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



Monckton Tour Dates updated – Wagga Wagga, Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle

NSW

Saturday 23rd February: (7:00 pm) Presentation Wagga Wagga Commercial Club, Nathan Room
Saturday, 23rd February (12:00 noon) George and Paul interview, 954 2UE
Monday, 25th February:  (7:10am) Alan Jones interview, 873 2GB
Click more for booking details of the other dates this week in  Sydney & Newcastle, next week in Perth, and the week after that in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Tuesday 26th February: Evening (7.30 pm) South Newcastle Leagues club, 46 Llewellyn St Merewether NSW

Thursday 28th February: Evening (7:30 pm) North Sydney Leagues Club, Abbott St Cammeray NSW 2062

Friday 1st March: Afternoon (1:00 pm) Sydney Mechanics School – Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, 280 Pitt St, Sydney

Friday 1st March: Evening (7:00 pm) Sydney Mechanics School – Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, 280 Pitt St, Sydney

WA

Wednesday 6th March: Evening (7:30 pm) Dalkieth Hall,Perth. 97 Waratah Avenue Dalkeith
Friday 8th March: Evening social event in Subiaco Perth, with Monckton, organized by Perth skeptics. Email Elisha Ladhams  (ladhamsej AT gmail.com) for details.

Saturday 9th March: Evening Presentation at UWA. Details to be advised. Email Elisha Ladhams  (ladhamsej AT gmail.com).

QLD

Tuesday 12th March: Evening (7:00 pm)  THE IRISH CLUB, Brisbane.175 Elizabeth Street Brisbane, opposite The HILTON
Wednesday 13th March: Coolangatta and Tweed Heads Golf Club, Gold coast

New Zealand Tour

1st April – 26th April: For Tour Details Links and Dates in New Zealand see:   The Climate Realist’s Network

_____________

To book a Ticket:

Phone Mike at The Lord Monckton Foundation on 03 9852 2320
Visit Ticketek online (though some venues are not available on Ticketek yet, it will be updated in the next few days).
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (43 votes cast)
Monckton Tour Dates updated - Wagga Wagga, Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle , 8.7 out of 10 based on 43 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bl2vy5k

46 comments to Monckton Tour Dates updated – Wagga Wagga, Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle

  • #
    AndyG55

    Two questions I would like to ask the good gent:

    1. Can he point me to ANY paper that shows empirically that CO2 has ANY warming effect in an open atmosphere.
    (Both Lord Monckton and Jo still seem to think it does, I would like to see some actual proof)

    2. According to Steve Goddard, once you remove all the GISS and other “adjustments” there is basically no warming trend since 1900. Why do people continue to use GISS and Hadcrut as any sort of refernce to pre-1979 temperatures, when they know that large adjustments have created most of the trend in the so-called global land temperature.
    (Jo, you yourself recently had a post that highlighted many very warm temps in Australia in the late 1800′s.and many un-official records from that era still exist)

    If I am able to get to the Newcastle meeting, I hope to have a chance to ask these questions.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Brett_McS

      See you there!


      Report this

      30

    • #
      mshell

      I also would like the same evidence of CO2 having a warming effect in an open atmosphere. Can anyone direct me to a paper that shows a warming affect of CO2 under IR radiation in the lab.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Andy, Some of us started asking questions like that from about 1992, about the GHG/temperature relation. I can’t recall a credible answer. If I could, I’d pass it on. Maybe I’ve been asking the wrong question.
      Basic spectroscopy shows that a molecule like CO2 can absorb a photon(s) of adequate energy, move to a more energetic state, then release energy, not uncommonly some heat energy. The question has long been “How much heat in the context of the atmosphere of the earth?” (My units and language are simplified but the process is generally accepted.)


      Report this

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        How much heat does a bush fire release.. Where does it go?

        If any part of the atmosphere is warmer than the pressure/temp gradient/differences allow for, the atmosphere will AUTOMATICALLY balance itself.

