Deltoid (aka Tim Lambert) tries to attack Monckton (again). The bottom line? Deltoid agrees that Monckton’s calculations are correct, and accuses him of getting a figure wrong (which Monckton got right). As per form, there is plenty of bluster, and minimal substance. Deltoid repeats over and over that there are lots of mistakes and they’re all “important”, but cannot demonstrate any beyond a squabble over the exact phrasing of whether the IPCC included a formula or not. (It’s debateable, but it’s not important.)
Monckton’s letter to Rudd was big-picture stuff, yet Lambert avoids the heavy-weight items–the falling credibility of the IPCC, the starving poor, the cost-benefit analysis. Deltoid attacks phraseology, job titles, funding, but not the crux of Monckton’s points.
To put some perspective on it: the IPCC has grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity, ignored valid criticisms, and repeatedly used non-peer reviewed references (when it has repeatedly claimed to do otherwise). IPCC lead-authors are under investigation, have withheld data, conspired to delete data, and selectively ignored 75% of the global temperature record because it didn’t give them the “right” answer. (See the four Gates of the IPCC, and Horrifying examples of data manipulation.)
To put a pointier perspective on it: Monckton pointed out in his letter to Rudd the real cost of misguided policies…
‘Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The policies that you advocate are killing people by the million. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has rightly condemned the biofuel scam as “a crime against humanity”.
What’s Deltoid’s view of the deaths of the poor? He reckons it’s a “war on science” even for a newspaper to print these comments. Thus Deltoid confirms that he will launch attacks on anyone and anything that threatens his own blogger-reputation (who cares if it means poor people die?). This grand selfishness would merely be petty and sad except that Deltoid’s misleading bluster has been repeated in at least one major newspaper. (And BTW I’ve debunked Ben Cubby before too.)
My comments are in green below on right hand side. Deltoid’s comments are on the left, gray background (with quotes from Monckton there too).
Once again, like the last two times I “translated” him (Goldilocks Graphs, and Reply to Deltoid), Deltoid fails to come up with anything significant, and still can’t find any empirical evidence to support his favored theory.
…
The Australian‘s War on Science 42 by Deltoid
Written by the specialist in anti-science ad hominem smears. The bluster start in the title. Now it’s a “war” on science if a newspaper publishes a dissenting view?
Yes sir. And every time Al Gore speaks he makes ten times as much. $200,000 profit, per speech after expenses, which makes Al Gore ten times as wrong in the land of Lambert-logic.
It’s all a logical fallacy, irrelevant, and in this case, cherry picked too. The ad hom attack is a reflex for Deltoid.
Note: “always” and “lots” — neither of which he can back up.
Rudd’s correct title is The Hon. Kevin Rudd, MP
What makes you think that was accidental?
Monckton, of course, doesn’t do any better at science than titles. The heart of his letter is this calculation:
The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write
ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
But if you read the fine IPCC report, you can find that function that Monckton claims is not there:
Deltoid is partly right, a similar function is there, bottom right corner of page 825 of Chapter Ten. But it is not as convenient and is not explicitly presented as the formula Monckton shows. Monckton is right that AR4 does not provide a formula to “convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature”, but Deltoid is right that the IPCC provides something from which you can figure it out for yourself — as Monckton did above. The squabble is about the degree of “directness” — so why doesn’t AR4 make the formula clear and obvious, and put it prominently in the Summary for Policy Makers?
[Lambert quotes AR4 to show their formula] Figure 3.38: Relationship between global mean equilibrium temperature change and stabilization concentration of greenhouse gases using: (i) ‘best estimate’ climate sensitivity of 3°C (black), (ii) upper boundary of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5°C (red), (iii) lower boundary of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C (blue) (see also Table 3.9).
Notes:
- IPCC (2007a) finds that the climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C-4.5°C, with a ‘best estimate’ of about 3°C, very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C and values substantially higher than 4.5°C ‘cannot be excluded’ (IPCC (2007a, SPM).
- The simple relationship Teq = T2xCO2xln([CO2]/280)/ln(2) is used (see Meehl et al. (2007), Section 10.7, and Table 10.8), with upper and lower values of T2xCO2 of 2 and 4.5°C.
As well as missing the formula in the IPCC report, Monckton got the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity wrong: it’s 2-4.5, not 3.26 ± ln 2 as Monkton would have it.
No, Monckton quotes the IPCC direct. Monckton is using the mean ±1 standard deviation values from the models, which is appropriate. Chapter 10, section 10.5 “Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections”, page 798, says : “The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).” Note that ln 2 (the natural logarithm of 2) is 0.69.
The 2 – 4.5 limits are for a greater degree of uncertainty, perhaps two standard deviations? The IPCC does not say in AR4. Instead they say, on page 749 of Chapter 10, that the climate sensitivity is “likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, … For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range.” No attempt at quantifying the uncertainty attached to those limits.
It is perfectly appropriate to use the one standard deviation limits, as quoted by the IPCC themselves, as Monckton does.
Deltoid has misled his readers (again) and cheapened the debate (again) by failing to acknowledge that Monckton is basically quoting the IPCC correctly, though one might quibble over the details. What the public want is to understand whether they should pay trillions in order to reduce carbon. They want to know if that will make any difference. Monckton has correctly done a calculation that shows that in the next decade all the trillions spent will prevent warming of about 0.02 degrees if the IPCC is right (and now three independent observational results say they’ve exaggerated the warming, probably about six fold — and one sixth of 0.02 degrees is an even more minuscule 0.0017 degrees).
Consequently the coefficient in Monckton’s last equation should be 6.5, not 5.7. But this error is trivial compared to what follows. Monckton continues:
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
This understates the difference since the alternative is for emissions to increase, but this error is also trivial compared to what comes next.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv
| ……… | Business as usual: | ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = | 0.29 C° |
| – Copenhagen Accord: | ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = | 0.27 C° | |
| =”Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: | 0.02 C° | ||
Monckton is wrong to suggest that this is the warming forestalled over this decade, since climate sensitivity is defined as the eventual warming rather than the immediate warming, but this, too, is trivial compared to his main error — he ignores everything that happens after 2020.
So even though Monckton’s calculations were correct, we should hide from the public that the total effect calculated over a decade would be a cooling of 0.02 degrees at most? The ‘dumb punters’ need to be kept in the dark? Does Deltoid feel that the general public are too stupid to realize that they might need to plan 80 years in the future, or that the public are too selfish to care about the future? The public are trying to make sense of this debate with a cost-benefit analysis. What will it cost? How much will it benefit? Will my grandchildren notice any difference? In any case, Monckton wrote the letter to the PM. Is there some good reason not to spell out exactly the cost benefits for the man who supposedly makes the decision?
And yes, we could calculate them out to 2100 as well, and 2200, and 2300, and so on. Monckton has done this many times, (eg. Why Waxman-Markey won’t work). Has Deltoid calculated any value of warming forestalled that’s above 0.2 degrees globally by 2100?
Can he demonstrate how, even with the exaggerated IPCC assumptions, we should pursue this policy to make a measurable difference 90 years from now?
If Monckton made a mistake, it’s in discussing IPCC calculations in detail that are based on poor science, corrupt records, hidden data, disproved assumptions, and no evidence to begin with.
So Monckton is right.
Strong ground there Deltoid. Comparing two “unrealistic options” as suggested by the IPCC or other alarmists and trying to show that Monckton is silly? Remember he’s not the one suggesting we DO these things…
Can you break that into a calculation for us Deltoid? Can you do it with IPCC figures? (And can you find that missing mystery paper of empirical evidence that no one can name?)
Yada yada yada. A machine-gun full of blanks. If Deltoid says something five times during an article, without any valid arguments, it still isn’t true. This is supposed to be an “Error”:
First up, Deltoid guesses incorrectly. Monckton was referring to the Pinker paper from 2005 and others (which he discussed on Watts UP). Second, even if he were referring to Lindzen and Choi, there’s no cherry picking. Lindzen and Choi, using all available satellite data with no omissions and thus no cherry picking, show that the observed release of heat from the earth as the temperature rises is in exact contradiction to what the models ALL say – the models clearly all say one thing happens, but the opposite was actually observed.
