Monckton's reply to Eos on Climate Denial

Christopher Monckton writes via email:

Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently. I wrote the attached reply, which Eos are refusing to print. – Christopher

It appears that Eos has indeed refused to print this reply, as this according to the document properties, this document was created June 30th, when the early edition was available, and there’s been no response so far from Eos. -Anthony

Right of Reply

I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem.

The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as “climate change deniers” (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply.

The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including “public displays” and “social media” – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse.

Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today.

Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.

Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork.

The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC.

Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50.

The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.

Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.

References

Bode, H.W. (1945), Network analysis and feedback amplifier design, Van Nostrand, New York, USA, 551 pp.

Boden and Marland (2010a), Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring, 1751-2007, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Boden et al. (2010b), Ranking of the world’s countries by 2007 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Dessler, A.E. (2010), A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science 220, 1523-1527.

Dessler, A.E. (2011), Cloud Variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett.

HadCRUt3 (2011), Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt.

IPCC (1990), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, and Melbourne, Australia.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2011), On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.

Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. (2010), Response to John Abraham, SPPI Reprint Series, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC, USA, July 12, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf.

Popper, K (1934), Logik der Forschung, rewritten by the author in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.

Roe, G. ( 2009), Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red, Ann. Rev. Earth & Planet. Sci. 37, 93-115.

Scotese, C.R., A.J. Boucot, and W.S. McKerrow (1999), Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology, J. Afr. Earth Sci. 28(1), 99-114.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2011), On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant-energy balance, Remote Sensing 3, 1603-1613, doi:10.3390/rs3081603.

Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea-surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett, 37, L03702.

Wong, P. (2010), Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11: Budget-Related Paper No. 1.4. Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups (2001), Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present, Science 292, 686-693.

─ CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA; monckton@mail.com.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
233 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Slayton
July 14, 2012 7:42 am

MOD: Open italics tag at Crispin in Waterloo, 12:52 a.m. ??
REPLY: ON it, thanks -A

Crispin in Waterloo
July 14, 2012 7:44 am

@joeldshore
Your ad homs are noted.
“…when this particular prediction by the models & theory has nothing to do with the issue of what is causing the warming, despite your and Monckton’s attempt to rewrite science to say otherwise.”
So it has nothing to do with what is causing the warming. So if it is predicted as a consequence of increased GHG’s ais nd not there, it does not matter, right? The failure of the model would be ‘just one of those things’.
I do not rewrite science, I apply it, daily. If I make a predition based on science, it has to be ‘predictive’. The science of a model that predicts large scale things that do not occur is not very scientific in the regular sense of the word.
Does the predicted increase in H2O vapour (the positive feedback mechanism) appear on a monthly or yearly timescale? This will no doubt be covered by AR5 as well. They should appear together.

Mariana Britez
July 14, 2012 8:04 am

Looks like at current UAH satellite trends July will come in a +0.18-0.20C so really knocking the trend pretty much dead.

July 14, 2012 8:13 am

O Domine Monckton,
Miserere eis non, if you would be so kind.
Thank you.

July 14, 2012 9:16 am

Phil Clarke says
– short (a decade or so) cooling trends in a long term warming are not exactly new, or significant
Henry says
if you stare yourselves all blind looking at average temps on earth, you would not (easily) pick up on a significant trend. There is just too much ‘weather noise”
Look at the development of maxima
+ 0.36 K/decade since 1974
+0.29 K/ decade since 1980
+0.14 K /decade since 1990
– 0.16 K/decade since 2000
Now put that in a bi-nominal plot (parabolic)
and what you get is correlation coefficient =rsquare=0.998
Is that perhaps significant enough for you?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Obviously all the dr’s and and prof’s here making their livelyhoods out of AGW or ACC refuse to look at the maxima….there must be a reason?
But how long do they think they can hide the truth and what will the final cost be to humanity, in terms of wasted crops in the areas that are cooling down faster than elsewhere?
(For example; like it is cooling now in Anchorage – as reported elsewhere here on WUWT : according to my tables in the link quoted above – it already got 1.5 K colder there since 2000)

July 14, 2012 9:22 am

Myrrh says:
July 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Anthony – my email is as before wordpress stole it. I’ve explained that. And I’ve also explained that this has been a public censorship and should be dealt with publically, and you are publically censoring my replies.
Your original censorship was wrong. You are being hypocritical just like Monckton, and your tactics are the same, whingeing about the times you are censored and complaining of bullying behaviour, but you dish it out yourself.
[snip – your email address has nothing to do with wordpress.com, nor did they “steal” it. You are simply making that up. Run the email address “as before” that you provide through this tool:
http://tools.email-checker.com/ and it comes up bad. One of my moderators tried to send you email, and it bounced,
===========================================================
Perhaps Myrrh has a typo in the address he/she provided WUWT?
(If this doesn’t help, feel free to snip.)

