The following letter is from an APS member, Roger W. Cohen, and is in support of Lord Monckton’s paper published in the July APS newsletter. For more information on this, see my posting American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper
I found this passage in the essay below to be most compelling:
“…I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is.”
Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.
- I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.
I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.
At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC position is seriously flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its projections for effects in the 21st century. Here are five key reasons for this:
- The recorded temperature rise is neither exceptional nor persistent. For example, the earth has not warmed since around 1997 and may in fact be in a cooling trend. Also, in particular, the Arctic and contiguous 48 states are at about the same temperature as they were in the 1930s. Also in particular the rate of global warming in the early 20th century was as great as the last third of the century, and no one seriously ascribes the early century increase to greenhouse gas emissions.
- Predictions of climate models are demonstrably too high, indicating a significant overestimate of the climate sensitivity (the response of the earth to increases in the incident radiation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases). This is because the models, upon which the IPCC relies for their future projections, err in their calculations of key feedback and driving forces in the climate system.
- Natural effects have been and continue to be important contributors to variations in the earth’s climate, especially solar variability and decadal and multidecadal ocean cycles.
- The recorded land-based temperature increase data are significantly exaggerated due to widespread errors in data gathering and inadequately corrected contamination by human activity.
- The multitude of environmental and ecological effects blamed on climate change to date is either exaggerated or nonexistent. Examples are claims of more frequent and ferocious storms, accelerated melting of terrestrial icecaps, Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier, polar bear populations, and expansive mosquito-borne diseases. All of these and many others have been claimed and ascribed to global warming and by extension to human activity, and all are bogus or highly exaggerated.
I would be pleased to provide details on any of these five key reasons. Many others can do so as well.
As contrary evidence has accumulated, proponents of strong AGW have begun to display signs of cognitive dissonance. The famed social psychologist Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of cognitive dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon. One study looked at people who bought bomb shelters during the cold war. It was found that such people tended to exaggerate the threat of nuclear war, and nothing could dissuade them. Good news about relaxed tensions and peace initiatives was rejected. Such developments brought about cognitive dissonance, bizarrely almost as if they were invested in nuclear war. The psychological model is that their belief system became part of their identity, their self, and information at odds with that belief system became an attack on the self. This helps explain why such people can be resistant to information that would be judged positive on a rational basis. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers who predicted the end of the world on a particular date. When that didn’t happen, the believers became even more determined they were right. And they become even louder and proselytized even more aggressively after the disconfirmation. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from proponents as evidence continues to mount. For example we are now told that even cooling fits in with global warming.
Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2. It does mean that the case for immediate draconian measures that will have the effect or restricting world economic growth is poor. It does mean that the climate is unpredictable, even with modern tools, and this implies that continuing to load the atmosphere poses imponderable risks to terrestrial life. I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions. In this regard the role of governments is not to enact restrictive economic measures via market interventions, or to choose the winners in a technology race. Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.
Roger W. Cohen
APS Fellow
Source: http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm
See also a friendly wager Cohen offered earlier this year
Shame that bet already expired, otherwise I’d be tempted to take him up on it. Though I’d rather bet on the mean temperature over the 5 year period ending in 2007 being higher than the mean temperature of over the 5 year period ending in 2017, to filter out some of the natural variability.
Granted, a cooler 2012-2017 mean temperature is within two standard deviations of the 1975 to present trend, so its by no means a sure bet, but its certainly worth even odds.
I can’t find his name on the Oregon Petition, so it looks like we have a new skeptic.
Cognitive dissonance? Not me. Having turned 60+, my belief system is that the odds are fairly high that I’ll die this century {of course, I could be wrong}. Oh well, all good things have to come to an end.
Now let’s hear all the sound and fury unleashed at this renewal of the APS story.
My heartfelt thanks to Roger Cohen for having the courage to speak out in this manner. Well done.
Also to Anthony Watts for drawing our attention to Roger’s statement.
