American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper

APS_logo_denied

Click to find out why

Two days ago I posted on this story in this blog related to APS opening up debate on climate change. It appears Lord Monckton did in fact have his paper, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered,  reviewed by APS, and he drafted revisions per that review, after which the paper was accepted by APS for publication. Yesterday, APS put this disclaimer in red over the paper on their website:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

Monckton writes:

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

(h/t: David L. Hagen)

More excerpts from the blog Uncommon Descent are below:

PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society


The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review. Monckton immediately demanded retraction, accountability and an apology.

The Editor of the American Physical Society’s Forum on Physics and Society launched a debate on global warming, inviting Lord Monckton to submit a paper for the opposition. After news that a major scientific organization was holding a debate on IPCC’s global warming, someone at the APS posted an indirect front page disclamation plus two very bold red disclamations in the Forum’s contents, and into the paper itself:
————————-

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley . . .”

————————-

Alleging that a Peer of the Realm violated scientific peer review – when in fact Lord Monckton had spent substantial effort responding to the APS’s peer review – is just not done! As circulated by Dr. Benny Peiser to CCNet, and as noted by Dennis T. Avery at ICECAP,Lord Monckton responded immediately, emphatically demanding redress and an apology as follows:
—————————

Lord Monckton’s letter in response to APS web page statement:

19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall,
450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.
By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
———————————–

Monckton’s demand for redress and an apology from the APS is being picked up on the internet.

How will the American Physical Society respond to Lord Monckton’s procedural and scientific gauntlets?

As of noon on Saturday July 20, 2008, the offending paragraph in the table of contents had been removed. However, this offending paragraph was still very much evident in Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Revisited. It was also evident in the Forum’s full PDF of its July, 2008 newsletter Physics and Society Vol 37, No 3, p 6.

The APS’s PeerGate scandal may well prove to provide much greater publicity and serious examination of Monckton’s thesis than if the disclaimers had never been posted. It also exposes the superficiality of statements by executives of the American Physical Society and other scientific organizations supporting the IPCC’s global warming. Those statements were typically not submitted to the rank and file for scientific peer review, nor were they typically voted on by the rank and file. Whatever will come out of this PeerGate Scandal?

About these ads

257 thoughts on “American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper

  1. How can the executives of the APS ever get invited to cocktail parties of the scientific elite if they don’t hold the “correct” opinion? And they might just find their offices moved to the boiler room of they continue to point out that temperatures are not warming. I think they know which side of their bread has the butter on it.

  2. “Uncommon Descent” ? ! ? ! ?

    If you had not pointed it out, I would never have found out.

    From the moment I found out, I didn’t bother to read.

    Thanks for pointing it out.

    Pity such important issue has to go through such channels…

    JFA in Montreal

  3. Uncommon Descent? You’re kidding, right?

    REPLY: Typical Boris, go right for the taunting, ignore the content. The tip came from a commenter. I used it, get over it.

  4. From the original post on this issue, I found the following comment:

    Manfred (00:29:40) :

    I have seen on a AGW defender website, that they have started an email campaign against Jeff Marque.

    We have seen how effective this was during Anthony’s recent poll.

    I think the majority of scientist prefers to have an open discussion.

    Manfred goes on to suggest that readers here also let their feelings be known on this subject by sending emails. The following is an email I’ve just sent as suggested. I’ve sought to keep the text neutral so as to keep the focus on support for a continuation of this debate.

    jjmarque@sbcglobal.net
    azwicker@pppl.gov
    krauss@case.edu
    ams@physics.wayne.edu

    I applaud the bold initiative of Jeffrey Marque, one of the editors of the newsletter of the Forum of Physics and Society, for opening the pages of the newsletter to an open public debate on the scientific merits of different views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    At a time when science is being dangerously corrupted by dogmatic politicization in which differing views of AGW are viciously attacked through appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, this move represents the truest spirit of scientific inquiry. In placing this discussion in the pages of the newsletter, the public, both scientist and layman, can see the purest expression of peer review over the coming issues as opposing views on the significance of man’s influence on the changing climate are presented and reviewed on their scientific merits.

    Regards,
    Leon Brozyna

  5. One overlooked aspect of this entire “climate change” farrago is the destructive effects it has on the souls of those who lie to support it.

    These are not simple lies. They are what Dante described as “complex frauds”. catholicfundamentalism.com is one of the few sites that frequently considers the ultimate fate of those souls who have embraced the “complex frauds” of man-made climate change for personal gain.

    Indeed, it may be that those stalwarts who tell the truth about this vast deception are earning “heaven credits” at a very rapid rate.

  6. wouldn t “PEER” review require Monckton to be a “peer” to who ever did the review?

    REPLY: They invited him to submit, that would be acceptance as “peer” enough. Not only that they had at least one of the members review the paper, and suggest changes. If they didn’t think the paper or Lord Monckton was worthy of attention, they would not have bothered.

  7. I’m curious how the APS managed to survey the “world community” of scientists during the last 48 hours, and determine that we “overwhelmingly” disagree with the article. Neither I nor any other scientists I know were contacted by the APS in regards to this matter.

    Is it OK for the AGW faithful to lie in defense of their belief system?

  8. I think, perhaps, it all depends on what the definition of “peer review” is.

    Realistically, while Lord Monckton’s paper has been reviewed and accepted for publication, it hasn’t really been peer reviewed as such…..in other words, there has been no opportunity for any and all interested scientists to read, discuss, object, and point out flaws, if any.
    While I’m not so sure that there is much (or indeed, any) value in peer review anymore, I’m inclined to accept this definition.

    Of course, if we use this definition for peer review here, we need to use it elsewhere as well, meaning certain papers by Mann, Hansen, Briffa, Thomson, Jones, etc haven’t really been peer reviewed either as they have yet to make the complete data and methods available for an honest and full reading/review of their papers.

  9. Re: billadams comment; George Orwell put the idea very succinctly.

    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

  10. sod wouldn t “PEER” review require Monckton to be a “peer” to who ever did the review?

    I understand that the person doing the reviewing was seriously outranked, but if Lord Monckton is willing to overlook it, I fail to see why we should make an issue of it.
    After all, it must be difficult to find enough lords well-versed enough in the arts to effectively peer review it.

  11. Only the climate science/agw crowd worships (screaches?) the concept of peer review this way.

    Other science fields actually accept things like valid arguments and logic.

  12. This is really starting to stink. These AGW alarmists are only making it tougher on themselves when they eventually have to turn and face reality.

  13. “no opportunity for any and all interested scientists to read, discuss, object, and point out flaws,”

    That never happens in real life. When Science or Nature asks you to submit an article, THEY select who reviews it. Just because someone is interested doesn’t mean they are allowed to comment. In fact, if it is a climate paper, pretty much all papers are reviewed by the same people … the ones who came up with the AGW hypothesis in the first place. So there is no way you are ever going to get published there if your hypothesis is different from theirs.

  14. Though not quite the rank of Viscount, for a Peer with scientific credentials perhaps APS might consider recruiting
    Lord Robert May, Baron of Oxford

    However, could Lord May provide objective scientific peer review, considering his stated position that “within the scientific community there is no questioning of those facts” (“Climate change is real, is humanly created”). See: Lord Robert May : The Science of Climate Change and his characterization of “a traveling road show of dissenters”?

  15. This kind of reaction should be expected in the current climate.

    The warmers are very convinced of their view and they believe questioning the science will just delay action on greehouse gases and that will just make the resulting catastrophic warming even greater than they expect.

    It is going to take a long, long time to convince them that they are in error.

    They certainly cannot face it yet and, hence, the angry reaction and the need to rationalize any other viewpoint as funded by the oil industry. It is an emotional reaction not a scientific one.

    It will take a lot of self-reflection for things to change versus new papers being submitted.

  16. I commented to Joe Romm, Climate Progress, that I disagreed with his letter writing approach to the various levels of management of Mr Marque. I added the science should be strong enough to stand open discussion, and if open debate was discouraged it indicated the science may not be valid.

    The comment went into the moderation bucket for eternity. Anthony et al, I ask, was that a threatening comment?

    If He/they can not stand anything less than 100% agreement, then their science appears to be seriously flawed.

    CoRev, editor

    http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  17. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis added)”

    Seems Eisenhower is proven correct every day as the anti-science brown shirts wrangle in the non-believers.
    David

  18. Richard DeSousa The problem with peer review is that the peer reviewers are all AGW advocates…

    Yep. It’s a major problem in medicine as well….specifically in the entire realm of “public health” and anything regarding pharmaceutical trials….both aspects of medicine that overuse torturous statistical manipulation and often have “special interest groups” external to the field heavily involved.

    In fact, it’s actually a worse problem there, with reviewers often being directly in the pockets of the drug companies quite openly and nobody bats an eye.
    If you want to see what will happen in Climate Science publication in the next decade or two, take a good look at The Trouble with Medical Journals by Richard Smith.

    “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” – Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet

  19. crosspatch That never happens in real life. When Science or Nature asks you to submit an article, THEY select who reviews it. Just because someone is interested doesn’t mean they are allowed to comment.

    Heh. Agreed, although I would imagine that any interested party that reads a paper after publication and submits a rational (and justified) letter refuting it would get a fair hearing. Not giving it a fair hearing would be problematic, as several journals (including Nature and Science) have published fraudulent papers in the past. Those papers were only caught after the fact by outside readers.

    That would be the portion of the process I consider the actual peer review…the portion where a few hand-picked reviewers look the paper over for obvious errors I consider to be editorial review (albeit with external “experts”), also known as CYA. ;)

  20. I am most grateful to Anthony Watts and to hundreds of members of the APS who have been in touch today, and also to those who have commented above. Whatever the failings in my paper (and I have no doubt that it will be torn to shreds by way of a rebuttal in the next issue of Physics and Society – and that is how science ought to be done), the unethical and discourteous conduct of the APS has revealed a well-organized nastiness at the heart of “official” science that, more than anything in my paper, discredits the “global warming” alarmists’ cause. Thank you all, once again, for your very kind support. – Monckton of Brenchley

  21. Monckton and Jeez,

    Great stuff. Great paper. Proud to have read it. Proud of this site for publicizing it. The desperation of the AGW crowd is amazing. The APS management attempt to mold opinion before the reading of the submission tells all that we need know.

    Mike Asher and Anthony Watts have changed the game through their blogs and the truth may out yet!
    Grant Hodges

  22. As a member of the APS for over 20 years, this is about as low as I’ve seen this once great organization sink. I’ve been noticing the smell of PC-ness over the last few years in the APS Bulletin and some have commented on the political nature of some of the articles, but they keep coming.

    I just sent off an email to APS expressing my disgust with this cute little red paragraph, but I’m not one of the big guns, so I assume it will be ignored. Ijust hope some of the bigger names in APS who also happen to be signers of the petitionproject, http://www.petitionproject.org chime in.

    I once thought my profession was immune as we are ultimately accountable to Nature in our work, but I guess I was wrong.

  23. It is very difficult to prove a negative. I believe the onus should be on the APS to prove that there HAS been any “global warming” over the past 10 years. I have seen no data that suggests that there has been.

  24. If one paper needs a red notice that it was not peer reviewed, shouldn’t the other paper also have the same notice? Shouldn’t all the APS papers which had similar treatment be given red notices?

    Shouldn’t all APS papers also have notices whether the APS agrees with the paper?

    Reply: BINGO~Charles the moderator

  25. Even if the paper gets “torn to shreds” the debate will be on. It should provoke more creative insight into the climate process and reveal areas requiring more concerted study and better data. Kudos to Lord Moncton.

  26. Thank you Monckton of Brenchley. The skeptic community deeply appreciates your efforts.

  27. Monckton of Brenchley —thank you so much for all you do as well. You fight the good fight much as Winston.

  28. In the past when I wanted to complement somebody for an unusual act of kindness, or friendliness, I would say semi seriously: ” Thank you. You are truly a Gentleman and a Scholar” Never have I come across anybody, who personifies these virtues better than Lord Monckton

  29. Sam Vilain, so does that make Lord Monckton’s papers any worse than Mann’s with bafflingly bad statistics? Is Monbiot a scientist?

  30. I’ll accept the label “Skeptic” as sort of a badge of honor, but what I am is a Realist. I used to believe. I checked out the science and evidence, examined the credibility and motives of the major players ON MY OWN (without someone telling me where to look), and now absolutely disbelieve.

    At 44 I’m old enough to remember the cooling scare of the 70s, barely, and young enough to not be part of that generation’s apparent obsession with “revolution” (at any cost).

    This APS action is reprehensible and shameful.

    If there is any justice in the world, though, this should be a major step toward “forcing” the debate out into the open. The myth of the “consensus” has to be shattered.

  31. Re: Sam Vilain’s citation attacking Monckton “poor track record”.

    That blog and its various posters seemed to think that the Southern Hemisphere wasn’t cooling in the winter of 2007. Reason? I think it was because their AGW guru’s were sitting on the data in the sense of continuing to thump the drums that the earth was on fire. I started talking to AGW proponents online about SH cooling contemporaneously and was accused of lying, fabricating, at the time. Now we all know that Monckton was correct. That part is left out in the citation.

  32. Jeff: You’re right, Monbiot is not a scientist, he’s a writer – much like Monckton! Writes Monckton to Monbiot, “You say I’m not qualified to discuss climate physics. With all respect, no more are you.”

    But look, in addition to the rebuttal from NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt above, I found another via his Wikipedia entry where Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter Dr Stephan Harrison briefly points out a key flaw.

    Lord Monckton, given you’re commenting here, perhaps you can say how your latest paper takes into account the flaw raised by Dr Harrison?

  33. I can address that “key flaw” in less than 25 words.

    There is no way to know outside of unproven computer models if the positive feedbacks postulated really exist, or may in fact be negative.

  34. “Lord Monckton, given you’re commenting here, perhaps you can say how your latest paper takes into account the flaw raised by Dr Harrison?”

    Don’t you even read your own references, Villan?
    I did, and it is quite an overstatement to say characterize that article as “briefly pointing out a flaw”. Most of it is ad hom. Are you he in disguise?

  35. Sam Vilain I am shocked that you would put forth a Senior Lecturer as an expert. Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t senior lecturers academics with no scholarship? I fail to see how a senior lecturer has more scientific status than Monckton of Brencley.

    By coincidence Obama was only a senior lecturer though he claims he was a professor. One of a large number of exaggerations from the selected one.

    As for Gavin Schmidt, when he stops censoring blog posts that are inconveinient I will start taking him seriously. Correction: As long as Fenton Communication operates Real Climate I will not take it seriously.

  36. Reid, Dr Stephan Harrison appears to be well published even if his “key flaw” is meaningless.

  37. Sam Vilain,
    An old litigation strategy appears to apply here. If you are weak on the law, attack the facts. If you are weak on the facts, attack the law. If you weak on both the facts and the law, attack the person. In AGW terms the law may be substituted as theory and facts as observation. It is telling that skeptics are invariably attacked, rather than their theory, or observations. I hear no rebutting of the fundamental points raised by Monckton.
    1., The IPC model predict a positive feedback mechanism. Such a positive feedback – if it exists – would result in an unstable climate which is contrary to millions of years of climate history.
    2. While the atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide went up every year since Hansen made his predictions 20 years ago, today’s temperature is slightly lower that 20 years ago. This does not indicate that carbon dioxide is the main driver of the climate.
    I think these are the real debating points and not whether Monckton has a degree in literature, or what somebody said about him.

  38. Sam Vilain (17:09:23)
    You will find Lord Monckton’s reply further down on Dr. Harrison’s blog. Harrison’s “critique” is superficial and does not stand up under Monckton’s response. Furthermore, Monckton goes into much greater detail on the three major parameters of Climate Sensitivity in his APS paper Climate Sensitivity Reviewed

    For much greater detail on climate modeling and the energy conservation assumptions and local thermal equilibrium that Global Warming Models do not make or satisfy see:
    * Ferene M. Miskolczi, Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” IDŐJÁRÁS, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40
    * Ferene M. Miskolczi, Physics of the Planetary Greenhouse Effect, 2008 International Conference on Global Warming, New York March 2-4, 2008, <a href=”http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/audio/Tuesday/miskolczi.mp3 Audio or <a href=”http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/PowerPoint/Tuesday/miskolczi.pdf Powerpoint
    * Miklós Zágoni, Some paleoclimatic consequences of Dr. Miskolczi’s new greenhouse theory, (2008), 2008 International Conference on Global Warming, New York March 2-4, 2008 <a href=”http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/audio/Tuesday/zagoni.mp3 Audio & PowerPoint presentation (PDF format)
    * Miklós Zágoni Developments in greenhouse theory 2008

    While there are questions on some of Miskolczi’s steps, his work challenges the very foundations of climate modeling, going into greater detail than Monckton.

  39. You know, when I studied Physics all those years ago, I do not remember any of my university professors saying degrees or qualifications were a requirement to be able to produce scientifically valid results. I have always thought that was what experimentation was for. Don’t know, maybe American Physics are done differently or things have changed a lot since then…

  40. jeez says “Reid, Dr Stephan Harrison appears to be well published even if his “key flaw” is meaningless.”

    In that case disregard my comment. I admit my error which is something the believers are incapable of.

    The skeptic horde will decimate the consensus. Resistance is futile. Science always wins.

  41. You’ve got to wonder, if Monckton is a mere “writer” or “journalist” with no qualifications and a “poor track record”, why was he invited by the APS to write a technical paper on the subject in the first place? Maybe, just maybe, some in the APS think that what he says has substance.

    Or maybe it was a setup.

    I sense warring factions in the APS.

  42. Mr. Vilain regrettably cites Dr. Stephen Harrison’s unfortunate mischaracterization of my use of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation and invites me to reply, without revealing to readers of this blog that my full reply is posted in the same place as Harrison’s error. He regrettably cites one Monbiot, a zoologist, as though he were an authority on the climate: but Monbiot made 12 elementary mistakes in an article attacking me, and his newspaper was compelled to print a letter by me correcting some of the worst. Next, Mr. Vilain regrettably cites one Schmidt, author of a serially-inaccurate blog where it is impossible for other contributors to correct his numerous errors. A detailed rebuttal of Schmidt by me is at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org. Finally, Mr. Vilain regrettably provides a link to yet another blog, this one paid for by a convicted fraudster with a vested interest in “global warming”, in that he owns a solar-energy corporation. Mr. Vilain should have made this explicit before providing a link to such a notoriously unreliable source.

    Science is not well served by appealing ad verecundiam to the authority of those who, even if (per impossibile) they are authorities on something else, are not authorities on the climate. In my own papers, some of which are in the peer-reviewed literature, I explain my calculations and arguments fully, supported by numerous references to previously-published papers in the learned journals. That, with respect, is the correct approach. Mr. Vilain, by descending to less than well-researched ad-hominem attacks rather than addressing the science ad rem, is discourteous, and contributes little of value to what should be a scientific debate.

  43. I will agree with the skeptics that science has a lot to do with consensus. But I will add that a consensus in science can easily overthrown and replaced by a NEW consensus.

    Sometimes a consensus can stick around for centuries. Sometimes a consensus even seem permanent. Sometimes a consensus comes crashing down in no time flat.

    heck, anything is falsifiable–theoretically.

    When they discover the ancient temple (spaceship or whatever) which includes detailed texts about how to create fake dinosaur fossils and elaborate methods of creating facsimiles that fool carbon dating techniques, and how to “antique” your planet for fun and profit by painting on lovely false sediment layers . . . all bound in a tome entitled “How to fool your pets into thinking their planet is 4.5 billion years old instead of 6000 years old”, and all the techniques work and then the temple carbon dates to 6,000 years old, well, at that point I may even be forced to consider evolution to have been be falsified . . .

  44. I wonder if Copernicus had this much trouble with settled science and their consensus.

    P.S.
    I find it laughable to be comparing the response of Venus’s atmosphere with ours on earth. How meaningless! CO2 is THE gas in the Venutian atmoshpere, in ours it is 0.04% and water dominates the scene through feedbacks (some positive like absolute humidity and some negative like clouds). What a Venusian joke, LOL.

  45. ” It is telling that skeptics are invariably attacked, rather than their theory, or observations. ”

    I agree 100%. I have debated these issues for a while on the internet, and inevitably the warmists’ ultimate argument is that I’m going against the consensus of thousands of credentialed scientists and thousands of peer reviewed papers.