As always, despite not being able to point to any material evidence that shows Monckton has made a serious error, or even a definitive minor one, the bully boy is ready to fend off polite discussion by throwing names (‘denialist’), along with braggadocio and baseless bluster. Here’s Monckton who has, by Deltoid’s own admission, correctly recreated formulas the IPCC use, and yet he’s described as “doesn’t have a clue” and written off as “nonsense“.
Often when two writers disagree, you can learn something from both. But here all we learn is that Deltoid wildly exaggerates, that the IPCC includes a similar formula to one Monckton uses, but that Monckton’s point still stands that the IPCC don’t make it easy for people to understand the basic equation–will we delay much warming if we spend trillions of dollars?
It’s sci-comm pollution–the world grows a bit more foggy and unclear when viewed through the Deltoid lens. The message that’s created is not just a “zero” contribution. It’s a net-negative. It’s a lot of work to just unpack the misdirected verbiage, untangle the mistakes, and point out the omissions. It’s why we need well trained science communicators who can discuss science without resorting to ad hominem attacks, brazen bluffs, and logical errors. It’s why we need real environmental journalists who would know to ignore the bloggers who keep making errors of reason. (See my first Reply to Deltoid.)
after attending copenhagen, where she was not overly impressed with skeptics, this China Daily writer has been asking questions and observing the AGW melt-down, and has got it:
28 Jan: China Daily: Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?
By Li Xing
I believed the IPCC reports, which summarize the research of some 4,000 scientists, but I had some serious reservations. For one thing, the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed.
China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC’s findings.
Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.
In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered.
Ding’s paper highlighted the fact that in its policy suggestions, the IPCC offered solutions that would give people in rich countries the right to emit a much higher level of greenhouse gas per capita than people in developing countries. It in effect set limits on the economic growth of developing countries, which will result in furthering the gap between rich and poor countries.”
A series of “climategate” scandals now add more reason to give the IPCC research closer scrutiny.
Last November, hackers revealed that some scientists had favored data which supports the case for “global warming” in order to enhance their grant proposals.
Just last week, the IPCC announced that it “regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures” in a claim that glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by 2035. Instead of coming from a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the statement was sheer speculation, the IPCC conceded.
Then over the weekend, the media revealed that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report, which it said linked climate change with an increase in natural disasters. However, the author of the report, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, clearly stated the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe loss.” Muir-Wood is not a climatologist, but a researcher in risk management.
I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a “human mistake”.
Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three “human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-01/28/content_9388523.htm
20
[…] be that low because then ice ages can’t be explained. JoNova pulled his argument apart here. The hypothesis took the lowest possible range of carbon dioxide’s known warming effect on […]
10
Life looks to be so simple with a formula like
∆T = a ln (C/Co)
to decide the fate of the world.
Life is hardly that simple, unfortunately, and if in fact a ≤ about 5,
there is no way for the effect to be perceived in the world, at least no way for the effect to be ascribed unequivocally to CO2 in the air, because the effect thereby falls within what we would call, “natural variability” over a decade anyway.
This falls down to the wrong argument if is is over “what the value of a in Kelvins is.”
I appreciate Lord Monckton doing what he does, and any discussion of AGW needs to get off that point pronto
10
And so it goes. The more they blather the more exposed they become and it seems not to bother them a bit. Where is their sense of shame?
As I’ve said before, I couldn’t live like that. I wouldn’t be able to sleep with myself.
If we judge these people by their character as Martin Luther King said, they would be at the bottom of the barrel.
10
Que mattb to the rescue in three…. two………… one and three-quarters……………………………………………
10
Has anybody noticed a rather unpleasant “attitude” in Matt B’s responses lately?
He seems to write on Joanne’s web log for no other reason than to MAKE people find him unpleasant
10
Just read the China Daily article..couldnt agree more with Pat (no.1). I also just spent an hour with a young man from Zimbabwe at my local pub/bar, he is staying here in Canada for now and perhaps forever, but he is really worried about his country from the prospective that Monckton reports which (as I see it) is todays crisis (like eating and health) and especialy how to bring freedom and democracy to the place he so obiously loves. What is wrong with us that we ignore this crisis in favour of stoping a family like the Spencers from growing food.
10
Tim Lambert wrote: “If you want to be realistic, the sort of policies that Monckton favours could result in CO2 stabilising at 1000 ppm and 8 degrees of warming as compared to the Copenhagen agreement to keep warming under 2 degrees”
Tom Quirk, writing in the online Quadrant, did the calculation (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/a-simple-calculation) and showed that if we burnt ALL the known coal and oil reserves, that it would add 154ppm CO2 to the atmosphere.
In other words humanity is incapable of doubling the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
LAmbert’s problem is his model blindness – not surprising as his skills are in programming computer virtual reality code which, as a consequence, has replaced his real world reality.
Incidentally apropros Ben Cubby’s interview and the raising of the Peer review argument, which features also in the Lambert comments, peer review has one fundamental purpose – to ensure the author is not plagiarising.
However the global warmers use peer review to determine whether a particular paper fits in with the prevailing theory, and stop its publication if it doesn’t. This is a misuse of the peer review system and is typical for a science that has stalled itself in deductive cul de sac. Using the peer review system in this way also establishes it as a debating technique in which a moderator, the anonymous peer review committee, deems something right or wrong in terms of the prevailing theory.
But science isn’t about debate – and if it is, it isn’t science.
Rather than conclude that we have been lied to (true) and that fraud was committed (stretching the definition), it seems rather more like a case of “Progressive or social democratic science”, much like “feminist science”, or gender based science, and as such this type of science is dominated by a priorism in which an idea, here of the empirically yet to be verified climate sensitivity, is deemed true by common assent. The rest of AGW is then deduced from this initial assumption and if the data don’t support the initial assumption, as they do, then the social democratic response is to consider the data faulty, and in need of adjustment to fit, the obviously correct, initial assumption of climate sensitivity.
It’s basically Lysenkoism if one wishes to be blunt about it, and endemic in the progressive milieu. AGW is simply the scientific method applied to produce a veneer of scientific respectability to a preconceived belief. It’s pseudoscience.
10
It appears that the bottomless pit of cash to research “anthropogenic” global warming may be about to dry up. Those on the teat are horrified and the screams are growing louder.
10
The expression “peer review” is associated now with bias and error.
10
Starving for Gaia! Maybe I’m off-topic here, but I’ve just stumbled on an interesting Australian climate anecdote, with some good data thrown in.
Watkin Tench, a marine officer with the First Fleet, wrote some valuable accounts of his experiences. In chapter 17 of his Complete Account He records a heat wave in the summer of 1790 which would rate with one I recall from around 1960, and also in early 2004. Round-the-clock temps are provided for January 27 and 28.
Far more interesting is his account of something I remember from the early eighties and again around 2000: inland winds combining with extreme heat in summer. He describes bats and birds dying in the air from the freak weather in February 1791. I’ve never seen conditions anything like that severe, but Tench’s reputation for honest observation is not in doubt.
It’s the kind of scary stuff that would have AGW scientists, such as a certain prominent BOM authority, wagging their fingers at the skeptics.
Because it happened 220 years ago, it’s not a climate event. It’s just weather…and please change the subject.
10
When I questioned Lambert’s interpretation of Prof Plimer’s remarks regarding undersea volcanoes in his chapter on the subject in Plimer’s book he directed me to HIS review of Prof Plimer’s book.
PARDON??
A junior lecturer in computer Medical Imaging at UNSW believes he is qualified to review the book of one of Australia’s foremost geologists?
I find his blog an embarrasment!
10
Joanne,
You corrected the title for the PM, but others may not know Christopher Monckton was perhaps using the title Kevin Rudd dreams of.