Langmuir’s Laws of bad science
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
Re #1: The causative agent in this case is the anthropogenic portion of any increases in carbon dioxide; about 3% of the total. The effect of CO2 on global temperatures is independent of the rise in CO2.
Re #2: CO2 is not significant in a global warming context; almost all warming due to atmospheric carbon dioxide has already taken place.
Re #3: See Mann’s “hockey stick” predictions; UN/IPCC predictions; Hansen predictions, etc. All claimed extraordinary accuracy.
Re #4: See here.
Re #5: See Pachauri, Lomborg and Monckton articles and comments. Also, observe how “global warming” has morphed into “catastrophic global warming,” then into “climate change,” which, on the spur of the moment – and as an ad hoc excuse for falling temperatures – is now arbitrarily “on hold” for 5 – 10 years.
Re #6: The true number of scientists that believed in AGW/climate catastrophe has never exceeded 50%. The number rose when the UN/IPCC issued its First Assessment Report. But upon reflection and study, that number has since peaked, and is now descending toward zero. Only the hope of grant money keeps the “AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe” hypothesis from turning into a rout.
Currently, it appears that we are transitioning through #4, #5 and #6.
[For more on Langmuir, see here]
I find it very interesting that our new skeptic ignored the past 1000 years of climate history and accepted the AGW theory from 1980 to until he retired. I guess he did not need the BIG government research grant money after he retired. Follow the money! Better late than never. Thanks Roger
“Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2.”
This statement seems to contradict everything else Mr. Cohen says. Perhaps he too suffers from a bit of cognitive dissonance. Becoming a skeptic is not for the faint of heart, I guess.
“Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2.” via Bruce Cobb
Good catch. I notice that many scientists don’t seem to have a good grasp of economic theory. They seem to think, “Well, we’re not sure so let’s err on the side of caution.” But when talking about something as basic as energy, the potential for huge damage is present particularly now with the economy none too healthy.
Bruce,
He is a true scientist that acknowledges you can not prove that something does not exist. Skeptic doesn’t mean you believe the opposite, it means you are skeptical …. So AGW, while possible, seems now to have no significant evidence to actually suggest it is real.
I was bored some time back and wrote up what I saw as the 6 mostly blatant flaws that make AGW seem unlikely or at a minimum, unimportant. Just a summary, nothing new, but if anyone is interesting check it out here — http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html (I tried to keep it as short and to the point as possible).
Smokey
Only the hope of grant money keeps the “AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe” hypothesis from turning into a rout.
Which is why the science and politics are becoming increasingly blurred; the zealots must maintain or wrest control of state budgets to keep the “scientists” in-line with research grants.
Jeff Wiita (15:56:19) :
Mr. Wiita, you are directly implying that Dr. Cohen received “BIG government research grant money,” in return for which he meekly followed the AGW line. You allow no possibility that someone can begin to see that AGW has almost no effect on global temps, compared with other more important forcings.
I am sure you value your credibility. So, a citation, please. Including the specific dollar amount granted to Dr. Cohen before he retired.
Thanx.
I liked the paper and appreciated its support for Monckton’s conclusions, which I agree with myself. I am, however, disappointed in the ending of it.
He says:
“Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2. It does mean that the case for immediate draconian measures that will have the effect or restricting world economic growth is poor. ”
He then finishes with: ”
“I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions. In this regard the role of governments is not to enact restrictive economic measures via market interventions, or to choose the winners in a technology race. Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.”
This is the problem I see with so many I would otherwise heartily applaud. Whether carbon dioxide emitted by human industries is a problem as a greenhouse gas responsible for AGW is the very heart of the case FOR AGW, a case that Dr. Cohen dismisses as “flimsy.” The entire point is that if CO2 is not causing warming, there is absolutely ZERO need for any of the half-baked political measures being contemplated or currently underway to “save the planet” from catastrophic warming caused by said AGW.