  46. Sir Monckton,

    While I have been a fan for awhile, it is gratifying to know you are a fellow insomniac.

  47. I don’t think it’s fair to castigate the editor of the P&S Newsletter. Clearly, Jeffrey Marque intended to begin a real debate, but was overruled by his board.

    Excertpt from the Editor’s Comments, Physics and Society Newsletter, July 2008:

    With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, to¬gether with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue’s article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue’s article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science!

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf

  48. Good ol’ Lord Monckton…… His honour called into question, he challenges them to a duel…. Evidence or theories Sir, choose your weapons. ; )

  49. I am most grateful

    I am a big fan of yours. I read with great delight your IPCC sea level discoveries. And, yes, when I occasionally groan over the IPCC Nobel, I salvage contentment in the fact that you, at least, own a piece of that prize.

    I am also quite intrigued by your “auditing” of CO2 feedback. If, as the Aqua satellite indicates, there is an opposite, negative feedback (from increase albedo from low-lying clouds), resulting in homeostasis, you are again vindicated.

  50. crosspatch- you say “That never happens in real life. When Science or Nature asks you to submit an article, THEY select who reviews it.”

    That is true (at least the last time a colleague submitted a manuscript to Nature back in the late 1990’s). HOWEVER, journals such as Science and Nature request a short list of suggested reviewers to be submitted by the authors, from which the journal may select one or more individuals, as well as additional outside reviewers. There are rules about who may be on that list (no prior collaborative work for x years, joint publications in y years, etc, etc, nudge nudge wink wink).

    Also, peer review prior to publication never involves a review by more than a few individuals. Once published, the real-life peer review process goes into high gear as people try to find supporting evidence, replicate or find flaws in the published work.

    I have had peer reviews of my own manuscripts that ranged from a twenty page in-depth critique (including sentence and paragraph structure!) to a single word- approved.

    This behavior of the APS (of which I am a member) baffles me. Is Hansen on the board of directors? Are there monetary donations at stake?

    Lord Monckton, thanks for dropping in with a comment. I continue to enjoy your occasional publications and encourage you to continue illuminating the various shortcomings in the IPCC reports.

  51. Grant Hodges: You say: “Mike Asher and Anthony Watts have changed the game through their blogs and the truth may out yet!”

    While I agree, I think that Anthony would insist that you give credit as well to Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as having done a sterling job in addressing the issues. And there are many others as well, one of the most compelling being Roger Pielke Sr.

    REPLY: McIntyre and McKitrick are the pioneers, and they deserve more credit than I on many fronts – Anthony

  52. The venue where Christopher Monckton published that article, Forum on Physics and Society is a Newsletter, not a journal. The manuscript has gone through some type of review, as he said, for improving clarity, etc. But I think there is some difference between the common peer review and this type of review. Since he was invited to submit a manuscript and since this is not a journal, the chances of a rejection was almost nonexistent (just like the chances of rejection for the article by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz was very small) since the Newsletter wanted an article critical of AGW and one supportive of AGW. In a typical peer review for a journal at least two reviewers will review the manuscript ( Science and Nature needs 6, I understand), and there is a real chance of rejection if the conclusion is not justified. I doubt such a critical review was applied in this case, since a conclusion critical of AGW was probably what they were looking for. So, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle – there was a peer review, but not the same type of peer review we use with journals.

    Whatever the review is, I liked Monckon’s paper (although I do not agree with AGW critics). But it is unfortunate that instead of a spirited discussion on this topic, we have managed to divert attention from the main topic and dragged it into another political issue. Too bad. I doubt Jeffrey Marque will last even for a few months to have an opportunity to edit the next issue.

  53. Another interesting article published by APS:

    “We present an article by Gerald Marsh in which he argues, among other things, that all of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide that has been poured into atmosphere during the past few centuries is not nearly enough to stave off massive glaciation from the next Ice Age, a greater danger to civilization (in his view) than global warming.”

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200804/editor.cfm

    **********************
    “Climate Stability and Policy” by Gerald Marsh

    “The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration could be in error.”

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200804/marsh.cfm

    Another strike against alarmism?

  54. I’ve spent my spare time the last few days reading blog discussions about controversial issues–mostly about questions of AWG. I must say that, having read through all the posts thus far on this page, I am impressed by the temperance and overall levelheadedness of the contributors. Thank you all for keeping the discussion out of the gutters, a characteristic all too prevalent on so many other discussion pages.

  55. Mr. Villan [perfect name, no?] typifies the real problem today: there is no genuine, refereed debate allowed regarding the AGW hypothesis in a neutral venue, such as at a major university ["Not interested." --James Hansen]. Rather, numerous chattering AGW voices conduct their red herring, ad hominem and appeal to authority attacks [all of which would be disallowed in a genuine debate] on the internet and in the media non-stop.

    The general public is led to misunderstand “peer review” because the term is constantly misused by AGW believers. Peer review does not prove anything. It only provides a valid method to disprove [falsify] a new hypothesis such as AGW. It is up to those putting forth a new hypothesis such as AGW to withstand falsification — something that they can not do, as evidenced by the AMS’ denial of Monckton’s paper deconstructing AGW.

    What good is peer review, if it denies any possibility of falsification? The arbitrary and unexplained denial of Monckton’s falsification of AGW, as the AMS is now doing, becomes 100% agenda-driven propaganda, not science.

    Keep in mind that the sole purpose of peer review is to falsify a given hypothesis. That is the purpose of peer review. If a hypothesis can withstand peer review, it is then on its way to becoming an accepted theory. That is how the Scientific Method operates.

    But the AMS is so frightened of Monckton’s paper that they are denying him the forum to which they had previously invited him. It is that public forum that gravely threatens the AGW hypothesis. The AMS hierarchy can not allow the truth of AGW to be determined though the Scientific Method. The AMS clearly fears the outcome of allowing Monckton’s voice to be heard.

    Concerning qualifications, remember that Albert Einstein’s revolutionary 1905 relativity manuscript was not peer reviewed. Einstein was a patent clerk; today the AGW believers, including the AMS, would certainly hold that against him. Watson and Crick’s 1951 paper explaining the structure of DNA was not peer reviewed, either. Yet their description of the DNA molecule is accepted as fact today.

    Conversely, the work of Jan Hendrik Schön was peer reviewed — and it was later found to be a monumental fraud abetted by Science.. [If it were not for the internet, the AAAS journal Science would probably have succeeded in covering up its incompetence. I subscribed to Science for almost twenty years, and finally canceled my subscription when it became clear that Science was gaming the system regarding the peer review/falsification process. Today it is not much more science than Scientific American.]

    Schön, a former Bell Labs scientist, had authored [or co-authored] one research paper every 8 days in 2001 alone. An astonishing 15 of Schön’s papers were accepted for publication by Nature and by Science — two of the most influential journals in the scientific community. But after unrefuted questioning [i.e., falsification] by both physicists and lay readers, Schön was proved to have fabricated his results. Science uses Referees to presumably weed out fraud. But it appears that the status of Schön’s name was enough to convince them to look the other way, and to hope that nobody would notice. Apparently the same process is now occurring at the AMS. [Furthermore, note that Michael Mann, the inventor of the now discredited "hockey stick" chart, still adamantly refuses to disclose the taxpayer funded computer algorithm he used to construct the chart. What is he hiding? Fraud?]

    Geneticist Hwang Woo-suk was another scientist who was refereed and peer-reviewed by the editors of Science after he submitted a paper claiming to have derived lines of stem cells from cloned human embryos. [Hwang also had 25 co-authors!].

    After being internally refereed, Science accepted Hwang’s paper and published it. Later, it was noticed by a reader that Hwang had used a photograph that was the property of someone else, and his hypothesis began to unravel [eventually, Hwang was forced to resign after admitting to fraud]. His paper had been falsified by a photograph — something any knowledgeable amateur could accomplish.

    Summary: the Scientific Method necessitates “peer review” for one central purpose — the opportunity to falsify, if possible, a given hypothesis. Remember that, and the agenda of the AMS in denying Monckton’s paper without explanation will become apparent: they have read the paper, and they know that the AGW hypothesis will be falsified.

  56. I assume the membership list of the APS is public? Why doesn’t one of the members do an anonymous survey of opinion on AGW? The same could be done with other learned societies. If the elected committees won’t do it, there’s nothing stopping a member with expertise in mail or internet surveys doing the same thing.

    Scientific guidelines for such surveys can be found in Dillman, Don (2000) “Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd Edition” Wiley.

  57. Sam @16.34, who cannot even spell Monbiot, quotes a political journalist (UK Guardian) of no scientific credentials in support of his personal attack. Irony by any other name is still irony.

    Deary, deary me. Is Fenton Communications going to start issuing health warnings on literature they don’t like?

  58. Sam Villain,

    You said:

    But look, in addition to the rebuttal from NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt above,

    So, are you suggesting because Gavin Schmidt works for the O-ring organization, he is the word?

    I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but deference to authority is not an argument, not even a five minute one.

  59. While APS might not be a “Journal” it does represent at least on vestage of the entire APS. Their action was rude and crude. I often wonder how those that can be so crude can expect to convince any of the poor uneducated such as I to cone to expect that a gas such as CO2 is a polutant when every living animal on the plante exhales this gas and every living plant on the planet much have it for photosynthesis.

    The debate is not over and will continue for some time.

    I am also afraid that while Jeffrey Marque is a brave soul he will probably not survive the political correctness of his superiors at APS. It will be a shame it is time for the debate to come into the public eye.

    Bill Derryberry

  60. Jeez @ 17.25

    There is no way to know outside of unproven computer models if the positive feedbacks postulated really exist, or may in fact be negative.

    Not quite correct, Jeez. The fact that, for 4.5 billions years, dispite large excursions in planetary conditions, the climate has not gone to the positive or negative limit strongly suggests that there are no positive feedback elements in the climate system.

  61. Smokey:

    I believe most of Roger Pielke’s publications were rigourously peer reviewed and in most cases put together, also falsify most of AGW. Most of his work I believe deals with land use effects of temperatures which may or may not have more localized effects. Also R Spencer, Douglass ect have falsified IPCC projections AGW based on Atmospheric temp behaviour and data. So there you are…. there are plenty of other “Skeptic” publications, if you like, peer reviewed papers which have been published.

  62. Robert Wood.

    I made that point last week to John McLondon, but it is only evidence, not a way of “knowing”.

    I have been a strong believer in negative feedback in the climate system since before Hansen started his campaign. In fact I was taught this in high school in the 70’s, where we were taught that it was water which stabilized the Earth’s climate, with clouds regulating albedo and holding the planet at a temperature suitable for life. Why this was somehow forgotten I have no idea.

  63. Have they gone mad? How can scientists so routinely
    subvert the “marketplace of ideas?” How can they turn a
    blind eye to the scientific method and still be scientists?

    It’s difficult for me to muster much confidence in proposals
    “guaranteed” to fix global warming/cooling/flooding/parching/
    etc. Generally speaking, those who demonstrate an ability
    to predict changes and outcomes are popularly believed to
    better understand the phenomenon called climate change than
    those who fail in their prognostications. Thus, if global cooling
    should continue for a few years, I suspect that we will
    witness one group of climate “experts” being replaced by
    another. This doesn’t assure improvement.

    As I see it (and I could be just as wrong as anyone else),
    there is a very seductive false assumption at work here:
    Specifically, it is the unstated belief that a trend lasting a few
    months or years is bound to continue endlessly unless we do
    something to stop it.

    It seems obvious that (either now or eventually) something may
    have to be done. Common sense suggests that before any
    action is taken, a better understanding of the problem should
    be required. Fooling around on a global scale with hideously
    complex and poorly understood phenomena seems lacking
    in wisdom. Unanticipated consequences are usually unpleasant.

  64. Robert Wood — (The fact that, for 4.5 billions years, dispite large excursions in planetary conditions, the climate has not gone to the positive or negative limit strongly suggests that there are no positive feedback elements in the climate system.)

    It could also suggest that there are positive and negative feedbacks that are relatively balanced out. The AGW hypothesis (as put forth by the catastophic sect) maintains that the ‘A’ bit is unbalancing the feedback dynamic. This is the meat and potatoes of their argument.

    How/why this is believed by almost all is pretty simple and isn’t evidence of mass hysteria or brainwashing: in all aspects of life there is a balance and counterbalance, a yin and yang, and so on. All of popular culture and our collective aphorisms (what goes up must come down) throughout history relies on the certainty of this premise. You can’t turn on a TV set and not be bombarded with cereal adverts etc vowing to restore balance. The very notion of balance is so embedded that you couldn’t successfully mount an argument that said otherwise.

    And in truth, the collective human experience since time immemorial suggests that positive/negative feedbacks probably DO exist and DO in fact balance each other out. The real question then is whether or not the ‘A’ can unbalance the equation. Note that many sceptic arguments work from this angle — e.g. “the ‘A’ contribution in CO2 is measured at 3% or so, which suggests that this is not enough to upset the cart” — and so on. Note that the standard AGW poster image is a “runaway greenhouse effect” pointing to Venus; i.e. a system that went out of balance.

    Were I you I’d be wary of advancing the argument that positive feedback doesn’t exist.

  65. Let’s not forget that there once was a “consensus” that influenza was a bacteria. Using this “consensus” serums were developed that even seemed to work. Then along came stubborn chaps like Avery … and our bacteria became a virus. One “consensus” died and another arose.

    I mention Avery because he was ruthlessly honest and tenacious. He set the example.

  66. Congratulations Anthony on the superb quality of your commenters. And Lord Monckton, deepest gratitude for your efforts and forbearance.

    The AGW crowd is on the run. Their theories have been demolished, and the empirical evidence refutes them as well. It is time to restore NASA, once a great institution, by purging its ranks of political operatives and replacing them with qualified scientists and engineers.

    NASA is a public agency and so subject to public control. I fund it and I want it fixed. The American Physical Society is private and so subject to the control of its members. I am not one, but I do recommend that they undertake some self-review and determine if they wish to remain relevant or sink into the political mire.

  67. Yes, vincent, thank you.

    Of course there are numerous unrefuted falsifications of AGW as you stated, many of which have appeared here. Some within the APS understand that cracks are appearing in their AGW edifice, and as we can see in this instance, they are desperately thrashing around, trying to stop the truth from being printed.

  68. I recently read a book titled “The Emperor of Scent” by Chandler Burr. It is a factual story about Dr. Luca Turin who developed a theory of smell that differed from the consensus. The chapters “Nature” and “Author’s Note” about Dr. Turin’s and the author’s experiences with the journal “Nature” do not inspire confidence in the peer review process or in the openness and objectivity of the journal’s gatekeepers. The description in the book was anecdotal, but it had the ring of truth, an eye-opening look at journal politics, peer review and consensus science.

  69. e.g. “the ‘A’ contribution in CO2 is measured at 3% or so, which suggests that this is not enough to upset the cart”

    Well, it does seem to have produced a 3.5 BMTC “overflow” that currently causes a 0.4% increase in the annual atmospheric carbon sink. Thus, CO2 has risen by c. 30% in the last 50 years or so.

    However, I do not believe a 30% increase in CO2 has any significant effect on climate because CO2 is as little as 3.6% of the greenhouse effect and there are no positive feedbacks in evidence.

    Even dirty snow is probably more significant. And that problem will simply go away on its own in the natural course of events within a few decades.

  70. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  71. Marc Sheppard at The American Thinker has weighed in with a blunt essay: The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

    “Are we expected to believe that the “Council” was somehow unaware of P&S’s invitation to Lord Monckton, a well-known “denier” of AGW dogma? Perhaps, but my Bravo Sierra alarm suggests that they were just as likely “convinced” post-publication — by the same pathetic political forces that taint the science of the IPCC — that there can be but one “truth” about climate change.

    While the Viscount tactfully chose the word “discourteous” in describing the treatment he’d received, far harsher adjectives certainly come to mind. The crimes against progress feckless scientists the likes of the APS “Council” are guilty of know no ample punishment. There should be a special place in hell for each and every one of them as penance for the offense of falsely empowering the laughably inane yet widely accepted fantasies of Al Gore alone.

    But inviting a man of Monckton’s measure to participate in an evenhanded analysis of both sides only to summarily demean the very position they requested of him is beneath the dignity of any true society of science. . . .These are desperate times for the alarmists, and they are resorting to desperate measures. But I suspect they’ll soon regret the attempt to turn Lord to Pawn.”

    Pacific Decadal Oscillation switches to COOL.
    Of major interest to complement Monckton’s analysis is: Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades. Don J. Easterbrook
    Note the major cool PDO period from about 1945 to 1977 followed by the warm PDO period from 1978 to 1999. Compare this with the increase in CO2 and it is easy to see how global warming alarmists might conclude from looking just at that time frame and so tuning models that CO2 was the culprit -when a major portion was a natural climate oscillation.

    REPLY: Don Easterling sent me his original manuscript, I plan on posting it tomorrow. – Anthony

  72. Frederick Davies (17:54:11) :

    You know, when I studied Physics all those years ago, I do not remember any of my university professors saying degrees or qualifications were a requirement to be able to produce scientifically valid results.

    How very insightful, considering most of those generating the data and scientific results have no Ph.D. or qualifications beyond a Baccalaureate Degree. I’ve personally seen quality scientific experiments conducted by and data collected by those without even a high school degree.

    randomengineer:
    Note that the standard AGW poster image is a “runaway greenhouse effect” pointing to Venus; i.e. a system that went out of balance. Were I you I’d be wary of advancing the argument that positive feedback doesn’t exist.

    I did some looking and one theory is that increasing solar irradiance through geologic time caused the removal of the climate buffering (esp. wrt CO2) effect of liquid water on the surface of Venus ( doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9.) So making the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and runaway global warming a la Venus is pretty darn tenuous. Not to mention that this is pretty much conjecture anyways, no one has any clue as to the boundary conditions on early Venus. Heck we hardly know the boundary conditions on current Venus.

  73. The trouble is that here in Australia they are now going to spend $AUD5 billion on cooling a cooling planet. This is a real worry. I wish it was a laughing matter but it ain’t! LOL

  74. randomengineer- you say “Note that the standard AGW poster image is a “runaway greenhouse effect” pointing to Venus; i.e. a system that went out of balance.”

    I have run into this a lot at various other blogs. I think Venus is as much in balance as Earth. Venus has a lot more atmosphere (93 bar) than Earth, which leads to the higher temperature difference between surface and TOA, even with its higher overall albedo (0.7 versus Earth’s 0.3). To move Earth towards a Venusian surface temperature requires increasing the atmospheric pressure on Earth by a factor of 93, or adding 93,000,000 ppm of CO2 to the present atmosphere.

    By the way, I enjoy your frequent comments here.

  75. That said… previous, We should have no objections to many of the greens/AGW’s agendas: that is reducing populations, reducing emissions, reducing city sizes ect no problems. The only only point I think that this blog is about is that C02 does NOT cause changes in Global temperatures?

  76. There is no reason to put a lot of faith in modern scientific and medical journals. Remember the phony study that was rushed into The Lancet before the last presidential election in the US about the supposed death of civilians in Iraq? Here is the editor of that once great publication at a peace rally:http://youtube.com/watch?v=csxvUzpIQ18&feature=related I would bet my 401k that his politics had a great effect on what he published.

  77. Randomengineer,
    Regarding feedbacks, of course there are positive feedbacks. What matters is the net balance of all the feedbacks. Feedbacks are very easy to characterize as long as you are not trying to characterize individual processes, trying to find out whether they contribute a positive, or negative feedback then try to guess the magnitude of their contribution. It is a Herculean task and by its very nature is very imprecise.
    Fortunately electronic engineers, who first characterized feedbacks came up with rather simple and effective tools. The first and probably most important and least well known concept is the so called “Black Box” description which tells you that as long as the input and the output of the system is known, you can ignore all the complexities inside the system. Makes sense that you are interested in the input and output of an amplifier and not what little electrons inside the transistors are doing.
    Hence the name “Black Box” The feedback is obtained when you connect the output to the input. The climatic equivalent is that heating generated by CO2 -output – is acting as an additional input by making water evaporate and create additional greenhouse heating. The question is how much is this additional heating. Modellers predict that it is substantial and this why they came up with huge climate sensitivity numbers. The latest by number by Hansen is 6.5degree C temperature rise for doubling the carbon dioxide concentration. Electronic engineers have long learnt to measure feedback and characterize it. It has two components, one is the coupling factor between output and input the other is the amplification. If the product of the two factors is greater than one then you have a system with a net positive feedback. You can get an output value which is larger than the output without feedback, but the system will not be stable. A lot of you probably experienced what happens to a public address system when your microphone (input)
    gets too close to the loudspeakers (output). The acoustic coupling between the loudspeaker and the microphone times the amplification gets greater than one (positive feedback) and you get a very loud annoying whistle. The system is no longer stable and you amplifier is driven to produce its maximum output. This is why any climate model that predicts an output which is enhanced by positive feedback is an incorrect description of the climate because we know from millions of years of climate history that it is stable.