        Wind, convection .. etc , etc.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Simon Conway-Smith

        But surely the point is that the CO2 molecule is not a heat source so can’t emit any more than it has absorbed.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        Basic statistical thermodynamics means the extra energy introduced into a system at local thermodynamic equilibrium cannot be thermalised.

        Instead, an already excited molecule emits a photon which pseudo-diffuses to a heterogeneous sink.

        In other words, the IR is absorbed but cannot heat the atmosphere.

        This has been proved experimentally by Nahle’s Mylar balloon experiment compared with the PET bottle equivalent where the heating is at the bottle walls.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Andy

      I know we both agree on the impotence of CO2 as a heating agent but I think that Lord Monckton is often just taking what the Warmers say and reassessing the claim and then applying his maths skill to finding obvious errors.

      His skills are mainly in maths and logic and mostly that’s a very good start but I think he suffers from not having any engineering experience and gives too many concessions to warmer misconceptions.

      The only experiment I have seen on the effect of CO2 in atmosphere was done by the Myth Busters Programme on TV.

      Some female professor of physics lent her name to it.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

      Funny that the two middle boxes were the ones with CO2 and they received extra doses of heat from the lanterns, which , naturally was going to make them HOTTER.

      Poor experimental control.

      Not poor: Appalling, to put this junk as proof of CAGW.

      KK


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Joe V.

      Monckton panders to many of the favoured notions of CAGW followers ‘solum ad argumentum’ , then proceeds to demolish them one-at-a-time, making it easier for the rest of us to follow. He is an excellent communicator in much the same way that Jo is, seeking to illustrate, clarify & explain, to the point of understanding, rather than hiding behind complexity, obscurity and deferring to authorities , methods so favoured by the bureaucrats and some academics whose self righteous bubbles he so delights in bursting. He has a grasp of significance that would put many practising engineers to shame & something which modern scientific training tends to lose.
      The very antithesis of the grammatical, nitpicking nobodies that aspire to silence him.


      Report this

      101

    • #
      Peter Champness

      Dear Andy,

      The evidence is here: “Greenhouse Effect in a Bottle”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

      Courtesy of the BBC!

      Not in the open atmosphere, as you would like to see, but in a bottle. I don’t know who the professor is and the demonstration fails all requirements of an experiment, but I have not yet had time to repeat it and prove it wrong.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Champness

        Another more infamous example here:

        http://vimeo.com/28991442

        Bill Nye the Science Guy on the 24 hour Gore-a -thon.

        Actually, on reflection the demonstrations only show ( or purport to show) that CO2 can absorb infrared radiation. I would not dispute that! It does not show that CO2 can radiate that energy. Nor does it show that anything else can be warmned by the outgoing CO2 radiation. Anything in the bottle, including the thermometer is warmede by conduction.


        Report this

        01

    • #
      michael hammer

      Hi Andy;

      I am also a skeptic of CAGW but non the less,l I can do better than direct you to the sort of paper you seek. I can direct you to absolutely unequivocal experimental evidence. Have a look at the thermal infra red emission signal from earth as seen from orbit – the data from the NIMBUS satellite. Look at the deep notch in the emission intensity at around 14.7 microns. That notch corresponds to the CO2 absorption line and represents reduced emission to space. The energy not emitted is of course retained (due to the absorption by CO2) and retained energy will increase the temperature of earth.

      The area of that notch can be used to easily compute the amount of energy retained by CO2 at the current level and it comes to about 27 watts/sqM agreeing with most published data. Knowing the total absorbance of CO2 at present (look at the paper by Hienz Hug) which is about 2000 abs (at 280 ppm) that translates to about 10 doublings since the line center saturated. Once the line center saturates the relationship between concentration and energy absorbed becomes logarithmic so that computes to 27/10 or 2.7 watts/sqM per doubling of CO2. This in turn equates to about 0.8C per doubling before any feedbacks.

      Warmists claim massive positive feedback which is how they amplify 0.8C to 3C but in fact essentially all stable systems display significant net negative feedback and what ever anyone wants to claim to the contrary, our climate has been stable for billions of years (else life would have dies out long ago. That means the 3C per doubling is probably wrong by about a factor of 10 and I don’t think <0.5C of warming per doubling is worth getting concerned about.

      cheers
      Mike Hammer


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Peter Champness

        That is good Mike.

        Let’s take it a bit further.
        Firstly, I did not see your reference for the satellite measurement of the Earth’s outgoing radiation. However I will not dispute that it does have some big notches, which i accept correspond with H2O mainly, and CO2 (to a lesser extent) absobtion spectra. So the radiation spectrum of the earth is not black body radiation, hence the Stefan Boltzman equation does not apply, accept as a vague approximation. Therefore the earth can be hotter than the SB calculation would indicate, whilst seeming to be cooler than expected when viewed by a radiometer on a satellite..

        Secondly, what happens to the absorbed radiation? According to the Green House Gas Effect Theory, It is supposed to come back down to earth and warm us up. But for some reason no one seems able to measure it.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          michael hammer

          Hello Peter;

          You are right I did not give a reference to the Nimbus data. I thought that anyone interested would simply use Google (lazy of me I realise). Moving onto the more interesting substance. What nimbus is looking at is thermal IR radiation. This is emitted as a consequence of the temperature of the emitting surface (and the emissivity)which is really neat because it allows us to determine where the radiation originated from (assuming we know the emissivity).

          In the case of ocean, land and gas columns the emissivity is very close to 1 in the thermal IR. Snow is different case – the warmists claim its emissivity is also around 1 (very different to its emissivity in the visible) which is how they can claim such large positive feedback from snow covered regions. I strongly dispute that, however I digress.

          In the atmospheric window 8-13 microns the emission temperature corresponds to the surface temperature – which means the direct emission to space is easily calculated from Planks law. The amount of emission from this region directly to space is far far in excess of that claimed by Kiehl and Trenberth which is why I dispute that energy balance diagram.

          More significantly, emission from the wavelengths around the CO2 line correspond to an emission temperature of about 220k consistent with emission from the tropopause the only region in the atmosphere which is that cold. That finding has implications as to the level of CO2 in the stratosphere – the claim is the stratosphere is well mixed with respect to CO2 but the Nimbus data contradicts such a claim. It suggests the CO2 is pooled in the lower stratosphere near the tropopause – not surprising given the stratosphere is “stratified” and CO2 is much heavier than N2 or O2. The emission at the ozone line corresponds to the temperature of the stratopause again something I would have expected. Indeed these emission processes I suspect likely cause the tropopause and stratopause.

          No of course the SB equation does not apply because different wavelengths come from different altitudes and have different emission temperatures. Planks law does however apply very nicely. Effectively, if emission to space is impeded at some wavelengths then emission at the other wavelengths has to increase to make up the discrepancy and that means the emitting surfaces have to be hotter. More or less what you said in your comments.

          With regard to your claim that no one can measure the emission from the atmosphere back down to the surface I don’t understand why you make such a claim. If I stand on the surface of Earth with a radiometer tuned to the CO2 line and point it down towards the surface I measure emission from the surface which will be substantial. If I point the radiometer in any other direction (including straight up) however I do not get a zero reading, in fact I get essentially the same intensity as straight down. If I now go in a balloon, as I ascend, the emission intensity slowly falls but again it makes no difference in which direction I point the radiometer. That is because the atmosphere all around is emitting at the CO2 line according to its temperature and the local temperature is the same in all directions. Since the temperature slowly falls with altitude so does the emission. The atmosphere in contact with the ground is more or less at the same temperature as the ground and it therefore emits to the same degree. Some of that emission is downwards an strikes the surface where it is absorbed. The fact that we get the same reading irrespective of the direction in which we point the radiometer is evidence of the “downwelling” radiation.

          An interesting question is the air near the ground heated by conduction from the ground or is it heated by absorbing energy radiated by the surface at the GHG wavelengths. The answer is both but I admit I don’t know the relative magnitude of the two effects.

          Don’t get me wrong, I am most certainly not a warmist but it is very counter productive to the argument to not stick rigidly to the science (I am most definitely not accusing you of that, only explaining why I take the line I do). If the warmists argument was utterly against the science it would have been debunked years ago. The trouble is that it is in accord with the science in theory but the magnitudes are exaggerated to create a case where none exists. Just like The Kiehl and Trenberth model. The energy flows they indicate are real its just the magnitudes that are highly questionable. It’s about like claiming that if your house is too cold, you can warm it by lighting a candle. Technically correct, a burning candle gives off heat no question so it must warm the house. The $64 question is how much. In fact its technically correct yet practically wrong just like CAGW.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Speedy

      Andy

      It seems you could be splitting hairs in this argument. The debate is whether CO2 has no effect or bugger all!

      I favour bugger all (refer Beer-Lambert’s Law) but the practical difference from zero is – Bugger all!

      The people to argue with are the doomsayers who make outrageous claims about warming on a lot of dodgy models and short term history. I don’t need to go on about this – you are amply aware of their limitations.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      20

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Because the 15 micron thermal emission band lower atmosphere to surface is near black body, it exactly annihilates the same band from the surface.

      Therefore there can be no CO2-SGW.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        michael hammer

        Turnedoutnice;

        Technically it does not “exactly annihilates the same band from the surface.” Surface emission still occurs, its just that the atmosphere radiates an equal amount of energy back onto the surface (the so called down welling radiation)so upwards and downwards radiation at this wavelength balance. From your comments I suspect probably understand that already but I wanted to make it clear to others reading these comments.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    ps, do you know if we have to pre-book for the Newcastle meeting. ?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Pat K

    I have a lot of admiration for the good Viscount and appreciate his extraordinary communication skills. However I often wonder what good these speaking tours do. Surely the vast majority of the attendees are already in broad agreement with Monkton’s views.


    Report this

    70

    • #

      Pat — skeptics meet skeptics. Skeptics get ideas and info to share and spread. The media interview Monckton to discuss the tour and his ideas. What’s not to like?

      There is most definitely a point, even if the climate faithful are too lazy or frightened to attend.


      Report this

      180

      • #

        the climate faithful are too lazy or frightened to attend

        ISTR that at least one of the local (Perth) accolytes of the IPCC ideology frequenting this blog has been present at some previous events.

        Not that they’ve appeared wearing sandwich boards saying “REPENT! THE END IS NIGH!”, but they certainly seem to avoid any heated argument based natural sciences of the real world; as distinct from the imaginings animated via supercomputers.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        To which I would add, you gain a better impression of credibility of a person after a face-to-face. I was hugely impressed after 5 minutes of chat and an hour of lecture. I wish I had a brain like that, but I don’t, so I can learn from such encounters rather than try to impose my ideas.
        You might read the astute university blog (taxpayer funded?) named “The Conversation” to see how much he is feared. When I mentioned the appropriate word “polymath” (key word search) people acted like moths around a spotlight at the thought, perhaps through realising they had inferior brains in their heads also.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        old bloke

        I attended Monckton’s last presentation in Perth (UWA lecture theatre) and there were one or two of the true-believers in the audience. I would encorage them to attend, Monckton welcomes questions from anyone and he provides a scientifically based civil response. True believers and skeptics both benefit from a Monckton lecture.