His Excellency Kevin Rudd
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
I agree with Monckton, the Earth has been here for about 4.5 billion years, why can’t we wait just another 10 years to test the IPCC predictions?
[ No, I don’t give a toss about titles. It was Deltoid who thought it was worth correcting – I merely surmised that Monckton did it deliberately… and you’ve summed up nicely why he would. Ta! JN]
10
Assuming that the 154ppm figure quoted by #8 is correct then using the Monckton formula and a figure of 388ppm today
5.7 * ln ( ( 388+154 )/388 ) = 1.9C
So no-matter what is done or not done we will be under the 2C rise target.
10
It’s obvious Lambert and the other pro-AGW cheerleaders are getting desperate by the transparently silly ways they’re trying to conjure up arguments to support their cause. The skeptics are now controlling the discussion and the best the warmists can do is react. Thus we have Lambert picking on trivialities. Clearly the warmists are in panicked retreat. Lambert puts me in mind of an angry squirrel trapped in a cage. Lots of chattering and scolding but completely impotent to change the circumstances..
10
mosomoso: comment #11
Your link is not working, I found it at
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HhWUDWO6UesJ:www.unimelb.edu.au/culturalcollections/research/Gergis_BAMOS_Oct2008.pdf+Watkin+Tench+heat+wave+1790&hl=en&gl=au&sig=AHIEtbRPRy3RM7eTuR0Fd2FDlSzMFRKAOw
10
Thanks Albert. Tench is great. I was re-reading him as an Australia Day exercise when I came on the climate info in Chapter 17. Perhaps it’s been pointed out elsewhere on climate blogs, but I hadn’t seen it. Seems fairly important. Prius Person Tim Flannery actually edited Tench,(giving himself equal billing, of course).
Maybe Tim’s dog ate Chapter 17.
10
Tim Flannery changes his tune. He once put up a very convincing
argument about the elephants dieing in Kenya (I believe) and said
this could explain how the mega fauna died out 10,000 years ago
after the last ice age diminished. He made a very good argument too.
I was studying mega fauna demise then in my degree. Due to a drought the elephants would not leave the available water hole
and ate themselves out. They starved to death. Next he is saying the Australian megafauna were killed off by the Aborigines. Humans killed off the megafauna. Probably human activity did have some influence etc. But climate change certainly had an effect on the megafauna too. I wonder if Al Gore will do the same to save face? Or run along with the AGWsters who are feeding his bank account. Monckton is not doing it for the money, he is doing it because he is an honorable man but – I do believe in sustainability irrespective.
10
mosomoso:
The temperature in Sydney 108.5F, Dec 27, 1790 was probably measured about 1 metre above ground level.
The typical dry, dusty heatwave winds from the north west passed over pristine uncleared lowland forests to the west of Sydney which would have acted as a wind break and produced a cooling effect, so I think I can safely assume that under today’s conditions with massive amounts of cleared land, the same heatwave would have produced higher temperatures in Sydney. Does anyone disagree, I would be interested in your opinion.
When I was flying gliders I learned that you will nearly always find cooler sinking air over forests and the best landscape for generating lift, warm rising air, is ploughed fields and built up areas and any cleared land.
10
Crikey,
Jo, It’s so gratifying to see someone has got the measure of this cheeky blogger .
When this impertinent commentary on Lord Monckton’s letter, first appeared, I had to stop myself from trying to explain probability to this Computer Science Director, at the University of New South Wales, who doesn’t seem to recognise Standard Deviation when it’s looking at him.
Isn’t that where they do a lot of the Computer Modelling of the Climate.
While he’s far too much of a gentleman to have even thought of it, if “solum argumentum” Lord Monckton had been intent on setting a trap for the pseudo-scientific intelligesia, well this one fell right into it.
There’s far too much noise on the Internet and in the media emmanating from this source, so thankyou for putting it back in it’s box .
10
Well done Albert! Your observation is correct. Cleared land
reflects heat back into the atmosphere more than tree covered landscapes. Urbanization does create micro-climates. And heat
rises from buildings and human activity. But that is as far
as it goes. If you live in a valley environment, at the top
of the valley is warmer in winter than down below. Frost travels down hill etc. Cloud cover stops frost forming.
Sydney when I arrived in 1965 in a November, Christmas Day was
104 deg.F. And muggins had a traditional Roast Pork dinner!
I remember floods in Sydney, hot weather (when we prayed for the
Southerly buster to arrive). Snow in early November, even on
Dec.22nd one year on the Northern Tablelands. So Australia
is just one hell of a place to live, think of those first pioneers. You have to admire their toughness and persistence to adapt.
10
Personally I agree in that it was not the clearest Deltoid post ever that one. The key is that Moncton does use the IPCC equations to a point, but at particular stages makes subtle changes to create absurd looking scenarios. Like using the 3.26 +/- ln2. Jo says that is “appropriate” but no back up? My concern is however it is chosen because it gives the answer Monckton wants.
So anyway it is a quibble between 6.5 and 5.7 – not a lot but does make a difference.
Then it happens again as Monckton uses a business as usual scenario that is not the business as usual scenario, as business as usual will significantly increase the rate of CO2 emissions at a higher rate than at present. He instead uses a “if future emissions increase at the same rate as they have done in recent times.” To me this is crucial as Monckton is deviating from the actual projections.
Then Monckton is correct in applying his derived formula (bearing in mind that this derived formula doe sgenuinely downplay things a tad) through to 2020, creating this trivial little rise in temperature of 0.02C warming avoided by 2020. But of course the actual avoided temp rise is greater because (a) Monckton’s use of 5.7 not 6.5 and (b) Monckton underestimates emissions over the 10 years by using an incorrect use of “business as usual” (BAU is projected to be much higher than simply using what the rates were in the past 10 years… anyone noticed China and India??).
But anyway even if Monckton just used the real BAU increases, and the more correct 6.5, then the temp increase over the decade to 2020 is still just a fraction of a degree – so even if it was 0.2C then it still sounds tiny so to get the dramatic effect in the blogosphere and in letters to Rudd there really was no reason to use figures that can be shot down. He could have just used IPCC by the book and still won over his desired audience pretty much.
One bit Jo that I think you HAVE misunderstood is when you say
“strong ground there Deltoid. Comparing two “unrealistic options” as suggested by the IPCC or other alarmists and trying to show that Monckton is silly?”
Certainly the IPCC does not suggest stabilising emissions by 2020 so that atmospheric concentrations do not increase from that point. There is a whole lot of emissions after 2020 that will also add warming. I think Deltoid’s point is that just running a calc to 2020 is pointless… it is like saying there is no point using the sterring wheel to turn a corner as you’ll only turn the car a tiny amount in the first few metres.
This is about stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere by mid century isn’t it? Imagine not joining weightwatchers because some trumped up Lord showed you that you’d only lose 300g in the first two weeks so you may as well keep eating all the cakes… which of course would avoid the reality that the person’s weight is actually increasing not stable, that you are actually trying to lose 10kg in a year which would be a brilliant outcome, and that all your doctors are telling you that you are an extremely high risk of a wide range of obesity related diseases.
And no Brian I tend to think I’m still my charming self thanks for your concern.
10
One other thing – ok I’m not going to read the link Louis provided in 8 but I guarentee that the calculation leading to it being impossible for us to add more than 154ppm CO2 to the atmosphere is 100% clap trap. If it were true then for sure it would blow the whole AGW game out of the water, and it would be all the Skeptics Handbook would need to explain, and we could all rejoice at the reality that we will not face any problems with AGW.
The fact that Jo does not mention this 154ppm in any of the handbooks, or ever on her blog, and I’ve not seen it ever on any other skeptical website or publication or discussion, reinforces my opinion that it is clearly deeply flawed.
So Jerry in 14 I’d not put too much hope in it being correct.
10
Janama #12 – and yet whatever you are you think you are qualified to comment on the work of leading climate scientists? And that Jo is too with a bit of a science communication background?
