacks on the fundamental equation of climate sensitivity is expressed via increase over time in the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter (~0.3 K W m – 2 in the absence of feedbacks or where they sum to zero; ~0.9 K W m–2 at equilibrium after 1000-3000 years following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration). A graph of the evolution of the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter over time is necessary to make explicit the rate at which the IPCC considers global warming will increase.

—————————————–

9. Comment #9: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To clarify the method modelers use to determine climate sensitivity, AR5 should contain a table of temperature feedbacks, linearizing non-linear feedbacks where possible, providing a central estimate and error bars for each feedback, and making explicit the magnitudes of the respective contributions to forcing at equilibrium from direct forcings and from the feedbacks they trigger.

Reason: Almost twice as much of the projected warming at CO2 doubling comes from feedbacks as from CO2’s direct forcing.
Example: Though it is generally accepted that the direct warming from CO2 is <1.2 K, the multi-model mean central estimate that equilibrium warming at CO2 doubling is 3.3 K (AR4, p. 798, box 10.2), implies an overall temperature feedback gain factor >2.8, near-tripling the direct warming caused by atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Yet it is only in the Fourth Assessment Report that the principal feedbacks the IPCC considers climate-relevant are quantified for the first time, and then only by reference to a single paper. For credibility, it is essential that feedback projections be put on an explicitly quantitative footing, with multiple sources for each feedback.

—————————————–

10. Comment #10: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To increase credibility, the IPCC must tackle explicitly the fact that there has been no statistically-significant increase in global mean surface temperature for 16 years, and that this prolonged stasis in global warming notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentrations does not fall within the intervals projected either by the models or by the IPCC in previous Assessment Reports.

Reason: Researchers with the courage to question the official projections have long predicted that – though some warming from CO2 enrichment is to be expected – not very much warming will occur. The 16-year temperature stasis that has now occurred must be explicitly faced.
Example: The world’s leading modelers wrote in 2008 that a stasis of15 years or more would establish a discrepancy between what is modeled and what is predicted. To explain that discrepancy one might argue that the relatively weak warming signal from CO2 has been overlain by three recent natural influences: in late 2001 we entered a ~30-year cooling phase of the ~60-year cycle of the ocean oscillations; the current ~11-year solar cycle displays near-unprecedentedly weak solar activity, implying the possibility of a Dalton or even Maunder minimum in the coming decades; and there has recently been a double-dip La Niña.

—————————————–

11. Comment #11: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0

To reduce the near-certainty that governments will ignore the IPCC’s reports as irrelevant in current economic circumstances, a chapter should be added comparing the economic merits of mitigation and adaptation.

Reason: When the IPCC was established, mitigation and adaptation were assigned to separate working groups in a manner calculated to prevent direct economic comparison between them. It is now clear that adaptation would be one or even two orders of magnitude more cost-effective than mitigation.
Example: The Stern and Garnaut reports purported to set the costs of mitigation against the benefit in climate-related losses abated by focused adaptation. However, both reports were produced for governments aiming to justify substantial new sources of tax revenues. A more objective approach is now necessary. An economic chapter appropriately belongs to a physical-science assessment, since it is only when the IPCC’s physical projections are combined with the standard economic methodologies of inter-temporal investment appraisal that a mature conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of mitigation can be reached.

 

(Read the full PDF for the other 93 comments)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (69 votes cast)
Unleashed: Monckton releases his AR5 reviewer comments, 9.1 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ccwokcj

66 comments to Unleashed: Monckton releases his AR5 reviewer comments

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    The issue is more even stark. Any competent scientist or engineer with post-grad physics and/or expert in heat transfer immediately sees that the IPC science has many serious mistakes. My current number is 7, 3 of which are so elementary as to be embarrassing:

    1. There is a 50 year mistake by the meteorologists who are taught ‘Downwelling Longwave Radiation’ exists and can be measured by the IR pyrometers called pyrgeometers. This is crass stupidity because pyrometers measure temperature, not energy flows. To measure energy flow you must use two of these devices back to back, as specified by the manufacturers: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx This mistake means the Trenberth Energy Budget is completely wrong.

    2. A follow on claim is that the earth emits IR as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum. This is then supposed to be attenuated by GHGs in the atmosphere – the ‘GHG blanket’. The reality is that standard radiative heat transfer theory shows that for two near b;lack bodies in thermal equilibrium, surface and atmosphere here is no net IR in most of the GHG bands. Yup that’s right, there is not IR in the 15 micron CO2 band to be absorbed. Therefore there can e no CO2-AGW or positive feedback.

