Lord Monckton shows IPCC Pachauri is dishonest about global warming after being corrected

[LordMonckton78]

Pachauri is a frigging railroad engineer. He's trying to railroad the US taxpayers into giving al gore & his cabon gangsters out tax dollars as carbon taxes

[checkyoursources]

skepticalscience. com / Monckton _ Myths_ arg . htm

Heartland institute = oil company funded.

[Albertkallal]

And people flown to Copenhagen on tax dollars = socialist money grabbers and carbon taxing and spend OUR money kind of people. Lets not forget the money traders jumping in on this as we all know Al Gore is on the board of directors of a carbon trading company. You can choose to not use oil but you cannot choose to not pay taxes to these socialist people (those taxes amount to government theft). The video "Socialists march in Copenhagen" shows all the left socialists you ever need to see.

[checkyoursources]

@Albertkallal It appears that your objectivity has been clouded by your dislike of anything that has been suggested to deal with the problems caused by AGW. Care to supply scientific evidence that humans are not the most likely cause of the majority of warming since the 1970's?

Leave politics out of this or you will stay subjective.

[Albertkallal]

You love of taxes and socialism has clouded your objectivity as to this all being man's co2. We are seeing food riots and children starving around the world today as a direct result of greens supporting bio fuels. Burning food in cars is insane this is result of being political green correct. You are making the claim that man's co2 is driving the temperatures as claimed by the IPCC and they do not have the science to show this. IPCC claims and models have not panned out and they are wrong

[checkyoursources]

@Albertkallal Care to name one environmnetal organsiation that supports bio-fuels? WWF, Greenpeace and Fof the Eare against them and the EU is turning against them as we speak.The IPCC doesn't need "models" when you have observed temperature increase since the 1970's and no natural factor can explain the majority of it.

[Albertkallal]

Virtually every government sold bio fuels to the public under the being political correct and being green. Green movement that got this going and the government used the green banner to sell this stuff to the public. Obama during his campaign also supported the ethanol program under the guise of being low carbon. The idea that bio fuels was somehow was not sold to the public under the banner of low carbon and being environmentally green is simply insane on your part. Give you self a shake! Wow!

[Albertkallal]

To correct this political issue here simply direct me to any site run by any government or tax funded scientist that is willing to make corrections to Al Gore's movie. The fact that you can't do that means that you side prefers politics over truth. So why would their source of funding or political views change the science here? Until you direct me to a site that corrects his errors then you simply proving in public your side does not give one dam about the truth or good science.

[Albertkallal]

As for leaving politics out of this, that's exactly the whole problem here. Why is it that Al Gore's movie Continues to be shown at every university were climate research occurs, and yet NOT ONE of these tax funded government socialist scientists has made any public correction to Gore's movie? If these people cannot correct errors and yet at the same time give their support to Gore movie then why trust them? Why do I have to go to a blog by Monckton to find 30+ gross errors?

[checkyoursources]

@Albertkallal Al Gore is not a scientist and nor is Monckton.While there are a few errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main assertion presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. For a rundown of mockton errors look up skeptical science monckton, it includes peer reviewed papers that deal with moncktons "views" in an objective way the very same site looks at Al Gores errors too before you jump to conclusions.

[Albertkallal]

Climate research community continues to support and invite Al Gore to speak on this issue. They continue to show his move at universities where climate research occurs. The science community gives Gore their seal of approval and they gave him the Nobel prize. If the climate community refuses to correct Gore's GROSS ERRORS that he says are given to him by the science community then why accept anything from a community that refuses to correct such errors? Why do you love gross science errors?

[checkyoursources]

@Albertkallal To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools. There were two errors,Mount Kilimanjaro/Dr Thompson's thermometer. Neither of which change the fact that the planet is warming or that we are the most likely explanation for the majority of it since the 1970's.

[reciprocity1967]

LMAO at 4:45 he says the dept. of food and rural affairs and SILLY WALKS ...and no one laughed......guess no Monty Python fans in the crowd??

[TidusYunaSoraRiku]

Lord Monckton is a filthy dirty liar

[Albertkallal]

Unless you comment on the content of the video and point out what is incorrect, you not be permitted to post here.

[order9066]

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS ALBERT!

[drkstrong]

Moncton is not a climate scientist he is a political advisor. That means he is the person that tells politicians what to lie about and how to lie about it.