REPLY:
Doubtful, only myrrh can fix the problem, and so far he/she chooses not to. So, commenting privilege has been revoked – Anthony

July 14, 2012 9:24 am

Joel I don’t know what makes you tick.
It clearly involves an agenda that drives you to support the consensus science with a never-ending blinding appearance of science from you, an appearance that time and again is shown here to be without substance. If your arguments had substance, you would have converted me. But they are shown to be deceptive shams, every time. No, I’m not going to quote.
I couldn’t do what you do.
My experience is that truth matters. Wherever the chips fall. Better to be in the wrong, outed by a better truth, than maintain correctness in denial of the evidence. Even better to admit being wrong, the starting point of all twelve-step programs.
Your lookalike science, driven by an obsession to be seen to be siding with “correct” orthodoxy, frightens me – because I see the whole bunch of climate usurpers doing this. To me, they are all making mockery of true Science, Scientific Method, truth, humanity and justice. Yet I am grateful that you at least visit here to post – if only to give us an ongoing chance to engage, which “the team” never do.
Yet you never shift, only wriggle, and shed skins, like the snake.

Robert S
July 14, 2012 9:51 am

There is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb to extinction the absorbable LWIR; addition of more CO2 would not add to atmospheric warming.

July 14, 2012 10:17 am

Phil Clarke says:
“HADCRut… an outmoded dataset – Version 3, which underestimates Arctic temperatures…”
[Arctic temperatures].
Did it ever occur to Phil that HADCRut 4 is the new, “adjusted” data set, and that HADCRut3 was “adjusted” specifically because HADCRut3 showed cooling? Can’t have that, can we?

July 14, 2012 11:38 am

Phil Clarke says:
July 14, 2012 at 6:06 am
Because you – and Monckton – have chosen to use an outmoded dataset – Version 3, which underestimates Arctic temperatures, and cherry-picked a short period that has a massive El Nino at the start and the recent La Nina towards the end. Even in the obsolete dataset, if you slide your start point a couple of years either way, your ‘flat’ slope disappears, which rather undermines the claim of ‘no warming’.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. However do not blame Monckton for what he said about the 15 years. For all we know, he may simply have been quoting the MET office:
At the following URL, the statement below appears: http://toryaardvark.com/2012/04/02/the-planet-has-not-warmed-in-15-years/
“The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HadCRUT) has long been the gold standard in climate data used by the IPCC, now a new analysis of the data by the UK Met Office shows there has been no global warming for the last 15 years.” Did they then cherry-pick too?
It is not Monckton’s fault that 15 years ago just happens to be prior to the 1998 El Nino. Nor is Monckton wrong about the 15 years just because if you moved things over a year or two in either direction, the slope is not negative or not as negative.
If a shorter period is picked, like Smokey did, he is criticized for covering a rather shorter period. If I cover exactly 15 years, or 180 months, I am criticized for cherry-picking.
By the way, your quotes by Phil Jones referred to his comments on the Hadcrut3 set.
Now as for Hadcrut4, that is not up to date since it ends in 2010. However there is a way around that. If we plot GISS from 1997.5 to 2012.5 and also from 1997.5 to 2011, the difference in slope is 0.003 lower for the total period. If we plot Hadcrut4 from 1997.5 to 2011, its slope is 0.007. So if we now subtract 0.003 from this, we get 0.004 which should be very close to what we should get if it were up to date. Now going back to Phil Jones comments, 0.012 was barely NOT significant over 15 years. So if that is the case, then 0.004 certainly is NOT significant either over 15 years, despite using the Hadcrut4 set. What I talked about is illustrated below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.5/plot/gistemp/from:1997.5/to:2011/trend
This does not get around your “cherry-picking” issue, but if the slope is 0.004 for a “cherry-picked” time, it should be right in the middle of the La Nina before the positive slope reaches significance.

July 14, 2012 12:05 pm

Smokey says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1032521
Henry says
Do you get it now, when I say that I don’t trust anything anymore from all the “official” datasets, excepting my own, of course,
unless I get full insight as to how and how often calibration is done and what the accuracy and precision of those measurements are?
I don’t think that all are deliberately being manipulated to fit the models – the models MUST be right, remember…. – but I do think that there is also just a lot of incompetency in the generation of the datasets…

joeldshore
July 14, 2012 3:49 pm

Crispin in Waterloo says:

So it has nothing to do with what is causing the warming. So if it is predicted as a consequence of increased GHG’s ais nd not there, it does not matter, right? The failure of the model would be ‘just one of those things’.

(1) It is the predicted consequence of warming due to ANYTHING. It is not a specific signature of warming caused by GHGs.
(2) I didn’t say it didn’t matter. All such puzzles are interesting and important to scientists because they tell scientists of the limitations of their models or their data & data analysis. And, scientists are always striving to have better agreement between models and data. However, its importance is overblown…and definitely misstated, because the most direct consequence of the absence of the hot spot would seem to be that the models are underestimating the amount of warming that will occur. And, once again, it says nothing about the cause of the warming because this prediction doesn’t distinguish between the different causes of warming.
(3) Also, as I have noted, the fact that tropical tropospheric amplification is seen on monthly to yearly timescales makes it very difficult to even imagine how the models could be corrected: Almost any way one could imagine modifying convection to get rid of the amplification on the multidecadal time scales would get rid of it on the time scales where the data shows unambiguously that it is occurring. That is why remaining artifacts that affect the trends on multidecadal timescales are the primarily suspect.

July 14, 2012 6:30 pm

joeldshore, you are a very patient person.

July 14, 2012 8:46 pm

sceptical says:

joeldshore, you are a very patient person.

Best not be too hasty with the magnanimity but yes, it does rather look that way.

July 14, 2012 8:50 pm

Fellow Travelers generally have patience.

July 14, 2012 11:57 pm

Joeldshore says
And, scientists are always striving to have better agreement between models and data
Henry says
that is exactly why I am worried about all of your UAH, Hardcrut, GISS,
etc.
\Who does the final approval of the data sets to make sure they do not contain any “cooling” errors?
Because according to my data, independently collected, they should be showing that it is getting cooler, like, for example, in Alaska:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/coldest-july-in-history-for-anchorage/#comment-1032955

joeldshore
July 15, 2012 5:33 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:

Mr. Shore makes much of his supposition that I had cited the IPCC out of context. However, he himself omits some important points of the context, not the least of which was that the chapter in question was about the vexed question of attributing global warming and, in particular, distinguishing between manmade and natural warming.

…which is why they discussed the different signatures of the two warming mechanisms in the stratosphere.

Mr. Shore shoots himself in the foot right from the outset by carefully selecting only that part of the text that mentions stratospheric cooling as a signature of greenhouse warming. Just one problem with that: there hasn’t been much stratospheric cooling in the past decade, notwithstanding continuing rises in CO2 concentration.

And, of course, it is well known by scientists that the trends over short timescales are not reliable indicators of the underlying long term trend. Furthermore, as I noted, the stratospheric signature is complicated by the contribution from ozone, which as the stratospheric ozone layer has begun to recover, has become a warmer forcing rather than a cooling forcing in the stratosphere.

And his attempt to deny that the IPCC is somehow not regarding the existence of a tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” as significant is belied by the rather plain, very large, full-color diagram from Santer (2003) that accompanies the text I had cited. That diagram shows the model-predicted altitude-vs.-latitude temperature anomaly plots four separate natural forcings, for manmade greenhouse-gas forcing, and for all five forcings combined.
It is blindingly obvious, on looking at that diagram, that the pattern predicted anthropogenic warming within the troposphere is entirely distinct from that arising from the natural forcings.

No…What is blindingly obvious is how easily fooled someone is who doesn’t understand the pitfalls one faces when interpreting contour plots, which is why it is important to look at a picture where the magnitude of the solar and GHG forcings have been adjusted to produce roughly the same forcing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ Then it becomes blindingly obvious that you are wrong. (Although it would be similarly obvious if you just applied some mathematical thought to the IPCC plot, as I did in my previous comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031800 .)

And it is not good enough for Mr. Shore to suggest that the resolution of the diagrams was insufficient to show the “hot-spot” that he thinks would arise even if the warming were solar-driven. The purport and intent of the diagram, taken with the text, is clearly to suggest (probably wrongly, like much else in the IPCC’s Gospels) that the “hot-spot” is a very clear fingerprint of manmade warming. That is how numerous commentators, scientific as well as other, have taken it. There have been several angst-laden reports trying to resolve the difficulty that the IPCC’s probably-inaccurate claim causes given the observed absence of this supposed signature of manmade warming: and Santer himself, in evident desperation, produced a further paper (in 2008, if I remember correctly) answering a paper by John Christy, Fred Singer and others pointing out the implications of the absence of the IPCC’s much-trumpeted anthropogenic fingerprint.

They have tried to understand this discrepancy not because it is a signature specific to AGW but because it is a signature of warming based on such basic physical principles thought to apply in the tropical atmosphere that it seems strange that it should not be seen. And, since you mention Santer, let’s see what Santer et al. actually say about tropical tropospheric amplification in the abstract of their 2005 paper, written before AR4 ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1551.short ):

The month-to-month variability of tropical temperatures is larger in the troposphere than at Earth’s surface. This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations and is consistent with basic theory. On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification. These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to capture such behavior; or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational data sets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.

(Santer et al. have already been proven partly correct about residual errors in the data sets since not long after this an error was corrected in the UAH data set that caused a marked change in the trend in the tropics, significantly reducing [although not eliminating] the discrepancy between that particular data set and the models.) Note that this abstract and other statements in that paper completely support my view and provide no support for yours.
Monckton of Brenchley says:

Frankly, it was disingenuous of Mr. Shore – characteristically so, alas, – not to place his remarks in this context. As he now belatedly admits, the IPCC could have been clearer in its exposition – in short, it was the IPCC, not I, that caused the confusion of which he now accuses me.

I didn’t say the IPCC caused your confusion. The onus is not on them to state everything in a way that prevents any conceivable misinterpretation that one can possibly imagine. You have proven quite creative in misinterpreting things from a variety of sources. (See, for example, the video of your debate with Tim Lambert where you highlight a study that the author of the study say you have completely misinterpreted.)

Venter
July 15, 2012 6:05 am

Blah blah blah, fact free excuses with tenous connections and appealing to Realclimate and Ben Santer of all the people. Typical shoreworn excuses and non answers.

July 15, 2012 6:21 am

Joeldshgore says
And, of course, it is well known by scientists that the trends over short timescales are not reliable indicators of the underlying long term……Furthermore, as I noted, the stratospheric signature is complicated by the contribution from ozone, which as the stratospheric ozone layer has begun to recover, has become a warmer forcing rather than a cooling forcing in the stratosphere
Henry says
I have clearly shown that it is globally cooling since 1995 http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
It follows on a binominal (parabolic) curve, and, especially , if you would look at the development of maximum temperatures , this development cannot be disregarded as ‘short term”.
In fact, in trying to determine the actual cause for this, I find in favor of an ozone connection which started going down just before the fifties and is going up from 1995. Noting the type of my curve for the drop in maxima, there seems to be a 50-odd year sun cycle that influences this.
There is no “recovery” of ozone.. Ozone is increasing due to some process on the sun that affects the UV-O2-O3 cycle which subsequently determines how much UV (below 0.3 um) is deflected away from earth due to re-radiation by O3.
More ozone causes the cooling of earth, not warming.

joeldshore
July 15, 2012 6:28 am

Robert S says:

There is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb to extinction the absorbable LWIR; addition of more CO2 would not add to atmospheric warming.

The first statement you make here is wrong for the following reason: The absorption lines of CO2 have a certain shape and while they may be saturated in the center of the line, they are not far enough out in the wings.
The second statement is wrong both because the first statement is wrong and because the first statement is somewhat of a “red herring”. The issue is not a binary one of whether the LWIR from the surface gets absorbed or not. The issue is one of where the last absorption occurs…i.e., at what height in the atmosphere the LWIR is emitted that can escape to space without being absorbed again. Because this occurs higher in the atmosphere, where it is colder (because of the lapse rate in the atmosphere), the surface will be at a higher temperature than it would be if all the IR emitted from the surface escaped to space.
There is zero controversy about this within the scientific community. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Willis Eschenbach, as far as I have seen, all support this basic picture. I believe that Monckton would subscribe to it to.

joeldshore
July 15, 2012 6:35 am

Lucy Skywalker says:

If your arguments had substance, you would have converted me.

Lucy, think about it: The exact same statement could be made by a Young Earth creationist to someone supporting the science of evolution. And, it would be wrong for exactly the same reason.
In fact, your point-of-view has been shown to be completely impervious to scientific facts. I think this is an observation that would be shared not only by “consenusus scientists” but even by many of the more moderate “skeptics” (Spencer, Eschenbach, Monckton, …) who would not agree with the sort of nonsense that is promulgated at places like Tallbloke’s blog and which you seem to completely buy into.

joeldshore
July 15, 2012 6:45 am

Venter says:

Blah blah blah, fact free excuses with tenous connections and appealing to Realclimate and Ben Santer of all the people.

Speaking of “fact free”, your post consists of completely ad hominem dismissals of evidence.
If you think that Gavin Schmidt ran the GISS model incorrectly when he produced that plot, you can run it yourself since it is available online.
As for Santer, it was Monckton who brought him up; I was just demonstrating Monckton’s misrepresentation of what Santer has been arguing…i.e., I have shown that Santer et al. have clearly stated that the expected tropical tropospheric amplification is not a signature specific to anthropogenic warming but is simply a signature expected for any temperature fluctuation or trend in the tropical atmosphere due to the tendency of the average lapse rate in the tropical atmosphere to be determined by the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

July 15, 2012 7:59 am

henry says
More ozone causes the cooling of earth, not warming.
joeldshore says
………..
(NOTHING)
no clues
Henry says
Joel, you too, better start at the beginning, where you all went wrong in the first place…..
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011

Crispin in Waterloo
July 15, 2012 8:09 am

As the latest messages have mostly reduced to ad homs I for one will go back to the business of keeping up to date on other matters.
Noteworthy about this thread is the fact the multiple Team supporters showed up to take on the likes of nobodies like me on the subject of the tropical hot spot.
Anthony I think this shows what I noted earlier, that we should keep a very close eye on how the absence of any observable hotspot is handled in AR5. It is a core prediction and Monckton was right to analyse it thoroughly in 2007. I recall at the time being impressed at the time by the fact the GHG signature is quite different from other types of warming, something denied above by joel et all. That is itself quite a departure from the old party line.
What I will be looking for is what the raw data says, how it gets smoothed, averaged, homogenised, deleted, hidden etc to try to produce alternative interpretations. By alternative, I mean if it for example shows cooling where there should be warming, then the data may be manipulated to hide the fact, for example by averaging it over some altitude range. If it shows no warming at a faster rate than the surface (the core claim being that it should) they may try to hide this by providing ‘new interpretations’ of the physics while restating that they had the physics right all along.
Based on the offerings above, they are on the run. They are worried. This thread with the other that ran concurrently on almost the same theme drew in more fretting warmists than any recent topic – maybe in more than a year. What does that tell us? It tells us the troposhperic warming around 12 km altitude which is a well known and well advertised prediction of all (save one, correct) models is probably not there, they know it, and it is a major failure of the models.
There are different possible macro-level interpretations: the globe is not warming, or the models are seriously defective. The latter is hotly denied – all that stuff about the physics being right. Well, OK, if the physics are right, and the hot spot is either absent or undetectably, there are few interpretations we should investigate. One is that the forcing effect of CO2 (which no one denies is rising) has been overestimated perhaps substantially. Another is that the globe is cooling, not warming.
Forcing, cooling, or models. Which is it going to be?

July 15, 2012 9:33 am

Crispin in Waterloo ( Belgium?) says
There are different possible macro-level interpretations: the globe is not warming, ….Forcing, cooling, or models. Which is it going to be?
Henry says: you are correct, or at least not far away from the truth.
In fact, earth has started cooling down a bit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1032454
Some places, like Anchorage (USA) and Kimberley (RSA), where temperatures dropped by more than 1.5 K since 2000, seem to be more affected than others, but the overall sum over all the earth is one of net cooling.