Lambert has replied to the post I did that pointed out that his use of the fake “Pinker Tape” in the debate with Monckton was a cheap-shot ambush with no real significance.
As usual, his reply includes major claims like “a dishonest post” and “there’s no wiggle room here”, and, as usual, he can’t back them up.
Dishonest? I quote Pinker as saying:
[I]f we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”
And Lambert thinks that somehow this really means that Pinker said Monckton’s terminology can pass, but his analysis is wrong? This exactly-backward interpretation is delusional (or dishonest, eh?). To read it from Pinker’s statement, you need to throw out the English grammar rulebook, and read from right to left. So now, it’s dishonest to quote someone directly? This is another example of the convoluted way faithful AGW people have to think in order to dig themselves out of the hole they find themselves in.
Let’s recall after all the too-ing and fro-ing, that even if Pinker thinks Monckton is wrong, even if Lambert gets a quote from Pinker saying Monckton is totally, utterly wrong, or that the IPCC did interpret the full implications of her work, this doesn’t prove he is, or they did. It means we need to listen to her reasons and Monckton’s reply carefully. (Notice how those who promote alarm end up discussing opinions and the minutia of who-said-what, rather than the science itself?)
As for Lambert’s other points, he makes some statement about what Pinker is replying too, but still hasn’t disclosed his full letter to her, which makes it impossible to know exactly what she is replying to.
As I pointed out, Monckton said “they were deliberately avoiding the very clear implications of Dr Pinker’s paper.” So when Pinker says: “Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report”, she is not refuting what Monckton says, but is sidestepping the point.
Pinker 2005 – Sunlight on the surface of the Earth has increased
Pinker’s paper shows pretty strongly that on the surface, the Earth was getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e., sunlight) over the period 1983-2001, probably due to fewer clouds or some other change in the atmosphere. Nothing Lambert says alters the fact that it’s hard for the Earth to receive more light without warming up. If this extra sunlight did really hit the surface, it can explain most of the warming, and carbon becomes irrelevant, unless you can simultaneously show that there was some other factor that neutralized the extra sunlight. Believing in the carbon crisis is getting more complicated and filled with IF’s by the minute.
Lambert makes a last ditch effort at the end to “talk science” when he claims that Monckton can’t use Stefan Boltzman equations on the Earth because it’s not a black body. But, it’s very well known that all you need to do is include emissivity, and Stefan Boltzman applies to gray bodies just fine, which of course, is what Monckton has done (see Eq 18 on page 13). It’s another non-point dressed to kill.
But, the confusion feeds the fans: 69 comments so far, and nobody has mentioned black bodies and emissivity…yet.
UPDATE: Monckton includes emissivity, then assumes it’s unity, because Earth is considered to be very close to a black body radiating in the IR. This is standard practice and even pro-AGW modellers Kiehl & Trenberth (1997, 2008) assume emissivity is 1 also. (Thanks Mattb for spotting the issue.)
I think there are some people who think that AGW alarmists are all of a sudden going to have a Damascus road experience and be converted.
Personally, I think they are so tied up in their convoluted redefinition of language and the distortion of reality they experience that they will go to their graves thinking they are right.
As has been pointed out in these fora a number of times before, we are having a debate where the plain common usage of English words on the climate realist side is not heard or distorted on the side of the AGW alarmist. “Temperature anomalies” is the classic example where perfectly good statistical terms and methods that could have been used have been rejected in favour of creating a new terminology and bunk stats. Rational argument founders because those of us with a conventional view struggle with illogical post-modern thought patterns and reasoning.
AGW alarmists can misconstrue a clear statement to mean exactly the opposite of what it says and then defend their position to the hilt, without batting an eye.
10
Louis H is getting a pasting over there. But he’ll mix it with ’em when he finds out
10
Grant @ 1: …, I think they are so tied up in their convoluted redefinition of language and the distortion of reality they experience that they will go to their graves thinking they are right.
Yes. The explanation is Post Normal Science that has been derived from Post Modern Philosophy.
The payoff is described in one neat sentence in the Post Normal Science article in The Encyclopedia of Earth:
They get to leave out reality and the search for what it actually is (ie. the search for truth). They replace it with a fuzzy package deal called “quality”. Out of that, they get a “consensus” of urgent action though they admit they don’t really know anything about about the basis of the “consensus” other than that it’s “urgent”.
Hence, facts are irrelevant, history is infinitely malleable, and you never have to say what you mean nor mean what you say. After all, according to their view there is no such thing as truth. There is only belief, conviction, earnestness, and a sense of urgency. If that doesn’t “work” (what ever that means to them) its not their thoughts that are wrong, its reality fault for not following their higher wisdom.