Moncton's lines on the graph are not fits to the data they are just drawn lines (thus bogus).The IPCC start points are not arbitary as Moncton claims they are 25, 50, 100, 150 year fits to the data so are not bogus.

Who is dishonest now? It seems Moncton is the Bogus one.

[Albertkallal]

To stand here and tell me that 4 trend lines as noted can be compared as they did is spectacularly dishonest. Monckton is correct to call this fraud. Then he asks head of CRU and head of British Climate institutions have the warning trends changed over the last 100+ years and 3 warming cycles. As noted at least they answered correct of NO CHANGE! Then he asks USA Scientist same question, and the answer is YES they are different. Calling these Scientists lying scum bags is in fact a kind term.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Do this take a 10 year running mean (averages over sunspot cycles and decadal climate oscillations) and draw the least squares fitted line from 1850 to 1900 and continue it out to the present day. Is the trend above of below the actual data? If you do that for every 50 year period you will find that the projected curve is always below the actual temp measurements. That means the rate of warming is increasing - i.e., Moncton is the dishonest one here. He is using a trick to fool you

[Albertkallal]

There is ZERO mention of sunspots in this video. Assumption that sunspots are connected to sun's brightness is NOT assumed. You can't assume a correlation between sunspots and the sun's brightness output (earth orbit, cloud cover etc. could be the reason). There NEVER was claim of change in sunspots here so why are you tying to make such an correlation? Claim made here is a change in sun brightness measured, not why or how the brightness changed. This is most certainly a significant finding.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal I am saying that when taking a measure of climate trends you need to average over periods of any regular oscillations or you produce a bias - there are 2 such regular oscillation over the short term: the sunspot cycle (average 11 years recently) and the decadal oscillation (10 years). The fact that video odes not mention this shows that Moncton does not know what he is talking about.

[Albertkallal]

NO ONE MADE ANY claim or statement that sun spots affect the brightness or output of the sun. Perhaps they do but sunspots simply were not mentioned. They measured the intensity of the light hitting the ground. This could be due to less clouds, change in orbit, change in sun's output or a zillion other reasons. NO CLAIM OF ANY type is being made in regards to sunspots. So why are you bringing up something ridiculous that simply not being claimed here? They measured intensity at ground level.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal "NO ONE MADE ANY claim or statement that sun spots affect the brightness or output of the sun"

Sorry I did because they do. See any paper on total solar irradiance. I explained why already - please read carefully before going off half cocked.

Moncton is a charlaton and he has been caught lying repeatedly. Why do you keep defending him?

[Albertkallal]

I never claimed sun spots don't affect suns output (learn to read). I said why limit this to sunspots. They measured light intensity at ground level. This change in intensity could be due to many factors such as soot, clouds and yes sunspots. It is ridiculous stupidity to limit this to sunspots since cloud cover or soot could change light intensity at ground level. As for lying are you now going to claim Phil Jones of the CRU is laying about the warming rates? Phil Jones verified this finding.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Apparently you are so in love with Moncton that you cant (or dont want to) see the truth. Get a room, will you. Nor can you see a simple point about how to average data to isolate a long term trend. You go off down irrelevant rabbit warrens to avoid doing a simple test of his claims that will show Moncton to be wrong. Please yourself, remain ignorant but dont expect to be unchallenged when you post nonsense like Moncton's

Acceleration: 2000-9 ave Ts > 1990-9 Ts > 1980-9 Ts > all

[Albertkallal]

Why did Phil Jones and the CRU agree that the rate of warming is the same this time around compared to the last two warming? Are you really going to stand here and tell me Phil Jones is now lying? Man, you guys crack me up. So, when you agree with the IPCC they can't be lying, and when you don't agree with Phil jones, now he is lying? You mean your CRU is full of crap now? The science advisors to British Parliament ALSO grudgingly confirmed this finding. You folks just can't handle the truth.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Moncton just said he said that. I suspect it is like the claim that Jones said there was no warming since 1995. It was all over the internet but he never actually said that. They took just a few of his words and dropped all the caviats which amounted to the exact opposite.

