The following letter is from an APS member, Roger W. Cohen, and is in support of Lord Monckton’s paper published in the July APS newsletter. For more information on this, see my posting American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper
I found this passage in the essay below to be most compelling:
“…I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is.”
Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.
- I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.
I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.
At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC position is seriously flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its projections for effects in the 21st century. Here are five key reasons for this:
- The recorded temperature rise is neither exceptional nor persistent. For example, the earth has not warmed since around 1997 and may in fact be in a cooling trend. Also, in particular, the Arctic and contiguous 48 states are at about the same temperature as they were in the 1930s. Also in particular the rate of global warming in the early 20th century was as great as the last third of the century, and no one seriously ascribes the early century increase to greenhouse gas emissions.
- Predictions of climate models are demonstrably too high, indicating a significant overestimate of the climate sensitivity (the response of the earth to increases in the incident radiation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases). This is because the models, upon which the IPCC relies for their future projections, err in their calculations of key feedback and driving forces in the climate system.
- Natural effects have been and continue to be important contributors to variations in the earth’s climate, especially solar variability and decadal and multidecadal ocean cycles.
- The recorded land-based temperature increase data are significantly exaggerated due to widespread errors in data gathering and inadequately corrected contamination by human activity.
- The multitude of environmental and ecological effects blamed on climate change to date is either exaggerated or nonexistent. Examples are claims of more frequent and ferocious storms, accelerated melting of terrestrial icecaps, Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier, polar bear populations, and expansive mosquito-borne diseases. All of these and many others have been claimed and ascribed to global warming and by extension to human activity, and all are bogus or highly exaggerated.
I would be pleased to provide details on any of these five key reasons. Many others can do so as well.
As contrary evidence has accumulated, proponents of strong AGW have begun to display signs of cognitive dissonance. The famed social psychologist Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of cognitive dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon. One study looked at people who bought bomb shelters during the cold war. It was found that such people tended to exaggerate the threat of nuclear war, and nothing could dissuade them. Good news about relaxed tensions and peace initiatives was rejected. Such developments brought about cognitive dissonance, bizarrely almost as if they were invested in nuclear war. The psychological model is that their belief system became part of their identity, their self, and information at odds with that belief system became an attack on the self. This helps explain why such people can be resistant to information that would be judged positive on a rational basis. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers who predicted the end of the world on a particular date. When that didn’t happen, the believers became even more determined they were right. And they become even louder and proselytized even more aggressively after the disconfirmation. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from proponents as evidence continues to mount. For example we are now told that even cooling fits in with global warming.
Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2. It does mean that the case for immediate draconian measures that will have the effect or restricting world economic growth is poor. It does mean that the climate is unpredictable, even with modern tools, and this implies that continuing to load the atmosphere poses imponderable risks to terrestrial life. I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions. In this regard the role of governments is not to enact restrictive economic measures via market interventions, or to choose the winners in a technology race. Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.
Roger W. Cohen
APS Fellow
Source: http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm
See also a friendly wager Cohen offered earlier this year
Jonas N … You wrote:
“The factor of three origins (as you would know, if you’d actually read it) from callibration with the strongest signature arising från CO2 in the modelling.
You can argue that there are other ways (giving ‘better’, ie higher forcing), but you cannot simply dismiss it as ‘not admissable’.”
Actually just about everything I have read indicates that reducing the forcing by three is not admissible. Even TVMOB has backed off that in his rebuttals, in essence saying that what does it matter which of the key three multipliers he reduces by three, the result for the sensitivity is the same. But CO2 forcing (the radiative imbalance in the stratosphere) is basically determined by the physical properties of CO2 itself, and isn’t being questioned by any qualified physicist.
Regarding the first part of your comment; “The factor of three origins (as you would know, if you’d actually read it) from callibration with the strongest signature arising från CO2 in the modelling.”
Actually, from what I have read, the strongest signal of CO2 (and other manmade GHG) in the modeling is the cooling of the stratosphere, and that fingerprint is present in all regions. This cooling is some of the the strongest supporting evidence for the role of CO2 in AGW, since no one has brought forth an alternative model that could account for this cooling.
But TVMOB focused on the tropical mid-troposphere, and because the warming in that one region of the earth, isn’t as much as the models predicted, he made a personal decision to fudge the results and reduce the forcing by 3. But the data on tropical mid-troposphere is limited, and has a high degree of uncertainty. There is no justification on dividing the CO2 forcing (in the stratosphere) by 3, due to measurement problems and lack of demonstrated warming in the mid-troposphere in the tropics.
All the critiques I have read, point out this problem. Here is the comments from DQ, who occasionally posts on this site, on the tropical mid-troposphere warming and TVMOB’s fudge factor of 3 :
“Basically, the mid-troposphere warming is indeed present, as expected.
Monckton does cite this new research, but dismisses it on the basis of satellite records… another case where measurement and calibration errors are a source of hot dispute. In any case, let it go… because what Monckton does with this is astounding.