I rather thought you were the kind of person who would think that logical argument trumped qualifications – so I’m surprised you make the logical error of saying he is underqualified.
10
janama:
wrote:
January 29th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Indeed, he’s also to be seen quoting journalists quoting himself.
This one More Monckton which quotes that would-be Monbiot of the Southern Hemisphere, one Ben Cubby at the SMH, who he got to big-up his own worthless piece, without even acknowledging him, is quite shameless.
10
[…] Climate alarmists continue to show their allergy to reality, Arctic not what we are being told, UNIPCC multitude of errors discussed, Global warming hoax weekly roundup, Australian Climate Madness, UK Parliamentarian investigation into Climategate, […]
10
Albert and Joanna, I like you. Re you comment about Chairman Rudd LOL.
In the 1999 referendum, the draft Republican suggested the PM
could sack a president. Of course it failed. I believe that
the correct address to the Governor General Brice is ‘Her excellency’ Well dear GG is one of Rudd’s stooges, she even
said she thought Australia’s democratic progression would end up
a Republic. (Yikes GG nor the constitutional monarch should make political comment?) What he Rudd doesn’t know, or cares to admit Australia is Crowned republic, like Canada and New Zealand and The Governor General is the head of state of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen has no constitutional powers at all! So I think Monckton was being typical British
or he had misread it somewhere, maybe in the IPCC report. LOL
10
MattB wrote: Janama #12 – and yet whatever you are you think you are qualified to comment on the work of leading climate scientists? And that Jo is too with a bit of a science communication background?
I rather thought you were the kind of person who would think that logical argument trumped qualifications – so I’m surprised you make the logical error of saying he is underqualified.
So, Matt, it was an appeal to authority on Janama’s part for writing “A junior lecturer in computer Medical Imaging at UNSW believes he is qualified to review the book of one of Australia’s foremost geologists?” and yet you commit the same fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) when you write that Janama and Jo are unqualified (underqualified?) because they are not “scientists”? Such hypocrisy is what I have come to expect from you, Matt. @23 you said, “One other thing – ok I’m not going to read the link Louis provided in 8 but I guarentee that the calculation leading to it being impossible for us to add more than 154ppm CO2 to the atmosphere is 100% clap trap.” Really? You did not even read the link and you already know it is wrong because if it were true it would ” blow the whole AGW game out of the water”. Hmmm, maybe you will become a skeptic soon! As with most ardent believers in a religion your “faith” is strong. Too bad all of the “scientific” underpinnings for the AGW theory have been destroyed! Well, every website neesd some comic relief so keep at it, Matt!
10
@23 MattB
I’ve been doing the due diligence on the Quadrant page and checked out other sources for reference values.
He has one error where he says present atmosphere Carbon is 800 gigatonnes whereas I calculate 518 gigatonnes. Adding 324 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere would result in 842 gigatonnes equating to 630 ppm CO2
He has a lowish percentage of carbon in coal at 51% whereas commercial coal is usually 70% or better. But I guess that there is a lot of marginal coal.
There do not appear to be any other obvious errors. Using my revised figures I now get a 2.7 C rise when all known fossil fuels are exhausted.
Going by business as usual consumption resulting in a typical 2ppm/yr increase in CO2 means it will take about 120 years to get to 630ppm and that is consistent with when we expect most fossil fuel reserves to run out anyway.
A second check I ran was to see how much carbon is introduced into the atmosphere – estimated by the-source-that-must-never-be-named at 7-8 gigatonnes per year equivalent carbon – 50% of which goes into the ocean. Assuming 8 gigatonnes per year and equivalent reserves of 647 gigatonnes gives 80 years before we run out of stuff.
So two different methods come to a roughly similar answer. It’s all going to stop in 100 years time and when it does it *may* be 2.5C warmer. Probably not though because the historical record shows a much lower temperature sensitivity to CO2 than assumed in the models. Rather than a positive feedback 3.26 multiplier it seems closer to 1.0 based on temperature / CO2 changes 1850 to 1900.
10
22MattB:
wtites:-
January 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
.
Dear Sir,
Indeed, it makes the difference between a 40th & a 50th of a One Degree !
Could we have missed :-
It would indeed have been more appropriate to just have used the more probable central estimate (4.7).
He is after all only seeking to establish a ballpark indication of the effect, but no Monckton still bends over sideways to favour the IPCC scenarios, in spite of his difficulty to take them seriously.
10
Guys, much as I wish otherwise, I have to agree with:
Lambert’s argument is crap on its own merit (or lack thereof), not because his sheepskin isn’t as pretty as Plimer’s.
Seriously though, we do want the arguments settled on merit alone. The fact that MattB and his buddies have never taken or espoused that approach doesn’t relieve us of that burden. We have the “high moral ground” in the argument. Let’s keep it.
Their religion is crashing in on them, so we should expect more vitriol and hysterically illogical argument from the AGW quarter.
10
MattB:
As I wrote another thread you believe because you have a deep-seated need to believe, and as Carl Sagan pointed, you cannot convince a believer of anything, for their belief isn’t based on evidence.
Your rejection of Tom Quirk’s calculation proves totally that you are a believer for whom no information would be enough.
AGW is blown out of the water.
10
Eddy in 28 – I only made those comments about janama and Jo to point out it is poor form to dismiss Deltoid based on qualifications and field alone. My intention was not to suggest that Janame and Jo can;t make good arguments – they are free to do so and I enjoy reading Jo’s. I think you are being a bit precious in assuming that I was dismissing Jo in particular – I was making a point about Janama’s dismissal of Deltoid.
Also I have had a look at the quadrant, and sorry I don;t have time to do the calcs and background research right now, but do you not agree that it would be surprising if a simple back of the envelope calculation based on exhaustion of all fossil fuel reserves from accepted sources proves that we cannot add more than another 154ppm to the atmosphere. And if it were true then it would be the crux of the sceptical argument? Ok I don’t rule it out categorically but I would be infinately surprised if it were the case. Flabbergasted no less.
10
Louis… I’m surprised you back Quirk given that you don’t think it is possible to run out of fossil fuels as they are abiotic in origin? No one dismissed Quirk more than you – you think the entire notion of running out to be absurd.
10
One corollary to my previous post.
Using ‘that source’ figure of 8 gigatonnes per year carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel and relating that to the present carbon load of 518 gigatonnes means we are putting in an additional 1.5% of atmospheric CO2 each year. This is equivalent to 5.9ppm per year. What we observe is 2ppm/year so only 1/3 of the stuff we put in actually stays there.
This does not take any account of other anthropogenic sources such as land use. So by any measure the atmosphere is reacting extremely aggressively to what we are putting in to it and by devious means unknown is getting rid of at least 2/3 of it immediately.
Since the atmosphere elimination process is so efficient – effectively removing 5 gigatonnes of CO2 every year – what will happen if we drop fossil CO2 production under 5 gigatonnes – i.e. 2/3 of our present usage? I’m guessing we will see an immediate decline in CO2 levels rather than any continued rise.
That’s not quite the tipping point disaster scenarios we are being fed.
10
MattB:
In terms of the science and extant data, Tom Quirk’s calculation is spot on. Your responce is simply extreme cognitive dissonance and you are quite a\the liar as well as I have not dismissed Quirk at all anywhere.
Grasping at straws are we? Or is it SJT….you both of show the same illogicalities in your blatherings on the vartious comments sections.
10
Louis. Tom’s calc is based on us running out of fossil fuels. You believe we cannot run out as they are abiotic. It follows that you disagree with Quirk? However yes even I recognise I was being a pain in the ass with that one.
10
MattB seems to have forgotten his AGW talking points.
It goes like this: “While the doubling of CO2 will only result in a 1 – 2 °C temperature increase, the feedbacks will result in runnaway warming, Armageddon, cats mating with dogs, etc.”
So even if we accept Quirk’s calcuations to be accurate, the next rabbit out of the hat is the dreaded feedback mechanism which will render Quirk’s argument moot.