[Albertkallal]

You are assuming that Monckton is like Gore and attempting to mislead. Jones is not being taken out of context. Monckton gracefully accepts any corrections to any data or claim made. Funny how the Science community CONTINUES to support of Gore's wild claims. Monckton is on record as stating Man's co2 causes warming so I am hard pressed as to why he been labeled an denier. This debate is around how co2 is not driving temperatures as the IPCC claims. This is about taxation and socialism.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Moncton like Gore is a professional politician. Unlike Gore he is not representing the scinece community but industry.

I have yet to find the quote by Jones on this point - the full quote- not what someone else says he said.

Moncton has never admitted he is wrong on any point and in fact goes on repeating his nonsense even after it has been shown to be false.

The IPCC does not claim CO2 drives temperatures - fundamental physics does.

Your rant about socialism shows your bias.

[Albertkallal]

Anyone viewing this video will CLEARLY see that presentation of the 4 trend lines at the start is just outright fraud. As for the connection to socialism? You can't possibility be that blind. Just u tube "socialists march in Copenhagen" and tell me who these people are? Please explain to the viewers here where those people came from if they don't exist? To ignore the socialists in this movement is spectacular blindness on your part. Explain to everyone here where these people came from then?

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal You cannot resonably claim that the 4 lines are a fraud - statistically and anlaytically it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Just saying it is does not make it so. They also state clearly what they are doing and how - some fraud when you tell your victims what the "fraud" is beforehand!

Moncton on the other hand claims to have chosen random times to draw his lines - he could have chose no other times to get the result he did. Now that IS fraud.

[Albertkallal]

Look at the graph legend again. 150 year, 100 year, 50 year and 35 year and then look at the slopes on the graph! It is horrifying fraud to present data this way and amounts to PURE propaganda with the intent to show readers a dramatic warming. I not really sure what is worse, that graph or you standing here defending how those lines are sloped. Regardless of ANY view on either side of this issue it just blows my mind that you think those 4 slope lines as presented are meaningful and honest.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal

I am looking at the graph now and all they have done is chose 3 dates at 50 years apart starting at the beginning of the plot and chose the end point to be the last data they had. they could have chosen slightly different dates to make their point more evident. Red curve any year earlier or later would have made it more shallow. Same for 100y and 50y slope. They also use mathematically correct least squares fits, unlike Moncton who admits he he drew it in by eye. How dishonest!

[Albertkallal]

IPCC claims of co2 warming is off by HUGE factors. The science community is selling their soul and supports this IPCC garbage in the name of political correctness. Find me any institution receiving government funding that corrects and points out the HUGE errors in Gore's movie? Same for hockey stick or Himalayan ice melt. Scandal after scandal and corrections are NOT coming from the supposed self regulating science community. If they not interested in correcting errors, why trust them?

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal "IPCC claims of co2 warming is off by HUGE factors" reference please

What "huge errors" in Gore's movie?

Why should anybody critisize the Hockey stick - it is perfectly valid. Prove it otherwise - only published peer reviewed papers please not blogs.

The Hilalayan issue was not in the IPCC science report (WG1) so why should they bother with it?

They are not correcting errors where there are none - it's trumped up scandals. Saying its wrong repeatedly doesnt make it so

[Albertkallal]

Gore implied a rise of 20 ft sea rise in near future. Complete propaganda. Gore claimed that Global warming could shut down the thermolane circulation and plunge Europe into a ice age. (and worse Gore claimed multiple scientists made this claim). Gore claimed that the last 4 interglacial warm periods was due to co2 concentrations that caused the increase in temperature. The data shows this as the other way around with temperature changes proceeding co2 changes.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal No Gore gave no timescale for the 20ft sea rise. He merely said that if we lose the Greenland ice sheet there would be 20ft of sea rise (6m actually) which is perfectly accurate.

Gore said that when a lot of fresh water was (NB past) dumped into the N atlantic the gulf stream closed down for a while.

He certainly did not claim that the interglacials were due to CO2 - he said the relationship is "very complicated" exact words. There are 3 InterGlacial causes, CO2 is 1 of them

[Albertkallal]

more errors: Warming dried up lake chad. Katrina was caused by global warming. I barely touched this LONG list. Science community continues to support Gore's movie and as I stated, they thrown their integrity under a bus. All major institutions and climate science continue to sign off on Gore's movie and none will speak out and expose these errors. How come none of your socialist web sites don't point out any of these errors? Clearly that peer review and self regulation you claim does not exist

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal The Tchad issue is still not settled - it is human over use or AGW or both. The argument continues to this day.

