Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Hear ye, hear ye – Monckton’s medieval warming tale is climate heresy

It is a thankless task to track the frequent mistakes Christopher Monckton makes as he misinterprets science, as his statements are frequently at odds with the very scientists whose work he cites. It is…

Monckton is leading the public on a merry dance with his claims. Jeff Hardcastle

It is a thankless task to track the frequent mistakes Christopher Monckton makes as he misinterprets science, as his statements are frequently at odds with the very scientists whose work he cites.

It is, however, necessary.

In a recent lecture given at the University of Notre Dame in Australia (June 2011) represented by his document “The Climate of Freedom”, Monckton claims, “Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present.”

This claim by Monckton has two parts that are important to the discussion of climate change:

  1. Was the MWP global in extent and warmer than today?
  2. Does the presence of the MWP call into question human-caused global warming?

To be clear, the prevailing view amongst scientists is that the MWP was neither global nor warmer than present times.

In fact, the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly investigated this issue and concluded, “the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years."

Other studies reinforce the view that when considered either by hemisphere or globally, the temperatures we are experiencing now are truly unprecedented.

In the past, I have found Monckton’s claims on this topic sorely lacking.

Specifically, he referenced authors whose work he used to either answer “yes” or infer “yes” to questions one or two.

Last year, I embarked on the task of actually reading the papers he referenced, and they all disagreed with Monckton’s interpretation.

To confirm, I wrote to the authors and they assured me that my understanding of their work was more correct.

Was this latest list of “1000” authors different from the list I had previously debunked? Had Monckton finally, after many missteps, put a nail in the coffin of human-caused climate change? Well, let’s find out …

What about this list? Well, if you go to the Science and Public Policy website (of which Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor), you will find a link to a Craig Idso article which is, in turn, linked to a denialist website CO2Science. Once at CO2Science, you’ll learn that they have a MWP Project which lists many articles that reportedly dispute recent warming. So I think I have the correct list.

I’ll begin with the following trivial assumption: the authors know more about their own work than Monckton does.

With this as a starting point, I selected a number of papers in the list and I sent inquiries which asked the two questions I’ve posed here. Now, since this is a list that Monckton is using, you’d think the deck would be stacked in his favor. That is, you’d expect that most or all of these papers to support his view. The problem is … that is not what I found.

Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, “No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times.”

Dr. Jessica Tierney also had her work cited in this “study” yet she wrote to me, “No. The MWP is seen in many proxy archives, but it is not yet certain how global in extent it was. Whether or not it was warmer than today’s temperatures depends on the proxy and the place. Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn’t disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently.”

Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”

Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper “certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”

Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo stated, “We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming.

Dr. Robert Wilson added, “It really does not matter if the MWP was warmer or slightly cooler than present. Ultimately, it is the underlying causes of these warms periods that we need to worry about.”

Now, was I surprised by these results? Not really.

You see, I had performed a similar investigation of claims made by Monckton in 2009 with similar results.

I live in Minnesota where baseball is a popular sport. To borrow a baseball analogy, Monckton does not have a very good batting average. Perhaps it is time he was benched.

So where does all this leave us?

First, the existence of the MWP is not in serious doubt; but whether it was global in extent or warmer than today is. In addition, the presence of a MWP does not call into question whether humans are now causing the Earth to warm.

Second, it is very dangerous to rely upon the interpretation of a non-scientist to real science work.

Monckton has never published any peer-reviewed scientific article, let alone anything on climate or energy. Despite this, we are supposed to trust his interpretation of science? Not only that, but his interpretation disagrees with the very scientists who did the work.

When I go to my next family reunion, I’m not going to let my Uncle Jed fix my car because he knows nothing about cars.

I won’t allow my Aunt Betty to teach my daughters calculus (she isn’t a mathematician).

In the same way, I won’t listen to Monckton when it comes to climate science. He has been shown to be incapable of understanding even the most basic subjects of climate science – this would be humorous if it wasn’t so serious.

Monckton is a one-man wrecking crew for the credibility of climate-change deniers.

So now a challenge to Monckton … I have provided you with responses from people whose research you have used. I have shown they do not agree with your interpretation. To a person, they agree with me.

Why don’t you write to them yourselves and see what you find? This was your own list and yet, it doesn’t support your view.

What can I expect from this letter? Well first, the hate mail will start immediately; how can I have the audacity to criticize the “Lord”. Second, Christopher will probably claim that his interpretation of the science is more accurate than the scientists themselves … that they are mistaken. I’ll leave it to the public to judge.

My position is that we need accurate information if we are to make wise choices in confronting the problem of climate change. In addition, we need to shift focus from whether there is a problem to what can be done about it.

If we are wise, the solutions to the climate problem will create jobs, improve our energy diversity, and better our national security.

Who can be against that?

Finally, we need to be more civil and respectful in our discourse.

We still must be candid, particularly when someone has difficulty interpreting the science or when someone gives inferences that are not in accordance with the science.

But when we disagree, we must not be disagreeable.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

218 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Anthony David

    logged in via Twitter

    I went through the Idso list a while back, looking for evidence of a Southern Hemisphere MWP. There was one study in NZ that may have shown a teleconnection or it could well have been a local ocean-driven phenomenon. There is also tropical glacial evidence in the Andes, but I understand the North Atlantic does have an influence on northern Andean climate. There are plenty of SH ocean cores, ice cores, lake cores and coral cores that show no significant warming during that period of time.

    report
  2. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist

    The studies that would confirm the degree of previous warming events in the southern hemisphere, medieval or at other times are not sufficiently detailed or geographically extensive to allow certainty either way. Sad that John Abraham deliberately ignores this fact. Then again what else would you expect from a cargo cultist?

    report
    1. Rockstar Philosopher

      Rockstar Philosopher

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      You didn't read this line:

      "First, the existence of the MWP is not in serious doubt; but whether it was global in extent or warmer than today is."

      But then again, what else would expect from a denialist?

      report
  3. Toby James

    retired physicist

    " . . . the temperatures we are experiencing now are truly unprecedented . . ."
    You are right John - they are unprecedented, but not unprecedentedly high. The precedent they are setting lies in the embrace they are experiencing by the voodoo scientists of Warmistan.

    Global temperatures have been flat and trending down since 1998.

    In Feb 2010 Prof. Phil Jones, one of the high priests of climate science in the UK and at the IPCC, agreed in a BBC TV interview:
    Q - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    A - So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    The precedent lies not in values of the temperatures - but in the misuse to which they are put. I'd say you haven't even scratched Monkton's paint, let alone dented his armour.

    report
    1. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Toby James

      1998 was a strong El Nino. That datapoint lies further from the 1979-2010 trendline than any other in the period, so clearly it was exceptional. Picking it as your start-point is clear bias. Even so, the trend from then to 2010 is up 0.007 deg C/yr, so your claim that it has trended down since then is simply wrong.
      The mantra a few years back was "no warming in the last ten years", which worked because that had 1998 at the start. Unsurprisingly, this is being replaced with "none since 1998", since the last 10 year trend is now +0.009 deg C/yr, and that's faster than the average of the last 100 years.
      Turning to the Phil Jones quote, I don't understand how you think it helps your case. If you're trying to show that the warming is not accelerating then (a) that'd be small comfort and (b) merely being able to find three 20 year periods over a century and a half where the rate of increase has been the same proves nothing of the sort.

      report
    2. Philip Gillibrand

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Toby James

      It is incredible that a physicist, retired or not, should parrot the old line about "no warming since 1998". Any physicist surely understands the concepts of signal, noise and trend. You don't determine trends by starting at the highest value of the total signal. For reasons well understood, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year, mostly due to relatively high frequency variability (e.g. El Nino). It seems to be a recurring theme, that many people (including climate skeptics) are able to understand trend and noise in, say, the financial world (shares generally increase in value over time i.e they trend upwards) but are unable to apply the same understanding to the climate signal.

      report
    3. Ken Fabian

      Mr

      In reply to Toby James

      Yes, start at 1998. After all, starting at 1997 wouldn't show what you want. Or 1999. Ignoring a well known natural cause of variation in surface temperatures whilst doing so, is not good science; adjust for it and, hey, the warming trend since stands out even more clearly.

      Failure to consider ENSO - the strongest single year to year variable impacting global surface temperatures is just plain sloppy at best; at worst it's a deliberate attempt to mislead. This isn't looking at the underlying physical processes - something I would have thought would be uppermost for a physicist - instead it looks like an effort to abuse statistics in order to get a predetermined result. That Monckton does such things is par for the course, that a supposed PhD does so is deeply disappointing.

      report
    4. Rockstar Philosopher

      Rockstar Philosopher

      In reply to Toby James

      Yes, the average global temperature has decreased since 1998.

      Oh wait, 2010 was the hottest year on record, so there goes that little canard that seems to get sprouted all the time. Perhaps now I won't have to keep posting the list that showed that whilst 1998 was the hottest, it was the only year in the top ten out of the last 160 years that wasn't from the last decade.

      report
  4. Douglas Cotton

    Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

    This paper claims Artic cores showed temperatures 0.3 deg.C higher in the MWP than at present http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/norway-warmer.html This is at least some indication that it may have been at least as warm in the 12th century as the present in some places on the globe.

    The exact temperature level in the MWP is not critical because there are very long term cycles of several thousand years which could cause variations in maxima over thousands of years. The main point is that it WAS…

    Read more
    1. Paul Crayfisher

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      I think this is the least convincing argument of climate sceptics I've ever come across. And the most boring, because it has been repeated here and refuted so many times. Unfortunately repeating nonsense doesn't make in any more sensible. However it looks that people got tired of replying to the same non-sens over and over again.
      All arguments appear to be suspiciously similar to these given here:
      http://theconversation.edu.au/the-carbon-tax-and-the-climate-overboard-affair-1579
      by Douglas Cotton…

      Read more
    2. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Pavel do you have a source for the Refutation of these arguments?
      You state that Winter says the temperature must be ~10K. I read it that only 10 degrees comes from solar insolation, the rest cames from the Earth's interior. (which is deposited there by the forces of gravity 24/7 not just during the day..)
      You talk about feeling heat from the sun but question do we feel heat from the interior. Are you saying that at night when there is no sun, that the temperature of the ground at night does NOT…

      Read more
    3. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Pawel

      I notice John Dodds has explained a few things to which I add the following ...

      The geothermal flow has had billions of years to raise the outer crust from absolute zero to its current temperature which is roughly 10 degrees less than mean temperatures just above the surface. Of course the rate of flow of heat in the crust is relatively slow - being mostly conduction through solid material like rock for instance. Clearly heat can travel much faster by convection in the atmosphere, and…

      Read more
    4. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Continued ...