  78. Thanks for your responses. Indeed the article does have a reply within it, I realized that shortly after posting. Various posters, please before being vile understand that I am just trying to participate in the debate and find answers to questions. I have been known to argue both sides of this debate.

    I’ve found the SPPI response. And David Hagen, thanks for the links to those papers.

    Lord Monckton, I apologise, that quickly dredged link was indeed discourteous to post. You’re right that my posting adds little of scientific value but it has served to dredge up a crop of papers, the relevant replies and put them all in the same place. Which should be beneficial to the readers of this forum!

  79. paminator and Drew Latta –on Venus — e.g. (“So making the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and runaway global warming a la Venus is pretty darn tenuous.”)

    What I was pointing out was simply that with millenia of human history telling us that things are balanced, advancing an argument that balance doesn’t exist (there’s negative feedback but no positive feedback) won’t “sound right” to most folks — regardless of whether or not the argument is correct. It could well be correct; and if it is, it will be one tough sell. Venus got mentioned merely due to it being what the AGW’s sell.

    Like it or not, winning the argument with the public at large will have to involve some from of readily digested, easily understood imagery/metaphor, and the public at large is being sold Satan’s personal vacation realm at a mere 900 degrees F on a nearby planet. In more than one way, fighting AGW and winning well be the modern equivalent of Henry VIII’s smackdown of the papacy.

    ***

    Evan Jones — (Even dirty snow is probably more significant. )

    Undoubtedly. Certainly this site seems to illustrate that temps seem to be largely — if not wholly — influenced by land use. Take GISS (take it please, and apologies to Henny Youngman) for example; they interpolate everything north of 80 degrees based on a belief (magical, methinks) that temps must also be changing there as well, and from what I can tell they’re ignoring the effect of particulates. Certainly one could argue that albedo change is the same animal as land use change.

    I reckon it’s a funny thing to think that they’re partly right; temps seem to be going up because they ARE and these are because of land use; the north pole melts “too much” for the same reason. CO2 need not apply. I say this because there’s no widespread melting or otherwise similarly strong GW signal in the southern hemisphere. One would think that atmospheric mixing of CO2, if this were indeed the planetary virus, would affect… erm… uhhh… well, the entire planet and not seem to track land use change (mostly in the north…) Simply observing land use alone explains the apparent phenomenae without resorting to their (modeler’s) overly complex explanations and hand waving concerning oceanic convection and conveyors that they demonstrably don’t really understand.

    So yeah, I think you’re right.

  80. I’ve done my best to agitate the warmers here in Australia via editorials etc without getting too many bites like Monckton has. The greenies have shown remarkable discipline I believe, in not engaging on matters such as the temperature trend, or anything else really that compromises them, so Monckton has obviously hit a nerve. He will take a heap of bullets like Durkin did but the warmers are spending a lot of credibility at the same time. The APS reaction is a revealing and damning breach of discipline by a well organized opposition who know full well they are under siege and that it will only get worse. How apt that he talking about sensitivity, because we just found one very tender spot it would seem. The term “dropping their bundle” comes to mind.

    Bravo Monckton of Brenchley! Maintain the dignity and prevail. I sense you have started something. What did Churchill say – something about the “beginning of the end”. Matty (Perth, Western Australia)

  81. There were two other papers published alongside Lord Monkton’s paper
    What level of “peer review” did they receive such that they didn’t require such comments?

  82. Once again the global warming propoganda and disinformation war has broken out. Yet, let’s recall that this is all background noise designed to distract us from the real science and data.
    The APS are sheninigans and best ignored. Here readers would be well advised to go back looking at CLIMATE DATA. And what do they show?
    Correct!

    NO WARMING OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
    Sea levels have stagnated
    Sea ice is back

    The AGW pretenders can pretend all they want that the globe is overheating. But the data tell another story.

  83. randomengineer, the lack of a runaway climate occurring in the last billion years is strong evidence for a convergent system with a lot of slack. CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past without the system running away.

    Convergent systems tend to have negative feedbacks not positive ones, not a “balance”.

  84. Congratulations APS,
    You’ve suceeded in admitting your intellectual bankruptcy.
    The APS and other similar organisations may not know it, but my gut feeling is that a lot of scientists are beginning to be awfully turned off by this sort of intellectual bullying. Science by bullying and other dictatorial methods are things the Nazis and Stalinists had to stoop to.

  85. In observing the poor judgement being displayed by APS in their handling of this affair and the recent comments about the atmospheres of Mars and Venus, I am reminded of the equally poor judgement displayed in Jan 2007 by Stephen Hawking as he jumped on the AGW bandwagon to warn of the danger of Earth becoming like Venus. Even a brilliant mind can have its moments and in my mind, this one was a monumental boo boo.

  86. Geting back to the data:

    “Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic.”

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

  87. A cautionary note perhaps?

    Over the last decade I have read that $50bn has gone into research supporting the AGW theory and just $19m as gone into the “skeptic” community’s research pond. (These figures are from a journalist so carry a heavy health warning).

    Therefore, for any scientist or scientific community to change tack will take enormous courage and access to private funding.

    Until the flow of research dollars moves to a more balanced level I do not see much change in the stance of organisations like the APS.

    To change the flow of research dollars would require the debunking of the AGW theory – but the AGW promoters know this and won’t permit open and rigorous scientific analysis by widely publishing their data and their modelling techniques (as shown so clearly by Steve McIntyre) – that would risk not only their reputations but their funding.

    Equally anyone who puts significant research dollars into the sceptical AGW community will be seen to be not politically correct and not environmentally friendly.

    Hence it seems to me to be a very strong financial model in favour of the AGW group and it is self reinforcing.

    I believe therefore that until the world is clearly seen to have cooled then there will be very little prospect of much change. And, of course, as Anthony has shown all too readily the people in charge of the temperature gauges will do there level best to confuse the true position anyway.

    This will surely be a long haul in my very humble opinion.

  88. Roger Carr, I have unapproved your post waiting on Anthony to decide on whether or not to delete personal attack. I’m sure Anthony will deal with it sometime in the am Pacific time.~Charles the moderator.

  89. Drew Latta,

    How very insightful, considering most of those generating the data and scientific results have no Ph.D. or qualifications beyond a Baccalaureate Degree. I’ve personally seen quality scientific experiments conducted by and data collected by those without even a high school degree.

    That is what I mean: whether Monckton is a “writer” or “journalist” is irrelevant as to the veracity of his article. It is only experimental corroboration or refutation which should be wielded against it, not the fact that he has, or not, a degree in climatology.

  90. We learn from Monckton’s letter that he doesn’t know what peer review is.

    Paul, $50 billion in research on warming? Did you have your excrement detector off when that figure came to you?

  91. Monckton of Brenchley.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond on this blog. Your participation has definitely enriched our discussions.

    I do not know if you have seen some of Lucia’s work at rankexploits; however, you may be interested. http://rankexploits.com/musings/ . The discussions with Gavin Schmidt you may find interesting, as well as some of the work and conclusions.

  92. I feel proud to be here along with the Allies and La Resistance, sometimes risking personal situations for Truth to be heard.

    Like Aussie David Evans “I devoted six years to carbon accounting”, I was an AGW activist – because I cared. But after having enthusiastically joined Transition Towns, I kept on researching. Eventually I ventured outside the AGW oasis / fortress, and discovered the true state of climate science. I did a U-turn which rendered me pretty well persona non grata regarding the present conditions for setting-up Transition initiatives. I became a proud supporter of Monckton of Brenchley. I discovered his courteous and thorough scientific reply to Gavin Schmidt’s “Cuckoo Science” attack.

    I discovered something else of significance IMHO. Searching Climate Science’s index for a reply to Monckton’s reply “Chuck it Schmidt”, I found nothing. A loud silence. I Googled and still found nothing. Yet if there was any truly scientific point where the skeptics could be answered and silenced, this was surely it, and Schmidt would not have let such an opportunity slip.

    No wonder APS are nervous.

    It has been a real joy to follow Vilain’s sea change, and John London’s shift – and I guess there have been many others here. This gives me great hope for those who follow the AGW stuff that, deep into the “science”, seems to refute the skeptics’ challenges eg. SkepticalScience.com. How did the Germans feel when they realized they were starting to lose WW2? How many simply did not know of the atrocities? How many tried their best to do good, trapped in an intolerable setup? How many might still experience a change on the “Road to Damascus”? How can we actually help support “detox” for those whose “addiction” to the AGW thesis threatens to be exposed? How can we prevent such mass psychosis happening again?

  93. On some levels I am content to wait it out. Eventually, the cooling PDO will undermine a large portion of the support for AGW (or even GW). Even Gore sees this if one reads between the lines of his recent prophecy (of course he is still headed in the wrong direction).

    A little bit of complexity theory here. Warming and Cooling models could be considered attractors in a self-organizing system.

    Maybe 80% of the population lacks the training and education to grasp the technical literature on the topic and so make up their minds using the consensus method of their immediate social circles. This is how Goebbels’ Big Lie worked. Suddenly, enough of their neighbors will start to believe otherwise and it will become socially safe to switch to the other attractor of the debate.

    The real challenge is to fight a holding action against majorly stupid actions until the herd switches attractors. It is important to continually pick away at AGW pseudo-sciences, political agendas and mass manipulation of the herd. Each seed of doubt that is sown legitimately based on real science moves the entire herd closer to switching.

    Unfortunately, when the switch does occur, along with the herd will come the people that prey on fear such as Fenton Communications (who have a LONG history of this behavior – remember Alar and the Great Apple Scare of ’89? Fenton was hip deep in that one too). So, expect to fend off the cries of doom over global cooling at some point.

    Cycles and cycles.

  94. Monckton of Brenchley,

    “He regrettably cites one Monbiot, a zoologist, as though he were an authority on the climate:”

    I find this statement a bid odd considering that a zoologist actually has more training in science than you do. You are not an authority on climate either.

    “In my own papers, some of which are in the peer-reviewed literature”

    A Web of Science search only turns up one article by any Monckton on climate change:

    Title: Free speech about climate change
    Author(s): Monckton, CW
    Source: SOCIETY Volume: 44 Issue: 4 Pages: 14-17 Published: MAY-JUN 2007
    Times Cited: 0

    And this doesn’t appear to be a scientific publication.

    Perhaps your publications are not indexed by ISI?

    REPLY: let’s see who else isn’t an authority on climate:

    Me (Meteorologist)
    Boris ( unknown phantom)
    Tamino (Astronomer )
    Rabett (Chemist)
    Hansen (Astronomer)
    Gore (Divinity School, politician)
    Flannery (Zoologist)
    McIntyre (Mathematician)
    Connolley (Mathematician)
    D’Aleo (Meteorologist)
    Lambert (Computer Scientist)
    …and others

    So Monckton isn’t a climatologist, neither are some of your faves or mine.

    The real issue here with Boris and his ilk is that they just can’t stand the fact that Monck was invited to submit a paper to the APS, and the flap is now drawing attention to it. So the AGW proponents (real and phantoms) are in full press to discredit Monckton to minimize the damage.

  95. “malcolm (19:53:48) :

    I assume the membership list of the APS is public? Why doesn’t one of the members do an anonymous survey of opinion on AGW? The same could be done with other learned societies. If the elected committees won’t do it, there’s nothing stopping a member with expertise in mail or internet surveys doing the same thing.”

    In my email to the APS I asked exactly this question as to why I, and the other members of APS have not been polled if the Council claims such authority for “overwhelming support”. Unfotunately, the APS has the master email list and it would be impossible for a single member to get that list for their own purposes.

    I hate to admit it as a Baby Boomer, but as the older physicists have retired and the Boomers moved into postions of authority in the APS, it has become more political and less scientific. It seems to be a generational defect. Many of my colleagues in grad. school had left/radical politics, and like many other academics of that age, seemd to have kept those ideas as they aged. It’s really too bad that it blinds them professionally.

  96. Honest and good discussion. Reminds me of a white haired southern politicals comments after the civil right battle. It was something like this. I may have had to support segregation but I never agreeded with it. I’m glad it’s over.
    When ideas are supportred by the main stream of society and supported violently as well it is difficult and dangerous to have a honest and open discussion. As I well know. I’ve had my property damaged for just expressing an opinion contrary to the popular view. Am I sorry I expressed it no!!! would I do it again yes. And I still think the person who snuck on my propert at night while I was out is a coward.
    I’m glad a few men with courage are willing to speak out. Hopefully we can have an open discussion and come to a conclusion that is scientifically justified and politically acceptible.

  97. I’ve just had a look at the index page for the July edition of Forum on Physics & Society.

    First of all at the bottom of the page you will find a fairly standard statement that appears on other editions. It contains the following 2 snippets:

    It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society.

    and

    Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.

    This looks to me to be a perfectly adequate disclaimer of any viewpoints and implies that articles undergo some form of review.

    Yet at the top of this edition (and I cant find anything similar in any other edition) they have a fairly lengthy statement with the following snippets in it:

    The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters.

    The front page states that it “provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas.”. I guess they are preparing for a lot of disagreement.

    Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion.

    Okay, so all technical articles are non- peer- reviewed, in which case why state this again above any particular article?

    All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors

    Hmm, yet another disclaimer. So, your everyday articles could be ranked as “one disclaimer” article with the disclaimer at the bottom of the index page. More controversial articles as “two disclaimer” article with disclaimers at the top and bottom of the index page. And those that might threaten your funding as a “three disclaimer” article with disclaimers on the top and bottom of the index page plus one at the top of the article. What does an article have to do to be a “four disclaimer” article.

    Disclaimer: All opinions and views in this post are solely my own and do not represent the views of Anthony Watts, WordPress, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft or any other organisation involved in the storage, presentation, retrieval or viewing of this post.

  98. Paminator: “I have run into this a lot at various other blogs. I think Venus is as much in balance as Earth. Venus has a lot more atmosphere (93 bar) than Earth, which leads to the higher temperature difference between surface and TOA, even with its higher overall albedo (0.7 versus Earth’s 0.3). To move Earth towards a Venusian surface temperature requires increasing the atmospheric pressure on Earth by a factor of 93, or adding 93,000,000 ppm of CO2 to the present atmosphere.”

    Don’t forget you’d need to move it ~27 million miles closer to that big ball of fire, too. ;)

  99. If earth continues this cooling trend it will likely put an end to the debate despite what studies are put forth.

    I live 400 smokey miles down wind of Anthony at 5800 ft elevation and had a crunchie layer of ice under a lawn sprinkler at 5 am the other morning (mid July) after a day in the high 80s. If we live in a manmade greenhouse, it sure as hell isn’t a very good one.

  100. Sam consider the source.

    NASA J Hansen .. employee Gavin Schmidt.

    NASA web site contributors Gavin Schmidt and M Mann

    GISS Modeler Gavin Schmidt

    RC run by Gavin Schmidt and own by M Mann contributor WM Connolly

    Wikipedia editor WM Connolly.

  101. When Hansen predicted a 2-3 meter rise in sea level this century, that was neither peer reviewed nor criticized by the portion of the “scientific community” who claim to be sole keepers of the truth about climate.

    Has anyone noticed sea level rising by one foot per decade?

  102. The fact that, for 4.5 billions years, dispite large excursions in planetary conditions, the climate has not gone to the positive or negative limit strongly suggests that there are no positive feedback elements in the climate system.

    Well, there is one very big example that springs to mind.. The cooling as a result of the Milankovitch cycles is not alone enough to create periodic ice ages. The “consensus” is that ice ages are a result of positive feedback loops from increasing albedo due to increasing ice cover.

  103. The editor at APS has opened Pandora’s box and let out the demons of free inquiry. Thanks to the heavy-handed “disclaimers in red”, the high executives at APS have raised the debate even further into the public realm.

    This is reminiscent of the editors of Scientific American doing a transparent hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg a few years ago. It was obvious what they were doing, but they could get away with it at that time. Now, it would not be as easy.

    The skeptics are on the prowl, hungry for red meat.

    The wholly warmer orthodoxy will never be the same!

  104. Remember the phony study that was rushed into The Lancet before the last presidential election in the US about the supposed death of civilians in Iraq?

    Do I remember? Um, yes.

    You should see the new and improved version from Johns Hopkins. They admit they were wrong–it’s twice as bad as they said originally. (That this makes the death rate many, many times the death rate during the Iran-Iraq war seems to make no impression.)

  105. That said… previous, We should have no objections to many of the greens/AGW’s agendas: that is reducing populations, reducing emissions, reducing city sizes ect no problems.

    Well, I have severe problems with all of those things. (Soot emissions will decline as India/China modernize, but this will not happen overnight, nor should it. And I think reducing city size is BAD for the environment.)

  106. Sam Vilain: Well said. We on the skeptic side need to be open to both sides of the debate.

    Sometimes we find this difficult because we consider ourselves abused by the other side of the debate. Heck, if it turns out AGW is true (and yes, I doubt that it’s a serious problem), we need to determine that. Likewise, the reverse.

    We need to restrain ourselves, especially when the AGW side wishes actually to debate in a reasonable manner.

    One of the reasons I so deeply favor this site is that the tone is usually more restrained than elsewhere. (And I’d like to see it stay that way.) I don’t think the AGWisapinkoplotyou suckeryou.com sites really get us anywhere in the debate.

  107. Sam Vilain: Well said. We on the skeptic side need to be open to both sides of the debate.

    Evan Jones (09:12:11) : Sometimes we find this difficult because we consider ourselves abused by the other side of the debate.

    With recent changes like the PDO flip and this interminable solar minimum the ol’ planet is responding quite nicely. I’m surprised at how well the AGW stance is holding up despite column after column cracking in its foundation. It will fall, and it may be rather spectacular when it does. In the meantime, I’m going to stay on the high road where the view is better.

    Well, okay, maybe I’ll lob a rock or roll a boulder once in a while, but I’ll aim for the data and not the people (with a couple exceptions).

  108. Evan Jones (08:58:59) :

    That said… previous, We should have no objections to many of the greens/AGW’s agendas: that is reducing populations, reducing emissions, reducing city sizes ect no problems.

    Well, I have severe problems with all of those things. ”

    I have to agree with Evan, I have serious issues with this too. If you want to follow a proper and correct green agenda, then look into things like recyling, preserving wildlife, prevention of unreplacable deforestation etc etc. Things that are of benefit to the planet and its occupants (not just humans)

  109. Ray Reynolds (07:04:34) :

    I live 400 smokey miles down wind of Anthony at 5800 ft elevation and had a crunchie layer of ice under a lawn sprinkler at 5 am the other morning (mid July)

    Would that have been Wednesday night by any chance? That was a topic of conversation around the water fountain on Thursday morning here in the UK, believe it or not.

  110. Lord Monkton has done a brilliant job. Indeed, he is a torch-bearer for those of us who wish to see the truth triumph over propaganda.

    Although on blogs like this battles may be won, conquering those who spread propaganda in the wider media arena may be that much more difficult.

    As an example, the BBC – once a bastion of independent thought – is completely sold on AGW. To that end they commissioned a global warming “drama” which will transmitted here in the UK this week. I urge you to visit the relevant BBC webpage

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/burnup/

    I am unsure if the video trailers on the right hand side work if you live outside the UK. If you are fortunate (or, rather unfortunate) you may be able to watch the behind-the-scenes clip and listen to the writer, Simon Beaufoy.

    Quote: “if it [climate change] reaches a tipping point, whereby you cannot reverse the warming of the planet, then we are facing a catastrophe, there’s absolutely no question about it”.

    “…it’s incredibly difficult to write about carbon dioxide which is effectively a substance you can’t see, you can’t smell it, you can’t touch it, it’s like an invisible enemy.”

    Millions of people will see this piece of propaganda dressed as “drama”. How many will meekly accept its subversive message?

    And why should I be forced, through the TV licence, to make a financial contribution to it?

  111. Gerry Marsh’s paper is highly interesting and stimulating.

    He rightly points out the fact that our climate is indeed NOT stable. In fact, the glacial ages have all the characteristics of a bistable system: two stable states, one cold, one warm. A tiny change in solar irradiation (or other forcings for that matter) is sufficient to make it switch between states.

    What is stimulating here is the link between the carbon cycle and those unstable periods (glacial ages). It made me wonder how geological transformations (continents drifting, and more recently the closing of the isthmus of Panama ) can affect the carbon cycle, and lower the CO2 concentration to the point where the climate reaches a point of instability. I really like the idea of a higher level of CO2 to stabilize the climate. At first sight it seems to make some sense. It certainly has the merit of offering a new perspective on what is called “stability”, a concept that is used and abused by the AGW alarmists. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to realize that the current “stable” climate of the past few thousand years is of insignificant duration on most geological scales.

  112. Re: Evan Jones – ‘The “consensus” is that ice ages are a result of positive feedback loops from increasing albedo due to increasing ice cover.’

    There is a huge logical fallacy there. At the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago – atmospheric CO2 levels were low, atmospheric water vapor was low and the earth’s albedo was high. If “orbital forcings” were weaker than the positive feedbacks, it would have been impossible to come out of the ice age. Conversely, it would be impossible to enter an ice age for the opposite reasons.

    What is clear is that ice ages begin and end in spite of feedback, not because of them.

  113. AGW will flip just like the PDO. I expect to see a large number of peer reviewed climate science papers claiming the sharp cooling confirms that climate change is ravaging the planet. The IPCC AR5 report will claim the sharp cooling was predicted by GCM’s. A new field called Climate Chaos will be established. Of course rising CO2 has to be kept as the main problem.

  114. The real test of faith in AGW theory may be coming up shortly. If the current cool trend continues throught the coming winter, there’s going to be hell to pay with the 30 to 50 percent rise in heating bills because of rising energy costs. It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark. The climate scientologists had better begin thinking about where they are going to be employed when the dung hits the fan.

  115. The APS has completely disrespected Lord Monckton with this fallacious politicized statement heading his invited and peer reviewed scientific paper disputing the IPCC’s view of climate sensitivity. Though, I’m not surprised, I cutoff my membership to most technical societies years ago. They’re agenda is to the status quo and bottom line first, and their member’s second.

  116. He rightly points out the fact that our climate is indeed NOT stable. In fact, the glacial ages have all the characteristics of a bistable system: two stable states, one cold, one warm. A tiny change in solar irradiation (or other forcings for that matter) is sufficient to make it switch between states.

    Though it seems to be a cyclical change rather than random. I’ll wager it has as much to do with Milankovitch cycles as it does with TSI, and the positions of the continents at any given epoch. The latter pretty much dictating global ocean currents as far as scope, as well as changes in earth orbit due to offcentering of mass.

  117. Given that they’ve taken the extraordinary step of explicitly stating that they disagree with the conclusions of Lord Monckton’s paper (all of them?) it occurs to ask if this implies that they agree with all of the conclusions of every paper published with which no accompanying disclaimer is posted? Doesn’t the fact that they ‘disagree’ with the conclusions mean that it was reviewed, otherwise what is the basis for the disagreement? If they actually do disagree with all of the conclusions, why did they publish it in the first place? Certainly seems to me to be plowing new ground for a publisher of a ‘scientific’ journal. I think it is incumbent upon them to publish more explicitly what they disagree with and why.

    Having trouble sleeping tonight (something that seems to occur with increasing regularity as I ‘mature’) I re-read the paper and, out of curiosity, ran the equations using the figure of 7000ppmv CO2 as existed millions of years ago (good thing we weren’t around back then because, as I understand it, CO2 becomes toxic to humans at around 5-6000ppmv). I used that figure based on the IPCC graphic showing past CO2 and corresponding temperature. The equations( with feedbacks as calculated by the IPCC) yield an expected increase in forcing of around 17.6 W/m2 increase over pre-industrial CO2. Then using the IPCCs methodology I came up with a temp increase of 54C (interestingly the no feedback temp increase was only about 5.5C). I’m sure I’ve done something horribly wrong in my lack of sleep induced stupor.

  118. mondo (18:57:08 ) :

    Grant Hodges: You say: “Mike Asher and Anthony Watts have changed the game through their blogs and the truth may out yet!”

    . . . . give credit as well to Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick . . . Roger Pielke Sr.

    REPLY: McIntyre and McKitrick are the pioneers, and they deserve more credit than I on many fronts – Anthony

    Certainly! These men have all put the common good ahead of their reputations. That’s what’s important to me.

  119. In his video Lord Monckton stated he was not a scientist. Yet his paper demonstrates a strong knowledge of math and science. As I understand it, he was also the former science and technology advisor to Margaret Thatcher. In my opinion he is well qualified for the title “scientist”. This is a stark contrast to Al Gore.

    I was also delighted to read Lord Monckton’s letter to two US senators admonishing them for trying to stifle freedom of speech. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20513
    It’s sad that two US senators must learn about the US constitution from an Englishman.

  120. Ed Darrell (05:04:15)

    Fair challenge by you – I always try to keep my antenna up (hence the caveat in my post) – and I was recalling an article from earlier this year. Having been back over the article the key phrases used were different – here’s the verbatim – “…you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION.” (PLEASE NOTE ‘SCAM’ IS NOT MY WORD BUT A QUOTATION).

    Here’s the link to the article:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/550481/the-mammoth-global-warming-scam.thtml

    Apologies for any misleading comments in my earler post.

    All I would ask though, is that both the proponents of AGW and the sceptical side publish all their data, theories, models, approaches, practices, analysis, conclusions and anything else relevant on the climate warming issue in order that scientists, from every discipline, can chose to subject such work to rigorous and proper scientific challenge.

    That we all keep an open mind and try and find some balance in our judgement.

    That policy makers then set out – what the problem is, what the options are and recommend to us, the people that they serve, what we should do about it before we make such enormous decisions that will affect the next generation.

    Is that too great a request?

  121. It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark. The climate scientologists had better begin thinking about where they are going to be employed when the dung hits the fan.

    One could envision them trying to keep their hands warm by standing around barrels of burning IPCC reports.

  122. Patrick Henry asked:

    Has anyone noticed sea level rising by one foot per decade?

    It’s way less than that. Since the last Ice Age, the sea level has been slowly rising in an asymptotic-like curve. The current extremely small annual rise is entirely attributable to nature, and none to human activity: click

  123. I know this is off topic.But I think relevant on how AGW believers react to anything the Viscount writes.He is very disliked by the AGW crowd.I know since I have posted a couple of his papers at certain AGW dominated forums.

    Below is an example of reactions AGW believers gave to a paper the Viscount wrote.It is a sad testament to critical thinking.

    I posted a paper that Lord Monkton wrote in september 2007.At a forum known to have a lot of AGW believers in it.The replies were insulting,irrational and plain stupid.

    I created a thread at my forum.For the purpose of exposing vapid AGW argumentation.

    Here is the beginning of the first post.It is actually next to the last post in the thread at my forum.Post #3 is at the top.Sorry for the mix up.

    The first post:

    Science and Public Policy Institute

    Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
    Written by Christopher Monkton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley
    Wednesday, 22 August 2007

    (The rest of the post was NOT posted here to save space)

    Post # 2 :

    “It’s warming up because I’m getting hotter. I just keep adding more muscle and flowing hair to my already steamy bod. Don’t look now.. I’m meltin’ all the ice. And I’m not stoppin’ cuz ur jealous. ^_^.

    Live wif it.”

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=78

    The link goes to my forum.There you can read the absurd replies to the Viscounts paper.I posted at the forum I visited..The really sad part is that at least two of them are ….. SCIENTISTS!

    I have seen many similar replies on a paper I posted at the very same forum.It was over a paper Dr. Glassman wrote titled: The Aquittal Of Carbon Dioxide

    I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.

  124. Paul, yes I believe it was Thursday, I read recently if the sun were not to shine for 96 hours the world would freeze….seems as tho 12 hours is enough here.

  125. Jeff,

    Bistable can be cyclical. There are nonlinear systems, for example with a delayed feedback, that show linear behavior with low feedback, switching to bistable, periodic behavior when feedback increases (or delay), and eventually purely chaotic behavior. A very simple experimental setup to demonstrate this uses a light source, going through a Fabry-Perot interferometer (two paralel mirrors of equal reflectivity), followed by a photodector, which then drives the spacing between the mirrors of the interferometer, via an electrical delay line. Since the transmission through the interferometer is a nonlinear function of their spacing, you have a nice little nonlinear system that can show the transition from linear to chaos, through different stages, one of them being periodical bistability.

    Final comment about ice ages: there is no consensus on the mechanism, even though there is a quasi-consensus on the source of their periodicity (ie. Milankovitch). There is also no consensus, and in fact no satisfactory explanation, for the large variation in atmospheric CO2 between glacial and interglacial. Much remains to be learned about the carbon cycle, and its interaction with climate.

  126. sunsettommy says: “I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.” True…but it gets a little tiresome to respond to all of the garbage that appears on the internet or in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter or whatever. Scientists already have their hands full responding to the garbage that actually gets through the peer review process without trying to focus on this other stuff.

    That being said, here is a good start at dissecting the Monckton paper: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php Having now wasted about an hour of my life reading through Monckton’s paper in detail, I think Tim is basically right in all respects here. Of course, there is lots of other littler problems that Tim doesn’t even bother to mention. The Monckton paper is pseudoscientific gibberish, pure and simple. And, if the skeptic community wants to be taken at all seriously, I would strongly suggest they distance themselves from it as rapidly as possible!

  127. Evan Jones,
    Your example of albedo causing a positive feedback during the ice age is a correct observation. We do not have a quantitative analysis of the causes and dynamics of the Ice Ages, so it is hard at this point to put a number at the contribution of the ice albedo caused positive feedback. Our understanding of the causes of the onset of ice ages – and interglacials for that matter – at this point is somewhat skimpy. The standard argument that it is triggered by the Milankovich cycle and then re-inforced by ice albedo positive feedback has a first order plausability, but needs a lot more quantitative work to be accepted as a solid explanation.

    This however has nothing to do with the plausability of CO2 causing a net positive feedback through increased evaporation leading to runaway global warming.

    Ice cover is very stable for centuries and the effect of changed albedo
    could take many years to accumulate. Water vapor on the other hand is very transient, can move geographically, can convert into precipitation, or clouds and could become a factor for negative rather than positive feedback. If higher temperatures and higher water vapor content in the atmosphere do not cause a positive feedback rather quickly, then it probably do not cause a positive feedback at all.
    Fortunately Nature provided a rather forceful experiment to demonstrate that temperature increase and the resulting water vapor evaporation does not lead to runaway heating. In 1998 the strong El Nino effect caused a spike in global temperatures. I also remember that 1998 was an unusually wet year. This was a perfect time for water vapor caused positive feedback to assert itself, if indeed it existed at all. This, as you all know, did not happen. When El Nino ended, global temperatures quickly returned to their pre El Nino values and – as many of the readers of this blog know – have – on average -not increased since.

  128. “As an example, the BBC – once a bastion of independent thought – is completely sold on AGW. To that end they commissioned a global warming “drama” which will transmitted here in the UK this week….”

    Indeed. I had occasion to trial their complaints line recently when they made a particularly controversial comment about the Perito Moreno glacier. My complaint included the following line:

    “..The BBC has now got a strong reputation for presenting environmental
    issues in a highly partial and biased manner. Your funding by the
    British taxpayer carries with it an obligation to present balanced
    information – how much longer do you think you can continue to cheat
    your audience in this way?”

    You might like to hear part of the response:

    “…We appreciate the importance of presenting information fairly and your
    email underlines the fact that many licence fee payers suspect the BBC
    of having an agenda. I can assure you that is not the case – we try to
    report all opinions and facts…”

    They don’t try as hard as Jeffrey Marque obviously does to consider both sides of an argument! Their reply suggests that the BBC is getting inundated with complaints on this subject, and is responding by putting their fingers in their ears…

  129. Final comment about ice ages: there is no consensus on the mechanism, even though there is a quasi-consensus on the source of their periodicity (ie. Milankovitch). There is also no consensus, and in fact no satisfactory explanation, for the large variation in atmospheric CO2 between glacial and interglacial. Much remains to be learned about the carbon cycle, and its interaction with climate.

    As an educated guess, I’d say it’s because animal life bounces back more quickly than plant life as ice recedes. So more exhaled CO2 from insects, mammals, etc.

  130. Joel Shore claims to be a scientist. But what “scientist” writes like this:

    “Of course, there is lots of other littler problems that Tim doesn’t even bother to mention.”

    Sorry, but I can’t take Timmy’s blog seriously either, because it begins its long and venomous rant by demonizing those who disagree with him as “right wing blogs.” Excuse me, but this site is not a “right wing blog.” Mr. Tim is suffering from psychological ‘projection’ — imputing his personal faults onto others.

    That is not science, Mr. Shore. That is partisan advocacy, pretending to be science. Another crack in the crumbling AGW facade, no?

    Back down off the personal attacks please~charles the moderator

  131. I know this is off topic.But I think relevant on how AGW believers react to anything the Viscount writes.He is very disliked by the AGW crowd.I know since I have posted a couple of his papers at certain AGW dominated forums.

    Great skepticism is the correct response honest people have to papers from others who exaggerate their credentials and tell fibs about their achievements.

    When is Monckton making stuff up, and when is he not? How can one tell, without great skepticism?

    If his case is so good against global warming, why does he make stuff up?

    That’s called academic fraud. In the UK, it may not be a big deal. Among deniers of warming, it may be cute. Under U.S. law, were it federally funded, it would be a crime.

    You need to carefully consider: How much of what Monckton says, that you give credence to without a second thought, is pure fiction? Do you have anything riding on quoting the man, like your reputation, or a grant, or your life?

    At least with Jon Lovitz we knew it was a fictional, comedy character.

  132. If “orbital forcings” were weaker than the positive feedbacks, it would have been impossible to come out of the ice age.

    Oh, I agree.

    I wasn’t saying they were weaker. I was only saying that Milankovitch cycles alone were not enough to produce an ice age without the contribution of positive feedback.

  133. What is clear is that ice ages begin and end in spite of feedback, not because of them.

    I don’t see why orbit can’t do or undo the effect of feedback cycles.

  134. Sorry, but I can’t take Timmy’s blog seriously either, because it begins its long and venomous rant by demonizing those who disagree with him as “right wing blogs.”

    We didn’t think you’d let the facts get in the way of any of your rants, seriously. Someone interested in the science would read around politics on blogs, as we do on this blog and most others that are more bent on denigrating Al Gore than talking science. [personal attack snipped]

    Both sides BACK IT DOWN ON THE PERSONAL ATTACKS~Charles the moderator

  135. It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark.

    They will be the very first to smell a rat.

    It is the “educated incapacity” crowd that will hang on for dear life. (The spiffier the degree the greater the love of the counterintuitive.)

  136. Ed Darrell (14:46:22) :

    That’s called academic fraud. In the UK, it may not be a big deal. Among deniers of warming, it may be cute. Under U.S. law, were it federally funded, it would be a crime.

    So when is Al Gore and James Hansen going to get prosecuted? As I understand it, being a VP and NASA are both Federally funded.

    I’m not a Denier of Warming, I use my observation skills to see perfectly that we are definately not warming. I’m not a scientist, but ovservation is one of the key skills a scientist should portray, no?

  137. Kudos to the moderation work done on this site.

    There’s nothing so distracting or debilitating to a focus on the science than ad hominem diatribes. The hard work at moderating that is done here shows in the high degree of civility that usually prevails, unlike on other unmoderated blogs where the comments can often turn quite hateful.

    Again, great job in moderating. Many thanks.

    Reply: Thanks, Anthony does most of the heavy lifting, but I’m standing in today~charles the moderator

  138. Water vapor on the other hand is very transient, can move geographically, can convert into precipitation, or clouds and could become a factor for negative rather than positive feedback.

    Yes, I agree. The Aqua Satellite seems to indicate this.

    And not even the earth seems to be able to make up its mid about the primary trigger of whatever causes ice ages–inclination or eccentricity.

  139. RE: Reid of America (17:39:38) :

    “Correction: As long as Fenton Communication operates Real Climate I will not take it seriously.”

    If the connection between RC and Fenton is true (no reason to not believe that’s so), then the connectinos from FC to others are very interesting (especially in light of various RC types claims “BIG (U S) OIL” is behind skeptics looks like projection.

    See:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Thinkmap%20SDK%202.5%20Standard%20Edition/webapp/TM-1VER/index.asp?keyword=Fenton%20Communications%20(FC)

  140. EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications[3][4], “the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]“[5], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

    Whois Record

    Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
    Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
    Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
    Last Updated On:14-Nov-2007 03:01:43 UTC
    Expiration Date:19-Nov-2010 16:39:03 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
    Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
    Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
    Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
    Registrant Street2:5th Floor
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Washington
    Registrant State/Province:DC
    Registrant Postal Code:20036
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

    Whois Record

    Registrant:
    Fenton Communications
    1320 18th Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    US

    Domain Name: FENTON.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Fenton Communications
    1320 18th St. NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    US
    202-822-5200 fax: 202-822-4787

  141. Ed Darrell
    “If his is case is so good against global warming, why does he make stuff up?”

    What stuff did he make up?

  142. The Viscount is correct in that his ‘paper’ will certainly be ‘torn to shreds’, and deservedly so. Indeed the process has already begun in the blogoshpere. In a cursory reading I spotted that he has repeated an earlier error – assuming one can derive climate sensitivity by considering forcings and delta-t over a fixed period, forgetting that climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept, and you must also consider the delta-t ‘in the pipeline’ due to slow-acting feedbacks – estimated at c0.5C. Monckton shrugs this off thus: ‘We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near-identical’

    So a single paper has overturned all the textbooks? The paper cited does not support Monckton’s assumption and in fact flatly contradicts his conclusion of climate sensitivity < 1C. From Chylek’s conclusion: ‘All these results together with our work presented in this paper support the lower end of the climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 K suggested by the IPCC 2007 report ‘

    Also, he halves the delta-t based on Mckitrick (2007), but this paper, not exactly uncontroversial itself, only asserted the anthropogenic warming should be reduced by 50% over land, whereas the delta-t under consideration is, of course, global.

    I endorse the Viscounts call to confine the argument to the scientific substance, so I look forward to his defence of these apparent flaws, perhaps he could also deal with the points raised here…

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php

    and here

    http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html

    and just possibly explain the value of a review by an academic who by his own admission does not understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback ?

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monkton_letter_pys.pdf (Page 2).

    kind regards.

    CyC

  143. Sorry all, no more personal attacks from me. Thank you all, I really enjoy the collegiality on this blog. There is no excuse for attacking the messenger. If I can’t dispassionately weigh both sides I should not be contributing. I look forward to the time, in the near future, when the APS has a similar change of heart.

  144. Joel Shore writes:

    sunsettommy says: “I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.”

    True…but it gets a little tiresome to respond to all of the garbage that appears on the internet or in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter or whatever. Scientists already have their hands full responding to the garbage that actually gets through the peer review process without trying to focus on this other stuff.

    But scientists does not have to answer the average public joe at all!

    Instead of whining about alleged “garbage”.Why not influence those who deliberately distort the science to stop it and get back to being a science researcher.

    Plus if the few scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt stop politicising the science.Right along with the dishonest Media and the Environmentalsist who keep posting one sided science research and news.

    It would be a lot quieter on the net and forums such as mine would not exist.

    I am really dissappointed with the whole mess.Dissappointed with the scientists who should have known better to keep out of the media and political propaganda drives.

    I wish James Hansen who is relentlessly political and calling for criminal investigations and trying to stop coal power plant construction based on what he believes as the Director of GISS.Among other political activities that ties in with his capacity as Director. The very same man who has been exposed of poor statistical analysis…… Several times.

    He is a compromised scientist and that is sad.

    His behavior is disgracefull.

    In the end my statement:

    “I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.”

    Is still valid.Garbage claims or not.The relentless use of namecalling and ad homeniums on Monkton and anyone else is useless.