Again on Katrina you put words into his mouth. He said that Katrina was intensified by AGW not caused by it. In those days that was contraversial - it is now pretty much accepted.

"I barely touched this LONG list." Running out of ammunition? No matter you have been firing blamks on this already.

There are no significant errors to point out.

[Albertkallal]

So the water warms but the supposed cooler air was also not effected by global warming? So somehow the colder air parts have brains and ignore global warming then? This is not supported science fact and we seen no statistical increase in hurricanes during warming periods. With increased temperatures then we see less colder air. In fact, with AGW, the warming occurs in the air first and THEN the ocean warms. This is not a supported science claim that AGW caused Katrina or even intensified it.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Depends which layer of the atmosphere you choose. The stratosphere is cooling (proving it cant be the solar activity). The lower trop is warming much like the oceans (but not as fast as the land. The upper troposphere is caught between the cooling above and warming below so is generally governed by other things like dydnamics or chemistry, That is why the denialist love to use it - it follows no trends for any length of time.

[Albertkallal]

There is not science proof that Katrina was caused (or intensified) by man's co2. The science community lent their integrity and support to Gore's movie. That same community now refuses to issue corrections. Why is the source of corrections issued on this movie also split on ideological grounds? If you can't send me to a site that corrects the science in Gore's movie from the same science group that asks us to accept some so called peer authority then that system of trust is clearly broken.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal I keep telling you there is nothing to correct. Name something specific that can be proved to be scientifically wrong.

[Albertkallal]

I stated errors. The claim Katrina was caused or increased by man's co2 is not fact. Graph showing co2 is driving temperature up (the graph does not show that). Same for snows of Kilimanjaro mealting. Same for Polar Bears dying. Same for drought in the Sahara (in fact they had record rains in the same year Gore's movie was released). Science is not about unfounded scaremongering. There is claim after claim made here in which he claims they are scientific facts and conclusions and they are not.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Already dealt with Katrina

He does not show or claim that CO2 intiated the temperatures rises but it does drive temperature of that there is absolutely no doubt.

Kilimanjaro is melting - one possible cause is global warming. No other theory has been shown to be the cause.

Polar bears are dying off - evidence that they are not?

The Sahara may have had record rains the year that the movie was released but the movie was made BEFORE.

[Albertkallal]

It is crystal clear Gore uses that graph to show co2 driving temperature and specifically driving temperatures up. It is simple pure dishonesty for Gore to use that graph to support that mans co2 is driving temperatures up. The science does not say that Katrina was caused or intensified by man's co2. (to claim so is 100% dishonest). And the fact of rains in Sahara after the move is irrelevant and again you can't claim mans co2 caused more rain (floods) or drought in the Sahara.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal Please give me the exact quote where Gorsays this either in his book or the movie. The fact is that he doesnt use the graph for that purpose ho merely uses it to say they are connected (which is true) - he actually says the relationship between temperature & CO2 is "very complicated" (which is true). You are seeking a simple cause & effect relationship where there cant be one - there are 3 main causes (orbit shifts, albedo changes & increasing CO2) for 1 effect (end of an ice age)

[LordVigeous666999]

Skeptics say that nothing is there, alarmists say something IS there

Its not my job to prove santa claus does not exist, its your job to prove he does

Glaciers melting, thats what happens in an INTER-GLACIAL PERIOD

Polar bears are dying? thats actually wrong, but fine. Again, your job to prove the CAUSE of the dying, not mine

Sahara getting more rain. Let me ask you, if the warming was natural, would the sahara STILL get rain? Or would that ONLY happen if mankind caused the warming?

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 There are very few skeptic climatologists (and most of those are paid hansomely to be skeptics bu the energy industry) and there is orders of magnitude more who believe that AGW is real and a major threat. They did so long befor enayone made it into a political football.

On the proof issue - it has been proved that the warming we see is not natural. Its up to you to prove AGW is wrong.