10
History:
In the 1920’s, some people ventured toward 90 degrees N latitude in a ship, and saw “a whole lot of icebergs seeming to melt ,…, looks like the Arctic is thawing ” based on some observations near about 82 degrees N latitude in September (the approach of N hemispherical winter.)
News item in New York Times: “Arctic Thawing”
There were indeed speculations about what “Arrhenius had concluded about burning coal in the previous century” and the “Earth overheating …”
Conclusion of the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh: That particular notion was debunked in 1914 in papers that appeared in the Philosophical Magazine, no need to revisit it.
So let’s all celebrate One Hundred Years of Scientific Progress!
We’ve gotta get off this carousel in some century; if not this one, maybe the next?
10
MattB – I suggested that Lambert, as a computer scientist, wasn’t qualified to REVIEW a book by a Geologist as it’s not his expertise. He’s capable of comment, but NOT review as if he was an authority.
This is not my expertise area so I just comment but I do run a website which is my expertise area and I do REVIEW at that site.
10
Move on folks, the doubter amongst us will continue to chase his
or her tail, until we get so bored we give up, then pronounce it
as an intellectual defeat.
As you say Louis, shortly people will be blaming climate change
on non believers (I mean Christians). I believe Al G is going all religious on his blog… must look at it? I read on one blog, That the temp drafts going back to 100k bce, obviously were wrong as the world was created only 6000 years ago. Another the IPCC chairman was a ‘hindoo’ who believed in multiple Gods, so obviously he was bringing evil into the world. I give up sometimes.
10
I don’t believe that I have ever said that Deltoid is wrong because of his qualifications.
On oil reserves: Yes, you’re right, I haven’t mentioned “the 154 ppm limited increase” which assumes all reserves are burnt. Both reserves and resources grow as people explore. I fully expect people to discover more.
But note on that point of atmospheric CO2, the increase in CO2 levels have been starkly flatly linear at 2ppm year after year. No acceleration, despite the increases in emissions from China. Obviously the “sinks” are doing fine, or could it be that the CO2 levels are more dependent on the oceanic temperature than anything we do?
Actually – I thought it was unusually well written for Deltoid. Normally he flings more insults and uses more logical errors. He was almost correct, sort of, (if I’m generous), on one minor point.
Can you explain that again? No back up?
We’re talking about time-frames of human experience. Ten years. Trillions of dollars. The IPCC don’t advertise that if we cut X tons of CO2 – we’ll cool the planet buy 1 degree (which is what this is supposed to be about isn’t it?) – because the X number is so large, so unattainable without totally redefining what we call “lifestyle” (and poor people call being “alive”) that they can’t advertise real numbers. Monckton has done those calcs out to 2100 dozens of times. Perhaps he should have used them in the letter to Rudd. The temperature values are shockingly small. None of that changes the big pic. Monckton is right, and Deltoid is backing a gravy train of vested interests who are known to be corrupt.
10
Janama – where did Lambert do that by the way – refer you to his “review” of the book?
10
Janama, qualifications don’t mean anything. Arguments in science succeed or fail on their merit, not on who made them.
You will have more success arguing that Deltoid has no reason to be arrogantly confident in his reviews… since he’s taking on a prominent Geologist (who references thousands of peer reviewed articles), and Deltoid apparently can’t write without reverting to logical errors. Deltoid has gall.
10
Jo I never said you said that was why Deltoid was wrong. I was demonstrating to janama that someone’s qualifications do not stop them from making sensible comment, and used you as an example – as in janama would think it was rediculous if I dismissed you because you are not a leading research climate scientist.
regarding appropriateness of +/- ln2 – well you just say it is “appropriate” – ok you give some IPCC type quote but I think it is a case of choosing the number that best suits your case, not the one that is the appropriate one to use.
Why is it unnatainable? you need to get on the generation IV nuclear power bandwagon – it is gathering momentum, much faster than say the iron sun/plasma universe theory.
You say Monckton has done those calcs… but if they are as per his equation above then they can;t be much different to the IPCC predictions can they? So why not just use them?
10
MattB
You wrote a non-sequitur, (Actually SJT excelled at that on the Marohasy Blog as well) as well.
10
I genuinely have no idea what or who SJT is. I post at Marohasy as Mattb.
10
Joanne Nova.
If you read Tim Lambert’s postings carefully, and the subsequent comments and the linkings, you would know that it is not just Lambert but dozens of PhD-qualified and experienced scientists, including physicists, statisticians, mathematicians, and other geologists, who “took on a prominent Geologist”, and in the process took to pieces his use of many of those “thousands of peer reviewed articles”.
Perhaps you could list your perceptions of Lambert’s errors, and those of the scientists who have participated with Lambert (and with Brooks, and others), in deconstructing Plimer’s claims.
Alternatively, you are welcome to put your objections directly to Lambert at Deltoid. He has a high tolerance for opinions different to his own, so you would certainly recieve a hearing.
10
MattB,
Well, I think we can finally throw out the models that use Water Vapor feedback to get the warming:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/an-explanation-for-the-decade
Apparently a new study shows that Water Vapor has DECREASED by 10% in the last decade in the Stratosphere exactly where it is supposed to induce the dreaded positive feedbacks.
GAME OVER!!!!!
10
Oh, MattB,
If you post at Marohasy then you should know SJT. Don’t get yourself all mixed up now!!
10
Is it a rule that climate changers have to look like Homer Simpson?
X-Ray image of Deltoid’s brain.
Deltoid steeling himself for all nighter at Sciblog.
Deltoid on the prowl for a spelling error in a Monckton paper.
Deltoid’s mental self image.
10
Well marohasy has been down for a long time (isn;t she writing a book?)- but I can assure you I have never posted anyway as an SJT.
10
Mattb
Unfortunately a search on mattb on the Maharosy site does not pick up any posts by mattb.
10
Here is one from me: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/changes-announced-to-australias-proposed-emissions-trading-scheme/#comments a good while ago mind you. Who knows why the search doesn;t pick me up.
10
And Louis here is a comment from me that directly preceeds one of your own.
10
I think I left as that Graeme Bird type was let off his meds there a bit too often.
10
Perhaps Lord Monckton referred to Hon Rudd as Excellency as a reference to Kev being the Emperor (as in with no clothes).
BTW why are people constantly making reference to the authority of “climate scientists”? Virtually none (probably none at all, but I hedged my bets) of the prominent figures in the field of climate science would have degrees which read “Doctor of Climate Science.” There was no such beastie in the past, but I don’t doubt there are numerous unviersities offering such courses today.
Therefore any appeal to authority invoking “climate science” as the necessary background to make meaningful comment is an appeal to a mythological concept.
10
Jo wrote,
” But note on that point of atmospheric CO2, the increase in CO2 levels have been starkly flatly linear at 2ppm year after year. No acceleration, despite the increases in emissions from China. Obviously the “sinks” are doing fine, or could it be that the CO2 levels are more dependent on the oceanic temperature than anything we do? ”
There is a story or more there.
MLO for instance is a 60 year “record” with no raw data.
Is there any raw data for the supposedly measured levels of CO2 at MLO. ? Not that I am aware of.
Niether have the algorithms used to process the raw data ever been released.
Then there are the “facotrs” corrected for, they have never been quantified either.
Doesn’t a “constant” rate of 2ppm increase seem rather peculiar. ?
Where is the natural variation in the “sinks”. ?
Maybe a FOI request to MLO is in order,
or do we just wait for the whistleblower to turn up,
as he / she inevitably will.
10
MattB:
As far as using the Abiotic oil idea to discredit my supporting Tom Quirk’s calculation, you have also shot yourself in the foot – for if I am right concerning Abiotic oil, then the AGW assertion that those hydrocarbons are accumulations of CO2 removed from the Earth’s atmosphere, then becomes wrong as well, and literally removes most of the wind filling the sails of the jolly boat AGW,
10
Bernard J.
