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.
“photon without a Higgs (20:06:30) :
John Hooper (12:15:05) :
I see you’ve done floppy fact checking of Ian Plimer’s facts.
As we all know anything having to do with global warming in Wikipedia is butchered by William Connolley.”
You forget to mention his droogs Brigade Harvester Boris and i think Stefan Schultz. Credit where credit is due.
@Keith. W. (13:30:36)
I’ll defer to the gentleman from Memphis as to the actual location for said debate in the spirit of economic harmony. Having grown up in Houston, Tx., I too know just how devastating one snowflake can be to a city. 😉
Lord Monckton,
can you please come to Sweden to teach our politicians about climate change. They think they can do God’s work and change the climate. By the way, I am very impressed by your work, Sir. Very impressed!
“And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection. “
Down with Monkton and his edumakashun!
Eric Smith (14:06:30) :
(re: Thatcher …) If I can forgive him then, unless you are posting from S. Yorkshire, maybe you could too.
The oil companies and banks(IETA) were the leading promoters of a Copenhagen treaty.
You have to laugh at the greens and their “Big Oil/Money” conspiracy to ignore global warming … blind to the 100 billion + action
Doesn’t really fit his idea of a socialist takeover, does it ? Never mind, it’s certainly filled a lot of seats on his American lecture tour. I thought Monckton spoke very well on the science, but the right wing politics is a liability as well as being nonsensical.
I nonsensically feel that you may have a rather idealistic view of “socialism” – remember that, under any system, somebody always gets the Caviar, Champagne and a Caribbean island.
Jimmy Haigh (14:14:12) :
I ask again – why wasn’t His Lordship a sceptic back in the day’s of Thatcher?
Not my place to speak for LM but I’m fairly sure that we can all change our minds (unless you are a rabid warmer or a spineless politician) about anything as new evidence comes along. Until Sunday I believed that Leeds would loose 7-0 at Old Trafford … now I know better.
John Hooper (15:29:56) :
I’m just saying if you’re trying to win over the proletariat, try not being so smug.
You don’t have to use big words to prove you’re smart. You need to communicate to the masses in their own language.
Proletariat? Masses? Why yes Mr. Lenin I will endeavour to understand these earthlings and their earthly inconsistencies. May take some time rodin’ around in me red book tho’.
Surely Lord Monckton was ennobled by his association with Lady Thatcher, except that he already was. She, along with John Paul the Great and Ronald Reagan brought down a 70-year tyranny and freed hundreds of millions of people from slavery. In all history, there are but few that that can be said of.
John Hooper (15:29:56)
We need to convince the mainstream media our spokespeople are diligent scientists, and not just a bunch of eccentrics.
You say this as if this is simply a case of presenting a convincing set of scientific facts by outstanding scientists to the ‘mainstream’ ….in order to have them do what? Investigate the scientific basis of the issue themselves, weigh the pros and cons of the various points of view and report accurately on it? Let me be the first to inform you that they aren’t called the ‘lamestream media’ for nothing! What you are suggesting assumes that that media are irreproachably honest, that there is no bias that enters into the equation, that media themselves don’t have an agenda and that they can be trusted to adjudicate the ‘difference of views’ fairly and report on it all accordingly. Sheeeeesh!
Think about this for a minute and answer these questions…..Have you been satisfied with the manner with which climategate was covered by the ‘mainstream media’? Well first off, the story had all the right ingredients – a highly fascinating and intriguing line, something current and relevant, something which has huge financial and political implications for every citizen, the likelihood of potential scandal, FRAUD, a very high level of credible and incriminating evidence…. what more could the media want or need to get their boots on the ground and start digging into this story like there is no tomorrow? Did you see it happen??? Yeah, me too… must have happened so fast I missed it. In fact, it’s possible to name some of the very largest newspapers and networks on the planet that are in the category of being media that NEVER REPORTED ON IT AT ALL. Of the ones that did, I have a basic question…. Can you name one media outlet that had consistently presented a pro-glowbull warmongering view but in the time since Nov 19, 2009 has came out with an op-ed piece where they said, “sorry but we previously only had part of the picture and on balance after scrutinizing this whole thing in great depth, we realize we had it all wrong, we are here to henceforth going to tell you that we are doing a 180 degree swing in our former position as we now believe that AGW is a load of bunk”. After you answer that question, try answering the question of ‘do you really expect a fair shake from these clowns now?” I’d say that this scenario reminds me of Charlie Brown kicking the football! As a personal aside, I have written several ‘letters to the editor’ (of a large paper where I live )concerning this issue and not only do they refuse to publish them, they don’t even acknowledge they have been received!