Of 19 subpopulations of polar bears: 8 in decline, 1 increasing, 3 stable & 7 no data

[LordVigeous666999]

Bears; are the declining populations where it is warming? You have you do more than just say they are on the decline, you have to form a causal link. But whatever, I don't want to talk about polar bears because its irrelevant to the discussion

Proof. No it has not. they say they can't explain the warming without CO2, but there are many things, like fedbacks, which are not well understood, that are ASSUMED to be CO2's fault, these get lumped in with CO2

[LordVigeous666999]

like clouds shifting to let more sunlight in. This is attributed to CO2 warming, if we instead assume that cloud do this based on a natural cycle, suddenly something that WAS part of mans ASSUMED effect

Becomes part of natural variation

This is still an open discussion, and you guys are currently losing the debate, because you do what you just did which is to basically say, "its been proven, so shut up". You have to provide your evidence, if you have it

which you don't, because you're wrong

[LordVigeous666999]

I'll say what I've been saying for years

Instead of all of us amatuers arguing with each other

How about, we have a debate? Scientist Vs Scientists

Several hours of debate and presentation

Then months later, have another, refutation debate, and just keep coming back again and again until its settled

[LordVigeous666999]

But your side doesn't seem to be very keen on this, because in every debate with entrance and exit polls, people become less undecided and less in support of your position

The side of people that don't buy into it, grows with each debate. Which is why you won't present your science, and why you won't agree to a debate. Because you lose those, because your evidence is weak

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Science is not an opinion poll - it is fact. Facts dont change because those who are unfamiliar with the physical principles involved can be persuaded by a bunch of bumper sticker slogans. Sometimes a scientific theory is wrong but it is scientists who eventually sort it out.

AGW currently explains all the phenomena that we see associated with GW and no other theory can. It may not be perfect but it is the closest thing we have. Anyone who can do better will get the Nobel

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 The debates go on at every science meeting but your friiends dont turn up. The debates go on in the literature but your side dare not publish their drivel because it was rejected 10-15 years ago.

What you dont seem to realize that the points that people Moncton (who is not a scientist) are complete fabricated and designed to mislead. Some fall for it.

I have asked this a dozen times: please show one piece of verifiable evidence that the AGW is wrong. Cue the crickets..

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 The scientific debate ended a decade ago - you missed it. You might as well say lets debate if the Earth is flat, relativituy is real, disease is caused by evil spirits, or that there are just 4 elements.

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 "clouds shifting to let more sunlight in" is completely meaning less - please clarify. Clouds are part of the models but their effect is likely small overall. They reflect more sunlight but they also trap more heat. They are again measured & included

We are losing the debate? With whom? There is no serious scientist left who believes the alternative theories - they have all been shown to be wrong on the key points. Only politicians like Monctton and Inhofe are stilldebating

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Nothing is assumed. If it is a natural effect (a theory) you have to show which natural effect is causing it. You cannot do that because there are not that explain the magnitude of the change, where it is occuring, and when.

We are not losing the debate in science circles - scientists dont do PR well, they dont get any money for it, they shun publicity (for the most part) and they have an avertion to lying in public - none of these constraints apply to people like Moncton

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 The casual link is the lack of sea ice with they hunt from & rest on.

The feed backs are in the models at least the known ones. NIthing is assumed to be CO2 - the concentration of GHG and aerols is measured. You then put that into a radiative transfer formula and the warming we see is explained. Simple as that.

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 The causal link is declining sea ice.

It is not assumed to be CO2 - when you calculate the effects of the additional CO2 and aerosols it explains the shift in temperature. The problem fo rthose that dont believe it is that they must not only explain what is causing it but also why the laws of physics are suspended in this case and why the GHGs and aerosol are not having the effect that they should. You can just say "feedbacks" you have to establish a causal relationship.

[Robinsonion]

@drkstrong "but it does drive temperature of that there is absolutely no doubt."

Not so.The Vostok cores show temperature increase is followed by CO2 increase, not the other way around.

"Kilimanjaro is melting "

Also false. It is now generally accepted that deforestation around the mountain is the cause of it losing its snowcap.

"Polar bears are dying off"

Again, false. Polar bear numbers are increasing, mostly because of conservation efforts (fewer of them are being shot by hunters).