  145. Joel,

    I looked in your link and was turned off by the overt hostility.Especially in the comment section.

    I will pass on Deltoid’s explanation since I do not have confidence that they will provide a reasonable counterpoint to Viscount Monkton.

    Not with the overtly implied mocking of Monkton’s writings.

    Just as with RealClimate.I do not like the underlying ugly undertone that is obviously all over in the two BLOGS.

  146. Look,

    I have been reading over climate issues since the late 1970’s.I even read the interesting book written by Lowell Ponte.The Cooling.

    I loved the fascination over the cooling 1970’s and the media’s speculative musings on a possible ice age.It was a time where little rancorous debate was evident despite the obvious caution many scientists had at the time.It was more the media who were going crazy over a minor cooling trend.

    But gosh today I see blogs out there ready to pour on the hostility on anyone who dares to have a different opinion.Is Viscount Monkton wrong? Say so with a clear reasoned counterpoint.Leaving out the unwarranted slurs and other childish comments.That have no bearing on the persons writing.

    Same with Dr. Glassman and his interesting paper: The Aquittal of Carbon Dioxide.Gavin Schmidt reacted with a few pointed putdowns on Dr. Glassman himself.

    Dr. Glassman then replied with a very civil counterpoint to all of Gavins remarks of the paper.That I wish is a common attitude to be found in many blogs I will not name.

    I see a stark difference between what Climate Audit and Watts Up With That? blogs that reasonably civil comments are commonly posted and those of RealClimate and Deltoid.That are too often unpleasant.

    Gee I wonder why Climate Audit and Watt Up With That? are so much better behaved? Could it be because the owner of the blogs expect through moderation that we remain reasonably civil? Or could it be because the skeptics are more commonly civil and openminded than the AGW believers?

    The reason why I posted Monktons earlier paper and that of Dr. Glassmans at a forum that has HUNDREDS of AGW belivers in it.Was to see what reasonable counterpoint they could come up with.

    LOL,

    Well you saw if you looked at my link.That they were more interested in personal attacks and name calling with slurs thrown in.Than to produce a credible rebuttal.I was not impressed when 2 scientists refused to go beyond slurs against it.

    I am not impressed.

  147. Chrome (16:32:36)
    “forgetting that climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept,”

    What is the reason for why the equilibrium concept being needed in the formula?

  148. Being torn apart on RC is hardly unusual. It’s what usually happens when one side is allowed to make any outrageous claim, while the other side is blocked from responding.

  149. randomengineer,

    If indeed the climate is balanced on the knife’s edge, as you seem to believe, why is that the many pertubations of the past have not led us to ruin?

    CO2 has, in the past, been way, way higher than even the worst case scenario put into the many models (3000-5000ppm, not the puny 300-500ppm that is causing such vapors today), yet disaster did not descend.

  150. I said of Monckton’s noted exaggerations and fantasies:

    That’s called academic fraud. In the UK, it may not be a big deal. Among deniers of warming, it may be cute. Under U.S. law, were it federally funded, it would be a crime.

    So when is Al Gore and James Hansen going to get prosecuted? As I understand it, being a VP and NASA are both Federally funded.

    If you have evidence of academic fraud in either case, bring it forward. In Gore’s case, he’s privately funded — assumptions of what is not in evidence is a problem of deniers, I find — and in Hansen’s case, his work undergoes serious reviews constantly. The GAO investigations of Hansen’s work found it solid. GAO has a very long record of hard non-partisanship and great accuracy.

    Paul Clark, the closest I could come to sourcing that $50 billion claim was a blog out of Sen. James Inhofe’s office, citing the Heartland Institute. Inhofe is a bit of a crank on science issues, a bitter partisan at the least, and he offers no serious documentation. Heartland Institute’s figures suggest no serious research or methodology. It’s a SWAG figure, and in this case, very wild, I think.

  151. Looking conspiratorally at what has occurred at the FP&S newsletter, it almost makes me wonder if this idea for a debate might have been a put up job. The Board of APS decides “Let’s show up all those AGW deniers. We’ll set up a mock debate in one of our newsletters. We’ll get that unlettered loudmouth Monckton to do the denier piece, you know he’ll snap up the shot at publicity. We’ll get two solid Ph.D’s to write up the truth, and we’ll be able to demonstrate that the anti-Gore crowd is a bunch of insignificant twaddle and end all this worthless froo-fraw.”

    Unfortunately, Hafemeister and Scwartz failed to deliver a knock out, and Lord Monckton got in some good shots that bloodied up the face of AGW in an open, public, respected, credentialed forum.

  152. Frankly, it seems like people here are good at coming up with excuses not to read scientifically-based critiques of Monckton’s paper.

  153. Regarding the responses to randomengineer’s comment about climate sensitivity and the stability of the climate over time, here is a recent paper summarizing what paleoclimate evidence suggests to us about the climate sensitivity: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821

    I’ll quote from the summary: “Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes over the past century suggest that the average global temperature will rise by between 1.5º and 4.5ºC if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles. In their Perspective, Schrag and Alley look at records of past climate change, from the last ice age to millions of years ago, to determine whether this climate sensitivity is realistic. They conclude that the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.”

  154. The P&S published both Pro and Con AGW papers, the conclusion of the Pro paper is :
    Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.

    Watts up with that? (assuming) it’s getting warmer, if you can’t prove it’s being caused by something else, that’s proof it’s AGW? Apparently this is the position that the Council of the American Physical Society agrees with.

    Meanwhile Monchton’s conclusion (rightly) questions the IPCCs stance, then each of logical steps that flows from there to the drastic actions being demanded. If you compare each of the papers then, at least as far as this issue of P&S is concerned, it’s GAME, SET, MATCH to Monchton.

  155. The critical issue behind the PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society is the apparent lack of integrity. As Lord Monckton’s queries make clear, the APC disclamation is likely false on in each of its three assertions. Following is a post giving the basis for ethical conduct in the House of Lords and from the American Physical Society’s policies. The challenge now is to maintain those standards and to hold the APS accountable to their own ethical standards and to the highest ethical standards for scientific and public organizations:
    —————–
    Lord Monckton is a hereditary peer and thus a member of the Upper House by succession (though his father’s automatic right to sit and vote was terminated by the House of Lords Act 1999).
    While he has not been elected by fellow hereditary peers to the right to speak or vote in the Chamber, he remains a member of the Upper House by succession in good standing and is entitled to use its facilities. Accordingly I would expect Lord Monckton to abide by the “Code of Conduct” of the House of Lords, ParliamentUK.
    Among these is:

    4. Members of the House: . . .
    (b) should act always on their personal honour;

    The American Physical Society has a policy statement on:
    Ethics & Values
    02.2 APS GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (Adopted by Council on November 10, 2002)

    “ The Constitution of the American Physical Society states that the objective of the Society shall be the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics. It is the purpose of this statement to advance that objective by presenting ethical guidelines for Society members.

    Each physicist is a citizen of the community of science. Each shares responsibility for the welfare of this community. Science is best advanced when there is mutual trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community. Acts of deception, or any other acts that deliberately compromise the advancement of science, are unacceptable. Honesty must be regarded as the cornerstone of ethics in science. Professional integrity in the formulation, conduct, and reporting of physics activities reflects not only on the reputations of individual physicists and their organizations, but also on the image and credibility of the physics profession as perceived by scientific colleagues, government and the public. It is important that the tradition of ethical behavior be carefully maintained and transmitted with enthusiasm to future generations.. . .”
    Peer Review
    “Peer review provides advice concerning research proposals, the publication of research results and career advancement of colleagues. It is an essential component of the scientific process.
    Peer review can serve its intended function only if the members of the scientific community are prepared to provide thorough, fair and objective evaluations based on requisite expertise. Although peer review can be difficult and time-consuming, scientists have an obligation to participate in the process.Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain.
    Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.
    Conflict of Interest
    . . . When objectivity and effectiveness cannot be maintained, the activity should be avoided or discontinued. . . .It should be recognized that honest error is an integral part of the scientific enterprise. It is not unethical to be wrong, provided that errors are promptly acknowledged and corrected when they are detected. . . .

    Will the executive of the APS live up to their stated policy on ethics? Will they rise to the higher standard that they “should act always on their personal honour”?

  156. Re: Joel Shore

    I think that the Viscount’s paper points out pretty well that the high sensitivity figures result is run away warming, which would have occured based on the known paleoclimate data (CO2 much higher in the last 600 million years). Didn’t happen.

    Meanwhile I have read some of the responses to the paper. I read about things like changes in the pipeline not accounted for, disagreements in how Monchton gets to his assessment of sensitivity. But Monchton is saying that none of these things is really measureable, however the conclusions based on high sensitivity aren’t being born out in the real world. That’s the bottom line, the real world is falsifying the IPCC projections, therefore the climate must be not as sensitive as thought. If you want to defend the IPCC’s sensitivity, you’ll have to convince us it’s quite a bit warmer than it is.

    Meanwhile, suggested followup reading for you. Dr. Roy Spencer has recently written a paper called “the holy grail of climate sensitivity”. It dovetails very nicely with Monchtons paper. In it, he explains the actual source of the errors that have resulted in high estimates, I think that he may be on to something, check it out.

  157. The reasoning that, if other mechanisms cannot be found to explain global warming, then it must be CO2 is completely bogus.

    Talk about begging the question.

    CO2 has not been demonstrated as the cause of global warming but investigation into the complex realities of climate, and thus other possible causes, is not allowed: all effort is put into buttressing the CO2 claim.

  158. Good heavens! Further tracking takes the $50 billion figure to Fox News and — can you write a script like this? — Steven Milloy!

    I don’t trust Milloy. I’ve spent a good portion of the past year tracking down the man’s footnotes on one project. More than 100 notes, not one has checked out so far. Milloy’s a lobbyist. I don’t trust him, I don’t think he has a methodology.

  159. Pingback: Climate change issue gets ugly (and we’re not referring to the politics of it, too) « Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded

  160. Ed Darrell — (Good heavens! Further tracking takes the $50 billion figure to Fox News and — can you write a script like this? — Steven Milloy!)

    This number looks to be an estimate, so why you would bother with going after Milloy seems to be pointless. The estimate would have to include greenpeace and similar group funding, the value of airtime wasted on CNN etc promoting what amounts to greenpeace press releases and calling it “news”, the efforts of governments to fund climate studies, satellite time that is used to study the alleged problem, climate conferences, and essentially, the entire ball of wax.

    Assuming it’s Milloy’s estimate, it looks like he’s lowballing it. I’d put the number closer to 10x to 20x of that.

    My guess is that this estimate is also a reaction/answer to the rather silly and otherwise idiotic allegations that some people make regarding “paid denialists” and so on as propagated by exxonsecrets and other such whistle blowing “public services.”

    Assuming the peak oil crowd is correct, the allegations paint a picture of a world corporation chock full of some of the world’s brightest business minds plotting to quickly waste resources so as to go out of business as soon as possible and simultaneously be castigated by politicians and excorciated by the public at large. So, that’s how conspiracy theorists at places like exxonsecrets seem to assume highly trained and ultra-intelligent Ivy League business people think? The allegations are obviously absurd, mendacious rubbish and ludicrous even in the abstract.

    Heavens, I would have thought it apparent that this number was that type of estimate just on the face of it.

    MarkW — (If indeed the climate is balanced on the knife’s edge, as you seem to believe…)

    I didn’t say anything of the sort. I said merely that humans naturally think in terms of balance and any argument to the contrary will be difficult for the majority to believe. Maybe this is because most of us are bipeds, for whom balance seems to be an important notion.

    I have made no comment on what *I* think whatsoever.

  161. Currently the internet is alive with people saying that the paper was not peer reviewed. Yet the APS editors sent it out to an APS member who reviewed it and sent back comments and these comments were accepted by the APS.

    Why would the APS then claim it was not peer reviewed? What actually ocurred is actually what peer review is. Every paper I have published undergoes exactly this kind of review by the editors.

    Am I missing something?

  162. Cyc said something quite odd to me and i dont understand it

    and just possibly explain the value of a review by an academic who by his own admission does not understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback ?

    I read the peer review by Saperstein, there is nothing in it which says that he does not understand the difference

  163. Here is acopy of the followup post to the <a href=”http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/peergate-review-scandal-at-american-physical-society/PeerGate review scandal post cited above by Watts:
    —————————————
    Following is an email sent 20 Jul 2008 21:46, by Prof. Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society, responding to the issues raised by Lord Monckton’s letter to him.

    Response to some comments regarding the American Physical Society and Lord Monckton’s article

    Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society’s treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you.

    Some of those writing to me have claimed that the American Physical Society is censoring Lord Monckton’s article in the Newsletter of the APS’ Forum on Physics and Society. That is far from the case. The article has been presented and retained in the form agreed upon by him and the Newsletter’s editor. You will find it readily available on the APS’ website in that form.

    Indeed, there was absolutely no censoring. The APS did not even do a scientific evaluation or peer review of the article. Lord Moncton’s presentation of the interaction between him and the editor indicates clearly that the editor’s review was aimed at ensuring the clarity and readability of the article by the intended audience. As Lord Monckton points out in his covering letter to me, “Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain.”

    That is, the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals. No attempt was made to analyze the scientific substance of the article and no censoring was performed. As indicated above and in Lord Monckton’s letter to me, the article appears in the form agreed upon by Lord Monckton.

    Some people and news services misinterpreted the Newsletter publication of one editor’s comments and Lord Monckton’s article as a retreat by the American Physical Society from its official position on the contribution of human activities to global warming. Consequently, the APS felt it necessary to ensure that its official position was known both to those who logged on to the APS website and those who had followed a link to Lord Monckton’s article on our website and were unaware of the context in which it appears. That is the origin of the comment that appears at the top of the article on the website. I am sure that you would not want the Society’s position to be misunderstood in this important matter.

    I hope that this clarifies matters for you. Let me thank you again for your interest in the American Physical Society’s activities.

    Arthur Bienenstock, President
    American Physical Society

    Bienenstock describes the peer review issue as “editorial review for a newsletter” rather than “substantive scientific peer review”. The degree of review can be seen from the comments of reviewer Professor Alvin Saperstein on the page Monckton attached to his letter.
    (One blog technically critical of Monckton’s paper is The APS and global warming – what were they thinking? at DUAE Quartunciae)

    Prof. Bienenstock does not appear to have addressed Monckton’s second and third requests:

    . . .Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?
    Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
    Yours truly,
    THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

  164. Hi peer reviewer…

    Saperstein’s review states plainly: I don’t know the difference between “forcing” and “feedback”.

    I guess most folks here are aware that there is actually a difference between formal peer review and a set of helpful comments where something is unclear or could be improved. The P&S forum newsletter is not peer reviewed, and Saperstein’s comments clearly do not constitute a peer review. His lack of familiarity with the technical terms does not prevent him from singling out where the paper might be unclear or improved in format and wording, and this was no doubt helpful in cleaning up the article. But there’s no real consideration of the technical details as would be expected in formal peer review from someone familiar with the subject matter.

    As I see it, the reason reason there was a need to put an explicit disclaimer on the article was simply because so many people were so badly misrepresenting things. If there had not been such a large number of news and internet comments hailing this article as having some kind of formal endorsement, indicating a position of the APS itself or a level of technical recognition of validity of the arguments, then there would have been no need, in my opinion, for the disclaimer. There have been other occasions when the newsletter has published idiosyncratic opinion pieces going against the conventional view without adding disclaimers; but in this case the distortions were so widespread that it was only responsible to add a clarification of what should be obvious and uncontroversial — and totally uninsulting.

    Cheers — Duae Quartunciae

  165. Peer Reveiwer

    – as DQ points out, the clue that Mockton’s ‘reviewer’ does not understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback lay in these words,

    ‘I don’t know the difference between “forcing” and “feedback”.

    which you can find by following my final link

    A fair summary of the paper would be innumerate tosh based on flawed premises that would fail the most basic actual peer review.

    Hope this helps.

    Cyc.

  166. Duae Quartunciae
    It might help to review the APS statement added in red bold to Monckton’s paper:

    While not “thorough scientific peer review”, stating that there was not “any scientific peer review” when there was a physics professor/editor giving review/feedback appears to be overstating it.

    How helpful is it to science to state: “Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”? The same could have been said about quantum physics, plate tectonics etc. That gives the appearance of stifling the essence of the scientific endeavor.

    Similarly, what basis is there for stating: “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
    Is that a carefully considered evaluation of the technical merits of the paper and comparing it with other possibly corroborating evidence compared to the ruling paradigm?
    OR is it a weathervane statement as to which way the political wind is blowing, and where the major research funding is coming from?

  167. Correction: The indented text in my previous post were my comments. Following is the APS statement added in red to Monckton’s article.

    “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
    See: Climate Sensitivity Revisited

  168. Given the above, a hopefully helpful suggestion..

    The APS to be renamed the AMS.
    ie,
    The American Physical Society,
    to become forthwith,
    The American Modeling Society.

  169. to CYC

    its amazing how you can interpret the review much differently than i do

    the actual phrase is:
    “I don’t know the difference between “forcing” and “feedback”. If “forcing” is not just external energy flux, than I
    would assume it includes “feedback”. What do you mean? Definitions now amplified and clarified in the text”

    feedback and forcing as used by IPCC are peculiar meanings, and I thought the reviewer wanted Monckton to answer: What do you mean? to clarify the information in his paper.

    The reviewer Saperstein is hardly ignorant. He is an editor of the APS quarterly itself. The APS decided to have the paper reviewed by its own editor! Why would the APS use its own editor to review the paper, and presumbably also review the other papers and then declare that the paper was un reviewed? Sounds like an old book written by a mathematician about rabbits and their lives

  170. to Duae Quartunciae

    To be fair, if the normal process for all papers published in the quarterly is to receive only editorial review by a physicist who is unqualified to review the papers, then Monktons papers should be treated as all the rest. They all should have the disclaimer.

  171. Pingback: Courtesy and the Monckton Paper | alexlockwood.net

  172. To peer reviewer, 00:17:51…

    Implicitly, all the articles do have that disclaimer, in my opinion. It would be rather precious to put an explicit rider of the bleeding obvious over every article in what is plainly a informal newsletter with lots of freely contributed opinion pieces.

    What makes Monckton’s article stand out as needing this disclaimer to be explicit is not that it is any less reviewed or less of an opinion piece. It is rather that half the internet immediately fell over themselves to misrepresent the status of the paper. It appears to have started, as far as I can tell, with a press release from the SPPI, on July 15. which described the newsletter as “mathematical proof” in a “major, peer-reviewed paper” within a “learned journal”. This is simply false on all counts, for an informal apropriate argument (with errors), in a minor opinion piece within a newsletter. From there it exploded across the internet.

    In my view, the whole thing shows a lot of naiviety. It would have been sensible to recognize in advance that this was going to spill over beyond the P&S newsletter; and announce right from the start that these were opinion pieces by individuals wanting to contribute a viewpoint. But they obviously did not anticipate the sheer scale and speed of the distortions. Not only was it being spoken of as “peer reviewed” and in an APS journal; it was almost immediately inflated into an indication that the whole 50,000 strong APS was shifting position. A straightforward clarification of the obvious was entirely in order; and there is nothing in the disclaimer which is inappropriate, or insulting. It was a necessary clarification to help stem a rapidly spreading distortion of this one specific paper’s status.

  173. David L. Hagen: “Similarly, what basis is there for stating: “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

    The basis is the misperception that the APS supports Monkton’s paper. For example, the DailyTech lead: “The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.”

    http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

    As to how this misperception arose, Monkton and his associates can share some of the blame: “Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

    This puff piece was released on 15 July. It implies that the APS supports Monkton’s paper, which is not the case. Monkton has paid his hosts a discourtesy, and has now compounded it by publicly demanding an apology. It’s quite clear that this man is parlaying the publicity for all it is worth.

    But ultimately, this fracas will rebound on him and his cause, because other scientific bodies will think twice before having any dealings with him.

  174. Ummm.

    Leaving aside the introductory and closing remarks, Bienenstock’s letter comprises four paragraphs.

    The first three address a claim that was not made by Monckton – that his paper was censored. I don’t think that anyone claims this literally, though you could assert that presenting a paper in a ‘poor’ way is tantamount to censorship…

    The last paragraph seems to me to be the only one which adresses an issue of substance. It suggests (in my view reasonably) that people might think the APS had changed their view of AGW, and thus it was important to stress that this was NOT the case.

    I can therefore see why Bienenstock has done this. It is true that many blogs have misinterpreted the paper as describing an APS position. But in doing it, he has left himself in a very peculiar position. He is now holding a ‘debate’ on AGW, but has stressed that the APS has a fixed position on this matter!

    This is a situation more usually found in religious discussions. The Roman Catholic church has exactly this problem when it needs to address a doctrinal change – I am not entirely sure how the logic works when a previously defined position needs to be discussed and altered. Usually, I think, this is done by ‘revelation’, and re-interpreting the words of the original doctrine – so perhaps we should all be praying for the APS to receive divine guidance?

  175. And the winner is…

    aps.org and dailytech.com by all the measures reported at Alexa. Just type them in the appropriate box and see how both sites experienced a major spike in traffic resulting from this incident.

  176. As a layman I was lazy and tended to believe the MMGW alarmists, however when Gore’s movie was released I smelt a rat and did what Richard Dawkins asks his readers to do in God Delusion: ‘raise their conciousness’.
    I’ve done a lot of desktop research and read up as much as I can on the subject, including reading a number of books sceptical of MMGW. My opinion is now firmly one of being extremely sceptical of the MMGW alarmists.
    We need sites like this and the people that use them to keep questioning the science behind the MMGW claims and push for a much more more open non- politicised debate.
    This recent article is extremely good at questioning the basis of the MMGW protaganists claims: http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm

  177. Duae Quartunciae

    I understand your reasoning. And the daily tech june 15th assertions are quite impolitic.

    I think it would be fair therefore that the disclaimer above Monktons papers should include the phrase this paper and all others in this quarterly have not undergone any scientific peer review. This would make things a lot clearer to the world

    However the qualifier “scientifically” begs the question further. If Dr. Saperstein, as a professional editor and reviewer and scientist saw an error in Monktons paper, shouldnt he have pointed it out? And if he saw it and purposely didnt isnt this quite disgenuous? On the other hand was the reviewer incapable of even seeing faults discerned by blogosphere freshman physicists?

    To me both sides have squashed the truth. and the accompanying papers to Monktons arent great shakes either. Who said that the atmosphere absorbs all the IR?

  178. Following is Lord Monckton’s 21st July 2008 email responding to Dr. Bienenstock’ 20th July 2008 reply:
    ——————————————————————————–
    Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
    President, American Physical Society,
    Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
    Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.
    21 July, 2008 By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

    Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
    Physics and Society
    I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet –

    1. Please provide the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it (if any) who considered my paper (if anyone considered it) before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;

    2. Please provide a copy of this rapporteur’s findings (if any) and ratio decidendi (if any);

    3. Please provide the date of the Council meeting (if there was one) at which the report (if any) was presented;

    4. Please provide a copy of the minutes (if any) of the discussion (if there was one);

    5. Please provide a copy of the text (if any) of the Council’s decision (if there was one);

    6. Please provide a list of the names of those present (if any) at that Council meeting (if there was one);

    7. If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts
    primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed, when it had (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of “scientific review”);
    secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and,
    tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)? And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?

    8. Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay.

    Finally, was the Council’s own policy statement on “global warming” peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN’s climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?

    Yours truly,
    THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

  179. I’d have no objection to the APS disclaimer above Monckton’s article explicitly indicating that all newsletter articles are in the same boat as far as review is concerned. However, only Monckton’s article should be identified as the one with which there is widespread disagreement. And that is only needed because of the contrary implication in many blogs and news outlets that the publication reflected some kind of change in the APS position.

    On the other hand: given that Monckton himself precipitated the distortions as soon as the newsletter came out, there’s no cause to beat around the bush in deference to his finer feelings. He egregiously misrepresented the matter in the SPPI press release. I think the APS is entirely correct to give a short, firm, accurate and civil response. Further careful rewordings to imply some kind of equal standing of all parties would be misleading.

    As for the matter of errors… full peer review intended to pick up all the technical errors is a very time consuming and onerous task, usually taking months. Monckton got a bit of a once over, but no assurance that all his errors would be found. Same for other articles in the paper … and generally this is well understood. Newsletter articles represent the author’s views.

    I’m not a professional physicist; but even so, it is not that surprising to me that I was able to see errors in Monckton’s paper that were missed by a professional. It was pretty much sheer happenstance that I had been studying the very topic of feedbacks at this time. That’s really all there is to it, I think. I was lucky.

    I had read in just the last couple of weeks many of the references that Monckton was using, and had been explaining on my own behalf the nature of forcing and feedback in another online discussion. I do have an undergraduate degree that helps, as well as a long standing interest in physics and maths. So I was primed to pick up the problems. An expert in that specific field would have picked them up at once as well. A competent physicist from another field? Not necessarily.

    The other paper, by Hafemeister and Schwartz, is attempting something very different from what Monckton was attempting. Monckton was attempting a high level refutation of modern climate science, to refute it. Hafemeister and Schwartz, on the other hand, were attempting a basic introductory tutorial on the nature of radiative transfers. They certainly don’t say that the atmosphere absorbs all IR. They rather work through a series of successively more detailed simple cases to help show how energy balance works out.

    For a sincerely interested onlooker, unsure of who to trust and where to go for good information, it’s as well to keep in mind the drastically different underlying presumptions of the two papers. One treats the matter as correcting incompetent errors made by experts. The other treats the matter as educating novices to have a better grasp of the underlying principles.

    Frankly, even if you are inclined to think that pretty much the whole field of modern climatology is riddled with errors and incompetent physical analysis, it would still be a good idea to learn more about the technical details of that analysis from tutorial style articles that give a simplified introduction. It takes time, but struggling through the examples in the tutorial article puts you in a better position to evaluate more advanced treatments (and go on to more advanced tutorials!). There’s much not covered in the tutorial paper; before I started reading the papers on feedback and forcings I spent a month or so on a general undergraduate level textbook on atmospheric physics and radiative transfers to be sure I could follow the papers. This was all before Monckton’s paper came out… it was very serendipitous timing for me.

  180. Extracts of cc emails responding to Prof. Bienenstock’s reply above:
    ———————————

    Dear Arthur;
    You did not answer my questions. Also, I did not say that the APS actions were censorship although one could infer that had the APS done a “scientific evaluation” that the paper would not have been published. I would call this “censorship without everybody knowing it”.

    Since the APS is now doing “scientific evaluations”, the red flag statement is unwieldy and much too long. May I suggest that papers that the APS disproves of carry the following warning label

    (Red DO NOT symbol stating)

    This raises a number of questions.

    1. Should the abstracting services be required to affix this label to the papers?
    2. It is possible that some investigators might feel that their papers would be enhanced by such a designation. To which of the 39 units of the APS should manuscripts be submitted to obtain this designation?

    I can think of many more.

    Sincerely;
    David Douglass
    Fellow of the APS

    ————————————

    My good friends,

    I am not a physicist, I’m a CPA, but this has been educational for me. Until this morning I had not been aware that physicists manage consensus in a manner similar to the accounting and legal professions, i.e. ‘stare decisis’.

    Thanks. I’m much better informed now.

    Bob Tormey, CPA

    {stare decisis (From Latin, to stand by decided matters)
    : a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice. Merriam-Webster}
    ——————————-

    Dear Dr. Bienenstock:
    On Jul 21, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Artie Bienenstock wrote: “No attempt was made to analyze the scientific substance of the article …”
    …and yet, “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”.

    So you confirm that the APS has a foregone conclusion. What a sham.

    It is a sad day when a scientific society publishes papers it admits it has not analyzed for scientific substance, “Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere…” (from your own Editor’s comments )

    Sincerely,
    Malcolm G. Ross
    ————————–

  181. Another email reply to Dr. Bienenstock:
    ————————

    Dear Dr. Bienenstock:

    I must reiterate my previous question: Are we therefore to assume that Hafemeister and Schwartz’ unprefaced article has been subjected to peer review, its conclusions are in agreement with the opinion of the community and that the Council does agree with them? If so, why is there no bright green prefratory statement saying as much in front of their article? And if their article has not been subjected to peer review, in the same way that Monckton’s has not, why is that not also noted in bright red lettering? And are all and only “Con” articles to carry your Scarlet Letters?

    Sir, you can cite your supposed “consensus” until you run out of ink; I am looking for facts. Measurements. Physics. And those seem strangely absent on the side of your “consensus”, a group which has expressed the desire to radically remake the planetary economy, based on the output of highly parameterized computer models and very fuzzy physical assumptions. It was the “opinion of the community” at the end of the Ninteenth Century that Physics was almost “done”. You owe your existence at SLAC to those few who ignored that Consensus. But now you cite an ever more obviously political consensus in a rather clumsy attempt to stop scientific inquiry. As such, you have moved into the realm of proclaiming a religious dogma.

    You are no longer advancing the cause of Science, nor the reputation of the APS, Dr. Bienenstock. Perhaps your talents could be properly used by a marketing firm or a presidential campaign.

    Yours,

    Michael S. Talcott

  182. The disclaimer-
    The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

    The conclusions they disagree with –
    In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

    Whoever wrote the disclaimer may not have even read the conclusions.

  183. Duae Quartunciae

    On the other hand: given that Monckton himself precipitated the distortions as soon as the newsletter came out, there’s no cause to beat around the bush in deference to his finer feelings. He egregiously misrepresented the matter in the SPPI press release.

    You might clarify which statements came from Lord Monckton, which from Robert Ferguson and which by “Staff”.
    As ’tis said: “There’s many a slip between the cup and the lip”.

  184. On “Scientific Peer Review”
    Per numerous web comments regarding Monckton’s paper, it would help to recognize the numerous gradations in “scientific peer review”.

    1) Newsletters
    The Forum for Physics and Society is apparently an APS quarterly Newsletter which has at least editorial feedback from the co-editor. e.g.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monkton_letter_pys.pdf“> comments by Editor Prof. Alvin Saperstein. Here the Editor has general knowledge of the field but may not be expert in that specialty.
    By the way, the editors appear to have been generous to the “minority” position in accepting Lord Monckton’s 8000 word article when the normal criteria is: “Contributed articles (up to 2500 words, technicalities are encouraged) . . .are welcome”.

    2) Conference Papers
    Speaking from experience with another professional society, professional society conference papers, peer review from at least three reviewers within the specialty field are typically required.

    3) Journals
    Then a small portion of refined and presented papers are judged of sufficient quality and originality to be submitted for the organizations Transactions or Journals.

    4) Critical examination
    The next level is critical evaluation by the likes of Steven McIntyre of Climate Audit. e.g., McIntyre & McKitrick’s 2003 evaluation of
    Mann et al. 1998. i.e., by those who have the time and passion to analyze the equations, verify the results and logic etc.

    5) National review
    From there one “graduates” to a full court national level review such as the Wedgman Report which systematically critiques the report in detail by the experts in the field.

    Each of these can be said to have had some level of “scientific peer review”. Yet there is often an order of magnitude difference in effort between each of these levels.

  185. Duae Quartunciae

    I do agree that: He egregiously misrepresented the matter in the SPPI press release.

    Still I think the APS should not mislead the public by pointing out only his paper was not “scientifically” peer reviewed. Its not a matter of finer feelings; its a matter of confusion for the world. Clearly the paper was reviewed ( and frankly whether it was or not doesn’t matter, because people would argue after the fact), and for the APS to declare that their own editor was not doing a scientific review is a bit confusing to all, and at the same time state that the paper was incorrect if it hadn’t been scientifically reviewed is also a bit confusing.

    Let me ask a science question: “They certainly don’t say that the atmosphere absorbs all IR.” actually this was one of their limit values to determine a temperature( I think) and they make this assumption in a derivation.

    my question is: what did I read wrongly? I freely admit I could have missed this point but I did think it was a limit term

    Some more elementary questions and confusion I have as an outsider:

    why doesn’t hoffmeister include heat capacity terms in their extra added wattts/meter sq . The atmosphere is being treated like its an adiabatic system: it isnt.

    whenever we burn fuel or make electricity , terrawatts of heat are given off and this heat is never a parameter in any model which contributes a c02 like term to temperature change. I dont know enough to know where it would enter: it could be additive to a co2 effect or it could simply be a reason for increased warmth: a global heat island effect.

    Further more the heat capacity of the oceans and the land and dirt in the air are never used to determine the temperature effects of the calculated forcing.

    Lets say you have an extra 4 watts per meter sq insolation equivalent. but also lets say that that 4 watts is going into a body that has an infinite heat capacity like a section through the crust or a section into the ocean. What does that do to the temperature? if its infinite, the answer is that the forcing doesn’t affect the temperature. So you need a heat capacity term

    Please also consider that if a “global heat island effect” doesn’t contribute to a warmer earth as has been suggested by reviews of some papers, why? where does all that heat go? Could the lack of a global heat island effect be an actual measure of the useful heat capacity of the earth and water and could be used to calculate the temp change from a co2 forcing?

  186. APS Amendment
    As of Monday July 21, 2008 at 1:20 pm, theAmerican Physical Society has amended is red letter disclamation on Christopher Monckton’s article Climate Sensitivity Revisited

    FROM:

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

    TO:

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.

    The editors have backed down on Lord Monckton’s 2nd and 3rd requests regarding the Council’s decision by passively restating the Council’s policy.

    Retaining the comment “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review,” still appears unfortunate considering the degrees of peer review noted above.

    (PS The combined July 2008 newsletter has not yet been modified. Nor have any comments been added to the “pro” climate change paper:
    A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
    )

  187. Duae Quartunciae

    I do agree that: He egregiously misrepresented the matter in the SPPI press release.

    Still I think the APS should not mislead the public by pointing out only his paper was not “scientifically” peer reviewed. Its not a matter of finer feelings; its a matter of confusion for the world. Clearly the paper was reviewed ( and frankly whether it was or not doesn’t matter, because people would argue after the fact), and for the APS to declare that their own editor was not doing a scientific review is a bit confusing to all, and at the same time state that the paper was incorrect if it hadn’t been scientifically reviewed is also a bit confusing. If they didnt review it how could they tell?

    Let me ask a science question: “They certainly don’t say that the atmosphere absorbs all IR.” actually this was one of their limit values to determine a temperature( I think) and they make this assumption in a derivation.

    my question is: what did I read wrongly? I freely admit I could have missed this point but I did think it was a limit term

    Some more elementary questions and confusion I have as an outsider:

    why doesn’t hoffmeister include heat capacity terms in their extra added wattts/meter sq forcing equations?. The atmosphere is being treated like its an adiabatic system: it isnt. It may be that they are only trying to calculate an energy effect purely for c02 and not calculate the effect of the extra energy on temp.

    whenever we burn fuel or make electricity , terrawatts of heat are given off and this heat is never a parameter in any model which contributes a c02 like term to temperature change. I dont know enough to know where it would enter: it could be additive to a co2 effect on temp or it could simply be a reason for the increased warmth that is not from c02: a global heat island effect. whatever effect this terrawatts of energy term has on temp, it would subtract the observed co2 effect on temp

    Further more the heat capacity of the oceans and the land and dirt in the air are never used to determine the temperature effects of the calculated forcing by co2.

    Lets say you have an extra 4 watts per meter sq insolation equivalent. but also lets say that that 4 watts is going into a body that has an infinite heat capacity like a section through the crust or a section into the ocean. What does that do to the temperature? if its infinite, the answer is that the forcing doesn’t affect the temperature. So you need a heat capacity term for consideration of a non infinite heat capacity

    Please also consider that if a “global heat island effect” doesn’t contribute to a warmer earth as has been suggested by reviews of some papers, why? where does all that heat go? Could the lack of a global heat island effect be an actual measure of the useful heat capacity of the earth and water and could be used to calculate the temp change from a co2 forcing?

  188. That the APS is officially behind the “science” of AGW ought to scandalize everyone of its members.

  189. I would like to say once more that this “forcing” definition used by climatologists is unfortunate. It is almost true that a heavenly body receives and sends energy through electromagnetic radiation. ( almost because gravitational energy is also exchanged between heavenly bodies). At the level of the outer surface of the earth radiation balance and energy balance are almost the same.

    The unfortunate thing is that people using this “forcing” business forget that radiation is not conserved. It is energy that is the conserved quantity, and energy takes many forms, from heat to convection , to evaporation and precipitation. Of course heat capacities are very important. This is a a complex, chaotic, thermodynamic system one has under study, from coupled differential equations.

    These “forcings”are like making a budget, using only cash flow and ignoring credit and debt, or at best “estimating” by a computer model the average credit and debt for a business.

  190. Re: limiting assumptions.
    “the atmosphere absorbs all IR”, blackbody absorption by the earth are limiting assumptions. I expect heat capacity can also be ignored in the limit of modeling the equilibrium system to approximate long term changes. (Each of these needs to be modified in refining models to dynamic conditions.) See references above to Miskolczi’s greenhouse theory.

  191. The APS decides to play fair
    The American Physical Society has decided to play fair and post the identical disclaimer to BOTH Hafemeister & Schwartz’s Pro article and Monckton’s Con article in its current global warming debate, namely:

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    PS. These corrections have not yet been propagated to the entire July 2008 Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter pdf.

  192. The APS has posted the following disclaimer on its Forum for Physics and Society July 2008 Newsletter

    The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and the Editors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

    The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.” The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, “There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution” does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

    (h/t to Michael S. Talcott)

  193. Hi peer reviewer… the APS has now added a disclaimer on top of the tutorial paper as well, to point out that there is no peer review on any of the papers.

    The tutorial paper — which seems mostly fine to me, albeit limited in scope — goes through a sequence of examples.

    (1) Upper atmosphere temperature using blackbody emission.

    (2) Using Ts — a fraction of IR that should be absorbed to account for higher surface temperatures. Requires atmosphere to absorb 0.76 of IR.

    (3) Using Ta and Ts — an atmospheric emissivity value to account for higher surface temperatures. Effectively the same as (2); emissivity is 0.76. Note from Kirchoff’s law that IR emissivity = IR absorptivity; so again, 0.76 of IR is absorbed.

    (4) Using a “multi layer” atmosphere; where each layer is treated as a fully absorbing blackbody. Earth has 0.6 of a layer… again, less than the 1 for full absorption. But you need this to get a good comparison with Venus.

    They do also give the limit for complete absorption; but that is nothing to do with Earth. It is only there as an illustration of how the simple model behaves in a thicker atmosphere.

    As for heat capacity, this is a subtle point, and beyond the scope of the tutorial. It’s irrelevant for an equilibrium analysis, since at equilibrium you have all your heat reservoirs in balance with each other. The effect of a heat reservoir (the ocean is the big one) that it takes a long time to reach the equilibrium when everything is held fixed. And if things are not held fixed, then you basically have damping. It’s certainly important in a more complete analysis; but this tutorial is only the first step, and increasing complexity generally leaves heat capacities until after a few more complexities are introduced.

    What it means for us at present is that since the Earth (for whatever reason you care to attribute) is warming; and that is coming from extra energy somewhere. As the Earth warms, it emits more longwave radiation; and this is basically the response to compensate for some energy imbalance. But there’s also heat being taken up into the ocean, and heat going into the ocean is not going out into space. This actually means there is a slight imbalance of energy at present. As the ocean “catches up” with surface temperatures, the rate of flux into the ocean drops, and then extra energy leads to a warmer surface and more energy into space. So whatever is warming earth right now, some of that warming is a heat flux into the ocean, and yet to be realized as a temperature rise. Estimates vary, but there’s probably something like another half a degree of warming that is due when the ocean comes up into equilibrium, even if nothing else changes The heat capacity of the ocean is finite; and the time lag is measured in decades, I think.

    A full analysis of the heat transfers deals with convection and also with latent heat, which is energy transfered by water vapour rising into the atmosphere and then condensing. You can manage this with a “pseudo-adiabat”. The nice thing is, however, that it doesn’t actually make a lot of difference to the analysis of the tutorial.

    If you look closely at the tutorial, you’ll see showing up a factor of 2^0.25 difference in temperature between surface and atmosphere. This is a real effect, and it is what gives us a troposphere. Radiation alone would mean the atmosphere was cooler than the surface, even right at the point of contact. The means convection and latent heat tend to transfer energy up from the surface, and up until everything comes into balance with radiation again… which is basically the tropopause, above which the atmosphere is no longer turbulent and convection no longer has a significant role. So it is still heat from surface to lower atmosphere, and really doesn’t alter the simple level of analysis in the tutorial how the energy gets there.