      Regarding the gradation from the equator to the poles: The solar variation is obviously due to the angles and hours of daylight as is well known. And obviously my mean of 10 degrees is more like 20 at the equator and zero at the poles.

      The crust (say a few meters underground) must also be colder at the poles - maybe 250 deg.K instead of perhaps 285 deg.K at the equator. (These are rough guesses of course.)

      This gradation in the crust actually supports John Dodds' gravity theory. If there were no heat generated in the liquid core and only the "original heat" and heat due to decay of radioactive isotopes were coming out of the core then there would probably be similar temperatures underground at the poles and the equator. However, if you can imagine the liquid core swirling around as th earth spins and the moons orbits it, then there is obviously going to be more friction (between the liquid core and the inside of the mantle) at the equator than at the poles.

      report
    5. Paul Crayfisher

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to John Dodds

      Thanks John,

      here you go:
      heat transfer from the Earth's interior:
      http://anquetil.colorado.edu/EPP3/readings/Pollack_etal_1993_Rev_Geophys.pdf
      more colours and answerst to your question where the heat comes from: http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
      and more here:
      http://www.heatflow.und.edu/

      suwalki geothermal anomally:
      http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageViewPoint.aspx?id=%20479

      derivation of earth radiative balance without atmosphere:
      http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html

      Read more
    6. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      This part of the discussion appears to have drifted off into fantasyland.
      It is extremely well accepted that, treating the earth as a passive black body with arbitrarily high thermal inertia, its mean surface temperature would be -18C. See e.g. that doyenne of AGW sceptics, Dr Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/.
      Annual variations in insolation lead to only modest temperature variations because of the high thermal inertia. This is Pawel's point…

      Read more
    7. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Pawel - it is not a matter of comparing RATES of heat flow - it is the direction of heat flow that matters. Maybe you'll understand better if we talk "hydro." Imagine a high dam filled with water but a tube running through its base about the diameter of a drinking straw. So we get a slow rate of water flow through the tube. Now let's imagine a rain-water tank at the base of the dam with a fire hose connected to it. There would be plenty of "speed " in the water from the fire hose compared with…

      Read more
    8. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Pawel - The fact that you linked the second website above does not give me much confidence in your research into the sources of terrestrial heat flow which, I suggest, is critical for climate. That site (without references) claims that all such heat comes entirely from nuclear fission in the core.

      Nuclear fission may well be intermittent. For a sustained fission reaction, the critical mass property is very critical and the margin of the number of fissable atoms per volume is rather narrow…

      Read more
    9. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Hi Pawel, (sorry about the Pavel/Pawel mix-up I have never seen a Pawel (polish) before, Pavel (Russian is more prevalent))! I now understand that Polish language does not have a V!.
      I will try to address your explanation & my concerns in order. This will be wide ranging and LONG. Sorry.
      It also contains some new & worrisome concepts that I agree disagree with conventional scientific beliefs, but ask yourself it they do not make sense from a common sense/scientific point of view. Consider that…

      Read more
    10. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      Pawel, I have learned that just because someone says it, does not make it true or does not refute the previous argument.. Your position is trying to convince me that Solar insolation is responsible for more energy into the earth than the energy from the force of gravity. Sorry but such an arguement will NEVER win. Gravity forces an eccentric orbit. Solar insolation forces the orbit out only. Gravity wins. It is larger..There is no rational basis to ignore the energy from the force of gravity, AND I will keep repeating it until you accept it. In fact when astrophysicists calculate orbits they only consider gravity from the sun & planets. (Jupiter's gravity causes eccentricity) They do not even consider energy from solar insolation because its so small, hence my claim that gravity has a larger influence on Earth temperature. Are you now claiming Isaac Newton was wrong in his gravity formula, by ignoring solar insolation?

      report
    11. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Everyone should read John Dodds' lengthy posting (about 4am 19 July Australian Eastern time) which summarises his theory. I don't hide the fact that there has been a lot of private communication and subsequent summarising of his theory on http://earth-climate.com for the public to read.

      A key oversight by the IPCC has been the warming of the rest of the air (ie non GHG) by direct contact of molecules of air with the surface molecules and subsequent convection. The air that has been warmed this…

      Read more
    12. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      John, you persist in not taking into account thermal inertia. Until you do that, and demonstrate that insolation still can't account for the steadiness of earth's temperature, your arguments are groundless.
      Consider this: seasons lag behind insolation by between two and eleven weeks, depending on geography. If that were due to gravitational effects then the anomalously warm periods would be the same in both hemispheres instead of six months apart. For further reading see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_lag

      Read more
    13. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Derek. Firstly, heat generated in the outer crust by mechanisms described at http://earth-climate.com can take days or weeks to conduct to the surface. Also, as some will be dependent upon the angle of inclination of the sun, patterns can be similar to seasons. In any event, I am not saying the sun's insolation doesn't cause seasonal variations - we are talking about annual means. (I agree that solar insolation adds a mean of about 4%, namely 12 degrees.) But annual means have been following…

      Read more
    14. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      1. I have already pointed out that the energy available for gravitational contortions comes from the slowing of the earth's spin, and knowing how rapidly it is slowing we can calculate that the power cannot be more than 1/30000 of the energy flux from the sun.
      2. You still are not taking thermal inertia into account when attempting to prove that the sun's effect on total temperature is small. Until you do that, your entire theory is baseless. Here's a simple model: a tank of water with a line of…

      Read more
    15. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Crustal (solid earth) tides are not mainly caused by "slowing down of Earth" but rather by the moon and the sun (to a lesser extent - 46%) pulling the crust in their direction by about 30 cm and even up to 55cm when they are aligned - one reason for more earthquakes when there are eclipses of the sun. These tides are very well documented and there are clear distinctions between sun and moon ones. The calculations are needed to make corrections for GPS measurements etc.

      I suggest that heat…

      Read more
    16. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      You're not thinking about where the energy comes from in the first place. First, think about the moon. The moon is not getting closer, it is getting further away. So the kinetic+potential energy of the moon is increasing. The energy for that, and for the crustal distortions, comes from the kinetic energy of the spinning earth.
      What about the corresponding input from earth's orbit around the sun? Since that has the smaller effect on tides, the energy input must be less. That gets us up to maybe 1/15000 of solar irradiation.
      Wrt radioactivity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_flow. Heat outflow from earth's interior is estimated at 1/10,000 of solar irradiation, making it more important (according to my calculation) than moon and sun combined, but you're still way short of irradiation.

      report
    17. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to Paul Crayfisher

      I have responded elsewhere today to similar comments you made about heat from the core. You must at least know from volcanoes that the liquid core is very hot. Will you accept over 5,400 deg.C? So where does that heat go? Basic physics says it will be conducted towards cooler regions. The surface is cooler - right? The heat flow is outwards - right? The rate of heat flow is slow - sure - so what! A small creek can fill a dam if given sufficient time, and the Earth's had plenty of that. The…

      Read more
  5. Andrew Montford

    Blogger

    The quote in the article - "the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years" - is interesting. If one looks at the quote in context in the NAS report, it actually says this:

    "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years"

    The claim of unprecedented warmth was not therefore their conclusion, but the starting point…

    Read more
  6. Richard Dale

    logged in via Facebook

    "Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP."

    Wow. You actually quote this as an argument in favour of the man-made global-warming hypothesis?

    It is deeply flawed reasoning. On first reading I though it was circular, but it is worse; it shoots down an essential premise with the conclusion.

    The reason for…

    Read more
    1. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Richard Dale

      It's not quite as flawed as you make out. On the one hand, we have an explanation for the current warming based on modern science's understanding of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere; on the other, it is much harder to study what was going on 1000 years ago. Even with no adequate explanation for the MWP, GHGs would remain the most likely suspect for current warming.
      But adequate explanations do exist. They're inherently hard to prove at this remove, but for present purposes it only matters that they're credible for then but for now. Was the sun hotter? Was the ENSO locked in repeated El Nino's? There was a lot volcanic activity - see e.g. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_146281.htm.

      report
  7. Richard Dale

    logged in via Facebook

    Anthony David

    Most of the Antarctic shows no warming now. There are many other areas that do not show warming; there are also areas where warming is claimed in published data but later flaws have cast serious doubts on that.

    The MWP happened, it is a known fact. The best authority I have is a friend who was born in Greenland and studied archaeology, and he has seen irrefutable evidence that the island was far warmer when it was first colonised.

    What is unknown is that the MWP was global; what is certain is that today's warming is not global. So what bearing has any evidence that the MWP was also not global?

    report
    1. Anthony David

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Richard Dale

      Richard

      Select whole years at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and you will see some warming across most of Antarctica. Better still, pick a recent decadal range.

      As you point out, there is strong evidence of medieval warming centred around the North Atlantic ocean. What is not clear is how much warming was across the rest of the northern hemisphere and when that was coincident with the North Atlantic warming.

      report
    2. Richard Dale

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Anthony David

      "and you will see some warming across most of Antarctica..."

      Errm, two problems there, Mr David.

      First, it isn't true. Look at the polar projection; it shows that most has a negative temperature "anomaly"*.

      Secondly the GISS data is based on a tiny number of stations in Antarctica. The main warming spot is has been suggested to be massively exaggerated by poor data analysis.

      * The word anomaly is itself incorrect. It implies that the reference temperature is normal, which is incorrect. Temperature has varied over the history of the planet.

      report
    3. Anthony David

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Richard Dale

      Richard

      The notes on the web page explains the data collection for land measurements along with how anomalies are represented.

      report
  8. Michael J. I. Brown

    ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

    Does anyone posting on this forum disagree with the basic argument of the article that most of the studies referenced by Lord Monckton actually do not support his arguments on the global extent of the MWP?

    report
    1. Wil B

      B.Sc, GDipAppSci, MEnvSc, Environmental Planner

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Of course not. I mean, we're not morons are we? Nobody in their right mind thinks that Monckton knows the first thing about climate science, or would fairly represent science that he doesn't have the merest grasp of.

      report
    2. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      I'm going to speculate that some people posting to this forum could be trying to obscure the validity of the key arguments of the article by picking on minor details or introducing ideas that the article did not discuss.

      (It should be said it is best to get details right, and errors should be addressed, but should one obsess about them if they don't undercut the validity of the key arguments?)

      report
  9. Douglas Cotton

    Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

    Read this http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html and note in particular the plot for the last 5,000 indicating much warmer maxima prior to the MWP. Michael, I don't give Monckton much credit for finding the best research on anything. But there is doubt about whether or not the MWP was warmer than at present, and it may depend on whether you consider the El Nino peak should be ignored or not. There are papers pointing out much more severe droughts in the MWP and papers…

    Read more
    1. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Much of the stuff discussed on these websites (and many others) falls into category of "plotting stuff against other stuff until one finds an apparent correlation".