My personal position is that I don’t want the mainstream media anywhere near this story as I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them… particularly with something as important as changing hearts and minds on such a complicated issue. Don’t bother to try and push a rope. A satisfactory conclusion to this whole sad saga of the last 15 years will occur when a groundswell of opinion by everyday people catches fire and starts taking their politicians to task for being sucked in on the scam and in the process, wasting everyone’s tax dollars. Let the media avoid this issue until perhaps either they can’t ignore it any more….or better yet, they go broke when their agenda-driven machine keeps on pushing the nonsense but the general public says ‘sorry but we aren’t buying it’. With the internet and forums such as this, that in fact is not only possible but I think it is already happening. I can say that my family, friends, neighbours, workplace, casual acquaintances and even the politicians have all been inundated by my arguments and I consider it a victory if they at least agree that what they have been told for the past umpteen years needs to be scrutinized a lot more closely. I encourage everyone else to do the same until truth overcomes the lies and agenda.
As for as your earlier post about ‘Lord Monckton being tarnished by his Thatcher connection’, let me suggest that this comment says far more about you than it does about Lord Monckton.
So, where do you start to put this AGW rubbish down ??
Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia 3:08PM 5/Jan/10 :-
“LAST year was Australia’s second warmest on record and closed out the warmest decade on file, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
The latest temperature data “is consistent with global warming”, the bureau states in its 2009 annual climate statement released on Tuesday.”
Full article here:- http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26555339-952,00.html
I guess we just have to keep chipping away, some days I hope it would freeze down to the equator, then the penny may drop.
BTW, I’m very careful for what I wish for !!!
DirkH (14:16:17) :
‘Don’t get me started on nonlinear. Or i’ll say logarithmic.’
Heh…. nice one Dirk:)
Notice that my screen name is ‘inversesquare’……
Natural science is full of logarithms. Fortunately for us, mm carbon emissions are not exponentially rising and reasons are quite logical……hence why they would never be predicted to rise in this way by the IPCC people….nothing they assume can be said to follow any sort of fact based logic…. Logic, yes. Fact based……NO!
JonesII (12:27:04) :
“The dogs are barking Sancho, signal for us to start riding”!!
I agree! where do I sign up?
Eric Smith (14:06:30) :
Re the Thatcher years –
As one who was politically aware during these years, also involved in the uranium industry and its politics, also deeply involved in combatting the menace of unionism, also in management of a company with coal mines, I say that your reconstruction of history is false, undocumented and designed to smear. Please document some reliable sources or I’ll never stop marvelling at how history is re-invented by the earnest.
Speaking about statistics…. Do you know that the last decade was the warmest decade of the century. When I think about it… it was also the coldest decade of the century 😉 .
Lord Monckton, you owe an apology to the family of Jackie Kennedy. Your history of DDT is in error, and your savage attack claiming she killed 40 million people is beyond the pale.
I would like to know if Lord Monkton has read the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
and if so, what his assessment of it is.
Also, wishing you success in your mission to Australia, and all future attempts at restoring sanity to politics gone wrong.
The real difficulty here is that nice Mr. Rudd and nice Ms. Wong are politicians.
They have nailed not merely their colours, but also their trousers to the mast of the good(?) ship Global Warming.
Mere science will not have any effect on them.
They need, first, to be convinced, not merely that they ship is going in the wrong direction, but that it is sinking, and will take them down.
Second, they need to be offered a way they can un-nail themselves without embarrassment or the attendant loss of votes.
Perhaps Lord Monkton can apply his political skills to solve this problem.
Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones today is giving COP 15 updates.
Monckton Says he is filing charges with the Indian police on well known scientific discrepancies presented as fact at the COP 15 meeting. Also talks about how they’re outsourcing British steel worker jobs to India because of gloBULL warming AND a lot more of extremly important info.
Listen to it here:
http://podcast.gcnlive.com/podcast/alex/0104102.mp3
Thank you Lord Monckton for your ongoing efforts for sanity. But we are all waiting for your Australian tour and no one seems to know the times and venues or how to make reservations.
Please help! Cheers.