In fact, I could argue (particularly if I knew more) that hydrogen-powered cars and industries emitting water vapor for 60 years might be more harmful to the planet as water vapor is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas based on the percentages each gas contributes to GW. But I haven’t seen anyone consider this possibility. It’s very disheartening to see people dismiss the pseudo-science behind AGW but then turn around and hold on to one of the central tenets to it. I might suppose he has perhaps not heard Dr. Roy Spencer’s testimony. But still…it is irritating.
“Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.”
AMEN!
I just had to comment on this again:
“I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions.”
Again, emissions. If it’s sulfur dioxide and other noxious gases that cause all kinds of bad things (e.g. acid rain) then I am all for that. Clean coal and all that good stuff. But again, if it is CO2, a beneficial yet impotent gas, then I really don’t see the point. Nobody solved a present problem with a solution from the future except in the movies. Of all the renewables, solar has the best chance for a revolutionary breakthrough in generation capacity. But even that will face significant hurdles to becoming marketable in the way that fossil fuels are now. That will likely take years to happen.
It is the belief that man does harm to the planet by his very existence (instead of through specific foolhardy practices) that needs to die an absolute death. This idea is given an unecessary reprieve by Dr. Cohen’s allowance that CO2 emissions by humans are at a level that may need control, when it is CO2’s supposedly deleterious effects that is at the heart of AGW. The belief that mankind is de facto inimical to the very planet that gave him life is another of the central tenets behind AGW, which is why CO2 was picked as the poster-child gas for AGW. It ranks right up there in my book with the human population control movement along with other fascist/communist ideology bent on creating the perfect world by force.
That a distinguished physicist can comment with disapproval on the surface behavior motivated by an ideology whose aim is political power and yet miss that very underlying motivating ideology that is the root cause of such behavior is to me bizzare. But perhaps such naivete should suit one studied in matters of physics and not political ideologies. But that is what AGW is a front for, and it would serve us well if scientists like Dr. Cohen were more aware of that fact. AGW is not about science and the betterment of mankind and never has been. It has always been about politics, and thus about power and control. Unadulterated ideology, plain and simple.
Meanwhile The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s aberrant behavior continues:
I have been checking up on SPPI’s page, and The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB) has published Arthur Smith’s paper again, which he received as a private courtesy copy from Smith at the same time it was submitted for publishing. Arthur Smith sent him a letter generously granting him the right to post it, as long as TVMOB deleted all references to the APS, as the paper was written in Smith’s free time, and not sanctioned by the APS or related to Smith’s job at the APS.
TVMOB published the paper again at the SPPI site, and still has references to Arthur Smith’s employment at APS. Here is the Introduction to the paper:
“Soon thereafter, a database manager for the American
Physical Society, Arthur Smith, drafted and circulated
a critique of Monckton’s paper. Smith’s critique and
Monckton’s refutation of it are provided here for
educational purposes.”
So again, TVMOB is violating copyright laws.
So now TVMOB has accused the editors who agreed to publish the paper as liars, published a private courtesy copy of a submitted paper without the author’s permission, was warned about copyright infringement, pulled the paper from the SPPI website, then published it again without removing the APS references.
This leaves Arthur Smith in a bind. He has been warned by his employer to remove APS references from his private paper, but TVMOB refuses to do so, and keeps publishing the paper with the APS references intact. This is in spite of the fact that Arthur Smith has spoken to Ferguson at SPPI repeatedly, and written a letter to both TVMOB and SPPI about removing the references.
Meanwhile, TVMOB’s rebuttal falls short of correcting most of the errors Smith (and Deltoid and Duae Quartuniciae and realclimate) have pointed out. All of these sources point out TVMOB’s complete lack of justification for dividing the CO2 forcing by a factor of 3. Essentially, TVMOB threw a fudge factor of 3 in, to reduce the forcing and thus reduce the sensitivity, with no real justification. It doesn’t appear that TVMOB understands the physics involved.
Paul K
But that is what AGW is a front for, and it would serve us well if scientists like Dr. Cohen were more aware of that fact. AGW is not about science and the betterment of mankind and never has been. It has always been about politics, and thus about power and control. Unadulterated ideology, plain and simple.
Bingo. Gore has long been a Marxist.
The interesting thing in Roger Cohen’s response, is how carefully he avoids confirming and agreeing with the physics in the paper by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchely (TVMOB). No where in this letter does he confirm that the CO2 forcing should be reduced by a factor of 3. Since TVMOB’s fudge factor accounts for most of the discrepancy in the results, the lack of support by Cohen for TVMOB’s conclusion, is very telling.
TVMOB’s paper is wrong, and even though they are trying to get someone who knows the science to back up the key finding… No one has come forward.
It appears that TVMOB’s paper would never have passed peer review, because of these errors. So one of the key people skeptics have pointed to, has published his “work”, and it is clearly riddled with mistakes and the conclusion is clearly wrong.
For anyone interested in the science, but don’t want to leave the confines of Anthony Watts site, the TVMOB’s paper has been torn apart in the responses by Duae Quartuniciae to Anthony’s post here:http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-and-monckton-at-odds-over-paper/#comments
In the responses, DQ talks about the irrational decision to simply divide the CO2 forcing by a factor of 3, as TMOB did, and the complete lack of scientific basis to do so.
For those of you who don’t want to follow the science, and just want the bottom line… The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has published his theory, the fundamental scientific basis behind his arguments against AGW, and the theory he published was riddled with mistakes and errors. In short, TVOMB was wrong.
“I find it very interesting that our new skeptic ignored the past 1000 years of climate history and accepted the AGW theory from 1980 to until he retired.”
Is this the equivelent of the young are liberal until they grow up and become conservatives meme?
I don’t understand this.
He implies he was investigating AGW at an early stage and was spending a considerable amount of thime on the subject. But only after returing do all these facts come to light?
I am not sure what that says about the qualit of the research team he was leading.
You are right Smokey, I do not know that Roger received any direct grant money earmarked for AGW. So, I apologize to Roger.
The point that I was trying to make is that money and politics are driving this debate, not sound science. Prior to 1988, the government spent $170 million on climate research. It quickly jumped to $2 billion. That is more than a factor of 10.
On September 24, 2007, Investor’s Business Daily reported that James Hansen received $720,000 from the Open Society Institute, which is a 527 group funded by George Soros.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275526219598836
George Soros also funds MoveOn.org, which is another 527 group dedicated to electing democrats and promoting a liberal agenda.
I believe that the threat of losing BIG government grants earmarked for AGW is why the APS does not change their position. I believe that the same is true for the American Meteorological Society, and the list goes on. I may be wrong.
My question is this: Does the science community have a Code of Ethics?
I know of the Institute of Medical Science at the University of Toronto instituted a Hippocratic Oath, but that is not a Code of Ethics. And, one University in Canada will not correct this ethical problem in the United States.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/06/hippocratic_oath_for_scientist.php
If this fraud was perpetrated by a company on Wall Street, they would be on trial. Remember ENRON, Ken Lay, and Arthur Anderson. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to silence far out scientific theories, like James Hansen and Heidi Cullen have advocated. I am just saying that there should be some kind of Code of Ethics in the science community and/or some kind of process to present exculpatory evidence to the public.
It currently appears that half of the general public has more intelligence than the members of the APS and the AMS. That is a sad point, and, if the science community does not wake up and realized the threat to their integrity, the long range scientific damage may be devastating within Western civilization.
Now back to your original point, Smokey. I apologize to Roger, again. I should not have isolated him. My point was to uncover that most new skeptics are retirees. Where are the NEW practicing skeptics? Yes, I know of John Christy and the other vocal skeptics. Thank you to all of them. I am talking about the NEW practicing skeptics.
“Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2.”
Bruce Cobb — “This statement seems to contradict everything else Mr. Cohen says. Perhaps he too suffers from a bit of cognitive dissonance. Becoming a skeptic is not for the faint of heart, I guess.”
It contradicts nothing. We are in fact running an open ended experiment by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, one that we don’t really know what the outcome will be. It’s one thing to be skeptical that the AGW crowd is correct in saying we’re all doomed. It’s quite another to presuppose that merely being wrong about imminent doom also implies that there simply is no potential for problems.
Anthony, where do you get your headlines?
For this post, the headline reads “APS Fellow supports Monckton’s position”
then follows with this statement:
“The following letter is from an APS member, Roger W. Cohen, and is in support of Lord Monckton’s paper published in the July APS newsletter.”
I have read Roger Cohen’s letter, and nowhere in the letter does Roger Cohen say he supports Monckton’s paper. In fact, he doesn’t mention Monckton at all.
He doesn’t discuss Monckton’s analysis of the climate sensitivity, doesn’t Monckton’s interpretation of the key equation at the heart of the paper, and only provides a broad general statement saying the IPCC estimate is too high. Monckton has concluded the sensitivity is about five times lower than the midpoint of the IPCC estimated range, so Cohen’s failure to mention this is quite surprising.
I followed the link that you provided, to a site called WEBCommentary which covered the Cohen letter with the statement under your headline, but this statement appears to have been inserted by the editors over at that site.
So it appears the sequence is as follows:
1. Roger Cohen writes a letter pointing out his views on AGW to the APS. He doesn’t mention Monckton’s paper, and doesn’t address the physics in Monckton’s analysis at all.
2. WEBCommentary publishes the Cohen letter and inserts an opening commentary of their own devise, saying that the paper “was in support of Monckton’s paper”.
3. You then copy this commentary to your blog, and add your own commentary headline saying “APS Fellow supports Monckton’s position”.
But I can’t find anything in Cohen’s letter actually supporting Monckton’s key conclusions: that CO2 forcing used by the IPCC is 3 times too high, and the resulting climate sensitivity calculates to a result one fifth the IPCC midpoint.
So how did you draw the conclusion that Cohen supports Monckton’s position, when Cohen didn’t say that in his letter?
Jeff Wiita — “I believe that the threat of losing BIG government grants earmarked for AGW is why the APS does not change their position.”
This reads as if you’re saying physicists who are working on the problem du jour are living a high roller life with a five car garage full of German luxury automobiles.
Alarmists accuse skeptics of being in the pay of Exxon, and this is little more than the obverse.
Paul K
There is som merit to Gavin’s critique of Moncktons paper. But by far not as much as he claims or even hopes. And there is no ground for any assertion of ‘torn apart’.
The factor of three origins (as you would know, if you’d actually read it) from callibration with the strongest signature arising från CO2 in the modelling.
You can argue that there are other ways (giving ‘better’, ie higher forcing), but you cannot simply dismiss it as ‘not admissable’.
The estimation of the (combined) sensitivity/feedback term, he derives from another (tentative) observation, that of the surface temperature rise. Although he takes average of values based on GISS-temp.data and his more realistic assumption. The value he arrives at is in keeping with that of other IPCC-approved reference’s.
Here is where he opens up to criticism: He cannot assure that his calibrations of the two factors (making up the final sensitivity) can be separated like he does, ie that trend differencens between surface – troposphere and mean global temp respectively, turn up well separated in precisely those factors. And secondly, he cannot rule out that both these observations do not have (at least partly) the same cause. Because if they would have, then he would be adjusting for that part twice.
It is in that latter observation, there is some viable critique. Allthough widly overstated by RC et al.
Jonas N … You wrote:
“The factor of three origins (as you would know, if you’d actually read it) from callibration with the strongest signature arising från CO2 in the modelling.
You can argue that there are other ways (giving ‘better’, ie higher forcing), but you cannot simply dismiss it as ‘not admissable’.”