      I've discussed this on The Conversation previously (http://theconversation.edu.au/when-scientists-take-to-the-streets-its-time-to-listen-up-1912) and the issues I have with various claimed cycles (in particular, the Scafetta papers) is also discussed in this article and the comments thread.

      Established and verified science (such as the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide) should not be displaced by wildly speculative and unverified ideas.

      report
    2. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      You're perfectly right Michael (Brown) we indeed should talk about the (very valid) absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide. Actually the CO2 molecule captures a photon, delays the photon a little while some of the photon's energy converts to heat, and then it releases the photon with its energy reduced by the amount of energy converted to heat. Or it completely "absorbs" it, as you say, if it is the last CO2 molecule in the chain and uses up all the energy that is left in our tired…

      Read more
    3. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      It is remarkable that Douglas Cotton's spruiking of earth-climate.com has ceased, only to be replaced by similar spruiking by "John Winter".

      "John Winter" has the email address sales@acclaim-soft.com. If one checks who has registered acclaim-soft.com, one finds the following;

      Domain name: ACCLAIM-SOFT.COM
      Administrative Contact: Cotton, Douglas

      I used to suspect only three people believed earth-climate.com; John Dodds, Douglas Cotton and John Winter. Now I suspect it is only two.

      report
  10. Toby James

    retired physicist

    Derek, I wonder what there is to misunderstand: "Turning to the Phil Jones quote, I don't understand how you think it helps your case."
    It fully supports my case that John, the author of the present article, made the patently false claim:
    " . . . the temperatures we are experiencing now are truly unprecedented . . ."

    I said nothing about acceleration of anything. I simply quoted one of the high priests of Warmistan, whose statement on BBC TV can only be taken to mean that according to the IPCC's…

    Read more
    1. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby, you seem to be confusing rates of change of temperature with levels of temperature.

      report
  11. Andrew Montford

    Blogger

    It's interesting to note that Abraham's summary of Monckton's argument is not very fair. Monckton doesn't actually claim that the presence of a MWP disproves AGW.

    report
    1. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Andrew Montford

      From page 10 of the Monckton document linked above:
      "Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Mediaeval Warm Period and show that it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present. If the IPCC were to do science by consensus, it would probably not give credence to model-derived results contradicting the consensus."
      The implication in this paragraph is that the presence of a MWP (as understood by Monckton to be represented by the claimed "1000" papers) would lead the IPCC to not give credence to the models that form part of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

      report
    2. Andrew Montford

      Blogger

      In reply to Andrew Montford

      Byron

      I can't take away the same meaning you do from that last sentence - although I confess I can't work out how it fits with the rest of the paragraph at all. It doesn't seem to say anything about how the MWP affects the models.

      report
    3. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Andrew Montford

      Andrew, I agree it's not clear what connection Monckton is making, but it seems reasonable to suppose that he was at least attempting to imply one. Seems to me he's saying that the Idso collection constitutes a consensus regarding the MWP, that the models contradict it, and the IPCC should therefore doubt the models. In short, Byron's reading.
      Note that all three steps in that argument are wide open to challenge.

      report
    4. Andrew Montford

      Blogger

      In reply to Andrew Montford

      Derek

      That's a plausible reading of Monckton's words, but I don't think doubting the models is the same as disproving the AGW hypothesis. I was at a public lecture by one of the scientists Abrahams quoted and he pointed out that the inability of models to recreate the MWP (the timing rather than the magnitude) was a problem. This would seem to me to tally with your representation of Monckton's words ("doubt the models") but is rather different to "disprove global warming".

      report
    5. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Andrew Montford

      "Monckton doesn't actually claim that the presence of a MWP disproves AGW."
      It is one of the pieces of "evidence" that he cites towards that goal. While in itself insufficient to be decisive either way, it is part of Monckton's argument that seeks to discredit the mainstream scientific understanding. Looking back over Abraham's piece, can you point out where he says more than that?

      report
    1. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Nothing fixed about my views Michael; TCS was set up to be sceptical; we question the science behind AGW.

      In respect of the solutions offered to 'solve' AGW, assuming it exists, we are opposed; renewable energy, particualrly wind and solar, do not work.

      What about you, are your views fixed, is the science "in" as the PM says and settled?

      report
    2. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Hi Anthony, though I would check out your link. You say the paper suggests the MWP was probably warmer than today, on a global scale, correct?? Well didnt have to read far to see you yourself have not read the paper, at least not carefully. In the introduction they say..

      "We propose our own reconstruction of NORTHERN HEMISPHERE (my capitals) average annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its reliability,
      and compare it to those from the climate science literature"

      There are many…

      Read more
    3. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Yeah Nick, I read and understood it. You didn't.

      M&W is a critique of Mann 08 and the Hockeystick and the so-called proof that modern temperatures are higher than any other in the last 2000 years. The criticism you are offering, that the MWP wasn't global, because M&W did a reconstruction based on Northern Hemisphere proxies, means you don't understand what Mann did. Mann in both his hockeystick papers calibrated Northern Hemisphere regional proxies with other regional proxies seperated by time…

      Read more
    4. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      That is laughable mate. You claim to be able to extrapolate more information from this paper than every other scientist in the world. If M&W had disproved global warming the finest minds in the world would be scrambling to get on board the greatest scientific discovery maybe ever!!!!!! You claim a global trend from a paper that states they have a go with only the northern hemisphere data, and critisize people who collected the data on the ground. You claim, against all the experts, that Mann got it wrong.......... so did Wegener, Soon, Baliunas et al get it right did they? Hahaha what a joke they are. I will believe anything with proof but any attempted critisism of Mann et al with this rubbish passing as "evidence" is complete rubbish. Your evidence to disprove global warming is still only convincing to those who's IQ is south of 80

      report
    5. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, could you also clarify relevant positions of Mr Monckton. Has he cured graves? Did he end the Falklands war? Is he a Lord? Has he won the Nobel Peace Prize? Has he cured MS? Has he cured Influenza? Is every single major scientific body in the world guilty of conspiracy? Was he so important to Ms Thatcher that she completely forgot to mention him in her biography? Has he actually said anything at all about climate science that hasnt been completely debunked by all and sundry.......including himself?????

      Please answer those easy questions.

      report
    6. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Oh, also could you clarify why the very scientists Mr Monckton refers to, and uses for his "evidence", state unequiviocally that he cant interpret their work?

      report
    7. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Could you explain why your party consistantly refers to Christoper Monckton as a "Lord"?? False credence at all Anthony?

      report
    8. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Ooh, touched a nerve. I didn't say M&W had disproved AGW, Miskolczi has already done that. What M&W have done is show, once again, that AGW modelling, in this instance about whether today's temperature and rate of temperature increase are exceptional, is flawed.

      The important thing about M&W is that they used Mann's proxy data which was selective and misinterpreted. Even using his bad data and applying sophisticated statistical analysis they could not conclude, as the hockeystick purports to show, that today's temperature is exceptional.

      report
    9. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Oh dear Anthony....

      "Although Monckton is a hereditary peer, his father's membership of the House of Lords was ended by the House of Lords Act 1999"

      " The House of Lords has said he is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member ( as Monckton claimed before US Congress)

      Other claims Anthony......Aids cure? Nobel Peace Prize????? Influenza cure? Graves cure? Nearly single handedly ending the Falklands War? Treasury predictions? Election predictions…

      Read more
    10. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I'm scapping (sic) the bottom of the barrell? All I am asking is why the scientists who actually do the work, collect data that Monckton uses, say Monckton is misrepresenting them either wilfully or ignorantly and you cant answer. Does his training allow him to better interprate data than specialists actually there, doing it? Why are so many saying things like, "Hi John. He (Monckton) is wrong." Instead you give me a link to a climate blogger who does the same thing as Monckton...presents other peoples work. Have you actually read this article?

      C'mon Anthony I am not a member of a political party, you could have a new member, just give me something........relevent and reviewed.

      Oh, and your Pinker reference.....

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/09/testimony_responseRachelPinker_05_18_2010.pdf

      Shows Monckton is incompetent, at best!

      report
    11. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Nick, my link above is to what Professor Pinker says not what Lambert asserts. Now I'm really interested in Rachael Pinker's paper and I would be interested to know what you think Pinker has found. For my part I agree with what cohenite says about Pinker and Lord Monckton's interpretation of Pinker's paper as quoted by Jo Nova at the link I provide above. This is what cohenite says:

      "In fact this is what LM spoke about; the forcing of less cloud in the 1983-current period; this is a period, as Tim…

      Read more
    12. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      OK, looked at that. First thing that strikes me is that it doesn't address many of the points. This is the most important that it does try to address:
      a) From Schmidt/Mann/Rutherford:
      "MW’s inclusion of the additional poor quality proxies has a material affect on the reconstructions, inflating the level of peak apparent Medieval warmth"
      b) WUWT response:
      "You can’t [know] whether it was inflated or not without knowing what the temperature actually was"

      Now, that's just nonsense. SMR are saying that including doubtful proxies (ones which had insufficient datapoints to be trustworthy) resulted in a higher reconstructed temperature for MWP than if they had not been included. There is no claim to know what the actual temperatures were.

      report
    13. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Derek, you say "There is no claim to know what the actual temperatures were." That is extraordinary; the whole point of the hockeystick is to establish that today's temperature's are exceptional; that is what Mann set out to do; M&W contradict him.

      In any event M&W have specifically replied to Mann's response to their paper here:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

      M&W's response is the rejoinder at the end of the list. Every failing of…

      Read more
    14. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Not sure where the hyperbole was, but anyway lets try again

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/09/testimony_responseRachelPinker_05_18_2010.pdf

      Abrahams article points out that Monckton does this stuff consistantly. Do you honestly read that link above and see something other than a very polite statement saying Monckton did not correctly use their research, and used data sets from outside of their study, presented as their work? You cannot falsly credit or present scientific work.

      Doesn't…

      Read more
    15. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Pinker's paper shows for the period from 1983-2001, she finds a decline rate of 0.17W/m2 for the 20S-20N TOA compared with SW surface increase rate of 0.18W/m2 [fig 4]. She postulates that cloud decline may be the reason assuming there was no increase in TSI.

      Let's be clear here; Pinker found sufficient SW at the surface, s, to explain the warming of the modern era, almost 3W/m2; compared with the IPPC power from 2XCO2 of 3.7W/m2. But she did not conclude that.

      Lord Monckton took Pinker's findings…

      Read more
    16. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Ok so we are clear then, Monckton was mistaken. Why do you seem to think that this Pinker paper is the be all and end all of climate sensitivity? It is merely one part of thousands of lines of evidence the IPCC uses to come to its conclusions. Is it because climate sensitivity is the last bastion of the sceptic?

      Would you care to address the dozens of other scientists work Monckton has "mistaken"? Those in this article perhaps? I can provide you with a list of many others for your rebuttal if you…

      Read more
    17. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Or the right views, Michael, might be as explained on http://earth-climate.com Do you or any reader have a counter argument based on Physics for the following quote from the bolded paragraphs on that site? If not, then the debate is settled and the IPCC theory totally debunked.

      The distance of the Earth from the sun currently varies by about 3.25% as the Earth follows its annual orbit. This means the radiation reaching the Earth should vary by about 6.6% over half a year. There are in fact…

      Read more
    18. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Lord Monckton was mistaken about an aspect of the Pinker paper; he was right about the significance of Pinker's findings which were based on observations. You obviously don't appreciate the significance of that.

      LM has replied to professor Abraham's so-called faults and this is the latest in the Abrahams/LM disagreement:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427.

      As for me I am interested in the attitude of AGW supporters like yourself and would like to know what evidence you would consider as being sufficient to disprove the theory of AGW?

      report
    19. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Think I will just leave that one to George Monbiot. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/09/madder-and-madder/

      Cant really put it much better. Have followed the Monckton v Abraham, Monckton v Monbiot and enjoyed some great laughs.

      Abraham describing himself:

      "I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation…

      Read more
    20. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I don't speak for LM; just myself; I thought you wouldn't answer the question; is that because nothing would change your mind? Perhaps if professor Abraham made a pronouncement you would change your mind; at least Abraham has changed his original complaint:

      http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Monckton%20Presentation%20June%2022/index.htm

      Maybe if Monbiot changed his mind which does seem to be flexible if not highly fanciful:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jul/08/jellyfish-overfishing-ocean-acidification

      What do you think Nick, will the jellyfish take over?

      report
    21. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I am not asking you to speak for him, I am asking for a reason you support the words and science of a compulsive liar with no scientific training? He is certainly no Ramanujan. Do you support him misrepresenting the scientists mentioned in this article? You wont even comment on it. Tell me is this the sort of practice you support in a debate? Legal threats to people who disagree? Is that a good debate? Vitriole toward your challengers? Is that a usual scientific debate tactic? Inflating ones credentials…

      Read more
    22. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I know Christopher Monckton, having arranged for him to speak twice at Newcastle. I don't know how he does it; he makes no money from it and cops the vitriol from all sorts of supercilious types. I think the utter hypocrisy and faux outrage to do with his comments about Garnaut got to him a bit this time.

      Anyway the spleen directed at him raises a couple of interesting points.

      The first is that in a democracy rights are equal; what we see in the AGW climate scientist category is an attempt to establish…

      Read more
    23. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, the point I raised concerns the specific two quotes I included: SMR's remark that M&W's treatment of the data inflated the MWP warming, and WWUT's response that you can't say it's inflated if you don't know what the actual temperatures were. My point is that SMR's remark did not require knowing what the temperatures were and therefore makes no claim to know them. This is an entirely separate question from whether any other author, or the same authors in another context, may have claimed to know the actual temperatures.
      That said, I very much doubt that Mann ever claimed to *know* the values of temperatures prior to reliable direct measurements. Reconstruction from proxies is by definition a best guess.
      Mann's statistical methods have been widely analysed and critiqued. The consensus, as I understand it, is that correcting the faults does not lead to significantly different conclusions. I'll see if I can find time to read the references you provide.

      report
    24. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Sorry Anthony I wasnt challenging Moncktons right to speak, as in a democracy. Yes it is his right to say whatever he wants.

      Anthony, I never mentioned Garnaut at all. I never mentioned anything about Moncktons finances. I was talking about his science (and various other claims) and science is not a democracy! Ideas and theories ARE NOT equal, some carry more wieght than others. He chose, as his right, to lie under oath to Congress, he chooses as his right to make wild claims about amazing cures…

      Read more
    25. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      "People who crow about consensus and every scientist supporting AGW just don't get it."

      I did not say there is a consensus from every scientist, I said there is a consensus from every scientific body of international standing. All in black and white Anthony.

      Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change

      What part of that dont you get?

      report
    26. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I have replied to the claim made that LM misrepresented what Pinker found; that to my understanding is LM's main error. I understand this in particular since I was at the debate between LM and Tim Lambert.

      I have read professor Abraham's original and amended list of alleged LM errors and LM's response to them. I don't see anything substantial in Abraham's complaints. If you want me to respond further I suggest you make a specific case.

      As to LM's other business and science/medical endeavours; they are none of my business.

      report
    27. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Any comments on this article? The scientists mentioned? Nothing substantial, are you kidding?

      "As to LM's other business and science/medical endeavours; they are none of my business."

      Ignorance is bliss, hey :)

      report
    28. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Going to have one last try....

      .Anthony, why do all these scientists say he has their work wrong?

      Forget Abraham, I am talking about the scientists working on the individual projects Monckton then presents.

      I you cant provide an answer (and Monckton himself certainly hasnt) I will have to agree that the scientists in question are right, which lets honestly face it could the alternative be true? Me thinks an easterly sunset is more likely.

      report
    29. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Name one Nick, you pick where LM has got it wrong and I'll respond. All I see is a lot of hand-waving and name-calling.

      report
    30. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I'll stick to the article for the moment. Pick any name you like from those mentioned. Monckton used their work as proof for the MWP being warmer than today. They have said that their work does not prove that. Eg "“certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”

      report
    31. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I have discussed the Pinker incident and the McShane and Wyner paper dealing with the hockeystick and the MWP.

      You and Abrahams are the ones making the assertions about LM. Your onus of proof has not been fulfilled.

      Pick one Nick.

      report
    32. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      In what way are actual quotes straight from the actual scientists involved that their work has been interpretated incorrectly not proof? I am not making any assertions, I am asking why you think the scientists involved assertions are at odds with Moncktons? Has he made a mistake? Are they all mistaken?

      This article has nothing to do with Pinker. (Pinker said the same thing as these scientists)

      You claim to require proof then ignore vast vast swathes of it that refutes Monckton and yourself.

      Once again, just pick any of the scientists metioned and explain to me how Monckton comes up with his assertions their work proves the MWP was warmer, when they clearly state their work DOES NOT show or cannot prove that.

      report
    33. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Have you even read what the scientists quoted by Abraham's say.

      Bradley disavows any interpretation that the MWP was warmer.

      Tierney is circumspect but on balance says the MWP was not warmer. And then says something disingenuous, namely that a "warm" MWP does not disprove AGW. What a 'warmer' MWP does prove is that today's temperatures are not exceptional which is what M&W also established.,

      Stott amplifies what Tierney says, namely that even if the MWP were warmer it does not preclude current…

      Read more
    34. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Thank you. A confirmation that their work does not say what Monckton says and presents it does. Again and still, I am afraid. Monckton has proven exactly nothing other than to those who were born yesterday. He has been peddling his very loose interpretation of science for years now, if he knew or could prove a hundredth of what he claims he would have been the subject of a major bidding war by the major scientific academies and be showered with grants and awards.

      I take no comfort at all from those quotes, I do however take comfort from the fact that the people who see Monckton as a serious player in this debate are ever dwindling and the people who associate themselves with his unique brand of scientific and historic (chinese arctic exp. lol) perception look crazier and crazier.

      "oh sorry, you superior types drink wine don't you." Very grown up mate! Hahahaha

      report
    35. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, the charge is that Monckton, wrongly, said these various papers all showed the MWP was warmer than present. You quote the authors as saying that whether or not the MWP was warmer than present their papers did not support such a conclusion. Guilty as charged.
      Whether a warmer MWP would disprove AGW is a separate question. Monckton, AFAIK, only said it would invalidate the models which support AGW, so he stops short of saying quite that. I'm baffled as to why you consider Tierney's remark disingenuous.

      Btw, I would advise against resorting to anti-intellectual jibes - it gives people the impression you've lost the argument.

      report
    36. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Derek, LM said "nearly all"; not even LM's generous and expansive approach would even consider that Bradley, Mann's collaborator, would think such a thing. The site which Abrahams has trawled, at CO2 Science, lists 1000's of authors and papers, yet Abrahams has selected 5 and quoted what they have said; are these the best he can find? Only Bradley specifically disavows LM in respect of temperature; what the others say is that any comparison between the MWP and current temperatures does not tell us…

      Read more
    37. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Congratulations Derek, Anthony has finally admitted to the

      "huge defects in LM's presentation".

      Since that is the general point of the article, and the point we were trying to make, I think we can call this one case closed.

      Might buy a bottle of Rothschild to celebrate....Oh no my pub has run out. Those damn climatey sciency thingy superiority guys must have been in again last night! Alco's! Guess it will have to be a VB.

      report
    38. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Let me introduce you to irony Nick; and my mistake for not putting the ' around 'huge'; I have overestimated the AGW supporters again.

      report
    39. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Hi Anthony. I support you but feel Monckton could pick up some useful points from my site http://earth-climate.com - note for example the "Science Note 10" - I'd be happy to communicate with him if you put me in touch.

      Some key facts ...:

      (a) The level (or slightly declining) trend from 1 Jan 2003 to 1 July 2011 has very regular intra-annual cyclic patterns which establish that the whole thing is NOT random noise below some extrapolation of the trend prior to 1998. We have an upside down hockey…

      Read more
    40. Rockstar Philosopher

      Rockstar Philosopher

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      He is a peer, but not a member of the House of Lords. He is allowed to use the title "Lord". It was the latter claim the HoL took offence to.

      report
    41. Rockstar Philosopher

      Rockstar Philosopher

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I just feel I should call you out on your "makes no money from it" statement when your party is paying him $20000 to come out to speak. Comments like this and claiming to not have an agenda whilst being a foundation member of a political party severely undermine your credibility.

      report
    42. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Rockstar Philosopher

      The Climate Sceptics are NOT paying LM anything. We are paying for his accommodation and transport and a packet of chewing gum for his meals.

      Of all the bizarre things to argue in this debate is any suggestion that the sceptic side is better funded than the AGW side.

      report
    43. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Rockstar Philosopher

      And another thing; I thought there was to be transparency at this place with no commentators being allowed to hide behind puerile pseudonyms.

      If I wanted to be insulted by anonymous ignoranti I'd read the Drum.

      report
    44. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Rockstar Philosopher

      That report is for LM's LAST visit!! That visit was organised by John Smeed and Case Smit as private individuals.

      THIS visit is being organised by TCS and there is NO appearance fee; we are paying LM's expenses, such as they are.

      report
  12. Robert Scopes
    Robert Scopes is a Friend of The Conversation.

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    The old "1998" trick can be countered by quoting the following two sentences:
    "every year since 1998 has been cooler than 1998" (though no longer true), and
    "every year since 1995 has been warmer than 1995" (still true). Select which one you want to prove what you want !

    report
    1. Dejan Tesic, PhD

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Robert Scopes

      Hm... if we actually understand what 'climate' means ("long term average of weather conditions"; most often defined as a 30+ year period) then, clearly, picking out any one year to prove anything is a clear flag of climate ignorance.

      report
  13. Daryl Deal

    retired

    Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, to give the man his correct peerage title, is not an expert on the science of climate change. He has in fact a diploma in journalism and a non science based classics University Degree, in addition he was never Margaret Thatcher's Science Advisor either!

    Professor John Abraham, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of St Thomas, Minnesota, thoroughly eviscerated one of his 2009 lectures point by point the correct way, with thorough and…

    Read more
  14. Michael J. I. Brown

    ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

    A useful introduction to "Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature" by Raymond Pierrehumbert was published a few months ago in Physics Today. This article can be found online at http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    The article is pitched at people who have an university science background and discusses some common misconceptions that have been mentioned in "The Conversation" forums.

    report
    1. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Thanks Michael, a good read. My head hurts though!

      Typical of this debate your referenced article here, and others you have linked, refers to centuries of proven work from the "leading lights of physics."

      On the other hand we have...

      Monckton, unbelievably suggesting out of his own mouth at a video debate, that the people present and watching are indeed lucky and how rare it is to hear from someone who has, and I quote, "read up quite a bit" on the subject.

      Interested amateurs making claim after…

      Read more
    2. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael, I really genuinely want an explanation for this dilema ...from yourself or anyone ..

      In Singapore the maximum temperature is about 31 to 32 deg.C every day of the year and the humidity is always very high ensuring good greenhouse effect.

      So, if it is 31 deg.C on a very cloudy day, why isn't it much higher on a bright. cloudless sunny day? Please (try to) use the IPCC greenhouse model to explain.

      report
    3. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Apologies for the repost, but the following may have got lost in this long discussion thread. Certainly John Winter seems to have missed it.

      It is remarkable that Douglas Cotton's spruiking of earth-climate.com has ceased, only to be replaced by similar spruiking by "John Winter".

      For now, "John Winter" has the email address sales@acclaim-soft.com. If one checks who has registered acclaim-soft.com, one finds the following;

      Domain name: ACCLAIM-SOFT.COM
      Administrative Contact: Cotton, Douglas

      I used to suspect only three people believed earth-climate.com; John Dodds, Douglas Cotton and John Winter. Now I suspect it is only two.

      report
    4. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Thanks Michael. I've included a link to this paper in the last footnote at http://earth-climate.com which reads ...

      10. WHERE THE "SCIENCE" GOES WRONG: This is a link to a typical paper which may well be misleading. For example, in column 1 p.37 Prof. Pierrehumbert writes "We can determine that the temperatures of the atmosphere and ground range at least from 220 K to 285 K. But absent additional information (sic) we cannot tell that the high end of that range actually comes from the ground…

      Read more
    5. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      If Douglas Cotton had chosen "Honest John" as his alias, it would have had a nice ironic touch. Why did Douglas Cotton decide he needed an alias? Is it because Douglas Cotton lacks credibility on "The Conversation" forums?

      One reason Douglas Cotton isn't credible is he deploys the tactics of pseudo-science time and time again, including taking quotes out of context. If people look at the Pierrehumbert quote in context, they will clearly see it is referring to the observed spectrum of the Earth (and its atmosphere) from space. It is not a recognition "that all but about 32 degrees at the most comes from the ground".

      Apart from John Dodds, Douglas Cotton and their aliases, does anyone believe the pseudo-science that appears in Douglas Cotton's posts and on earth-climate.com?

      report
    6. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Wrt Singapore (and likewise Darwin etc.): In humid areas, the ground air temperature cannot go much above 31 or 32 deg. The reason is convection. Humid air, contrary to what you might expect, is less dense than dry air.
      Wrt "we cannot tell that the high end of that range actually comes from the ground." Prof Humbert is talking about where the high end of the range of temperatures occurs, not where the heat comes from.
      Wrt: "Douglas Cotton, B.Sc (Physics)", there is growing reason to doubt this. Which academic institution?

      report
    7. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Pierrehumbert's insights about the greenhouse effect have been superseded in at least 3 areas:

      The Wood experiment has been confirmed: http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

      Saturation of CO2 absorption has been observed: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

      H2O does not provide +ve feedback but has its emissivity reduced in the overlapping spectrum: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/

      Let's see if Michael can comment without resorting to ad hom.

      report
    8. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Wrt Wood experiment: It is of course unfortunate that the trapping of heat by atmospheric gases has become known as the "greenhouse effect", when it has been known for a century that it's not how actual greenhouses work. It has however become an accepted terminology and Pierrehumbert uses it that way consistently. If you want to call it something else, feel free, but it doesn't change the science one jot.
      (Reproducing the experiment and pretending it somehow discredits the "greenhouse theory…

      Read more
    9. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, you fail to see that the greenhouse effect is merely an simple analogy. I read the Wood experiment and nowhere did I see in his list of equipment, materials or tools a cylinder of CO2. His experiment might be a little more weighty if we were throwing paynes of glass into the atmosphere.

      report
    10. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Umm.. treating feedbacks as not being positive is somehow different from ignoring them in the analysis? I didn't say he ignores the possibility.

      I said the 1.2C was a "no feedback" figure. We agree on that, right?

      I've no idea what you're asking me to explain in the two graphs out of context. Nahle's blunder, as repeatedly and clearly spelt out by Neutrino, is confusing a pressure with a pressure * distance ("atm.m). That led him to misuse the work of Hottel et al. Nahle's silly "I'll teach you some physics" responses don't inspire confidence. Neither does the fact that he was the one that reproduced (and misrepresented the significance of) the Wood experiment. (Were you really taken in by that?)
      Is his paper published in a peer-reviewed journal anywhere? I couldn't find it.

      report
    11. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      This is the point Derek; is the balance of the feedbacks positive or negative. Spencer and Braswell's work on clouds show that they act as moderators of any trend; the significance of that is lost on pro-AGW commentators. On any reasonable examination of the paleo-climate history that must be the case otherwise runnaway conditions would have been established on Earth.

      In respect of the Nasif/Neutrino exchange I think there was some cross purpose and terminology confusion which appear to be resolved…

      Read more
    12. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      No, feedbacks are not the point in this particular discussion. This discussion is about emissivity in gas mixtures. Harde ignored feedbacks, and that's fine as long as we're comparing with the IPCC non-feedback figure.

      Nahle's view of "Neutrino’s confusion" was not a "resolution", just another attempt to paint him as the one who has it wrong. Nowhere in Nahle's replies do I see anything that comes close to answering Neutrino's objection. I see no point in paying Nahle any further attention until he manages to get a peer-reviewed paper published.

      report
    13. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Forgot to respond regarding the graphs...
      There are two graphs, one labelled CO2 and the other labelled H2O. I don't see one for a mixture.
      Moreover, this is only over a very narrow wavelength band, in which CO2 appears to be far more significant than H2O. To illustrate some reduction in total emissivity, the graphs would have to show, at least, that a mixture has less emissivity in the range than either gas by itself.

      report
    14. Anthony David

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I was at a talk recently given by Vaughan Pratt. As an addendum to his primary topic, he described his efforts in duplicating Wood's experiment, given the paucity of method detail described by Wood. You can see a description of Vaughan's efforts here: http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/

      report
    15. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I think most of the technical questions have already been addressed in the discussion. However, there is a broader point that I would like to return to.

      There are many thousands of peer-reviewed science papers produced every year, so it is not hard to find several that challenge a prevailing scientific paradigm. It is even easier to find unrefereed conference papers and technical reports (often containing preliminary results) that appear to challenge a scientific paradigm. It is even easier still…

      Read more
    16. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      There is a figure 4a in "John Dodds Wobble Theory ..". paper in www.scribd.com that confirms Ray Pierrehumbert's statement in his opening paragraph of the Jan 2011 paper. that the electro-magnetic energy in the solar insolation is of the order of 1E17 or 1 times 10 to the 17th power (joules or Newtons at 1m/sec.) The figure also shows that the force of gravity (calculated as a function of time by simple Newton's Law), from the sun is about 3e23 newtons, or 5 orders of magnitude LARGER , from the…

      Read more
    17. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael it's all very well to make generalisations, but I am seeking what is the real truth of the matter, looking at the arguments such as those in the paper you provided a link for (now linked in my "Science Note 10" at http://earth-climate.com .) But, as one like yourself who has studied physics at tertiary levels, I cannot reconcile the Singapore dilema (same temperature every day of the year) with the supposed feedback effect from CO2. Nor can I reconcile the level (or slightly declining…

      Read more
    18. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Overlapping graph:

      http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/co2-h20-spectrum-spectralcalc.png

      Consider Table 1 here:

      http://vipclubmn.org/Documents/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

      As CO2 is increased the relative proportion of H2O emissivity [and to be clear here that is a measure of its heating/+ve feedback capacity] decreases.

      The reason for this may be found in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook page 5-23 “Carbon Dioxide-Water Vapor Mixtures – When these gases are present together, the…

      Read more
    19. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Doug Cotton's pseudo-science contains a myriad of errors. The nature of these errors has some similarities to those of others contributing to the debate.

      The classic pseudo-science error is to take a conjecture and just run with it. There is no attempt to do the relevant calculations, no attempt to do cross checks, no attempt to compare with the relevant datasets and no attempt to compare with the relevant (and often extensive) literature.

      For example, Doug Cotton assumes that the tidal heating…

      Read more
    20. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to John Dodds

      OK, that's enough of this nonsense. Claiming that a particular force is larger than a particular power source just proves you wouldn't pass HSC in physics. It's like saying 100 kg is bigger than 10 m.

      report
    21. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects"
      Well of course, but that's an entirely more reasonable claim. Nahle appears to claim that adding CO2 to the mix acts as a net coolant, i.e. the combined effect is less than for the H2O alone. Now, I'm not sure whether he's claiming that it's a net coolant when summed over all wavelengths, or merely acts as a net coolant where they overlap. Either way it would…

      Read more
    22. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael, with all due respect, making a couple of small points is hardly an adequate response to over 10 screens of text and diagrams on http://earth-climate.com which I wonder if you have read in its more complete form recently updated.

      The exact quantity of energy in solid earth waves is not critical to my argument, as there are other contibutions such as magnetism's effect on certain ions etc, the energy involved in friction within the liquid core (which will vary at different latitudes) and…

      Read more
    23. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      I don't think Derek is quite expressing the issue correctly. Nasif concludes this:

      "The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases."

      CO2 is a lessor heater because of its emissivity than H2O; if you add more CO2, then in the overlapping spectra CO2 must reduce the emissivity of the dominant…

      Read more
    24. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony, I've read and reread that post and still cannot figure out what you're trying to say. My view that "where they overlap, the combined effect is less than the sum of the two taken separately, but more than that of either in isolation" does not imply CO2 would mitigate the warming from H2O. And it is the same as "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects", not a different point at all.
      Nahle's…

      Read more
    25. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      A few telling points constitute a more than adequate response to 10 screens of gibberish. I'll ask again, what academic institution awarded you a BSc in physics?

      report
    26. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Ok, if the effect is "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects", then the emissivity of H2O [ Eh2o] in a non-overlapping spectra is reduced when CO2 is present in the overlapping spectra by Eco2. When further CO2 [Eco2^] is added in the overlapping spectra the Eh2o is further reduced by Eco2*[Eco2^-Eco2].

      report
    27. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Well, that's an odd-looking formula, but maybe you don't mean it literally.
      Yes, adding more CO2 would presumably blunt the effect of both the H2O and the first lot of CO2, but the net of it all would still be a little more each time. At no point, I would think, would adding more CO2 reduce the total effect. Do you believe Nahle has shown otherwise?

      report
    28. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Sydney University 1966 under Harry Messel, Julius Sumner Miller et al. Also a scholarship winner in 1962 to their Summer Science School and 24th in State of NSW in Physics in Leaving Certificate (1st class Honours) at Shore School. Further degree in Economics and also Dip.Bus.Admin at Macquarie University. (See my profile.) Also post grad studies 6 to 10 years ago in Nutrition (High Dist) and Natural Medicine - see http://slower-aging.com

      Regarding Singapore, it has nothing to do with humidity…

      Read more
    29. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael, perhaps the most important hypothesis on http://earth-climate.com is the following to which I would appreciate response based on Physics from you and others ...

      Now, consider a carbon dioxide molecule that is warmed by a photon. The photon has to be in a certain frequency range and the captures mostly take place only in the upper stratosphere. Temperatures at this level are actually higher than at the top of the troposphere, though from there on down to the surface they get warmer. Now…

      Read more
    30. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      From Wikipedia: The joule ( /ˈdʒuːl/ or /ˈdʒaʊl/); symbol J) is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m),...

      So comparing 1e17Joules (RayPierre's solar insolation) to forces in Newtons by Newton's Law, is proper.
      I will ignore your HSC assertion, but it sure says something about the quality of your scientific understanding.

      I…

      Read more
    31. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Odd or otherwise, it got you to the point: "Yes, adding more CO2 would presumably blunt the effect of both the H2O and the first lot of CO2, but the net of it all would still be a little more each time."

      To which the answer must be no; because there has been no runnaway on this planet even though there have been periods in the past when both CO2 and H2O have been much higher than today.

      As to whether Nasif is right when he postulates such things as this:

      http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf

      I prefer the Spencer and Braswell approach in respect of clouds which moderate any trend:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

      See also:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      report
    32. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael and anyone with tertiary Physics education ..

      I am always willing to correct errors or incorrect assumptions on http://earth-climate.com which is now getting about 500 hits a day - so I consider it important to get things right. Just leaving aside the issues of cycles and the question of how the core gets its heat, or whether the core heat has (over many years) heated the outer crust by 250, 260, 270, 280 degrees or whatever (not very important which) let's just focus on some new text…

      Read more
    33. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Dear Anthony...

      I think both observations are correct. Mine is not a postulate, but a matter of fact observed by many scientists. When you have a mixture of gases in which the carbon dioxide is present, the carbon dioxide works like a coolant, not like a warmer. This is the reason by which the carbon dioxide has been considered as a supercoolant in nuclear reactors.

      report
    34. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Sydney can be hot, Sydney can be humid, but those statistics are anticorrelated. See http://www.bom.gov.au. E.g. for Dec '10 to Feb '11, on those days when the temperature was at least 30C the RH was never more than 54%; on the only day above 34C the RH was 22; on the days when the RH was 80% or more, the temp was never more than 22.

      I didn't say humidity stopped insolation, or any other heat input. Humid air is less dense than dry air. At 100% RH and about 32C, the air is so light that (given…

      Read more
    35. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to John Dodds

      "comparing 1e17Joules to forces in Newtons is proper."
      What? Because they're both using MKS units? Rubbish. Kg and metres are both MKS units, but you cannot compare a mass with a length, a quantity of energy to a force, or either to an energy flux (power).
      The dimensions must match.

      report
    36. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      "the answer must be no; because there has been no runaway".
      No, that does not follow.

      The radiation increases according to Stefan's law, so the tendency will be to settle out at a new equilibrium. Runaway only occurs if, over some part of the range, positive feedbacks outweigh that negative one.

      The marginal increase in absorption for each added delta in CO2 gets less. No argument there. And the same surely applies when adding CO2 to H2O or to a CO2+H2O mixture.
      But how rapidly does it get…

      Read more
    37. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Nasif, when you say it acts as a coolant, do you mean in regard to the (so-called) greenhouse effect, i.e. reduced net absorptivity of IR? If so, please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed published article supporting that.
      The use of CO2 as a coolant in reactors etc. is an entirely different matter. How do you think it can be relevant to cooling the earth?

      report
    38. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Unfortunately, I can't read your full comment, but the "new equilibrium" is the crux of the issue. AGW theory has broken this up into a transient equilibrium and a longer term one based on equlibrium climate sensitivity.

      The IPCC assumes that the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] for 2XCO2 to be in the range of 3.26-3.8C +-0.69-0.92C.

      The IPCC bases its assumptions about ECS on CO2 retention and delayed responses to increases in CO2. This is problematic. CO2 may not have a long atmospheric…

      Read more
    39. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      BECAUSE the conversion factor is 1m or it;s inverse which is still 1.. Do you have ANY scientific education? It sure doesn't show, or can't you read the wiki entry copied above? - end of discussion. (except for the deleted expletives of frustration!)
      The point IS gravity is larger than solar insolation. Why else do we maintain an orbit instead of flying away due to the force or energy from solar insolation which is directed out from the sun? Changing the gravity felt on Earth by Jupiter orbital changes, changes the energy levels on Earth , both up & down, & the Jupiter forced changes correspond timewise to the changes in temperature.on Earth . ie Gravity causes the changes in temperature attributed to CO2, Since IPCC & CO2 theory ignores gravity and its changes then CO2 theory can NOT possibly be valid. So try the paper "Gravity causes Climate Changes in www.scribd.com. It at least accounts for increases AND decreases in temperature & works for at least 5000 years.

      report
    40. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to John Dodds

      There's the problem. 1m is one metre. It has a length dimension. It is not the same as the number 1, which is dimensionless.
      As I said to Nasif, you can check the validity of what you're doing by working in completely different units. If you get a different effective result you're doing something wrong.

      report
    41. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Updated 21 July 11pm AEST: Michael and others - please just keep comments to the conclusion of this paragraph at http://earth-climate.com - and based on Physics ... thanks, Doug

      Now, consider a carbon dioxide molecule that is warmed by capturing a photon. The photon has to be in a certain frequency range and it is quite true that observations show that photons in this frequency range are in fact not getting out to space, and the assumption has been that this somehow "traps" heat (like an insulating…

      Read more
    42. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Because it also happens on Venus. The use of CO2 as coolant in reactors is not a different matter because it is based in the same physics of carbon dioxide. It becomes a hyperfluid and acts like a coolant.

      Here the reference you're asking for:

      Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

      report
    43. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      CO2 as a coolant in reactors and refrigerators is nothing to do with its absorption / emission spectra, as you well know. In those contexts, it is merely a useful medium for conducting heat from one place to another.
      I will try to follow up the Modest reference.

      report
    44. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Yes thanks, but there is time for collisions. See
      http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110527070616AAMdJLo

      However, the collisions tend to be grazing collisions that don't transfer much heat and the CO2 will still emit the photon which may have slightly less energy and/or the CO2 molecule cools more. I have decided to remove that comment. Please read the revised bold type para and also the more detailed "Scince Note 10" at http://earth-climate.com

      The most important issues relate to the amount of heat transferred by direct contact with the surface to N2 and O2 which then rise by convection emitting photons as they cool, some of which return to Earth in addition to those from GHG. This means GHG contribution is very small, and surface cools off at night anyway.

      report
    45. Douglas Cotton

      Douglas Cotton B.Sc. (Physics) B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Anthony would you have the link for Beenstock as I may add something to http://earth-climate.com re the oceans. This helps explain the constant temps in Singapore. I'd also appreciate any comments on the now expanded "Science Note 10" at the foot of http://earth-climate.com pertaining to various things, including the Earth-bound radiation from cooling N2 and O2 molecules rising by convection and the proportion of the extra warming in the outer crust that then warms air by direct contact at…

      Read more
    46. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      I asked Michael Modest if he'd mind taking a look at your paper.
      Here's his reponse:

      ... this article contains a lot of facts (and wrong statements), interpreted totally wrong. For example, it IS true that the emissivity of an h2o-co2 mixture is less due to overlap, as opposed to the same species added without overlap. But, if you add co2 to h2o, the emissivity will rise above the h2o only. Overall, I’m afraid, the article is horrible garbage, that guy ain’t no scientist….
      Cheers,

      mfm

      ________________________________________________

      Michael F. Modest

      Shaffer and George Professor of Engineering

      School of Engineering
      Science & Engineering Building, Rm 392
      University of California, Merced 95343
      e-mail: MModest@eng.ucmerced.edu; Tel.: 209-228-4113

      URL: https://eng.ucmerced.edu/people/mmodest/

      report
    47. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Ok, Michael has contributed his 2 bob; now can we get to the main point which Michael has conceded: "it IS true that the emissivity of an h2o-co2 mixture is less due to overlap, as opposed to the same species added without overlap."

      So, what we are essentailly arguing here is HOW much less; Michael obviously thinks not much, Nasif a lot.

      Quantifying the effect, especially in the context of increasing CO2, would seem to be an important aspect of AGW and its dependence on +ve feedback from H2O, but Nasif seems to be the only one working on the issue.

      report
    48. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      No, Michael is more specific than that. He says:
      "if you add co2 to h2o, the emissivity will rise above the h2o only"
      That directly contradicts Nahle's claim.
      Remember, it's not as though Nahle has done some new experimental work. All he has done is to (mis)apply some equations.
      As far as I'm concerned Nahle has no credibility left, so I'll not bother responding to any further on that thread. I'm already having to repeat points ad nauseam.

      report
    49. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      Right, cheerio then Derek, I'll just potter around here in the specificity of Michael's wisdom.

      You know, H2O is a +ve feedback but as you add more CO2 the emissivity of H2O is less than it would be in isolation; how plain is that?!

      You say Michael says that the combined total of H2O AND CO2 is > H2O; well praise the days; does that answer these questions:

      1 How much more than H2O alone is H2O + CO2
      2 If you keep adding CO2 does the CO2 + H2O total come close to H2O alone
      3 Does this impact on the official climate sensitivity estimates which sustain AGW

      report
    50. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      1. Bear in mind that this subadditivity [max{e(H2O),e(CO2)} < e(H2O+CO2) < e(H2O)+e(CO2)] applies separately at each wavelength. Even if, where they overlap, the CO2 did not increase the e() at all, it would still have a major effect where CO2 plugs gaps in the H2O.

      2. Adding more CO2 isn't going to make it go back down again, so it isn't going to get closer to H2O alone. It just goes up more and more slowly.

      3. Haven't done the numbers, but based on the above I would have thought the impact was negligible. Besides, for all we know it has already been fully taken into account in the official estimates.

      report
    51. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      "Even if, where they overlap, the CO2 did not increase the e() at all, it would still have a major effect where CO2 plugs gaps in the H2O."

      I presume you are talking about pressure broadening of the e of CO2 due to extra CO2. Pressure broadening, whereby extra CO2 through greater molecular collision enables greater absorption of LW radiation, is touted as the reason why extra CO2 will cause greater warming.

      However, it is contradicted by 2 proven effects and some observations. The main absorbing…

      Read more
    52. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Unfortunately for you and your Michael Modest himself, there is a copy of his book in the web:

      http://books.google.com/books?id=lLT-aKLTxkQC&pg=PA826&lpg=PA826&dq=michael+modest+heat+transfer+on+line+book&source=bl&ots=7k3Rtpj36k&sig=NMehLCw0tXwpyE2DBWyz6AMs06k&hl=en&ei=MK8sTuGZHcOysAKIg52TDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=page%20342&f=false

      Read page 342. Notice also the units that Modest is introducing in his partial pressures.

      Or you are lying about Modest, or Modest doesn't know what he wrote... Hah!

      XD

      report
    53. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Unfortunately Google books suppresses precisely that page as "not part of this preview". I can see several pages before and after. Maybe you could quote for me exactly the text which you believe M is now contradicting. And his definition of partial pressure.

      report
  15. Nasif Nahle

    Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

    @Derek Bolton...

    Actually, Neutrino didn't know the concept of partial pressure. He made many mistakes which revealed his lack of knowledge on physics and mathematics, as you can verify in that thread.

    Regarding my experiment on Wood's research, yes, it is peer reviewed and I have described it thoroughly for other scientists can repeat it.

    Pratt made many mistakes in his experiment, like a loosen thermometer in the rear wall of the box covered with polyethylene, thermocouples adhered to the plates instead of placing it inside the boxes, the boxes placed on a floor of calcite, etc. What he measured was the temperature of the plates, not of the inner environment of the boxes.

    report
    1. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Wrt partial pressures: reading the blog, looks to me like Neutrino knows perfectly well what a partial pressure is. In fact, this line of yours:
      "the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide at the present atmosphere is 0.0051 atm cm"
      rather suggests you might not - the units are wrong. Maybe just a typo. What should it say?

      Wrt peer reviewed paper, I wasn't referring to your paper reproducing Wood's experiment. That experiment was fine and dandy, but sadly all it proves is that "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer, as has been known for 100 years. I doubt you'll find anyone who'll disagree. Call it something else, I don't care, but it doesn't change the science.
      No, I was referring to the paper Anthony C pointed me to at Marohasy, "Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands". Is that peer-reviewed?

      report
    2. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      The article you refer is still in process of peer review, although I have received some recommendations by physicists of the University of Nuevo Leon. The original version will be sent to the APS for its publication.

      Regarding the number I gave of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is correct because to introduce the value in the formula I considered the optical path length. For general purposes where the partial pressure of a gas is to be considered in a whole column of troposphere, the partial…

      Read more
    3. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      I wasn't objecting to the number, I was objecting to the units. A pressure, partial or otherwise, would not be measured in atm.cm.

      Wrt use of the number in a formula, I gather that the formula in question requires a value whose units are pressure x distance. Is that right? If so, you cannot possibly insert a value whose units are just pressure and hope to get a valid answer. The dimensions must multiply out correctly.

      report
    4. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      That doesn't answer the question about what dimensions the formula you're plugging it into requires.
      Here's a simple way to check: change all the units in a consistent manner - all metres to cm, seconds to minutes, kg to g, etc. If your procedure is correct you should get the same answer. If you've mangled the dimensions, you probably won't. (You could just by chance, but you can minimise that risk by making very different substitutions: e.g. don't change kg to g AND m to mm since they're both factors of 1000.)

      report
    5. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Yes, of course you must do conversions as necessary - that's what I meant by 'consistent': kg in, kg out.
      A useful trick is to treat units as though they're algebraic unknowns. E.g. a man drives 120km at 30 mph, how long does it take?
      120km/(30(m/h)) = 4 km.h/m
      Now 5m = 8km (roughly), so km/m = 5/8
      4 km.h/m = 4*5/8 h = 2.5 h
      Doing this also ensures you get the dimensions right. Note there are two rules here:
      a. If you add, subtract, or compare quantities the dimensions must match
      b. You must keep…

      Read more
    6. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      That link didn't work for me, but is this the one:
      http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Bands.html?
      There I read this line still:
      "the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide at the present atmosphere is 0.0051 atm cm"
      That is clearly wrong since a partial pressure is still a pressure and has that dimensionality. atm.cm has dimension pressure * length, which is different. I'm prepared to accept that this is merely a typo, but you should correct it. Indeed, later in the text you have:
      "the partial…

      Read more
    7. Anthony Cox

      logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

      In reply to Derek Bolton

      CO2 doesn't 'replace' the WV but it does attenuate the radiative properties of the WV; I think this is Nasif's point. Isn't the relevance of the equlibrium partial pressure to calibrate the mixing ratios of the gases so that the reduction in emissivity before and after the addition of CO2 can be noted?

      report
    8. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      I know it doesn't replace it, but that is what Nahle's equations effectively assume. He keeps the total pressure at 1 atm, so when CO2 is included the partial pressure of H2O goes down.
      See also the response from Michael Modest I've posted in direct reply to Nahle elsewhere in this conversation.

      report
    9. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Please, Derek Bolton... Don't resort to Ad hominem arguments and lies saying that my reputation is not good.

      First, I didn't "created" the formulas. "My" formulas, including the formula to calculate the total emissivity of a mixture of gases, were taken from Modest's book. Modest teach the process to apply the formulas with examples, so you're lying when you say that Modest, and of many other scientists and engineers, is contradicting his own work and the results of experimentation. Second, my reputation as a scientist is clean. Third, my experiment demonstrates that there is not any "trapped" radiation in the atmosphere. I repeat, the atmosphere inside my boxes is the same atmosphere outside my boxes. :D

      report
    10. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Anthony Cox

      Regarding the units of partial pressure, I can see you're not a physicist because you don't know that paL is partial pressure multiplied by length, so the units are bar cm, or atm cm, etc. The formula indicates paL, so the units are bar cm, or atm cm, or bar m, or atm m, etcetera, etcetera...

      report
    11. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      I wasn't making any reference to PaL. I referred only to this line, directly from your paper:
      "the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide at the present atmosphere is 0.0051 atm cm"

      report
    12. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      And yes, it is the paL of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if you consider one centimeter of atmosphere following the formula given by Michael Modest on page 344 of his book on radiative heat transfer:

      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.054/t^2 if t < 0.7
      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.225 * t^2 if t >0.7

      He says that (paL)o is 1 bar cm.

      I have to make you know that I am writting a letter to Michael Modest for he can explain why he told you that my article was "garbage", given that I followed his algorithm with high precision.

      Sorry for this, Derek, but I think you will have to justify your words before M. Modest.

      report
    13. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      I merely relayed Prof Modest's review of your paper. That he inferred general capabilities from specific observations is perhaps unfortunate but understable.
      I'm not accusing you of inventing the formulas, but I do believe that you have misapplied them. E.g. look at Hottel's paper. He considers a sealed container with a fixed total pressure and fixed ratios of gases. That does not match what goes on in the atmosphere.
      Do you not appreciate that (a) your formula implies that increasing CO2's partial pressure reduces H2O's partial pressure, and (b) that that is not what happens in the atmosphere?

      report
    14. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      No no no! paL is NOT the CO2 in one cm of atmosphere. It is the partial pressure of the CO2 multiplied by the thickness of the layer, in the atmospheric case the whole atmosphere. This is what Neutrino was trying to explain to you.
      (paL)o refers to the limiting condition in which the gas becomes so tenuous that the partial pressure tends to zero, but at the same time the thickness grows so large that the product, paL, stays constant.

      report
    15. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Oh! Sorry for my English... LOL! Where I said that paL is the CO2 in one cm of atmosphere? This what I wrote:

      "And yes, it is the paL of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if you consider one centimeter of atmosphere following the formula given by Michael Modest on page 344 of his book on radiative heat transfer:

      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.054/t^2 if t < 0.7
      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.225 * t^2 if t >0.7

      He says that (paL)o is 1 bar cm."

      Trying to confuse the readers, Derek? Sorry, but I know those dishonest tactics like yours now, putting wrong words that I never said in my mouth to justifiy your mistakes.

      report
    16. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Let's see what M. Modest says. We will have soon his answer. Regarding the coolant effect of carbon dioxide, it is quite clear:

      The surface at 65 °C emits 607 W. The atmosphere, without 390 ppm of CO2 but 4% of water vapor, absorbs 394 W. This causes a temperature in the atmosphere of 16 °C

      Now let see how much power is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere with 390 ppmV of CO2:

      The surface at 65 °C emits 607 W. The atmosphere with 390 ppmV of CO2 and 4% of water vapor absorbs 389 W. This causes a temperature of 15 °C. One degree lower than without the presence of carbon dioxide. If you increase the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, the absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere will decrease.

      Consequently, the carbon dioxide works like a coolant in the atmosphere. The higher the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower the temperature the air will have.

      report
    17. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      I have no wish to exploit the fact that we're having to communicate in my first language, not yours. But I'm afraid I'm not grasping the distinction you're making between:
      "the paL of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if you consider one centimeter of atmosphere", and
      "the CO2 in one cm of atmosphere"
      They sound the same to me. Could you try to clarify the difference?
      Do you agree that if, say, the atmosphere were 10km thick with a uniform partial pressure of a gas of 0.01 atm then its paL would be 100 atm m? That being so, what is the paL of atmospheric CO2 reckoned to be?

      Just realised I was wrong when I said (paL)o represents the limiting pressure-path-length. In equation 10.144, paL represents that. (paL)o is just a reference value that corresponds to the values of cji. That is, if you were to use a different value for (paL)o then you would need a table with different coefficients for the cji. You probably realised that.

      report
    18. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      There is a big difference between "the paL of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if you consider one centimeter of atmosphere" and the assertion "the CO2 in the atmosphere".

      On the first assertion, "the paL...", I am referring to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in one parcel of atmosphere. On the second one, YOU are referring to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere without considering if it is proportion of CO2 in the atmospher, or it is its partial pressure, or it is its absolute pressure, or it is its density, etc. In short, you're not saying anything about the CO2 in the atmosphere, but just mentioning that there is CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Regarding your question about if I realized that, I repeat, I am not a basic school student.

      report
    19. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Sorry, but that explanation doesn't help. paL is is not - cannot be - a partial pressure. It is a (partial) pressure path length.
      A pressure path length is not a pressure, just as force is not energy and speed is not acceleration.
      In case we're just getting tangled up over terminology, let's see if we can agree on the numbers.
      As I understand it, the mass of atmosphere in a vertical column of unlimited height is equivalent to an 8km column at ground-level pressure. The partial pressure of CO2 at ground level is 0.00039 atm. So the paL for atmospheric CO2 (along a vertical path) is about 3.1 atm.m.
      Do you agree?

      report
    20. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Well, Derek... I don't agree. 0.00039 atm is the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide as if it was alone in the Earth's atmosphere. paL is the partial pressure of a component of the atmosphere if it was in equilibrium with the atmosphere having the same concentration than the whole volume of atmosphere. Therefore, the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide to calculate its total emissivity we use the following formulas:

      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.054/t^2 if t < 0.7

      (paL)m / paL)o = 0.225 * t^2 if t >0.7

      report
    21. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      "0.00039 atm is the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide as if it was alone in the Earth's atmosphere"
      Not sure what you mean by that. It is the pressure the atmosphere would have if you were to remove everything except the carbon dioxide. Likewise each of the other gases, and the total pressure, 1 atm, is the sum of them. Is that what you mean?

      I can find no reference to "equilibrium partial pressure" anywhere in Modest's paper. The only references I can find on the net anywhere are in the…

      Read more
    22. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      There are other scientific sources for definitions and concepts, Derek. If you don't find a definition in a book, look for it in another book.

      I will ask you just a couple questions, Derek:

      What does pa means?
      What does paL means?
      Read the page 341 and 342 from Modest's book and tell me, what he does say that paL means?

      Thanks!

      report
    23. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Modest defines pa on page 320 as partial pressure. I've not been able to find where he defines paL, but he does give it dimensions of pressure x distance, so it clearly is not a pressure. Did you find a definition in Modest? He discusses pressure path length in the text, and as I've shown other authors use paL for that quantity.
      I agree it's not satisfactory to presume the definition of a symbol by one author in a field applies to the work of another. But at least it is clear that it is not a pressure, so in particular it is not a partial pressure.

      report
    24. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      If you rely only on the Modest's book, then read the tables 10-4 and 10-5. On the bottom of both tables he wrote "paL = 1 bar cm". Do those units tell you something?

      bar: units of pressure.
      cm: units of length.

      pa: pressure of the absorbent
      L: Length.
      paL: pressure of the absorbent gas in a length of one cm, m, km, etc.

      It continues being pressure, but in a determined optical length. It doesn't stop being pressure of it is calculated in a length of 1 cm or 700000 cm.

      Now, (paL)m is a correlation…

      Read more
    25. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      ""paL = 1 bar cm". Do those units tell you something?"

      Yes, they tell me that paL is not a pressure. If it were a pressure the units would be just bar, or atm, or pascals, or pounds weight per square inch, etc. Those units prove it is the product of a pressure and a distance.

      "paL: pressure of the absorbent gas in a length of one cm, m, km, etc."
      What does that mean? The average pressure over that distance?
      Let me paraphrase, replacing pressure with speed and length with time:
      Your version…

      Read more
    26. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Derek, haven't you read that total emissivity is related with radiative heat transfer, not to convective heat transfer and it is dependant of partial pressures and temperature? Don't you know that Flemming discovered penicilin in the controlled ambient of a lab flask? Do you insist that the units bar cm is not pressure by length? Well, Derek, I am sorry, I cannot do more for you.

      report
    27. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Umm.. I'm insisting that bar cm *are* units for the dimensions pressure * length. It's you that keeps saying it's just pressure.
      So having agreed it's pressure times length, what length would you use to get the pressure path length of atmospheric CO2?

      Yes, emissivity is to do with radiative transfer, but in the atmosphere there is also convective transfer, and both need to be considered to understand the total heat transfer. I'm sorry I mentioned it since I agree it isn't germane to the topic…

      Read more
    28. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      Mmmmh... That's not an answer to my question. :D

      p is pressure, a is absorbent substance, and L is length... consequently, paL IS pressure of the absorbent medium in one cm height. You cannot change this by means of sophistry.

      Hah! We are referring to radiative heat transfer. If you wish to deal with convective and conductive heat transfer, read my didactic article on the issue at:

      http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html#anchor_38

      Now, answer my question:

      What is the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide according to your "knowledge"?

      report
    29. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      "pressure of the absorbent medium in one cm height" does not mean anything, at least nothing different from just "pressure". It's like discussing the "density of water in one cupful". Density is density, no matter what the volume considered.

      paL is the (partial) pressure multiplied by the path length. Until you understand that you will not be able to use the equations correctly.

      report
    30. Nasif Nahle

      Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      But you were saying few posts above that paL is not pressure and now you say it doesn't mean nothing. If the inits bar are not for pressure, what are they for, then?

      Now you accept that it is partial pressure multiply by path lenght,which was what I was telling you along my posts. Now you say that it is me who doesn't understand it... Well, Dered, what game are you playing here?

      I used the equations correctly. The problem with you is that you ignore that there is a specific formula to calculate (paL)m.

      Will you say that it is me who didn't know it? Well, before you confuse more your own arguments, here the formula to calculate (paL)m, which you say is nothing:

      (paL)m / (paL)o = 0.054/t^2 if t < 0.7

      (paL)m / (paL)o = 0.225 * t^2 if t >0.7

      Let's take the first formula and solve for (paL)m and you'll have:

      (paL)m = (0.054/t^2)*(paL)o

      Given that t is unitless (K/Ko) and (paL)o units are bar cm (1 bar cm; from Modest book pp. 342-343), the result for (paL)m units are bar cm.

      report
    31. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Nasif Nahle

      No, I said that your description "pressure of the absorbent medium in one cm height" is meaningless. I have said quite consistently that:
      paL refers to a "pressure path length"; it has dimensions pressure * distance; it should be calculated as the integral of the pressure with respect to distance through a gas; the pressure in question is the partial pressure of that gas; pressure * distance has different dimensions from pressure and is therefore not pressure, in just the same way that speed * time is a distance, not a speed.

      Here by contrast are two quotes from your own contributions to this thread:
      "paL is the partial pressure of a component of the atmosphere .."
      "It continues being pressure, but in a determined optical length."

      report
  16. Nasif Nahle

    Scientist at Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes

    Regarding Neutrino's confusion, it was not a simple confusion, but ignorance of physics. He didn't know what emissivity is, so how could he disprove my calculation? He didn't know what partial pressure is, so how he could say that my calculations were wrong? He didn't know about Leckner's, Hottel's, Sarofim's, Lapp's and others' experiments which are scientific support of my paper, so how he could say that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not 0.002? The later coefficient was obtained from experimentation and it cannot be substituted by simple speculation.

    I answered all the questions from Neutrino. He didn't answered a single one of my questions. He cannot deduce a formula from a definition of absorptivity, for example.

    report
  17. Doug Cotton

    logged in via email @live.com.au

    Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Search Google "Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle"

    Comments everywhere like: "Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment."

    And what did I say at http://earth-climate.com before reading this news?

    All air molecules are radiating photons in all directions as they rise and cool, the only difference being that greenhouse gases can temporarily capture certain photons and send them off in a different direction. The gases themselves…

    Read more
    1. John Dodds

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      FINALLY some reasonable progress on Climate Change.
      First we have the Wood/Nahle experiments that show that theClimate change Greenhouse Effect does NOT EXIST (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=3)

      Second we have the Doug Cotton thermodynamic explanation at http://earth-climate.com that preventing convection in the real greenhouse or Nahle's box & the actual transmission of heat by convection in the atmosphere is the real reason that warming happens and the climate…

      Read more
  18. simon neville

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    In order to be classified with Narcissistic personality disorder one must display 5 or more of the following symptoms
    Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
    Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or…

    Read more
  19. Douglas Cotton

    B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

    I hope Monckton and others read this just published, peer-reviewed paper http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

    This experiment basically debunks Greenhouse warming theory. The significance of this experiment (published after I had written the rest of the content of http://earth-climate.com ) is that it confirms that air is warmed primarily (if not entirely) by contact of air molecules with the (warmer) Earth. The warm air then rises by convection and cannot return to the ground…

    Read more
  20. Danderson

    logged in via Twitter

    The author quotes Monckton as saying "nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present", and then quotes a bunch of scientists none of whom refute what Monckton actually said.

    What the author does do is set up a strawman by presuming Monckton to have claimed the MWP refutes the AGW hypothesis, and then proceeds to knock down the strawman with the scientist's quotes.

    This article demonstrates why Monckton so easily wipes the floor with his debating opponents and will continue to until they honestly address the intellectual arguments he raises.

    report
    1. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Ministry assistant, ecologcal ethicist and PhD candidate at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      The publication is not by NASA, but by well-known contrarian Dr. Roy Spencer, whose previous work on cloud feedback has repeatedly been shown to be too simplistic. This new article simply applies the same old modelling to new data with unsurprisingly the same result of his previous attempts. The problems with the paper are discussed by a number of experts here:
      http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/global-warming-debunked-or-not

      report
    2. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Yes Byron I have acknowledge my mistake regarding NASA - as you know Spencer is ex-NASA. If criticism of his paper depends on statements such as ...

      "If Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles — which we know is not correct. Talk to any expert [on those cycles] and tell them that clouds cause [them] and they'll laugh at you."

      then I would suggest a lot of money is being wasted on the CLOUD experiment. There ARE proponents of cycle theory that believe strongly…

      Read more