10
My post at deltoid
10
AGHHHH I spent 5 minutes at Deltoid and I feel dirty……thanks for that NOT. What a bunch of angry losers!
I kinda think the whole subject is not worth so much time. Lambert set him up but Monckton stumbled a little. In the big picture neither side should be making so much out of so little for so long.
10
Lionell Griffith: #3
I agree … to a point.
Classical science seeks to understand the truth by a frontal attack, based on previously established fact. Post-Modern science seeks to understand the truth by stealth, using successive approximations.
The classical approach works well for the physical sciences, where you can mount physical experiments or take observations under controlled conditions.
It does not work well in situations where you have a subject that is constantly varying, possibly due to measurable factors, or possibly due to random noise; and can not be replicated in the lab.
Both approaches are valid, in the circumstances for which they are intended. Problems occur when they are used inappropriately.
This debate is either about using an inappropriate approach, or as I suspect, it is about two schools of thought agreeing violently with each other.
I explained my understanding of the post-normal approach in a conversation with Roy Hogue at comments #16 and #26 here.
By the way, for the reasons I gave Roy, I think the AGW folks are misusing the post-modern approach, which does not help the debate at all.
10
Great Cartoon.
Why do you bother ‘though ?
It doesn’t matter what you say …
There are some who just will not button it.
What became of Comical Ali ?
10
Two relevant quotes. “Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.” – Sydney Smith “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” – Source Unknown. What Lambert and his ilk forget is that we sceptics have arrived at our position by questioning science that had become dogma. That it is now increasingly evident the science was carefully crafted around agendas makes its apologists look more ridiculous the more they bleat and blather. I’m with Joe Veragio and Mark D. Time is far too precious to waste discussing minutiae. Grant is correct, they will go to their graves still believing. Thankfully the true believer numbers are small and reason is winning the day. Waste not time and energy on the Lamberts of this world. Many out there are still undecided.
10
Totally off the subject: With the Rudd Governments implementing a national curriculum for education, that includes education “INDOCTRINATION” on co2 will this open up the right to a court challenge similar to that brought against the Gore Si Fi flick “A Convenient Lie” in Briton.
10
Sorry didn’t finish my last post. It should read.
Totally off the subject: With the Rudd Governments implementing a national curriculum for education, that includes education “INDOCTRINATION” on co2 will this open up the right to a court challenge similar to that brought against the Gore Si Fi flick “A Convenient Lie” in Briton. That is unless they make it a balanced course with students encouraged to debate. Yeah I Know fat chance.
10
I have mentioned this on a couple of blogs but the answer is not in science but social psychology’s cognitative dissonance. “When Prophecy Fails” was the original about what a doomesday cult did when the world did not end. It did not fade away but continued to attract members with renewed vigour, people did not want to admit they were wrong. By the way the ABC Drum is supposed to be publishing some skeptics articles. Anybody know anything abou that
10
Good greif – Global warming is causing Earthquakes now apparently
Dr Chalko
I give up, with this sort of thing getting airtime in the media and scientists coming up with this drivel, I can see little hope of anthing being debated without radical bias.
10
Rereke Whaakaro @ 6:
You: Classical science seeks to understand the truth by a frontal attack, based on previously established fact. Post-Modern science seeks to understand the truth by stealth, using successive approximations.
Me: You are giving too much credit to post-modern science. There is no attempt to understand truth because, according to them, it is impossible to know the truth. As a consequence, they conclude there is no such thing as an established fact. Facts are nothing but made up stories by the established brokers of power and control. As a consequence, there is nothing to approach using successive approximations except a goal to take over the establishment and thereby gain the power to make up their own facts. The wish to replace the facts they don’t like.
You: It [the classical scientific approach] does not work well in situations where you have a subject that is constantly varying, possibly due to measurable factors, or possibly due to random noise; and can not be replicated in the lab.
Me: In that case, you need a much greater degree of scientific rigor and adherence to reliable knowledge to distinguish the difference between fact and fancy. Post modern science is the essence of abandonment of even the pretense of scientific rigor. If it has any validity, it is by accident. Even then, by its own standards, it cannot know that any particular notion is valid and it doesn’t care.
You: I explained my understanding of the post-normal approach in a conversation with Roy Hogue at comments #16 and #26 here.
You from your # 16: If I understand it correctly, the post-normal approach is to derive one or more consensus views that adequately explain all of the evidence currently at hand, and then search for additional evidence that will either support or negate each of the views, eventually leaving a single consensus view.