Actually just about everything I have read indicates that reducing the forcing by three is not admissible. Even TVMOB has backed off that in his rebuttals, in essence saying that what does it matter which of the key three multipliers he reduces by three, the result for the sensitivity is the same. But CO2 forcing (the radiative imbalance in the stratosphere) is basically determined by the physical properties of CO2 itself, and isn’t being questioned by any qualified physicist.
Regarding the first part of your comment; “The factor of three origins (as you would know, if you’d actually read it) from callibration with the strongest signature arising från CO2 in the modelling.”
Actually, from what I have read, the strongest signal of CO2 (and other manmade GHG) in the modeling is the cooling of the stratosphere, and that fingerprint is present in all regions. This cooling is some of the the strongest supporting evidence for the role of CO2 in AGW, since no one has brought forth an alternative model that could account for this cooling.
But TVMOB focused on the tropical mid-troposphere, and because the warming in that one region of the earth, isn’t as much as the models predicted, he made a personal decision to fudge the results and reduce the forcing by 3. But the data on tropical mid-troposphere is limited, and has a high degree of uncertainty. There is no justification on dividing the CO2 forcing (in the stratosphere) by 3, due to measurement problems and lack of demonstrated warming in the mid-troposphere in the tropics.
All the critiques I have read, point out this problem. Here is the comments from DQ, who occasionally posts on this site, on the tropical mid-troposphere warming and TVMOB’s fudge factor of 3 :
“Basically, the mid-troposphere warming is indeed present, as expected.
Monckton does cite this new research, but dismisses it on the basis of satellite records… another case where measurement and calibration errors are a source of hot dispute. In any case, let it go… because what Monckton does with this is astounding.
He divides the forcing by 3. (equation 17)
That’s just surreal. There’s no basis to reduce the forcing here. It’s the temperature response that is involved. He gives a vague appeal to Lindzen (2007), ‘Taking greenhouse warming seriously’, in Energy & Environment 18 (7-8). But that paper does not propose any reducing in forcing; only to sensitivity… on roughly the same dubious basis of limited troposphere warming.”
from DQ’s site: http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html
I would say, that after reading these critiques, and TVMOB’s rebuttals, that “torn apart” is a very accurate description of what has happened to The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s scientific reasoning in his paper.
And I didn’t even bother to go into the double and triple counting etc.
In fact, I could argue (particularly if I knew more) that hydrogen-powered cars and industries emitting water vapor for 60 years might be more harmful to the planet as water vapor is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas based on the percentages each gas contributes to GW. But I haven’t seen anyone consider this possibility.
I’ve considered it, but I doubt it. Water vapor per volume is a lot less effective as a GHG than CO2. But there’s hordes more vapor. So X amount of H2O is going to be around seven times less “effective” than CO2.
Also, H20 Is very non-persistent. CO2 is either somewhat or highly persistent (depending on whom you believe).
So, while I think CO2 has very little effect, H20 would have even much less than that.
Paul K
No, not really. You cannot theoretically calculate the effects oc CO2-forcing, but dismiss calibrations using empiracally observed fingerprints predicted by the very same models predictions.
You could still claim that the models are not accurate enough to use for validation of the models themselves. But then, this is what you must say and do. That would be, in essence to disqualify the very theory AG-warmers base their entire case on.
You are partly correct in saying that this observation not necessarily means that it should be the forcing that should be divided by three. And Monckton acknowledges that fact. Actually, that is precisely where I think there is room for valid criticism: Based on his understanding, there are three factors whose product make up the entire ‘climate sensitivity’. His method (or rather, his assessment) cannot really distinguish between the influence of any individual facor amongst them.
And exaclty because of this, he can be criticised for recalculating the sensitivity with its feedback-term based on what he thinks is a more reasonable assessment of the surface temperature record.
The fact that people who want to ‘bump up’ total climate sensitivity would not use these observations is not a valid argument. Neither is their speculation of uncertainties in satellite records or alludations to tropospheric wind speed measurements as proxy for temperatures there. All those are just different ways to get around AGWers problems with discrepancies between predictions and actual observations.