Arguing from authority means naught, especially from those who believe that science is something which is debated. Pseudoscience, hoever, is debated and in this sense Tim’s sources might indeed have a point. In that respect I cannot offer any comment.
10
Attended the debate in Brisbane today. Sold out ~ 500 people there. Nothing new revealed in the debate. Both Lord Monckton and Professor Brook spoke for approximately 15 minutes then the other two (Professor Plimer and Mr Readfearn) joined them on-stage for a lengthy Q&A followed by a few minutes summary by all four. My impresssions FWIW –
1. Lord Monckton is an exceptionally eloquent speaker and was in great form both in his presentation and in the Q&A. Although I think his Q&A session was better than his presentation.
2. Professor Brook spoke well and his performance in the Q&A was very good as well. He presented his case clearly and there was no mud slinging or ad homs from both.
3. Professor Plimer was more combative than the above two and less impressive in view.
4. Mr Readfearn was abysmal and a complete embarrassment to himself, the panel and the audience.. His only two points that I could gather were that Professor Plimer received $40,000 from someone for something-or-other and his summarising remarks concluded with “would you buy climate science from these people”. WTF, this was a climate science debate. He should have stayed in bed.
Points for debating and answering skills (independent of the topic):
Lord Monckton 5
Professor Brook 4
Professor Plimer 3
Mr Readfearn 0
Bernard J writes;
I haven’t been back to Deltoid since this posting, where two of his regular commentators Chris O’Neill and Mark were demonstrating their knowledge of Physics by rabbiting on about gauge 3 bosons. When two commenters, who clearly knew something about EPP, suggested that there is no such thing, they launched into tirades of abuse and ad homs. I am not a “climate scientist”, but I do have degrees in theoretical physics and know that two of Deltoid’s most vocal commentators were aggressively espousing total drivel as fact. I don’t know what Murray Gell-Mann would have made of it . Handed his Nobel Prize over to them I suppose.
I haven’t been back to Deltoid since and don’t intend to if the scientific level of their commentators remains subterranean.
10
Charles Bourbaki:
wrote:-
January 29th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Thankyou for your feedback.
One does hope it has been recorded, so the rest of us might have a chance to see too.
&
It’s the time one can waste on such smogblogs before realising that’s all they are.
That one needs some kind of health warning, that it’s only fit for entertainment purposes.
The arguments aside, credibility is everything in this ‘debate’, & when your case is melting faster than the glaciers in AR4, shameless bluff & bluster can go some way to slowing the decline.
10
Joe Parale;
There were two TV quality vidcams recording the debate. Afterwards I asked one of the cameramen who they were recording for and he said “for the ABC”. Yes the ABC. He said he didn’t work for them and he thought it might be played on their digital channel but he didn’t really know. But it has been recorded. I am going to write to the Brisbane Institute who hosted the debate and try and find out more about the recording so that it might be viewed by a wide audience. People may then dispute my 1,2 and 3 ratings but I would be astonished if even the most die-hard AGW’er could rate Mr Readfearn’s performance at anything other than zero.
10
Hi Brian #39
Thought you’d be interested in this.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
I got that from John Daly’s site titled Top of the World
cheers
10
Who would have thought that such news two hundred years later would be the source of the hand-wringing, buck-toothed righteousness of the Prince of Wales?
10
Baa Humbug @64,
Please don’t tell Al Gore. The poor man might have a heart attack.
10
Derek is this what your after here and here?
10
Is Global Warming Manmade?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4910
IPCC models did not predict the current global warming pause (assuming there is no “hide the decline”)
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4976
10
Here is a beauty that David Duff posted at Deltoid that got into their skin:
I have to tell you, folks, and I admit that it gives me enormous, almost dribbling, pleasure to do so, that recent posts and threads here, adn elsewhere, represent, not so much the act of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but squabbling over whether they should face east or west!
It’s going, people! The good ship ‘Global Change’ run by that less than salubrious shipping line, AGW Inc., is sinking fast. I regret to inform you that your ship’s officers have steered you onto (delicious irony) an iceberg which according to them should have melted years ago, and your honourary Commodore, Adm. Gore, is likely to be the first into the lifeboat. I advise you to do the same and paddle away as fast as you can lest the undertow drags you down.
And fear not, even as I write, a rescue ship is fast approaching over the horizon, the SS. ‘Exploding Meteor’. This has plenty of space on board for anyone who wants to fill their empty lives by worrying about the end of the world. Hurry, hurry, don’t miss the boat …
Source: Deltoid
10
MattB:
January 29th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Eddy in 28 – I only made those comments about janama and Jo to point out it is poor form to dismiss Deltoid based on qualifications and field alone. My intention was not to suggest that Janame and Jo can;t make good arguments – they are free to do so and I enjoy reading Jo’s. I think you are being a bit precious in assuming that I was dismissing Jo in particular – I was making a point about Janama’s dismissal of Deltoid.
Really? Matt, your comment speaks for itself. You wrote:
Janama #12 – and yet whatever you are you think you are qualified to comment on the work of leading climate scientists? And that Jo is too with a bit of a science communication background?
I rather thought you were the kind of person who would think that logical argument trumped qualifications – so I’m surprised you make the logical error of saying he is underqualified.
The first sentence in the above paragraph is pretty clear and the rest are non sequitur. If you wrote more precisely you wouldn’t be “misinterpreted” so often.
What will it take, Matt, to convince you of the fraud that AGW is? EVERY hockey stick has been destroyed, the AGW “scientists” conspired to pervert the peer review process, illegally denied legitimate FOI requests, have fraudulently altered the temperature data sets, destroyed incriminating evidence and lied to everyone to keep the taxpayer funded gravy train rolling along. Do you really want to be the last guy on your team left holding the rope in a game of scientific tug of war? If these scientists were so confident of their findings they would have released their raw data so that their findings could be verified. If the science was so rock solid these guys would be debating and embarrassing the skeptics into silence. Instead, the refuse to debate, they hide behind the IPCC and they refuse to divulge their raw data and when push comes to shove the raw data is “lost.” You cannot be that obtuse, Matt. I think you get masochistic pleasure from the pummeling you constantly take on this website.
Oh yeah, regarding your comments on “calculations”, you assume that anthropogenic CO2 is having anything but a trivial effect on the climate. If you can prove that please do so. Otherwise, your calculations are an exercise in futility. Monckton was merely using the IPCC’s calculations to show how ridiculous the IPCC really is. To agonize over a few minor points is the equivalent of straining fly manure out of pepper. CO2 is plant food and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for the biosphere. The simple fact is that temperatures rise hundreds of years before CO2 does and temperatures decline hundreds of years before CO2 declines. The geological record for the past 600,000,000 shows no relationship between CO2 and temperatures. I have yet to see a AGW scientists explain how CO2 causes temperatures to rise when CO2 FOLLOWS temperatures. Perhaps you can shed some light on this issue?
In the meantime, thanks for the entertainment!
10
Irrespective of the scandalous manipulation we have witnessed,
this government and the opposition are still, STILL, pursuing
their climate change bill. Both sides don’t accept, that the real approach is to aim for sustainability. Improve the environment for humans and all organisms. Now the talk on ABC
last night in which Flannery was talking, in this incidence he
made some commonsense suggestions on the population increases in Australia to 35 million, but threw in sea levels will rise
3 metres and CO2 emissions are causing the planet to get warmer.
Now when you think that cloud cover or water vapour is our principle greenhouse gas, and CO2 is only a small part, then
what the h*** is going on? Are the cosmic rays that bombard
the earth on the decline too. They help create clouds also.
I feel it is correct to bring down the Climate Changers political and damaging theories. However, any twit must agree
be one a AGW or Monckton follower, of which I am of course, realise we have to adopt a more sustainable way of living.
I don’t know if Flannery was right but he quoted 20% of our
water goes to cooling coal burning electricity plants? He noted
that flying over Canberra (I think) the lovely green suburban
homes with swimming pools on one side and the farm land with
empty dams and parched pastures.