        I haven’t heard anything in the news about his travels over east, I hope that he is being received with greater civility than Geert Wilders.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Ian

        Despite the attempts of those such as yourself, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill and many more including of course the redoubtable Viscount Monckton, the MSM with very few exceptions (notably The Australian and surprisingly in recent times, The Age} gives no space for and does not comment upon sceptical views of CAGW. In consequence most of the population will not know who Viscount Monckton is and even less will know he is touring Australia and why he is doing so. As published in the Australian and then on your blog the IPCC chairman Dr Padchauri has softened his line on sceptics but of course, is having a bet each way by extending the time frame of significance for no warming from the initial 15 years to 30-40 years. It is a great pity but given the bias of the ABC hardly surprising, that Helen Caldicott was not told publicly by Waleed Aly what the IPCC chairman had said regarding free and frank exchange of views.. In any event the ABC should be reprimanded for allowing Helen Caldicott to comment on Viscount Monckton’s medical history and she herself should recall the Hippocratic Oath the modern version of which includes “do no harm”. On this topic few have commented on Caldicott’s comments which I find surprising.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Last time in Newcastle the ABC reporter did have brief interview with Monkton before his presentation. Afterwards sitting one row back and by herself she fiddled with her recording system throughout his talk and didn’t pay heed to anything he said or presented on slides. The reporter was there for a sound bite and not to learn. No surprise for there’s no so blind as those who will not see.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      The last one in Newcastle had a couple of young fellows sitting in the front row.

      First inclination was to assume they might be from SkS but they sat there paying attention to what was going on.

      Later they explained that they were there because they worked, I think, up the valley the mining industry, and were concerned of the threat that the Global Warming activities meant for their future employment.

      Something for everybody

      KK


      Report this

      50

  • #

    OT but just got my 25 minute phone call from a UWA student. Basically fund raising for “worthy” causes.
    After the preliminaries when the fundraising was mentioned I suggested firing Lewandowsky and giving the money to those causes. I made it clear I was unhappy about this guy going over the top with his insults about us “deniers”. The young med student said she was taking Prof Lewandowsky’s name as this was the sort of feedback they were looking for.

    Those who are UWA alumni know what to do when you get your call.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      ps. for those who follow these things, for the first 50 – 80 days last year, it was jumping around 5-10C above the 40 year average.

      Then levelled out to about average during summer.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    The global cooling is very obvious now


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Joe V.

    We are rather deprived of Moncktons presentations over here in Blighty and I do wonder why so few of his recent lectures are appearing on You Tube etc. Ann Bressington’s introductory talk from Adelaide being so far the only one I can seem to find.
    Come on Chris, where’s your audio-visual support ? The words not getting out there like it used to from previous tours.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    connolly

    Caldicott has defamed Monckton. There are a number of defamatory imputations in the ABC broadcast. The ABC as the publisher of the defamation should be sued. The limited privelege statutory defences in Australian defamation law cannot be relied upon by Caldicott and the ABC as the staement involved malice. Just sue them and stop this outrage against legitimate and democratic dissent once and for all. Apart from defamation Caldicott expresses a fascist notion that the demos is ignorant, musn’t speak and must be ruled by a technocratic elite (which includes herself of course).


    Report this

    60

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    I’d have considered attending if Wagga Wagga were closer to Walla Walla.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ian H

    New Zealand link broken – please fix.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Kerrigan

    As a medical doctor, I think it is important to note, that inspite of Helen Caldicotts’ smearing of Lord Monckton. The medical board known as APHRA will not take any action against her. Whilst it is against medical ethics to discuss your patients personal and medical history without their consent, she is not a treating physician for Lord Monckton, therefore she is not in breach of her professional responsibilities. Likewise her gross exaggerations of the effects of radiation leaks is not a matter for the medical board to consider, as it is not part of her clinical work as a paediatrician. That said I think Lord Monckton should take legal advice as to whether Dr Caldicott has defamed him, that is another matter.
    Sadly we can expect her paranoid anti-nuclear and AGW ravings to continue unabated.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Barak Gillard

    Don’t worry Christopher, Dr Caldicott is a known crank in the Australian body politic. The ABC has a deadline (the fall of the Gillard government) before which it must give as many loony left crackpots such as Caldicott a go on public radio. They are crawling out of the woodwork to vent their spleen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbees

    Great interview with Alan Jones. Discusses taking the fraudsters to court … I’m looking forward to that. Some of my friends will owe me big time when the house of cards finally collapses.

    http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/7492


    Report this

    00