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.