Jeremy (12:39:11) :
“Al Gore will *never* debate Lord Monkton. Americans by prejudice associate a British accent with educated authority, and a southern accent with lower-education. On their manner of speaking alone, Al would be up a creek.”
The American city with the highest per capita Phds is Durham NC – a nice SOUTHERN city, accent and all. So that excuse doesn’t fly either.
John Hooper (12:15:05) :
Speak for yourself please m8, I’m an aussie and I have nothing but respect, admiration and support for all that Lord Monckton is doing in this AGW debate.
For those who criticise the content, tone and anything else in Lord Moncktons letter, please post any letters or correspondence you’ve had with the PM or any other govt. personalle
Thanks again Lord Monckton for taking your valuable time to make this contribution.
I never heard following Copenhagen how you recovered from the assault on you by the police – I hope you have made a full recovery.
I asked this on the original SNAFU’d blog –
A question for Lord Monckton or anybody else:
I recently saw a comment on realcliamte.org:
” a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly”.
Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what is the difference between these two fractions?
*****************
@John Hooper
“And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
How scientific of you to present a personal opinion as fact.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer”
You’d fail a university course if you tried that lazy trick!
“Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.”
When did the people of Australia vote for you as their spokesman?
******************
@Another Brit
“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.”
I totally agree and I second this. Lord Monckton is part of the old breed of Englishman and still has that stiff upper lip. Too bad there are not so many of them around these days.
M White (13:27:49) :
“…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.”
The Carbon Trading/cap & Trade or whatever your country calls the law will stifle first world countries, there may be a bubble from carbon trading but no industry or manufacturing so you are talking permanent Depression. That is the whole purpose behind Carbon Trading and CO2 reduction – to insure first world countries are permanently crippled, and their wealth and land transfered to the ultra-wealthy before they move on to rape the third world countries.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, Father of CAGW, and Kyoto
or as Professor Maurice King put it
“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduce resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
I talked to a friend who is a professor and ardent CAGW supporter. I pointed out that Cap and Trade would mean life long poverty and a reduced standard of living for his little girl. His reply was that she was aware of that and willing to make the “sacrifice” Note the next week the kid was bragging about daddy’s new SUV!
Brainwashing, it is nothing but brainwashing and they have infected the University profs with the disease and call it socialism and envronmentalism.
CHORUS:
For we are the worms of the earth
Against the lions of might.
All of our days we are tied to the land,
While they hunt and they feast and they fight.
We give our crops and our homes and our lives
And the clerics tell us this is right…. by Bob Esty
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=6382
As I said Feudalism complete with a new religion to keep the peasants compliant.
Dear Lord Monckton,
Having had, like you, a classical education it always pains me when I see the term “data” accompanied with a verbal form in the singular. To my dismay I just noticed while reading your piece that this corruption has disfigured your text too. Apart from that I admire your work. Your perfect use of the Socratric method in your exchange with that Norwegian singer in Copenhagen should become a standard teaching aid in any classical education.
correction: “Socratic”
Eric Smith: “Everything points to big oil.” Seems to me that Big Beanz have played a major part and still do with John Kerry on the world stage.
Eric Smith,
“It is clear the oil companies have been behind this from the start, and Monckton, Alex Jones or anyone else claiming a global socialist takeover will be seen as crazy extremists.”
Clear how? I am prepared to believe the oil companies have jumped on board as rent seekers, but show me some evidence they were behind it from the start. Richard Courtney had, 30 years ago, produced a report which described the mechanisms that would lead to the dominance of AGW. History has shown that to be correct, although as we know, correlation does not equal causation.
You then erroneously claim that Monckton claimed a “socialist takeover.” He never mentioned the word “socialist” in his letter to Rudd. I have heard him use the word “communistic” and possibly “fascist” in other articles. However, it should be clear, that democracy is not a necessary prerequisite for a capitalist society – China has proved that quite well.
The recurring theme in Lord Monckton’s articles is a warning about loss of democracy in pursuit of world governence. The fact that oil companies (and many others) think they will prosper via government handouts does not mean they are “socialist” or part of a socialist conspiracy. I think your reasoning is a bit muddled on all this.
Anthony,
I don’t know where to post this, so put it where you will.
The Head of the UK’s Met office, Mr John Hirst, has, according to an article in today’s issue of the Daily Telegraph, been given a 25% pay rise. This is ‘ a performance-related increase ‘
He is now paid more than the British Prime Minister.