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

TV MOB

I get it.

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.

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.

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.”

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?

Now let’s hear all the sound and fury unleashed at this renewal of the APS story.

Such prescience. Man, you are really good!

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.”

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.

REPLY: It may be related the the version of PDF reader you are using.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.