He divides the forcing by 3. (equation 17)
That’s just surreal. There’s no basis to reduce the forcing here. It’s the temperature response that is involved. He gives a vague appeal to Lindzen (2007), ‘Taking greenhouse warming seriously’, in Energy & Environment 18 (7-8). But that paper does not propose any reducing in forcing; only to sensitivity… on roughly the same dubious basis of limited troposphere warming.”
from DQ’s site: http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html
I would say, that after reading these critiques, and TVMOB’s rebuttals, that “torn apart” is a very accurate description of what has happened to The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s scientific reasoning in his paper.
And I didn’t even bother to go into the double and triple counting etc.
In fact, I could argue (particularly if I knew more) that hydrogen-powered cars and industries emitting water vapor for 60 years might be more harmful to the planet as water vapor is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas based on the percentages each gas contributes to GW. But I haven’t seen anyone consider this possibility.
I’ve considered it, but I doubt it. Water vapor per volume is a lot less effective as a GHG than CO2. But there’s hordes more vapor. So X amount of H2O is going to be around seven times less “effective” than CO2.
Also, H20 Is very non-persistent. CO2 is either somewhat or highly persistent (depending on whom you believe).
So, while I think CO2 has very little effect, H20 would have even much less than that.
Paul K
No, not really. You cannot theoretically calculate the effects oc CO2-forcing, but dismiss calibrations using empiracally observed fingerprints predicted by the very same models predictions.
You could still claim that the models are not accurate enough to use for validation of the models themselves. But then, this is what you must say and do. That would be, in essence to disqualify the very theory AG-warmers base their entire case on.
You are partly correct in saying that this observation not necessarily means that it should be the forcing that should be divided by three. And Monckton acknowledges that fact. Actually, that is precisely where I think there is room for valid criticism: Based on his understanding, there are three factors whose product make up the entire ‘climate sensitivity’. His method (or rather, his assessment) cannot really distinguish between the influence of any individual facor amongst them.
And exaclty because of this, he can be criticised for recalculating the sensitivity with its feedback-term based on what he thinks is a more reasonable assessment of the surface temperature record.
The fact that people who want to ‘bump up’ total climate sensitivity would not use these observations is not a valid argument. Neither is their speculation of uncertainties in satellite records or alludations to tropospheric wind speed measurements as proxy for temperatures there. All those are just different ways to get around AGWers problems with discrepancies between predictions and actual observations.
Mind you, I’m not saying they’re totally wrong. I’m merely saying that you cannot pick the observations that fit your theory and dismiss all others.
But, Paul, lets not take this further than necessary. You repeatedly refer to ‘as what you’ve read’, and I believe you: You’ve read the things you claim. You have no personal expertise regarding the things you refer to. And these say nothing more than ‘if you look at it this way, and you put mor faith into these observations and proxies, you’d arrive at a different number’.
And that’s true: If you’d rather believe in only things that confirm your viewpoint, you’d end up in something thats much closer to your beliefs than elsewise.
But that observation goes the other way around as well: If you pick your observations in another way, you end up somewhere completeley else.
So, since Monckton possibly did some (not double-, an absolutley not tripple-, but possibly) 1.5-times counting, he deserves to be criticised!
But not on the grounds that Gavin and the rest of you purport. And if you still do, that criticism mainly goes the other way as well. That is, the modellers have the same deficiancies as the want to stick to Monckton, but only of the opposite sign!
Jeff Witta and Smokey:
Did you read Cohen’s letter? He states:
“I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.”
How does this translate into government research grants? I read him a stating that his employer had the foresight to conduct self-funded research concerning climate change and stability. Apparently some of his subordinates participated in the IPCC process. You assume that everyone who contributed to IPCC was government funded. I suspect that Cohen’s colleges may have been token researchers from the private sector.
My point is that you need to read carefully before bloviating.
“Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.” I can’t see any footnotes or figures there.
REPLY: It may be related the the version of PDF reader you are using.
Well taken point, Evan. Thanks.
Jeff Wiita, I probably read more criticism into your original post than you actually meant. I apologize for assuming [you know what they say about that]. You responded as a complete gentleman, and I appreciate that very much.
Leon Brozyna (15:05:15) :
Such prescience. Man, you are really good!
Paul K states in one of his innumerable and vicious ad hominem attacks directed at Viscount Monckton:
So, Paul K, if he’s violating the law… go get him! Go on, what are you waiting for? Justice delayed is justice denied. Be a superhero, and bring that evil scofflaw to justice!
At this point the question must be asked: why has Christopher Monckton’s paper generated so much vitriol, hatred and fear from the AGW alarmists? Other credible scientists have also issued AGW-skeptical papers without generating nearly so much outright hatred and consternation from those flogging the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. Why is there such fear and loathing of Christopher Monckton from the “CO2 is gonna getcha – unless you shovel tax money our way” crowd?
The answer is very simple: while every scientific paper has minor errors [which refereeing and peer review are intended to correct], the UN/IPCC/Hansen crowd hates Monckton with a passion because, overall, he is absolutely correct. His paper exposes the falsity of AGW as a cause of runaway global warming due to anthropogenic CO2. And Monckton uses his considerable math skills to back up his assertions.
The AGW purveyors absolutely hate Monckton because they can not refute him. So they attack him with <ad hominems. Note that Paul K, in his 5(!) rambling attacks on Monckton, makes it obvious that he is merely parroting the ramblings found on pro-AGW true believer blogs; second-hand rambling, devoid of real substance.
Prove me wrong, Paul K. Specifically refute Monckton’s climate mathematics, via your own equations. You may have to study up on those little superscripts, subscripts, and funny Greek letters. But give it a try. We don’t want to think you’re a crank.
Paul K (11:51:55)
I have a couple of questions for you.
What has been the feedback/sensitivity/amplifier number based on observed data for the last 8 years? The oceans “temperatures” and land / sea “temperature” have been flat and CO2 has been rising.
The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
“As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 W/m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3 °C (5.4 °F), but with a range from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3 °C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
National Research Council
What cause the drop in “temperature from the MWP to the LIA?
Don’t you all know that Cohen is in BIg Oil’s pocket, and is why he didn’t speak out till he retired? 8-}
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080126_3.htm
“Cohen is a parrot on Exxon’s shoulder,” Isensee said. “He is Exxon’s version of tobacco scientists who said tobacco isn’t bad for you.”
“Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.” I can’t see any footnotes or figures there.
REPLY: It may be related the the version of PDF reader you are using.
Adobe Reader 8.1.2. But I think that the http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ site simply uses the phrase “[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]” for all its PDF files, regardless of whether there are actually “Illustrations, footnotes and references” therein. In this case, I don’t think there are any.
Wed. Aug 6/08, 5 p.m. local news, Channel 5 NBC, Seattle, WA. Jeff Renner, lead weatherman had a segment outside the regular weather report in which he and a Univ. of Washington climatologist, I think, I didn’t catch his name or title as I expected the usual AGW stuff, began talking about local differences in AGW timing and intensity and predicted that there would be little or no warming in the Pacific North West for twenty or thirty years. There was no mention at all about the PDO and the first or second Great Climate Shift but the timing of the predicted return to warming is about what to expect if the PDO rules. I have noticed in the last four mos. or so, that without ever contradicting that fellow who invented the internet, there is an almost complete absence of AGW scare stories. This after two years of intensive blitz.
Smokey: Come on you can try harder? You claim this is a vicious attack?
Paul K states in one of his innumerable and vicious ad hominem attacks directed at Viscount Monckton:
“Meanwhile The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s aberrant behavior continues… So again, TVMOB [Paul K’s juvenile and derogatory term for Monckton, an internationally respected mathematician, climate authority and journalist] is violating copyright laws.”
I observed that this man (or should I use the term, ‘lord’?), took a private courtesy copy of correspondence, that he knew the author had submitted for publication, then added text to it identifying the man’s employer, and then published it without his permission on his politically motivated website. The author had written it on his own time, and on his own dime, and The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley took work and used it without permission. The author has been warned by his employer to drop all references to his employer, but The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley continues to publish his work, identifying the author’s employer, in spite of being warned. These are all facts.
Is this a vicious attack? Or is it the truth? Maybe that these events occurred make the truth hurt, because of your prior beliefs regarding The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
Regarding use of his name, I have tried hard to address him initially by his title and preferred address, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, on my posts here, since I understand that he prefers to be called by that title, and not be addressed as Christopher Monckton. I usually abbreviate his title as TVMOB, only after identifying his full pedigree first, as in the passage you clipped and posted. (BTW, pedigree has the meaning ‘the recorded ancestry, especially upper class ancestry, of a person or family’ , in my dictionary, and that is the definition, I am using here… please don’t launch another personal attack on me with a different definition.)
How would you like me to address The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? May I have your permission to refer to him as simply as Monckton, as many do here, without your disapproval or derision? Or do you insist on The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? What can I call him, so that we can move past the lordship’s inherited title?
I would like get to the facts of ethical reporting by scientific organizations and journals, and discuss no free rides for royalty; scientific or otherwise. I would like to get a response to the technical reviews I summarized in my posts. I would like to talk about blind faith, and the moral hazards of leadership.
And I would like to talk about respect for free enterprise, where a person’s fruits of his own labor are his property, and can’t be stolen and improperly used for political purposes. Should a person surrender his copyright, in order to gain widespread communication available through publication, as The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley did with his paper, then that is that individual’s choice.
Why is it that The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is denying Arthur Smith that same freedom to publish where and when he saw fit ?
Why is it The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley can call his editors ‘liars’, when they inform the world that none of the papers on the forum that published His Paper, were peer reviewed? Why is this peculiar behavior not allowed to be commented upon, on posts on this site, set up to complain about the treatment his lordship, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is getting from the APS?
Please respond forthwith, so that I can proceed in a timely way, to all the other tasks, you, and other posters here, have demanded from me.
TVMOB
TV MOB
I get it.
Now there is a true man of science, willing to overturn his own beliefs on account of his investigations.
Concerning the Lord Monckton paper, “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.”
Chuck it again, Schmidt!
A response to Gavin Schmidt’s Critique of Monckton’s “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf
Critique by Arthur Smith
and
Monckton Rebuttal
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf