Note: I posted this originally early this morning, something happened with wordpress.com hosting (I’m not sure what) and it disappeared, here it is again. – Anthony
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers
I am most grateful to the many kind readers of www.wattsupwiththat.com who have commented on my open letter to the Australian Prime Minister. If you want to see a real “hockey-stick” graph, just look at the record of this wonderful website’s monthly hit-rates over the past couple of years.
May I answer some of the scientific and economic points raised by your readers?
Several readers raised the question whether the function ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) (in Celsius degrees) that I have derived for the rate of warming predicted by the IPCC in response to any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration takes account not only of the direct forcing from CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere but also of any net-positive temperature feedbacks.
In fact the Monckton function does take account of feedbacks as well as forcings. Broadly speaking, the IPCC assumes (though this is almost certainly a monstrous exaggeration) that temperature feedbacks approximately triple any externally-forced initial warming. For the sake of minimizing any dispute, and solum ad argumentum (only for the sake of argument), I have simply calculated the warming the IPCC’s way, exaggerations and all.
One can test the function by calculating that 4.7 ln 2 (for a doubling of CO2) equals 3.26, the precise equilibrium temperature change, in Celsius degrees, predicted by the IPCC as its central estimate. For US and UK readers, the Monckton function in Fahrenheit degrees is ΔT = (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/C0).
My purpose in deriving this function was to facilitate instant calculation of the equilibrium temperature change predicted by the IPCC for any given change in CO2 concentration, without having to take separate account of the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing, of the Planck no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter, or of the sum of climate-relevant positive and negative temperature feedbacks.
A related question, also raised by several readers, was whether I should have taken account of the fact that not all feedbacks are linear. Since the IPCC assumes that all feedbacks are either linear or close enough to linear to be linearizable, I have adopted the same assumption, again solum ad argumentum, even though it is clear that the water vapor feedback, for instance, cannot be strictly linear.
Another reader has asked why I have calculated the effect of implementing the Copenhagen Accord only as far as 2020. This is the time-horizon for the Accord. The effect of the Accord over ten years would be to forestall warming of just 0.2 C° (0.35 F°) forestalled even if everyone complies fully. This outcome is so minuscule that extending the analysis beyond that date would be pointless, not least because by ten years from now it will be blindingly obvious to everyone a) that the climate is simply not warming anything like as fast (if at all) as the IPCC had ambitiously predicted, and b) that compliance with Copenhagen was little better than compliance with Kyoto. By 2020, the climate scare will be all over bar the shouting, and no one will be cutting CO2 emissions any more.
Another query was about whether I should have done the calculation on the basis of 7.5% of total CO2 emissions, rather than 7.5% of the additional 20 ppmv that we will emit on the trend of the past decade unless we cut emissions. Here, the enquirer is confusing emissions with concentration. CO2 emissions are rising at a near-exponential rate, but over the past decade CO2 concentration has risen at a strictly linear rate of a fraction over 2 ppmv/year. The IPCC’s case is that without our emissions CO2 concentration would stabilize, and would only drop back to its pre-industrial 278 ppmv after hundreds of years: therefore it is appropriate – solum ad argumentum, as ever – to hoist the IPCC with its own petard and to attribute all of the 2 ppmv/year increase in CO2 concentration to our current emissions, from which the calculation in the letter to Mr. Rudd follows.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most distinguished commentators on the climate scam, has done some excellent work demonstrating that over the past 30 years the relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration has remained broadly constant at approximately 14-15 billion tons CO2 emitted per 1 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Therefore, if we ignored the IPCC’s belief – which certainly does not represent the consensus in the scientific literature – that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, then the correct calculation would be to assume that without our current emissions CO2 concentration would fall swiftly back to 278 ppmv from its present 388 ppmv – a drop of 110 ppmv. Then, if we saved 7.5% of total emissions, we should reduce CO2 concentration by 7.5% of 110 ppmv, or around 8 ppmv, in which event the warming forestalled over the next ten years would be 0.1 C°, still not worth all those trillions.
Next, a reader says he will not believe the UN’s computer models until they are capable of modeling all of the natural as well as anthropogenic causes of “global warming”. However, even then modeling is of limited value, because the climate is not merely complex and non-linear but mathematically chaotic. Therefore, as Lorenz (1963) proved in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, unless we know the initial state of the climate at any chosen moment to a precision that is forever unattainable in practice, reliable, very-long-term weather prediction is not available “by any method” – and “very-long-term”, as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter, means just a few weeks. It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.
Which leads to my next answer. A reader says he wishes I had supplied references to support my statements in the closing paragraphs of the letter that the measured radiative forcing from changes in cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 was at least five times greater than that from CO2. The forcing from CO2 over that period – the only period warming that we could have influenced even in theory – was just 0.8 Watts per square meter. The forcing from decreased cloud cover, expressed as the sum of 19 annual means, was 4.5 Watts per square meter.
A recent blog posting by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org explains the theory behind the radiative influence of changes in cloud cover. Briefly, where low-altitude, low-latitude cloud cover diminishes, more short-wave radiation hits the Earth rather than being reflected harmlessly back to outer space. When it hits the Earth, it is displaced to the long wave and then heads back towards outer space. Therefore, the ERBE and CERES satellites, whose data is publicly available, will show simultaneous decreases in outgoing short-wave and increases in outgoing long-wave radiation if decreases in cloud cover are the cause, and vice versa for increases in cloud cover.
There are several good papers on this measured phenomenon. See e.g. Palle, E, Goode, P.RT., Montañes-Rodriguez, P., and Koonin, S.E., 2004, Changes in the Earth’s reflectance over the past two decades, Science 304, 1299-1301, doi:10.1126/science.1094070; or Pinker, R.T., Zhang, B., and Dutton, E.G., 2005, Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science 308, 850-854. It is also worth looking at the data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, a “Mark-I-Eyeball” methodology which confirms the short-wave and long-wave measurements of the ERBE and CERES satellites.
My letter to Mr. Rudd also referred to measurements showing that outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface increases as sea-surface temperatures increase, and does not diminish as all of the IPCC’s capable of being forced with changes in sea-surface temperatures predict. These measurements are reported and analyzed in Lindzen R.S., and Choi, Y.-S., 2009, On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters. I do not have the page reference, because I have the preprint that the authors kindly sent to me.
Another reader asked whether my letter had been “peer-reviewed”. Yes, I asked an eminent Professor in Australia to read it for me before it was sent to the Prime Minister and to other party leaders. Any errors, however, are mine alone.
A reader asks whether my letter to Mr. Rudd is available as a .pdf file. I have sent the file to Anthony Watts, who, I am sure, will kindly make it available to anyone who would like to see it. Thank you all very much for your kind interest: and, as always, thanks to Anthony for having given the letter a wider audience.
[Update: a pdf of Lord Monckton’s letter is available here. ]
A reader asks whether my letter to Mr. Rudd is available as a .pdf file. I have sent the file to Anthony Watts, who, I am sure, will kindly make it available to anyone who would like to see it. Thank you all very much for your kind interest: and, as always, thanks to Anthony for having given the letter a wider audience.
Lord Monkton’s original letter to Rudd calculates a forestalling of 0.02 C° in the decade 2010-2020, but this reply to readers says 0.2 C°. Based on the clear calculations in the Rudd letter, I believe that 0.02 C°/decade is correct.
It might be wise to make the correction in this post.
John Hooper,
“Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
You mean because of the irony that it was Thatcher who began this whole AGW scare nonsense?
Monckton Rules!
“Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.” As an Australian I concur – Rudd is a pompous little twat.
John Hooper (12:15:05)
“Already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.” This would seem to me a personal viewpoint, rather than a valid fact. I could say the same about anyone associated with a politician I did not like. I regret to say that such a comment is to me both pointless and offensive. To say that a sound command of the English language is pompous is to do Lord Monckton a disservice, and also anyone else who writes or speaks in a clear and unambiguous way. Any argument should be clear and without room for multiple interpretations, particularly when such arguments might end up in a court of law.
As a non-scientist, I find Lord Monckton’s work to be a beam of light in an otherwise dark and confused world. He has an ability to explain complex technical matters in a way that is clear to even a layman like myself. I also suspect that many Australians may have plenty of time for Lord Monckton, but then I am not given to making generalisations about millions of people who I do not personally know.
As an Englishman, I would like to thank Lord Monckton for persevering in what must be, at times, a lonely endeavour . I wish we had more politicians and Peers of the Realm with the same degree of courage in their convictions.
love it
John Hooper, anyone who seriously quotes Wikipedia as a reference, loses credibility, particularly after it has been shown that Wiki is a player in AGW and that all posts on climate change, including those about skeptical scientists, have been slanted with a view to trashing the skeptic case. Have you been sleeping during Wikigate?
Christopher Monkton’s speech and writing reflects his very good education and upbringing. It used to be that everyone learned latin roots of words in primary school in Qld at least, and many people learned Latin at high school. This Australian appreciates well written and logical prose, and excellent speech.
Our Australian PM is noted for his convoluted and pretentious speech and play acting affectation, red herring casting, and lack of logical thought. His neo liberal essay was an excellent illustration of this.
Christopher Monkton’s speech and writing is a display of excellent clarity of thought.
John Hooper: “..tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
Thatcher guided the UK out of economic ruin and irrelevancy, with great courage. Many would consider it an honour to have been associated with her.
Lord Monckton, you are a true gentleman, and one hell of a good man! I, as many here, have the utmost admiration for you and wish you all of the very best as you proceed into this new year!
Thank you very much for everything that you do!
Happy New Year! .. and God bless!
sorry mis-spelled Monckton.
When it’s all over, it will be people like Lord Monkton that will be recognized for saving the world. Not the political scientists from IPCC.
Kevin S (12:22:03) :
algore is not looked on fondly in the great state of Tennessee.
His strongholds are the ghettos of Memphis and the burbs of Nashville.
The rest of the state pretty much despises him, particularly in east Tennessee where the denizens are still voting for Lincoln.
Although Monckton’s writings/letters are long, each paragraph deals logically with new points, precise down to the last argument. I enjoy reading this and it is in marked contrast to most people arguing the alarmist case, as they just repeat the same tired mantra.
Dear Lord Monckton
This skeptic thanks you for the stance you have taken and the work you are doing chipping away at the AGW brick wall. Here in NZ our PM John Key rushed through parliment an ETS bill that sees I think the first taxes starting July this year.
I’m sure many Kiwis would really appreciate you sending John Key a similarly written letter 🙂
Warm regards
James Allison
Lord Monchkton puts his reputation on the line and if he could be easily undermined the AGW’s would have a go.
Thanks to Watts Up for Lord Monckton’s letter.
Someone has suggested the PM will ignore it.
I disagree. Lord Monckton has done his homework on Kevin Rudd well.
The directly targeted political implications, the challenge to Rudd for a direct briefing on the science and the threat of a proposed speaking tour will terrify the PM. This is just the sort of thing he can’t cope with, and rightly so.
He is a misinformation and a no information whiz-kid.
I would expect the opposition to get involved for plenty of free hits.
“This outcome is so minuscule that extending the analysis beyond that date would be pointless…”
But nobody believes there is likely to be any large change in the temperature profile under any potential emissions scenario over ten years. But by 2100 there may to be up to a 2C difference in warming depending on how curbs are enforced, if realistic calculations based on more than simple linear trends are performed.
Your calculations rest on your guess that the relationship between emissions and atmospheric concentration should remain fixed and linear into the future. However, this relationship hasn’t remained “broadly constant” in the past, as you claim, but has twisted and turned repeatedly:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9829/co2concemissions.png
Why would it follow a straight line in the future?
It’s certainly a common error to ignore emerging nonlinearity in future trends. Less common is to make such a mistake while also ignoring a nonlinear historical record.
The fact that the 2020 objectives for reducing carbon emissions will achieve almost nothing is surely not the point. Kyoto achieved nothing as well, yet the fallback of AGW supporters was to continue the obligations of Kyoto. The real objective is control of every facet of economic life by governments under the guise of “climate change” control. That is why Monckton will not receive a response, just as other skeptics are ignored. Rudd has all the “science” he needs to do what he really wants.
“Therefore, as Lorenz (1963) proved in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, unless we know the initial state of the climate at any chosen moment to a precision that is forever unattainable in practice, reliable, very-long-term weather prediction is not available “by any method” – and “very-long-term”, as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter, means just a few weeks. It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.”
What else do we need to know?
“It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.” — precisely! How did we come to lose sight of that basic tenet of all science?
No one should ever quote Wiki! I mean, come on, they don’t even know what decade we’re in! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s They (the contributors) have forgotten that we use the Gregorian calendar – which starts with 1.
When putting forward information contrary to the AGW movement’s views I have occasionally faced some very negative responses from otherwise normal, sensible and rational people – people who are not part of the activist groups, but who have clearly developed closed minds on this issue through the persistent influence of the politicians, activists and media. The answer to this phenomenon may lie in the insights into mind control covered here:
http://merchantsofdeception.com/mod/wordpress/cult-expert-steve-hassan-video-interview/
OT but thought you might be interested
“National Grid warns over high gas demand”
“LONDON, Jan 4 (Reuters) – Britain’s gas supplies improved significantly after National Grid (NG.L) issued a gas balancing alert (GBA) on Monday warning consumption may have to be cut as cold weather gripped the country, the network operator said.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6031IE20100104
“Britain’s coal-fired power plants overtook gas in the UK power generation mix on Monday afternoon, after an unusually long period of gas fired power domination for winter, after gas prices surged on tight supply.”
We’re in a recession, I wonder how we will manage in a few years time when things takes off again and our coal and nuclear fired power stations are closing.
“Therefore, if we ignored the IPCC’s belief – which certainly does not represent the consensus in the scientific literature – that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years”
The hundred of years mentioned in the IPCC reports is the half-time necessary to dampen a given change in mass of CO2 per unit volume, and this figure was neer really challenged. This should not be mistaken with the average time a CO2 molecule spends in the atmosphere before being re-absorbed, which is of the order of several years.
John Hooper wrote: “And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation…”
I think John’s primary objection is that there are far more 3 and 4 syllable words than he is comfortable with. For example, when Monckton uses the phrase “mathematically chaotic” John would probably feel much better if he had instead said “icky”.
Palle et al with the Earthshine project is a good source. The ISSCP data suffers problems with the overlap of data from a variety of satellite platforms and can’t be used as solid evidence for cloud cover variation.
Nonetheless, the steric component of sea level rise in the ’90’s supports the view that the additional forcing due to lowered cloud cover was in the region of 4W/m^2 as Lord Monckton states.
Go Christopher!