    And, by the way… for “anna v”, this is why forcing is only defined above the tropopause. The energy into and out of the Earth above this level is pretty much all by radiation.

    As for waste heat… global energy consumption is around 13 TeraWatts or so. For Earth’s surface of 5.15e14 m^2 that works out to about 0.025 W/m^2, which is pretty negligible in the energy balances for climate.

    Cheers — Duae Quartunciae

  194. Re: David L. Hagen (10:32:56)

    As noted in above comment, the new statement, no longer is red, now appears:

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    The newsletter from the Forum on Physics and Society (pdf version) has now undergone yet another revision. The above statement now appears in regular black type at the head of both articles.

  195. hi,

    I need to reread the section with complete absorbtion: ( a double entendre) I thought it was key to obtaining a temp value ……….

    another reason I think about heat capacity issues is that they allow cumulative energy transfers, essentialy slow flows. take the .o25 watts for burning things which doesnt seem to be much but in ten years its .25 watts and in 40 years its 1 watt/m^2. so its heat added to the system. Ask yourself: if you were to forget c02 but integrate heat evolved since 1750 what temperature would you get? do we have a measure of the heat capacity of the earth and ocean and how they transform energy into other events which do not affect temperature?

    Other notions: a black body radiator is really not such a good model. ( I dont mean the atmospheric approximations or the top of the atmosphere, I mean the whole system) No black body had insulated molten metal swirling around in it, with volcanoes under the artic and antartic. And is mass accounted for in black body radiators? I thought they were usually dimensionless point sources? are chemical reactions allowed ( no) I know its easy to say well for a first approximation…..

    And the equilibrium model is just not right because we are in deed not in equilibrium. In fact the whole question of global warming is how far are we away from equilibrium. Are there relaxation methods employed to deal with this ( they are used for certain biochemical processes away from equilibrium, stop flow experiments)?
    finally the heat goes somewhere and does some things: the ocean currents have enormous energy, partially driven by undersea vents, and the earth spins and the wind blows and enormous chemical reactions occur and use energy which no one ever thinks about. has anyone measured the time of day length and seen whether it is changing?. And then there is the moving magnetic pole: how much energy does it take to do this, and how much magnetic energy is loss to space as radiation, or is it?

    sorry for all the questions and maybe I dont know all the basics for the assumptions, but I would like to lay bare all the “givens” used in discussing the problem

    PS johnathan drakes page in the UK has a tongue in cheek graph which shows rate of change of magnetic north pole tracks very well with temperature from Hadley and is much better than co2 if you like correlations

  196. Lord Monckton responds via email to Michael Kellman’s email above:

    Well spoken! Time for the entire disclaimer to be deleted: the APS can always issue a press release if it wants, but leaving the disclaimer, even in its less mendacious but still not fully honest form, merely spreads the stain on the reputation of the APS, though it is certainly helping to give as many scientists as possible the chance to learn about my paper and to comment on it. – M of B

    The APS’s Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter already has an extraordinary disclaimer on its July 2008 newsletter cover (See above). It would make eminent sense to remove the extremely unusual dislamations from the top of each of the articles submitted in this greenhouse debate.

    Now will politics or common sense win in this debate over the “science”?

  197. I think Hafemeister’s tutorial was quite interesting to start with AGW theory.

    The critical and disputed part of his tutorial appears to be included in a single sentence, that he presented without referencing:

    “One can attribute 21 oC of that warming to the IR trapping of water vapor, 7 oC to CO2 and 5 oC to other gases.”

    I think this is a spectacular contribution for such a rare trace gas.

  198. An Open Question To Global Warming Alarmists

    Isn’t it logical to take action against Global Warning (GW) only if the following four conditions are met?

    (1) GW is in fact occurring. If GW is just so much “hot air” (pun intended), then GW is a nonissue–or more correctly, a nonexistent issue.

    (2) In the aggregate GW is harmful to mankind. I know in this age of political correctness, it’s deplorable to express little or no concern for the world’s plants and animals; but I do, at least when compared to my concern for mankind. For example, if mankind had the power to change the environment in a way that benefited all mankind but resulted in the extinction of polar bears, I’d say go for it. After all, aren’t we doing something similar by attempting to eradicate the smallpox virus from the face of the earth? Environmentalists can’t in good conscience make the claim: “We can’t allow polar bears to become extinct because (a) it’s immoral for man to abet the extinction of a life form, and (b) the extinction of the polar bear will hurt the environment,” unless they are willing to make a similar claim about the smallpox virus. The smallpox virus is a living organism too; and by eradicating smallpox the number of the worst polluter (humans, according to many environmentalists) on the face of the earth will increase. Thus, by eradicating smallpox we are destroying a life form and making a big impact to the environment. The main difference I see between smallpox and polar bears is that young polar bears are cute; and hence telling children that the number of polar bears is decreasing brings tears of sadness not tears of joy as would happen if we tell them smallpox is becoming extinct. Once full grown, polar bears can be very dangerous. None of my friends is a polar bear, and I don’t really care what happens to them (polar bears)–good or bad. I’m not looking to harm them, but I also don’t want to spend much effort to ensure they are around when the sun becomes a red giant. So, if in the aggregate GW is beneficial to man (and I can think of at least one possible reason why it might be–a warmer climate might allow for increased production of foodstuff), then I want more, not less, GW.

    (3) There is something we can do about GW. Even if (a) GW is occurring, and (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, I’m not going to worry about it if we can’t do anything about it. Just like I don’t lose sleep over the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera might erupt like it has in the past. I will listen to discussions about how to adapt to GW; but if we can’t affect it, why listen to arguments on how to stop it?

    (4) What we do about GW is less harmful to mankind than GW itself. Even if (a) GW is occurring, (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, and (c) there is something we can do about it, before we take action I want to be sure that the action we take doesn’t cause more harm to mankind than allowing GW to proceed unhindered. Let’s postulate (1), (2), and (3) above are true, and throw in for good measure that man’s industrial activity is the major contributor to GW. One way to solve the problem, at least temporarily, would be to liquidate 99% of all humans now living on the earth. If I’m in the 1% who are allowed to live, it’s unlikely but conceivable that I’d go along with such a solution; but if I’m in the 99% who get sacrificed to the altar of Al Gore, then I’d just as soon ignore GW and let the chips fall where they may.

    When I hear GW discussed in the main-stream media, I’m pretty sure it’s just so much “feelsuperiorism” in the sense that those who advocate doing something about GW can feel superior to us skeptics because they’re onboard the glory train to save the world by stopping the scourge of GW and we’re tearing up the tracks in front of them. The possibility that (a) the GW alarmist train doesn’t have an engine or (b) the light at the end of the tunnel is another train, not the tunnel exit, doesn’t appear to have entered the minds of GW alarmists. As such, I have a tendency to ignore the main-stream media’s propaganda about GW, and consequently have heard only a miniscule fraction of their discussion. However, in the portion I have heard, the four conditions above have never been discussed collectively, much less proven.

    In closing, my father often related to me what his father told him: “Son, the world is full of people who know things that aren’t true.” It’s my perception that Al Gore, the main-stream media, and much of the western world “know GW is here, know it is harmful, and know that we can do something about it.” In my opinion, such knowledge is an illustration of my grandfather’s claim.

  199. Add to Reed Coray’s post:
    (5) What are relative benefits/costs of combating GW vs other major global problems?

    The Copenhagen Consensus puts stabilizing climate at the BOTTOM of the list of all major global projects where we could invest put scarce funds.

    Per Monckton’s article at APS, there is growing evidence that non-anthropogenic causes dominate climate change, and that there is little we could do about it.

    Thus the critical importance of unbiased evaluation of the science without major political interference such as the APS PeerGate peer review scandal.

  200. This is just more censorship by people who are now really starting to worry about their professional reputations.

    I post on Real Climate occasionally but most of my posts are censored.

    The latest post to ‘vanish’ was one were I pointed to the fact that, the generic response to posters, pointing to the 21st century global temperature et al trends, is to state that theirs and the IPCCs position is that 30 years of a trend are needed before this could be accepted as evidence of climate change. Posters have been told to come back in 2032 before they will be listened to.

    I asked therefore, why, when Hansen started spouting off in 1988 about the
    sharp warming trend from 1978 to 1988, was he not told to come back in 2008 and then continue the debate. I pointed out that if he had been we would have been able to say, ‘Don’t worry Jim it is currently cooler than when you first raised the subject!’

  201. Tom Klein: Thank you for your post (23:05:51).

    For the most part I agree. I sense that you have difficulty relating global warming (GW) models of average Earth Global Temperature to electronic circuit analysis. I know I do. For example, I disagree with the statement “If the product of the two factors is greater than one then you have a system with a net positive feedback.” The 1978 (fourth) edition of the “Markus Electronics Dictionary” (I know, it’s an old edition–but so am I) defines feedback as

    “The return of a portion of the output of a circuit or device to its input. With positive feedback, the signal fed back is in phase with the input and increases amplification but may cause oscillation. With negative feedback, the signal fed back is 180 degrees out of phase with the input and decreases amplification but stabilizes circuit performance and tends to minimize noise and distortion.”

    Most electronic circuits are designed to operate on a time-varying external input signal. If the output (or a portion of the output) of the circuit is returned to and additively combined with the external input to form a composite input that is the sum of the external component and the returned component, then the circuit is said to be “recursive” or to have “feedback”. [Note: As I understand it, all analog circuits have some amount of feedback. It is only in the digital world that "feed forward" or "nonrecursive" "circuits can be realized.] Thus, associated with a circuit’s feedback are (a) a delay (time interval between an external input and the circuit’s response/feedback to that external input–note that in all recursive circuits the time delay is a function of frequency), and (b) a multiplicative coefficient. If the feedback consists of a single return path from the circuit output and the magnitude of the multiplicative coefficient for that path is equal to or greater than 1, the circuit is theoretically unstable–i.e., for a bounded external input the circuit output will be unbounded. In the real world, unbounded circuit outputs are impossible if for no other reason than they imply the generation of an infinite amount of output power. In practice, some physical process always occurs that changes the nature of the circuit, which is a good thing, otherwise we’d all be toast).

    I see at least two problems with attempts to apply electronic circuitry analysis to global warming (GW) models. First, in all the GW literature that I’ve seen (which, by the way, is miniscule), I haven’t come across a description of a time-varying external input. This leads me to the conclusion that GW scientists are interested primarily in the DC (zero frequency) behavior of the system (the earth’s average global temperature). [By the way, if the DC component is the only component of interest, then for real as opposed to complex inputs positive feedback implies a feedback coefficient greater than 0 {not greater than 1), and negative feedback implies a feedback coefficient less than 0.] Second, and more important, for the GW models that I’ve seen (again, an extremely limited set) the external input to the models and the model feedback don’t have the same physical units. The external input is expressed as power flux density (watts per square meter) at the tropopause (not the temperature at the tropopause) and the feedback is expressed in temperature degrees. To a circuit analyst, this poses a problem. If the earth is treated as a black box with a feedback path, then using “circuit analysis” concepts the units of the external input and the units of the feedback should be the same–either both temperature or both power flux density.

    I don’t want to imply that the terms “radiativeforcing”, “no-feedbacks”, “temperature feedbacks” etc., used by the GW community are meritless–I’m sure they are very useful–but I have a problem (most likely due to my limited understanding of GW models) relating these concepts to the tools of electronic circuitry analysis.

  202. Thank you Mr. Hagen (16:30:35) for adding a fifth “required condition” before we try to do something about global warming. I’m sure there are others.

  203. Following are cc of two further emails.
    ———————————————
    Mon 21 July 2008 12:24 pm
    Dear Dr. Bienenstock:

    A wise man once said, “When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.” I note that the front page of the Forum on Physics and Society
    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ now carries the disclaimer:

    The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and the Editors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

    The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.” The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, “There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution” does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

    So other than the remarkable appearance of such a disclaimer in your newsletter for the first time, its detailed statment of the rather obvious fact that the views expressed are not necessarily those of the Forum Executive Committee, and its restatement of an advocacy position that a clearinghouse scientific body should at no time have made, we find that in the view of the Executive Committee a “considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion…” simply does not exist! To whom do you then attribute these views and the hundreds of papers that have appeared in many different major academic refereed journals? Leprechauns?

    But please, keep digging, sir. The artifacts you are exhuming are extremely instructive.

    Michael S. Talcott
    Boston, MA
    ————————————-
    21 July 2008 7:46 pm EST. from Lord Monckton:

    These letters are all very splendid, and I’m most grateful to everyone for them. But I think it is fair to say that the President of the APS will now be aware that a significant proportion of his membership consider that the disclaimer attached to my paper without my knowledge or consent (albeit that it has been amended under pressure) should not have appeared at all and should now be altogether removed. Many of his membership have written to him, and many more – some of them of the highest eminence – have written to me. Those courageous correspondents rightly disagree with the Council’s statement on “global warming”, which of course no true scientific body would ever have made; and they have very kindly taken the rare step of setting aside their scientific day jobs to try to put right the unfortunate injustice that the President perpetrated and, at first, attempted to perpetuate. Now, I think it would be fair to leave him in peace to reflect on his personal position, and to let the Council and, in due course, the new President think about polling the membership on the “global warming” issue, and removing the Council’s revealingly unscientific statement on the subject in the meantime, as well as the offending disclaimer atop my paper in Physics and Society. I am most grateful for the outstanding, gallant, and generous support of you all. And now, I expect, you – like me – will be returning to the science in which all of us have so strong an intellectual interest. Thank you all, and God bless you. You have been friends indeed – M of B

  204. Reed Coray
    On global warming models and solar forcing, Monckton addresses the equilibrium models.

    For dynamic models of forcing see

    Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West 2006

    We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

    Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.

    Scafetta,N & B.J. West 2008
    Is Climate sensitive to Solar variablity?

    We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.

  205. To consideration of solar forcing add a few more papers:

    Camp, C. D., and Tung, K.K., 2007. Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi:1029/2007GL030207.

    Douglass D. H., and Clader, B.D., 2002. Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, doi:1029/2002GL015345.

    Lean, J., et al., 2005. SORCE contributions to new understanding of global change and solar variability. SolarPhysics, 230, 27-53

  206. peer reviewer says: “another reason I think about heat capacity issues is that they allow cumulative energy transfers, essentialy slow flows. take the .o25 watts for burning things which doesnt seem to be much but in ten years its .25 watts and in 40 years its 1 watt/m^2. so its heat added to the system. Ask yourself: if you were to forget c02 but integrate heat evolved since 1750 what temperature would you get?”

    Your reasoning here is confused. Watts is a unit of power, i.e., energy per unit time…so, no, 10 years of 0.025 W/m^2 is not 0.25 W/m^2. It is still 0.025 W/m^2. Now, it is true that the total cumulative energy (the power integrated vs time) would add up…but that is also true of all the other energy sources, in particular, the sun…or the radiative forcing from added CO2. So, it makes sense to just compare the powers for the different sources. And, the point is that the power per unit area we directly generate by burning fossil fuels and such is about 2 orders of magnitude down from the radiative forcing that we are producing by increasing CO2 levels and thereby trapping more of the sun’s energy. Of course, eventually, if we start using enough energy…e.g., 50 or 100X what we use today, we would not to start worrying about this heat input. But, it is not an immediate concern.

  207. Paul Clark (02:54:54)

    I’ve always suspected the ratio of AGW research funding to no-AGW research funding was large, but I didn’t dream it was that large. If your ratio is correct, we’d better get a big rock for our slingshot because Goliath won’t go down easily.

  208. Duae Quartunciae (12:47:58 ) :

    Turning energy into Watts, i.e. power, makes the same mistake. Power is not conserved. It is energy that is conserved.

  209. joel, I was only borrowing nomenclature from Duae. heat really should be expressed in calories. the heat (calories) given off by many years of burning does produce calories which really do have to go somewhere. When you talk about watts you are talking about doing work, like how many watts is your car engine putting out when you are going 60 to overcome wind tire and bearing resistance. So I ask again, how many calories integrated from 1750 are produced and what is the heat capacity of the earth and seas and would this raise the temperature of the earth if and this is a big if it were not radiated off? I agree its just another “forcing”, and a small magnitude but all I am asking is to consider it since it does not require atmospheric approximations of increased heat trapping and increased radiation from the co2 and a determination of which is more important. After all it is coincident with co2. by the way what is the heat capacity of co2: I have been unable to find it at NIST, likely due to my own ignorance.

    Since you are knowledgeable, another pretty off the wall question is: if there were more undersea volcanic activity, or more heat transfer from the core how could we distinguish this form any other source of heat?

  210. You’ll need to be familiar with the SI units to work with the almost written analysis of this stuff. Heat is a form of energy; and Joules are the SI energy unit. One calorie is 4.18 J.

    Power is energy per unit time, and is measured in Watts (one Joule per second).

    The conservation of energy implies a balance of power. This is really really basic stuff. Because energy is conserved, and because the Earth is not generating its own internal energy, the total rate at which energy comes in is equal to the rate at which it goes out. (You can manage heat sinks as well by giving the flux of energy into the reservoirs as part of the equation; or you can look at equilibrium conditions, in which case reservoirs don’t matter.) The flux of energy is a rate of energy per unit time; which is a power value.

    Almost everything about this problem uses power. The Sun gives a certain amount of energy per unit time. That’s power. The Earth emits heat radiation all the time; a certain amount of energy per unit time. That’s power. The effect of a change in the Sun is a change in the rate at which energy is received, which is power. The effect of a change in greenhouse effects alters the rates at which energy is absorbed and emitted. Power. You still use conservation of energy; this is the basis of the “energy balance” equations — which basically say that total power in and out together is (at equilibrium) zero.

    This isn’t about disputing for and against AGW, by the way. It’s just about getting a bit of basic physics to even engage the subject effectively at all.

  211. Duae Quartunciae (22:28:16) :

    “You’ll need to be familiar with the SI units to work with the almost written analysis of this stuff. Heat is a form of energy; and Joules are the SI energy unit. One calorie is 4.18 J.

    Power is energy per unit time, and is measured in Watts (one Joule per second).”

    “This isn’t about disputing for and against AGW, by the way. It’s just about getting a bit of basic physics to even engage the subject effectively at all.”

    As i am a physicist, retired experimental particle physicist, I am quite familiar with physics, thank you.

    Are you familiar with conservation laws? Those thingies that are invariant under any transformations of the lagrangian?

    Energy, momentum, angular momentum are conserved quantities. Power is not. Using conservation of energy it can seem in specific situations that power is conserved, but it is easy to fall into hand waving and holes in the thinking process when this is not kept clearly in mind. The model with forcings and what nots instead of standard thermodynamic formulations ( after all engineers have been using them for over a century) obfuscates the issue and makes the pathway of mistakes easy.

    That there are mistakes is self evident from the departure of the forcing models from real data: temperature, ocean temperatures, humidity, tropical hot spot and who knows what else.

  212. If you are a physicist, then you should be able to see that “power is conserved” is a strawman. No-one uses a conservation of power; they use a BALANCE of power, which corresponds to conservation of energy. If there is any imbalance in power, then there is a transfer of energy, which has to be stored somewhere, or else transfered again to make up the balance in power.

    If energy is being stored into some reservoir, then you can use the capacity of that reservoir to figure how long the imbalance can persist (since power by time is energy), or you can make the flux into the reservoir explicit in a balance equation; and bingo, we’re right back at balance of power again.

    Your speaking of “errors”, in this context, is …. odd; to put it as gently as I can manage. Especially if you are a physicist. The power treatment is perfectly correct, and pretty much essential when you are speaking of rates of warming or cooling, or looking at the temperature of anything the Sun shines upon.

    Models, and measurements, continue to be refined and mutually tested. None of the actual claimed “errors” described here actually stand up as being anything outside of measurement uncertainties; and certainly no actual simple “error” has been shown in physical models of planetary thermodynamics, which could be attributed to mix up of power and energy.

  213. i wasnt kidding about earth’s rotation and the conservation of energy and potential use of the rotation to be altered by heat absorbtion or heat loss. I dont know what is the chicken or the egg. but energy in a system can be maintained/balanced by mechanisms other than ourward radiation

    el nino in 1998 caused a decrease in earth’s rotation or vice versa. Now a leap second is being introduced. I am not expert in thesematters and refer you to the site that is. perhaps someone can graph earths rotaional speed over the last 30 years

    http://www.iers.org/products/6/11324/orig/bulletina-xxi-029.txt

  214. Interesting read, but I do have a question… for Duae Quartunciae

    If you guys have it all figured out, how come the models don’t match reality?

  215. Duae Quartunciae (06:02:50) :

    “If you are a physicist, then you should be able to see that “power is conserved” is a strawman. No-one uses a conservation of power; they use a BALANCE of power, which corresponds to conservation of energy. If there is any imbalance in power, then there is a transfer of energy, which has to be stored somewhere, or else transfered again to make up the balance in power.”

    Juggling like?

    Maybe no one uses conservation of power, but it sounds and smells very much like it when reading the various “forcing” set ups: translating other forms of energy into power. That is where oversights happen: ignoring PDO and ENSO and what not acronyms of the great convection currents of the earth, ignoring precipitation and evaporation, ignoring the heat outlets from magma at the ocean floor, the crucial contributon to albedo from clouds and land management, the heat capacities of everything,…Turning everything into energy per second when the time scales of the earth are decades and the time scales of the solar system centuries and aeons.

    Lets put it a different way. It is as if, when faced with a perturbative expansion of the solution of a differential equation system , the first terms are used ( averages) whereas the higher terms can be highly outbalancing and influential. This method works for a few steps, because most solutions have a first order term in the expansion and the divergence of the higher terms can be absorbed in the constant. That is why weather prediction from these complicated models for a few days is fine. Once the variable steps become many, the higher terms come in with a vengeance, and that is why the models cannot tell the weather for next month.
    Let alone for next century.

    Monks at some decadent time had a blessing on fridays, and christend meat “fish” so they could have it at the table.
    That is what has happened by taking weather models and calling them climate models.

  216. thank you anna. I wish the climate people worked from a thermodynamic basis to think about energy in systems. there is a good literature even for non equilibrium thermodynamics and perturbation theory

  217. Anna, think we have moved away from the notion that there’s something wrong with using “power” which is fixed by using “energy”, and that we agree no-one is using an oxymoron like conservation of power. That’s good!

    But hey… let’s proceed a bit futher. Even if we don’t agree, some of the differences may be clarified.

    Weather is certainly chaotic, but that does not mean temperatures in a weather model diverge without limit. It means that after a comparatively short period of time, a weather model has no idea of what weather will be within the given distribution of weather.

    At a given location, you can obtain a probabilistic distribution for different weather variables (temperature, wind speed, humidity, precipitation, anything you like), for a given season. If you want to know the weather next year, a weather model is no good to you. The best you can do is the probability distribution as an idea of what to expect.

    A climate model is in someways similar to a weather model; but you can think of it also as a way to see how the probability distribution changes. It’s actually aiming at something quite different from a weather model, even though there are similarities in the way they run. What’s really different are the kinds of boundary conditions applied, but that’s getting a bit detailed.

    Suffice to say… the temperature trend from a climate model is not actually a prediction for the future temperature; since you still have all the usual chaotic variation of weather, which cannot be predicted years in advance. But what you can predict is the change in distributions. This can be both the changes in the mean and in the variance of the distributions of temperatures; but most particularly the mean. The temperature trend from a climate model is actually telling you how much the mean of the weather distribution is likely to shift; which is quite a different thing from predicting the actual weather itself… the day by day specific temperatures. In general, climate models also suggest changes in the envelope or distribution for other variables, like precipitation or humidity.

    Now I am sure you are skeptical about all that; and I do not presume to actually persuade you that climate models are useful. But as an actual argument, the analogy from lack of prediction of weather to lack of prediction of climate is invalid; because they aren’t the same, and perturbations don’t diverge in the same way for the weather itself, and the distribution within which weather varies. At least; the presumption that they will diverge in the same way is not actually backed up with any argument other than an analogy, the validity of which must be assumed since it is not actually argued.

    I quite agree that we don’t predict weather months or years in advance.

    And by the way. Anyone who works with a climate model is bound to be something of an expert in thermodynamics.

    Fred, your question is a bit open ended, and simply presumes the points in dispute. I don’t think we know everything, and I don’t think there are any big issues with models conflicting with data. If you have some more specific issue, I may be happy to comment. Make the point as hard as you like, but not as open ended as you like, since any reply has to fit into a fairly small space! Have mercy.

    Peer review; that’s an interesting idea about Earth’s rotation. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to know the rotation speed; you also will need to know moment of inertia; and that varies as well, as mass shifts within the Earth. Since the variations in length of a day are in about the ninth significant figure, you would need to know the change in moment to at least that accuracy as well. But there’s one thing you can estimate! The biggest consistent trend in varying rotation speed is actually a gradual slowdown as angular momentum is transferred to the moon. Most of the energy involved is actually dissipated as tidal drag; which is know is about 3 TeraWatts. Since solar input as a bit over 120 PentaWatts; even tiny variations in the solar constant, or albedo, will swamp changes in tidal drag. So in fact, the role of changes in Earth’s rotational speed is quite negligible in the energy budgets that bear upon climate.

  218. Duane Quartunciae
    I have a questions for you
    What has been the amplification number for the last 8 years? (see below amplification by a factor of 2.5)
    And what, if any, will the modelers do with Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. obsevations?

    “The sensitivity of the climate system to a forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing. If there were no climate feedbacks, the response of Earth’s mean temperature to a forcing of 4 W/m2 (the forcing for a doubled atmospheric CO2) would be an increase of about 1.2 °C (about 2.2 °F). However, the total climate change is affected not only by the immediate direct forcing, but also by climate “feedbacks” that come into play in response to the forcing.”

    “As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 W/m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3 °C (5.4 °F), but with a range from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3 °C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.”

    Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
    Committee on the Science of Climate Change
    National Research Council

  219. Hi old construction worker,

    The amplification factor is not something you can measure at a point in time using observations, but a kind of diagnostic of climate sensitivity. Since climate sensitivity cannot be measured directly or inferred from any short term trend, the question of “amplification number for the last 8 years” is ill-formed.

    Best estimates of climate sensitivity continue to be somewhere in the range 2 to 4.5 K per CO2 doubling; or (as I prefer to give it in SI units) somewhere in the range 0.5 to 1.2 K/(W/m^2). This is an amplification of somewhere from 1.7 to 3.9

    Best estimate is still around about 2.5; but you can see that the uncertainties associated with this are large. The quoted extract you provide is a good statement of the state of play; although 4 is a bit too large for the forcing from doubling of CO2. 3.7 would be better.

    You don’t indicate what particular “observations” of Spencer you mean. Names don’t have any weight; and PhDs are dime a dozen. It’s the observations themselves that matter, whatever they are.

    Spencer’s most important actual observations are associated with satellite measures. Some of this was taken very seriously indeed a few years ago, when the data seemed to indicate a lack of tropospheric warming. It’s since been recognized by all concerned that Spencer and Christy of UAH made some significant errors in their analysis. Spencer and Christy and a few others continue to argue for a weaker version of their original strong conclusions; but the rest of the field has mostly moved on. Tropospheric warming continues to be actively investigated; and there are right now a couple of new papers coming out dealing with wind shear. This is going to help narrow the uncertainties, and give even more strong support to the reality of tropospheric warming.

    As well as observations, Spencer also has his own opinions. They are rather idiosyncratic and have pretty much no impact on other scientists; just as the overwhelming contrary opinion of almost all his professional peers has pretty much no impact on Spencer. Which is fine; it’s healthy to have a couple of mavericks doing real work in the relevant science.

  220. Duane Quartunciae
    That you for your quick reply.
    “The amplification factor is not something you can measure at a point in time using observations, but a kind of diagnostic of climate sensitivity.”
    You mean to tell me you have all the observed data from the past and can’t solve for past climate sensitivity? How interesting.

    “It’s since been recognized by all concerned that Spencer and Christy of UAH made some significant errors in their analysis.”

    “significant errors in their analysis”?
    What errors are you refering to? Did he make assumption about the observed data that were not true? Were the calculations in error?

  221. The bottom line of all serious discussions on IPCC models is that there is a lot of stuff to discuss.

    I.e. the science is not settled.

    In my humble opinion it behooves also all ethical climatologists to come out and say this loud and clear, and stop politicians from misusing their research and plunging the world and the already shaky economy into chaos.

    They should say : “I believe I am right and stand fully behind my analysis of the data, but I accept that more research is needed on all fronts”.

    Duae Quartunciae (11:15:54) :

    “At least; the presumption that they will diverge in the same way is not actually backed up with any argument other than an analogy, the validity of which must be assumed since it is not actually argued.”

    Both solve the same differential equations. From what I have read climate models use 20 minute steps in boxes 1kmby150ksby150km. Is it the boxes that are different between meteorology and climate?

    20 minute steps to go up to a century are way out of any first order approximation in a perturbative expansion: all those mean values set in the boxes are really that, a first order approximation. Nobody who has worked with coupled differential equations can believe that a first order approximation can be valid after thousands of steps.

    Tsonis et al, I do not have the reference at hand but it is in a discussion at CA, studied with neural nets the chaotic system of coupled ocean and air currents. It is interesting that their results also predict a leveling off of the temperatures.

    Real life is not a first order approximation.

    Observation:
    On feedbacks and forcings instead of normal thermodynamics: I feel as if I am being forced to predict an eclipse using the epicycles system. It can be done, but should one do it?

  222. You certainly can infer (or at least constrain) the sensitivity from “all the data of the the past”, up to a limited accuracy. You can’t infer it from data at a point in time, or over a short trend. That’s why your original qualifier “over the last 8 years” was an issue. You can’t calculate a meaningful sensitivity from eight years of data. You need a heck of a lot more than eight years; and you need to know forcings as well as temperatures. This means that there’s a substantial uncertainty, which I quantified for you in my previous post and which is also described in your previous extract from the NAS book.

    Spencer and Christy had calculation errors in their original analysis, as they also have recognized and fixed with good grace. The error was picked up by other scientists in 2005, some five years after it was originally published. This was a very significant error, removed a quite drastic conflict between the erroneous data on the one hand, and all physical theory and other indicators on the other.

    Spencer and Christy continue to defend a weaker version of their original claims, and other scientists continue to claim there are still defects in their revised analysis, though not simply straightforward calculation errors. But as I said previously, the rest of the field has pretty much moved on.

    The ongoing debate within the scientific world is looking more and more like tidying away the remaining wreckage of a failed idea. This is pretty common in science, by the way. Data and analysis and conclusions that get through peer review don’t get a stamp of infallibility. Peer review is just the initial hurdle for making new ideas available to other researchers, to replicate or falsify the ideas. Spencer and Christy are still in there swinging, which is all part of the process; but the wind shear work I mentioned above is going to be another body blow to their notions on the troposphere, I think.

    Now don’t get me wrong; they are all still active and in good standing as part of the scientific community, and their work is being published and considered. But its not having much impact, because it is not standing up well by comparison with the analysis by others, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Spencer himself is frankly in some danger of being ignored altogether as a bit of a crank; and not just for his idiosyncratic views on climate. Christy is more credible, and less off the wall in his claims.

  223. Anna, I think you continue to miss the point. Sure, climate models and weather models use the same equations and the same physics.

    The difference is that weather prediction is trying to identify a time series, and climate prediction is trying to identify the envelope within which time series are constrained. In both climate and weather models, it is normal to repeat a simulation with small initial perturbations, which in both cases will diverge chaotically. The difference is in what you do with the multiple time series that you obtain.

    With weather simulations, you see how far into the future the divergence starts to become significant. You then can have some confidence in using the time series up to that point as a projection of the weather.

    With climate simulations, you take all your many diverging time series together, and look at the distribution for those series. Your projection is not a single time series (weather) but is rather the envelope within which the many runs are contained (climate).

    The envelope does not diverge chaotically in the same way as weather, but tends to be a well defined and repeatable projection, giving a trend and a natural variance for your weather variables.

    That simplifies things somewhat; and there is still plenty of room to improve the “skill” of climate models; and weather models, for that matter. But failing to grasp this distinction is at the heart of invalid objections to climate models based on confused analogies with weather prediction.

  224. Duae Quartunciae (22:50:30) :

    I am sorry, but what you are describing is a video game method, not a way of approximating the solutions of multiple coupled differential equations.

    The envelope of a wrong solution perturbed in its initial values is more of a wrong solution. “Perturbation expansion solutions” does not mean perturbing initial values.
    It means having a valid differential equation system written down and inserting a series expansion of the hypothetical solution and taking its first few terms as the solution of the differential equations to which solution one applies boundary conditions.

    What you are describing is equivalent in my field, elementary particle physics, as if one took the parton model, stuck some different initial values , calculated the envelope of these different solutions and said “this is elementary particle scattering”. Whereas the whole panoply of Quantum ChromoDynamics was necessary to be able to expand perturbatively towards a correct solution. The parton model was actually quite good because in reality it was the representation of first order terms( the equivalent of the mean values used in the climate models), which of course exist in the more correct QCD solution; the perturbation expansion of QCD solutions was much more successful in describing the data than the parton model.

    In the elementary particle case there are no coupled differential equations to generate chaotic behaviors, higher order terms are expected to be less in effect than lower order ones, in contrast to the meteorological equations tinkered with by the climate models, where higher order terms can be quite important, due to the chaotic nature of the problem ( again I refer to the Tsonis et al paper). Thus first order terms, the mean values used in the boxes for propagating effects in time in meterology christened climatology models, cannot be valid for very many steps.

  225. I’m not trying to describe “perturbation expansion” at all. What I am actually describing remains as stated above. It’s simply a description of the difference between what people are trying to predict when they model weather, and what they are trying to predict when they model climate. Failing to understand the difference is the source of all kinds of completely of the wall “criticisms” of modern climatology, that merely miss the whole point.

    The “video game” method, as you call it, is not being used here as a way to obtain a solution to the equations at all (and hence it is doing something rather different from “perturbation expansion”; they are apples and oranges). It is being used as a way to find a range within which various solutions will lie. The more usual term for this sort of technique is a “monte carlo” method, and it is a perfectly legitimate technique with wide general applicability. It’s computationally very expensive; but for some problems it’s the way to go.

    Your various analogies are still not making any direct connection with the problem at issue, except as a convenient way to express what you think climate models must be like, and how you believe the solutions of the equations on which they are based must behave.

    You are effectively asserting that the trends obtained by climate models are unreliable because of higher order effects. I am effectively asserting that the higher order effects actually don’t happen to upset the trends. I am content to let our two different perspectives on this stand side by side, for readers of this blogs to see as two incompatible views.

    Fortunately, those interested are also able to check out the matter further, with a bit of work, by looking at the actual matter of climate models; rather than drawing conclusions on the basis of looking at particle physics. In brief; this has become merely silly. I’m sure you think the same.

    On the other hand, on a positive note. Your mention of Tsonis is a genuinely very interesting and relevant. I suspect your reference might have been Tsonis A.A. et al (2007) A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts., Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288. (Or possibly related papers by the same team.) I thank you! It looks really interesting.

  226. It might interest you to know that I have been working with the Monte Carlo method since its first appearance on the stage .

    A Monte Carlo method is just a tool of integration. This means you have to have the equations written down in the generator of “events”, where the events are generated according to the phase space weighted by the equations. It is not what climate models describe as doing, i.e. covering the envelope of the solutions. A Monte Carlo comes up with a very specific solution, like any other numerical integration method.

    It sounds to me like another hand waving and borrowing terminology way of saying the inputs are randomized.

    Anyway this thread is fast disappearing in the past, so as you say, whoever has ears to hear let him hear.

  227. That is interesting. And it is certainly true that when used for integration Monte Carlo methods are another way of getting the one solution to a definite integral.

    But the implication that this is the only way in which Monte Carlo methods are used, or that every other use is merely borrowing terminology from your own preferred application, is going to get you tied up in knots. Your professional experience will give you some very useful insights in your specific areas of expertise. But if you can never see any other field or application except as a some kind of shadow of your own, then your expertise can easily become a handicap.

    And the truth is… both the applications we describe are borrowing terminology from gambling! :-)

    Anyhow — Good night!

  228. Duae Quartunciae you siad
    “Spencer and Christy had calculation errors in their original analysis, as they also have recognized and fixed with good grace. The error was picked up by other scientists in 2005, some five years after it was originally published. This was a very significant error, removed a quite drastic conflict between the erroneous data on the one hand, and all physical theory and other indicators on the other.”
    The paper I was refering to was the published July 16, 2007 Spencer, Braswell, Christy, Hnilo

    http://www.weatheraqestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

    About the last eight years. It seem to me since the oceans “temperature” have remained flat and the air “temperature” have remained flat, while CO2 has increased, incoming and outgoing “heat” should be a “known”. So, it should be easy to calculate the forcing/amplification numbers if forcing/amplification happens ever day, ever week, ever month, ever year. So what’s the problem?

    About the “Wind” theory were the gentlemen took the wind speed came up with higer “Temperature” than observed data. It sort of like saying wind chill is warmer than what my thermometer is reading.

  229. “Spencer and Christy had calculation errors in their original analysis, as they also have recognized and fixed with good grace. The error was picked up by other scientists in 2005, some five years after it was originally published. This was a very significant error, removed a quite drastic conflict between the erroneous data on the one hand, and all physical theory and other indicators on the other.”

    It’s too bad that Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Briffa, Jones, Amman, Wahl, Schneider, etc, ad nauseum can’t be as graceful and humble as Spencer and Christy when it comes to data and other errors pointed out by others. Instead they attack those who discover the errors.

  230. I came to this site to read the discussion on the recent paper by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, someone you and many of the responders here refer to with approval. I found this post on this site with a lot of responses talking about the paper, including some apparently from the author, and then suddenly… nothing! No followup on the analysis of his paper at Deltoid, and realclimate, that effectively gutted the paper, although I see the responses by Duae Quartuncia that essentially did the same thing.

    But most importantly, nothing on the Viscount’s aberrant behavior as evidenced from his own postings on SPPI site. Viscount Monckton was sent a private copy of a rebuttal by Arthur Smith as a courtesy, at the same time Smith submitted the rebuttal for publication. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley then added additional text to the paper, then PUBLISHED it on the SPPI site, with his own rebuttal of the rebuttal. This was before the author could possibly respond to any comments from the organization where he submitted the paper, and was done entirely without the permission of the author!

    Meanwhile the editor indicated that the paper they published by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was NOT peer reviewed. Normally this would involve three peers reviewing the methods and calculations in the paper, for those not familiar with peer review. The paper had received editing and the scientist who suggested some editing changes said he didn’t conduct a peer review. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley then accused both the editor who published his paper, and the scientist who suggested some edit changes (who actually tried to constructively help him get the paper published), of being LIARS.

    These kind of public attacks and behavior by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is without precedent in the scientific world, as far as I know. Any reputable scientist knows that you can’t publish the work of your colleagues without their permission, especially private courtesy copies. This is essentially stealing the fruits of another person’s work. I would think that those on this site, who believe in free enterprise systems, can appreciate and condemn these actions.

    But alas, nothing posted here. If you want to read the followup story to the post here.

  231. “all bound in a tome entitled “How to fool your pets into thinking their planet is 4.5 billion years old instead of 6000 years old”, and all the techniques work and then the temple carbon dates to 6,000 years old, well, at that point I may even be forced to consider evolution to have been be falsified . . .” Evan Jones

    Evan,
    If jeez hadn’t put a muzzle on religious discussion on this site, I would straighten some of your thinking out. I doubt you’ll end up in the hot place because you are a rather nice heathen. But if you do, I ‘ll try to bring you some ice water (assuming it doesn’t boil away first).

  232. The central fact concerning all the red-faced, pro-AGW arm waving above is this: the climate has been cooling for years, and the climate continues to cool.

    That fact trumps all the pointless ad hominem attacks directed at Specncer, Monckton, etc., by the folks on the wrong side of the debate.

    The impartial Sun and the Earth themselves are falsifying the AGW/CO2 hypothesis.

    If/when the planet starts to agree with the AGW crowd, I’ll listen. But as of now, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis has been discredited.

  233. I saw this on the web

    Eco Worrier: “CO2 is a pollutant!”
    Gaia: “Tell that to the biosphere.”
    Biosphere: “More….yum-yum!” (Burp!)
    Gore: “Eeeeeeek!”

Comments are closed.