    3. They have got the IR physics completely wrong. There can be no direct thermalisation even if there were CO2 15 micron IR to be absorbed!

    So, the models are bunkum. The so-called scientists in charge are bunkum. Yet the politicians are so desperate to get carbon taxation they are funding he scam. The latest new3s from CRU is that even they are becoming honest – Briffa has recently published the correct dendroclimate data showing the MWP and present temperatures are not unusual.

    Monckton has a problem in that he isn’t able to do more than tinker around the edges of the IPCC science because even he in his wildest moments couldn’t imagine what I have proved with real science, which is that the IPCC case is based on fake science.


    Report this

    383

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Sounds interesting. Have you prepared a paper on that?


      Report this

      20

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        I have written one paper on the rreal end of ice ages, biofeedback as the thermohaline circulation restarts. The trouble is Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong and I have to get that accepted first!

        I am writing the second paper now about the real GHE, the rise in temperature of the surface as the GHGs, by reducing surface emissivity, increased the radiation impedance.


        Report this

        121

    • #
      kuhnkat

      1) using two pyrgeometers back to back does nothing to tell you the energy flow. It only gives you net numbers from the Stefan-Boltzman equation built into them. As they apparently have never done a detailed study of the emissivity of the material for which they are measuring the temperature, (the ground and the atmosphere at the measurement site) the numbers are pretty much meaningless.

      2) I have no idea what you are claiming. Please post some observations with your further explanation.

      3) are you speaking about thermalization of the IR with the GHG or after the GHG absorbs the IR and collides with another molecule before emitting??


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Champness

    Dear turnedoutnice,

    Can you elaborate on your claims 2 and 3.
    They seem to accord with the results of my experiment, in which I was unable to show any warming from reflected radiation.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      2 is standard radiative equilibrium physics. Two black bodies bodies in thermal equilibrium at the same temperature emit no IR over any wavelength band. The atmosphere with emissivity ~0.75 in thermal equilibrium with a near black body Earth’s surface leaves residual IR mostly water vapour side bands and ozone plus IR through the atmospheric window.

      3 Is very simple. Because the atmosphere is in local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, no IR absorbed by a GHG molecule can be directly thermalised. Instead it pseudo-diffuses to heterogeneities.

      I have also written on WUWT to explain why the meteorologists have for 50 years been repeating the same basic mistake, which is to imagine that a pyrgeometer measures a real energy flux. It doesn’t, reading a temperature signal. This is a brand new bit of reasoning.

      Put a radiometer between two bodies at thermal equilibrium so it measures over 360°. The signal is zero. Now put a metal plate between the first body and the sensor. Its signal immediately jumps to the temperature of Body 2 yet there is still no energy transfer Body 1 to Body 2 or vice-versa.

      The answer to the conundrum is that the signal is the artefact of the shield. Without the shield the signal does not exist. So, pyrgeometers measure a signal from the sky which does not exist except as a temperature measurement.

      Because of this most of the IR in the Trenberth Energy Budget is imaginary.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      cohenite

      TON, re: LTEs, this may be of interest:

      A very helpful concept is a weighting function. At any location (and time) P, frequency, polarization (where important), and in any given direction Q,” … “The emission weighting function** is a distribution, that when multiplied by the black body intensity as a function of local temperature (assuming LTE) and then integrated over space, is equal to the intensity of radiation reaching P from Q. In LTE (and for an approximation assuming conditions change slowly relative to photon travel times), the emission weighting function for radiation at P from Q is equal to the absorption weighting function at P for radiation going toward Q. The radiation at P from Q is emitted from one weighting function and absorbed by another, and the radiation in the opposite direction comes from the other weighting function and is absorbed by the first, with emission as a function of temperature, so the net intensity depends on the temperatures of the pair of weighting functions. This can all be integrated over directions” … “to give the fluxes and net flux per unit area across some defined surface at a location and the weighting functions for that.”

      1. This description assumes the real component of the index of refraction n = 1. Variations in n affect radiation in what can be considered two ways (that are linked):

      A. they bend the paths the radiation takes, thus affecting the weighting functions. a weighting function will tend to be compressed into regions of higher n and dispersed out of regions of lower n, which is related to – and includes the effects of – total internal reflection, and is related to the following point:

      B. refraction compresses rays into a smaller solid angle (concentrating the intensity) as n increases, and do the opposite as n decreases (the intensity is proportional to the square of n, at least if n does not vary over direction at a given location (it might be the same even when n is not isotropic, but I’m not sure). Related to that, actual blackbody intensity is a function of n, so that, in the absence of any optical thickness or partial reflection outside a blackbody, the intensity of blackbody radiation coming from different blackbodies at different n will be the same when it reaches the same n.