[drkstrong]

@Robinsonion You are assuming simple cause & effect: 1 cause, 1 effect. We already know the cause of the initiation of the interglacial periods: Milankovitch cycles (that has been known & accepted for decades). The only problem is that the Earth's orbit is not very eccentric so could not have produced the 7-10 C change that got us out of the ice ages. Two other factors are required - changes in the albedo of the Earth as the ice melts & increasing GHGs (primarily CO2) from biomass rotting

[LordVigeous666999]

Clouds reflect light, and trap heat. But some types of clouds do more one than the other. So it is not enough to say, "we get more clouds so..." or "we get less clouds so...". Because the type of clouds matter

Currently, your side says, as the planet warms, we get more clouds that trap heat and let sunlight in

They know this because as the planet has warmed, we've seen more heat trapping sunlight passing clouds

Just read that again a few times. The bias is clearly one way, but they dont know

[LordVigeous666999]

I know they don't know, because I've talked with atmospheric physicists, and they were trying to talk me into becoming an atmospheric physics major, to double with my engineering degree

They said the reason is, they can't build an apparatus to model clouds effectively, and they need someone like me who can build it. They showed me graphs from scientific papers, pointed to the error bars, and said even the error bars a complete guesses

UNTIL someone like me fixes their problem

[LordVigeous666999]

Aerosols, these too are not understood. The error bars are gigantic, and are guesses. They CAN'T MODEL IT, this is coming from people in the field, who don't have axes to grind

You are asserting a level of certainty, that only people who have departed from the science express

[LordVigeous666999]

As for debate. At this point, we need a scientific debate, televised world wide, all the scientists get together, I don't much care about format, but it needs to happen

Because we have your side saying, there will be a hotspot above the tropics at this altitude if CO2 is to blame. Then skeptics check the satellite data, point to it, and say, "no hot spot"

Then your side looks at the EXACT SAME DATA, and says the temp readout is different. One side, or both sides, are lying

[LordVigeous666999]

Now I have not looked at the raw data from the satellite me myself personally, and I am objective enough to say, I do not have a way to say who is lying

Now you're going to claim you do, even though you don't, because you're not objective, you're biased

If you're objective, you will be on my side for this. We can disagree on everything else, but we have to be able to agree on this, one side is lying, and we have no way to know which side it is

[LordVigeous666999]

How do we resolve it? If not by having all the scientists come forward, and have them hash this out in public?

Thats why I'm taking a balanced, objective approach, have them debate, come back in 3 months for rebuttal, then come back again in 3 months for rebuttal, until its settled

Whats your method, for objectively reaching truth here?

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 That is doen already - it is called the scientific literature. You should read it rather than political blogs - it would be quite revealing to you just how much people like Moncton are distorting the facts and running a dysinformation campaign funded by the oil, gas, and coal industries.

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 You just showed that you know nothing about the problem - you cant look at the satellite data directly as it is the output of a model. You need a complete model of the Earth's atmosphere to interpret the IR sounding data to get atmospheric temperatures. The only thing that the satellite data is used for is continuity - filling in gaps in the coverage or confirming where a ground station, buoy, or radiosonde may be in error.

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Actually not, the sceptics ignore that the hot spot is variable not constant - they look at the data from times that it is not there. They then ignore the range of the uncertainty - the models with their uncertainties fit the data with their uncertainties well

So you have found one small reigion of the entire planet at a narrow range of altitudes in our vast atmosphere where for a short time the models dont fit in a place where the models are not designed to do so! Wow!

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Odd the IPCC report abounds with the results form such models and the error bars are not "gigantic"

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Then you need to talk to some competant atmospheric physicists

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 I really do wish you would not tewll me what I think and then critisize me for words you have made up and put in my mouth. It is a nice debating tactic but has no place in a scientific discussion.

My "side" says no such thing about clouds (especially as it makes absolutely no sense) - reference please. The climate experts say that the heating has little to do with clouds but has more to do with GHGs and aerosols (plus some land use changes)

[LordVigeous666999]

aerosols are important because they are involved in cloud formation

And I don't need a reference, its very simple. Clouds are big white things, white things reflect sunlight, agree or disagree?

Clouds are also big accumulations of water, which absorb IR very well. Agree or disagree?

At high elevation, they don't stop much heat, but they do cast a pretty big shadow, agreed?

At low elevation, they cast less shadow, but stop heat from getting away from the surface, agree or disagree?

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 Agree but that proves nothing - there are myriads of other effects that you are conveniently ignoring.

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 "your side says, as the planet warms, we get more clouds that trap heat and let sunlight in" again stop putting words in other people's mouths. The role of clouds is marginal they act both as a reflector and as a blanket. The clouds are monitored all day every day by the polar-orbiting meteorological satellites. They show little contribution from or minimal change in the clouds.

[LordVigeous666999]

wrong, you said aerosols are important, they are involved in cloud formation, agree or disagree?

[LordVigeous666999]

myriad? isn't that code for, "I have no argument"?

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 They are but again it is irrelevant. Clouds form when WV condenses on fine particles such as areosols. Do you know what the main source of such paticles are? Ash - ash from meteors burning up. The upper atmosphere is saturated with the stuff so adding a lttle more will make no difference to cloud formation rates. The same argument is true for the old cosmic ray theory of GW adding more condensation centers to an already saturated system is futile.

[LordVigeous666999]

then why are aerosols included in the global warming thing?

If the atmo is already saturated with the stuff, like you say, what difference does adding a little more do?

Also, why do aerosols have such large error bars in the IPCC reports? Such large error bars the data they have is pretty much a guess, along with the error bars themselves.

And don't tell me that doesn't mean anything, the value they claim for aerosol forcing is almost equal in magnitude to CO2 itself

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 There are many different types of aerosols - surely you knew that? Apparently not. There are some that cool (SO2) some that heat (carbon) and some that cause clouds to form (dust). Their composition and concentration vary with position round the globe, altitude, and time.

[LordVigeous666999]

I think you mis-understood the point of the "why are aerosols included" thing, I meant in the larger sense

But whatever, I have something more important to ask you; if you were diagnosed with a terminal disease, you wouldn't feel sick, or anything like that, but in seven days you'd die..... What would you spend your time doing during those seven days?

I think I know the answer, but I want to hear you say it

Its an honest question, I demand an honest answer

[drkstrong]

@LordVigeous666999 I'd try to finish the 5 papers I am writing for the AMS at the moment - probably not enough time to finish the NASA book.

The "larger sence" makes no sense. Explain

[hydrashok33]

@drkstrong

Richar Muller of UC Berkeley demonstrates that much of the dire effects of AGW are guesses and not hard science, including the polar bear problem. youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkE­I

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 Seen it. The polar bear problem has been exercised so many times - if you take only a few selected population you can cliam that they are growing. If you compare the numbers now to those when they were nearly hunted to extinction, you can claim that their numbers have grown. But if you look at all the populations that are monitored then their overall population is collapsing in the last few decades. Don't look at the political blogs on either side but at the offical numbers.

[Albertkallal]

As the Himalayan ice lies? Yes, it was in a report, why on earth would you refer to and restrict this to ONE report? Geesh is that your answer? (it was in the 4th assessment report). The issue again is claims and claims that supposed are peer review and again without merit. And again the whole issue comes that no error correcting is occurring in the very same science community you asking us to trust. Just find me the site that corrects Gore's errors.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal The 4th assessment is made up od 4 reports. 1 from each of the working groups and an exec summary. Only WG1 - the Scientific Case - was written by climate scientists. The Himalayan glaciers was in the WG2 report. The scientists would never have seen it or reviewed it until it came out.

The denial camp did a review of all 3 reports separately and (begrugingly) rated WG1 as A (top) where as the rest of the reports were C or worse. (Look up "IPCC citizen reviewers")

[zzebowa]

@drkstrong The IPCC claims CO2 drives temperatures 4 times more than fundamental physics does.

[drkstrong]

@zzebowa If you are refering to Moncton's slight of hand with the CO2 warming numbers then I suggest you get an elementary physiics book and read it. Then you can laugh at Monctons antics on this issue along with the rest of us.

Moncton is a professional politician - he cant help lying. It comes natural.

[zzebowa]

@drkstrong What I wrote has nothing to do with Monkton.  Its actually form Royal Society publication this month which states that the fundamental physics show that doubling CO2 will lead to a1`C increase in temperature. Yet the IPCC states the increase will be between 2`C and 4.5`C.

The difference between them is due to the inability of climate models to model the 1970-2000 warm period.

[drkstrong]

@zzebowa

Oops you forgot to put in the whole quote from the RS:

pg 16 "Application of established physical principles shows that, EVEN in the ABSENSE of processes that amplify or reduce climate change, the climate sensitivity would be around 1C, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations...later...(pg 19) the overall climate sensitivity is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C" Which agrees with the IPCC figures.

I do love catching people in such deceptions it so undermines their case!

[zzebowa]

@drkstrong Yes, thats what I stated. Perhaps you misunderstood me. CO2 fundamentaly will ad 1`C for a 100% increase. Feedbacks have to be introduced to acchieve 2 to 4.5 degrees as required by climate models to model the 1970-2000 warming period.

[drkstrong]

@zzebowa Yes, the feedback mechanisms exist so why pretend they dont?

[zzebowa]

@drkstrong Thats where you are mistake. The effect of feed backs might be negative, neutral or positive. These are the unknowns to which the RS document alludes.

[drkstrong]

@zzebowa Some feed backs are negative (certain aerosols), some are positive (H2O, albedo). There is no such thing as a neutral feedback because if it has no effect it is not a feedback

[zzebowa]

@drkstrong Of course those same models are equally incapable of modeling the 2000-2010 lack of warming, the 1920-1940 warming, and the previous warming periods. But that hasnt stopped the scientists from overturning understood physics and overstating the effectiveness of CO2 by a factor of 4.

[drkstrong]

@zzebowa The models seem to be doing just fine to me provided you look at what the modelers say rather than what paid PR men are trying to claim they say.

I just dealt with the factor of 4 myth a few minutes ago - I suggest you drop that line it is already debunked.

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal There are several detailed analyses on the web of the Moncton claim - Lets take the one by a denialist website (Climate Conspiracy). They analyze the three periods that Moncton chose and as he did chose different length times starting at the lowest point they could find and stopping at the point which makes the curves similar & ignore uncertainties. They get:

1860-80: 1.09

1910-40: 1.52

1975-98: 1.59

Note the slopes are increasing even with bias sampling, so Moncton is wrong

[Albertkallal]

Then why did Moncton ask Phil Jones of the CRU the same question to verity this calim and Phil Jones confirmed this finding. The same question was put to the British science adviser to the House of Lords, and the again the answer was stated the warming trend was the same. So, the only ones getting this answer wrong is the IPCC and the science adviser to the USA congress. Why such dishonesty here? Unless you now going to claim that Phil Jones of the CRU is lying also?

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal I assume your are talking about the 3 parrallel lines argument. I bet Jones did not say "Yes, they are 3 strictly parrallel lines" because they are not.

1st they are for different length of times so the uncertainties on the slopes would be different because there are different number of points for the analysis.

If you take the same length of time (eg 30 years) then I get 3 different slopes with the earliest one being the least steep, 2nd being steeper, & 3rd being the steepest.

[Albertkallal]

IPCC graph as shown is CLEAR FRAUD. Question put to Phil Jones was not if lines were parallel since as pointed out it's a ridiculous thing to do because they change based on the starting and end points. The question put to Phil Jones, and thank goodness he has some decency and integrity left was is the warming rate any higher this time around then the two previous warming periods, and the answer is no (but co2 changed). Why do you try to defend CLEAR lying and misinformation on your part?

[drkstrong]

@Albertkallal We will have to agree to disagree. I have been doing data analysis for 40 years and it is clear to me that no fruad is involved. In any publication if you say what you are doing and do it then there is no fraud. It is also clear from the graph that the rate is accelerating. I see you did not do the analysis I suggested.

[skisheavenly]

Lord Monckton is BOGUS

[Albertkallal]

Such a non thinking public slander statement by you either means you can't think or you are incapable of understanding issues and therefore you seek to attack the messenger. This is classic left socialist thinking on your part. Don't debate the facts, but attack the messenger because you don't like the message? To make a claim of bogus here you will have to point out what is incorrect in the video. Doing so will require more than name calling like a 2 year but some intelligence on your part.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Albertkallal Very well said.

[TidusYunaSoraRiku]

@CHIPSTERO7

Not

[CHIPSTERO7]

@TidusYunaSoraRiku Care to elaborate.

[TidusYunaSoraRiku]

Try youtube debunking lord christopher monckton

Maybe you will learn something dummy

[Albertkallal]

Why are you talking about the messenger here? In this video graphs used are from the IPCC. To come here and attack the messenger and not the message is asking us to be ignorant fools. If this is about the messenger, then why should I accept your message here then? If you don't want a debate about the facts, but only to attack the person delivering the message, then why should I accept your message here then? Why do you have some special god given exemption when delivering your message here then?