Australia needs for fresh water has always been a problem, particularly in the bush where there are no mains supplies. One
shares a bath in the drought, the dirtiest goes in last of course. We can make serious adjustments to the way we treat
the natural environment first and adapt our way of living to
a less expenditure (where we can) on natural resources and fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides,
that kill off the microbiology in our soils that assist the carbon sequestration.
Recent rains in NSW have seen some dams overflowing and some
still bone dry, Rain shadows exist too. One farm is relatively
drought affected the other has abundance (for now). Yet the drought assistance package may be withdrawn from all?
I’m sure most will agree with that.
10
I think the problem lies in the general belief in a spiritual after life and that our mundane earthly existence is but a way stop on the way to that spiritual heaven, nirvana, or whatever. It seems this belief then justifies trashing the way station, earth as we know now, since, after all, once we pass from this mortal coil, never to return, is all that seems to matter.
This is the real issue, and reminds me of a phrase the Indian philospher Jiddu Krishnamurti voiced – that neither do the means justify the end, nor the end the means, but that the means are the end.
OT but I wonder if we could initiate a class action against the global warmers for the murders committed by their policies for biofuels? That would really focus their attention of the important things in life.
10
Bush Bunny
The principal problem with out approach to water is the erroneous belief it is recycled rainwater. Some of it is, but most of it comes from the earth’s mantle and lower crust, as demonstrated by the late Lance Endersbee. Unfortunately this belief in the water cycle is well entrenched in mainstream science and another example of the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent. Hence I totally support desalination plants as well as capturing water in catchments via dams. But it is the mainstream scientific mindset that is the problem, and that can trace it’s origins to Plato, Charles Lyell of the 19th century, and today the socialists. (Long bow being drawn here 🙂 but we have to start somewhere and the proven junkscience that AGW is merely focusses us on the guilty).
10
Louis you mean underground water? Well it has to be fed from
rain surely at sometime in its existence. I had a bore drilled
at one time, and they had to go 205 feet down before they got
a small output of 200 gals per hour. It tasted foul! Full of iron to. Would keep animals and plants alive, but, yuck to drink.
Look to the Australian Aborigines they knew where to find water
on the Nullibor and desert regions. It’s there but some believe
it is not to be abused as it can run out. Salinity plants yes
we sell the technology over the world, and wave electricity I believe is being used. I saw a model of that kind of technology years ago. And the model of the Aswan dam in Egypt.
I am going to check out Gores site, and leave a curt message if
allowed.
10
Bush Bunny
No, underground water comes from theearth’s mantle – this was discovered by the Russians when the completed the super deep hole on the Kola Peninsula. White quartz is white because it too has water locked into its crystal lattice. See if you can get a copy of Endersbee’s book he wrote a few few years ago – the story of how we got the artesian basin idea wrong is fascinating. An acute problem with drawing underground water is land subsidence and many of the 3 world water bores are simply not being replenished – it’s becoming a crisis though you would not read about it, much as you would not read about the food riots either.
Pseudoscience is far more widespread than we realise.
10
Louis you could be right, especially the fundamentalists. But
I don’t think most people who are AGW’s or deniers are particularly religious based. They might be as well as believing that political actions against developed countries will solve and stop climate change. I can’t believe that it’s got this far.
Tony Abbott is for sustainability though, that I am for too. I don’t vote any longer for the coalition as we have two Independent representatives. They are planning to put in 26 windmills west of Glen Innes. On the Northern Tablelands. IT is
cold there during winter, so see how it fares eh? It will be interesting to see how they work. According to some including Obama Spain is a good example of wind generators – WHAT – Go further from the mountains, and there are rows of wind generators laying rusting beside replacements! It’s cheaper to replace them than to repair them! According to Clarissa Dickson Wright in her interesting book ‘Rifling through my Drawers’ 2009 – Hodder and Stoughton, UK.
And the president of the United States drew laughter in his
Address to the Union, when he declared ‘I know there are a lot
of people who do not believe in Climate change.” He the VP and
Chairman of the Senate also laughed. Then why are they still supporting this lie. Come out and say, “Well evidence suggests
this planet isn’t warming even if Osama bin Laden is telling us
the US of A are causing it”. This is politics, I can’t see religion having anything to do with it, bar the believers that
the world was created only 6000 years ago, so the data is already proven wrong. LOL
I bet something will come out of this…if the ETS tax passes
in the Australian government even with Tony Abbott’s promise that there will be no taxes in his ETS bill. I reckon it will be the time the media start to pick up their strings and weave a war on AGW’s. If they do it now, it won’t have the impact.
10
Louis in #75 – seriously, you just keep on chalking up absurdity after absurdity. Just how many crackpot theories can one man believe in. I’ll hand it to you though, it is far more likely that AGW is a total crock than most of your other yarns.
10
Bush Bunny – you can hear it for yourself from Prof. Endersbee here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1808528.htm
you might note he also attributes the same property to oil.
10
Bush Bunny
I was generalising, to be sure, and maybe it isn’t so much as a religious view as the one held by the political left in which there is an overt rejection of personal responsibility for anything. There are exceptions but generally the leftists tend to blame everyone else rather than considering the possibility that their own policies are flawed. This is the problem with rejecting the idea of private property and replacing it with public property -as no one owns, no one looks after it, and again I am making another generalisation, but in a general sense this seems to be the case.
The only thing I am concerned about is the fact the Liberals are toying their own ETS bill in reality there should not be one in the first place. In any case I am drifting off topic 🙂
10
Bush Bunny
Yes, petroleum also comes from the Earth’s mantle – but the belief it’s recyled biomass, and the main argument for this is geochemical, is a logical fallacy of arguing the consequent. The crucial fact is that no one has been able to demonstrate empirically that subjecting biomass to the pressures and temperatures thought to exist at the bottom of sedimentary basins, will cause it to spontaneously transform into petroleum, or hydrocarbons. However the Abiotic scientists have demonstrated by experiment that petroleum spontaneously forms when Iron oxide, calcium carbonate and distilled water are subjected to the PT conditions of the mantle.
10
MattB,
Crackpot theories? Absurdities?
Perhaps you could demonstrate with reference to the scientific literature which of those theories you allege I believe in, are crackpot?
10
Well how does Geothermal and Solar thermal rate if they are used in electricity generation and they both use underground water?
There is a firm in Qlds actually igniting coal under the ground
and using water, for electricity generation, that now is collected in a lake nearby? Actually water used for washing coal, fumic acid, is a great carbon based organic fertilizer?
10
Louis and janama. I have contacted Tony Abbott via his website.
He did state on TV last night, his ETS plan would contain no taxes
but supporting sustainability and green groups, locally sponsored
to work on local environmental issues. I’m for sustainability.
We have a Sustainable Living Group in Armidale. It’s a start
anyway I believe.
Why don’t you contact him too. I said ‘the ETS tax should be
forever hidden not amended’ and suggested he could win the next
election when he proved that what the government are still doing
is based on falsified data. How can people trust politicians who willfully know the cause and effect is politically motivated to disadvantage developed countries in favor of developing countries. Nothing wrong with sustainability so long as people are not forced (enticed yes) into changing the living habits.
10
Bush Bunny
If any energy source requires underground water, then it’s going to be a problem in the future.
Janama, I think the liberals need to have a policy on the ETS because otherwise they won’t have any traction with the milder greens whose votes they need. I suspect once they get up policy might be changed.
It’s time to have a look at Timmy Lambert’s blog and the Quiggin – Quiggin did another character assassination in hthe Fin yesterday on Monckton. Truly they have run out of arguments when that’s all they can muster.
10
Janama,
Incidentally there is a blustering SW wind here in Perth – there goes the fishing weekend off Point Peron!
10
@louis #80
Didn’t Thomas Gold believe this – oil from the earth’s mantle? And didn’t he do some drilling to prove it – under seriously large granite masses as I recall? And didn’t he end up with zero result?
