Monckton on sensitivity training at Durban

It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Durban, South Africa

It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. This is the ghastly secret that almost all the delegates here in Durban are desperate to conceal. Paper after paper, result after result, shows that the “global warming” we can expect from a doubling of CO2 concentration this century is just one Celsius degree or perhaps 2 Fahrenheit degrees, not the 3-4 C° once predicted by the UN’s well-tarnished climate panel.

When a journalist with South Africa’s national broadcaster interviewed me in the conference center, I told him the climate scam was just that – a scam. He replied that that was a merely emotional argument. So I gave him the following scientific argument, and explained to him that – simple though the truth is – it is just complicated enough that the IPCC and the global-warming profiteers have thus far gotten away with confusing the general public, and the average scientifically-illiterate politician, and, with respect, the average journalist.

Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler. This is climate theory 101. So, how much radiative forcing causes the 33 C° warming that arises from the presence – as opposed to total absence – of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook – is around 100 Watts per square meter.

Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted. Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.

This theoretical value of 1.2 C° is remarkably robust: it uses the IPCC’s own data and methods, applied to the entire history of the atmosphere, to demonstrate just how low climate sensitivity really is. When I pointed out this simple but powerful result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, “Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that today’s climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?”

The answer is that the world is now in a position to verify this theoretical result by measurement. In August this year, Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center in the United States quietly published a bombshell. Few noticed. His detailed estimate is that all the manmade greenhouse gases added to the air by us since 1750 have caused as much as 3 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing between them.

From this 3 Watts per square meter, in line with IPCC data, we must be fair and deduct 1 Watt per square meter to allow for manmade climate influences that cause cooling, such as soot and other particulates that act as helpful little parasols shading us from the Sun and keeping us cooler than we should otherwise be.

How much warming did this manmade net 2 Watts per square meter of forcing cause? Around 0.8 Celsius of warming has occurred since 1750, of which – if the IPCC is right – 50-100% was attributable to us. So the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter since 1750 (again, most of the temperature feedbacks that the IPCC wrongly imagines will amplify warming hugely will have acted by now) is 0.2-0.4 Celsius per Watt per square meter.

Multiply that key parameter by 3.7 and the warming we can expect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 0.75-1.5 Celsius. Those estimates neatly bracket the equilibrium system sensitivity of 1.2 C° that we calculated earlier by well-established theory.

So the sensitivity of the climate over the most recent quarter of the millennium is very much the same as the sensitivity of the climate throughout the past 4.5 billion years – at around one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. Frankly, one Celsius degree of warming this century will simply not be worth worrying about. It will do far more good than harm. Not a cent should be spent trying to prevent it.

As President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic pointed out at a recent climate conference in Cambridge, if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.

But don’t expect any of the delegates here to get the point. They are making far too much money out of the climate scam –at taxpayers’ expense – to want to do anything other than recite that The Science Is Settled. As the West goes bust, drowned under the sheer cost of the ever-expanding State, the UN, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the UNEP and the WMO are luxuries we can no longer afford and will no longer pay for. Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate sensitivity, Durban Climate Conference, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Monckton on sensitivity training at Durban

  1. Neil Jones says:

    Sorry, I could only give this 5 stars, 10 would have been closer to what I wanted to give especially for this. “Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.

  2. crosspatch says:

    His detailed estimate is that all the manmade greenhouse gases added to the air by us since 1750 have caused as much as 3 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing between them.

    Natural variation of insolation due to orbital and rotational changes causing changes in Earth’s relative position to the sun can cause variations of up to 120 watts/m^2. 3 watts is likely to get lost in the noise. If you look back at about 110K years ago in the graph linked below, you will see that insolation at 65N went from about 550W/m^2 to 440W/m^2.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SummerSolstice65N-future.png

  3. John from CA says:

    : )
    I hope they air the complete interview.

  4. Juraj V. says:

    Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler.
    ————————
    I do not agree.
    1/ That 33K is non-physical nonsense, calculating Earth without “greenhouse gases” but still considering albedo of 0.3, which is made mostly by clouds (=condensed greenhouse gas). With realistic albedo this number would shrink to half. DO NOT continue to calculate anything based on that “33K”.
    2/ Second, nobody yet proved, that solely greenhouse gases are responsible for what makes Earth an Earth, compared to Mars or Moon. Tremendous thermal inertia of atmosphere and oceans, how come it is not considered when comparing Mars (or Moon) with Earth? Only “greenhouse gases” are obviously not enough, as shows Mars – 5,000 ppm of CO2 in it thin atmosphere creates zero “greenhouse effect”, ZERO. Its theoretical and practical temperature is the same – 210K.
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
    Is there different physics on Mars?
    3/ Any further calculations of sensitivities are therefore meaningless. Albedo and cloud cover changes, air/ocean circulation changes are real, but are those thick arrows in K-H diagrams real?

  5. crosspatch says:

    if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.

    Well, he isn’t seeing the entire picture in this case. We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent. What we are doing is “redistributing” that wealth from billions of individual “common” citizens into the pockets of people connected to the “climate change” industry. The money isn’t disappearing, it is simply being allocated. We are giving Jones and Mann and CRU and Tyndall and Solyndra, and others and the people that work for and invest in those organizations boatloads of cash now (that they will probably pass along to their successors) which will will take from the future earnings of our children. We are giving them hamburgers today that our children will have to pay for next Tuesday (to use a Popeye analogy). I think it is time to tell Wimpy to take a hike.

    This is a global fleecing.

  6. View from the Solent says:

    Inhabitants (of China?) protecting themselves from dangerous CO2.
    Where else but in http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/05/carbon-dioxide-emissions-biggest-jump ?

  7. crosspatch says:

    I would also bet that the 3 watts of forcing assume a completely clear sky over the entire Earth every day. A small change in the amount of clouds could completely swamp that 3 watts, particularly at the places on Earth where the sun is directly overhead. Heck, a few (relatively speaking) roofs painted white would swamp out that change!

  8. JEM says:

    I tend to go to sleep at night with the earphone plugged into the side of my head, listening to one or another audiobook or some news channel streaming.

    Right now the BBC is a gigantic minefield, saturating their World Service coverage with Durban sales pitches and all the other usual climate pap.

    Highly aggravating to wake up at 3AM listening to some mealy-mouthed Beebster flogging the greatness of the CDM.

  9. D. Patterson says:

    Would be be lucky enough to see the interview streamed from the broadcaster’s Website?

  10. GregO says:

    So at Durban we have the finest expert talkers on earth flown around the world to gab away about a non-problem. Hmm…where do we sign up for a refund. Actually all the time and money wasted on these fools is chump-change compared to allowing them to destroy the world economy with green-schemes. I hope this silly fad passes soon.

  11. KR says:

    “…and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C – and while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here.

    As to current warming versus forcings and falsely derived low sensitivities, don’t forget that not all changes have caught up yet – oceans are big, and do take a while to warm, just for example. This particular canard (which I thought originally came from Lindzen) is just nonsense, refuted by Beck 2006 and Rahmstorf 2008, among others. Given a 3°C sensitivity to CO2 doubling, we should see a warming of around 1°C – and what we’re observing is 0.8 to 0.9°C.

    This bit by Monckton is complete and utter nonsense.

  12. Smokey says:

    crosspatch says:

    “What we are doing is ‘redistributing’ that wealth from billions of individual ‘common’ citizens into the pockets of people connected to the ‘climate change’ industry.”

    Brings to mind Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy; things seen and things not seen. What is not seen is the good that money would have done if it were efficiently allocated by the market, instead of being misallocated by politicians.

  13. Bart says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:40 am

    “We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent.”

    Do not fall prey to the money myth. Money is merely a medium of wealth. It has little intrinsic value of its own (the paper on which it is printed).

    Money is used to allocate resources to create wealth, in the form of goods and services people can consume. Money invested wisely facilitates the creation of wealth. Money spent poorly diminishes the amount of wealth that could have been created and bequeathed to our successors.

  14. Interstellar Bill says:

    The Warmista retort is that those annual solar fluctuations
    are averaged out over the year so they don’t count.
    Ditto for the influence of water vapor, which fluctuates widely
    and therefore can’t control the climate.
    They absolutely know, you see, that their arithmetic temp-average
    is Earth’s fever thermometer, and almighty CO2 is its sole thermostat.

    According to cargo-cult science,
    no fluctuations matter because their models average them out.
    I kid you not. I’m practically quoting from a recent article in Science.

  15. Richard111 says:

    I read this with hope but find I do not understand. It seems like hokus-pokus, I cannot pin down any figure and relate it to any given change that makes sense.
    If you remove all greenhouse gases you still get the same adiabatic lapse rate, the start of which will be defined by the temperature at the surface. That is why the tropopause is higer at the equator than at the poles. Same lapse rate, different surface temperatures. All to do with gravity, not imaginary feedback from so called greenhouse gases.
    Try this question: is the Earth brighter than the sun in the near infrared? What about the far infrared? The answers will define greenhouse gases as coolants or warmants (? :-) )
    Okay, initial solar radiation starts out from 5,800K source and is down to less than 400k at TOA. But which is brighter ? The surface at 288K ? I wonder.

  16. GeeJam says:

    Just absolutely love it Christopher – your point exactly. Well done. In a nutshell.
    How much colder (or perishingly freezing) would the world be if we magically ‘eliminated’ all the greenhouse gases we’ve allegedly shoved in to the atmosphere since the industrial era. Probably not one iota of noticeable change in our temperature at all.

    As you’re one of our key staunch ambassadors, please tell Durban that this warming malarky is all down to the manufacture of 2 litre bottles of fizzy carbonated drinks on a global scale since the 20’s. Just think of all that man-made CO2 injected in to drinks on a daily basis that we never had in Medieval ‘warm’ times. Maybe that should make them question whether the blame is in fact attributed to the internal combustion engine!

  17. Politically there’s a powerful argument. Rather than the absurdity of a worldwide conspiracy we might be all victims of scheming climate change crooks ready to take advantage of the bandwagon and of its more innocent proponents

  18. Reed Coray says:

    Juraj V. says: December 5, 2011 at 10:37 am

    AMEN! The 33 degree number is based on a calculation that (a) uses an earth energy reception model whose albedo in part assumes an atmosphere (cloud and particulate reflection), but (b) uses an earth energy radiation model that treats the earth as a black body–i.e., no atmosphere. This is equivalent to comparing apples and oranges.

  19. Andrew30 says:

    KR, the oceans are cooling.

  20. aaron says:

    Yes, but climate scientists assume that climate sensitivity has increased greatly over the past 40 years and will increase as warming increases.

  21. gbrecke says:

    “There’s really nothing new under the sun.”
    Same old games we’ve seen for 6000 years or more. It’s one thing for willing fools to be parted from their money, But this is an out right attempt to steal.

    The mention above: “scientifically-illiterate politicians”, perhaps many of them see the near unconditional transfer of power into their hands? It’s their playfield, and few in the scientific community know their game as well.

  22. sdcougar says:

    KR says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:58 am

    “…and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks!…”

    KR is imagining the positive feedbacks posited by the garbage-in-garbage-out computer models. He seems not to have a clue about the real world negative feedbacks shown by empirical research and published in GRL.

  23. Ged says:

    @KR

    “Given a 3°C sensitivity to CO2 doubling, we should see a warming of around 1°C – and what we’re observing is 0.8 to 0.9°C. ”

    No, given 3C sensitivity we should see 3C of warming with a doubling of CO2 –‘by that very definition’! If we don’t see 3C of warming, then the sensitivity of the climate with all feedbacks already considered, is less than 3C per century.

    How much warming have we seen over the past century? ~1C.

    The oceans are cooling, their heat content has flattened, and despite the large upward increase in CO2 production in the last decade, global temperatures have largely flattened as well. What does that tell you KR?

    Science is about facts, not the mythical. Saying “but we will see feedbacks, eventually!” without any evidence of what they are, or any sign of them preparing to occur (as we would see by now!), you are acting on FAITH, no science.

  24. Russ R. says:

    Two concerns:
    1. Monckton is ignoring feedbacks in this calculation. Assuming the sum total of all feedbacks to be zero doesn’t make them so.

    2. Monckton (like many others) is treating “climate sensitivity” as a constant across all temperature ranges. No justification is given for this… it’s simply assumed.

    While I appreciate his skepticism and engagement, I fear that his argument here is overly simplistic. A better argument would focus on feedback effects (particularly relating to clouds).

  25. Joel Shore says:

    KR says:

    “…and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C – and while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here.

    Just to clarify what KR says here: Some might argue that, for example, the calculation includes the water vapor feedback. After all, Monckton imagined removing the water vapor too. However, this point-of-view is incorrect. In order to correctly account for the water vapor feedback, you have to treat it as a feedback and not a forcing as Monckton has done. (Willis Eschenbach came up with a similar argument to Monckton’s, which had the same sort of error in it.)

    To look at it another way: What the numerical modeling study of Lacis et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract? ) showed is that, in the climate models, if you remove all the non-condensable greenhouse gases from the atmosphere then the cooling causes most of the water vapor to be removed too and you get a temperature drop not much different from 33 K….perhaps even a bit more if I recall. (There is no reason why it has to be exactly 33 K because you aren’t necessarily keeping the albedo from clouds and ice the same in this simulation and you are not getting rid of the greenhouse effect due to clouds [or whatever greenhouse effect remains due to water vapor].) So, you just have to remove the non-condensable greenhouse gases and then you get approximately the full temperature drop due to losing the greenhouse effect as a consequence.

    Admittedly, people can argue that the models are wrong…and this is not what is going to happen in the real world. However, if you are going to argue this, then what you are arguing is that you don’t believe in the positive feedbacks; you have not shown from real-world data that the earth’s climate system does not have such positive feedbacks (which is what Monckton is essentially claiming to have shown).

    [And, of course, you would have to come up with compelling arguments about why the physics in the models is wrong and the amount of water vapor would not decrease (or that something else would compensate) when you removed the greenhouse gases.]

  26. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    The ever so smart AWG scientific community got paid a .100th of what it was worth to the “scientifically-illiterate politicians”.

    The wealth transfer goes on.
    The enablers , Mann etal, made a dumb deal off of dumb science for dumb reasons.

    Revenge and justice must come.

  27. Andre says:

    About the 33 degrees model without greenhouse gasses is the most fatal error in the whole thermageddon business. If the earth would have had an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses, the atmosphere would have still warmed with convection, considering that at noon directly under the sun there is 1365 W/m2 warming it to values close to the light side of the moon – close to boiling. That hot air convection heats up the atmosphere at daytime. But at night time there is no negative convection and there is no outradiation, since we have no greenhouse effect. Hence the atmosphere does not lose heat in a significant way, other than via direct conduction in the boundary layer with the earth surface (maybe a few inches).

    So with a non-radiating atmosphere no greenhouse gas, the atrmosphere would be a lot hotter, not colder.

  28. crosspatch says:

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C

    Right, and they assumed (speculated) the feedback would be POSITIVE but so far it is turning out from observation that the feedback might be (looking like they are) NEGATIVE. The entire AGW issue is based on speculation and speculative models. There is not a shred of real world observation that validates the hypothesis and with every passing day more invalidating evidence comes in.

  29. KR says:

    Ged: “No, given 3C sensitivity we should see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2…How much warming have we seen over the past century? ~1C.”

    And given the ~100ppm increase from 280 to 390, or roughly 1/3 of a doubling, a 1C increase is just about what we should expect.

  30. JT says:

    @KR
    Either you or I have misunderstood Monckton’s point: His base calculation includes the effects of feedbacks, all and sundry, because the 33K increase in temperature is what has resulted after the system has been in operation for at least a billion years and so takes all the feedbacks, fast and slow, into account. 33K is what CO2 plus H20 plus all the other greenhouse gasses plus their interactive feedbacks have produced. Unless you think that the water feedback found in the unvalidated climate models represents some new and additional feedback mechanism which only came into existence about 1940 when human CO2 emissions began to be significant, rather than the erroneous result of a misspecification of the models.

  31. Graeme W says:

    KR says:
    December 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Ged: “No, given 3C sensitivity we should see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2…How much warming have we seen over the past century? ~1C.”

    And given the ~100ppm increase from 280 to 390, or roughly 1/3 of a doubling, a 1C increase is just about what we should expect.

    I thought the temperature rise to CO2 increase was logarithmic? On that basis, 280 to 390 is an increase of approximately x1.39, and according to my quick calculations, that should be approximately 50% of the total increase of a doubling. Unless I’ve made a mistake (quite probably), which should be expecting to see a 1.5-1.6C increase if the IPCC’s sensitivity figure is correct, and we’re only seeing 0.8-0.9C.

    What have I done wrong?

  32. KR says:

    JT – The 33K/33C difference between a world with and without greenhouse gases (minor effects like albedo, glaciation, etc., ignored) is not the issue <em"after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted", to quote Monckton. Nor, really, is the 3.7 W.m^2 from CO2 doubling leading to ~1.1 or 1.2C warming (forcing).

    But – a big part of that 33C is water vapor and clouds, which change concentration in the atmosphere as feedbacks (as a rough approximation, relative humidity remains close to constant with long duration temperature changes, while relative/absolute humidity increases with temperature). Monckton blithely ignores the feedback component of that 1.2C, which is the nonsense bit. Especially since he made a point of mentioning it earlier.

    Essentially Monckton is giving a horrible argument:

    A + B = C
    A’ = some number
    A’ scaled can’t produce C, completely ignoring the B discussed before!

    And this, as I said, is complete nonsense. CO2 is part of why the Earth isn’t 33C colder. But so are the feedbacks. 1C warming is about what we should expect for a 1/3 increase in CO2 since the industrial age.

  33. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I fear I’m not following this part:

    Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler. This is climate theory 101. So, how much radiative forcing causes the 33 C° warming that arises from the presence – as opposed to total absence – of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook – is around 100 Watts per square meter.

    Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted. Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.

    Leaving aside the 33° question, I don’t understand the source for the “100 watts per square metre”. Where in the “usual suspects’ playbook” is that 100 w/m2 found?

    I ask because it seems to me that the total radiative forcing that causes the warming must be the total “greenhouse” radiation, which per Trenberth is on the order of 320 W/m2 at the surface, or about 150 w/m2 at the TOA.

    What am I missing here?

    w.

  34. Vince Causey says:

    KR,

    You wrote: “~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C ”

    Have you actually read what Monckton wrote? Let me explain again:

    Monckton began with the figure that everyone seems to agree on – that without greenhouse gases the earth would be 33k cooler than it is today. He then adds the second bit of information that everyone agrees on – the radiative forcing that has given rise to this 33k anomaly is 100 watts per square metre. He then asks what is the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases based on these figure? Well, it must be 33/100 or 0.33k per wat per square metre of forcing after “just about all feedbacks due to warming have acted”.

    But you say: “while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here. ”

    This is not true, as can be seen – the quote above specifically says “all feedbacks due to warming have acted.” So, what Monckton has shown is that based on the first 33k of greenhouse gas forcing that we know and can observe, the warming INCLUDING feedbacks, is 0.33k per watt per sq m of forcing.

    The final step, is take the projected forcing of 3.7 watts per sq m for a doubling of CO2 and multiply that by the sensitivity of 0.33k per watt which give a warming of 1.2k.

    Let me turn the question back to you. If temperature sensitivity of the first 100 watts per sq m of forcing is 0.33k per watt – which must ipso facto include all feedbacks – why should the next 3.7 watts per sq m of forcing have a sensitivity three times as high?

  35. KR says:

    Graeme W – Quite correct, I was doing very quick back-of-envelope numbers there. Just don’t forget the accompanying aerosols produced by fossil fuels (cooling things).

    Take a look at the total numbers as per this chart: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    That’s a total, including aerosols, CO2, methane and other GHG’s, surface albedo, insolation, etc., showing 0.6 to 2.4 W/m^2, mean estimate of 1.6 W/m^2. Or, roughly 43% the effect of a CO2 doubling. Add lag (the oceans will take a while to warm, after all), and 1C warming is just about right.

  36. Scarface says:

    Lord Monckton, if this was Judo I would call it Ippon now. Well done!

    Make them sweat in Durban. That’s what they’ve come for after all.

  37. KR says:

    Folks, there is a very clear discussion of this issue at: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/observations-show-climate-sensitivity.php

    This dates from 5 years ago, and was not the first time this particular mistaken idea of climate sensitivity was corrected. 1C is about right for the ~35% increase of CO2 since the industrial age, logarithmically 43% of a doubling influence, along with the fact that it takes _time_ for the Earth to change average temperature.

    Monckton should certainly know this. He’s either spouting things he knows to be incorrect, or just not up on the science.

  38. Matt G says:

    KR says:

    December 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Ged: “No, given 3C sensitivity we should see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2…How much warming have we seen over the past century? ~1C.”

    And given the ~100ppm increase from 280 to 390, or roughly 1/3 of a doubling, a 1C increase is just about what we should expect.

    The 1C increase in global temperatures is cherry picking using the coldest period during the insturmental data as a starting point. Wihen using 280ppm as a starter you should use all the data available.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/trend

    Therefore, the recent decade is only around 0.6c for roughly 1/3 of a doubling. Hence, this would lead if continued to a doubling of 1.8c, much closer to the value without feedbacks and below the now apparantly alarming value of 2c per doubling. Still fail to see how increasing water vapour not observed globally and high possibility of this forming clouds causes further postive feedback. Unless to say that this only causes high levels clouds and that would be ridiculous?

  39. crosspatch says:

    And given the ~100ppm increase from 280 to 390, or roughly 1/3 of a doubling, a 1C increase is just about what we should expect.

    But there is a major problem with that thinking. Most of the warming that has come since the end of the LIA happened well before there was any significant increase in CO2 emissions. Basically CO2 emissions started when we did two things: 1) Large scale coal fired blast furnaces producing loads of steel in the post WWII economy, 2) Large scale building of coal fired power plants to produce electricity as the countryside was being electrified.

    In 1935 only 68% of homes were even wired for electricity and only 13% of farms were. And even with 68% wired for electricity, many used electricity only for lighting and maybe a radio and an iron and that was about it. Refrigerators, such as they existed, were mainly gas and people didn’t have freezers or electric ovens or dryers.

    So one major problem is that we should see, if AGW theory is correct, we should see that we have temperatures today that are significantly higher than the temperatures we experienced in the 1930’s. But we don’t. There was a fall in temperatures from the 1940’s to the 1970’s and a rise in temperatures from the 1970’s to 2000 but temperatures never rose higher than those seen in the 1930’s by any significant degree. Sure, there’s a lot of hoopla if a year’s annual temperature average exceeds the 1930’s by a few hundredths of a degree, but it isn’t really significant unless you want to say that all of this CO2 warms climate by a few hundredths of a degree.

    We just have not seen the warming that we should see if the AGW speculation is correct. Not a single model projection has been correct. Not for ocean temperatures:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-4.png

    Not for land surface temperatures:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CherriesAppliesOranges.png

    Not for sea level rise:

    http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif

    And the question is, as has been asked by so many people: For how long must the models and the observations diverge before the models are declared invalid?

  40. Matt G says:

    Added to previous post.

    This 1.8c doubling for CO2 is based on linear responce, so with CO2 being logarithmic the value will be lower than this.

  41. Hoser says:

    Andre says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Non-radiating atmosphere… What? Ya gotta be kidding.

    Everything made of matter radiates depending on its temperature and other physical properties. If you don’t have matter in the atmosphere that absorbs outgoing IR emitted from the Earth’s surface, then there are no collisions with the absorbers and the temperature doesn’t rise. That means N2, and O2 emit radiation and the atmosphere cools. Remember, in your gedanken experiment there are no IR absorbers to prevent that radiation from escaping into space. Ergo, don’t expect a warm atmosphere or Earth. Yep, it will get pretty frosty at night.

  42. Dave says:

    One thing you can rely on here WUWT is a vigorous exchange of views and science. Unlike every warmist site. Lord Monckton is a brilliant man who can debate the balls off a brass monkey. Some of you have state that he isn’t always right, as demonstrated here by some very knowledgeable people, this has created an excellent debate which I welsome. but Lord Monckton also has the ability to listen, learn and modify his views when reasonable, provable counter theory’s/ science comes to the fore. Something that is totally lacking in the green / warmist community.
    As Lord Monckton walks the Streets of Durban in the face of glassy eyed Eco fanatics and climate crooks, has our back’s and I could not pick a finer man to stand up to the disgusting hypocrisy, lies and misuse of the public’s trust and that flows like a open sewer at COP17 Durban today.
    Lord Monckton you make me proud and a pat on the back of the commentators and discussions here and everyday this is what science is about!

  43. ThePhysicsGuy says:

    I trust those models about as far as I can throw a midget.

    Latest scientific studies say the models fail. (D. Koutsoyiannis et al 2010) Other scientists like Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. say same thing.

    From 2.0 emails IPCC author Jagadish Shukla:

    “I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional [climate] that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for ‘action’ at a regional scale. .  .  . It is inconceivable that policy-makers will be willing to make billion- and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

    What’s the point arguing about various feedbacks or a W/m sensitivity here and there, when the underlying science for the models is a failure?

  44. KR says:

    Matt G – A decade is too short a timeframe – Santer thinks it requires 17 years minimum to establish a trend through variability, I (personally) would prefer ~20.

    Humidity? You mean the ~4% increase in specific humidity since the 1970’s? With the relative humidity (which drives cloud formation) remaining fairly constant due to warming air?

    And don’t forget Monckton’s bad argument – 33C with forcings and feedbacks, 1.2C with a forcing from doubling CO2, and completely ignoring feedbacks on that.

  45. crosspatch says:

    Another thing is we could, right this minute with the technology we already have provide 100% of the US electric power generation without creating hardly a molecule of CO2. If CO2 is the real problem, then lets get rid of it right now with technology we know to work and that is much safer in its current implementation than the installed base we have of that same technology that is currently producing roughly 10% of our power with a 50 year old version of that technology.

    The worst thing that every happened to our environment was Three Mile Island. Not because the event harmed the environment in any way, but because the fear that it produced HAS done harm and driven up energy costs which has a direct impact on jobs. There are no more excuses. If CO2 is a problem and if access to cheaper energy is desired to spur economic activity, then we must have a national nuclear electrification plan. Otherwise this is simply an exercise in scaring people into subsidizing wind and solar so certain people can make a killing in that market without improving our energy security, reducing energy costs, or reducing CO2 emissions one iota.

  46. Interstellar Bill says:

    For how long?
    As long as it takes to get all the taxes and regulations irreversibly implemented.

  47. Richard G says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:40 am
    ‘ We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent. What we are doing is “redistributing” that wealth from billions of individual “common” citizens into the pockets of people connected to the “climate change” industry. The money isn’t disappearing, it is simply being allocated.’
    *******************
    I’m afraid that you have veered into “broken window fallacy” land here. The broken window amounts to instant depreciation of the asset. It’s replacement requires the expending of wealth. The vendor of windows may realize a benefit but you realize a loss.
    Any carbon capture scheme that removes carbon from the biological carbon economy amounts to wealth destruction. Any time we are forced to divert our resources into unproductive activity we suffer economic loss. When done by coercion it amounts to theft.
    I agree with the “Wimpy” part.

  48. Rosco says:

    The calculation of 33 K cooler is based on a quarter of the insolation.

    Can anyone please explain how you can calculate the temperature of a sphere which is half illuminated by applying one quarter of the radiative flux to the whole sphere ? Does the incoming radiation somehow spread over the whole sphere and slip in under the cover of darkness ?

    This is voodoo science and is the trick these clowns use to convince you of a lie – if the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K there must be a “greenhouse effect”.

    The temperature of the Earth’s surface subject to the Sun could theoretically reach temperatures approaching 364 K or 91 C for 1000 W/sq m (30% albedo) at the equator with the sun directly overhead.

    It doesn’t because of convection and evaporation.

    there is proof these “blackbody” radiation balance equations are wrong – the temperatures measured on the moon during the day equates well with the theoretical maximum of Stefan-Boltzmann with an albedo of .12 and 1368 W/sq m insolation – 380 K or 107 C.

    When the Sun sets and the cooling acceleartes the Earth rotates and before everything is lost and the Sun rises again.

    If their nonsense is correct then how did Langley’s greenhouse experiment on Pike’s Peak in Colorado manage to record 113 C or 386 K inside the greenhouse ?

    And why did Wood’s simple experiment show that “trapping” infrared radiation inside one of his experimental apparatus failed to result in any measurable temperature increase over the one which freely allowed infrared to pass out – in fact the glass panelled apparatus had a slightly lower temperature – perhaps glass though opaque to infrared may be a slightly better conductor than halite ?

    The average temperature is a joke – what significance can it really have on a planet where the maximums have been recorded at about 58 C and minimums at about minus 89 C ?

  49. Vince Causey says:

    Willis,

    “Where in the “usual suspects’ playbook” is that 100 w/m2 found?”

    I’m not sure where this came from either, so I tried a simple calculation. Using the Stefan Boltzman equation I took the ratio of blackbody radiation that would occur between surface temperatures of 255k and 288k and get 1.63. I assume this means that the Earth must be receiving an additional forcing of 63%.

    Then I took the average insolation at the Earths surface as 260 watts per metre squared allowing for albedo. But, if we are saying that this is AFTER the 63% greenhouse gas forcing, then dividing 260 by 1.63 gives 160 – ie 160 watts per sq m without greenhouse gases. In that case we actually have an extra 100 watts due to the greenhouse gases.

    This does agree with Moncktons figure, but it could be a coincidence.

  50. Gail Combs says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:40 am

    if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.

    Well, he isn’t seeing the entire picture in this case. We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent. What we are doing is “redistributing” that wealth from billions of individual “common” citizens into the pockets of people connected to the “climate change” industry. The money isn’t disappearing, it is simply being allocated…..
    ________________________________

    For once I disagree with you crosspatch.

    WEALTH is not money. We are frittering away labor, time and resources in the USA on the 14,000 windmills left to rust and the solar panel left to rot. We are devoting a tremendous amount of time, energy and intellect chasing “The bogeyman”

    Perhaps the worst part is the USA and EU has “De-industrialized” getting rid of their capacity to produce wealth AND fill our children’s heads with useless crap “science”

    THAT is the true tragedy of this whole mess.

    Lord Monckton is correct we have tossed away not only our grand kids wealth but their ability to produce wealth.

  51. Ben of Houston says:

    Russ R, you have to initially assume a feedback of something. There is little evidence to indicate a feedback that is not close to one. Lord Monckton then compared anticipated warming given the calculation with the observed warming. Now, one point that the Viscount missed was the fact that this comparison demonstrates the feedback as well. As it was within expected range, this is strong evidence that the feedback is close to one.

    The simplicity of the argument is its strength. It relies on crude approximations and does not pretend to be anything more than what it is, a crude approximation. Because we have such a crude understanding of the climate system, adding layer upon layer of complexity only causes more potential points for error. It doesn’t really add any precision.

  52. Matt G says:

    KR says:

    December 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Matt G – A decade is too short a timeframe – Santer thinks it requires 17 years minimum to establish a trend through variability, I (personally) would prefer ~20.

    Humidity? You mean the ~4% increase in specific humidity since the 1970′s? With the relative humidity (which drives cloud formation) remaining fairly constant due to warming air?

    And don’t forget Monckton’s bad argument – 33C with forcings and feedbacks, 1.2C with a forcing from doubling CO2, and completely ignoring feedbacks on that.

    REPLY

    Without the last decade or so (13 years) the value is around 0.5c per 1/3 of doubling CO2. (1.5c per doubling)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1934/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1905/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1880/trend

    Humidity?

    Relative Humidity has declined overall.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    Specific Humidity has declined overall.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    33c doesn’t take into account albedo and oceans thermal heat energy. The ocean stores more energy to keep the Earth warmer, than water vapour in the atmosphere. 1.2c per doubling does imply that there is no feedback included.

  53. Garry says:

    crosspatch says 1:24 pm; “The worst thing that every happened to our environment was Three Mile Island… the fear that it produced HAS done harm… we must have a national nuclear electrification plan.”

    That plus Jane Fonda’s and Michael Douglas’ “China Syndrome.”

    Here’s the current “China Syndrome”: China’s 77 nuclear plants planned or under construction versus the USA’s 10; the UK’s 4; Germany’s 0; and Vietnam’s 4.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

  54. RockyRoad says:

    Smokey says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:59 am

    crosspatch says:

    “What we are doing is ‘redistributing’ that wealth from billions of individual ‘common’ citizens into the pockets of people connected to the ‘climate change’ industry.”

    My fear regarding this misappropriation of funds applies to the one subject I know something about–that of natural resource extraction.

    Sixty to a hundred years ago the economics of most mining ventures were sufficient that a company could bankroll their own mines–whether it be for precious metals, base metals, or some of the more exotic rare earth or platinum-group-element metals. These were relatively rich deposits that required a modest capital investment compared to what we’re now facing, but the situation has changed–mining companies no longer have the necessary capital so they must borrow it from the capital market. And since all the near-surface, relatively high grade deposits have been mined, what we’re now facing is utilization of much lower-grade deposits of much larger size that require a much larger capital investment because economies of scale are an absolute must otherwise these deposits don’t meet the criteria of “ore” and can’t be mined at all. And without a plentiful supply of affordable metals, our economy grinds to a halt.

    This is what will happen to our standard of living when all the available capital has been spent recklessly on foolish projects such as the “climate change industry”! From whence do we then get the massive infusions of capital needed to capitalize and supply the metals our standard of living requires? It won’t be there, which results in less of everything for everybody. Our standard of living will decline and the future will be much harder for our children and their children, spurred on by irresponsible capital outlay caused by irresponsible science and irresponsible politics. The future looks bleak, indeed.

    (A corollary is: What happens to the expertise needed to put massive low-grade mining projects together when a generation goes by without such projects? It disappears, most likely never to return. Mankind will have reached a real “tipping point”.)

  55. crosspatch says:

    Matt G says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    You might notice by reading Tisdale’s stuff that those step changes after El Nino events occur mostly in one place: The Indian Ocean. Take the Indian Ocean out of the mix and there isn’t any global sea surface temperature increase. The increase isn’t “global”, it is very local and it is enough to influence the global average when it is added in. Sort of like taking the average weight of 10 people in a room, then replacing one person with a much heavier person and measuring again, and then doing that again, and trying to tell people that the average weight of everyone in the room is increasing so everyone must be put on a diet to lower the average weight when the culprit is one single measurement.

    And for everyone else, this entire discussion is silly. The onus is not on us to prove that the speculation and the models based thereon are false, the onus is on them to prove that it is true. So far there is nothing in the data to indicate that it is.

    Richard G says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Apparently my sarcasm wasn’t cranked up to a sufficient degree that you noticed I was being facetious.

  56. Baa Humbug says:

    Hoser says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Andre says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Andre I think you meant “conduction” not convection.

    Hoser. A good emitter is a good absorber. It’s been drummed into our head that N2 O2 are not greenhouse gasses therefore they do not absorb longwave radiation. If they don’t absorb, they don’t emit. (This is a paradox the claimants can defend)

    If N2 and O2 DO emit radiation, then they also contribute to the greenhouse effect, leaving CO2 as a bit player.
    If they DON’T emit, then they can’t lose the energy they gain via conduction with the surface. Therefore the atmosphere (of N2 and O2 predominantly) will continue to heat until such time as it is the same temperature as the equator at noon.

    If that is the case, then the argument about an average global temperature of a hypothetical Earth (minus GHGs) of-18DegC is mute.
    The proponents of the greenhouse theory can’t have it both ways.

    @Richard111 says:
    December 5, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Well done my friend. keep asking that question until you get a satisfactory answer.
    Remind them of Wiens Law. “AT ANY WAVELENGTH, a hotter object radiates more (is more luminous) than a cooler one.”

    Wavelengths

  57. DirkH says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:40 am
    [Monckton]“if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received. ”

    [crosspatch]“Well, he isn’t seeing the entire picture in this case. We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent.”

    No, crosspatch, see Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy. A large part of the money has been spent on wind turbines and PV panels; producing these, and all that comes before it, starting with the air travel of the lobbyists to Brussels, consumes real resources and real labor – labor that could have been spent on more useful things. This is where the waste happens. Now, of course a wind turbine produces energy, but the resources we have expended to make this relatively small production of energy happen are disproportionate compared to the alternatives. The fact that the wind turbine later helps robbing the many and feeding the few (who, in turn, will need some of the many to build them Ferraris) is not where the real waste of resources happens.

    I should know, I drive past three wind parks every morning, and every evening again. And see a fourth and a fifth one in the distance when crossing some hills.

    Imagine how useful the life of a theoretically talented and intelligent boy could have turned out had he not decided to become a EU lobbyist. We are wasting human potential as well when we turn all our energies towards the solving of nonproblems.

  58. jim hogg says:

    Although C Monckton might not be in agreement with the green army’s response to AGW theory, he clearly believes that we are warming the Earth by using fossil fuels . . . I’m therefore surprised to see so much praise for his position on here . . .? Seems to me that his explanation is as narrow and simplistic as the “scientists” commonly condemned on here. For starters I didn’t see the bit where he factored in natural variability . . . .

  59. Jer0me says:

    There are a few oddities in comments. Some seem not to realise that the ‘per doubling of …’ does actually give you a logarithmic scale.

    Some (or perhaps one) seem to think that the oceans can ‘take a while to heat up’ from heat that is being ‘trapped’ today. That is a real mind-bender. Where does this ‘missing heat’ reside while it waist for the oceans to be ready for it? Is it that ‘missing heat’ that Trenbeth (sp?) is still looking for? (let’s ignore the fact it is energy we mean, not ‘heat’.) Can you think of six more impossible things before breakfast?

  60. LarryD says:

    [And, of course, you would have to come up with compelling arguments about why the physics in the models is wrong and the amount of water vapor would not decrease (or that something else would compensate) when you removed the greenhouse gases.]

    No, all I have to do is observe that the models have always failed to predict where the climate is going. They do not predict reality, therefore they are wrong. This is basic scientific method, if a hypotheses predicts “if X then Y”, and you have X but Y doesn’t show up, then the hypotheses is wrong.

  61. Matt G says:

    crosspatch says:

    December 5, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Agreed, my values were taking into account that all warming was only based on CO2. This was extremely biased and the most dramatic it can be demonstrated using real planet observations. Yet even this is nothing to worry about in future.

  62. DirkH says:

    I see Joel Shore and KR explaining how the greenhouse effect works.

    If your explanations are correct, the models should work, shouldn’t they?

    Your explanations must be incorrect.

  63. Matt G says:

    Jer0me says:

    December 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    There are a few oddities in comments. Some seem not to realise that the ‘per doubling of …’ does actually give you a logarithmic scale.

    Seem to be responding to my post.

    “This 1.8c doubling for CO2 is based on linear responce, so with CO2 being logarithmic the value will be lower than this.”

    You are of course correct, but this 1.8c value is based on the first 1/3 so it’s not a logarithmic scale when projected ahead to make the whole number.

  64. Ian W says:

    For all these strident claims he forgot the water vapor feedbacks!!

    Let us have a look at what all the models say – the water vapor feedback will lead to – a tropospheric hotspot. This hotspot would be formed by the increasing amount of rising humid air cooling at the moist adiabatic lapse rate leading to condensation then freezing with water vapor releasing large amounts of latent heat into the troposphere.

    This hotspot IS NOT THERE and believe me the AGW proponents have hunted for it

    Therefore, despite all the panic on the warming leading to runaway water vapor feedback it is NOT happening as modeled. Therefore the models are wrong and the forecasts/interpolations/projections based on those models are also incorrect.

  65. Gail Combs says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    …Another thing is we could, right this minute with the technology we already have provide 100% of the US electric power generation without creating hardly a molecule of CO2…..

    There are no more excuses. If CO2 is a problem and if access to cheaper energy is desired to spur economic activity, then we must have a national nuclear electrification plan. Otherwise this is simply an exercise in scaring people into subsidizing wind and solar so certain people can make a killing in that market without improving our energy security, reducing energy costs, or reducing CO2 emissions one iota.
    ___________________________________________

    As I said, I normally agree with you but I would prefer to see Thorium nuclear. It seems about 5 to ten years away perhaps less.

    ….From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, an active R&D program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tenn. came up with a promising way to use thorium for making large amounts of energy cleanly and safely. It was based on a revolutionary kind of nuclear reactor that uses liquid rather than solid fuel. Liquid fuel has significant theoretical advantages in operation, control, and processing over solid fuel, but a basic question had to be answered: “Will it work?”

    To that end, Oak Ridge engineers built four liquid-fueled reactors. Two used water-based liquids, and two were based on liquid fluoride salts. The water-based reactors had to operate at high pressures to generate the temperatures needed for economical power generation. They could also dissolve uranium compounds, but not those containing thorium, which made fuel reprocessing as complicated for the water-based rectors as it is for solid-fueled versions.

    The fluoride reactors had neither of these drawbacks. They could operate at high temperature without pressurization. They could also dissolve both uranium and thorium in their fluoride-salt mixtures, and the mixtures were impervious to radiation damage due to their ionic bonds. Therefore, Oak Ridge engineers opted to concentrate on the technically superior liquid-fluoride-salt approach in future R&D.

    In the late 1960s, however, the director of Oak Ridge National Lab, Alvin Weinberg, was fired by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for his advocacy for this type of reactor and his efforts to enhance the safety of conventional light-water reactors, a design he had patented. With Weinberg’s departure, the AEC squashed research in liquid-fluoride reactors….

    Recent efforts to resurrect the thorium-fluoride reactor technology has focused on a new variant of the concept called the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR, pronounced “lifter”). …..
    http://energyfromthorium.com/about/

    INDIA with no Uranium but an abundant supply of thorium…

    …In 2002 the regulatory authority issued approval to start construction of a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam and this is now under construction by BHAVINI. It is expected to start up in late 2011, fuelled with uranium-plutonium oxide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs). It will have a blanket with thorium and uranium to breed fissile U-233 and plutonium respectively, taking the thorium program to stage two, and setting the scene for eventual full utilisation of the country’s abundant thorium to fuel reactors. Six more such 500 MWe fast reactors have been announced for construction, four of them in parallel by 2017. Two will be at Kalpakkam, two at another site…. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=338&terms=thorium%20india

    A couple of USA companies to watch

    Lightbridge (thorium)
    http://www.ltbridge.com/assets/23.pdf
    http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology

    KEY UPCOMING FUEL DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES: http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/keyupcomingfueldevelopmentmilestones

    Hyperion Power Generation Inc. (mini self contained uranium nitride)
    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/technology/

    Medium and Small (25 MWe up) reactors with development well advanced: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

  66. Dave Wendt says:

    KR says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    “And don’t forget Monckton’s bad argument – 33C with forcings and feedbacks, 1.2C with a forcing from doubling CO2, and completely ignoring feedbacks on that.”

    From the post

    “Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted. Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

  67. Gail Combs says:

    Rosco says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    The calculation of 33 K cooler is based on a quarter of the insolation.

    Can anyone please explain how you can calculate the temperature of a sphere which is half illuminated by applying one quarter of the radiative flux to the whole sphere ?….
    ___________________________________

    You do not even have to go to the moon.

    The cartoon STARTS with 342 W/sq m and ends up with 168 W/sq m at the ground. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif

    Real Life:
    Solar insolation for solar panels numbers from NASA http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/

    They give as an example:

    For comparison, consider the average annual insolation levels of these two extreme locations:

    * Oslo , Norway = 2.27 kWh/m 2/day (very low)
    * Miami , Florida = 5.26 kWh/m 2/day (very high)

    A month of Jun average of 7.7 kWh/m 2/day for Phoenix AZ (year 5.38)
    Latitude 33 ‘ 26″ N

    A month of Jun average of 5.24 kWh/m 2/day for Montpelier VT (year 3.43)
    Latitude 44′ 16″ N

    A month of Jun average of 4.58 kWh/m 2/day for Anchorage AK (year 2.09)
    Latitude 61′ 10″ N

    NOT EVEN Alaska’s yearly average is as low as 168 W/sq m

  68. KR says:

    Matt G – I’ll point you to Dessler 2010 (http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf) looking at 5 or 6 specific humidity trend analyses. They show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with increasing temperature.

    Dave Wendt – I believe you are missing the point. The 3.3C per doubling estimate is with feedbacks. Monckton acknowledges feedbacks in the 33C total greenhouse effect, but completely ignores them when claiming climate sensitivity is 1.2C/doubling – he’s claiming zero feedbacks. And that is just not an honest presentation.

    There’s lots of good work and good data out there on climate sensitivity, including actual reasons to discuss what sensitivity levels actually are. Very disappointing that Monckton resorts such chicanery.

  69. Dave Wendt says:

    I would also point out to those nitpicking Monckton on some of the assumed numbers in his analysis, that he is employing the same technique here that he does in most of his presentations of basing his analysis on the assumptions used by the IPCC. In this or any other of his similar offerings, he refrains from explicitly embracing these assumptions as part of his own beliefs, but argues that even using their own assumptions the IPCC’s positions don’t hold up.

  70. Spector says:

    The big error I see here is the assumption by some that the average global temperature change can be correlated directly to the carbon dioxide change over the last one hundred and twenty or so years. To me, this seems to be a rather simplistic assumption that ignores the role of other possible factors and also the fact that radiative forcing (not radioactive forcing as assumed by some) of increasing CO2 is limited to the miniscule fringes around the narrow CO2 absorption band, because almost all of the effect of any new CO2 added to the atmosphere will be masked by the narrow black shadow of that already present.

  71. edbarbar says:

    This whole AGW thing reminds me of an old story science fiction story I read. Venus started broadcasting messages to the US that they were “Coming.” The whole world got together, stopped fighting to deal with the venutian threat. As it turned out, it was a clever scientist and his old wife who had managed to bounce radio waves to make it appear they were from Venus.

    AGW is a lot like that. With all this guilt in addition. I think that’s why Al Gore likes it. It has such a biblical ring to it: “The Seas will Rise! Pestilence and Plague will encompass the world! Drought, Famine and war will Rule the day. God is coming, and he brings his wrath with him.”

    (All you gotta do is pay me billions for your indulgences.)

  72. Gail Combs says:

    Spector says:
    December 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    The big error I see here is the assumption by some that the average global temperature change can be correlated directly to the carbon dioxide change over the last one hundred and twenty or so years. To me, this seems to be a rather simplistic assumption that ignores the role of other possible factors and also the fact that radiative forcing (not radioactive forcing as assumed by some) of increasing CO2 is limited to the miniscule fringes around the narrow CO2 absorption band, because almost all of the effect of any new CO2 added to the atmosphere will be masked by the narrow black shadow of that already present.
    ______________________________________
    Not to mention the elephant in the room casting the HUGE shadow named Water Vapor.

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

    Close up of O2 and N2
    http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o2.pdf
    http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/n2.pdf

  73. @Joel Shore
    “However, if you are going to argue this, then what you are arguing is that you don’t believe in the positive feedbacks; you have not shown from real-world data that the earth’s climate system does not have such positive feedbacks”

    Right, and neither do “I believe” in fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

    In never ceases to amaze me how often the warmista numpties go on about these mythical positive feedbacks that will tip us in to climate disaster. Why should it be for any of us to prove that these positive feedbacks don’t exist? It is blindingly obvious that they do not.

    The real world data suggests that the planet is quite comfortably without positive feedbacks, because if they did exist the planet would have gone into its death spin quite a long time ago, when temperatures were higher (and lower) than now, CO2 was higher (and lower) than now.

    Do you really not understand the consequences of a system with positive feedbacks, whose effects outweigh negative feedbacks? You have an unstable system. The fact that the planet is still here, several billion years after it was formed must surely suggest to anyone with more than a few brain cells, that the system is fundamentally stable, even in the face of major perturbations that have occurred since its formation.

    Get a brain for god’s sake and start thinking….

  74. Joel Shore says:

    Dave Wendt says:

    From the post

    “Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted. Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    Just because Monckton claims that the calculations include the feedbacks, it doesn’t mean that it does so correctly. In particular, in terms of water vapor: He is considering water vapor to be a forcing, not a feedback. See my comment here for further detail: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-819743

    And, modulo understanding better where he gets his 100 W/m^2 number, I don’t think he is including ice albedo as a forcing either, because the 33 C number assumes that albedo of the earth remains unchanged.

    Ian W says:

    This hotspot IS NOT THERE and believe me the AGW proponents have hunted for it

    Au contraire, the magnification of temperature fluctuations that occur on timescales of months to a few years (due, e.g., to ENSO) as you go up in the tropical atmosphere is well-confirmed. What is still being debated is whether this magnification is present for the multidecadal trends. The truth is that the artifacts in the data and analysis of these trends (in both satellite and radiosonde data) are sufficiently severe on such long range trends that it is very difficult to determine if tropospheric amplification is present over such timescales. However, it is quite difficult to come up with mechanisms by which the tropical tropospheric magnification would occur on a timescale of months to years but not over the multidecadal timescales. In fact, even Richard Lindzen believes there must be a problem with the data (although he prefers to think the problem is with the surface data rather than the higher-altitude data).

  75. Kozlowski says:

    “crosspatch says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:40 am
    if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.

    Well, he isn’t seeing the entire picture in this case. We ARE leaving MORE wealth to our successors because all of this money we are spending on “climate change” actually ends up in the pockets of thousands of different people. It actually does get spent. What we are doing is “redistributing” that wealth from billions of individual “common” citizens into the pockets of people connected to the “climate change” industry. The money isn’t disappearing, it is simply being allocated. We are giving Jones and Mann and CRU and Tyndall and Solyndra, and others and the people that work for and invest in those organizations boatloads of cash now (that they will probably pass along to their successors) which will will take from the future earnings of our children. We are giving them hamburgers today that our children will have to pay for next Tuesday (to use a Popeye analogy). I think it is time to tell Wimpy to take a hike.

    This is a global fleecing.”

    I have to disagree with you crosspatch. We are in fact leaving our children poorer for the effort.

    The difference is this: The redistribution does not go on to create more wealth, as normal commerce does. Government mandated redistribution allocates resources in ways that are far less efficient than the free market would have done. So yes, we are ending up poorer for the effort.

    I do agree with your summation, that this is a global fleecing and agree that its time to tell them all to take a hike!

    Cheers!

  76. JT says:

    @KR you wrote “And don’t forget Monckton’s bad argument – 33C with forcings and feedbacks, 1.2C with a forcing from doubling CO2, and completely ignoring feedbacks on that.” and further “The 3.3C per doubling estimate is with feedbacks. Monckton acknowledges feedbacks in the 33C total greenhouse effect, but completely ignores them when claiming climate sensitivity is 1.2C/doubling – he’s claiming zero feedbacks.” Again, it seems to me you are missing the point: The climate is not directly sensitive to CO2 increases. It is directly sensitive to Watts/square meter increases. The argument is that an increase of CO2 concentration will cause an increase in the number of Watts/square meter which will be incident on the surface which will in turn cause an increase in the average temperature of the climate system. Monckton is arguing that since the 1.2C figure includes the water vapour feedback effect over the present range of 33C, it will also include the water vapour feedback effect over the additional 3.7 Watts/square meter which will be caused by a doubling of CO2. Its not the “doubling of CO2″ which is important but the increase in downward flux of energy by the amount of 3.7 Watts/square meter which is important. Monckton is saying that regardless of the reason why there is an increase in wattage, the climate will respond to that increase by increasing its temperature by 1.2C for every additional 3.7 Watts/square meter of energy input. You could cause that increase with CO2 or with Methane or with mirrors out in space reflecting additional sunlight onto the earth – it doesn’t matter on Monckton’s argument because the feedback from water vapour is already incorporated into that 1.2C figure, if I understand his argument correctly.

  77. Baa Humbug says:

    At my comment at 2:56pm it seems my link to a chart titled wavelengths didn’t quite work.

    the link is HERE

    wavelengths

  78. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    I did some ‘back of the envelope’ calculations a few days ago: Current CO2 is about 398 PPM. At 4%, humans contribut about 15.8 PPM of that total. Man made doubling of CO2 (and I haven’t seen any eco-type arguing that increasing CO2 is caused by anything other than humans) postulates that human kind go from emitting 15.8 PPM to 413.8 PPM. I think the bigger question might be: Is there enough fossil fuel around for humans to increase their usage by that much?

  79. crosspatch says:

    We are in fact leaving our children poorer for the effort.

    OUR children, yes, but not THEIR children. Who is more important, you or them? Why, them, of course! We must sacrifice our children’s future so that theirs will be a much richer future. We can’t have the families of well educated progressives actually having to work for a living, can we? That would be just horrible. They might get a blister or something at some point and have to go to a doctor.

  80. crosspatch says:

    Is there enough fossil fuel around for humans to increase their usage by that much?

    I noted that idea a couple of weeks ago. If we have burned half the fossil fuel on earth, we can’t possibly add any more than we have already added. That would be the absolute limit.

  81. crosspatch says:

    In fact, even Richard Lindzen believes there must be a problem with the data

    Can’t be a problem with the hypothesis, must be a problem with the data. Satellite data can’t find it, radiosonde data can’t find it, nothing can find it. So it must be hiding.

  82. HankHenry says:

    Climate Theory 101 say that the Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (14 °C). I always had a problem with that. Is that supposed to mean the actual surface or do we need to think of average surface temperature as that region of the earth’s surface whose temperatures are influenced by conditions at the actual surface. Don’t we need to take into account ground and water temperatures? If we do need to take into account deep ocean temperatures you can probably cut that average surface temperature down to 10°C because most of the ocean at depth is close to 0°C. Rock temperatures under continents at oceanic depths on the other hand are pretty hot due to the earth’s internal warmth. I think it’s understood that the extreme cold of the deep ocean comes from cold water in polar regions sinking from the surface. If this cold comes from the surface I would argue that deep ocean temperatures need to be taken into account when considering what the earth’s average surface temperature is.

  83. Dave Wendt says:

    Joel Shore says:
    December 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    “Just because Monckton claims that the calculations include the feedbacks, it doesn’t mean that it does so correctly. In particular, in terms of water vapor: He is considering water vapor to be a forcing, not a feedback. See my comment here for further detail: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-819743

    Perhaps you can provide me a link to some evidence that suggests that even when the planet was at its coldest i.e. the “snowball Earth”, water vapor ever came close to disappearing from the atmosphere.

  84. Joel Shore says:

    crosspatch says:

    In fact, even Richard Lindzen believes there must be a problem with the data

    Can’t be a problem with the hypothesis, must be a problem with the data. Satellite data can’t find it, radiosonde data can’t find it, nothing can find it. So it must be hiding.

    Take it up with Lindzen: He points out that the prediction of tropical tropospheric amplification comes from an extremely basic piece of physics (the fact that the temperatures in the tropics closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate) that he does not think is likely to be wrong.

  85. jae says:

    Sorry, folks, can’t resist:

    Could the FACT that temperatures are going DOWN (instead of UP), when OCO emissions are going UP somehow demonstrate that the notion of an “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is pure nonsense? Is it remotely possible, you consensus skeptics??

    ps: there are other facts that suggest the same thing, not the least of which is that there is STILL no empirical evidence of some “radiation-induced greenhouse effect.”

  86. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Crosspatch – I remember now that someone else also brought up the issue. But it’s important enough to repeat. The idea that mankind can double the amount of CO2 in the air is absurd and it needs to be repeated.

  87. KR says:

    JT – The issue (and misrepresentation by Monckton) is that the 33C he mentioned is defined as GHG forcings plus feedbacks. Not just forcings.
    Forcings include non-precipitable gases such as CO2, methane, ozone, etc. Water vapor, which changes concentration over a period of maybe 8-10 days from changes in temperature, is a feedback. Albedo, glaciation, etc., are not considered here, as per Monckton.
    Now if a forcing (CO2, for example) changes, then the total climate response will also include feedback. Which Monckton flatly does not include, making his argument nonsense. He doesn’t incorporate it at all, and from this mis-representation he tries to claim climate sensitivity is extremely low.
    Bad rhetorician – no donut.

  88. Bart says:

    Tony B(another one) says:
    December 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Do you really not understand the consequences of a system with positive feedbacks, whose effects outweigh negative feedbacks?

    If things were so simple, the whole controversy would have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago. The key point is, as you say “whose effects outweigh negative feedbacks”. The primary negative feedback is the T^4 radiation which maintains the planet’s cool by radiation back into space. It is well nigh impossible to overcome such a large nonlinear feedback. Sooner or later, it’s going to dominate.

    So, what is hypothesized is a positive feedback embedded within a more significant negative feedback loop. In such a case, the system does not go unstable, but there is amplification.

    There is one hitch, however: such a positive feedback would not only amplify, but would also induce erratic behavior. I suspect such erratic behavior could be observed in the climate models, but they have arbitrarily fudged the parameters to a set which gives them the behavior they want. And, having no understanding of the concept of observability in feedback systems, they assume that if they can vaguely match actual performance with their models, their models must be correct. Which, of course, is nonsense to anyone who knows about the subject.

  89. Joel Shore says:

    crosspatch says:

    I noted that idea a couple of weeks ago. If we have burned half the fossil fuel on earth, we can’t possibly add any more than we have already added. That would be the absolute limit.

    Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Crosspatch – I remember now that someone else also brought up the issue. But it’s important enough to repeat. The idea that mankind can double the amount of CO2 in the air is absurd and it needs to be repeated.

    Ah…You do realize, I hope, that scientists have done this calculation and do not agree with you. There is an awful lot of carbon stored in coal reserves, and quite a bit also available in tar sands and other less conventional sources.

  90. Joel Shore says:

    Dave Wendt says:

    Perhaps you can provide me a link to some evidence that suggests that even when the planet was at its coldest i.e. the “snowball Earth”, water vapor ever came close to disappearing from the atmosphere.

    I never claimed that all of it disappears from the atmosphere, but given the strong dependence of the vapor pressure on temperature, quite a bit of it does.

  91. Legatus says:

    Around 0.8 Celsius of warming has occurred since 1750, of which – if the IPCC is right – 50-100% was attributable to us.

    The IPCC cannot be right about this:
    Most of the man-made CO2 was made after 1950.
    Most or all of the warming since 1750 occurred well before 1950, in fact, much of it before 1900.
    Therefore most of the warmth cannot have been caused by man-made CO2.
    Unless it can be shown that most of the difference in temperature between now and 1750 occurred post 1950, than most of the rise in temperature between then and now must be caused by something other than man-made CO2.

    Of course, I realize that you are talking to the usual Durban conference goer/journalist type. They claim to be on the side of science, while knowing almost nothing about it. Thus they are completely clueless in regards to past events such as the Little Ice Age, they don’t really even know much about radiative forcing. Thus, they may say they “believe” in climate change (and since when did belief have anything to do with it?) while knowing almost nothing about it. I realize that you are merely using what they have heard, and think they understand, and showing them that even if that is true, the rise in temperatures are now seen to be too small to worry about. However, after you use your argument, you might then use my argument, and show them that the 1C rise is also far to large, since something other than CO2 caused most of the rise in temperature between 1750 and 1950. Basically, you first use their own argument to tear down their argument, by showing that, using their own logic and figures, it cannot be true, and then show them real world data of the change in temperature between 1750 and 1950 to show them that even this is far to much, and thus prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that warming since 1750 cannot have been caused by man-made CO2. Basically, first tear down their belief, then replace it with another, otherwise they will simply bring the old belief back in to fill up the vacuum.

    In other words, don’t just hit them with one punch, hit them with the ‘ol one-two.
    Remember, they have been subjected to, and will continue to be subjected to, a ceaseless stream of warmist propaganda. You only get one shot, make it count. Otherwise, what you said will be lost and forgotten in the ceaseless chatter of continued propaganda from everyone around them.

    A second thing is that you may believe that they believe in climate change intellectually, that is, they rationally decided that it was true. Wrong. They don’t think like that, they Buh-Leeeeve, they have faith, it is emotional. They hear The Great Leader tell them how they to can help “save the world” and this feels emotionally good to them, they feel that they are part of something good and useful, and they do not want to give up that feeling. You may not understand that because you decide whether something is true or false based on reason, they do not. They were not raised that way, they never grew up learning (by spanking) that actions have consequences, and that they need to control their passions and desires and subordinate them to reason (“I want to do it, but if I do it, I will get a spanking”). Thus, the way they think is almost alien to you. If you understand the way they think, it will be easier to convince them. You have taken from them their holy crusade to save the world, which feels good to them, they want that feeling back. You can give them another crusade to replace the one you took away from them, the crusade to help the poor of the world by saving the economy of the world from the collapse that must happen if we try to implement the controls that the climate crusaders demand. You can use their own words, and paint the climate dictators (which is what they are) as “the man” and use phrases like “fight the power”. All you need do is point out that they must use force on almost everyone if they are to achieve this draconian level of control, and those phrases instantly become the only appropriate ones. If they are a journalist, you can use the phrase “speak the truth to power”, painting the IPCC as “the power”, and it will hit home to them, as that is probably why they wanted to become a journalist in the first place. Now they have a new crusade, a new belief to feel good about, that heady feeling of “fight the power”, only this time, it is about something that is both true and actually useful.

    Also, since these people are often not too much into logic or reason, which are verbal, take to carrying around some pictures, say, small reproductions of the many paintings made during the Little Ice Age which center on ice and snow. That will involve their right brain, the seat of their emotions, they may not remember (or understand) reason, but emotional pictures they will remember and understand.

    If you don’t completely destroy, even crush, their old belief, and then replace it with a new belief, one that feels good, they will just return right back to their old belief the minute you are gone. They will hear the old propaganda, and it will stir the old good feelings in them again, and they will gravitate right back to it.

  92. Jack Greer says:

    KR says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:58 am

    “…and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C – and while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here.

    As to current warming versus forcings and falsely derived low sensitivities, don’t forget that not all changes have caught up yet – oceans are big, and do take a while to warm, just for example. This particular canard (which I thought originally came from Lindzen) is just nonsense, refuted by Beck 2006 and Rahmstorf 2008, among others. Given a 3°C sensitivity to CO2 doubling, we should see a warming of around 1°C – and what we’re observing is 0.8 to 0.9°C.

    This bit by Monckton is complete and utter nonsense.

    But, but, but he declares it as truth with such certainty and panache … it must be true.

    Hahaha. A true showman … and charlatan, as always. This is so typically Monckton.

  93. crosspatch says:

    There is an awful lot of carbon stored in coal reserves, and quite a bit also available in tar sands and other less conventional sources.

    But is there as much as we have already burned going back 3000 years when we first started using it to smelt copper in China? Think about all the coal and oil that has been extracted and burned going back to at least the 1700’s. The Romans were mining coal in every major coal field in England (according to Wikipedia). China’s annual coal consumption is about 3.5 times that of the US and still climbing. I am not convinced that we will produce as much CO2 as we already have.

  94. crosspatch says:

    But now that I think about it, it doesn’t really matter because so far nobody has shown any adverse impact from atmospheric CO2 so even having the discussion and worrying about it is rather pointless.

  95. Nonan Noone says:

    There is an interesting powerpoint from a seminar I attended in 09 from James Murry at U Washington. It is updated and at this location: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/people/faculty/jmurray/jmurray.html “Peak Oil Talk – Smith School Oct 2011″. I haven’t looked at the updates vs what was said in 09, but I recall the key elements were that none of the 40 or so CO2 emissions scenarios were supply limited and that the IPCC was using older and perhaps exaggerated resource estimates. Slide 54 in this ppt displays atmospheric CO2 concentration with time peaking at 460ppm in 2100 (MAGICC, Tom Wigley at NCAR) using updated fossil fuel estimates. Worth a look.

  96. Smokey says:

    Jack Greer says:

    “Hahaha. A true showman … and charlatan, as always. This is so typically Monckton.”

    Lord Monckton wins all his debates with climate alarmists, using facts and reason. His recent win was at Oxford, and your insulting presumption that Oxford students and faculty are emotion driven fools suckered into siding with the Viscount denigrates Oxford.

    Why not just admit to the obvious fact that Lord Monckton is a better man than you, and that he is right and you are wrong?

  97. steven mosher says:

    So, Smokey do you buy Monkton’s 1.2C number?

  98. Dave Wendt says:

    Joel Shore says:
    December 5, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    “I never claimed that all of it disappears from the atmosphere, but given the strong dependence of the vapor pressure on temperature, quite a bit of it does.”

    In the comment of yours you referenced you wrote this

    “To look at it another way: What the numerical modeling study of Lacis et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract? ) showed is that, in the climate models, if you remove all the non-condensable greenhouse gases from the atmosphere then the cooling causes most of the water vapor to be removed too and you get a temperature drop not much different from 33 K….perhaps even a bit more if I recall. (There is no reason why it has to be exactly 33 K because you aren’t necessarily keeping the albedo from clouds and ice the same in this simulation and you are not getting rid of the greenhouse effect due to clouds [or whatever greenhouse effect remains due to water vapor].) So, you just have to remove the non-condensable greenhouse gases and then you get approximately the full temperature drop due to losing the greenhouse effect as a consequence.”

    It seems to me that we have a large but rather poorly constrained experiment to test this conjecture operating on the planet right now at the South Pole. The nonH2O GHGs haven’t been removed but the average winter temperatures there are at about 90 degrees below the value suggested for the GHG aided GAT, much colder than what would result from removing them, disregarding for the moment that removing the CO2 would make the question moot as there would no one or nothing here to ask the question or observe the result. Taking those gases out of the calculation might drop the GAT as much as 8-9K, although my guess would be more in 3-5K range. Winter temps at the Pole are 40-50 degrees below the S/B blackbody baseline and although the folks at wikipedia suggest the humidity is near zero, the folks who did this work suggest otherwise

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3525.1

    particularly this graph

    http://tinyurl.com/PWV-at-The-Pole

    If going to -60-(-80)C can’t chase all the water out of the atmosphere, why would you possibly suspect that taking the average from 15C to 10C or 7C would accomplish the task?
    The above paper is based on spectral analysis of downwelling longwave radiation at the Pole and one interesting thing that they suggest is that CO2 is responsible for fully a third of the DLR signal there, H2O gets the other 2/3rds, but this very likely makes the South Pole the one spot on Earth where its contribution to the GHE is at its maximum. It’s particularly interesting if you are aware of what the temps have been doing there over the last 40 or 50 years.

  99. G. Karst says:

    Ben of Houston says:
    December 5, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Russ R, you have to initially assume a feedback of something. There is little evidence to indicate a feedback that is not close to one. Lord Monckton then compared anticipated warming given the calculation with the observed warming. Now, one point that the Viscount missed was the fact that this comparison demonstrates the feedback as well. As it was within expected range, this is strong evidence that the feedback is close to one.

    The simplicity of the argument is its strength. It relies on crude approximations and does not pretend to be anything more than what it is, a crude approximation. Because we have such a crude understanding of the climate system, adding layer upon layer of complexity only causes more potential points for error. It doesn’t really add any precision.

    I agree completely with your comment. Lord Monckton understands this perfectly well. We are fortunate to have such a man speaking the real inconvenient truth at Durban. Who else is there, at Durban, who will speak of realism, empirical science and the scientific method? Who else will bring up the leaked emails? Who else will expose the propaganda for what it is? We all owe LM, a debt of gratitude, for attending and voicing our concerns.

    KR is just trying to confuse the issue, but it’s very simplicity shines through such argument. GK

  100. Many thanks to the commenters here, as always. Just a few answers to scientific points.

    First, it is not difficult to calculate that the Earth’s characteristic-emission temperature is 255 K. That is the temperature that would obtain at the surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since today’s surface temperature is 288 K, the presence as opposed to absence of all the greenhouse gases causes a warming of 33 K.

    Next, I stated my assumption that both insolation and albedo are held constant for the purpose of this calculation precisely so as to confine the temperature change to that for which the presence of greenhouse gases is responsible. This is not an error, as some have suggested, but a standard method that seems to me to be appropriate.

    As for feedbacks, I have surely explained quite clearly that the system equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter I have derived takes full account of the fact that, in the 4.5 billion years since the atmosphere first began to form, very nearly all feedbacks will have acted. That is why the parameter is the “equilibrium” parameter.

    The value 100 Watts per square meter for the radiative forcing arising from the presence as opposed to the absence of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is within the interval 86-125 Watts per square meter for the top five greenhouse gases given in table 3 of Kiehl & Trenberth (1997). Those correspondents who say a much larger value should have been used are implying that climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the equilibrium 1.2 K or thereby that I have calculated.

    A correspondent asks why I have not taken account of natural variability. This is because we are concerned here with the impact of greenhouse gases. My prediction, on the basis of a 1.2 K sensitivity per CO2 doubling, is that manmade warming will be about 1 K this century – not worth worrying about. If you have views on how natural variability may increase or reduce this, feel free – but that was not the purpose of my study.

    Some have suggested that even if we waste money unproductively on making small and harmless global warming go away we shall still leave the same wealth to our descendants. That is to commit the common (or Communist) logical fallacy of ignoring what economists call the “opportunity loss” from the diversion of capital from useful to useless purposes.

    Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest. The pothead takes me to task, inappropriately, for having said (correctly) that I had given advice to Margaret Thatcher on various scientific matters, including climate change, on the ground that “my supporters” had in his view mischaracterized the position by referring to me as her “science advisor”.

    The potboiler also said that I had claimed in 2009 that global cooling since 2001 had been statistically significant, but that I had rebutted myself the following year by saying the cooling since 2001 had been insignificant. To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant, but the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001-2010 was insignificant: both my statements, therefore, were correct, and they were not incompatible with one another.

    I was disinclined to look any further at that drivel. Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him. Perhaps he is convincing the usual suspects, but on the little I have seen he is unlikely to convince anyone else.

  101. Josh says:

    Wonderful stuff, Lord M, thank you!

  102. jim hogg says:

    Well . . . never thought I’d see the day: an AGW believer being lauded by the majority on this site. . . . Admittedly he writes and talks a good game, but his analysis is basically free floating in terms of the real world if it isn’t contextualised in an explanation of natural variability in order that its predictive power can be verified or otherwise. At the moment his argument is just a less extreme version of that deployed by the “team” minus their political dimension of course and that is the more important and welcome difference. But like them he has the luxury of the option of blaming natural variation if his estimation of 1K is out either way.

    The “team” will of course be very encouraged by this display on the flagship of scepticism. Real sceptics are much thinner on the ground than they probably suspected.

  103. John Marshall says:

    Even Lord Monkton has it wrong.

    Take all the ‘greenhouse gasses’ out of the atmosphere and the temperature WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. Because the extra temperature that alarmists accuse GHG’s to supply comes from adiabatic compression. Why does a ‘fridge work? Adiabatic compression and contraction. Why does a bicycle pump get hot when pumping up a tyre? Adiabatic compression.

    At the 1000mb level in the atmosphere of Jupiter the temperature is around 300K ( around 25C). The temperature at the same pressure level on Venus is the same 300K.

    The theory of greenhouse gasses is a false one and even the experiment done by Anthony trying to replicate the Gore heating trick showed that CO2 does not heat up faster than air.

  104. Gary Mount says:

    Has the earths temperature equilibrated yet with the year of 1940 contribution of extra CO2 compared to just natural contributions? How about 1941? 42? Do you see where I am going here. How long does 2 ppm of additional CO2 each year take for equilibrium to be reached? The extra CO2 now in the atmosphere assumed to be from human contributions from pre-industrial times wasn’t just dumped into the atmosphere all at once.
    Has the extra CO2 from the single year of 1940 to now, that’s 70 years, reached a point where we can say the temperature with that extra years contribution of CO2 has now equilibrated? Is it less than 100 % ? if its 100%, when did it become 100% ? I guess I am asking, what’s the lag time, or what’s the mathematical formula or function for additional CO2 before temps have equilibrated.
    Sorry to explain it in different ways twice, but there seem to be assumptions that there is a large amount of missing heat that the global warming theory says should be there, and it is being explained away as not showing up yet because the earth hasn’t equilibrated yet to the extra amount of CO2.
    How can you use this excuse without showing any math. It isn’t science without that math.
    Just to be sure you get my meaning. I don’t expect last weeks extra CO2 to have reached equilibrium, or last years, but surely the CO2 from many years ago must have most if not all of its contribution equilibrated by now.
    This question is not directed to Monckton of Brenchley, but to those who use equilibrium excuses to explain away the missing heat. In other words this is probably just a rhetorical question, as I don’t expect an answer.

  105. @Joel Shore (aka yet another clueless troll)

    “Ah…You do realize, I hope, that scientists have done this calculation and do not agree with you. There is an awful lot of carbon stored in coal reserves, and quite a bit also available in tar sands and other less conventional sources.”

    Monkey say, monkey do….or should it be “Scientists say…so it must be The Way”

    And where do you imagine that carbon within the coal reserves came from? Was it, possibly, wait for it….atmospheric carbon dioxide consumed by plant matter…..carbon based life forms…..?

    What goes around, comes around.

    Its a cycle, stupid.

    Sometimes its up there, sometimes its down below.

    Unlike AGW trolls who are always…out there….

  106. Bob Layson says:

    Nothing makes a better model of the Earth than the Earth itself. Nothing is left out and everything is to scale. The Earth has been much warmer according to the physical record and at times has had an atmosphere with a far greater proportion of carbon-dioxide. The experiment has been run repeatedly. Despite being given such assistance it, the Earth, has not tipped into irreversible thermal runaway.

    (The changing position and shape of the continents should not affect the question. Continents are nothing to the mighty molecule that holds the whole Earth in its sway. Some say.)

  107. Vince Causey says:

    KR says,

    “Monckton acknowledges feedbacks in the 33C total greenhouse effect, but completely ignores them when claiming climate sensitivity is 1.2C/doubling – he’s claiming zero feedbacks. And that is just not an honest presentation.”

    No. Monckton is not claiming that 1.2c of doubling is with zero feedbacks – it is you who are making that claim. Let me try and explain again:

    Lord Monckton has used the temperature increase that the Earth has experience due to greenhouse gases – 33k – and then divided this by 100 to get the climate sensitivity. Why 100? Because that is what he claims is the consensual figure for the total forcing due to greenhouse gases – 100 watts per metre squared. This gives a ballpark value of 0.33k per watt of forcing. He then asks – what is the forcing predicted to occur due to a doubling of co2? A figure of 3.7 watts per metre squared is then used. So, if the warming due to greenhouse gases gives a sensistivity of 0.33k, then the projected warming for another 3.7 watts of forcing must be 1.2k.

    That’s all there is to it. There is nothing in there about ignoring feedbacks. I don’t know where you get this idea from. On second thoughts, perhaps I do. It is generally agreed that doubling co2 without feedbacks would lead to an increase in temperature of 1.2k. This is coincidental, but Monckton’s calculation does have one interesting idea. It shows that the warming to be expected including all feedbacks is the same as the theoretical warming as per Stefan Boltzman, that would occur without feedbacks. In other words, the net effect of feedbacks is close to zero. This would suggest negative feedbacks are also operating (as Lindzen has often claimed). Whatever the reason, he is not saying that 1.2k is warming without feedbacks, but that 1.2k is the warming and feedbacks appear to cancel each other out.

    If you still have problems understanding this, please say, stating the points you disagree with or don’t understand and I will try and help you.

  108. Blade says:

    KR [December 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm] says:

    And given the ~100ppm increase from 280 to 390, or roughly 1/3 of a doubling, a 1C increase is just about what we should expect.

    That is no doubt what *you* would expect in your CO2 obsessed fantasy world. Why do I say that? It’s simple. I say that because in that one short sentence you took not one, but *two* gigantic leaps of faith for your religious cult …

    [1] You just assigned 100% (not 99% or 50% or 30%) of that alleged CO2 100ppm increase to the human industrial revolution, and nothing at all from volcanoes or LIA warmup or the 800 year lag.

    [2] You just assigned 100% (not 99% or 50% or 30%) of that alleged (~average~) temperature rise to CO2 increase and nothing at all from the warmup since the LIA.

    Therefore the only logical conclusion is that your religion obviously implies that the Little Ice Age never even happened. We are still in the same climate as the ‘Little Ice Age’ but for man’s horrible activities which cranked up the temp a whole degree or so.

    I might ask if you and your comrades would really prefer to live in the climate of the 17th or 18th or 19th centuries but you would pass it of as rhetorical and not answer anyway. Likewise I might also ask if you and your comrades would really prefer to live in a pre-industrial society with it’s dramatically shorter lifespan and complete lack of comfort. But I won’t.

    This is why so many people see your green religious cult as an amalgamation of Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown (suicide) with a side order of Scientology (cash scam) thrown in.

    The only way to achieve this fossil fuel-less fantasy world is to go back to candles, animal oil lamps, fur coats and fireplaces. Yeah, that’ll work well. Hundreds of millions of homes and apartment complexes in the USA, *each* with candles burning and fireplaces in use. What could possible go wrong! Entire cities will burn to the ground once again. And there’s this, consider what happens when we cut all the forests down to get wood (forests that have benefited immensely by the sane and logical move to *fossil* fuels), CO2 levels will increase anyway because we will destroy more natural carbon sinks. Congratulations!

    The only other possible scenario involves liquidating more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot ever dreamed by several orders of magnitude. Is that where green takes us? Of course it is.

  109. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @KR

    No doubt you can demonstrate your knowledge and analytical wisdom in a debate with Monckton.

    Challenge him to one.

    Bring a pencil, you may want to take notes.

    “~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks!”

    Whose ‘science”? You have taken certain statements by certain people and accepted them as ‘science’ while statements from other people are ‘nonsense’ because they do not agree with those of the first. Do you accept Micheal Mann’s work on temperature series as ‘science’? I don’t.

    Apparently you find some people to be the priests of science who have to be believed and other who are not of the annointed. Well, there is no room for priestcraft in science.

    >The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C…

    Excuse me, but who has such expectations? Certainly not serious investigations of feedbacks in the past 5 years. The figure of 3.3 was generated from simple GCM’s more than a decade ago and is defended to the death (the death of logic) by a crowd which may include you on the basis that the models produced believable results. I suggest that the models are not a reliable source of information and your second post wherein you cite a model as your authority for proof of the figure is correct is ridiculous.

    >…– and while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here.

    As you clearly do not understand what Monckton has written, and several posters above have pointed out your error, it is perhaps better that you take some time off the catch up with the state of the art.

    You mention several worn canards about how the heat is hidden, ‘oceans are big,’ and how Beck and Ramsdorf refuted anyone. These are the arguments of the past dragged up when you are stuck in a corner.

    The sensitivity is 3.3 is not there, the models were wrong, the amplification by water vapour is not only what you have imagined but quite possibly low or even negative as extra heat dissipation from the lower troposhpere via convection is strongly linked to temperature. Read Bejan, A who actually knows about convective heat dissipation.

    >”This bit by Monckton is complete and utter nonsense.”

    This is typical of your communications. You have so much to say that is personal epithet that were you to now produce an argument that might give me pause, your history of ad hominem as a strange form of scientific argument rules you out as a witness. If you spent perhaps less time telling me what a terrible person it is who make such cogent arguments you would yourself be more believable. Why not go the whole hog and imagine it is 1620 and point to Monckton and shout, “He’s a witch! He’s a witch!”. You could could get some villagers riled up to perhaps cast him on a fire. It might silence him better than your hopeless straw-clutching. But it will not enhance the sensitivity of the atmosphere.

    Your main rebuttal consists of
    – he is leaving out the feedbacks (which are included and was pointed out to you several times)
    – he is an unbelievable guy, just like you
    – he does not understand and misrepresents the facts, which you on the other hand have full knowledge of by virtue of your having read other works which you accept and believe
    – that Trenberth’s missing ocean heat is the reason we are not much hotter this year than 10 years ago
    – that water vapour is a feedback not a forcing (ably demonstrated by Willis to be a forcing, but him you do not regard as having priestly robes)

    As the most important GHG by far is water vapour it is not clear how far you will get in understanding the climate if you persist in parrotting the initial (and incorrect) response by the Team that H2O is ‘only a feedback’. Good grief we have moved on that that simplistic notion more than a decade ago. I believe you do not undestand this point be cause you said that basically if there were no non-condensible GHG’s there would be no water vapour in the atmosphere. That statement is models all the way down. You programme a model to say so, then cite the output of the model as proof of your conjecture. This is an interesting variation of ‘you get what you give’.

  110. G. Karst says:

    Monckton of Brenchley:

    We have your back. Do not be overly concerned by trolls and detractors here. We will deal with them. Concentrate on your Durban mission. The world is being slowly strangled, not by CO2, but by evil, corrupted men, who have designs on the very freedoms they are exploiting.

    I may be an old man, but when I grow up, I want to be just like you… fearless and wise. GK

  111. Jack Greer says:

    Monckton says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:12 am
    [snip]
    Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest. The pothead takes me to task, inappropriately, for having said (correctly) that I had given advice to Margaret Thatcher on various scientific matters, including climate change, on the ground that “my supporters” had in his view mischaracterized the position by referring to me as her “science advisor”.

    The potboiler also said that I had claimed in 2009 that global cooling since 2001 had been statistically significant, but that I had rebutted myself the following year by saying the cooling since 2001 had been insignificant. To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant, but the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001-2010 was insignificant: both my statements, therefore, were correct, and they were not incompatible with one another.

    I was disinclined to look any further at that drivel. Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him. Perhaps he is convincing the usual suspects, but on the little I have seen he is unlikely to convince anyone else.

    It’s interesting that Mr. Monckton actually gives a form of advertizement to a well-reasoned critic who exposes Monckton’s techniques of misinformation. Included, very specifically, is commentary about Monckton’s debate techniques – how he’s able to buffalo people through technique, not expertise. Since so many here on WUWT are enamored of his debate prowess, this would seem of great interest to posters here at WUWT. “Potholer54″ discusses that aspect with spot-on clarity. Here’s a link to part 1 of 5. Please take a few minutes to better understand why so many are justifiably critical of Mr. Monckton. Again, he’s accurately viewed as showman with specific intent, and that’s not truth or honesty.

  112. NK says:

    KR/Vince Causey– you 2 may have started a polite discussion let me add this I am a skeptic of C-AGW. Catastrophic — AGW. I find the most credible skeptics Lindzen, Crichton and –yes– good Lord Monckton. The physics of AGW is sound, and so is the 1.2C limit of temp increase from doubling CO2. That’s AGW theory. Where does “C” come from? Feedbacks. Where does the the 3.3C runaway global warming come from? MODEL OUTPUT! KR, you have to admit these facts, so your belief structure is based on model output. So, where does model output come from? Depends. Does the model take real data and make logical sense of it? Those models do exist– because of engineering models planes fly and bridges stand without having to use trial and error. Other models are suspect– take for example the Mortgage Backed Securities risk model ca. 2005 — how did that end up? So KR, since your belief structure is tied up in these feedback models, you may want to examine their validity. We know Mann’s dendrothermometer model suffered from dubious data and fraudulent cherry picking data. You’ll find that the IPCC models do the same with regard to positive feedback assumptions to get to 3.3C, in order to get to CATASTROPHIC GW, because if it isn’t Ctastrophic, no one will give them any money or power. Carry on.

  113. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Jack Greer says: December 6, 2011 at 8:16 am “…well-reasoned critic…”

    Jack, in a masochistic half-hour last night I viewed “Potholer”‘s videos. The man is a dishonest hack playing “gotcha” with a sincere sounding, plummy voice (and as they say, “once you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made”). It constantly amazes me how folks like you can swallow drivel like that with relish and then congratulate yourselves on your critical thinking skills. Potholer is a professional journalist, Jack. Does that give you a clue?

  114. Jack Greer says:

    rep49 says:
    December 6, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Jack Greer says: December 6, 2011 at 8:16 am “…well-reasoned critic…”

    Jack, in a masochistic half-hour last night I viewed “Potholer”‘s videos. The man is a dishonest hack playing “gotcha” with a sincere sounding, plummy voice (and as they say, “once you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made”). It constantly amazes me how folks like you can swallow drivel like that with relish and then congratulate yourselves on your critical thinking skills. Potholer is a professional journalist, Jack. Does that give you a clue?

    Drat! I neglected to include the link, above. Here it is- in fact, here THEY are, as the debate technique is featured in part 2:
    1 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyk3rSqjgsY&feature=related
    2 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjxCRtGMB-A&feature=related
    3 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arkBsZTO_0w&feature=related
    4 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1HR8zU0MU&feature=related
    5 => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGiWy0DGJ9s&feature=related

    Yes, Monckton has a degree in journalism and therefore should know better – I think that’s addressed in clip 5.

    rep49, and I mean this in the most serious way, if the skeptics here at WUWT can view these videos and not clearly see Monckton’s technique of, in my opinion, intentional deception, my goodness, there’s no hope for you as reasonable, thinking individuals. Seriously.

  115. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    As for feedbacks, I have surely explained quite clearly that the system equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter I have derived takes full account of the fact that, in the 4.5 billion years since the atmosphere first began to form, very nearly all feedbacks will have acted. That is why the parameter is the “equilibrium” parameter.

    I have clearly explained in the previous comment why your calculation does not include the water vapor feedback: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-819743

    Since this seems to be falling on deaf ears, let me try to do it using an analogy. Suppose that Bill Gates makes an offer that for every dollar the public contributes to fight hunger, he’ll throw in $4. Now, let’s suppose that this program operates for one year: The public contributes $20 million, Bill Gates throws in another $80 million, and it is found that with this total of $100 million, 1 million people can be fed.

    How much would the public have to contribute in order to feed 5 million hungry people the next year? What Monckton would say is the following: Since we have found it takes $100 million to feed 1 million people, it costs $100 to feed one person. Therefore, you should multiply the 5 million by the $100 and the conclusion is that the public has to contribute $500 million.

    What I am arguing is that Monckton is ignoring the “Bill Gates” feedback. In fact, the public only has to contribute $100 million because Bill Gates will throw in $400 million for a total of $500 million and hence 5 million people will be fed.

    What Monckton seems to be saying in response is that his calculation included the Bill Gates feedback because he calculated the result that it costs $100 per person to feed the poor using both the amount that the public had contributed ($20 million) and the amount from the Bill Gates feedback ($80 million).

    Can people now see why Monckton’s argument is incorrect? It really isn’t that difficult.

  116. View from the Solent. Great link to the Guardian article. CO2 increased by half in 20 years.

    Question: If CO2 causes AGW because of man. And the scientist at the CRU tell us the earth is going to heat up. We should have seen same warming in the last 20 years, if CO2 has increased by half in 20 years.

    Where is the warming?

    My conclusion: CO2 does not cause AGW.

  117. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Jack Greer says: December 6, 2011 at 9:01 am
    I mean this in the most serious way, if the skeptics here at WUWT can view these videos and not clearly see Monckton’s technique of, in my opinion, intentional deception, my goodness, there’s no hope for you as reasonable, thinking individuals. Seriously.

    rep49 is my handle on another site and I asked the moderators to edit it. Sorry for the confusion. I think your last sentence just about sums it up: confirmation bias and arrogance…. not to mention that it sounds like a thinly veiled threat: “…most serious way…” Really? Seriously? Monckton was there to witness how a scientific curiousity got turned into a major political gambit. It was never about “the science”. I really shudder to think of people like you being in charge of things…. but I figure you won’t be. Believers like you should really learn from the past: find out what happened to the Old Bolsheviks.

  118. wayne says:

    “As the West goes bust, drowned under the sheer cost of the ever-expanding State, the UN, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the UNEP and the WMO are luxuries we can no longer afford and will no longer pay for. Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.”

    Hear, hear… Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley !

  119. Smokey says:

    I would like to see Jack Greer and Joel Shore team up and debate Lord Monckton, two on one if they like. Moderator, debate rules and venue chosen by mutual agreement. That way Jack won’t have anything to snivel about, and Joel can go into his esoteric explanations while never looking out the window to see that there is no climate disruption in progress; tha planet is falsifying his belief system.

    Just FYI, Monckton’s last couple of debates – where there were strict rules and moderation:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

    I don’t make climate predictions, but in this case I predict that Jack and Joel will tuck their tails between their hind legs and decline to issue the challenge. Pot shots from the sidelines are their style.

  120. KLA says:

    John Marshall says:
    December 6, 2011 at 2:42 am
    Even Lord Monkton has it wrong.

    Take all the ‘greenhouse gasses’ out of the atmosphere and the temperature WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. Because the extra temperature that alarmists accuse GHG’s to supply comes from adiabatic compression. Why does a ‘fridge work? Adiabatic compression and contraction. Why does a bicycle pump get hot when pumping up a tyre? Adiabatic compression.

    John,
    You included your own counter-argument. Touch a bicycle tire a few minutes after pumping it up. It has the same pressure as the gas in the pump at the last stroke. But it isn’t hot. It’s the act of INCREASING the pressure in the pump that causes the temperature increase, not the pressure itself. Pumping requires work, and that work gets converted into heat energy that can be felt on the bicycle pump walls, and gets radiated away quickly by the tire walls. Therefore the adiabatic compression argument does not work because the pressure at each altitude is approximately constant and not changing (no energy expended).

  121. Vince Causey says:

    Joel Shore,

    Let me try and understand your analogy, and then see if I agree with it.

    You are saying that raising the first $100m to feed 1 million people is the equivalent to Monckton’s argument that greenhouse gases have raised temperatures by 33k using 100 watts per metre squared of forcing. When you divide $100m by 1 million people it therefore costs $100 per person.

    You then go on to say by analogy, that Monckton’s argument is saying that to feed 5 million people the public would have to raise $5m, whereas, because of the Gates feedback, they only have to raise $100m.

    The problem I have with this argument is that it implicitly includes the feedback into the 100 watts per metre squared greenhouse gas forcing mentioned above. In other words, you are saying that this 100 watts is not just greenhouse gas forcing but forcing plus all feedbacks, and therefore the actual greenhouse gas forcing without the feedbacks would be a lot less. Or to put it another way, the 100 watts includes feedbacks whereas the 3.7 watts for a doubling does not include feedbacks.

    I am not sure you are right.

    I don’t think that 100 watts includes feedbacks. I’ve never seen anywhere feedbacks to be assigned flux densities. The Trenberth energy budget diagram shows the back radiation from greenhouse gases, but there is nothing on feedbacks. Feedbacks are computed within models using given forcings. I know Monckton explicitly mentions that feedbacks have “fully acted” but I took that to mean that the resultant temperature increase must obviously be because of forcing plus feedback, not that the 100 watts figure itself included feedbacks.

    However, if you can convince me with evidence that that 100 watts includes feedbacks then I will concede the point.

  122. Jack Greer says:

    @Robert E. Phelan says:
    December 6, 2011 at 9:36 am

    The videos document cold, hard facts and techniques that I have witnessed first hand in live interviews with Monckton. It’s not confirmation bias, it’s blatantly obvious to reasonable people, Robert. Fabricated quotes, constantly misrepresenting scientific articles, being corrected fabricated quotes or by article authors re: misrepresentations but then proceeding with continued offenses, complete misunderstanding of fundamental climate scientific findings, and on infinitum. I’ve heard him make statements in radio interviews on a given scientific topic that is designed to generate a specific impression. Invariably when a knowledgeable listener calls and challenges Monckton’s claim he backtracks with a knowing comment that leaves a different, more accurate impression. In other words, he misleads with absolute intent. He does it continually and you folks are like zombies oblivious to damning evidence that expose Monckton for what he is … a showman and charlatan with a mission.

  123. Joel Shore says:

    Just one modification to my Bill Gates feedback analogy ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-820816 ): It is more perfectly analogous to the current situation if one assumes that Bill Gates does not publicly disclose the rate at which he matches contributions. Hence, the data you have is that when the total amount of money (both public contributions + Bill Gates undisclosed matching) was $100 million, one was able to feed 1 million people. And, the question becomes how much the public would have to contribute to feed 5 million people.

    To actually see how well the Monckton-like claim that the public would have to contribute $500 million, one can then assume that we, as omniscient beings watching this, happen to know that the Bill Gates feedback operates by him contributing at a 4-to-1 ratio. We could then see how well the Monckton-like claim compares to the reality that the public would only have to contribute $100 million. And, the answer is clearly that the Monckton-like claim fails miserably because the amount that it predicts the public must contribute is correct only if the Bill Gates feedback were completely absent.

    Smokey says:

    I don’t make climate predictions, but in this case I predict that Jack and Joel will tuck their tails between their hind legs and decline to issue the challenge. Pot shots from the sidelines are their style.

    What you call “pot shots from the sidelines” are in fact engaging Monckton on the substantive points that he has made here. Monckton has made an argument so let’s evaluate the argument.

    This is a better way to proceed than to have a public debate, since the evolution vs creation arguments have shown that public debates are not a very good way to have the best science “win” (unless you believe that creationism is the best science). And, if you actually think about this, it is not surprising why a skilled debater for the “skeptic” side will tend to win in such forums: All that person has to do is raise doubts, so if they make enough poor arguments, it simply takes too long to rebut all of the arguments. You, Smokey, are a perfect example of this…We waste all of our time explaining many times whey certain graphs you posted are deceptive…and yet you continue to waste our time with these deceptions.

    Better to do what we are doing here: Monckton is presenting an argument which he clearly thinks is quite brilliant and we are evaluating it.

  124. Martin Lewitt says:

    Joel Shore,

    “However, if you are going to argue this, then what you are arguing is that you don’t believe in the positive feedbacks; you have not shown from real-world data that the earth’s climate system does not have such positive feedbacks (which is what Monckton is essentially claiming to have shown).”

    No, it has nothing to do with “belief” in positive feedbacks or not, Monckton could just be showing that the earth does not have NET positive feedback, which is the key scientific dispute. Even though water vapor is a positive feedback, there is no evidence that the net feedback of the water cycle taken as a whole is positive rather than negative in the current climate regime. ALL the AR4 climate models under represented the increase in precipitation associated with the warming by more than a factor of two, see Wentz’s publication in Science (2007). A couple more turns of the water cycle can transport a lot of heat higher in the troposphere. The surface albedo feedback is positive too, but ALL the models are correlated in under representing that as well, while allegedly “matching” the climate doubling the error with some other component (thinking linearly). (Andreas Roesch 2007). The models eventually catch up with the surface feedback and run wild after 2050 or so. Just about every other significant feedback in the climate system is negative, it is a heat engine after all, transporting heat to higher altitudes and poleward to radiate it into space. Clouds are probably the biggest area of uncertainty, the albedo of the earth without them is much lower 0.09 to 0.14, giving a planck temperature of just below freezeing globally average. So the much warmer tropics would be liberating a lot of water vapor even without CO2, snowball earth is not a forgone conclusion.

    If you have any conclusive model independent evidence that the NET feedback to CO2 forcing in the current climate regime is positive rather than negative then you know something the rest of the climate community doesn’t, and we would all hope that you would share it.

  125. Joel Shore says:

    Vince Causey says:

    The problem I have with this argument is that it implicitly includes the feedback into the 100 watts per metre squared greenhouse gas forcing mentioned above. In other words, you are saying that this 100 watts is not just greenhouse gas forcing but forcing plus all feedbacks, and therefore the actual greenhouse gas forcing without the feedbacks would be a lot less. Or to put it another way, the 100 watts includes feedbacks whereas the 3.7 watts for a doubling does not include feedbacks.

    Exactly. And, Monckton is indeed implicitly including the water vapor feedback because he is basing that 100 W on the total effect of greenhouse gases ***including the water vapor that is present***. However, the whole point is that if we removed the non-condensable greenhouse gases, then the temperature would cool, some of that water vapor would be removed from the atmosphere and the total effect of greenhouse gases would decrease not just due to the removal of the non-condensable gases but also because of the removal of some of the water vapor.

  126. long pig says:

    Juraj V. says:
    December 5, 2011 at 10:37 am
    Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler.
    ————————
    I do not agree.
    1/ That 33K is non-physical nonsense, calculating Earth without “greenhouse gases” but still considering albedo of 0.3, which is made mostly by clouds (=condensed greenhouse gas).

    Of course the removal of greenhouse gasses without affecting albedo is impossible. But Monckton’s argument still works. Its like the mathematical device of the values i and j – i.e. the square root of minus one etc. Impossible. But used in mathematical derivations they produce valid results.

  127. long pig says:

    So the trolls are all shouting “feedback” as the predictable response. They are willfully ignoring the research quoted by Monckton of Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, whose sensitivity measurement, which is based on real world data from 1750, gives a result which agrees with Monckton’s theoretically derived figure of 1.2 C / doubling.

    REAL WORLD DATA INCLUDES FEEDBACKS!

  128. Martin Lewitt says:

    Joel Shore,

    If evolution loses to creationism in a debate, it is probably because the person supporting the evolution side assumed the other person was stupid, and so didn’t prepare. People who believe in creationism are modern humans just like the rest of us, if evolution and anthropology have taught us anything, it is don’t underestimate a modern human.

  129. Vince Causey says:

    Joel Shore,

    I wrote: “In other words, you are saying that this 100 watts is not just greenhouse gas forcing but forcing plus all feedbacks, and therefore the actual greenhouse gas forcing without the feedbacks would be a lot less.”

    And you replied: “Exactly. And, Monckton is indeed implicitly including the water vapor feedback because he is basing that 100 W on the total effect of greenhouse gases ***including the water vapor that is present***.”

    But, I then went on to express doubt that this 100 watts includes feedbacks at all, and that it consists of forcing alone. You say that Monckton is implicitly including water vapour feedback, and you suggest that this is the case because he is basing that 100w on the total effect of greenhouse gases. But is this true? So far you have not offered any evidence that this is the case. Monckton said in his post on this thread that this value comes from Trenberth. Well, it should be easy to confirm or refute. Either the 100w includes feedbacks or it doesn’t. I say it doesn’t and you say it does. Where do we go from here?

  130. wayne says:

    @ John Marshall (December 6, 2011 at 2:42 am):

    I agree. It is all in the atmosphere’s mass, therefore pressure. Vastly different molecular species of the other planet’s and moon’s atmospheres with vastly different mean molecular weights but the temperature is per the pressure and especially if you apply the density-at-pressure-level correction (mass attenuation coefficient).

    Thanks for highlighting that “inconvenient” fact from the astrophysics side. C. Monckton is correct on the political and policy side, shut them all down, but still off on the science side explanation, he’s still hanging out that “carbon dioxide warms planetary atmospheres” notion (really, any GHG).

    GHG’s only speed energy transfer by high emissivity radiation lines across space (distance) compared to conduction, convection and/or state changes of matter and in the end, all energy leaves by it. All matter radiates when above absolute zero depending solely on its locally corrected emissivity. All gases absorb energy by mass extinction coefficient even if there are no emission lines present in a molecular species. There are so many hidden truths being totally ignored by both sides.

    On Christopher’s side though I think he clearly placed bounds on what he was explaining above. Explicitly no GHG’s but the albedo remaining identical. That is the key (and rather nonsensical).

    With no GHG’s there would be no clouds, so up the TSI reaching the surface. Also if no GHG’s, no evaporation/transpiration, so decrease energy leaving the surface by the hydro cycle. Thermals would still occur, leave that in. Yes more would radiate directly to space (390-239) but that does not immediately imply cooler for the increased solar radiation and decreased movement by the water cycle would more than compensate that 151 Wm-2, offset by the 79+80 or 159 Wm-2 per TKF(2009) graphic, I see most likely a bit warmer with no GHG’s, not cooler. (I hear rumbles, heresy! Ok, how about no change at all)

    Real physics is so symmetrical !! (maybe that’s why I always see these pesky equal signs everywhere, darn them. Could conjure up one scary universe without them.☺)

  131. Vince Causey says:

    Jack Greer,

    “In other words, he misleads with absolute intent. He does it continually and you folks are like zombies oblivious to damning evidence that expose Monckton for what he is … a showman and charlatan with a mission.”

    And what is your mission here, Jack?

    Apart from a litany of ad hominem attacks you have not given even one example of these “Fabricated quotes”, or that he is “constantly misrepresenting scientific articles.”

    You say: “I’ve heard him make statements in radio interviews on a given scientific topic that is designed to generate a specific impression. Invariably when a knowledgeable listener calls and challenges Monckton’s claim he backtracks with a knowing comment that leaves a different, more accurate impression.”

    Great! So you have actually heard him make statements that another “knowledgeable” listener has called him on. Then you should have no problem offering concrete examples.

    I’m sorry, but to me this is just so much arm waving.

  132. Julian Flood says:

    KR says: December 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    quote
    But – a big part of that 33C is water vapor and clouds, which change concentration in the atmosphere as feedbacks (as a rough approximation, relative humidity remains close to constant with long duration temperature changes, while relative/absolute humidity increases with temperature).
    unquote

    It is entirely possible that we have altered the way that water vapour is controlled by natural processes — for example, altering the number and/or composition and size of aerosols may change the precipitation regime, with concomitant effects on humidity. Removing hygroscopic particles, for instance, slows the uptake of water vapour. This means that water vapour might well be a forcing (in the ghastly parlance of climate change) and as such would invalidate your calculations above. Not only water vapour, of course, the effect on clouds would be even more pronounced.

    Interesting graphs earlier with humidity at low level remaining steady (no slope on the grapph, I’d guess a very slow rise) while higher up humidity is falling. WTH is going on there?

    One of the more unconvincing aspects of climate science is how capacious it is — if a paper appeared tomorrow showing a large forcing from e.g. agricultural dust, then by nightfall the new forcing would be incorporated into the scheme and the calculated sensitivity would remain unchanged. It’s like some mysterious and mystic bag which the conjurer can fill with anything and still pull out the same tired old rabbit.

    JF

  133. Julian Flood says:

    Dave Wendt says: December 5, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    quote
    The above paper is based on spectral analysis of downwelling longwave radiation at the Pole and one interesting thing that they suggest is that CO2 is responsible for fully a third of the DLR signal there, H2O gets the other 2/3rds, but this very likely makes the South Pole the one spot on Earth where its contribution to the GHE is at its maximum. It’s particularly interesting if you are aware of what the temps have been doing there over the last 40 or 50 years.
    unquote

    Go on, I dare you! Produce a theory that rising CO2 levels cause cooling. It’s worth it to see Mosher’s head explode…

    JF

  134. Stas Peterson says:

    KR,

    Ben Santer is an a$$. He say he needs 17 years to predict trends. Nonsense. Did anyone ask why? The reality is the temperature actually stopped climbing in 1995 except for the “Super Nina” year of 1998. That is weather NOT climate, as even the charlatans of EAU and PSU freely admit.

    So we have temperature stasis or decline since 1995. 2012 -1995 equals 17 years, Mr. Santer.

    Match. Set. Game!!.

    I look forward to Mr. Santer entering unsubsidized retirement and doing Science as was done for Millenia by disinterested and unsubsidized true Scientists, post november 2012. I’d actually like to see what he says when he is not induced by money to say one thing.

  135. G. Karst says:

    Joel Shore says:
    December 6, 2011 at 10:43 am

    However, the whole point is that if we removed the non-condensable greenhouse gases, then the temperature would cool, some of that water vapor would be removed from the atmosphere and the total effect of greenhouse gases would decrease not just due to the removal of the non-condensable gases but also because of the removal of some of the water vapor.

    If this were true ANY cooling causes WVapor to condense and all cooling would terminate in a snowball earth. You are merely reversing your meme that all warming will result in run-away warming because of positive feedback. The entire human history falsifies your conjecture. Never happened… ever. GK

  136. shawnhet says:

    Frankly, I don’t think MoncKton’s argument here addresses the issue. If you assume that increased CO2 will increase temperature on its own, then it will also increase water vapor in the atmosphere which will increase the GH effect by some amount on top of that.

    A much better approach IMO is to try and figure out whether the assumed WV feedback is reasonable. Personally, I have always wondered why when the numbers for CO2 assume that there have been the equivalent of ~8 doublings of CO2 to reach the current GH levels in the atmosphere(32Wm-2 of CO2 GH effect ~ 3.7Wm-2 per doubling) whereas there has only been the equivalent of 3.5 doublings of WV (each 6% increase in WV yields ~2Wm-2 in GH effect yields about 20W-m2 per doubling giving ~ 3.5 doublings of WV to reach 75Wm-2) despite WV being much more common(by molecule) in the atmosphere.

    Cheers, :)

  137. Joel Shore says:

    Vince Causey says:

    You say that Monckton is implicitly including water vapour feedback, and you suggest that this is the case because he is basing that 100w on the total effect of greenhouse gases. But is this true? So far you have not offered any evidence that this is the case. Monckton said in his post on this thread that this value comes from Trenberth. Well, it should be easy to confirm or refute. Either the 100w includes feedbacks or it doesn’t. I say it doesn’t and you say it does. Where do we go from here?

    We look at Table 3 of the Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 paper http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf and see that indeed the 100 W/m^2 includes water vapor. (Note that the table shows the clear and cloudy sky results and Monckton has represented it as something between the two.)

  138. Jack Greer says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Jack Greer,

    “In other words, he misleads with absolute intent. He does it continually and you folks are like zombies oblivious to damning evidence that expose Monckton for what he is … a showman and charlatan with a mission.”

    And what is your mission here, Jack?

    Apart from a litany of ad hominem attacks you have not given even one example of these “Fabricated quotes”, or that he is “constantly misrepresenting scientific articles.” [...etc.]

    Hey Vince, I made it easy enough for you already. I posted 5 videos worth of actual examples, above. Take a few minutes and view them.

    The mission is to expose a fraud so that attention can be refocused toward constructive examination of climate issues.

  139. Joel Shore says:

    G. Karst says:

    If this were true ANY cooling causes WVapor to condense and all cooling would terminate in a snowball earth. You are merely reversing your meme that all warming will result in run-away warming because of positive feedback. The entire human history falsifies your conjecture. Never happened… ever. GK

    AGW skeptic fallacy #107: A positive feedback leads to a run-away warming or cooling.

    Actual fact: Consider the infinite geometric series 1 + (1/2) + (1/4) + (1/8) + (1/16) + … It does not diverge but rather converges to the value 2. Hence, if the water feedback produces an additional half-degree of warming for every one degree of warming caused by anything else, then the net result in this case will be a doubling of the climate sensitivity, not a divergence.

  140. Joel Shore says:

    Martin Lewitt says:

    No, it has nothing to do with “belief” in positive feedbacks or not, Monckton could just be showing that the earth does not have NET positive feedback, which is the key scientific dispute.

    You can’t demonstrate something by assuming it to be true, which is what Monckton’s argument here is doing…It is completely circular.

    If you have any conclusive model independent evidence that the NET feedback to CO2 forcing in the current climate regime is positive rather than negative then you know something the rest of the climate community doesn’t, and we would all hope that you would share it.

    The subject of this thread is not to prove to your satisfaction whether or not the net feedback is positive. There is plenty of evidence that it is, as discussed in the IPCC report, but the subject of the current discussion is something much more basic, which is whether Monckton has succeeded in showing that it isn’t. And, the answer is that he hasn’t…He has just made some major blunders.

  141. Joel Shore says:

    long pig says:

    So the trolls are all shouting “feedback” as the predictable response. They are willfully ignoring the research quoted by Monckton of Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, whose sensitivity measurement, which is based on real world data from 1750, gives a result which agrees with Monckton’s theoretically derived figure of 1.2 C / doubling.

    REAL WORLD DATA INCLUDES FEEDBACKS!

    Real world data also includes uncertainties. And, you have to interpret real world data correctly. The two major problems with Monckton’s interpretation:

    (1) In fact, the climate models predict a significant difference between the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response. This is mainly because the oceans have a high thermal mass and warm so slowly. You can look in the IPCC report here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html#table-8-2 and see what various models predict for the transient climate response; it is generally quite a bit lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity of the model.

    (2) The simple fact is that the uncertainties in the radiative forcings are just too great to get a very tight estimate of the climate sensitivity from the instrumental temperature record. The forcings due to the greenhouse gases are known to quite good accuracy but the forcing due to anthropogenic aerosols is not. By varying this forcing within the uncertainty ranges, you can get almost any result you want for the climate sensitivity (really the transient climate response) from this data. That is why the best constraints on climate sensitivity come from combining empirical data from a variety of other things, such as the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption or the temperature diference between the LGM (last glacial maximum) and now.

  142. Vince Causey says:

    Joel,

    Thanks for the link. I can see from Trenberth’s radiation budget that there is about 360 watts per metre squared of back radiation due to greenhouse gases. This, I presume, is what they call “forcing” of greenhouse gases.

    The problem is, this gives a climate sensitivity of 33k/360watts or 0.091k per watt of forcing, which gives an even lower sensitivity than Monckton is claiming.

  143. Joel Shore says:

    Vince Causey says:

    Thanks for the link. I can see from Trenberth’s radiation budget that there is about 360 watts per metre squared of back radiation due to greenhouse gases. This, I presume, is what they call “forcing” of greenhouse gases.

    You presume incorrectly. Look at Table 3 where they clearly give the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases, labeled as such.

  144. Vince Causey says:

    Jack Greer,

    “Hey Vince, I made it easy enough for you already. I posted 5 videos worth of actual examples, above. Take a few minutes and view them.”

    I have viewed the first one. Interesting points were made, but the overall impression I came away with is mostly nit picking, although the cynic in me would say “pot is calling the kettle black.”

    What have we got here then? Monckton cherry picked start and end points to support a conclusion of cooling? You don’t say! Can we apply the same even handedness to Michael Manns hockey stick and other studies? No, thought not. None of this however will alter the fact that there has been no temperature increase since 1998.

    He also launches into righteous indignation about misquoting from a scientific report on Greenland ice. To see such righteous indignation from him is amusing, because he says nothing – I mean nothing – about the raft of misquoted papers that have been published in the IPCC.

    See the thread on WUWT “IPCC Brand Science™ – extrapolating 10 himalayan glaciers to speak for 54,000 – meanwhile Himalayagate 2 is evolving over the Stern Report” to see how the Asia group misrepresents the Stern report which in turns misrepresents the Barnett paper on Himalayan glaciers. They are other examples too, including Amazon rainforest.

    The rest of the video seemed to consist of some general muck raking over Monckton’s past, or his qualifications.

    Well, people are entitled to their opinion. If you like to think of Monckton as a showman and charlatan, that’s your privilege. However, please remove the plank from thine own eye before trying to remove the speck from mine.

    And nobody here is sceptical of AGW because they have seen Monckton give a lecture and have suddenly “seen the light.” We have been following debates here at WUWT for quite a while and looking at the evidence from all sides, and the evidence on the AGW side has been found wanting. If you want to change peoples minds, I would suggest spending more time presenting the science, and less chasing after Monckton. I guess the same goes for that pothole bloke who seems to be suffering from some kind of obsessive disorder.

    All I want to say is just open your mind and apply your criticisms even handedly to both sides of the debate, if you can.

  145. Matt G says:

    KR says:
    December 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    Matt G – I’ll point you to Dessler 2010 (http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf) looking at 5 or 6 specific humidity trend analyses. They show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with increasing temperature.

    This paper tries to dismiss long term negative feedback observed trends with much shorter observed periods recently. The reason for this is only just because El Nino shows positive feedback short term, long term must obey the signal for El Nino. This is clearly false and contradicted in the same paper because the data even included in this paper, shows decline for over a decade after the El Nino of 1998. Therefore it is already in this short period behaving differently to the El Nino and at the same time shows a negative feedback.

    Amazing that the short term data since the 1998 El Nino actually supports the long term negative trend, that they dismiss in the tropical mid and upper troposphere. Measurements from the AIRS instrument since 2003 also show a decline. All the recent data is now backing the NCEP/NCAR that was wrongly claimed to be incorrect.

  146. David says:

    Joel Shore says:
    December 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    True, but you have to add the w.a.g. IPCC feedbacks to the direct CO2 forcing, and the historical record does not support that, as Monckton pointed out. Hell Joel we do not even know how long at what levels CO2 forcing is lograrythmic, 1 ppm to 2 ppm? 5 ppm to 10ppm?, 500 to 1000?. It truly is a WAG and nothing to base global policy on, as the world is not conforming to the predicted disasters.

  147. HankHenry says:

    Joel Shore says:
    “This is mainly because the oceans have a high thermal mass and warm so slowly.”

    I wonder how slowly? Slowly enough that the oceans are still warming from the last ice age? There is a lot of cold water in the deep ocean and if I remember grade school science correctly the weight of the earth’s atmosphere only amounts to 33 feet of water and average ocean depth is something like 14,000 feet.

  148. Martin Lewitt says:

    Joel Shore,

    “the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption or the temperature diference between the LGM (last glacial maximum) and now” don’t give you a sensitivity to CO2 forcing in the current climate regime. Aerosols and solar are coupled quite differently to the climate system than a well mixed greenhouse gas like CO2, and there is climate mode change between the LGM and now. The IPCC just doesn’t have any evidence for a high sensitivity to CO2 relevant to the next century or two.

  149. David says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Jack Greer troll like attacks on Monckton are full of misinformation. See this for some typical attacks and Monckton’s response. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=monckton%20answers%20his%20critics&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2011%2F09%2F18%2Fmonckton-answers-a-troll%2F&ei=0qbeTsHjDsioiAKSx9nzCA&usg=AFQjCNHktWqwZePrwG2FRcKv_aDD82Hc6Q&sig2=n37FgO1W4Xb7uNBKiSh0mA

    Better yet, go to Moncktons site where he details 500 questions to the video smear campaing and decimates it for the hack job it is. His 500 questions remain unanswered, and I bet Jack Greer never read Moncktons very detailed response to the video.

  150. David says:

    Here it is for you Vince, you also Jack if you wish to be fair. It is after all 83 pages of on point and detailed answer to every accusation you have publicly made, so in fairness you owe it to the man to read it, and perhaps your anger will be redirected to tha accusers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf

  151. Joel Shore says:

    David says:

    True, but you have to add the w.a.g. IPCC feedbacks to the direct CO2 forcing, and the historical record does not support that, as Monckton pointed out.

    And, as I pointed out, Monckton’s argument on this part is not much better than his other argument: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-821081

    Hell Joel we do not even know how long at what levels CO2 forcing is lograrythmic, 1 ppm to 2 ppm? 5 ppm to 10ppm?, 500 to 1000?. It truly is a WAG and nothing to base global policy on, as the world is not conforming to the predicted disasters.

    Yes, we do know that…That’s an issue of forcings not feedbacks and can be calculated by the line-by-line radiation codes with good precision. It remains more or less logarithmic for quite some time and to the extent it deviates from logarithmic, it is in the direction of being a bit faster than logarithmic.

    As for basing public policy on the science: Choosing to continue emitting more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is as much a public policy choice as choosing to curtail them. Public policy has to be made all the time on issues for which there are uncertainties. It should be made on the basis of the best available science, not on the desires of those who are adamantly opposed to the solutions for ideological reasons to have artificially high standards of evidence.

  152. Joel Shore says:

    Martin Lewitt says:

    “the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption or the temperature diference between the LGM (last glacial maximum) and now” don’t give you a sensitivity to CO2 forcing in the current climate regime. Aerosols and solar are coupled quite differently to the climate system than a well mixed greenhouse gas like CO2, and there is climate mode change between the LGM and now.

    There is no evidence from the known physics that there is any dramatic climate sensitivity change between going up from the current climate and going down. It is true that ice albedo feedbacks may be a bit stronger in the cooler climate; however, working the other way is the fact that water vapor feedback tends to get stronger in a warmer climate and that most of the calculations of the difference between the LGM climate and now consider the much of the ice-albedo effects as forcings, not feedbacks.

    There is also not much evidence that one sort of radiative forcing (such as solar) is much more effective than another sort of radiative forcing and good reason to believe that they act fairly similarly. One of the ironies in these sorts of discussions is that you often have AGW skeptics make comments to the effect of “Why do the climate scientists attach positive feedbacks to CO2 and not to other mechanisms” when the truth is that it is the climate scientists who treat the mechanisms equally and some skeptics who are desperately looking for ways to selectively magnify any forcing other than that from CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    There are certainly uncertainties associated with the grand climate experiment that we are currently carrying out, but these uncertainties cut in both directions. Maybe it will miraculously turn out to be less severe than we are expecting…but maybe it will be worse.

  153. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Maybe it will miraculously turn out to be less severe than we are expecting…but maybe it will be worse.” Translation: “What if…”

    It’s all ‘what ifs’. And we know that Joel Shore is [to use his overused word] desperately hoping that runaway global warming will appear. Because his whole ego is tied up in that belief. Unfortunately for Joel, the planet isn’t cooperating.

    So to boil his whole argument down to its essence: click

  154. Jack Greer says:

    @Vince Causey says: (and David)
    December 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Vince, watch the remaining videos with a critical, fair eye – it won’t take that long. It shouldn’t be someone like me pointing out the rubbish – It’s people like you who should be taking out your own trash. Trying to justify Monckton’s actions with the “oh yeah, did you see what they did?” defense is itself a dishonest exercise.

    I have seen Monckton’s replies to Abraham. I think that after viewing the videos you should judge for yourself if Monckton directly, accurately, and persuasively addresses the actual core points levied against him.

  155. Martin Lewitt says:

    Joel Shore,

    “There is also not much evidence that one sort of radiative forcing (such as solar) is much more effective than another sort of radiative forcing and good reason to believe that they act fairly similarly”

    You appeared to have missed the nonlinear dynamics lecture. The Knutti and Hegerl review paper was refreshing in explicitly stating, what anybody with minimal knowledge of the nature of the nonlinear dynamic system knows:

    “”The concept of radiative forcing is of rather limited use for forcings with strongly varying vertical or spatial distributions.”

    Solar energy penetrates tens of meters into the oceans, and couples strongly to the land surface and the stratosphere. It is concentrated in the tropics. It generates the greenhouse gas ozone. Solar’s coupling to the climate is strongly effected by clouds.

    CO2 couples to the atmosphere, increasing both absorption and emission of infrared radiation, and its radiation penetrates mere microns into the oceans.

    How could solar couple to the climate much more differently? Even Hansen admits “”There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms, which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy'”

    Hand waving is not mathematically valid here, either for the assumption that different forcings are equivilent or to spin away the model diagnostic issues.

    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

  156. Lord Monckton’s argument is scientifically invalidated from the impossibility of refuting an assumption that is a premise to his argument by reference to empirical data. Monckton’s “climate sensitivity parameter” is the ratio of the rise in the equilibrium temperature at Earth’s surface to the rise in the radiative forcing. Monckton assumes this ratio to be a constant but there are other possibilities. One is that the ratio is variable. Another is that the equilibrium temperature varies independently with respect to the radiative forcing. In the latter case, the magnitude of the radiative forcing provides no information about the magnitude of the equilibrium temperature.

    Were we to try to refute Monckton’s assumption of a constant ratio, we would find this impossible, for the equilibrium temperature is not an observable feature of the real world. Monckton’s assertion of a constant value of 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter for the climate sensitivity parameter is not a scientific hypothesis from its lack of refutability.

  157. Dave Wendt says:

    Julian Flood says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Dave Wendt says: December 5, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    “Go on, I dare you! Produce a theory that rising CO2 levels cause cooling. It’s worth it to see Mosher’s head explode…”

    A hypothesis that CO2 causes cooling might be a bit of a stretch, although at this stage the state of climate science is so dismal that almost any proposition is at least arguable, if not convincingly so. I have in the past suggested a conjecture, that I think is at least semi-plausible, which posits that the contribution of CO2 to planetary warming is barely beyond negligible. It’s based on the data from another work which utilized the spectral analysis techniques used in the Antarctic study I cited. Evans and Puckrin sort of pioneered the technique back in the late 90s in Canada and offered their findings in a presentation paper in 2006.

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    You need to click the Extended Abstract link to see the data I will refer to. The analysis the authors offer is more than usual warmist blather. They ballyhoo an observed increase in DLR of 3.5W/m2 without much mentioning that it all occurred in the dead of winter in West Central Canada, where none of the inhabitants are likely to view it as alarming. Despite the weakness of their analysis, their experimental methodology seems sound and AFAIK has not been challenged, which should offer some support for the data they collected. I would refer you to tables 3a & 3b which are for respectively their observation for winter and summer. In the Winter table we do see CO2 providing a significant amount of the total, 34.7W/m2 out of a total of slightly lees than 150W/m2. What is interesting is what occurs when we move to the Summer table. Overall DLR increases to about 270W/m2, but the CO2 number falls to 10.5W/m2, strongly suggesting that in the presence of a certain level of H2O the action of CO2 is actively suppressed. In support of this notion I would point out that as part of their work E&P constructed a model to construct a pre-industrial baseline to measure any changes against. Although I am usually less the sanguine about such models, I must admit this one seems to have done a much better than ballpark job of estimating their observed values, which is of interest because the model predicted almost exactly the suppression of CO2 that was observed.
    We now get into the part of my conjecture which is based almost entirely on what I see as rather obvious logical implications of this information and hardly at all on any scientific sophistication. The suppressive effect was shown to be in effect in Summer in Canada when total DLR is 270W/m2, but if you examine maps of global DLR you find that that level is exceeded over most of the Earth most of the time. What I find most telling is that over Tropical and Subtropical latitudes, where the increase in evaporation required to drive the positive H2O feedback necessary for AGW sensitivity numbers to be real, total DLR is almost constantly far beyond the Canadian figures(350-450+W/m2) which suggests to me that CO2’s contribution there would be almost negligibly small and therefore entirely incapable of driving the H2O feedback.
    The Antarctic study I cited previously shows that CO2’s contribution there is quite strong. but the accompanying temperature data suggest it is having almost no effect. This leaves the high temperate latitudes in Winter and the Arctic as the only places on Earth where CO2 might be actively contributing to planetary warming. The size of those areas is small relative to the total planet, but large enough that CO2’s influence wouldn’t be entirely negligible although the data also suggest that its influence would play out mostly in raising wintertime temperatures in areas where almost no one would complain about such a change.
    When I came upon E&P’s work, almost the first thing that entered my mind was that here at last was a technique which would provide clear empirical observational data to judge what each of the various gaseous components of the atmosphere is contributing to the atmosphere’s ability to warm the planet. Rather naively as it turns out, I assumed there would be a rush to replicate these experiments to provide that data. Over the years I’ve gone dumpster diving through various search engines trying to locate such works, although it has been a while since my last try. Other than E&P’s work the Antarctic study is the only other I have found.
    To verify my conjecture would require, at a minimum, several years of similar data from locations in the Tropics and preferably from a wider of assortment of sites across the globe. Sadly those studies don’t appear to be forthcoming. It seems to me almost as if the people providing the funding for climate research don;t want to know the answers those studies might provide, but I’m probably just being paranoid. But as the Old Philosopher says, ” Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you”

  158. “As the West goes bust, drowned under the sheer cost of the ever-expanding State, the UN, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the UNEP and the WMO are luxuries we can no longer afford and will no longer pay for. Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.”

    NICE! Repeated here for effect.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  159. Joel Shore says:
    December 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    “There are certainly uncertainties associated with the grand climate experiment that we are currently carrying out, but these uncertainties cut in both directions. Maybe it will miraculously turn out to be less severe than we are expecting…but maybe it will be worse.”

    ========================================

    Nice for you to admit the “grand climate experiment”.

    But then you fall back on the obvious DUH: it might be less or it might be more.

    Is that all you can concede?

    Really?

    Glad you will AT LEAST admit “the uncertainties cut in both directions”…but, in reality, do both directions diverge with the same quantity of misinformation??

    Yeah…I thought not.

    Please post the evidence for your claims against your “opponents.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  160. Martin Lewitt says:

    Terry Oldberg,

    “Monckton assumes this ratio to be a constant but there are other possibilities. One is that the ratio is variable.”

    There isn’t a time element in Monckton’s calculation. Since no one is claiming that we started from a no GHG data point, the calculation should be taken as a gross assessment or argument, a common sense argument appealing to linear thinking. Obviously, while it may be unsettling because it perhaps coincidentally lines up with the consensus direct effect of CO2, it doesn’t settle the matter, as you note, the ratio may be variable. We are in a very interesting part of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation for water as Wentz reported in the journal Science (2007). The observations and the models both agree that the water vapor increased 15% during the recent warming. However, the models only had precipitation increasing 7%, while the observed increase was 15%. Such a proportionate speedup in the water cycle and the failure of the models leave wide open the plausibility that the “variable” ratio will be in the net negative feedback direction. We don’t know what the net feedback to CO2 forcing is, but null hypothesis probably should be that it is negative or minimally positive, since the main mechanism for any feedback to CO2 is from its temperature effect, and we’ve had temperatures sampling warmer parts of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation in both this and past inter-glacials. The diagnostic literature shows the models are not yet ready, and the model independent analyses of scientists like Lindzen and Spenser suggest that the feedback is negative.

  161. Smokey says:

    steven mosher says:
    December 5, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    “So, Smokey do you buy Monkton’s 1.2C number?”

    Yes. And I have been consistent. ≈1.2°C includes all feedbacks, and the planet apparently agrees. CO2 is a bit player that can be disregarded for all practical purposes.

    So, what’s your model-based number?

  162. Pelicanman says:

    Robert E. Phelan says:
    December 6, 2011 at 9:36 am
    Jack Greer says: December 6, 2011 at 9:01 am

    I really shudder to think of people like you being in charge of things…. but I figure you won’t be. Believers like you should really learn from the past: find out what happened to the Old Bolsheviks.

    They are alive and well. It is well known that the so-called Neocons, the Israel-first warmongers that have taken the world to the brink of destruction, are admitted Trotskyites. The fathers of the Neocon plague are Irving Kristol (whose son William is one of the most shrill advocates for blowing up the entire Islamic world and drawing the rest of us into total warfare) and Leo Strauss, and their followers include such psychos as influential figures in government like Elena Kagan and Paul Wolfowitz, along with pundits like William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, policy wonks like Frank Gaffney, and dangerous fellow travelers like Donald Rumsfeld. Not to mention the writers and loyal followers of such sites as Daily Kos and HuffPo.

  163. Leo Morgan says:

    @ moderators.
    You do a good job.
    Many things make WUWT superior to alternative sites. There are two features that must be included in the top ten. Freedom of speech is the first. Anthony hosts a site that insists on being open to contrary ideas. Civility of discussion is the next feature. Anthony is a gentleman, and you moderators follow his lead. He himself has acknowledged that he hasn’t always lived up to this ideal- but given the provocation, no fair-minded person can blame him, and we can admire the fact that after stumbling he still aspires to this ideal. Everyone who visits climate related sites can see the superiority of WUWT.
    These two goals are in conflict, and you moderators must make judgment calls. Nevertheless I wish you had not approved the comment by TonyB(another one) .
    It lets down the site and embarrasses me as a skeptic when you approve a comment that calls another commentator ‘stupid’, ‘clueless’ and a ‘troll'; that does not advance the discussion at all, and that makes unfounded aspersions on another person’s knowledge.

    @ Joel Shore
    I do disagree with your critique, and later hope to post a response. But right now I personally wish to extend my apologies for the abuse to which you were subjected.

  164. Leo Morgan says:

    @ Joel Shore
    I enjoyed your analogy with Bill Gates, but as far as I can see, the analogy fails.
    Do I understand correctly that in your analogy, Watts input is the equivalent of public donations, and temperature increase is the equivalent of lives saved?
    Accordingly we know that $20 million publically donated saves 100 million lives after all feedbacks are considered. Accordingly the ‘dollar sensitivity’ is 5 to one, and $100 million dollars will suffice to save five million lives after all feedbacks are taken into account. This is substantially different to the $500 million you allege Monkton’s argument would require.
    Or am I missing something?

  165. Vince Causey says:

    Joel Shore,

    “You presume incorrectly. Look at Table 3 where they clearly give the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases, labeled as such.”

    Okay, I’ve found it. Trenberth has given 125 watts per metre squared for “clear sky radiative forcing” of which H20 contributes 71 watts and CO2 29 watts.

    In that case, to work out the proportion of warming due to CO2 alone, you would have to say this is 33k * 29/125 = 7.65k. Therefore the sensitivity due to CO2 is 7.65k/29 = 0.26k per watt per metre squared of forcing. Multiply this by 3.7 watts of additional forcing and you get 0.97k of warming per doubling of CO2, which is less than Monckton’s original estimate of 1.2k.

  166. Vince Causey says:

    Jack Greer,

    “I have seen Monckton’s replies to Abraham. I think that after viewing the videos you should judge for yourself if Monckton directly, accurately, and persuasively addresses the actual core points levied against him.”

    I’ve seen Abrahams long litany of accuations and Moncktons rebuttal. As I recall, Abraham’s was mostly a lot of straw men arguments and pendantic nit picking. Monckton’s rebutalls for the most part were correct. Does that mean that Monckton never made any mistakes, or never exagerated or cherry picked? No. But does it substantially alter the conclusions of Monckton’s arguments? Not at all.

    Look, I don’t condone using exageration or cherry picking data, but lets put this into perspective. This is sadly the way climate science is conducted these days which is why it has become too political. We should be against all attempts at exageration, and if this is your only beef with Monckton, I won’t argue with you. But there is this knee jerk reaction by the warmist supporters, whenever Monckton performs, to fall upon him in the most savage way, to exploit minor errors or inventing strawmen, for the sole purpose of trying to destroy whatever point he is trying to make.

    It just shows how scared they are – and it makes them look weak, not strong. But if you want to join in with the charade, go ahead, just don’t expect the majority here to go along with you.

  167. David says:

    Jack Greer says:
    December 6, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    @Vince Causey says: (and David)
    December 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    “Vince, watch the remaining videos with a critical, fair eye – it won’t take that long. It shouldn’t be someone like me pointing out the rubbish – It’s people like you who should be taking out your own trash. Trying to justify Monckton’s actions with the “oh yeah, did you see what they did?” defense is itself a dishonest exercise.

    I have seen Monckton’s replies to Abraham. I think that after viewing the videos you should judge for yourself if Monckton directly, accurately, and persuasively addresses the actual core points levied against him.”

    Jack I did see Monckton’s 83 page reply, and I do not think you saw that one, just the very brief one pertaining to one or two issues. His response was detailed and very direct, first presenting Abrahams’ arguments (and often mis directions and even lies), showing in detail after detail what Abraham said, then responding point by point in showing Abrahams’ misrepresention, logical fallacies, sloppy work and incorrect assumtions. Monckton’s counter arguments and charges are decimating, and remain to this day unanswered.

  168. Joel Shore says:

    Leo Morgan says:

    Accordingly we know that $20 million publically donated saves 100 million lives after all feedbacks are considered. Accordingly the ‘dollar sensitivity’ is 5 to one, and $100 million dollars will suffice to save five million lives after all feedbacks are taken into account. This is substantially different to the $500 million you allege Monkton’s argument would require.
    Or am I missing something?

    Yes, you are. As I noted in this post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-820890 , the analogy is closer if Gates doesn’t publicly reveal his matching ratio (since the earth has not publicly revealed what the feedback factor is).

    Monckton is not taking into account the feedback factor in his analysis. (He can’t since he doesn’t know what it is, i.e., he doesn’t know how much more water vapor is in the air due to the CO2 levels being what they are, just as in the (modified) analogy he doesn’t know how much of the total money of $100 million came from the public and how much came from the Bill Gates feedback.) He is simply looking at how much “total forcing” there is due to everything including water vapor as a forcing, just like in my analogy he is looking at how much total money there is including any amount that Bill Gates contributed. And, then he is using that to determine the climate sensitivity is, i.e., how much you would have to raise CO2 levels to get a certain temperature rise, just as in the analogy, he is using it to determine how much the public has to pay to get a certain result in terms of people fed. The analogy is perfect.

    Vince Causey says:

    In that case, to work out the proportion of warming due to CO2 alone, you would have to say this is 33k * 29/125 = 7.65k. Therefore the sensitivity due to CO2 is 7.65k/29 = 0.26k per watt per metre squared of forcing. Multiply this by 3.7 watts of additional forcing and you get 0.97k of warming per doubling of CO2, which is less than Monckton’s original estimate of 1.2k.

    Sorry, Vince, but you still aren’t accounting for the water vapor feedback. Before you were leaving it out because you were taking the total response and dividing by the total forcing considering water vapor as a forcing. Now you are leaving it out because you are taking the part of the forcing that is due to CO2 alone…without any feedback and dividing by the forcing of CO2 alone. There is more than one way to get an incorrect result.

    When you say, “Therefore the sensitivity due to CO2 is 7.65k/29 = 0.26k per watt per metre squared of forcing,” you are explicitly assuming that none of the water vapor contribution to the forcing is there because of the CO2 levels being what they are. Assuming the result you want is a good way to get the result you want but it is not good science.

  169. David says:

    Joel Shore says…” In fact, the climate models predict a significant difference between the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response. This is mainly because the oceans have a high thermal mass and warm so slowly. You can look in the IPCC report here

    Yes Joel, and we do not know the sign of the long term response. Take clear sky water vapor effects on TSI. Solar spectrum modification charts show that about 98% of that energy lies between about 250 nm in the UV and 4.0 microns; with the remaining as 1% left over at each end. Such graphs often have superimposed on them the actual ground level (air Mass once) spectrum; that shows the amounts of that energy taken out by primarily O2, O3, and H2O, in the case of H2O which absorbs in the visible and near IR perhaps 20% of the total solar energy is captured by water VAPOR (clear sky) clouds are an additional loss over and above that.

    At its most basic only two things can effect the energy content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system. The greater the energy capacity, the longer it takes for any change to manifest, and in the case of OHC this involves years, not annually.

    It therefore follows that any effect which increases the residence time of LW energy in the atmosphere, but reduces the input of SW energy entering the oceans, potentially causes a net reduction in the earth’s energy balance, proportioned to the energy change involved relative to the residence time of the radiations involved. We do not know the residence time of much of the SWR which enters the oceans, we just know it is far longer then the residence time of LWR in the atmosphere. Therefore cloud feedback could be positive short term, but negative long term.

    There are however some things we do know about the antropogenic increase in CO2. The benefits are known, the harms are theoretical and have failed to manifest. The fortuitous accident of industrial CO2, minus the particulates and chemicals other then CO2 of course, enforces a symbiotic relationship between warmth and life. Crops world wide now produce (on the same amount of water) 10 to fifteen percent more food then if this CO2 had not been in the atmosphere. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that the world would be at war over food and water without this unintended consequence.

  170. John Whitman says:

    Monckton of Brenchley,

    Based on the WUWT response to your post, I think your message to the IPCC centric advocates at the Durban conference in right on.

    Have fun.

    John

  171. Jack Greer says:

    [snip - suggesting we are all mentally ill here won't fly - but that's typical for you - take a month or two time out, I'm tired of being insulted by you Greer - Anthony]

  172. Blade says:

    Pelicanman December 6, 2011 at 9:38 pm says:

    “They are alive and well. It is well known that the so-called Neocons, the Israel-first warmongers that have taken the world to the brink of destruction, are admitted Trotskyites. The fathers of the Neocon plague are Irving Kristol (whose son William is one of the most shrill advocates for blowing up the entire Islamic world and drawing the rest of us into total warfare) and Leo Strauss, and their followers include such psychos as influential figures in government like Elena Kagan and Paul Wolfowitz, along with pundits like William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, policy wonks like Frank Gaffney, and dangerous fellow travelers like Donald Rumsfeld. Not to mention the writers and loyal followers of such sites as Daily Kos and HuffPo.”

    He’s baaaack. The despicable and delusional Pelicanman. With a real laugher too.

    Hard to believe with all the issues confronting society in the year 2011 that anti-semitism still has such a stranglehold on the weak minds of people such as this ‘person’.

    I mean really, after a major holocaust and many individual acts of terrorism there are less than 14 million jews left alive on this planet, with a much smaller subset really practicing. But I guess these ‘people’ think that is still too many. How pathetic.

    Scapegoats are created for a reason you know. You really should ask yourself something, exactly why did your parents (or friends or whoever) originally implant this scapegoat into your empty mind? What were they trying to divert you from? There is something out there that you have missed because of you’re being distracted by this scapegoat. Perhaps you should ponder this.

  173. beng says:

    *****
    Dave Wendt says:
    December 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    What I find most telling is that over Tropical and Subtropical latitudes, where the increase in evaporation required to drive the positive H2O feedback necessary for AGW sensitivity numbers to be real, total DLR is almost constantly far beyond the Canadian figures(350-450+W/m2) which suggests to me that CO2′s contribution there would be almost negligibly small and therefore entirely incapable of driving the H2O feedback.
    The Antarctic study I cited previously shows that CO2′s contribution there is quite strong. but the accompanying temperature data suggest it is having almost no effect. This leaves the high temperate latitudes in Winter and the Arctic as the only places on Earth where CO2 might be actively contributing to planetary warming. The size of those areas is small relative to the total planet, but large enough that CO2′s influence wouldn’t be entirely negligible although the data also suggest that its influence would play out mostly in raising wintertime temperatures in areas where almost no one would complain about such a change.

    *****

    Interesting. So what the data is telling us is that the warmxist’s “polar amplication” is in reality “tropical/subtropical extinction” of CO2s GH effect. Another example of doublespeak.

    And since Antarctica’s temps aren’t changing, CO2’s once “global” effect is suddenly limited to —– the Arctic.

  174. Vince Causey says:

    Joel Shore,

    “Sorry, Vince, but you still aren’t accounting for the water vapor feedback.”

    Yes, I am well aware of that, but this thread was about Monckton’s original thesis – that if the total greenhouse forcing was 100 watts and the temperature rise is 33k, then the sensitivity due to the ghg’s is 0.33k per watt. You argued that that 100 watts included feedbacks, and then linked to the Trenberth paper. Table 3 showed that the clear air forcing was around 150 watts instead of 100. The table makes no reference to feedbacks, only forcings.

    To redo the calculations, I used the portion of ghg forcing due to co2 – 29 watts, and apportioned accordingly. Admittedly the real situation is more complicated, and would include feedbacks. But that wasn’t the basis of Monckton’s argument – only to compare forcings. You say that my results are incorrect because I have left out feedbacks. But that is the limitation of this type of back-of-envelope calculations. We don’t know what the feedbacks are, or what their function of non-condensable ghg’s are.

    You can assume that the forcing due to water – 71watts according to Trenberth – is entirely a result of the presence of co2, in which case feedbacks make a huge amplification. Or you could say that the water vapour would be there without co2, in which case my calculation has left out a non-existent feedback. Either way, it is an open question, and probably proves the futility of these types of calculations.

  175. The “doublepeak” that you have observed in the climatological literature has a technical description and relationship to logic. When a single word or group of synonyms makes ambiguous reference to the associated ideas, there is associated with this ambiguity a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Examples in climatology include “greenhouse,” “heat,” “science” and “prediction/projection.”

    The law of non-contradiction is a principle of classical logic. Accompanying the violations of this principle are an ability to prove various falsehoods. One of these falsehoods is that a “greenhouse effect” is operative in the atmosphere under which “greenhouse” gases trap “heat” thus warming Earth’s surface.

  176. George E. Smith; says:

    Well that IS the point isn’t it; The BLUE PLANET is actually The BLACK PLANET.
    Over 70% of the total surface area is water, which behaves much like a grey body with an absorptance/emissivity of around 0.97-0.98, and at least 3/4 of all the arriving solar energy goes into that water.
    If you take ALL of the GHGs out of the atmosphere; which means including H2O, then there is no cloud cover; down from the 60+% we have now, so the albedo, won’t be anywhere near 0.35; and that will result in the mother of all “FORCINGS”, that will make a dash of CO2 look mighty puny.
    No longer will the surface air mass one solar insolation be about 1kW per square metre; but considerably higher; with just the Raleigh scattering of blue light (mostly) that disguises the BLACK planet as BLUE.

    Well of course the GHG free atmosphere will be just a short flash of history; and then be gone back to pretty much the present state. Negative feedback is a wonderful thing.

  177. George E. Smith; says:

    “”””” Joel Shore says:

    December 5, 2011 at 11:50 am

    KR says:

    “…and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.”

    ~1.1 to 1.2°C warming for a doubling of CO2 is exactly what the science says – prior to feedbacks! The feedbacks are what are expected to take matters to 3.3°C – and while the exact magnitude of feedbacks can be discussed, Monckton is simply ignoring them here.

    Just to clarify what KR says here: Some might argue that, for example, the calculation includes the water vapor feedback. After all, Monckton imagined removing the water vapor too. However, this point-of-view is incorrect. In order to correctly account for the water vapor feedback, you have to treat it as a feedback and not a forcing as Monckton has done. (Willis Eschenbach came up with a similar argument to Monckton’s, which had the same sort of error in it.) “””””

    Come on Joel; I don’t know about KR; but I DO know that ypou are a lot smarter than that.

    The ONLY “feedback” that is of any consequence, is the feedback from changes in atmospheric GHGs, and the primary climate “forcing” which drives the whole system; namely the direct solar energy input from the sun.

    Wentz et al proved (SCIENCE July 7, 2007) that a one degree rise in mean global surface Temperature results in a 7% increase in total g;lobal evaporation, total global atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation; (which of necessity must equal total evaporation). Well proved in the sense that that is what was observed on planet earth. The GCMs; well at least some of the 13 or so you can take your pick from to get the result you want, agreed on the total water content, but only “predict”/project/ guess/whatever, the evap/precip to be 1-3%; not the observed 7%.
    That’s as much as a factor of seven error between the guesstimates, and the observed; but of course preserves the obligatory climatism 3:1 fudge factor.

    So the principal result of a Temperature change (upwards) is a massive infusion of H2O, into the atmosphere; which is well known to absorb copious amounts of incoming solar energy, and lead to the loss of at least half of it back to space.that is a massive negative feedback regulation of the earth surface Temperature.

    Between more water vapor and more clouds (which for some reason seem to go hand in hand with precipiitation), the earth extremes of Temperature are likely to remain within the comfortable range from -90 deg C to +60 deg C that we presently enjoy.

  178. Joel Shore says:

    Vince Causey says:

    You say that my results are incorrect because I have left out feedbacks. But that is the limitation of this type of back-of-envelope calculations. We don’t know what the feedbacks are, or what their function of non-condensable ghg’s are.

    So, what was the purpose of this whole post by Monckton? He claims that he was doing a calculation of the climate sensitivity that includes the effect of feedbacks. Now you seem to be admitting that you and he did calculations of the climate sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks, a calculation which has already been done and is not in serious dispute.

    George E Smith says:

    So the principal result of a Temperature change (upwards) is a massive infusion of H2O, into the atmosphere; which is well known to absorb copious amounts of incoming solar energy, and lead to the loss of at least half of it back to space.that is a massive negative feedback regulation of the earth surface Temperature.

    George, these things can be calculated and the effect of water vapor on outgoing longwave radiation is larger than the effect on incoming shortwave radiation. So no, water vapor is not a negative feedback.

    Clouds are admittedly more uncertain but your simplistic views of how cloudiness will change are just that…Way too simplistic. Besides which, the details turn out to be important: Low clouds have a net cooling effect on the earth because the albedo effect on shortwave is greater than their effect on outgoing longwave radiation, whereas high clouds have a net warming effect because the opposite is true.

    As for the Wentz data, it is always interesting to see how data that agrees with what some people want to see are automatically bullet-proof and don’t even have the sort of error bars attached to them that the authors admit are present! And, although there is a lot of hand-waving as to why the Wentz data are so significant in somehow showing the climate models are over-predicting the climate sensitivity, nobody has put together any very compelling argument on that score, especially one that agrees with other empirical data.

    At any rate, nobody seems to be coming forward anymore to defend Monckton’s deeply flawed arguments in this post claiming to demonstrate a fairly low climate sensitivity, so I assume we can consider them dead and buried?

  179. wayne says:

    @ Dave Wendt:
    December 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Very good information there Dave. That E&P extended abstract has supplied me with some missing relations and hard numbers that I had been searching for. Thanks for that link. Your thoughts, as you said, so logical that much truth lies there, and if only they could extend that research across many latitudes so a curve could be plotted per season, and then integrated, not merely an average. The view of global parameters would surely be different than those currently held by the ‘consensus’.

  180. Martin Lewitt:

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply!. From an expository standpoint, the case in which the rise in the equilibrium temperature varies independently with respect to the rise in the CO2 concentration has a use for in this case, the rise in the CO2 concentration provides no information about the rise in the equilibrium temperature. However, according to the the argument of Lord Monckton and the similar argument of IPCC Working Group I, the rise in the CO2 concentration provides perfect information about the rise in the equilibrium temperature. As the truth must lie somewhere between the two extremes, Monckton and the Working Group I must be fabricating an indeterminate amount of information about the rise in the equilibrium temperature given the rise in the CO2 concentration. The amount fabricated is indeterminate because the equilibrium temperature is not an observable.

    As you imply, the Monckton and Working Group I arguments result from the false but prevalent way of thinking that is called “reductionism” (aka, linear thinking). Under reductionism, every system can be reduced to cause and effect relationships with the result that a rise in the CO2 concentration must cause the equilibrium temperature to rise by an amount that is determined by the rise in the CO2 concentration. It is by their reductionism that Monckton and Working Group I fabricate their information.

    If Monckton and Working Group I were to abandon the practice of fabricating information in this manner, this would provide motivation for creating information in the scientific manner. This would entail collection of observed statistical events, each one of which was defined in terms of observables such as temperature, and extraction of the information content in these events.

    The extent to which reductionism has replaced the scientific method in the practice of IPCC climatologists is suggested by the complete absence of citation to the observed statistical events upon which the IPCC’s conclusion of AGW rests in the 2007 report of Working Group I. This conclusion evidently rests on a statistical sample of size zero, all of the apparent information content in the IPCC’s conclusion having been fabricated.

  181. @Leo Morgan

    I guess you have forgotten the famous phrase “Its the economy, stupid”?

    A short memory perhaps.

    I, amongst many many others, am heartily sick of being lectured to by people who clearly have no clue, and no ability to think for themselves. And when their beliefs seemingly become fact, merely because they are repeated endlessly, and those “facts” start to drive legislation which impacts my pocket, and my freedoms, then I get angry. And this has been going on for more than 20 years.

    The statements made by “believers” frequently fall into 1 of 2 possible categories:

    – so unfounded/ridiculous/illogical that relying on them indicates someone is unable to think for themselves (clueless)
    – so unfounded/ridiculous/illogical that making them indicates a desire to wind-up the readership of this blog (trolling)

    And getting upset over potentially offending a “believer” is pretty rich when you consider the freedom with which the “believers” dish out insults (deniers/flat earthers/creationists, etc etc etc) and worse (No pressure, kaboom/splat).

    With much of the world tipping into financial meltdown, yet whilst vast sums of money are still being syphoned off and wasted in the pursuit of non-solutions to a non-problem, the time for always being Mr Nice and Polite has long since passed.

    And I note that the poor offended one has not bothered to (or perhaps cannot) counter my substantive points:

    a) The Earth’s climate system is fundamentally stable and reverts to equilibrium even when perturbations far more significant than mankind’s puny production of CO2 have been in play.
    b) Carbon is part of a continuous cycle and it is present in various forms – including CO2 – at various times (making it out of nothing is actually quite difficult). The existence of vast quantities of coal and oil clearly indicates that at points in the past there were significantly greater quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. And the planet did not fry.

  182. SPM says:

    Monckton says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest. “The pothead takes me to task, inappropriately, for having said (correctly) that I had given advice to Margaret Thatcher on various scientific matters, including climate change, on the ground that “my supporters” had in his view mischaracterized the position by referring to me as her “science advisor”.
    The potboiler also said that I had claimed in 2009 that global cooling since 2001 had been statistically significant, but that I had rebutted myself the following year by saying the cooling since 2001 had been insignificant. To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant, but the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001-2010 was insignificant: both my statements, therefore, were correct, and they were not incompatible with one another.

    I was disinclined to look any further at that drivel. Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him. Perhaps he is convincing the usual suspects, but on the little I have seen he is unlikely to convince anyone else.
    ==========================================================================

    The comment regarding significant cooling from Jan 2001 relates to the graph shown at 0.36 on the video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNI19Z-LUjo&feature=related

    Please note that the graph finishes at Dec 2009. The comments were made at a presentation he gave in Melbourne on 1 February 2010.

    The comment regarding insignificant cooling from Jan 2001 relates to the graph shown at 2.21 on the video here : http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/1/9K74fzNAUq4

    Please note that the graph finishes at July 2009. The comments were made at a presentation he gave at Bethel University on 14 October 2009.

    Monckton states in his reply above that both comments are correct as the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001 to 2010 was insignificant.

    What he has failed to realise is that both graphs do not include any data from 2010 and that both statements were made well before data from 2010 was available. What magical powers does Monckton possess that enables him to see twelve to fifteen months into the future?

    I get the impression he is just making it all up or he does not have a clue about the subject. His response above indicates he is just trying to bluff his way out of it.

    Also “potholer54” in his video refers to him as simply “Monckton”. Monckton’s response refers to “potholer54” as “the Pothead”, “the potboiler” and “pinhead”. Says a lot really.

    Monckton should watch the whole video. Potholer54 makes him an offer. Given Monckton’s predisposition towards threatening such actions I would hope he follows through.

  183. Brian H says:

    How likely is it that the waste will be stopped by the recipients and beneficiaries of said waste?

    The question answers itself.

  184. David says:

    Joel Shore says,
    “…George, these things can be calculated and the effect of water vapor on outgoing longwave radiation is larger than the effect on incoming shortwave radiation. So no, water vapor is not a negative feedback.

    Clouds are admittedly more uncertain but your simplistic views of how cloudiness will change are just that…Way too simplistic. Besides which, the details turn out to be important: Low clouds have a net cooling effect on the earth because the albedo effect on shortwave is greater than their effect on outgoing longwave radiation, whereas high clouds have a net warming effect because the opposite is true…”

    Joel as this post showed you,( David says: December 7, 2011 at 5:47 am ) we do not know the residence time of the SW spectrum modification of energy entering the ocean, which up to 1% of TSI can penetrate up to 300 meters deep in the oceans, so the short term feedback can be positive, the long term negative. So a smaller reduction in a longer residince time energy can, over time, have a greater affect then a larger change which primarily affects the atmosphere. The oceans are a far more potent GHG then the atmosphere. Also watervapor feedback may vary. In the tropics TSI at the surface can be reduced 20%, over 200 WsqM. As for clouds we certainly do not know, but Lindzen makes a convincing case of negative feedback overall using observations.

  185. George E. Smith; says:

    “”””” @ Joel Shore…

    George E Smith says:

    So the principal result of a Temperature change (upwards) is a massive infusion of H2O, into the atmosphere; which is well known to absorb copious amounts of incoming solar energy, and lead to the loss of at least half of it back to space.that is a massive negative feedback regulation of the earth surface Temperature.

    George, these things can be calculated and the effect of water vapor on outgoing longwave radiation is larger than the effect on incoming shortwave radiation. So no, water vapor is not a negative feedback. “””””

    Well if they can be calculated Joel, why do they never get the correct results. Can you give us some references to any peer reviewed papers that contradict the findings of Wentz et al that I cited.As for your claim that water vapor affects outgoing LWIR more than it does incoming solar energy; what total drivel.The affect of H2O in any phase, solid, liquid or gas, in the atmosphere is to PERMANENTLY remove a sizeable fraction of the incomiong solar radiation energy, so that it NEVER reaches the earth’s primary energy storage location; namely the deep oceans; it is lost from the planet forever.
    But the LWIR effect of GHGs including H2O as well as CO2 and O3, is to simply delay the exit of that LWIR energy; it still gets lost.
    And yes; that loss can result in a change of surface Temperature to increase the emission rate (4th power of Temperature); but absolutely nobody claims that a one degree C increase in surface Temperature results in a 7% increase in the rate of LWIR emission. How could a 7% increase in total global precipitation (as a result of a one deg C Temperature rise) not also result in something like a 7% increase, in precipitable cloud cover, or its equivalent in density, time of persistence, or location relative to evaporation regions.

    So which are the models that in your view, best account for the reduction in earth absorbed solar energy from the sun, due to increased atmospheric H2O (in all three phases) ?

    And that high cloud, low cloud nonsense is getting a bit long ion the tooth; any water in any form anywhere in the atmosphere at any altitude, anywhere on earth must result in a loss of solar energy from this planet; there is no physical process by which water in any phase in the atmosphere can increase the amount of solar energy that reaches earth’s surface and get stored.

  186. Joel Shore says:

    David says:

    As for clouds we certainly do not know, but Lindzen makes a convincing case of negative feedback overall using observations.

    Last time I checked, his analysis was so unconvincing that even Roy Spencer didn’t buy it.

    @George E Smith: You have really gone off the deep end with your claims. The high cloud / low cloud stuff is accepted by ever serious scientist, including Spencer and Lindzen. And, when you say GHGs “simply delay the exit of that LWIR energy” as an excuse for ignoring the radiative forcings this produces, you are getting into territory of the SkyDragon Slayers, which is even nuttier. I’ve pledged to myself in this thread that in this thread I would ignore those who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect (like wayne, jae, and John Marshall as they are beyond hope and I think most people here know they are spouting nonsense).

    At any rate, as I said, I am glad to see that we seem to have arrived at a consensus that Monckton’s post here presents a hopelessly-flawed analysis…At least nobody seems to be defending Monckton’s original arguments. That, at least, is progress.

  187. David says:

    George the only point I would add to your comments is even if the reduction in SWR was intially smaller then the increase in LWR, the fact that the SWR reduction may take years (however long the change lasts) to reach a radiative balance, whereas the LWR would reach a radiative balance much more quickly. like the same day. I to would like to see Joels chart showing the exact changes in solar spectrum modification of WV as well as high clouds and low clouds and also showing the residence times of the relative enegies involved within the earth/water/ atmosphere of our plants system.

  188. David says:

    Sorry about the typos, especially plant instead of planet!!

  189. Pierre-Normand says:

    Vince Causey said:
    December 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    “Thanks for the link. I can see from Trenberth’s radiation budget that there is about 360 watts per metre squared of back radiation due to greenhouse gases. This, I presume, is what they call “forcing” of greenhouse gases.”

    Suppose all the greenhouse gases are added all at once to an Earth 33K cooler than at present (with same albedo and an atmosphere in radiative equilibrium). The ‘total forcing’ (which includes the total water vapour contribution) is the immediate reduction of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space. There is also an immediate increase in back radiation. There results a rapid cooling at the tropopause, now shielded from the lower layers, and a long term (lasting a few decades) warming of the surface until a new radiative balance is achieved at all levels. In particular, enough heat must be radiated from the surface and the atmosphere trough the atmospheric window to balance out the reduction in OLR, that is, to balance out the new forcing. The increase in back radiation, on the other hand, is balanced out by the increases not only of longwave radiation escaping through the atmospheric window, but also by increases in latent heat transport (through evaporation), thermal conduction/convection and surface radiation to the atmosphere (trapped by GHGs). These three additional processes result in the atmosphere being heated further and thus in feedback amplification of the back radiation. This explains why the increase in back radiation is very much larger than the forcing at the tropopause.

  190. David says:

    Joel Shore says:
    December 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    David says:

    As for clouds we certainly do not know, but Lindzen makes a convincing case of negative feedback overall using observations.

    Last time I checked, his analysis was so unconvincing that even Roy Spencer didn’t buy it.

    Roy Spencer is an honest scientist, unlike some of your heros. Last I checked he answered his critics, accepted some of the criticism and adjusted accordingly, like an honest scientist, made no attempt to excomunicate anyone from the scientific community, and his main conclusions based on observations, not failed models (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/tisdale-schools-the-website-skeptical-science-on-co2-obsession/ ) hold as valid.

  191. Myrrh says:

    The AGWScienceFiction (AGWSF) energy budget,KT97 and ilk, excludes the Water Cycle. The general figures given for Earth without any atmosphere at all is a temp of -18°C, which is the difference of 33°C from what we have with an atmosphere at 15°C. But, to get to that 15°C is impossible without including the Water Cycle. With an atmosphere of the gases we have, but with water taken out, we’d end up with a temp of 67°C. That’s plus 52°C cooling by the water cycle to get to “33°C warmer”..

    In the AGWSF claim that it is CO2 which is driving warming, that CO2 is the prime mechanism for creating this warming of 33°C, what AGWSF has to show is not that “CO2 traps heat,or radiates back, or whatever” adding heat, but that CO2 stops the water from its great cooling cycle, or that it matters even a jot how much warming CO2 adds when water wipes it out by 52°C anyway…

  192. George E. Smith; says:

    “”””” @George E Smith: You have really gone off the deep end with your claims. The high cloud / low cloud stuff is accepted by ever serious scientist, including Spencer and Lindzen. “””””

    Well Joel, that statement is false; because I am a very serious scientist and I don’t accept it.

    The thesis as presented in well known climatism text books (that have beed referenced several times at WUWT) is that clouds either cool the surface or warm the surface, depending on their altitude. The lower the clouds are, the more they cool the surface, and the higher the clouds are, the more they warm the surface, so there is a magic altitude at which clouds neither cool, nor warm the surface.

    That is what ever serious scientist believes as you put it.

    Simple geometrical optics puts the lie to that thesis. Because the sun is a near point source (0.5 deg divergence), ANY cloud at ANY height casts a shadow on the ground that is a rough image of the cloud, and yes it will have a penumbral edge that varies with cloud height, because of that divergence.

    But the outgoing LWIR radiation is not a point source; it is at least Lambertian (cosine intensity distruibution), and likely to be closer to isotropic, since the surface is not an optical surface.

    So the inverse square law works fully, and the energy intercepted by a cloud drops off with the square of the altitude. The cloud itself, as an LWIR emitter (as a consequence of its Temperature), is also an isotropic source, and the irradiance of the ground from that source also drops off with the square of the cloud altitude, so the higher the cloud is, the smaller the LWIR energy it intercepts, and the colder it gets, so it radiates at a lower intensity in the IR, and that is spread over an increasingly large surface area, the higher the cloud is. The higher the cloud, the lower its density specially of H2O molecules, so the less LWIR it can absorb and also emit.

    If your theory was correct, then the high noctilucent clouds should be frying all of us.

    Add to that the simple fact, that even you Joel can’t deny, that the Temperature ALWAYS drops in the shadow zone, whenever a cloud passes in front of the sun; it NEVER increases under those conditions.

    Yes Joel it IS true, that high clouds and warm balmy nights go together; that old saw has been reported here ad nauseum.

    BUT !! it is the heat and humidity during the previous day, that RESULTS in the formation of that cloud at night, when the daytime evaporated moisture rises, and cools, until it reaches the dew point and forms a cloud. And it was that heat during the day, that resulted in the balmy night; not the cloud. The high cloud is the result of the surface warmth; it is NOT the cause of it,

    And the hotter it is during the day (so the night will be warmer), the higher the water vapor has to rise before it cools to the dew point so the cloud that forms at night will be higher.

    I know that even you can understand this Joel; the heat and humidity of the day, results in the cloud at night; it ALWAYS cools down after sunset; it NEVER heats up after sunset, and the hotter the day is (with some water) the higher will be the cloud formed at night, and of course the warmer the evening will be.

    The cloud DOES NOT heat the surface; the surface heat forms the cloud.

  193. Myrrh says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    December 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    Julian Flood says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Dave Wendt says: December 5, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    “Go on, I dare you! Produce a theory that rising CO2 levels cause cooling. It’s worth it to see Mosher’s head explode…”

    A hypothesis that CO2 causes cooling might be a bit of a stretch, although at this stage the state of climate science is so dismal that almost any proposition is at least arguable, if not convincingly so. I have in the past suggested a conjecture, that I think is at least semi-plausible, which posits that the contribution of CO2 to planetary warming is barely beyond negligible. It’s based on the data from another work which utilized the spectral analysis techniques used in the Antarctic study I cited. Evans and Puckrin sort of pioneered the technique back in the late 90s in Canada and offered their findings in a presentation paper in 2006.

    ===============================

    Stands to reason:

    the Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C, from 67%deg;C from Earth without any atmosphere at all to Earth as we have now 15°C. Water vapour picks up heat at the surface and rises into the colder higher levels where it loses that heat and if enough dust around condenses out into rain or ice and this colder will now fall to the surface cooling it. Carbon dioxide spontaneously joins with water vapour and water in the Water Cycle to form carbonic acid, all pure rain is carbonic acid, so whatever heat is has will be lost in that combining, rain, fog, dew.

    any hot carbon dioxide in a volume of rising hot air will be taking heat away from the surface into higher colder where it gives up heat spontaneously in the law heat always flows from hotter to colder, and, as hot air rises colder air from above is drawn down below it, that’s how we get wind which is volumes of air on the move, so cooling the surface by default while on its way up in hot air rising. That colder air displacing rising hot air will again pick up any heat and rise in the same cycle until the surface has cooled and no greater heat to warm it it hangs around cold at the surface.

  194. Myrrh says:

    Aggggh..

    the Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C, from 67%deg;C it would be without the water cycle, but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, to Earth as we have now 15°C., which is 33°C difference between Earth without any atmosphere at all, -18°C, and Earth with the atmosphere as we have it, 15°C.

    Sorry, I’d written that in my mind, and surprised to find it wasn’t typed… :)

  195. David A says:

    Joel, George asked,”Can you give us some references to any peer reviewed papers that contradict the findings of Wentz et al that I cited”
    I sked if you could show a solar insolation chart of the different residence times of different W/L insolation, I showed you that water vapor alone (clear sky) removes 20% of TSI from the surface. Yes, I admit, this increases the resdence time of energy in the atmosphere, but it decreases the residence time of energy in the oceans, or even in the same affected W/L which would have reached the earths land surface. I would love to see a chart showing this with low clouds, with high clouds, just in the tropics for a start. Let me ask you another question. If the GCMs are subjected to a 100 watts per sq meter increase of TSI at the top of the atmosphere, would they show the earth warming or cooling?

  196. Spector says:

    RE: Main Article
    “When a journalist with South Africa’s national broadcaster interviewed me in the conference center, I told him the climate scam was just that – a scam. He replied that that was a merely emotional argument.”

    I think this is an indication of how easy it is to assume that it should now be obvious to everyone that the danger of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has been grossly overstated, when full belief in that danger is still alive and well in the press, and with many otherwise well informed people. Political candidates are still characterized as right-wing ideologues if they do not accept this flawed belief.

  197. Pierre-Normand says:

    George E. Smith said: “But the outgoing LWIR radiation is not a point source; it is at least Lambertian (cosine intensity distruibution), and likely to be closer to isotropic, since the surface is not an optical surface.
    So the inverse square law works fully, and the energy intercepted by a cloud drops off with the square of the altitude.”

    This is true of the energy intercepted by a cloud from some fixed small ground surface area. It is indeed governed by an inverse square law. However, when the cloud is higher, it also receives fluxes from a proportionally wider surface area. Imagine a 100% cloud cover over the whole Earth. Then the whole cover intercepts all the flux from the surface below. And any x% potion of the cover therefore absorbs x% of the total flux. This is altitude independent. Compare gravitation, which is also governed by an inverse square law. It is easy to show that the gravitational field from an infinite plane of uniform density is constant. The force exerted by the plane on a point particle some distance from it is independent of this distance. This is true despite the fact that the part of that force exerted by any infinitesimal portion of the plane is governed by an inverse square law. And the force exerted by an empty shell is the same as the force exerted by a point mass at the centre of the shell. When you move in the vicinity of the surface of the shell (outside, not inside, where it is null), the force is, to the first order, insensitive to the distance. The reason is the same. That’s how an inverse square law behaves when integrated over a wide area of a thin surface.

  198. Pierre-Normand says:

    George E. Smith said: “The cloud itself, as an LWIR emitter (as a consequence of its Temperature), is also an isotropic source, and the irradiance of the ground from that source also drops off with the square of the cloud altitude, so the higher the cloud is, the smaller the LWIR energy it intercepts, and the colder it gets, so it radiates at a lower intensity in the IR, and that is spread over an increasingly large surface area, the higher the cloud is.”

    That’s right. The downwelling longwave radiation spreads over a larger surface. But it contributes the same amount of flux over this larger surface. The *totality* of the downwelling radiation still reaches the ground, doesn’t it (neglecting non-cloud GHG effects, and Earth curvature effects)? So, while the warming effect sensed (or measured) by an observer located below the cloud would diminish if that cloud were moved up to an higher altitude, a larger area would be affected. And the effect integrated over the whole surface area will be the same. You observed also that the warming from an overcast cloud never exceeds the cooling effect in the shadow zone. But this is irrelevant to determining which one of the two effects is largest overall. That’s because the cooling effect is restricted to the shadow zone while the warming effect must be integrated over (1) a much larger zone and (2) over a whole 24 hours period. After sunset, the cooling effect drops to zero and the warming effect only diminishes slightly.

Comments are closed.