In case you missed it live, Christopher Monckton spent an entire hour on the Glenn Beck program today on the topic of global warming, skepticism, and the Copenhagen Treaty.
The video is now available.
Watch it below.
I think Lord Monckton did a splendid job.
To see the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, see this essay on the subject here.
Parts 1-7 of the hour long video are below. YouTube has time limits on clips, so it is broken up into parts 1-7.
220 ft? Hmmm. Is that the same Al Gore who bought San Fran property?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/08/al_gore_buys_san_francisco_con.html
Nik:
I did not watch the monckton piece so I have no answer as to whether or not the ‘masses’ can be made to understand the fairly simple science that is laid out in Lindzen’s paper, but that certainly is not the point.
You ask the question ‘what’s happens to the graph’ when the sat adjustments are made.
Since you are familiar with physics and math, can you think of what kind of systemic defect in the satellite would cause the rank order of the measurements to be upside down? Because this is in all likelihood what you need to have occur in order for the the slope of the fit to flip from positive to negative. So if you just look at the graph in a non parametric space, you can get the sign of the feedback even if you can not say for sure what is the magnitude. Without a negative sign as is presented in the models AGW as it is modeled is cooked.
I feel there is too much admiration for the messenger rather than the message.
Ron de Haan (08:35:28) : Richard (21:59:05) :
“It is all about our freedom – all our freedoms. Not only America – but the freedom of the peoples of all western democratic nations. That is what is under attack and in jeopardy”.
If the US and Europe opt for the 80 – 95 reduction in CO2 emissions and transfer power to the UN, this will be the end of the free world, economy down, middle class destroyed, no money to pay for the military…
Do you see how stupid we are!
Indeed I do. Nations of sheep that’s what we are, being led like lambs to the slaughter.
The most capitalist system in the world today is the Chinese. India a distant second. Europe is socialist and unproductive to the core. Totally uncompetitive against capitalist China, India or the developing nations like S Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia. America is bankrupt and in debt and rapidly heading that way.
If your economy was tottering would you print and borrow more money or would you gird your loins and buckle down to hard work? Would you tax energy and energy generation, the very source and means by which you produce good, services and wealth or would you encourage it instead, like in China and India?
Yes America will rapidly become a banana republic under these policies. With all its capital going towards servicing only part of the interest on its debt, while it gets evermore deeply into debt.
Conference Announcement:
On October 26 and 27, the Club of Rome will convene in Amsterdam for its 2009 annual Global Assembly. This year’s Assembly is the last of seven international conferences of the Club of Rome in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. Keynote speakers like NASA’s **James Hansen** and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev will address the interdependency of the climate, energy and economic crisis and the opportunities they offer for sustainable growth. Participate and join master classes of some of the world’s most influential thinkers and achievers. Together we will write the Amsterdam Declaration, proposing key ingredients for a **Global Green New Deal**, as a last message to Copenhagen.
http://www.worldconnectors.nl/index.php?id=29&c=&n=104
http://www.clubofrome.org/
The Club of Rome and its members:
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
NikFromNYC (12:06:53) :
“[…] 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? […]”
This fellow, in the link that follows, has a decent handle on the answer to your question if you care to spend an appropriate amount of time digesting what he’s found.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
220 foot sea level rise. Do we even have enough ice to do that? Seriously, someone enlighten me.
One of the problems for Gore is with endless negotiations, people become habituated to the “crisis”, and people would rather wear floaties than pay more for fuel anyway so why don’t republicans go a bit harder on the costs of this mumbo. That is what is about to get underway here in Australia. So far it has been an ideological dreamboat, but a dollars and cents argument would get in the way. So far noone has had the courage to do that in an effective way because AGW became politically essential. Surely now it’s ripe to dissolve this with a financial argument.
matty (17:03:14)
foTo begin with, sea levels have been rising 4 feet per century since 10,000 years ago. Now they are rising less than a foot per century. During the 1st half of the 20th century they rose by 2mm per year and now they are rising 1.5mm per year. (How the figure decreases) Ice gathering around Antarctic and greenland will probably cause a decrease in net sea levels soon too, but that is never even looked at or mentioned.
actually that should be 4 feet per century averaged out over 10,000 years so the great tumults would have been prior to the medieval period and in the biblical period, such as that around the time of Noah’s ark, probably caused by arctic from land melting.
However, and its a big however: There is a flooded settlement 95 metres below sea level off the coast of Northern Turkey.
At the last glacial maximum-some 15,000-20,000 years ago sea levels were 120 metres lower than today
the issue of sea level rise is hardly relevent at present for these reasons but fairly relevant or so for over 10,000 years, especially since we’ve been going through global warming consistently from that period, though at a greatly reduced/negative rate today. ie, 3/4 of these 10,000 years were warmer than today, so it puts the present in its context. melting glaciers over this period relieved a land pressure of thousands of billions of tons which elevated depressed land. However, today more pertinent is the rate of thermal contraction or expansion, which tend to be local than eustatic, net ice coverage regarding loss and gain, dynamic ocean floor changes such as new ocean crusts etc, sediment increase, ocean flow changes, land decrease and increase as well as the gravitational forces which are local.
When the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed, (about 720 billion tons) it was due to the sheer weight, as ridges like that protrude so much that they break under their own weight although something even that monumental has to be balanced against the gain to Antarctica over the same period, which is a net gain of ice. Ice accumulating over Antarctica continues both extensively and in terms of thickness. However, ice shelves float on water so displace the same amount of water and don’t contribute to sea level change. they spread offland under their own weight and flow off land into oceans. Greenland is a slightly diffrent story – its both thickening with ice sheet growth at the interior and melting at some coastal areas, but certainly not melting as much as the 1930’s or indeed the period when it was declared “Greenland”. In fact it has virtualy stopped melting altogether for the last 10 years. The previous glaciers were melting. Efectively, as it gets thicker and extends, it pushes ice outwards
Its assumed that because the Arctic was warmer in the 30’s it contained a smaller ice coverage than the last 30 year period, but in all honesty, there is only a 30 year satellite period to judge its total extent.
Also, landscapes change, ocean floors elevate and recede. Underwater volcanism – there are around 10,000 unerwater volcanoes – and quakes change the seabed, and such gives rise to huge underwater mountain ranges.. It sounds odd, but despite sea volume being the same over a given period, this so called solid is quite dynamic, ie, not static. Even over 10,000 years land levels have risen around 180 metres, (reputedly) mainly the northern hemisphere where most of the landmass is, due to the weight of glaciers receding. These glaciers carried vast amounts of sediment which increased sea floor levels. Were talking of hundreds of thousands of billions of tons of ice and sediment disappearing from lands, and this land elevation leads to/triggers other seismic events. Then there are other hydrothermal events..
as it is at the moment: despite sea levels remaining fairly constant, the seas are shallower than they used to be – as ocean beds have gone through a net elevation, mainly sea spreading. in other words this mantle appears to be getting thicker
matty (17:03:14) :
I mean, the answer is: sea levels have effectively peaked or are reaching their optimum. Its unlikely that Antactica will melt. The average all year temperature is -37C. That means the temperature would have to increase more than 37C on annualaverage to give this most elevating global warming effect.
David L Hagen(08:39:37)
Re Your sum up of Copenhagen wording and intent, that “Government” =non elected bureaucracy and “financial mechanism” = taxation without representation.
Wasn’t this the issue ,the historic Boston Tea Party, that triggered America’s War of Independence with Britain?
Ironic if American citizens now permit this to take place by way of a Treaty without protest.
NikFromNYC,
Can I suggest that you reread Ninderthana (09:09:35) :
This little missive is not some uneducated rant. It is based on solid atmospheric physics. Lindzen is not the only one who has show that the H20 feedback is strongly negative.
You claim to be a chemist, so you should know that all of the global warming models are based on the assumption that the relative humidity of the warming troposphere is roughly constant. This means that the models predict that the specific humidity (i.e. the amount of water vapor per unit mass of air) is increasing – particularly in the upper troposphere.
In fact the whole catastrophic CO2 global warming model depends on the specific humidity increasing to get the postive H2O feed-back.
So what is actually happening? The exact opposite to what the models predict:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/
Trends in middle-[level] and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Volume 98, Numbers 3-4 / October, 2009
who find that:
“….the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern latitudes.”
I see many people attacking a man, rather than his ideas. Usually that happens when they are afraid of his ideas…
Cultural differences aside–which were amusing to me because of my background–Chris was superb. His talk in Regina, Saskatchewan, and presumably similarly across Canada, covered some of the same points and was equally excellent. The mendacious assessment of the interview in The Guardian, by one Suzanne Goldenberg, bears no relation to the facts at all, and is typical of the media distortion so common in this subject, which become increasingly shrill as the facts are laid bare. Lest anyone think that Chris’ conspiracy theory–which admittedly makes many in North America uncomfortable–is implausible, they can simply read the draft Copenhagen treaty: is is all there in black and white.
The coast of Northern Turkey is on the Black Sea, which was a much smaller lake until some thousands of years BC (exact time in dispute). Then the Mediterranean broke through and flooded the entire region up to normal sea level. So you can’t draw any conclusions about global sea level rise from the Black Sea.
Gene Nemetz:
The whole point, at least for skeptics like me, is to de-politicize the debate. That is what this site, for one, does quite well.
Glenn Beck is on the far right side of the debate—any debate. He is a demagogue. He often lies and speaks half-truths. (Yes, he does. He said, on the air, that Mr. Obama has a hatred for white people. I guess that includes his mother, who was white.) Glenn Beck does not serve any useful purpose I can see for AGW skeptics.
I am not saying Lord Monckton should not appear on Glenn Beck. Of course he can, provided he appears on a number of other shows as well, such as Olbermann, Maddow, Face The Nation, and whatever else can be mustered. But just appearing on Glenn Beck politicizes the issue, which in my mind is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.
TOR HANSSON
I believe that one must be invited to appear on Olberman or Maddow. What is the chance that Monckton would be invited to those shows ? “snowballs in hell” comes to mind. Or maybe the same as Gore accepting an invitation to appear on Glenn Beck. O’Reilly has openly invited Gore to appear — so far NADA!!
As for Pax Obaminus’ feelings about white people—– I’d be more interested in his feelings about America, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter handy
And one more thing: The United States was the main driver behind the establishment of the U.N. To say that the organization has been a disappointment to many is probably an understatement. Its main purpose is to spread just a tiny bit of aid and comfort to the poor, and to see if it is possible to make people stop fighting so much. (It was founded 1945, after all.)
To have people shake in their boots of all the power that will be bestowed on the United Nations is nothing short of laughable. The U.N. constantly and repeatedly gets de-fanged to suit the needs of the member nations of the Security Council. To propose that we all of a sudden will see the U.N. rise to become the seat of world government is so much Randish hussy-talk.
So OKE DOKE:
You believe that Barack Obama hates America?
All I can say is that I find the whole notion paranoid in the extreme. This is not meant to be impolite, but are you on any sort of meds?
You may disagree with this Administration’s policies. Just don’t call it evil or inept. It is neither.
This site is mostly about AGW, and some politics bleed into it for a variety of reasons. I enjoy this site for the very reason that it is fairly apolitical. When I see these kinds of opinions here I just shudder, and hope that they will continue to be outweighed by all the sober people who have the knowledge to educate a non-specialist like me on the science.
NikFromNYC (19:02:30) :
“So I wonder what the real result is, using the updated data?”
I tried to find what has been done about the matter of corrections by Lindzen, and others already replied they are taken into account. But I would like you to look again at the figures in page 45 and 46 of Lindzen’s presentation in
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
Note that there is no time scale. This is because he is plotting differences, Deltas of sea surface temperatures and deltas of outgoing long wave radiation.
Differences are very good in eliminating first order callibration issues between sets of data.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:31:13) :
I went by what their web site said.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:31:13) :
I must have misunderstood it
The Nobel Laureates take center stage in Stockholm on 10 December when they receive the Nobel Prize Medal, Nobel Prize Diploma and document confirming the Nobel Prize amount from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. In Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates receive their Nobel Peace Prize
http://nobelprize.org/award_ceremonies/
They receive in Stockholm and in Oslo.
The Medal and Prize are different. I was not versed on this. I never have cared to be versed on this.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Now I understand (IMO) part of why Richard Feynman didn’t like his Nobel.
(I had other things to say about the Nobel. But I self snipped.)
anna v (22:41:46) :
I am hoping that this work by Richard Lindzen will catch on in the main stream of education some day. But I have this thought : Newton and Einstein had incompatible views on gravity. Einstein is right. Newton was wrong. But Newton’s view of gravity is still taught in elementary to high schools today.
Lindzen has 20 years of data. He is right. Will it make it in to text books?
Tor,
I quite agree that the Obama administration is not un-American and is not evil.
As to inept however, I think it depends on the subject. In organizing a campaign or a push for legislative support, it has been very good.
But cash for clunkers was very poorly administered – ask any dealer. The decision to close dealers was arbitrary. The guy (Czar) who fired the GM Chairman is a Yale law student.
ARRA (Stimulus) was signed 2/17/09 and included a 65% subsidy for COBRA health insurance coverage mandated to begin 3/1/09. The problem is that insurance is billed and paid in advance. Not only did the health industry have to reprogram in two weeks, but they had to go backwards and re-bill for March. To make matters worse, Labor Dept. and IRS guidelines did not come out until the end of April.
Rush, rush, rush. In 35 years of advising industry on regulatory and compliance issues at no time has it been nearly this bad and I haven’t even started on the EPA.
There are many other examples. Please note that I have made no comment on the policy – reasonable people can disagree. However, industry has had no reasonable opportunity to comply without an expensive and scrambled response. This is inept.