What oil has been found that is conclusively of mantle origin rather than recycled sedimentary deposits?
10
Jerry
Tommy Gold did write a book about it, the “Hot Deep Biosphere” and has been accused of plagiarism by the Russians.
He did indeed participate in the Siljan Ring drilling operation with the Swedish Government, and the drilling did go deep down into the granitic rocks of the Siljan Massif. That drilling did not come up with a zero result. (It’s actually an interpreted ancient meteorite impact structure).
The drilling was terminated for various technical reasons and funding, but did produce a black hydrocarbon gunk that was explained away as drilling fluids. That’s the official version.
The drilling did hit oil is the granite but oil flow slowly stopped by the accumulation of a very magnetic black gunk which clogged the fractures.
The black gunk was analysed and found to have microscopic sized grains of magnetite in it, and this magnetite could only have been produced bacteriologically.
However a scientific paper has been published on this and the salient facts below:
Your second question is harder to answer because of the fact that oil is found in sediments. The problem lies in the fact that oil is an excellent organic solvent and if it comes up from the mantle and invades an overlying deposit of sediment, the that oil will dissolve and incorporate any bio-detritus in those sediments. If the upwelling oil invades Devonian sediments it will then have a Devonian “signature”, and if it invades Cretaceous sediments, a “Cretaceous” signature.
The belief that oil is recycled surface biomass is based on the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent, which simply stated means that if my cat as four legs as does my dog, then my cat is a dog. In this case because oil contains biological detritus it must therefore have been formed from that material.
The scientific method requires this hypothesis be tested and as I have posted above, no one has been able to transform biomass into high dalton number hydrocarbons by subjecting biomass to pressures and temperatures equivalent to those inferred at the base of sedimentary basins. The only hydrocarbon that could be produced spontaneously by burying biomass is methane, CH4, and then only because it is the only hydrocarbon that is stable at surface pressures and temperatures.
Oil that fits the Abiotic theory has been discovered by the Russians in OIL & GAS FIELDS IN THE DNIEPER-DONETSK BASIN.
10
#45 – MattB:
Shall we look back through the archives and see the numerous times you used precisely the REVERSE of that argument? Didn’t you say, several times, that Monckton wasn’t qualified to comment as he in not a “scientist”?
In addition to hypocrisy, Orwellian doublespeak is not only ugly, it totally demolishes one’s credibility.
10
If I may be so bold — the problem with MattB seems to be that he simply wants to argue for argument’s sake. No amount of evidence seems to shake him a bit.
10
Roy Hogue #89
Precisely what Carl Sagan noted decades ago, you can’t convince a believer of anything because their belief isn’t based on evidence.
10
Well Tony Abbott has started to bite the bullet. Penny
Wrongsorry Wong, has on radio said ‘He has dismissedclimate change as ‘crap'”. Gud on yer Tones. Mr Rudd has suggested the coalition are aiming at one big mega tax to fund (what? Mr Rudd) but from what I have read Mr Abbott is going the promote sustainability. Other than Phillip Adams the media
are now ‘warming to Tony Abbott’ gradually and I think Tony Abbott will have the Greens on side. The Greens were not for
the ETS tax though, they thought it was favoring big industry
by repaying them with Carbon credits. But for taxing sheep and
cattle (that I don’t agree with!) for methane emissions. They forget that the manure they give out nourishes the soil. Increases biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and Tony is all for increasing the soils carbon sequestration capacity.
And I would support these measures…especially when applied to
agriculture, energy and fuels. And the big one water conservation!
10
Mosomoso and Albert
I have read Tench and others with interest, but looking at the raw data of Sam Dawes at Observatory Hill left me light headed. It was a degree warmer than our present average on the same spot. Buggered if I know what happened to the UHI.
10
Lord Monckton is absolutely correct – His Excellency is the correct title for Kevin Rudd as head of government. Anyone who bothered to look at the list of the 114 Australian delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Fiasco will have seen that the UN itself used that very same honorific for the first man on the list, Kevin Rudd.
Lambert has again demonstrated his total inability to check even basic facts. Only someone very stupid indeed would think that Lord Monckton didn’t know Rudd’s proper honorific. Alarm bells, Tim, alarm bells.
10
Jo:
If you ever care to look, Tim Lambert is possibly the least qualified to ever speak about matters of science even and including his own area of teaching. Up until recently he hadn’t published in his field (IT) for over a decade.
The Online Opinion editor has referred to him as an intellectual hooligan suggesting he’s the most dishonest blogger in Australia. What he did to Rose proves it.
10
JC – jsut to be consistent would you also classify Ms Nova as one of the least qualified people to speak about matters of science given lack of publishing record?
Thought not.
10
Hi Joanne,
You might like to have a read of my piece, Lord Moncton’s genocidal overkill, regarding his grossly unfair spin on biofuels policy.
I’m rather surprised you aren’t aware of the deep ambivalence within the environmental movement towards even biofuels per se, let alone those made out of food crops. Monckton has committed the most foolish of errors in blaming the wrong people and the wrong reasons for biofuel production from food crops.
The question I ask myself is: If Monckton can get a relatively simple issue like biofuels so wrong, why on earth should I assume he’s so clever and brilliant on the far more complex matters of climate science.
10
MattB;
SJT was also prone to posting soliquys on he Marohasy blog – as you seem to here. Not a doppleganger of SJT are you?
10
Louis what is this obsession you have with SJT?
I do recall a bit of a mad man on that blog went by the name of Hissink… I assume you are the same guy;)
10
MattB:
Just making sure, since the idea of two of you is somewhat of an appalling scenario.
10
Wallace:
Anyone can speak about science. I don’t see it as a free speech issue. However Nova doesn’t publish her stuff on scienceblogs and doesn’t deliberately lie like the Deloid dwarf. See here:
U
Unable to ever show he understands the subject on hand the Deltoid dwarf simply lies.
As I said Lambert has only recently published in his own field after a 10 year absence casting doubt, in my mind, whether he’s even able to talk in his own area.
As shown with the above example he poisons everything he touches which is why he’s also known as the venomous cherub..
10
Why venomous cherub? He also sends out hate mail too, abusing people he doesn’t agree with in pretty shocking ways.
Keep supporting people like him, Wallace. Reputation-wise it’s always a good idea to associate with and defend the more dishonest among us. Lol
10
Sorry… I incorrectly referenced to Tim Wallace when it should have been MattB
10
Out of curiosity, how much carbonate do you think is down there?
10
Tel,
An awful lot but we can never know of course, but we know of carbonatite lavas in Africa, and kimberlite eruptions that come from the mantle are also supercharged with CO2, so there seems a prodigious amount of carbon down there, some of it reaching the surface as diamonds, but mainly as natural gas and petroleum. We happen to be the carbon life form that’s adapted to the most of the Earth’s surface.
Honestly though, no one knows how much carbonate is down there, since the only samples we have are the rocks brought up via the various kimberlites around the Earth. But a volcanoe comprised totally of Carbonate, and there are a couple in Namibia, as well as in the Rift, suggests there is quite a bit.
10
Established in 1997, St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance is a leading education consultancy services providing exemplary service to students all over India. We deal in Admissions to all major professional courses in Premier Institutes across India. We are your one step solution for all career related needs, it may be MD, MBBS BE, BTech (ALL BRANCHES), , MDS, BDS, BPharm, BArch, MBA, MTech, MS, , PhD or any other courses. We provide personalized career solutions on an individual basis keeping in mind the aspirations of our client as well as the affordability factor.
FOR ALL CAREER RELATED NEEDS CONTACT US :
St. Gregorious Edu-Guidance,
#2, 2nd Floor,
J J Complex, Above Chemmannur Jewellers,
Marthahalli – P O,
Bangalore – 560037
Karnataka
e-mail :[email protected]
Contact: +919448516637
+91 9886089896, +91 9449009983
080-32416570, 41719562
10