Mind you, I’m not saying they’re totally wrong. I’m merely saying that you cannot pick the observations that fit your theory and dismiss all others.
But, Paul, lets not take this further than necessary. You repeatedly refer to ‘as what you’ve read’, and I believe you: You’ve read the things you claim. You have no personal expertise regarding the things you refer to. And these say nothing more than ‘if you look at it this way, and you put mor faith into these observations and proxies, you’d arrive at a different number’.
And that’s true: If you’d rather believe in only things that confirm your viewpoint, you’d end up in something thats much closer to your beliefs than elsewise.
But that observation goes the other way around as well: If you pick your observations in another way, you end up somewhere completeley else.
So, since Monckton possibly did some (not double-, an absolutley not tripple-, but possibly) 1.5-times counting, he deserves to be criticised!
But not on the grounds that Gavin and the rest of you purport. And if you still do, that criticism mainly goes the other way as well. That is, the modellers have the same deficiancies as the want to stick to Monckton, but only of the opposite sign!
Jeff Witta and Smokey:
Did you read Cohen’s letter? He states:
“I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.”
How does this translate into government research grants? I read him a stating that his employer had the foresight to conduct self-funded research concerning climate change and stability. Apparently some of his subordinates participated in the IPCC process. You assume that everyone who contributed to IPCC was government funded. I suspect that Cohen’s colleges may have been token researchers from the private sector.
My point is that you need to read carefully before bloviating.
“Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.” I can’t see any footnotes or figures there.
REPLY: It may be related the the version of PDF reader you are using.
Well taken point, Evan. Thanks.
Jeff Wiita, I probably read more criticism into your original post than you actually meant. I apologize for assuming [you know what they say about that]. You responded as a complete gentleman, and I appreciate that very much.
Leon Brozyna (15:05:15) :
Such prescience. Man, you are really good!
Paul K states in one of his innumerable and vicious ad hominem attacks directed at Viscount Monckton:
So, Paul K, if he’s violating the law… go get him! Go on, what are you waiting for? Justice delayed is justice denied. Be a superhero, and bring that evil scofflaw to justice!
At this point the question must be asked: why has Christopher Monckton’s paper generated so much vitriol, hatred and fear from the AGW alarmists? Other credible scientists have also issued AGW-skeptical papers without generating nearly so much outright hatred and consternation from those flogging the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. Why is there such fear and loathing of Christopher Monckton from the “CO2 is gonna getcha – unless you shovel tax money our way” crowd?
The answer is very simple: while every scientific paper has minor errors [which refereeing and peer review are intended to correct], the UN/IPCC/Hansen crowd hates Monckton with a passion because, overall, he is absolutely correct. His paper exposes the falsity of AGW as a cause of runaway global warming due to anthropogenic CO2. And Monckton uses his considerable math skills to back up his assertions.
The AGW purveyors absolutely hate Monckton because they can not refute him. So they attack him with <ad hominems. Note that Paul K, in his 5(!) rambling attacks on Monckton, makes it obvious that he is merely parroting the ramblings found on pro-AGW true believer blogs; second-hand rambling, devoid of real substance.
Prove me wrong, Paul K. Specifically refute Monckton’s climate mathematics, via your own equations. You may have to study up on those little superscripts, subscripts, and funny Greek letters. But give it a try. We don’t want to think you’re a crank.
Paul K (11:51:55)
I have a couple of questions for you.
What has been the feedback/sensitivity/amplifier number based on observed data for the last 8 years? The oceans “temperatures” and land / sea “temperature” have been flat and CO2 has been rising.
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).
“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
What cause the drop in “temperature from the MWP to the LIA?
Don’t you all know that Cohen is in BIg Oil’s pocket, and is why he didn’t speak out till he retired? 8-}
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080126_3.htm
“Cohen is a parrot on Exxon’s shoulder,” Isensee said. “He is Exxon’s version of tobacco scientists who said tobacco isn’t bad for you.”
“Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.” I can’t see any footnotes or figures there.
REPLY: It may be related the the version of PDF reader you are using.
Adobe Reader 8.1.2. But I think that the http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ site simply uses the phrase “[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]” for all its PDF files, regardless of whether there are actually “Illustrations, footnotes and references” therein. In this case, I don’t think there are any.
Wed. Aug 6/08, 5 p.m. local news, Channel 5 NBC, Seattle, WA. Jeff Renner, lead weatherman had a segment outside the regular weather report in which he and a Univ. of Washington climatologist, I think, I didn’t catch his name or title as I expected the usual AGW stuff, began talking about local differences in AGW timing and intensity and predicted that there would be little or no warming in the Pacific North West for twenty or thirty years. There was no mention at all about the PDO and the first or second Great Climate Shift but the timing of the predicted return to warming is about what to expect if the PDO rules. I have noticed in the last four mos. or so, that without ever contradicting that fellow who invented the internet, there is an almost complete absence of AGW scare stories. This after two years of intensive blitz.
Smokey: Come on you can try harder? You claim this is a vicious attack?
Paul K states in one of his innumerable and vicious ad hominem attacks directed at Viscount Monckton:
“Meanwhile The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s aberrant behavior continues… So again, TVMOB [Paul K’s juvenile and derogatory term for Monckton, an internationally respected mathematician, climate authority and journalist] is violating copyright laws.”
I observed that this man (or should I use the term, ‘lord’?), took a private courtesy copy of correspondence, that he knew the author had submitted for publication, then added text to it identifying the man’s employer, and then published it without his permission on his politically motivated website. The author had written it on his own time, and on his own dime, and The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley took work and used it without permission. The author has been warned by his employer to drop all references to his employer, but The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley continues to publish his work, identifying the author’s employer, in spite of being warned. These are all facts.
Is this a vicious attack? Or is it the truth? Maybe that these events occurred make the truth hurt, because of your prior beliefs regarding The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
Regarding use of his name, I have tried hard to address him initially by his title and preferred address, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, on my posts here, since I understand that he prefers to be called by that title, and not be addressed as Christopher Monckton. I usually abbreviate his title as TVMOB, only after identifying his full pedigree first, as in the passage you clipped and posted. (BTW, pedigree has the meaning ‘the recorded ancestry, especially upper class ancestry, of a person or family’ , in my dictionary, and that is the definition, I am using here… please don’t launch another personal attack on me with a different definition.)
How would you like me to address The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? May I have your permission to refer to him as simply as Monckton, as many do here, without your disapproval or derision? Or do you insist on The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? What can I call him, so that we can move past the lordship’s inherited title?
I would like get to the facts of ethical reporting by scientific organizations and journals, and discuss no free rides for royalty; scientific or otherwise. I would like to get a response to the technical reviews I summarized in my posts. I would like to talk about blind faith, and the moral hazards of leadership.
And I would like to talk about respect for free enterprise, where a person’s fruits of his own labor are his property, and can’t be stolen and improperly used for political purposes. Should a person surrender his copyright, in order to gain widespread communication available through publication, as The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley did with his paper, then that is that individual’s choice.
Why is it that The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is denying Arthur Smith that same freedom to publish where and when he saw fit ?
Why is it The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley can call his editors ‘liars’, when they inform the world that none of the papers on the forum that published His Paper, were peer reviewed? Why is this peculiar behavior not allowed to be commented upon, on posts on this site, set up to complain about the treatment his lordship, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is getting from the APS?
Please respond forthwith, so that I can proceed in a timely way, to all the other tasks, you, and other posters here, have demanded from me.
TVMOB
TV MOB
I get it.
Now there is a true man of science, willing to overturn his own beliefs on account of his investigations.
Concerning the Lord Monckton paper, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.”
Chuck it again, Schmidt!
A response to Gavin Schmidt’s Critique of Monckton’s “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf
Critique by Arthur Smith
and
Monckton Rebuttal
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf