Monckton on Glenn Beck video now available

The figure of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is the total global output not the total human output. The entire “carbon footprint” of the whole of the human race is a mere 8 (some say 6) billion tonnes which equates to 4.1 ppm per year.
Plants need sunlight in order to consume CO2 and as more than approximately 60% of the Earths surface is in perpetual darkness, this causes CO2 to fluctuate up and down like a giant sine wave. From peak to trough the difference in natural CO2 usage and production by plants, organisms, oceans and land masses, can vary by more than 100 ppm in any 24 hour period. Yet the daily maximum of human CO2 emissions is less than 0.0112328767123288 of a single part per million.
In order for a substance such as CO2 to absorb heat or IR energy it must also re-emit that energy equally. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Or simply consider this:
If there was a substance in our atmosphere that could trap in heat, it would produce a net energy increase in the climate system. As this would have to be a fundamental law of thermodynamics (which it is not) then this situation would have always occurred and therefore the Earth would have experienced a net energy increase from the year dot and so would have over heated billions of years ago. Or at any time through out history when CO2 levels have been much higher than todays historically low levels.
In other words CO2 does not trap but rather simply absorbs and then re-emits heat. Having absorbed heat, any and all atmospheric gasses rapidly expand and due to the process of convection quickly rise up towards the freezing depths of space. But before they get too high, at approximately 5,000 meters (cloud level) they re-emit the IR energy and then once again become heavy and dense, falling back toward the ground. Due to the second law of thermodynamics the IR energy emitted continues on out into space never to return. This effect can only be described as temperature regulation.
The following is a quote from the NASA Earth Observatory program, CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System).
“Averaged over the entire globe, the Earth system neither stores nor emits more energy than it receives from the Sun.”
A substance that does not emit much energy will be a substance that does not absorb much energy such as certain plastics and rubbers. These types of substance are useful for insulating such things as wiring carrying electrical energy. The ability of a substance to insulate is not the same as trapping energy. In order to trap energy a substance must first absorb energy. But since all substances that absorb energy, always without exception re-emit equally there is no naturally occurring substance we know of which can trap heat energy.
The fact is that there is no substance known to man that possesses the ability to trap in heat. If there was we would not need to use thermos flasks and we certainly would not need to buy our energy from large corporations but instead we could take this heat trapping substance and paint our roofs with it.
AGW is a scam and the proof is billions of years of life on Earth. Without this temperature stability we could never have had the time to evolve from single celled organisms into human beings. We are living proof that the Earth enjoys relative temperature stability, the climate is extremely robust and our annual 4.1 ppm in CO2 emissions is not only insignificant but totally irrelevant.
[snip – please no more use of WUWT as self promotion ]

NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
Millions of people on the fence will be storming the web in the next week or two, looking into the background of the Lindzen paper and that single soundbite will make them hardened in their view of Beck and skeptical spokesmen as utter loons.
Nik, you should be aware by now that part of the case against the alarmists is their addiction to alarm and exaggeration.
It is unlikely that more than a thousand people will actually read Lindzen’s paper and understand it. Monckton’s warnings about loss of sovereignty and supremacy of our Constitution will make a far greater impression.
It is amusing that Lord Monckton refers to the 11 climate models as “Play Stations and X-Box 360s.” Does he suggest IPCC models are the work of pencil-necked geeks gaming a sim?

I want to believe! It’s just that I cannot in good faith offer debating points that I have not rigorously vetted to the thousands of Instapundit and other blog readers who are pointed to AGW articles each month that have comment sections I can ad to and thus myself reach thousands of non-scientists.
Props to those who were critical to of my statements since I agree with each of them in a way, except the silly ones that think a chemist is a lesser bad ass than a physicist, which I agree with in one way only, namely that they are better data crunchers but a chemist is usually better at understanding systems at a gut level while testing his understanding with cold hard scientific rigor to keep him honest.
I don’t discount the idea that carbon rationing is insane. I merely don’t think Monckton’s blackboard argument was simple enough for the demographic audience. He would have to use a metaphor instead of numbers with obscure sounding units. Do they sound obscure to me? That’s not the point I was making. I was thinking of how it would sound to Beck’s audience. I note that Beck himself did a double take in response to it.
Do I think water creates major positive feedback? No way. I mean it *might*, just as cholesterol intake *might* be the cause of heart disease. But cholesterol in the blood is NOT a foreign substance but in fact one of the key elements in cell wall structure and is thus highly regulated. The Earth has not turned to Venus in the past either. But what is the science behind CO2 that can produce an argument that laymen can really sink their teeth into? Does it exist? I honestly don’t yet know. I do know that a dirt simple version of it that stands up to scrutiny has not yet been created, for were that so I would by now have ran into it.
My point is that the college textbook argument I ran into that there are no greenhouse gas effects at ALL that was included in a big list of peer reviewed “skeptics articles” was in fact an argument in a vacuum that quickly fell apart. Thus I am STILL searching for an argument that the so-called “greenhouse” effect is extremely mild at best. The argument that a “cold” sky can’t slow the escape of heat from the ground simply because the ground is “hot” seems ridiculous though especially since air physically mixes between lays via a series of cylindrical spiral currents that form adjacent bands from the equator to the poles.
I wont think out loud here for ten pages about this.
The serious and competent reason that I am searching for SIMPLE explanations is so I can use them as arguments to convince people with no science background. This quest risks having myself come off as being a simpleton, I now realize!
However, there has been NO serious response to my main point though and that is worrisome. Even if the adjustments to the ERBE are questionable, I still want to know *what* effect they have on the result. What happens to the little line graph? I cannot in good faith spin a simple soundbite worthy argument from this if I know that the results are in fact utterly incomplete. Merely citing the adjustment paper a proper discussion does not make! Merely *having* doubts that are expressed conspiratorially is NOT an act of doing good science.
This sort of thing feels like that SNL skit in which the customer asks over and over until he’s screaming: “What’s the price of the car, Al?!?!?!”. Then Al goes into another round of this and that while not telling the price again.
What is the effect of the well-accepted and so far officially uncontroversial data adjustment on the temperature dependent flux graph?!?!?!
Similarly: Watt’s the price of poor station placement, Anthony?!?!?!?
The NOAA has done the half-hour work of averaging the best stations at SurfaceStations.org and it bluntly negates the heat island effect hypothesis that says over time heat island effects taint not just absolute temperature but temperature *trends* as well in the form of temperature anomalies. The theory that parking lots and airports somehow all turn into Tokyo over time seems far fetched but certainly possible. I was convinced that Anthony had a trump card of an article coming up that showed a totally different trend instead of a near match which I now highly suspect is the case. I especially suspect this since if he *was* sitting on such a radical result I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t instead plaster it all over his site by *now*. In fact it seems he is carrying out the political act of withholding this half-hour of work exactly because it would honestly negate the propaganda effect of the station images themselves. That’s dirty pool and does indeed equate with the action of “Big Tobacco”.
So what *do* the top quality stations show compared to the overall network if raw unadjusted data is used instead of adjusted data (as has been without evidence been the accusation against the NOAA)?
What’s the price of the car, Al?
These are minor points that become major due to the quite reasonable bad impression they give when they are not addressed. Having to discard the “bad temperature stations” argument will not cripple one’s ability to convince blog readers to start doubting AGW. But *if* the result is as the NOAA claims it is then the lack of owning up to it is damaging indeed to my ability to avoid all discussions degenerating into a barrage of VALID points against my argument.

NikFromNYC,
On the Lindzen old dataset (ERBE), I am sure I saw somewhere a graph where ERBE was spliced with the later CERES data.
On the UHI effect, there have been papers written that say the UHI effect is real and has been allowed for as part of the normalizing that the data undergoes. This is the official IPCC, GISS and HADCRUT position. However, the whole point of surfacestation.org was to uncover another and more insidious issue – bad siting. Bad siting is unique to each station and as such absolutely cannot be allowed for, simply because the institutions that normalize the data do not have any meta data about each site.
Hope this helps.

When can we see Lord Monckton on BBC? I would love to see him debate one of the chuckle brothers (Ed Milliband) or that other lordship, Lord Stern, although I suspect him to be one of those do-it-yourself lords as opposed to a member of the aristocracy.

Tor Hansson (10:39:30) :
credibility
Tor,
What people will also be evaluating is your credibility.
We can watch Glenn Beck and decide for ourselves what to think of him.
We can read your comments and decide for ourselves what to think of you.
And in my preliminary impression of you is that you are an ideologue of the left.

Hotrod, your considered remarks re: Beck are spot-on. Those who don’t see the growing influence of his presence are in for a rude surprise. (And that’s fine by me.) The man is neither a clown nor a fool and his ratings will continue to grow and grow.
I cannot remember anyone who has risen further and faster in visibility than Glenn and doubt that is an accident. Beck has learned from the master, Rush. What Rush realized long ago is that his opponents are not fazed by insult nor by being demonstrated wrong. What they cannot abide is ridicule and both Rush and Glenn have mastered the method.
Bravo for the show, kudos to Lord M and patriot Bolton for their insights. Hoi Polloi, you picked your own handle; how appropriate.
Larry

NikFromNYC (12:06:53) : “…this half-hour of work…”
Nik, I’d suggest:
Step 1 – Get the RAW data (CLIMOD) for NYC, and plot the mean temperature trend for the length of the dataset.
Step 2 – Decide how to handle missing data, outliers, station moves and instrument changes.
Step 3 – Repeat Steps 1 & 2 for 5 rural stations near NYC.
Step 4 – Compare rural average mean trend to NYC trend. Difference = UHI?
Step 5 – Repeat previous steps using Tmax and Tmin. Note contradictions.
Step 6 – Repeat steps 1 – 5 using seasonal (or monthly) Tmax and Tmin trends. Note more contradictions.
Step 7 – Attempt to explain. Correlations to station quality? latitude? elevation?
precipitation? wind speed and direction? ecoregion differences? etc. etc. etc.
I’ve done this for San Antonio, TX and it has taken a little more than 1/2 hour.
I’m now scratching my head at Step 7.
Being there seems to be almost chaotic regional effects, doing this analysis on a national level seems monumental. So stick your 1/2 hour of work, and try doing it yourself.
Or I guess you could just homogenize Tmeans, while assuming there were no UHI effects or station quality issues.

Benjamin (02:19:13) :
But throughout they were saying “If Obama signs this…”
What do they mean “if”? Of course he’s going to sign it,
The White House has said that Obama won’t even be at Copenhagen. Instead he will be in Stockholm accepting his Nobel—happening at the same time. But after watching Mocknton I’m beginning to wonder if Obama will pop in at Copenhagen and say, “I was in the neighborhood, so I….”
Stockholm and Copenhagen are only 325 miles (522 Km) apart.

I cannot stress enough my admiration for Monckton. Who else could have brought this UN governance ambition into stark limelight? Watching past lectures, he pitches to his audience with perfection, adding humour. He represents a formidable challenge to AGW extremism and political duplicity, and is exploiting every available opportunity he can to cut through the spun carbon fibre wall of media censorship that is rapidly enveloping us all, while we stand and wring hands. At least you have effective representational opposition. We dont.
If he cant use Lindzen in support, who should he use?

220 feet you say, Smokey?
We’d better get down to the beach quick, before the last pier goes underwater by April Fools day. That’s 22 feet per year.
The waves will be licking at the Governator’s Mansion in Sacramento by Christmas 2010. Arnold will be furious….nah…he’s got an amphibious Hummer.
The Golden Gate Bridge and the other bridges are goners, so SF is lost. Oops, that means Nancy is out of a job. Oh dear, no constituents.