      It isn’t necessary to consider the value of n over the weighting functions once the weighting functions are established; the change in blackbody emission and refraction are accounted for by the effect of refraction on the weighting function; so one can use the n=1 value of Ibb to first compute the intensities at P back and forth in direction Q, and then multiply that by n^2 for the value of n at P (or some other procedure if anisotropy in n affects the relationship?) to find the actual intensities, and then integrate over direction to find a flux per unit area across a surface at P; if n is isotopric then the integration can be done first and the results can be multiplied by n^2.

      2. This is how weighting functions determine fluxes and intensities across a location. The locations that are part of one weighting function will also be part of another weighting function for the fluxes and intensities at a different location.

      An alternative perspective can be gained by considering The density of the emission weighting function for the intensity reaching point P1 from direction Q1 at some frequency and polarization that comes from a point P2.

      Further, one can consider the portion of that density that leaves P2 in some direction Q2 with some polarization – let’s call this E1.

      And one can consider the emission weighting function density E2 for radiation going in the opposite direction from P1 in direction Q1 with the polarization considered at P1 and reaching P2 from Q2 with the polarization considered at P2. Let n1 and n2 be the real components of the index of refraction at P1 and P2. f(n) = n^2 if n is isotropic; it might be the same if n is anisotropic but I’m not sure.

      For LTE, the relationship for emission in one direction and absorption from that direction requires that the intensity (per unit volume at P1 per unit volume at P2, thus in units of W/m2 per unit spectrum (and per unit of range of polarizations) per steradian (unit of solid angle) per unit volume^2) emitted from P2 and aborbed by P1 is E1*E2*Ibb(P2)*f(nx), and the intensity in the opposite direction absorbed at P2 is E1*E2*Ibb(P1)*f(nx), where Ibb(P) is the blackbody intensity (for index of refraction = 1) for conditions at P. and nx is the n at the point Px where the intensity is measured. Thus the net intensity per unit volume at P1 per unit volume at P2 is proportional to the difference between Ibb(P1) and Ibb(P2), and is positive in the direction from warmer to colder temperature.

      This can be integrated over polarizations and directions at P2, then over polarizations and directions at P1, and then over a volume V2 at P2, and then over a volume V1 at P1 (or the same steps in any order), to give the fluxes between V1 and V2 and the net flux from V1 to V2 (units of W per unit frequency, not W/m2 or etc.) And then integrated over frequency, of course.

      This perspective shows the net flux is from a higher to lower temperature for LTE conditions.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    To save time for the UNIPCC, I have updated the entire scientific case for castastrophic anthropogenic global warming, after taking into account Lord Monckton’s review comments.

    ” “


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Richard S Courtney

      Manicbeancounter:

      The IPCC exists to justify AGW as a political tool and does not need to make a case for it because AGW is its ‘given’. This is clearly stated by the IPCC: e.g.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
      http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

      So, “science” is selected and presented by by the IPCC to fulfil its poltical purpose; i.e. the IPCC’s only purpose.

      Richard


      Report this

      60

  • #

    I support Lord Monckton’s points; although I think the reality is that if the IPCC really cared about reality and all which that implies – they would not have been created in the first place. They are purely political instrument, the ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing; and it is up to people like Lord Monckton, and ourselves, to keep revealing the wolf..


    Report this

    180

    • #

      Monckton knows for sure that the IPCC was never supposed to be a public service. But it’s an excellent rhetorical technique to expose how far from that they are, to carefully methodically document what they would be doing if they were such an institution.

      The contrast speaks for itself.

      The IPCC need to pretend they are transparent, open to review, based on evidence, and unbiased.

      Monckton’s game is to pretend that they might be those things.


      Report this

      181

  • #
    Climate Scientology

    Too late, it’s beyond fixing. Past legitimate attempts at climate science has been for the most part replaced with climate scientology.

    Indoctrination in science is nothing more than religion, yet that does not stop the IPCC trying to create it’s own green bible.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 10. It is time to recognize that a few (maybe 4) of the CMIP5/AR5 model configurations have actually mimiced the current 21st century stasis, to throw out the rest, and to focus on whether those that are apparently valid are so for credible reasons.

    David Stockwell notes similarly in his paper ‘On the Dynamics of Global Temperature’ (page 32 wrt CMIP3/AR4):-

    4.2 Climate models
    Evaluation of computer simulations complements analysis of natural tem4perature series Koutsoyiannis et al. [2008], Douglass et al. [2008], Santer et al. [2008]. Table 4) lists the AR and SD for each GCM illustrated graphically in Fig 13, along with the natural satellite (red) and surface data sets (green). Most GCMs di ffer substantially from the natural AR value, but some GCMs are better than others. Models that showed reasonable agreement were NCAR1, NCAR2, MIROC3, MRI, and MIUB. Others may be less useful as test-beds of the natural system. These results indicate a subset of models will be more realistic, and a consensus of models will give inferior results.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

    Also see Fig 13, page 33.

    CMIP5 vs observations here from John Christy’s EPW testimony:-

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

    John made an update for his EPS testimony that clearly shows INM-CM4 right between UAH and RSS but did the Russians get it right for valid reasons?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Gareth

    each comment is headed (e.g.):
    “Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0″
    I think he means that the comment is general rather than referring to any specific text but it doesn’t look very good and detracts from the message. I think we need to get details like this right if we want to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree ;-)


    Report this

    22

    • #

      Gareth, it’s a technique that mocks their official-pedantry. (They’ve paid so much attention but to all the wrong details).

      I wrote to Monckton myself last night saying that while I liked the use of:

      “Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0″

      Strictly it should have read:
      “Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page n, line n


      Report this

      91

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    The good Lordship’s comments are spot on. As such, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that they’ll be acted upon.
    The identification of the political spin is the very last thing that the politicians want. It’s all science, you see, nothing political at all.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    RoHa

    Lord Monckton is certainly working hard to redeem himself from his association with Thatcher.

    And I’m sure he would write “Political appointees” rather than “Political appointee’s”, and “the scientists’ ones” rather than “the scientists ones”.


    Report this

    117

  • #
    Sandy McCulloch

    Is there any way of getting an audio of your blog please?
    I have a reading problem, but am very keen on your writings,
    it would help a little if you could increse the font size.
    Thank you, Sandy. 82 yea old.

    (You could use the browser OPERA that allows you right on the bottom page to adjust your font size.The browser is free and easy to download) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Sandy, sorry it’s not easy to read. In my computer I can click Control + and the fonts get larger. (Control – makes them smaller again). I hope that helps.

      I wish we could get audio. Perhaps there is an automated reader that could help? If that Exxon cheque turned up (or the $300k ARC Grant) I could pay someone to make audio or even read the things myself on video.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Sandy McCulloch

    Could you please do an audio of your blog.
    I have a reading problem after a very bad stroke.
    Thank you, 82 year old, Sandy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      HI,

      have you looked into screen and text readers for vision impaired? There are many on the market. Windows and MacOS also have some built-in capability. You wont get Jo’s voice though.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Joe V.

      Sandy has a point and not just for the many stroke survivors out there. Todays kids have come to expect everything on easy, fast, accessible media format. That’s what they relate to. That’s why You Tube is so popular.

      Despite the admirable clarity of Jo’s site, which indeed attracts many to the subject for its outstanding clarity and effectiveness, Jo’s appearances on YouTube still seem few and far between. David & Jo’s short video series some time ago was outstanding.

      The World needs more of it .


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Keith L

    Well normally I have great respect for Lord Moncktons judgment.

    But if he REALLY believes that the reputation of the IPCC can be salvaged….

    ;)


    Report this

    61

  • #

    Wonderfully put. The ONLY way the IPCC will survive or gain any credibility at all would be to follow Lord Monckton’s suggestions rigorously. I would only add that existing management needs to go, it’s time for adults to take control.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Skeptikal

    The only way to fix the IPCC is to shut it down.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Richard S Courtney

      Skeptikal:

      You say,

      The only way to fix the IPCC is to shut it down.

      No! That would be an error.
      Closure of the IPCC could be (mis)represented as being conclusion of the IPCC’s work.

      The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is doing that which is required; i.e.
      he is exposing the failure of the IPCC as a scientific organisation and its true nature as a political body.

      Only such exposure can prevent the IPCC’s Reports being used as an excuse for actions by politicians.

      Richard


      Report this

      62

  • #

     
    The IPCC predictions are wrong because the models are wrong.

    The models (and typical explanations of the so-called greenhouse conjecture) all assume implicitly that there would have been a zero thermal gradient in the atmosphere in the absence of radiating molecules. That’s why they say the surface would have been 255K.

    This flies in the face of physics that dates back to the late 19th century when Loschmidt said he believed there would be a natural temperature gradient in still air which was in a gravitational field. This does not require a source of heat at the base of an atmosphere, nor any convection. Instead, it is due to a molecular process which, by keeping the sum of KE+PE constant, ensures entropy does not decrease, for the laws of physics say it never does.

    But the IPCC assumptions implicitly depend upon such a violation of one of the most basic laws of physics known to mankind.

    For more detail see my paper on the subject.
     


    Report this

    32

    • #
      KR

      Doug Cotton“The models (and typical explanations of the so-called greenhouse conjecture) all assume implicitly that there would have been a zero thermal gradient in the atmosphere in the absence of radiating molecules.”

      No, they do not. In the absence of radiating (and absorbing) molecules the atmosphere would show a quite stable lapse rate due to the simple relationship of the ideal gas law: PV = nRT – it would be at or near surface temperature at the ground, cooler with altitude, and the only convection would be from differences in surface temperature at different locations. Simply because that would be the only energy source/sink for a non-radiating atmosphere.

      Your claim is a strawman fallacy.


      Report this

      27

  • #
    Omniphogos

    It grieves me to see such a promising career in haberdashey derailed by the siren song of scientism.

    Why should a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Broderers deprive us of his services as a collar turner to recite stem-winders at soft coal love-ins in the boonies Down Under?


    Report this

    08

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    In history every time politics and science united we have had misery and destruction.
    Millions dead and perverted science caused starvation and suffering, and that was the worlds recent history, do fools never learn or are bodies like the IPCC set up intentionaly to do harm.

    I am having trouble coming to terms with the political elite using the novel 1984 as an instruction manual.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      1984 is a dystopic vision. For a critical analysis, try a bit of Schumpeter. His,”Marxism, Capitalism and Democracy” lays bare the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and of course, Hayek’s”The Road to Serfdom” is a must.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        The Tome I was referring to is in fact titled “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” That’s what comes of relying on the recall of a proto-geriatric mind.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Catamon

    Written on no less reliable site that the Lord Monktons himself that:

    The 16-year temperature stasis that has now occurred must be explicitly faced.

    and:

    one might argue that the relatively weak warming signal from CO2 has been overlain by three recent natural influences: in late 2001 we entered a ~30-year cooling phase of the ~60-year cycle of the ocean oscillations; the current ~11-year solar cycle displays near-unprecedentedly weak solar activity, implying the possibility of a Dalton or even Maunder minimum in the coming decades; and there has recently been a double-dip La Niña.

    So, for arguments sake i’ll make a perhaps bold assumption that the above quotes are believable.

    That means that with 3 theoretically cooling influences referred to currently in play, we are in a “temperature stasis”, not measurably cooling as i would expect.

    Now 60 years before 1998 it was 1938, so i’d say that was in the last “cooling phase of the ~60-year cycle of the ocean oscillations”.

    it looks to me like around then we were also, broadly speaking, in a similar stage of low or decreasing solar activity.

    So, for arguments sake i will assume that the decade following 1938 has similar conditions in regard to solar and ocean “cycles” to what Monkton is claiming for the 1998 to now period.

    It appears that the temperature records around then show a quite rapid cooling over a decade or so.

    That didn’t happen post 1998 unless of course there is some broad based and pervasive conspiracy to cover it up?. :) could be taken that there is some other factor at play now compared to then?

    Appears that Lord Monkton is perhaps not quite as smart as he thinks he is, and the most polite thing i can say about it seems that he has rather blatantly shot himself in the foot with his published justifications for “16 years with no warming”.

    Who’d a thunk it coming from him??


    Report this

    15

    • #

      The pseudonymous “Catamite” seems to find it objectionable that I should do my best to be reasonable by considering why it is that, notwithstanding a considerable increase in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for 16 years.

      The climate modelers themselves have ruled out – to 95% confidence – intervals of 15 years or more without global warming. No doubt they took natural influences into account in reaching their conclusion. There has now been no warming for 16 years. A discrepancy has, therefore, arisen between the models’ exaggerated predictions and observed reality. The models were wrong. Get used to it.


      Report this

      73

      • #
        Catamon

        LoL! An ad hom attack and abusive name calling from one apparently purporting to be daH Monkers himself?? Be still my fluttering heart. Although being referred to as “Catamite” by someone who may in fact be an old english boarding school boy?? Bit icky, lets not go there.

        Why not go to the point. I have assumed that the statements made by “you” are correct. With that assumption (bold i know, buts lets go out on a limb here wot!!) in play i’ve laid out how i think “your” statements actually imply another mechanism in play that could be CO2 levels.

        If you read and understood what i wrote, you would know i am not actually, in this post you are replying to, making a case that there has been a significant warming over the last 16 years. I am suggesting that since there also has been no significant cooling over that period (when there was over a recent comparable period) its worth thinking about why that may be the case. Think about it. Those natural cycles you referred to are, well, cycles.

        Begs a bit of a question as regards this whole Global Warming thing wot?

        Carry On! :)


        Report this

        13

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          So Catamon, you are in essence agreeing that there has been no warming for 16 years, but then argue that, because there has been no cooling, then that is OK. That is changing the ground rules around the logic.


          Report this

          33

          • #
            KR

            Since 1997:

            HadCRUT4: Trend: 0.049 ±0.126 °C/decade (2σ)
            NOAA: Trend: 0.044 ±0.123 °C/decade (2σ)
            GISTEMP: Trend: 0.085 ±0.132 °C/decade (2σ)
            RSS: Trend: -0.003 ±0.229 °C/decade (2σ)
            UAH: Trend: 0.090 ±0.232 °C/decade (2σ)

            The important thing to note about all of these trend estimates (computed with uncertainties for autocorrelation, as per Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) is that while the central trend is low, the uncertainty includes both zero trend and the approximately 0.16 °C/decade observed since about 1975. Which means given this short time frame you cannot make a determination between either zero or the trend of the last 50 years, due to that statistic insignificance.

            The lack of statistic significance for a trend simply doesn’t, if you actually understand the math, mean you can conclude that the trend doesn’t exist – simply that you need more data. You need sufficient data to reject either the trend hypothesis (~0.16) or the null hypothesis (0.0), and 16 years is just not long enough given the year to year variations.

            From 1993 (20 years, with statistical significance for all data sets except RSS):

            HadCRUT4: Trend: 0.140 ±0.097 °C/decade (2σ)
            NOAA: Trend: 0.135 ±0.097 °C/decade (2σ)
            GISTEMP: Trend: 0.167 ±0.101 °C/decade (2σ)
            RSS: Trend: 0.107 ±0.166 °C/decade (2σ)
            UAH: Trend: 0.175 ±0.164 °C/decade (2σ)

            From 1983 (30 years, statistically significant for all):

            HadCRUT4: Trend: 0.166 ±0.053 °C/decade (2σ)
            NOAA: Trend: 0.158 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)
            GISTEMP: Trend: 0.163 ±0.056 °C/decade (2σ)
            RSS: Trend: 0.148 ±0.090 °C/decade (2σ)
            UAH: Trend: 0.165 ±0.090 °C/decade (2σ)

            Note that with enough data you can determine whether the hypothesis of a trend or the null hypothesis of none is supported by the data. And the null hypothesis is rejected.

            16 years is a statistically insignificant cherry-pick – at that point you are only looking at noise. It is not enough data to come to conclusions about the trends… and certainly not enough data to be trumpeting such conclusions as if they were supportable.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Fascinating KR. Can you explain why the modellers came up with 15 years being statistically significant, and what period of time would you consider adequate to be able to identify a trend?


            Report this

            21

          • #
            KR

            Kevin Lohse“Can you explain why the modellers came up with 15 years being statistically significant…”

            Since I don’t know the source of that statement, who said it, in what context, and relative to which data (Mr. Monckton, input?), I cannot address it.

            As to the time required to identify a trend, that is dependent on both the trend itself and the noise level of the data – which why we do statistical analysis. And if the trend changes, the time required to separate such a change from the noise will again be dependent on both the trend Δ and the noise level.

            Certainly a trend of roughly 0.16 °C/decade statistically separates from the null hypothesis/null trend for most temperature data sets with 20 years of data, and for all with 25 years.

            If you can correctly account for and remove some of the variation, such as solar cycles, volcanic aerosols, ENSO influences, as per Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, you may be able to separate a trend from zero with 2σ significance in as little as 11-12 years.

            If you don’t run the numbers, you’re just guessing. We use statistics just so we don’t get fooled by noise, such as that 3σ El Nino in 1997-1998, the one that appears at the start of all of these “no warming” claims.

            One thing to keep in mind when considering the various presentations of models versus observations – running an ensemble of models averages out many of these variations. Nobody expects observations with natural variations to exactly track that average of the models.

            However, if you can back out the natural variations, as per Rahmstorf et al 2011 (see Figure 1), the GHG driven changes in temperature are exactly along the model predictions.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            KR

            Kevin Lohse – Regarding that “15 year” statement, you might want to look at a statistical view of 15 years of climate data.

            None of the temperature data sets are statistically significant for the last 15 years. None.

            If you look at artificial data with the same statistical properties for trend and noise (the basis of Monte Carlo testing), 15 to 20 year runs of negative or twice positive trends show up frequently.

            Take a look at this. If you split the data from 1975 to now at 1997, you see a low trend in the last 16 years, a higher trend in the first 22. But if you include all of the data, the trend 1975 to now, including the last 16 years is higher than the earlier 1975-1997 trend. Looking at enough data for statistical significance simply reinforces the data driven conclusion of a trend.

            If desired, you can cherry-pick 15-16 year intervals from the climate data that show low trends, or for that matter very very high trends. But that’s just looking at noise, with too little data to actually identify the real underlying trends under the variations.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Catamon

            So Catamon, you are in essence agreeing that there has been no warming for 16 years

            No. Read what i wrote.

            you would know i am not actually, in this post you are replying to, making a case that there has been a significant warming over the last 16 years.

            Please keep comments in context, or they sound silly.


            Report this

            11

  • #
    Joe V.

    Is Monckton a member of the IPCC expert reviewers any more ?

    Now that this good Lord has been banned by the UN for speaking out of turn and he won’t be getting invited to sit in on any of their cosy confabs anymore, how does that affect his expert reviewer position ?
    .
    Does the ban extent to all UN and UN sponsored business or just to that of the UNFCCC ?
    .
    While we hear reports all the time of the UN wanting to ban this and being in favour of banning that has anyone actually been banned from the UN before, short of being a Country ?
    .
    Is there any sort of due process for issuing these bans or right of appeal against them (not that I’d imagine Monckton will be bothering).
    .
    I’m sure Lord Monckton will wear his ban with distinction and the UN will rue the day they ever conferred it.
    .
    The last Ban from the UN bacame their Leader of course
    .


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Catamon

      and the UN will rue the day they ever conferred it.

      Why? Seriously, i’m pretty sure there will be very few if any people at the UN who would be “rue” daH Monkster not turning up and making some idiot pronouncement or misquoting people.


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        I am equally sure that there are many at the UN who will continue to mainline off the computer model-generated virtual paradigm and ignore the mounting weight of empirical evidence from the real world in favour of a political fantasy – just like you, Catamon.


        Report this

        51

      • #
        Joe V.

        MOB’s UN ban will do more to dismantle Catastrophic AGW Alarmism than even admitting him as a Party might have.
        It surpasses all of his feats to date , in terms of publicising the nonsene (sheer hard work notwithstanding of course). Better than dropping in by Parachute to Durban, better than being knocked unconscious by Police at Copenhagen, better than Cancun. Better even than Rio.
        He will see to it.


        Report this

        11

        • #
          Catamon

          Better than dropping in by Parachute to Durban, better than being knocked unconscious by Police at Copenhagen, better than Cancun. Better even than Rio.
          He will see to it.

          Does he wear his undies on the outside of his tights as well?? :)


          Report this

          11

  • #
    thingadonta

    As to comment number 10, as to the discrepancy between models and actual surface temperature, the alarmists like England are saying that the original predictions in the 1990s are correct, it’s just that one has to ‘adjust’ the temperature trend to account for volcanic activity and ENSO since the predictions were made.

    In other words, what the alarmists are saying is this: I predict Australia will beat Sri Lanka in the cricket. But when Sri Lanka wins, I can say my prediction was correct, because Australia would have won if the Sri Lankans hadn’t scored so many runs, and got so many wickets.

    This is where science has passed into fantasyland.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    I am happy to answer the question from commenters about the source of my statement that the modelers had said 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between their predictions and observed reality.

    The exact quotation is as follows:

    “The simulations rule out, at the 95% level, zero trends for 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    The source is a paper written by the world’s leading climate modelers for the NOAA, and published in its annual State of the Climate report for 2008. The quotation will be found at p. 523 of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for that year.

    I am told, but have not yet personally verified by calculation, that if one uses the latest HadCRUt4 dataset rather than HadCRUt3, there has been no statistically-significant warming for 18 years.


    Report this

    21

    • #
      KR

      Monckton of Brenchley – Thank you for that reference.

      One small point WRT that reference – the quote you gave is not found anywhere on page 523 of the 2008 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, as you stated, but rather in the second publication you noted, the 2008 State of the Climate report, pg. 523, column 2.

      A far more important point is that you have taken that quote out of context, and neglected to provide the conclusions from that section, also on page 523, column 3:

      These results show that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capable of reproducing the current slowdown in global temperature rise. Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle [ ], may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations. The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts [ ].

      (emphasis added, specific paper references dropped)

      It is clear to me that your specific quote is being presented in contradiction to the conclusions of that publication – a plain Out of Context Fallacy. I sincerely hope this is a case of not reading the section fully, as otherwise I can see no other possibility than a deliberate and mendacious distortion of the publication.

      In my opinion, in the interest of honest dicsussion, you should retract any of your claims drawn from that out of context quote.

      As I noted in my previous post, and as noted elsewhere, a lack of statistically significant warming in a short period is not a proof of a lack of warming – determining whether it warming or not requires sufficient data to separate the hypothesis of a trend from a null hypothesis of none, which 16 years of data simply does not provide. The range of supported trends contain both. You cannot legitimately claim “no warming”, you can only state that the matter is “not clear from the short data set”, that trend analysis from a too short period is indistinguishable from year to year variation/noise.

      When enough data to separate the trend hypothesis from the null hypothesis at two sigma separation is examined, the null hypothesis of no warming is rejected. The data indicates that the warming trend continues. And your claim of 16 years without warming is just statistically unsupportable.


      Report this

      32

      • #
        kuhnkat

        KR

        What don’t you understand about ENGLISH??

        Monckton stated: “The source is a paper written by the world’s leading climate modelers for the NOAA, and published in its annual State of the Climate report for 2008.”

        You should really try to READ and understand that complicated stuff before proving your ignorance.

        In a comment further above you started rambling about Monte Carlo simulations. Sorry your pompousness, but, the last 16 years is NOT statistics. The last 16 years is the actual lack of warming that NO climate model projected. Please link us to a climate model that had a 16 year lack of warming BEFORE it actually happened and still shows a 2c+ warming through 2100.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        By the way, do you really understand how STUPID you sound claiming that statistics rejects no warming when there hasn’t been any?? You really need to get back in touch with reality boy.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


        Report this

        14

    • #
      Mattb

      Hey MoB – have you been to any concerts at the new Monckton-eternity-puzzle-inspired Perth Arena yet?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    KR

    Monckton of Brenchley – Also relevant is simply examining the climate variability based upon observed data, as in this post on “15 year” periods.

    Given the observed ARMA(1,1) noise levels, and the observed trend from the last 50 years, examining runs of data with level of variation produce 18-20 year negative trends from noise alone. Despite the known, underlying trend. It’s entirely unsurprising to see short stretches of negative or of very high (non-significant) trend given the observed variations in the climate.

    Also noteworthy is that the temperature records (GISS, HadCRUT3, HadCRUT4, UAH) all show that the average of the last 16 years is above the trend from the previous 20 years (statistically significant), and including those 16 years increases the observed trendtake look at the data. Your “16 years of no warming” is strictly an artifact of starting that measure from a 3σ El Nino in 1997/1998, from an extreme point of noise. Not a real trend.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      kuhnkat

      KR,

      that’s right, take a look at the data. The current interglacial is cooler than previous ones. Guess the long term trend is cooler. Sorry you cherry pick those short periods in the NOISE!!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Those statistics are really pointless aren’t they? We can prove anything we want if we are STUPID enough to accept Junk Science in the first place!!


      Report this

      14

  • #

    [Sorry - posted on the wrong thread - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thingadonta

    Tim Flannery’s technique with dealing with getting his predictions wrong (such as that our dams won’t be full again) will surely be taken on by the IPCC: “yes we said that then, but the science has moved on”. They will just move the goalposts and come up with another reason why the temperature hasn’t risen, such as, “pauses up to 100 years have occurred in the past, so we expect warming might resume some time before about 2100 AD”. That way they geet funding for another 100 years.

    I work in 3rd world countries, and the extent to which goalposts can be moved by corrupt governments is only limited by one’s imagination. You could put them on the moon, and nobody would blink in some places in the 3rd world. Nothing from the IPCC therefore surprises me.


    Report this

    21

  • #

    [...] — IPCC needs to explicitly list all feedbacks & make an estimate of each (with error bars) Keep reading  → Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mike the Tyke

    As an interested party, not privy to the detail enjoyed by so many of the correspondents above, can anyone explain please just which “model”/”models” is/are being referred to and to what extent CO2 is deemed to affect climate within that/those models? And, please, stop the personal assaults if you wish us – mere mortals – to have respect for your views


    Report this

    00