tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post3562264144973454873..comments2022-12-10T08:37:24.353-05:00Comments on Thought Fragments: Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs falsely claim to have presented a new climate modelAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.comBlogger492125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-27062134709851204432015-03-01T23:33:35.076-05:002015-03-01T23:33:35.076-05:00I have tried my best, as I always do, to be polite...I have tried my best, as I always do, to be polite. And I should have hoped that in these egalitarian times a working man doing his best would not be described as a "flunkey".James Rowlatthttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-80527285882613410472015-03-01T23:33:34.073-05:002015-03-01T23:33:34.073-05:00There was no disclaimer above Lord Monckton's ...There was no disclaimer above Lord Monckton's paper in the original, printed or online versions July 2008 edition of Physics and Society. And the fudge-box at the end of the issue said the journal published "reviewed" articles. And it is clear from the file that His Lordship's paper was carefully and meticulously reviewed. It is also clear that subsequently not one but two versions of an untruthful disclaimer to the effect that His Lordship's paper had not been peer-reviewed appeared in the online version (but not in the printed version: it was too late for that). At the same time as the first of the two disclaimers, the fudge-box was tampered with so that it stated that the journal published "non-peer-reviewed" articles, a practice that has been followed ever since.<br /><br /><br />I conclude from the evidence of the printed copy, and of previous editions that one can inspect online, that at the time when His Lordship was invited to submit his paper, on the recommendation of a senior scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory, it was the practice of the journal to publish reviewed papers. I further conclude from the file that Lord Monckton's paper was indeed reviewed. Finally, I conclude that thereafter, as His Lordship might colorfully put it, someone moved the goalposts in an attempt to discredit His Lordship and his paper. His Lordship is well accustomed to such ill-treatment, which does not reflect any credit either on the American Physical Society or on those who now try to misrepresent the position all over again.James Rowlatthttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-49711805198337202572015-03-01T23:33:33.058-05:002015-03-01T23:33:33.058-05:00And I want to apologize to our hosts; you are doin...And I want to apologize to our hosts; you are doing an exemplary job working through the paper in question and lowering myself to the level of monckton's replies was unnecessary.<br /><br />Thank you for the time and quality of work put into the postingsRobertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-56712352986343200412015-03-01T23:33:32.048-05:002015-03-01T23:33:32.048-05:00I know that. Both points. I did go to school you k...I know that. Both points. I did go to school you know.fragmeister12noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-48502087880784663462015-03-01T23:33:31.085-05:002015-03-01T23:33:31.085-05:00Was that the one where you claimed to cure AIDS (r...Was that the one where you claimed to cure AIDS (rather than exile the sufferers)? How is that cure coming along?fragmeister12noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-76680301519853068332015-03-01T23:33:30.088-05:002015-03-01T23:33:30.088-05:00James, I think you missed some responses to scient...James, I think you missed some responses to scientific points that begin with inane insults from His Lordship. You sound quite a lot like him. Are you by any chance related? No, you are employed by him and thus hardly an independent witness. I can, and will continue to, make up my own mind. Since His Lordship is keen on following proper scientific procedure, perhaps he will abstain in future from the insulting epithets, the threats of legal action and the letters to various employers while engaging fully with the scientific points that have been raised in all seriousness by other commenters. His dancing around the subject with regard to Hansen 1988 is a case in point and not one which stands alone.fragmeister12noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-11148205350599954112015-03-01T23:33:29.076-05:002015-03-01T23:33:29.076-05:00"engaged on other business "
I'm go..."engaged on other business "<br /><br />I'm going to be "..engaged on other business " ; turning the compost.Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-66796917714638797062015-03-01T23:33:28.068-05:002015-03-01T23:33:28.068-05:00On re-reading the above comment, I have left out a...On re-reading the above comment, I have left out a vital word "not", thus: "It would be strange were this not the case: for if feedbacks amplify the direct warming that triggered them it is difficult for me to conceive that they would NOT also amplify each other." I do apologize for this oversight.James Rowlatthttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-17404734628139123062015-03-01T23:33:27.031-05:002015-03-01T23:33:27.031-05:00Mr Perlwitz appears to be labouring under several ...Mr Perlwitz appears to be labouring under several misapprehensions. First, he has plainly stated in the head posting that Lord Monckton ought to have referenced Hansen (1984) and Roe (2009) in section 3 (not actually the Introduction) to His Lordship's paper. On checking the file, however, I see that His Lordship had first obtained the equation from an IPCC report and had acknowledged that report, together with Bode (1945), the source of the equation. Prima facie, I can see no ground on which Lord Monckton can be faulted because he did not mention any intermediate papers on the applicability of the Bode relation to the climate sensitivity question.<br /><br /><br />Secondly, His Lordship has already pointed out here that Table 1 of Hansen (1984) explicitly refers in its caption to the system-gain equation, and that the values in Table 1 were manifestly determined via that equation. I see from the file that His Lordship is less interested in whether the equation is implemented inside or outside the model: indeed, in Hansen (1984) it appears to be implemented in a simple model using outputs from a complex model. The key point is that the climate sensitivity is indeed determined in Hansen (1984) using the system-gain relation.<br /><br /><br />Thirdly, in Hansen (1988), as Lord Monckton has noted elsewhere in this discussion, there is an explicit statement about "the feedback factor f = 3.4 for our GCM". It seems to me that that indicates the Bode relation was used, for the feedback factor f (using the same notation as in Hansen 1984) is precisely the system gain. Indeed, using His Lordship's simple model one can determine the implicit climate sensitivity in Hansen's model. If I grasp the matter correctly, the sensitivity is the product the CO2 radiative forcing (at that time it was 6.3 times the logarithm of 2) the Planck or instantaneous parameter 0.313 K/W/m2 and the system gain 3.4 to yield the equilibrium Charney sensitivity 4.6 K. This is certainly among the sensitivities Hansen was asserting at the time.<br /><br /><br /><br />The evidence does seem to suggest that the high sensitivity that models continue to declare to this day is a consequence of the adoption of some mechanism for the mutual amplification of temperature feedbacks in the models. It would be strange were this not the case: for if feedbacks amplify the direct warming that triggered them it is difficult for me to conceive that they would also amplify each other.<br /><br /><br />If I understand His Lordship's mind on this question, he considers it unphysical that the Bode equation is applied to a climate object in which strongly net-positive feedbacks are imagined. It appears to him that the temperature output of the climate object is unlike the voltage in an electronic circuit in that it is the mechanism by which additional radiation is emitted spaceward, restoring radiative balance after a perturbation. <br /><br /><br />Accordingly, it seems necessary to him that upper and lower asymptotic limits ought to be described in the equation, which would then appear similar to an epidemic curve rather than to the Bode relation, where a startling and impossible singularity appears when the loop gain is plotted against the climate sensitivity. He has had a further paper on this specific topic accepted for publication, which he has framed as a question to the climate-science community about a suitable amendment of or replacement for the Bode relation.James Rowlatthttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-42275278339170232272015-03-01T23:33:26.050-05:002015-03-01T23:33:26.050-05:00What Monckton fails to mention is that the reason...What Monckton fails to mention is that the <b> reason </b> they had to mention "non-peer-reviewed" articles, is because <b> he </b> made claims to that effect. The journal subsequently wanted to be sure that Monckton's claims that his <b> letter </b> was peer reviewed were a misrepresentation.Once_upon_a_timenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-81458443139444763412015-03-01T23:33:24.031-05:002015-03-01T23:33:24.031-05:00Oh...Victor. So sanctimonious. Catch up. I'...Oh...Victor. So sanctimonious. Catch up. I've answered the question and posed another.<br /><br />S Graves There's Physics • 4 hours ago <br /><br />Thank you for a clear answer. Your question is misdirection, however. You went from a nice clear answer to a loaded question...possibly disingenuous. I hope not.<br /><br />Clearly they did not say any other specific year was "more likely than 2014 to have been the hottest year on record?"<br /><br />Did they say 2014 was "more unlikely than likely" the warmest year? Simple answer is.....?<br /><br />Now...you seem to be keen on this issue. Did NASA say this: <br /><br />"The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists."<br /><br />www.nasa.gov/press/2015/januar...<br /><br />So...to be fair, your claim in support of your position, "...2014 is by far the most likely to have been the hottest." So now, just to be clear, answer my question; "Did they say 2014 was "more unlikely than likely" the warmest year? Simple answer is.....?"S Gravesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-12877516061705167772015-03-01T23:33:23.066-05:002015-03-01T23:33:23.066-05:00So...to be fair, answer my question; "Did th...<i>So...to be fair, answer my question; "Did they say 2014 was "more <br />unlikely than likely" the warmest year? Simple answer is.....?"</i><br />I don't know. I haven't read their press release and your link doesn't work. You can probably read it as easily as I can. If you really think what NASA actually said has any bearing on physical reality, then you should get out more. And if you think I have any interest in the typical conspiracy-like discussions about these kind of topics, then you'd be wrong.There's Physicsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-34057524241545318512015-03-01T23:33:22.022-05:002015-03-01T23:33:22.022-05:00In fact, why am I even arguing about this. Single...In fact, why am I even arguing about this. Single years aren't really all that important; it's really the trend that matters. Yes, 2014 was probably the hottest year on record, but even if it wasn't, the trend is still upwards and will continue to be upwards if we continue to increase our emissions. Pedantic arguments about probabilities doesn't change physical reality!There's Physicsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-40867607988025878212015-03-01T23:33:21.065-05:002015-03-01T23:33:21.065-05:00But you haven't answered MY question. Don'...But you haven't answered MY question. Don't blame you for losing interest. You attempted to misdirect and failed. <br /><br />The real issue you are attempting to veil is the veracity of this statement from NASA;<br /><br />"The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists."<br /><br />www.nasa.gov/press/2015/januar...<br /><br />So...to be fair, answer my question; "Did they say 2014 was "more unlikely than likely" the warmest year? Simple answer is.....?"S Gravesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-51960287604672597542015-03-01T23:33:20.068-05:002015-03-01T23:33:20.068-05:00I enjoy your reply and opinions more than most of ...I enjoy your reply and opinions more than most of the typical climate change proponents.<br />Though I am still a skeptic, again not saying we should be able to pollute the earth anyway we want. I just am not sure that we as humans have a good enough grasp on the workings of earth yet.<br /><br />I think people are using this science to get very very rich and that in itself makes me wary, as well as the fact that 20 years ago we were all going to be in an ice age because of CFC emissions.<br /><br />Just saying the more we study the better we understand. We do have to be cautious if what happens to the earth. ButbBut scienceacience also needs to be cautious how their opinions are used to sway the uninformed.Russ Lemanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-18155910782529865322015-03-01T23:33:19.054-05:002015-03-01T23:33:19.054-05:00But hasn't the climate always changed as I sai...<i>But hasn't the climate always changed as I said above? Do you think <br />that climate change is caused by man? Or a combination of all factors?</i><br />Yes, but we understand what has caused it to change in the past (or, at least, we understand this quite well). Clearly changes in the past were not driven by man, but studying what's caused it to change in the past can help us to understand how it might change in the future. At the moment, the dominant effect is our emissions. Of course, volcanoes, solar variability and internal variability can also influence our climate, but they tend to average out over timescales of a few decades, Anthropogenic emissions are the dominant driver of long-term climate change today.<br /><br /><i>If the climate is changing as it has in the past do you really think we can stop it?</i><br />Absolutely. The most significant long-term effect will be our emissions. If we change those, we will change how we warm in the future. In fact, without anthropogenic emissions we would probably be cooling.There's Physicsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-45430155639631960272015-03-01T23:33:18.011-05:002015-03-01T23:33:18.011-05:00If I may bring you back to the main point, it seem...<i>If I may bring you back to the main point, it seems clear from Hansen <br />(1984) and IPCC (2007) and Roe (2009) that the Bode system-gain equation<br /> is used (whether in or out of the models) to determine the system gain <br />factor and hence equilibrium climate sensitivity. Are we now agreed on <br />that much?</i><br />No, you can't bring me back. You claimed it was used in climate models. It's not. It's used to analysis the output of climate models. You clearly don't need it to determine the ECS since you can get that directly from the model output. You do need to use something like it if you want to determine the actual gain and the feedback factors. These are, however, just telling you something of the model behaviour and are not inputs to the models.There's Physicsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-56618561098156774962015-03-01T23:33:16.016-05:002015-03-01T23:33:16.016-05:00At any rate, it is very clear that Dr Pinker did n...<i>At any rate, it is very clear that Dr Pinker did not state that the <br />change in solar irradiance reaching the surface was attributable to any <br />feedback, as "There's Physics" had originally stated.</i><br />No, I didn't state that. You stated that it was a forcing. I simply pointed out that changes in clouds is not a forcing, it is either a feedback or internal variability. Try to concentrate on what others say and - ideally - don't misrepresent what they say.<br /><br />Also, read what you quoted in more detail: <b>modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface.</b> This is surface flux only. This is not necessarily representative of the change to the overall energy budgetThere's Physicsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-47402057724472044622015-03-01T23:33:14.986-05:002015-03-01T23:33:14.986-05:00Here is Dr Pinker's own view of the most likel...Here is Dr Pinker's own view of the most likely cause for the 2.9 W/m2 increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface over the 18-year study period 1983-2001: <br /><br />"A global-scale decrease in cloudiness (31) based on ISCCP D1 data was found, which is consistent with an increase in surface solar radiation found in this study, because clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface." <br /><br /><br /><br />Clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface. That does not discount other possible explanations, but there is not much suggestion in Pinker's paper that the increase in solar irradiance was in any way attributable to temperature change. Looking at the Japanese pyrometer record over the past 100 years, the longest we have, it is quite clear that changes in hours of sunshine at the surface precede changes in temperature by a few months, though not all pyrometer records are as clear in this respect as Japan's.<br /><br /><br />At any rate, it is very clear that Dr Pinker did not state that the change in solar irradiance reaching the surface was attributable to any feedback, as "There's Physics" had originally stated. No doubt if there is some paper somewhere that says changes in cloud cover are a consequence of our CO2 emissions There's Physics will be kind enough to direct it to my attention, with an explanation of why the cloud cover decreased from 1983-2001 and has recovered since, with temperature responding as one would expect, even though CO2 concentration has continued to rise monotonically and at ever-faster rates.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps There's Physics is coming to understand some of the complexities of the climate object - just some of the reasons why the so-called "mainstream science" is very far from settled.moncktonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-14493083005758802792015-03-01T23:33:14.054-05:002015-03-01T23:33:14.054-05:00"doesn't mean that changes in cloud cover..."doesn't mean that changes in cloud cover is a forcing."<br />The forcing can come from Solar Radiation. More radiation, higher clouds.<br />More cosmic Rays, more condensation in supersaturated zones, lower clouds.<br />More Greenhouse Gases, lower clouds -- therefore lower surface temperature.<br /><br />If Bill Gates operatives chem-trail, to dump energy and rain, it is forcing.<br />Similarly, global dimming, because of jet travel, is forcing.zlopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-87897911530558933392015-03-01T23:33:13.021-05:002015-03-01T23:33:13.021-05:00Do the math. Think a little. Do the math. Think a little. moncktonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-76428502158596947002015-03-01T23:33:12.040-05:002015-03-01T23:33:12.040-05:00"Variations in clouds isn't a forcing!&qu..."Variations in clouds isn't a forcing!"<br />Chem-trailing, greenhouse gases and Solar activity force clouds.<br />"Ben Livingston - Father of Weather Weapons" <br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT8GGHWSmIYzlopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-17891970456307767532015-03-01T23:33:11.064-05:002015-03-01T23:33:11.064-05:00CB just can't resist the ad hominem nonsense. ...CB just can't resist the ad hominem nonsense. The host said this; "I ask everyone to try to refrain from personal attacks, such as insults against each other or ad hominem arguments that are irrelevant for a discussed matter...".<br />Give it a rest, CB.S Gravesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-7513233978837493482015-03-01T23:33:10.010-05:002015-03-01T23:33:10.010-05:00Blocking climate science progress, by consuming re...Blocking climate science progress, by consuming resources and choosing<br /> CO2 warming scares, IPCC is a global policy making body, hence it's importance.zlopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-28088093532639221722015-03-01T23:33:09.021-05:002015-03-01T23:33:09.021-05:00There is plenty of additional evidence that the Bo...<i>There is plenty of additional evidence that the Bode relation is used in the GCMs. See, for instance, Hansen (1984).</i><br />No, Hansen (1984) uses the relation to estimate the feedback response in the models (once the models have been run). It's not used in the models explicitly. You really need to both talk and listen to, some people who use these models.There's Physicsnoreply@blogger.com