What a lying piece of crap this Monckton, unbelievable. It's obvious he has a hidden agenda and is working for those who want to cover up the real data.
I live in Minnesota, the rule of thumb in the winter is that if the skies are clear it is probably damn cold out. If it is cloudy it is probably a bit warmer, I knew that as a child and figured that out before high school. Later on I found out that the clouds provided insulation that enables the little warmth we get...almost like a blanket.
Honestly it sounds almost as stupid as somebody who's too hot trying to cool himself down by throwing a quilt over his self.
I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but, regardless of temperature, a degree Kelvin = a degree Celsius = a degree centigrade. Kelvin and Celsius only differ in absolute value, not in degree, whereas a Fahrenheit degree = 5⁄9 of a Celsius, Kelvin or centigrade degree.
@loqkLoqkson =I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but, regardless of temperature, a degree Kelvin = a degree Celsius = a degree centigrade= Someone else mentioned this, but it's not in dispute, so I'm curious as to why you're pointing it out. (BTW, it's Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin. Monckton got it wrong.)
Love Monckton, The truth about the SUN and is driving of the earth climate is for every person to see, Everything else is a result of this energy, to Argue otherwise is argue that an ant can change the orbit of the planets such are the relative values of Energy's involved.
Not to say that the way someone looks says anything about him or her, or his or her thoughts, ideas or opinions or the validity thereof... but does anyone else think he kind of looks like a chihuahua?
Noticed at one point you state that Monckton confusing sensitivity and forcing is like confusing time and distance. I recently learned that, in a sufficiently physics-literate setting, it would be perfectly fine to use units of time in place of distance (or vice versa), as they can be converted through c.
@mindgrapes =it would be perfectly fine to use units of time in place of distance= Either you were misinformed or you misunderstood. Time and distance are different units. Time can be correlated or linked to distance, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
@potholer54 No argument at all that space and time are different things, and it's *highly* possible I misunderstood the bit I read about setting the space components of a four-velocity to zero. All I meant was that you could quote a distance in, say, picoseconds, and after a bit of brow furrowing a physicist would recognize you were talking about the distance light travels in x picoseconds. (I wasn't really challenging the point you made in the video, just a note on units I found interesting.)
@mindgrapes That's a mathematical convention for the purpose of simplifying and minimizing the number of free parameters used in deep physics at super high velocities where relativity is important. It doesn't absolve Monckton from being a fool and misusing and conflating ideas like forcing and sensitivity.
In the "ordinary" practical macroscopic world of climate, distance and time are separate units.
its so scary to me how science can be so easily distorted to fit almost any personal agenda...It's so easy for a skilled talker to convince almost anyone in almost anything just by misrepresenting information and cherry picking from what suits him best...
These things really concern me.
@Potholer54, i wish to thank you for your debunking of frauds and liars like this clown, keep up the good work - it seems truth needs advocates.
"You, potholer54, seem very trustworthy and I love watching your videos. But here again, also you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing. :("
Well, since ALMOST ALL climate scientists AGREE with potholer54's comments, and ALMOST ALL DISAGREE with Monckton's whacky absurdities, I'd say go with Potholer54.
@ErikeRKK =you say you missed that it actually says Kelvin= No, I didn't miss that. Above the freezing point of water, celsius, centigrade and Kelvin all mean the same thing. In fact, I could have pointed out that Monckton made a mistake in writing 'degrees' Kelvin, because there is no such thing. Another mistake that would have been corrected if his paper had been peer-reviewed.
@potholer54 "The Kelvin temperature scale uses the same size degree as Celsius, but has its zero set to absolute zero. To convert from Celsius to Kelvin, add 273.15 to the Celsius reading." I copied this from the Goddard Space Flight Center web site. Heh, even they seem to imply that there are "degrees Kelvin".
I don't think the freezing point of water has a role in the mapping between the two scales.
This guy should be in jail for purposely misrepresenting a paper to congress for which he had already been called out in debate. What the hell is this guy's real agenda? How much is BP paying him?
Is there any way that law can protect free speech from difamation? I mean if he is missquoting several times someboby else's works, even after that person has publicly rebutted it, I think that is a set up for a court case.
"The Audience can't tell the difference between good physics and crap."
You are so right! I tried to read one of the sources and got dazzled by myself. As an absolute rookie in physics it is absolute impossible to decide which "expert" is worth this title and which is not.
You, potholer54, seem very trustworthy and I love watching your videos. But here again, also you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing. :(
@Daihatschi =you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing.= I know you make the point lightly, but even in jest you are absolutely right. My math sucks, and even on this elemental mistake in Monckton's calculation I shouldn't be trusted. (contd....)
@potholer54 ...(contd.) The way you know Monckton makes a mistake is because he tries to cover it up by clearly calling his computation "forcing" in his paper, and then equally clearly changing that to "sensitivity" in a rebuttal to a blog pointing out the error. It's Monckton's inept attempt at a cover-up that shows not only that he made a mistake, but that he realised he made a mistake. Instead of admitting it, he clumsily tried to hide it.
@Daihatschi Actually that is why he goes on consistently about providing your sources, and he does. As a journalist, or more specifically a GOOD journalist, he doesn't expect you to take HIS word for anything.
Most of the charletains you hear about on this channel, on the other hand, DEPEND on it.
...the reason for including sources and having a strong free public forum attached to these videos is that people that DO understand the subject also turn up from time to time, and he is confident enough in his sources and interpretation of them to both site the sources, and allow people to criticize him for it.
You will find many if not all those he is critical of are reluctant to do the same.
There is a tendency to trust what he says though, without going to the sources.
There was an episode of Arrested Development where the American main characters didn't pick up on the fact that a woman was mentally retarded because she had a British accent.
I think of Arrested Development every time I hear about Lord Chris Monckton.
And don't automatically assume you'll win a debate because the facts are on your side! Never forget debates are won by flourish and confusion. If your goal is trying to create ambiguity and make both sides look valid, a draw is a win.
@mphello Over and over, I see real scientists lose debates to nitwit creationists and global warming deniers, who have a vague grasp on real science...but a great ability to use the medium of television and appeal to the public.
When it comes to dealing with what is essentially a public relations movement, being right on the science is a little like being pure of heart: even if true, it's not enough.
==I see real scientists lose debates to nitwit creationists and global warming deniers==
Don't know where you're seeing this. If you mean the creationists' own blogs, yeah - the creationists "win".
Nobody ever said "endlessly reproving what is is enough for political action".
Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't waste time endlessly reproving that drinking and driving causes accidents. They take political action. There is nothing special or unique about AGW.
@OriginalGordon Moncton claims his thyroid condition(Graves Disease) was fixed 100% by his own invented medication "ressurexi".. that also cures M.Sclerosis, Aids, common cold, flu and such... amazing.. yet it's not available... and trials has been going on since 2008... and no results... =o)
surely this young prof, even if his specialty is in oceans, should have been familiar with basic IPCC AR reports & conclusions etc. If not then he shouldn't have bothered going on the telly.
@carlgt1 Scientists are very specialised: if what you say doesn't impact in his area, he couldn't not talk about it with authority and so was rightly quiet. A non-specialist like Monckton on the otherhand is not constrained by such considerations and will misinterpret silence as encouragement to carry on in the same vein. If the scientist was on the telly it was because he was invited by someone who didn't understand his specialty or how it related to the discussion they wanted to show.
@541ceman I did not truncate the definition. The IPCC define radiative forcing as "a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism." Thus any factor that alters the incoming/outgoing energy balance can be subscribed a given radiative forcing. Until you grasp this baby-simple concept there is little point continuing this discussion.
"RF ... provides a limited measure of climate change as it does not attempt to represent the overall climate response."
"recent studies ... assessing the limitations of the RF concept ..."
"considerable debate whether some climate change drivers are better considered as a 'forcing' or a 'response' ..." (Hence, whether they are well represented in an RF framework).
@CHIPSTERO7 But the net irradiance is not the same as the surface radiation imbalance.
200 W/m^2 incoming + 200 W/m^2 outgoing is in balance, but a cold planet.
500 W/m^2 incoming + 500 W/m^2 outgoing is in balance, but a hot planet.
Both are possible for Earth by changing the relative cloud albedo and GHGs, so the 1 W/m^2 imbalance is not what determines climate, just climate *change*.
@CHIPSTERO7 Your mistake appears to be that you think that RF is an exact measure of the change there will be in the net downwelling radiation. But it is just a measure of the *forcing* for climate change: climate then responds to that forcing in ways that might further perturb the net downwelling radiation (balanced by the reradiation that gives us the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature).
@541iceman You say "Your mistake appears to be that you think that RF is an exact measure of the change there will be in the net downwelling radiation". No. I have never claimed such a thing throughout this entire discussion. Please point out where you think I have suggested this. I have already made it abundantly clear that radiative forcing is anything that alters the incoming/outgoing radiation. Alas this is becoming increasingly tiresome and so I think I'll just reside from this discussion.
@CHIPSTERO7 You stated that an RF of 1 W/m^2 should change T by 0.22 C based on Stefan-Boltzmann. I am merely stating that this is an incorrect application of what the IPCC intends by the term "RF".
You don't seem willing to read the 1.5 pages that the IPCC devotes to explaining RF and how it fits into the framework of surface T changes. So, yes, it isn't worth continuing this discussion.
@541cman My reasoning was as follows: earth's mean surface mean temperature is currently 15C while its black-body temperature is -18C which is a 33C temperature-difference. This represents a massive amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric-greenhouse. In fact it amounts to 150.35W/sq.m. Increment of radiation from whatever source (dl) = 1W/sq.m. Therefore new atmospheric-greenhouse radiance (l1) = 151.35W/sq.m+ 1W/sq.m. New effective surface temperature (T1) implied by l1 = 15.22C/288.22K.
@541iceman Okay, let's assume that TOA imbalance (presumably of the entire-spectrum) is currently 1 W/m^2. The obvious question is how much warming would that produce at the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us a maximum temperature-increment of 0.22C. However since the surface of the earth is 70% water and evaporation takes place at a constant temperature most of that downward-radiation will be absorbed in the production of water vapour without raising the mean surface temperature at all.
@CHIPSTERO7 Stefan-Boltzmann says nothing about the total warming if the fluxes are not balanced. If there is *always* +1 W/m^2 more coming in than leaving, then the planet will warm forever.
All S-B says is that if you change the equilibrium radiation balance from (say) 350 W/m^2 in *and* out, to 351 W/m^2 in and out, you change the temperature by a certain amount.
@541iceman You say "If there is *always* +1 W/m^2 more coming in than leaving, the planet will warm forever". I did not say that there will perpetually exist a radiative imbalance of 1W/sq.m in the system. Please point out where I suggested that. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the radiance of a body is proportional to the 4th-power of its absolute effective temperature. I am merely using that law to calculate the temperature that a given increment of irradiance will produce at the surface.
@541ceman Also I do not know where you derived the figure "0.9 W/m^2". Presumably that is from Trenberth's own calculations and represents the total radiative imbalance across the whole spectrum? Whatever the case we are clearly at loggerheads and I doubt that repetitiously reasserting out viewpoints is going to convince the other. So if you do reply I will choose not to. We could always discuss another issue. The disparity between radiosonde-readings and climate models is one that intrigues me.
@CHIPSTERO7 I cited the IPCC's own definition of RF. The RF is *not* the net radiative balance at ToA. Until you understand it (section 2.2. of the IPCC 2007 WG1 report), this is pointless. The definition is repeated in the Glossary (see page 951).
The radiative imbalance determines the *rate* of energy change (rate of heating), not the equilibrium state. At the moment, the imbalance is about 1 W/m^2 at ToA.
@541iceman You say "RF is not the net radiative balance at TOA". I do not recall saying it was. The radiative imbalance of CO2-absorption wavelengths will of course be different to the radiative imbalance on CH4's-absorption wavelengths and RF can be subscribed to each separately. I believe I was referring only to the radiative forcing/imbalance on CO2-absorption wavelengths, not the entire spectrum. I would think that the IPCC's definition of RF below is self-explanatory enough. Apparently not.
@CHIPSTERO7 If you truncate the IPCC's definition from 1.5 pages and 2 figures to one sentence, you lose something. I agree that the whole IPCC way of discussing fluxes is complicated. But the way they define it is consistent with their way of using it. That's why they spend 1.5 pages explaining it.
@541iceman You're unnecessarily complicating matters. RF is defined by the IPCC simply as "a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the earth-atmosphere system". Alternatively they define it as "the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top-of-atmosphere". RF is basically any factor that causes a disequilibrium in the incoming/out-going energy. eg: water vapour, surface reflectivity, solar irradiance, etc.
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-3) Unless you are willing to understand how the IPCC defines RF, this is a pointless discussion. The details in the definition are critical. Equating RF with net flux imbalance of the Earth is wrong.
*At equilibrium*, the incoming and outgoing fluxes are in balance, at the surface and at all altitudes in the atmosphere. In the modern GH atmosphere, the total flux *in* is 150 W/m^2 more than it would be with no GHE, but the total flux *out* is also ~150 W/m^2 higher.
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-4) The warming is due just to the ~1 W/m^2 non-equilibrium imbalance between these two quantities.
Add up the incoming and outgoing TOA radiations in the figure you pointed me to (or the updated version in Trenberth et al. (2009)). The difference is 0.9 W/m^2, same as at the surface. This is the non-equilibrium flux that is warming our planet (earth + ocean + atmosphere). "RF" is *not* the same as total flux imbalance.
@541iceman You also say that earth during interglacials has a RF 8W/sq.m higher than during glacials. 8W/sq.m radiant forcing is only enough to give you 1.76C at the surface. And that's assuming none of it is absorbed in the evaporation of sea-water. Where will you get all the rest that you need to prove significant AGW? I hope you realise that these hypothetically-high conversion-rates between delta T and RF that the AGW-team have assumed originate from equivocal paleo-reconstruction analyses.
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-5) Think of it. If the Earth was at equilibrium, flux in = flux out. But an Ice Age Earth has an RF of -8 W/m^2 *relative* to modern times. If the flux imbalance in an Ice Age was actually -8 W/m^2, the planet would keep cooling (losing heat) forever.
@541iceman Sorry, but I am still not understanding you. You first point I agree with. Thermodynamic equilibrium is only achievable when there is no disequilibrium between the incoming/out-going radiation. You appear to be ignoring the IPCC's own definition of radiative forcing which is defined as "the rate of energy change of the globe as measured at the top-of-atmosphere". That means a radiative imbalance is radiative forcing. I do not see why you are finding this point so hard to acknowledge.
@541iceman The reason Harris measured this at TOA rather than the troposphere is presumably because of the difficulties in measuring separately the specific deficit on CO2 absorption wavelengths since there is considerable overlap with water vapour in its absorption-bands. Water vapour is of course rare in the upper-atmosphere so it gives more accurate results. Hansen has also discovered a radiative imbalance at TOA on CO2 absorption wavelengths, but I believe his calculations come from models.
@541iceman Keep in mind, the 150W/sq.m is the calculated warming the entire planetary greenhouse produces at the surface which is 33C. It is not the surface radiative imbalance. SB implies that 390.1W/sq.m is the total OLR (or initial surface temperature/net-temperature) and 239.76W/sq.m is radiated out into space without being absorbed by the atmospheric greenhouse, giving us 150W/sq.m for the entire greenhouse effect. If we add the IPCC's 3.7W/sq.m to 150W/sq.m we only get a delta T of 0.81C.
@541ieman If you're not happy with me using Trenberth's 324W/sq.m calculation or if you feel that I am misunderstanding it then we can always use the SB-law instead. The SB-law implies that the RF from the entire atmospheric greenhouse is 150.35W/sq.m. That's for the 33C of warming at the surface. This implies a linear relationship between delta T and RF of 0.22 per 1/W.sq.m. The IPCC's 3.7W/sq.m on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 therefore gives us 0.81C. Much lower than the IPCC's claim of 1.2C.
@CHIPSTERO7 We almost agree on something. The increase in radiation balance is ~150 W/m^2 AT THE SURFACE due to the GHE. That is, in the GHE case, there is 150 W/m^2 more coming in, and going out, than in the no-GHE case. (but still in balance: net incoming = net radiated)
@CHIPSTERO7 However, the IPCC relationship is between SURFACE T and the radiative imbalance AT THE TROPOSPHERE. This is different from the surface radiative imbalance, which is generally essentially zero except for the ~1 W/m^2 excess in the non-steady-state warming world.
@541iceman But that is not what I am doing. There is a fixed relationship between temperature and radiation intensity that is specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I merely used that law to show how the IPCC's calculated RF implied an amplification of the hypothesised radiative-input to the climate-system. It does not matter where we measure the temperature from (eg. the planetary surface, the troposphere or somewhere in between) but the amplification will still be implicit in the equation.
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-1) "Radiative Forcing" is a complicated business: it is *not* the same as "change in surface radiation balance". From the IPCC: "RF is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values".
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-2) The true instantaneous surface heat budget imbalance that drives present warming is about 1 W/m^2. The top-of-atmosphere imbalance is essentially zero (Trenberth et al., 2009; or the Trenberth figure you pointed me to).
You need to read section 2.2 of the 2007 IPCC Working Group 1 report to see what RF really means.
@541iceman You say "the top-of-atmosphere imbalance is essentially zero". This is an extraordinary claim. If there was 'essentially no' radiative imbalance at TOA this would imply that the incoming/out-going energy was unchanging and the earth would be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and temperature would neither increase nor decrease but remain perpetually static. According to Harris 2001 there is currently an overall TOA imbalance due to the absorption of outgoing radiation by CO2.
@541iceman No, look at the back-radiation absorbed by the earth from the entire planetary greenhouse. It is 324W/sq.m. You can view the graph here: h ttp://w ww.windows2universe.o rg/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html
@CHIPSTERO7 Trenberth has updated that figure in his 2009 paper. You tell me to read things: I suggest you look up Trenberth et al. 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. However, where do you think the energy for the fat upward radiation arrow to the left of your back-radiation arrow comes from? It is mostly direct reradiation of the back-radiation.
You need to compare this diagram with what you'd have without a GHG atmosphere to understand the 33 K difference.
@541iceman If we take climate-sensitivity into account which is presented by the IPCC as deltaT = 0.75xRFOC the 3.7W/sq.m means increments of RF convert into temperature-increases at a rate of 0.80C/W/sq.m (i.e. 0.80 times 3.7 = 3C). 3C is the temperature-increase expected on a doubling of CO2 with feedbacks. The IPCC do not specify the length of time that it would take before all feedbacks take effect but they assure us it would be years or decades after the increment of RF has been produced.
@CHIPSTERO7 Stefan-Boltzmann says that the Earth would be 33 C cooler if it did not have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
You appear to have no understanding of Trenberth's energy budget. The total balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is the same: solar radiation (shortwave) in = reflected shortwave + longwave (IR). The present breakdown (planetary albedo of about 0.3) is 102 shortwave reflected + 239 longwave emitted.
@541iceman To my knowledge the Stefan-Boltzmann does not state that the earth would be 33C cooler without the atmospheric greenhouse. I believe that would actually be the Arrhenius equation of which the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived. Also, Trenberth's calculation of 324W/sq.m that I cited is the "back-radiation" or rather the downwelling radiation from the TOA and this represents earth's greenhouse effect from all sources. There is no misunderstanding here. I suggest you read the actual paper.
@CHIPSTERO7 The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates black-body temperature to the total radiated energy per square meter. For the measured mean insolation, and allowing for immediate energy loss from direct reflection, you can calculate the thermodynamic temperature of a planet without GHGs.
Assuming no change in albedo (reflectivity), the Earth would be ~33 C cooler than it is.
@541iceman According to Wiki Stefan-Boltzmann "ignores temperature differences and changes on the planet and also the greenhouse effect". This would be news to me if the Stefan-Boltzmann law implied that the atmospheric-greenhouse kept the planet 33C warmer as I have been labouring under the impression that this is implied only by the Arrhenius law. Do you have a source for this info? Also, I should note that the 0.80C per 1/Wsq.m should technically be 0.75C. The former just makes more sense.
@CHIPSTERO7 The S-B law (see Wiki) allows you to calculate the global averaged equilibrium temperature for a body without a GHG atmosphere, for a given radiation level which we know. For the known current albedo, the S-B law says Earth should be at 255 K without a GHG atmosphere. The measured value is 288 K. Why?
@CHIPSTERO7Most of the back-radiation (IR) in Trenberth's energy flow diagram is simply reradiated (still as IR). So, that part doesn't count. All that matters is the imbalance in the fluxes.
Without a GHG atmosphere but with albedo of 0.3, there is ~239 W/m^2 shortwave radiation absorbed, and 239 radiated as IR assuming the Earth is at equilibrium.
@541iceman No, I am not confusing climate-sensitivity with the radiative forcing effect exclusively from CO2 which to date stands at 1.97W/sq.m if we use the IPCC's equation which gives us a temperature-increase of around 0.6C. The IPCC's equation converts temperature into radiative forcing at the rate of about 0.3C/W/sq.m which is high. If we use Trenberth's Global Energy Mean Budget or Stefan-Boltzmann law and apply the IPCC's radiative forcing we arrive at much smaller temperature-increments.
Of course interglacials are around 5C warmer than glacials so the theoretical 1C increase in temperature from 10W/sq.m would need to be amplified 4 times.
@541icman I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying a "1-year spike in CO2 will get smoothed out but a persistent rise in CO2 over decades will remain obvious". I agree. The point I've been trying to make is that diffusion across the entire paleo-ice-core record will lead to a general underestimation. Given this and the contradictory evidence from Stomata, what we can say with some certainty is that the levels of CO2 recorded by the bubbles are probably not 1:1 faithful representations.
@CHIPSTERO7 (CO2 diffusion) Here's a simple coding game you can play: take a time series of CO2, changing on time scales of thousands of years (natural variations). Apply the Ahn et al. diffusion coefficients (use the high values, for warm ice, to really kick things along). Diffuse it for 70,000 years. Plot the original and diffused lines. Without looking closely, can you tell the difference?
Answer: No. Diffusion slightly smooths the profile of CO2 but doesn't remove it from the ice core.
@rugbguy59 Here's a quote from a paper by Jinho Ann on diffusion in ice: "We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years". This is why Stomata-proxies show more variability, as I say, since they are not subject to the same diffusion. That fact that you are even questioning this happens (which to me appears to be a basic requirement of chemistry) is most baffling.
@CHIPSTERO7 What you could do is read the Ahn et al. paper: free online. Diffusion accounts for smoothing with time scales of decades, even after 70,000 years, i.e., back in the middle of the last ice age. So, a 1-year spike in CO2 will get smoothed out, but a persistent rise in CO2 over several decades will remain obvious.
The CO2 contribution to the entire greenhouse would only increase the surface temperature by 0.2C and a radiant increment of 8W/sq.m would give us 0.8C. Giving us a combined temperature increase of 1C. We can see then that the contribution from the atmospheric CO2 is a trivial one. Of course, this is assuming Trenberth's calculations are correct. We could alternatively apply SB and get 150.35W/sq.m for the entire atmospheric greenhouse effect which would give us approximately 2C for 10W/sq.m.
@rugbyguy59 I must have missed this comment of yours. You say "it's been checked against instrumental records". Oh really? Direct instrumental measurements of atmospheric CO2 only go back to 1850 and Gerog Beck's reanalysis of that would suggest CO2 was almost higher then. Eh? Still, we are talking about proxy-data that spans back many thousands of years and the amount of diffusion (which despite your specious protests, does happen) will be greater the further back in the paleo-record we go.
@CHIPSTERO7 "Overall, the RF for the changed GHG and aerosol concentrations and land surface changes was ~-8 W/m^2 for the last glacial maximum ..." Roughly -2 W/m^2 is CO2 only, another -0.8 for methane and nitrous oxide.
@541iceman Thanks. I have seen these figures quoted before. The obvious question is how did they measure this? Is it simply derived from the IPCC's famous and unsubstantiated logarithmic equation? Anyway, if we accept if for argument's sake we can calculate how much of a temperature increase that radiative forcing of 2W/sq.m of CO2 would produce by applying Trenberth's calculated radiative forcing for the entire atmospheric downwelling radiation of 324W/sq.m in his Global Energy Mean Budget.
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-1) I don't see where you are getting your relationship between surface temperature change (DT) and radiative forcing (RF). I think you are confusing the sensitivity to doubled CO2 (3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, without feedbacks). The relationship between DT and RF is given in the IPCC documents as DT=(lambda)RF, where lambda is roughly 0.5 but depends on time scales because of different feedback responses.
@541iceman I don't have the time to do the test you suggest but you are correct in saying diffusion smoothes the profile of CO2. This is to be expected. However to think the ice-core is a faithful representation of ancient atmospheric CO2 is unlikely for a few reasons. Not least of all because the ice-core record depicts atmospheric CO2 levels below 250ppmv and such low concentrations would have led to the extinction of certain plant species which is not recorded by paleobotanists (McKay 1991).
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-2) That is, -8 W/m^2 for the last ice age is a global average surface T change of about 4 C, consistent with proxy T data (mainly oxygen isotopes).
Present imbalance relative to pre-industrial is ~+1.6 W/m^2, giving about +0.8 C global T change. About right.
@541iceman You say "I don't see where you are getting your relationship between DT and RF". It is a straightforward application of applying the estimated radiative forcing calculated by the IPCC to the entire planetary greenhouse in Trenberth's Energy Mean Budget. Trenberth calculates that the entire atmospheric greenhouse responsible for raising the surface temperature by 32C (or 33C) is 324W/sq.m. We simply add 8W/sq.m to 324/sq.m and it gives us a temperature-increment of approximately 0.8C.
@rugbyguy59 You say: "Because nobody, including Paltridge, really trusts the data". Complete lie. Clearly you didn't read the reply from Paltridge to Dessler that I graciously provided.
@rugguy69 I asked a simple, straightforward question. Which was what is the RF produced by the Milankovitch-cycle and positive feedbacks during interglacials and you reply by telling me to do the work for myself? If you understood the science you would explain it to me. Clearly you don't. To make up for your lack of knowledge you therefore have to resort to putdowns by saying things like "because you can't fathom it". Get back to me when you wish to participate in an honest and adult discussion.
@rugbyguy59 That's true. However Stomata-proxies are in general agreement with flask-measurements. All paleoclimate-data to me seems extremely conjectural and uncertain for the simple reason that it is impossible for them to be standardised by reference to direct empirical measurements. No-one was measuring CO2 or CH4 concentrations thousands of years ago. We cannot use proxy-data as absolutes, but only relatives. And as we go further back in time, the error-bars of course get ludicrously wide.
@CHIPSTERO7 This is a nice trick you play. Putting the @somebody at the front of your post but not as a direct reply. Thus they get no notification of your post. A nice way of making it look like the other person gave up I guess.
Who is saying use proxy data as absolutes? The fact of the matter is though that if you apply what we know to the ice core data it fits very well with the expectations. It seems your argument is "we can't know anything unless we measure it ourselves."
@rugbyuy59 Ferrgoodnesssake. I did not "abandon it. I replied to it but YouTube blocked my comment and it was only viewable in the "Comments" section as I said. You can view it now by skipping back a page. Also, you evidently don't understand. Because CO2 is a soluble gas it will have gradually leached out (it’s called 'diffusion') of the trapped air-bubbles in the ice underestimating true-values present thousands of years ago and giving the impression of stable CO2-concentarions over millennia.
@CHIPSTERO7 CO2, nor any other water soluble gas, does not present significant leaching problems. As I said it's been checked against instrumental records. This is simply another "the scientists were too stupid to think of this" disinformation tactic. Scientists are fully aware of the technical issues and compensate for them. That is why real scientists, both part of the consensus and not, use the ice core data.
@rugbyguy59 Again, this is something you should provide evidence for. What specifically is the RF of Milankovitch cycles during interglacials and what is the RF produced by positive feedbacks (i.e. CO2, water vapour and surface reflectivity).
@CHIPSTERO7 Try doing a little work yourself. Go to any university department cite or any authority on Milankovitch Cycles and Climate and it is there for all to see. I am not talking about cutting edge science here just the commonly held understanding by those in the field. Those who wish to overturn that view are the one's who need to provide the compelling evidence to the contrary. Just because you can't fathom it....
@rugbguy59 It is not a trick. I don't know if anyone has been experiencing the same problem but the option to reply to posts has been disappearing forcing me to reply in the top-box. If you think that the ice-core proxy is an accurate 1:1 representation of contemporaneous-paleoatmospheres (which you appear to be) then you are assuming they are absolutes. As I said, there is likely to be considerable diffusion of CO2 and the chemical-composition within the air-bubbles will have changed over time.
@CHIPSTERO7 "As I said, there is likely to be considerable diffusion of CO2 and the chemical-composition within the air-bubbles will have changed over time."
And who are you? You pick up an idea off the blogosphere and claim it defeats the whole process and yet the people who do this work and the people who use this work (including the so called "skeptics") use this data and have confidence in it. I think they may know more than you.
@rugbyguy59 Are you listening to anything? Dessler only studied the short-term and he did not use radiosonde data but satellite-data. For a comprehensive explaiantion I advise you read this: htt p://joannenova.c om.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/
@CHIPSTERO7 Yes an analysis by a bachelor of science (microbiology) grad. I tend to dismiss posts that throw around terms like "AGW team" or implied statements that scientists aren't looking for holes in understanding. Nova's bit shows she still doesn't understand much on the topic. "How can you dismiss such a wall of evidence"? Because nobody, including Paltridge, really trusts the data.
The problem with this is that it is all so far over the head of the typical anti-warming position that they won't seek it out or possibly even understand it if they did. Dang though, don't you love how even after they are told they are wrong they still keep going?
The problem with this is that it is all so far over the head of the typical anti-warming position that they won't seek it out or possibly even understand it if they did.
@rugy59 You're missing the point. If CO2 - a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere - is a primary driver of temperature as AGW-proponents suggest then how can it possibly be a major controller of temperature when there is an 800-year time-lag in the ice-core record? First comes temperature change then 800-years later CO2 follows (due to Deep Oceanic Inertia). CO2 follows temperature up and down - there is no evidence in the ice-core record whatsoever that CO2 is "amplifying" temperature as you suggest.
@CHIPSTERO7 No. You don't understand the science. The evidence is in basic physics and mathematics. The energy gained by the change in orbit is not enough to explain the fluctuations in temperature we see in the cores. When we add in the known effects of CO2 they are explained. If you feel 800 years is a long time for the effect then welcome to the world of natural changes. The CO2 rise we've seen in the last 150 usually takes 5000 years or more to occur.
@rugbyguy59 That's exactly what Dessler does. He studied only short-term and confidently proclaimed "there's no theory that explains why the short term may be different to the long term". I can think of numerous reasons however. And I agree that there are serious uncertainties with radiosonde-humidity readings but it is unscientific to discard thousands or measurements especially since the temperature measurements of radiosondes which are individually calibrated to 0.1C are in general agreement.
@CHIPSTERO7 Except they aren't in agreement with the other measures and they're the most suspect of methods. Given 4 measures that agree and one suspect method that differs it is pure arrogance to claim the one trumps the four. Not unless you can show a new method that overcomes the issues. Paltridge did not do that.
It is dishonest to conflate "no theory that explains why" with "the long term equals the short term." You've got nothing to support your argument and are delving into quote mining.
@rugbyguy59 It's true that there are uncertainties with radiosondes when measuring humidity because there sensors can dry-up but there are equal uncertainties with satellites. Still, there's always hope, isn't there? Perhaps the hundreds of thousands of radiosonde-readings since 1979 that measured humidity were malfunctioning and giving false-readings. After all, a lot of them do that, don't they? Maybe Phil Jones could analyse the radiosonde-data himself and compare them with humidity-proxies.
@CHIPSTERO7 There are "uncertainties" with all sources of data but not as in the case of radiosondes. As Paltridge said: 'radiosonde humidity measurements are notoriously unreliable and are usually dismissed out-of-hand as being unsuitable for detecting trends of water vapor in the upper troposphere.'
Dessler used five data sets and found the only one that supported Paltridge was the one Paltridge used. That "skeptics" are so unskeptical of work like Paltridge belies their claim to skeptisism
@rugbyuy59 Presumably you're referring to the Milankovitch cycle? I have often pondered how AGW-advocates can maintain that Milankovitch cycles are too weak to explain the temperature increases during interglacials. I've heard this explanation a-thousand times and I have yet to hear an adequate explanation as to why the RF produced by the Milankovitch cycle is not enough to explain for the temperature increases during interglacials and how anyone has measured this empirically and quantitatively.
@CHIPSTERO7 Maybe you should actually read the scientists who do the studies then instead of someone like Jo Nova who hasn't a clue. The answer is really very simple the RF of Milankovtich Cycles isn't enough to produce all the warming because the extra solar forcing is relatively weak. Without additional forcings of CO2 and albedo a new equilibrium would be reached much earlier. Since it is the accepted view of those who study the stuff you should try to present some evidence it isn't so.
@rugbyguy59 There's a huge weight of empirical evidence from independent researchers suggesting the feedbacks are negative. The 800-time lag-time, thousands of radiosonde-measurements (Gregory or Paltridge), and evidence of cloud negative-feedback (Spencer). On the other hand I have seen no convincing evidence that the feedbacks are positive in the long-term. You do realise that positive feedbacks in the climate cannot predominate negative feedbacks otherwise stability would not be maintained.
@CHIPSTERO7 Lauer et al. (2010) Clement et al. (2009) Dessler (2010) suggest positive feedbacks.
Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have indicated that cloud optical depth of low marine clouds might be expected to decrease with increasing temperature.
Spencer may have published a lot but he isn't convincing many.
Feedbacks are logarithmic. They aren't forcings.
By 800-time lag do you mean 800 year lag? If you mean CO2 vs temp that is strong evidence of positive feedbacks.
@rugbyguy59 Dessler only studied the short-term and from that concludes long-term must be the same. However there are reasons as to why water vapour could rise in the short-term like tropospheric wind shear engendering changes in precipitation efficiency. Either way, Garth's findings of an overall decrease in tropospheric-water vapour still suggests a negative-feedback. You can see Paltridge's reply here: htt p://joannenova.co m.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/
@CHIPSTERO7 Please don't lie. Dessler didn't say long term must equal short term. He recognizes the differences between the two and and warns his findings might not be a guide to the future. However his findings support climate models and simply adds to the strengthening case for clouds most likely being slightly positive overall with a small chance of a slight negative effect. But no where near enough to put the brakes on warming.
@rugbygy59 I'm presuming you're basing this assumption on the ice-core data? I strongly suggest that you take a look at Stomata-proxies because they show significantly more variability of CO2 up to 360ppm. Ice-cores are a false-proxy, like many other AGW-mathemagians, because CO2 being a soluble gas means that it would gradually leach out of the trapped air-bubbles, especially over the very thin layers of ice, underestimating the contemporaneous paleoatmosphere. They cannot be used as absolutes.
@CHIPSTERO7 Now this is true denier stuff. A couple posts ago you say the 800 year gap in the ice cores destroys the CO2 theory. After having it explained to you abandon your point and move onto a new proxy.
Stomata are useful but are subject to a variety of influences other than CO2. CO2 bubbles in ice are direct measurements of Co2 at the time. Ice cores have been calibrated against a variety of instrumental data. They are not as subject to degradation as you say.
I wonder if anyone can answer a question for me: skeptics are always claiming that scientists are misinterpreting the data on purpose, and that man made climate change is some sort of conspiracy. I just want to know what they think anyone would gain from lying about it. I can't think of anyone who benefits from policies directed towards stopping climate change, considering it means people and orginisations spending less on energy, and governments spending more on policy implementation.
I can see you go to a fair amount of effort to produce these videos, and i want to say i for one appriciate it alot. You're doing a great thing here, and i just hope your audience continues to grow.
Kill the politicians at the US Congress who had the fucking nerve to invite Monckton to testify.
When they allow Charles Manson and OJ Simpson and anyone else held hostage in US prisons to testify on any topic whatsoever - whether foreign affairs in the Middle East or military readiness - only then should anyone "respect" or obey the bullshit "laws" of the United States.
eric144144 is a known paid shill for Exxon. They pay him $250,000 a year to spread lies. The lunacy of the denialists is astonishing. To them, MORE proof - buttressed by peer-reviewed papers and computer models - is less reason to take political action than, say, a cop who says he sees a teenager steal a candy bar, who has practically no proof. When, in fact, more scientific proof is MORE reason to take political/lega/military action.
I mean the world may be doomed form the dreaded C02 or it might be fine.
One thing ive gleaned for the debate is there is still a massive amount of doubt in the predicted severity. And the only way that will be determained is really going to be a wait and see senario. I have a feeling out planets climate is a much more complex and volitile thing than any computor model can predict. While some of the proposed changes may be benificial regardless im synical of the politicians agenda!
@mphello Are you calling me thick because i am skeptical of a science that by its own admision is in its imfancy of its understanding. We have only had detailed climte recored via sataline for the last 30 years.
Its a blink of an eye in world time. Also massive amounts of blind trust exists. You have to ask questions and investigate for yourself like the man says
@yamaaaaar No, it is NOT "by its own admission in its infancy". It is no more "in its infancy" than relativity.
Scientists at the IPCC are overly conservative. If they were much more assertive about their conclusions, they hypocritical denialist conversatards would hypocritically be condemning them for that. But, conservatives cannot grasp that logical inconsistency. So, which is is? Is the IPCC too assertive, or are they too restrained and too admitting of their own limitations?
Climate science has only been able to have the acracy it has had since the invention of satalites. This is a fact unless you know of a bank of satalites that existed the produced data 100 of years ago.
There is still much to learn about the way the eaths climate works and reacts.
To say we know it all definitivly now is very short sighted. This is why its all called Scientific Theory! And theorys always have the posibility of being disproved.
utterly wrecks Monckton.
winston2015 1 month ago
Poppy-eyes!
jemborg 3 months ago
His eyes are so big, obviously he sees things you don't Potholer.
DejectedDegenerate 4 months ago 3
What a lying piece of crap this Monckton, unbelievable. It's obvious he has a hidden agenda and is working for those who want to cover up the real data.
dutchbb1979 5 months ago 5
Monckton has very buggy eyes O_O
septic55 5 months ago
I live in Minnesota, the rule of thumb in the winter is that if the skies are clear it is probably damn cold out. If it is cloudy it is probably a bit warmer, I knew that as a child and figured that out before high school. Later on I found out that the clouds provided insulation that enables the little warmth we get...almost like a blanket.
Honestly it sounds almost as stupid as somebody who's too hot trying to cool himself down by throwing a quilt over his self.
newfrickinshow 6 months ago
science and public policy .org remove the spaces & work it out for yourself!
unreal22000 7 months ago
This is off topic but Lord Monckton looks like my parakeet. Parakeets have those double eyelids...and then he hardly has a chin...
SpeaksofRivers 7 months ago
I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but, regardless of temperature, a degree Kelvin = a degree Celsius = a degree centigrade. Kelvin and Celsius only differ in absolute value, not in degree, whereas a Fahrenheit degree = 5⁄9 of a Celsius, Kelvin or centigrade degree.
loqkLoqkson 7 months ago
@loqkLoqkson =I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but, regardless of temperature, a degree Kelvin = a degree Celsius = a degree centigrade= Someone else mentioned this, but it's not in dispute, so I'm curious as to why you're pointing it out. (BTW, it's Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin. Monckton got it wrong.)
potholer54 6 months ago 8
The arrows showing warm air being trapped, causing the greenhouse effect (11:38) spell 'MAN'.
Proof.
mphil89 7 months ago
Love Monckton, The truth about the SUN and is driving of the earth climate is for every person to see, Everything else is a result of this energy, to Argue otherwise is argue that an ant can change the orbit of the planets such are the relative values of Energy's involved.
TheShockmister 8 months ago
Not to say that the way someone looks says anything about him or her, or his or her thoughts, ideas or opinions or the validity thereof... but does anyone else think he kind of looks like a chihuahua?
AislinCade 8 months ago
Monckton created 10 youtube accounts and used them to dislike this video.
Forlo12345 8 months ago
Noticed at one point you state that Monckton confusing sensitivity and forcing is like confusing time and distance. I recently learned that, in a sufficiently physics-literate setting, it would be perfectly fine to use units of time in place of distance (or vice versa), as they can be converted through c.
mindgrapes 8 months ago
@mindgrapes =it would be perfectly fine to use units of time in place of distance= Either you were misinformed or you misunderstood. Time and distance are different units. Time can be correlated or linked to distance, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
potholer54 6 months ago 4
@potholer54 No argument at all that space and time are different things, and it's *highly* possible I misunderstood the bit I read about setting the space components of a four-velocity to zero. All I meant was that you could quote a distance in, say, picoseconds, and after a bit of brow furrowing a physicist would recognize you were talking about the distance light travels in x picoseconds. (I wasn't really challenging the point you made in the video, just a note on units I found interesting.)
mindgrapes 6 months ago
@mindgrapes That's a mathematical convention for the purpose of simplifying and minimizing the number of free parameters used in deep physics at super high velocities where relativity is important. It doesn't absolve Monckton from being a fool and misusing and conflating ideas like forcing and sensitivity.
In the "ordinary" practical macroscopic world of climate, distance and time are separate units.
mphello 5 months ago
I have to soley listen to this, for fear of losing my sanity when I look at Monckton's eyes. Seriously, Fuck do they ever creep me out.
elmepo232 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elmepo232
They're going to give me nightmares for years :(
usmarine4160 7 months ago
Have you sent a copy of this video into channel 7? I'm sure they'd at least take the time on sunrise the next day to clarify the situation.
DsyelxicBob 8 months ago
its so scary to me how science can be so easily distorted to fit almost any personal agenda...It's so easy for a skilled talker to convince almost anyone in almost anything just by misrepresenting information and cherry picking from what suits him best...
These things really concern me.
@Potholer54, i wish to thank you for your debunking of frauds and liars like this clown, keep up the good work - it seems truth needs advocates.
eran5005 9 months ago
Clear evidence of deliberate falsification to Congress methinks, the punishment for which is a fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years.
Also his bulging eyes are due to Graves' Disease
GwillaWilla 9 months ago
"You, potholer54, seem very trustworthy and I love watching your videos. But here again, also you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing. :("
Well, since ALMOST ALL climate scientists AGREE with potholer54's comments, and ALMOST ALL DISAGREE with Monckton's whacky absurdities, I'd say go with Potholer54.
fiddlerdave 9 months ago 2
Around 6:30 you say you missed that it actually says Kelvin. Just saying.
ErikeRKK 9 months ago
@ErikeRKK =you say you missed that it actually says Kelvin= No, I didn't miss that. Above the freezing point of water, celsius, centigrade and Kelvin all mean the same thing. In fact, I could have pointed out that Monckton made a mistake in writing 'degrees' Kelvin, because there is no such thing. Another mistake that would have been corrected if his paper had been peer-reviewed.
potholer54 8 months ago
@potholer54
Yes, you are right. My mistake! I was just checking if you are still on your feet, Mr Potholer! ;)
ErikeRKK 8 months ago
@potholer54 "The Kelvin temperature scale uses the same size degree as Celsius, but has its zero set to absolute zero. To convert from Celsius to Kelvin, add 273.15 to the Celsius reading." I copied this from the Goddard Space Flight Center web site. Heh, even they seem to imply that there are "degrees Kelvin".
I don't think the freezing point of water has a role in the mapping between the two scales.
NuyBard 6 months ago
This guy should be in jail for purposely misrepresenting a paper to congress for which he had already been called out in debate. What the hell is this guy's real agenda? How much is BP paying him?
Great video.
WhrsTheMoneyLabowski 9 months ago
6:31 DEGREES Kelvin???
That one shouldn't go unnoticed in the video.
roxef 9 months ago 2
Is there any way that law can protect free speech from difamation? I mean if he is missquoting several times someboby else's works, even after that person has publicly rebutted it, I think that is a set up for a court case.
sysFail81 9 months ago
I wonder who is paying him for spewing his misinformation.... Monckton that is.
torputube 10 months ago
I wonder who is paying him for spewing his misinformation....
torputube 10 months ago
God, the eyeballs on that man...
MalchikBlue 10 months ago
@MalchikBlue ahahahahahha i know right
damandatwin 10 months ago
Dear Lord Monckton, please get off my breakfast news shows and out of my weekend newspapers.
OuchTaser 10 months ago
"The Audience can't tell the difference between good physics and crap."
You are so right! I tried to read one of the sources and got dazzled by myself. As an absolute rookie in physics it is absolute impossible to decide which "expert" is worth this title and which is not.
You, potholer54, seem very trustworthy and I love watching your videos. But here again, also you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing. :(
But anyway, please keep going to make videos. :)
Daihatschi 10 months ago 10
@Daihatschi =you could lie in certain aspects to your audience and I wouldn't notice a thing.= I know you make the point lightly, but even in jest you are absolutely right. My math sucks, and even on this elemental mistake in Monckton's calculation I shouldn't be trusted. (contd....)
potholer54 10 months ago
@potholer54 ...(contd.) The way you know Monckton makes a mistake is because he tries to cover it up by clearly calling his computation "forcing" in his paper, and then equally clearly changing that to "sensitivity" in a rebuttal to a blog pointing out the error. It's Monckton's inept attempt at a cover-up that shows not only that he made a mistake, but that he realised he made a mistake. Instead of admitting it, he clumsily tried to hide it.
potholer54 10 months ago 2
@Daihatschi Actually that is why he goes on consistently about providing your sources, and he does. As a journalist, or more specifically a GOOD journalist, he doesn't expect you to take HIS word for anything.
Most of the charletains you hear about on this channel, on the other hand, DEPEND on it.
zippydebrain 8 months ago
...the reason for including sources and having a strong free public forum attached to these videos is that people that DO understand the subject also turn up from time to time, and he is confident enough in his sources and interpretation of them to both site the sources, and allow people to criticize him for it.
You will find many if not all those he is critical of are reluctant to do the same.
There is a tendency to trust what he says though, without going to the sources.
zippydebrain 8 months ago
wow what a liar, even after the source her self corrected him, he keeps spreading the same lies..... amazing...
Aanthanur 10 months ago
Is Monckton a mollusk? I think his eyes are going to fall out of his head.
Kouban 11 months ago
There was an episode of Arrested Development where the American main characters didn't pick up on the fact that a woman was mentally retarded because she had a British accent.
I think of Arrested Development every time I hear about Lord Chris Monckton.
And don't automatically assume you'll win a debate because the facts are on your side! Never forget debates are won by flourish and confusion. If your goal is trying to create ambiguity and make both sides look valid, a draw is a win.
CristinaFernandez 11 months ago 23
@CristinaFernandez And that's why childish high-school debate-club debates clubs are absolutely irrelevant to proving the fact and theory of AGW.
mphello 5 months ago
@mphello Over and over, I see real scientists lose debates to nitwit creationists and global warming deniers, who have a vague grasp on real science...but a great ability to use the medium of television and appeal to the public.
When it comes to dealing with what is essentially a public relations movement, being right on the science is a little like being pure of heart: even if true, it's not enough.
CristinaFernandez 5 months ago
@CristinaFernandez
==I see real scientists lose debates to nitwit creationists and global warming deniers==
Don't know where you're seeing this. If you mean the creationists' own blogs, yeah - the creationists "win".
Nobody ever said "endlessly reproving what is is enough for political action".
Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't waste time endlessly reproving that drinking and driving causes accidents. They take political action. There is nothing special or unique about AGW.
mphello 5 months ago
I think Monckton needs to get his thyroid checked. Look at those eyes.
OriginalGordon 1 year ago 35
@OriginalGordon Marty Feldman is turning over in his grave thinking "Fuck, that guy's bug-eyed!"
bannor99 9 months ago
@OriginalGordon Now, that's uncalled for. He suffers Graves disease, apparently.
This said, every climate change "skeptic" *cough* denier should be shown this set of videos. They are absolutely spot on.
levlafayette 5 months ago
@levlafayette I didnt know he had Graves disease until he said it. Thought he just had bugged eyes.
grendelee 5 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@OriginalGordon Moncton claims his thyroid condition(Graves Disease) was fixed 100% by his own invented medication "ressurexi".. that also cures M.Sclerosis, Aids, common cold, flu and such... amazing.. yet it's not available... and trials has been going on since 2008... and no results... =o)
Paxmax 2 weeks ago
surely this young prof, even if his specialty is in oceans, should have been familiar with basic IPCC AR reports & conclusions etc. If not then he shouldn't have bothered going on the telly.
carlgt1 1 year ago
@carlgt1 Scientists are very specialised: if what you say doesn't impact in his area, he couldn't not talk about it with authority and so was rightly quiet. A non-specialist like Monckton on the otherhand is not constrained by such considerations and will misinterpret silence as encouragement to carry on in the same vein. If the scientist was on the telly it was because he was invited by someone who didn't understand his specialty or how it related to the discussion they wanted to show.
intermender 11 months ago
@541ceman I did not truncate the definition. The IPCC define radiative forcing as "a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism." Thus any factor that alters the incoming/outgoing energy balance can be subscribed a given radiative forcing. Until you grasp this baby-simple concept there is little point continuing this discussion.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 From the IPCC:
"RF ... provides a limited measure of climate change as it does not attempt to represent the overall climate response."
"recent studies ... assessing the limitations of the RF concept ..."
"considerable debate whether some climate change drivers are better considered as a 'forcing' or a 'response' ..." (Hence, whether they are well represented in an RF framework).
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 But the net irradiance is not the same as the surface radiation imbalance.
200 W/m^2 incoming + 200 W/m^2 outgoing is in balance, but a cold planet.
500 W/m^2 incoming + 500 W/m^2 outgoing is in balance, but a hot planet.
Both are possible for Earth by changing the relative cloud albedo and GHGs, so the 1 W/m^2 imbalance is not what determines climate, just climate *change*.
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Your mistake appears to be that you think that RF is an exact measure of the change there will be in the net downwelling radiation. But it is just a measure of the *forcing* for climate change: climate then responds to that forcing in ways that might further perturb the net downwelling radiation (balanced by the reradiation that gives us the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature).
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You say "Your mistake appears to be that you think that RF is an exact measure of the change there will be in the net downwelling radiation". No. I have never claimed such a thing throughout this entire discussion. Please point out where you think I have suggested this. I have already made it abundantly clear that radiative forcing is anything that alters the incoming/outgoing radiation. Alas this is becoming increasingly tiresome and so I think I'll just reside from this discussion.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You stated that an RF of 1 W/m^2 should change T by 0.22 C based on Stefan-Boltzmann. I am merely stating that this is an incorrect application of what the IPCC intends by the term "RF".
You don't seem willing to read the 1.5 pages that the IPCC devotes to explaining RF and how it fits into the framework of surface T changes. So, yes, it isn't worth continuing this discussion.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541cman My reasoning was as follows: earth's mean surface mean temperature is currently 15C while its black-body temperature is -18C which is a 33C temperature-difference. This represents a massive amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric-greenhouse. In fact it amounts to 150.35W/sq.m. Increment of radiation from whatever source (dl) = 1W/sq.m. Therefore new atmospheric-greenhouse radiance (l1) = 151.35W/sq.m+ 1W/sq.m. New effective surface temperature (T1) implied by l1 = 15.22C/288.22K.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541iceman Okay, let's assume that TOA imbalance (presumably of the entire-spectrum) is currently 1 W/m^2. The obvious question is how much warming would that produce at the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us a maximum temperature-increment of 0.22C. However since the surface of the earth is 70% water and evaporation takes place at a constant temperature most of that downward-radiation will be absorbed in the production of water vapour without raising the mean surface temperature at all.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Stefan-Boltzmann says nothing about the total warming if the fluxes are not balanced. If there is *always* +1 W/m^2 more coming in than leaving, then the planet will warm forever.
All S-B says is that if you change the equilibrium radiation balance from (say) 350 W/m^2 in *and* out, to 351 W/m^2 in and out, you change the temperature by a certain amount.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You say "If there is *always* +1 W/m^2 more coming in than leaving, the planet will warm forever". I did not say that there will perpetually exist a radiative imbalance of 1W/sq.m in the system. Please point out where I suggested that. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the radiance of a body is proportional to the 4th-power of its absolute effective temperature. I am merely using that law to calculate the temperature that a given increment of irradiance will produce at the surface.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541ceman Also I do not know where you derived the figure "0.9 W/m^2". Presumably that is from Trenberth's own calculations and represents the total radiative imbalance across the whole spectrum? Whatever the case we are clearly at loggerheads and I doubt that repetitiously reasserting out viewpoints is going to convince the other. So if you do reply I will choose not to. We could always discuss another issue. The disparity between radiosonde-readings and climate models is one that intrigues me.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 I cited the IPCC's own definition of RF. The RF is *not* the net radiative balance at ToA. Until you understand it (section 2.2. of the IPCC 2007 WG1 report), this is pointless. The definition is repeated in the Glossary (see page 951).
The radiative imbalance determines the *rate* of energy change (rate of heating), not the equilibrium state. At the moment, the imbalance is about 1 W/m^2 at ToA.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You say "RF is not the net radiative balance at TOA". I do not recall saying it was. The radiative imbalance of CO2-absorption wavelengths will of course be different to the radiative imbalance on CH4's-absorption wavelengths and RF can be subscribed to each separately. I believe I was referring only to the radiative forcing/imbalance on CO2-absorption wavelengths, not the entire spectrum. I would think that the IPCC's definition of RF below is self-explanatory enough. Apparently not.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 If you truncate the IPCC's definition from 1.5 pages and 2 figures to one sentence, you lose something. I agree that the whole IPCC way of discussing fluxes is complicated. But the way they define it is consistent with their way of using it. That's why they spend 1.5 pages explaining it.
541iceman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOOD NEWS
Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics (AKA assholes)
articles latimes com/2010/nov/08/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108
userono 1 year ago
@541iceman You're unnecessarily complicating matters. RF is defined by the IPCC simply as "a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the earth-atmosphere system". Alternatively they define it as "the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top-of-atmosphere". RF is basically any factor that causes a disequilibrium in the incoming/out-going energy. eg: water vapour, surface reflectivity, solar irradiance, etc.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-3) Unless you are willing to understand how the IPCC defines RF, this is a pointless discussion. The details in the definition are critical. Equating RF with net flux imbalance of the Earth is wrong.
*At equilibrium*, the incoming and outgoing fluxes are in balance, at the surface and at all altitudes in the atmosphere. In the modern GH atmosphere, the total flux *in* is 150 W/m^2 more than it would be with no GHE, but the total flux *out* is also ~150 W/m^2 higher.
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-4) The warming is due just to the ~1 W/m^2 non-equilibrium imbalance between these two quantities.
Add up the incoming and outgoing TOA radiations in the figure you pointed me to (or the updated version in Trenberth et al. (2009)). The difference is 0.9 W/m^2, same as at the surface. This is the non-equilibrium flux that is warming our planet (earth + ocean + atmosphere). "RF" is *not* the same as total flux imbalance.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You also say that earth during interglacials has a RF 8W/sq.m higher than during glacials. 8W/sq.m radiant forcing is only enough to give you 1.76C at the surface. And that's assuming none of it is absorbed in the evaporation of sea-water. Where will you get all the rest that you need to prove significant AGW? I hope you realise that these hypothetically-high conversion-rates between delta T and RF that the AGW-team have assumed originate from equivocal paleo-reconstruction analyses.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-5) Think of it. If the Earth was at equilibrium, flux in = flux out. But an Ice Age Earth has an RF of -8 W/m^2 *relative* to modern times. If the flux imbalance in an Ice Age was actually -8 W/m^2, the planet would keep cooling (losing heat) forever.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman Sorry, but I am still not understanding you. You first point I agree with. Thermodynamic equilibrium is only achievable when there is no disequilibrium between the incoming/out-going radiation. You appear to be ignoring the IPCC's own definition of radiative forcing which is defined as "the rate of energy change of the globe as measured at the top-of-atmosphere". That means a radiative imbalance is radiative forcing. I do not see why you are finding this point so hard to acknowledge.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541iceman The reason Harris measured this at TOA rather than the troposphere is presumably because of the difficulties in measuring separately the specific deficit on CO2 absorption wavelengths since there is considerable overlap with water vapour in its absorption-bands. Water vapour is of course rare in the upper-atmosphere so it gives more accurate results. Hansen has also discovered a radiative imbalance at TOA on CO2 absorption wavelengths, but I believe his calculations come from models.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Alas, my last post didn't show up. It's in the "Comments" section.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@541iceman Keep in mind, the 150W/sq.m is the calculated warming the entire planetary greenhouse produces at the surface which is 33C. It is not the surface radiative imbalance. SB implies that 390.1W/sq.m is the total OLR (or initial surface temperature/net-temperature) and 239.76W/sq.m is radiated out into space without being absorbed by the atmospheric greenhouse, giving us 150W/sq.m for the entire greenhouse effect. If we add the IPCC's 3.7W/sq.m to 150W/sq.m we only get a delta T of 0.81C.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541ieman If you're not happy with me using Trenberth's 324W/sq.m calculation or if you feel that I am misunderstanding it then we can always use the SB-law instead. The SB-law implies that the RF from the entire atmospheric greenhouse is 150.35W/sq.m. That's for the 33C of warming at the surface. This implies a linear relationship between delta T and RF of 0.22 per 1/W.sq.m. The IPCC's 3.7W/sq.m on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 therefore gives us 0.81C. Much lower than the IPCC's claim of 1.2C.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 We almost agree on something. The increase in radiation balance is ~150 W/m^2 AT THE SURFACE due to the GHE. That is, in the GHE case, there is 150 W/m^2 more coming in, and going out, than in the no-GHE case. (but still in balance: net incoming = net radiated)
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 However, the IPCC relationship is between SURFACE T and the radiative imbalance AT THE TROPOSPHERE. This is different from the surface radiative imbalance, which is generally essentially zero except for the ~1 W/m^2 excess in the non-steady-state warming world.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman But that is not what I am doing. There is a fixed relationship between temperature and radiation intensity that is specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I merely used that law to show how the IPCC's calculated RF implied an amplification of the hypothesised radiative-input to the climate-system. It does not matter where we measure the temperature from (eg. the planetary surface, the troposphere or somewhere in between) but the amplification will still be implicit in the equation.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-1) "Radiative Forcing" is a complicated business: it is *not* the same as "change in surface radiation balance". From the IPCC: "RF is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values".
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-2) The true instantaneous surface heat budget imbalance that drives present warming is about 1 W/m^2. The top-of-atmosphere imbalance is essentially zero (Trenberth et al., 2009; or the Trenberth figure you pointed me to).
You need to read section 2.2 of the 2007 IPCC Working Group 1 report to see what RF really means.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You say "the top-of-atmosphere imbalance is essentially zero". This is an extraordinary claim. If there was 'essentially no' radiative imbalance at TOA this would imply that the incoming/out-going energy was unchanging and the earth would be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and temperature would neither increase nor decrease but remain perpetually static. According to Harris 2001 there is currently an overall TOA imbalance due to the absorption of outgoing radiation by CO2.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541iceman No, look at the back-radiation absorbed by the earth from the entire planetary greenhouse. It is 324W/sq.m. You can view the graph here: h ttp://w ww.windows2universe.o rg/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Trenberth has updated that figure in his 2009 paper. You tell me to read things: I suggest you look up Trenberth et al. 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. However, where do you think the energy for the fat upward radiation arrow to the left of your back-radiation arrow comes from? It is mostly direct reradiation of the back-radiation.
You need to compare this diagram with what you'd have without a GHG atmosphere to understand the 33 K difference.
541iceman 1 year ago
For the sake of simplicity from this moment onwards I'll now only refer to temperature-increases as DT (delta T) and radiative forcing as RF.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541iceman If we take climate-sensitivity into account which is presented by the IPCC as deltaT = 0.75xRFOC the 3.7W/sq.m means increments of RF convert into temperature-increases at a rate of 0.80C/W/sq.m (i.e. 0.80 times 3.7 = 3C). 3C is the temperature-increase expected on a doubling of CO2 with feedbacks. The IPCC do not specify the length of time that it would take before all feedbacks take effect but they assure us it would be years or decades after the increment of RF has been produced.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Stefan-Boltzmann says that the Earth would be 33 C cooler if it did not have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
You appear to have no understanding of Trenberth's energy budget. The total balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is the same: solar radiation (shortwave) in = reflected shortwave + longwave (IR). The present breakdown (planetary albedo of about 0.3) is 102 shortwave reflected + 239 longwave emitted.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman To my knowledge the Stefan-Boltzmann does not state that the earth would be 33C cooler without the atmospheric greenhouse. I believe that would actually be the Arrhenius equation of which the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived. Also, Trenberth's calculation of 324W/sq.m that I cited is the "back-radiation" or rather the downwelling radiation from the TOA and this represents earth's greenhouse effect from all sources. There is no misunderstanding here. I suggest you read the actual paper.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates black-body temperature to the total radiated energy per square meter. For the measured mean insolation, and allowing for immediate energy loss from direct reflection, you can calculate the thermodynamic temperature of a planet without GHGs.
Assuming no change in albedo (reflectivity), the Earth would be ~33 C cooler than it is.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman According to Wiki Stefan-Boltzmann "ignores temperature differences and changes on the planet and also the greenhouse effect". This would be news to me if the Stefan-Boltzmann law implied that the atmospheric-greenhouse kept the planet 33C warmer as I have been labouring under the impression that this is implied only by the Arrhenius law. Do you have a source for this info? Also, I should note that the 0.80C per 1/Wsq.m should technically be 0.75C. The former just makes more sense.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 The S-B law (see Wiki) allows you to calculate the global averaged equilibrium temperature for a body without a GHG atmosphere, for a given radiation level which we know. For the known current albedo, the S-B law says Earth should be at 255 K without a GHG atmosphere. The measured value is 288 K. Why?
541iceman 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7Most of the back-radiation (IR) in Trenberth's energy flow diagram is simply reradiated (still as IR). So, that part doesn't count. All that matters is the imbalance in the fluxes.
Without a GHG atmosphere but with albedo of 0.3, there is ~239 W/m^2 shortwave radiation absorbed, and 239 radiated as IR assuming the Earth is at equilibrium.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman No, I am not confusing climate-sensitivity with the radiative forcing effect exclusively from CO2 which to date stands at 1.97W/sq.m if we use the IPCC's equation which gives us a temperature-increase of around 0.6C. The IPCC's equation converts temperature into radiative forcing at the rate of about 0.3C/W/sq.m which is high. If we use Trenberth's Global Energy Mean Budget or Stefan-Boltzmann law and apply the IPCC's radiative forcing we arrive at much smaller temperature-increments.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Of course interglacials are around 5C warmer than glacials so the theoretical 1C increase in temperature from 10W/sq.m would need to be amplified 4 times.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@541icman I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying a "1-year spike in CO2 will get smoothed out but a persistent rise in CO2 over decades will remain obvious". I agree. The point I've been trying to make is that diffusion across the entire paleo-ice-core record will lead to a general underestimation. Given this and the contradictory evidence from Stomata, what we can say with some certainty is that the levels of CO2 recorded by the bubbles are probably not 1:1 faithful representations.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (CO2 diffusion) Here's a simple coding game you can play: take a time series of CO2, changing on time scales of thousands of years (natural variations). Apply the Ahn et al. diffusion coefficients (use the high values, for warm ice, to really kick things along). Diffuse it for 70,000 years. Plot the original and diffused lines. Without looking closely, can you tell the difference?
Answer: No. Diffusion slightly smooths the profile of CO2 but doesn't remove it from the ice core.
541iceman 1 year ago
@rugbguy59 Here's a quote from a paper by Jinho Ann on diffusion in ice: "We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years". This is why Stomata-proxies show more variability, as I say, since they are not subject to the same diffusion. That fact that you are even questioning this happens (which to me appears to be a basic requirement of chemistry) is most baffling.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 What you could do is read the Ahn et al. paper: free online. Diffusion accounts for smoothing with time scales of decades, even after 70,000 years, i.e., back in the middle of the last ice age. So, a 1-year spike in CO2 will get smoothed out, but a persistent rise in CO2 over several decades will remain obvious.
541iceman 1 year ago
The CO2 contribution to the entire greenhouse would only increase the surface temperature by 0.2C and a radiant increment of 8W/sq.m would give us 0.8C. Giving us a combined temperature increase of 1C. We can see then that the contribution from the atmospheric CO2 is a trivial one. Of course, this is assuming Trenberth's calculations are correct. We could alternatively apply SB and get 150.35W/sq.m for the entire atmospheric greenhouse effect which would give us approximately 2C for 10W/sq.m.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I must have missed this comment of yours. You say "it's been checked against instrumental records". Oh really? Direct instrumental measurements of atmospheric CO2 only go back to 1850 and Gerog Beck's reanalysis of that would suggest CO2 was almost higher then. Eh? Still, we are talking about proxy-data that spans back many thousands of years and the amount of diffusion (which despite your specious protests, does happen) will be greater the further back in the paleo-record we go.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "Overall, the RF for the changed GHG and aerosol concentrations and land surface changes was ~-8 W/m^2 for the last glacial maximum ..." Roughly -2 W/m^2 is CO2 only, another -0.8 for methane and nitrous oxide.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman Last quote was from the IPCC 2007 WG1 report (p448).
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman Thanks. I have seen these figures quoted before. The obvious question is how did they measure this? Is it simply derived from the IPCC's famous and unsubstantiated logarithmic equation? Anyway, if we accept if for argument's sake we can calculate how much of a temperature increase that radiative forcing of 2W/sq.m of CO2 would produce by applying Trenberth's calculated radiative forcing for the entire atmospheric downwelling radiation of 324W/sq.m in his Global Energy Mean Budget.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-1) I don't see where you are getting your relationship between surface temperature change (DT) and radiative forcing (RF). I think you are confusing the sensitivity to doubled CO2 (3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, without feedbacks). The relationship between DT and RF is given in the IPCC documents as DT=(lambda)RF, where lambda is roughly 0.5 but depends on time scales because of different feedback responses.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman I don't have the time to do the test you suggest but you are correct in saying diffusion smoothes the profile of CO2. This is to be expected. However to think the ice-core is a faithful representation of ancient atmospheric CO2 is unlikely for a few reasons. Not least of all because the ice-core record depicts atmospheric CO2 levels below 250ppmv and such low concentrations would have led to the extinction of certain plant species which is not recorded by paleobotanists (McKay 1991).
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (RF-2) That is, -8 W/m^2 for the last ice age is a global average surface T change of about 4 C, consistent with proxy T data (mainly oxygen isotopes).
Present imbalance relative to pre-industrial is ~+1.6 W/m^2, giving about +0.8 C global T change. About right.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman You say "I don't see where you are getting your relationship between DT and RF". It is a straightforward application of applying the estimated radiative forcing calculated by the IPCC to the entire planetary greenhouse in Trenberth's Energy Mean Budget. Trenberth calculates that the entire atmospheric greenhouse responsible for raising the surface temperature by 32C (or 33C) is 324W/sq.m. We simply add 8W/sq.m to 324/sq.m and it gives us a temperature-increment of approximately 0.8C.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Comment removed
eric144144 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 You say: "Because nobody, including Paltridge, really trusts the data". Complete lie. Clearly you didn't read the reply from Paltridge to Dessler that I graciously provided.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@rugguy69 I asked a simple, straightforward question. Which was what is the RF produced by the Milankovitch-cycle and positive feedbacks during interglacials and you reply by telling me to do the work for myself? If you understood the science you would explain it to me. Clearly you don't. To make up for your lack of knowledge you therefore have to resort to putdowns by saying things like "because you can't fathom it". Get back to me when you wish to participate in an honest and adult discussion.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 That's true. However Stomata-proxies are in general agreement with flask-measurements. All paleoclimate-data to me seems extremely conjectural and uncertain for the simple reason that it is impossible for them to be standardised by reference to direct empirical measurements. No-one was measuring CO2 or CH4 concentrations thousands of years ago. We cannot use proxy-data as absolutes, but only relatives. And as we go further back in time, the error-bars of course get ludicrously wide.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 This is a nice trick you play. Putting the @somebody at the front of your post but not as a direct reply. Thus they get no notification of your post. A nice way of making it look like the other person gave up I guess.
Who is saying use proxy data as absolutes? The fact of the matter is though that if you apply what we know to the ice core data it fits very well with the expectations. It seems your argument is "we can't know anything unless we measure it ourselves."
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyuy59 Ferrgoodnesssake. I did not "abandon it. I replied to it but YouTube blocked my comment and it was only viewable in the "Comments" section as I said. You can view it now by skipping back a page. Also, you evidently don't understand. Because CO2 is a soluble gas it will have gradually leached out (it’s called 'diffusion') of the trapped air-bubbles in the ice underestimating true-values present thousands of years ago and giving the impression of stable CO2-concentarions over millennia.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 CO2, nor any other water soluble gas, does not present significant leaching problems. As I said it's been checked against instrumental records. This is simply another "the scientists were too stupid to think of this" disinformation tactic. Scientists are fully aware of the technical issues and compensate for them. That is why real scientists, both part of the consensus and not, use the ice core data.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Again, this is something you should provide evidence for. What specifically is the RF of Milankovitch cycles during interglacials and what is the RF produced by positive feedbacks (i.e. CO2, water vapour and surface reflectivity).
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Try doing a little work yourself. Go to any university department cite or any authority on Milankovitch Cycles and Climate and it is there for all to see. I am not talking about cutting edge science here just the commonly held understanding by those in the field. Those who wish to overturn that view are the one's who need to provide the compelling evidence to the contrary. Just because you can't fathom it....
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbguy59 It is not a trick. I don't know if anyone has been experiencing the same problem but the option to reply to posts has been disappearing forcing me to reply in the top-box. If you think that the ice-core proxy is an accurate 1:1 representation of contemporaneous-paleoatmospheres (which you appear to be) then you are assuming they are absolutes. As I said, there is likely to be considerable diffusion of CO2 and the chemical-composition within the air-bubbles will have changed over time.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "As I said, there is likely to be considerable diffusion of CO2 and the chemical-composition within the air-bubbles will have changed over time."
And who are you? You pick up an idea off the blogosphere and claim it defeats the whole process and yet the people who do this work and the people who use this work (including the so called "skeptics") use this data and have confidence in it. I think they may know more than you.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Are you listening to anything? Dessler only studied the short-term and he did not use radiosonde data but satellite-data. For a comprehensive explaiantion I advise you read this: htt p://joannenova.c om.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Yes an analysis by a bachelor of science (microbiology) grad. I tend to dismiss posts that throw around terms like "AGW team" or implied statements that scientists aren't looking for holes in understanding. Nova's bit shows she still doesn't understand much on the topic. "How can you dismiss such a wall of evidence"? Because nobody, including Paltridge, really trusts the data.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
The problem with this is that it is all so far over the head of the typical anti-warming position that they won't seek it out or possibly even understand it if they did. Dang though, don't you love how even after they are told they are wrong they still keep going?
Jaelra 1 year ago
The problem with this is that it is all so far over the head of the typical anti-warming position that they won't seek it out or possibly even understand it if they did.
Jaelra 1 year ago
Monckton is a professional BS artist, skilled at the craft of deception.
TuckermanLane 1 year ago 4
YouTube appears to have blocked my last comment. You can view it in the "Comments" section.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rugy59 You're missing the point. If CO2 - a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere - is a primary driver of temperature as AGW-proponents suggest then how can it possibly be a major controller of temperature when there is an 800-year time-lag in the ice-core record? First comes temperature change then 800-years later CO2 follows (due to Deep Oceanic Inertia). CO2 follows temperature up and down - there is no evidence in the ice-core record whatsoever that CO2 is "amplifying" temperature as you suggest.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 No. You don't understand the science. The evidence is in basic physics and mathematics. The energy gained by the change in orbit is not enough to explain the fluctuations in temperature we see in the cores. When we add in the known effects of CO2 they are explained. If you feel 800 years is a long time for the effect then welcome to the world of natural changes. The CO2 rise we've seen in the last 150 usually takes 5000 years or more to occur.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 That's exactly what Dessler does. He studied only short-term and confidently proclaimed "there's no theory that explains why the short term may be different to the long term". I can think of numerous reasons however. And I agree that there are serious uncertainties with radiosonde-humidity readings but it is unscientific to discard thousands or measurements especially since the temperature measurements of radiosondes which are individually calibrated to 0.1C are in general agreement.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Except they aren't in agreement with the other measures and they're the most suspect of methods. Given 4 measures that agree and one suspect method that differs it is pure arrogance to claim the one trumps the four. Not unless you can show a new method that overcomes the issues. Paltridge did not do that.
It is dishonest to conflate "no theory that explains why" with "the long term equals the short term." You've got nothing to support your argument and are delving into quote mining.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 "Jo Nova? I might as well read Monkton".
That was a counterargument from Paltridge to Dessler's paper.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 It's true that there are uncertainties with radiosondes when measuring humidity because there sensors can dry-up but there are equal uncertainties with satellites. Still, there's always hope, isn't there? Perhaps the hundreds of thousands of radiosonde-readings since 1979 that measured humidity were malfunctioning and giving false-readings. After all, a lot of them do that, don't they? Maybe Phil Jones could analyse the radiosonde-data himself and compare them with humidity-proxies.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 There are "uncertainties" with all sources of data but not as in the case of radiosondes. As Paltridge said: 'radiosonde humidity measurements are notoriously unreliable and are usually dismissed out-of-hand as being unsuitable for detecting trends of water vapor in the upper troposphere.'
Dessler used five data sets and found the only one that supported Paltridge was the one Paltridge used. That "skeptics" are so unskeptical of work like Paltridge belies their claim to skeptisism
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyuy59 Presumably you're referring to the Milankovitch cycle? I have often pondered how AGW-advocates can maintain that Milankovitch cycles are too weak to explain the temperature increases during interglacials. I've heard this explanation a-thousand times and I have yet to hear an adequate explanation as to why the RF produced by the Milankovitch cycle is not enough to explain for the temperature increases during interglacials and how anyone has measured this empirically and quantitatively.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Maybe you should actually read the scientists who do the studies then instead of someone like Jo Nova who hasn't a clue. The answer is really very simple the RF of Milankovtich Cycles isn't enough to produce all the warming because the extra solar forcing is relatively weak. Without additional forcings of CO2 and albedo a new equilibrium would be reached much earlier. Since it is the accepted view of those who study the stuff you should try to present some evidence it isn't so.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 There's a huge weight of empirical evidence from independent researchers suggesting the feedbacks are negative. The 800-time lag-time, thousands of radiosonde-measurements (Gregory or Paltridge), and evidence of cloud negative-feedback (Spencer). On the other hand I have seen no convincing evidence that the feedbacks are positive in the long-term. You do realise that positive feedbacks in the climate cannot predominate negative feedbacks otherwise stability would not be maintained.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Lauer et al. (2010) Clement et al. (2009) Dessler (2010) suggest positive feedbacks.
Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have indicated that cloud optical depth of low marine clouds might be expected to decrease with increasing temperature.
Spencer may have published a lot but he isn't convincing many.
Feedbacks are logarithmic. They aren't forcings.
By 800-time lag do you mean 800 year lag? If you mean CO2 vs temp that is strong evidence of positive feedbacks.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Dessler only studied the short-term and from that concludes long-term must be the same. However there are reasons as to why water vapour could rise in the short-term like tropospheric wind shear engendering changes in precipitation efficiency. Either way, Garth's findings of an overall decrease in tropospheric-water vapour still suggests a negative-feedback. You can see Paltridge's reply here: htt p://joannenova.co m.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Please don't lie. Dessler didn't say long term must equal short term. He recognizes the differences between the two and and warns his findings might not be a guide to the future. However his findings support climate models and simply adds to the strengthening case for clouds most likely being slightly positive overall with a small chance of a slight negative effect. But no where near enough to put the brakes on warming.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbygy59 I'm presuming you're basing this assumption on the ice-core data? I strongly suggest that you take a look at Stomata-proxies because they show significantly more variability of CO2 up to 360ppm. Ice-cores are a false-proxy, like many other AGW-mathemagians, because CO2 being a soluble gas means that it would gradually leach out of the trapped air-bubbles, especially over the very thin layers of ice, underestimating the contemporaneous paleoatmosphere. They cannot be used as absolutes.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Now this is true denier stuff. A couple posts ago you say the 800 year gap in the ice cores destroys the CO2 theory. After having it explained to you abandon your point and move onto a new proxy.
Stomata are useful but are subject to a variety of influences other than CO2. CO2 bubbles in ice are direct measurements of Co2 at the time. Ice cores have been calibrated against a variety of instrumental data. They are not as subject to degradation as you say.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
That man needs to get some sleep, he has double bags under his eyes.
gateman42 1 year ago
I wonder if anyone can answer a question for me: skeptics are always claiming that scientists are misinterpreting the data on purpose, and that man made climate change is some sort of conspiracy. I just want to know what they think anyone would gain from lying about it. I can't think of anyone who benefits from policies directed towards stopping climate change, considering it means people and orginisations spending less on energy, and governments spending more on policy implementation.
monkeymox 1 year ago
I can see you go to a fair amount of effort to produce these videos, and i want to say i for one appriciate it alot. You're doing a great thing here, and i just hope your audience continues to grow.
luker4459 1 year ago
Oh those frog eyes....
bandoli66 1 year ago
Sorry, that's meant to be "the mid-troposphere is decreasing and yet the water vapour in the lower-troposphere is increasing".
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Kill the politicians at the US Congress who had the fucking nerve to invite Monckton to testify.
When they allow Charles Manson and OJ Simpson and anyone else held hostage in US prisons to testify on any topic whatsoever - whether foreign affairs in the Middle East or military readiness - only then should anyone "respect" or obey the bullshit "laws" of the United States.
mphello 1 year ago
eric144144 is a known paid shill for Exxon. They pay him $250,000 a year to spread lies. The lunacy of the denialists is astonishing. To them, MORE proof - buttressed by peer-reviewed papers and computer models - is less reason to take political action than, say, a cop who says he sees a teenager steal a candy bar, who has practically no proof. When, in fact, more scientific proof is MORE reason to take political/lega/military action.
mphello 1 year ago
@mphello I haeared it was actually $249.000 a year. Although i am having this confirmed by specialists in the feild and peir reveiwed
yamaaaaar 1 year ago
Also what are your thoughts on Peirs Corbyn and his lunar solar relationship theory that he beleives drives the climate as oposed to the Co2 theory.
Sorry for all the questions im just curious.
yamaaaaar 1 year ago
I mean the world may be doomed form the dreaded C02 or it might be fine.
One thing ive gleaned for the debate is there is still a massive amount of doubt in the predicted severity. And the only way that will be determained is really going to be a wait and see senario. I have a feeling out planets climate is a much more complex and volitile thing than any computor model can predict. While some of the proposed changes may be benificial regardless im synical of the politicians agenda!
yamaaaaar 1 year ago
@yamaaaaar "Massive amount of doubt" exists only in the uneducated and denialists' minds,
not the climate scientists who actually do the work. We don't have time to debate this anymore.
mphello 1 year ago
@mphello Are you calling me thick because i am skeptical of a science that by its own admision is in its imfancy of its understanding. We have only had detailed climte recored via sataline for the last 30 years.
Its a blink of an eye in world time. Also massive amounts of blind trust exists. You have to ask questions and investigate for yourself like the man says
yamaaaaar 1 year ago
@yamaaaaar No, it is NOT "by its own admission in its infancy". It is no more "in its infancy" than relativity.
Scientists at the IPCC are overly conservative. If they were much more assertive about their conclusions, they hypocritical denialist conversatards would hypocritically be condemning them for that. But, conservatives cannot grasp that logical inconsistency. So, which is is? Is the IPCC too assertive, or are they too restrained and too admitting of their own limitations?
mphello 1 year ago
@mphello This is a proposterous reply.
Climate science has only been able to have the acracy it has had since the invention of satalites. This is a fact unless you know of a bank of satalites that existed the produced data 100 of years ago.
There is still much to learn about the way the eaths climate works and reacts.
To say we know it all definitivly now is very short sighted. This is why its all called Scientific Theory! And theorys always have the posibility of being disproved.
yamaaaaar 1 year ago
@yamaaaaar First, learn to spell. (Ok - normally, I wouldn't bring it up, but the NUMBER of times you misspell has exceeded a tolerable threshhold.)
Yes, there is always much to learn about anything.
Never the less, if we had taken aggressive action, a War Against Fossil Fuels 30+ years ago,
TRILLIONS of dollars would have been saved by now.
mphello 1 year ago