Me: If there are no facts and truth is not knowable, upon what is the consensus views to be based? How do we determine an adequate explanation? How can we even know that we have evidence, let alone all the relevant evidence at hand? How do we know that we have found new evidence? Never mind that it either supports or negates any particular view. Does it not all reduce to a battle of wills and who can outsmart who in believing or denying any particular view?
Once truth, fact, and rational thought are omitted as primaries, the game is power, control, and “persuasion” by bruit force and fraud. Its which gang can grab power, property, and popularity by hook or crook to get its way over others.
At the base of it all, I suggest you have attempted to read rationality into post modern philosophy and post normal science. There is none there to be found. They reject principles on principle and they know that is not possible for man to know anything real. After that, there is no relationship to reality or sanity.
10
It’s not surprising. Most AGW alarmists are the biggest liars in our modern times. Anyone knows this once you read and understand their rants and statements. One also just has to look outside to see how their alarmist predictions are false. No amount of twisting the English language will cover that fact up. I suppose Orwellian memory holes will be rolled out next. It has already started in our schools thanks to the Rudd government. This country will be destroyed in several ways if Rudd is re-elected. I am certain of that. So, if he does manage to be re-elected, be prepared.
10
#2 Baa Humbug
Oh really? I’m getting a pasting by the usual suspects am I – As I haven’t posted anything at Lamberts for well over a week, I think, then it’s likely that my recent article in Henry Thornton might have inflamed them a little. Or it could be my posting on my blog of an extract from Ackerman on the fallacy of the Venus runaway greenhouse idea might have animated their discussions. (The rest of Ackerman’s ideas I don’t agree with). Or it could be the answering of the Monbiot questions to Plimer that I also posted on my blog, rather than on Lambert’s and that issue was two weekends ago.
I’ll respond in kind, if I need to, via Henry Thornton or my own blog, and in good time, assuming that I think it worth the time and effort to counter the post-modern claptrap on Lambert’s blog. My problem is that I have a full on day job that involves long stretches away from civilisation, so I can’t spare the time checking Lambert’s blog for the latest defamatory comments. Life is too short for that distraction.
Thanks for the heads up though, 🙂
10
Lionell Griffith :#13
The focus on Post modernism is the right one – though I can understand Rereke’s point that establishing “facts” in the social sciences might require a post modernist approach, I don’t agree with it.
The modern economic field of econometrics is a case in which the calculus of the physical sciences was erroneously ported into the social sciences “in order to be scientific”. The problem with the social scientists is that they did not understand that the hard physical sciences use invariant properties of matter that are independent of time to work out orbits and what not. The fundamental unit of economics, the price mechanism, is dependent on time, and hence cannot be likened to a physical variable or property of matter. It reduces to the silliness of asserting the price of a dozen eggs depends on its position on the earth around its orbit around the sun.
So not only is it a case of science being deconstructed by the social sciences, but equally from a naive ignorance of the crucial differences between the physical sciences, and the social ones.
10
Somewhat OT. The spin by Rudd’s government is still winning the race. Julia Gillard says in an interview about the education revolution “children are learnt to read by sounding out letters” – see reference below. Does this mean she will “learn children” how to talk non-English? This blunder goes unnoticed by the media. If Abbott said this the media would be in a frenzy attacking him for speaking bad English. For the record, the correct phrase is “children are taught to read by sounding out letters”.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2833597.htm
10
jo, yesterday i asked for your assistance in getting the media to preface statements about ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ with ‘man-made’ or ‘anthropogenic’. should have asked that the media in fact use the term ‘catastrophic man-made global warming’ or ‘catastrophic anthropogenic climate change’ etc. the scienceblog comments below show the proponents of CAGW have no interest in using the proper terms. it is as if the reports on the Tyndall Paper are, in fact, using the ploys the Paper suggests:
June 2009: ScienceBlog: Study: Do the Terms “Global Warming” versus “Climate Change” Matter to Public Perceptions?
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, a professor in the School of Communication at American University
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/06/study_do_the_terms_global_warm.php
Sage Journal: What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”
Lorraine Whitmarsh
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
The findings point to important qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences between public understanding of “climate change” and public understanding of “global warming.” Furthermore, the latter term was found to evoke more concern than the former. As discussed in the article, these results have important implications for both researchers and communicators
This version was published on July 1, 2009
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/401
September 2004: The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change
Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, D-
21502, Germany
Simon Shackley, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, University of Manchester, M60 1QD
Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 58
In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf
10
Best not go there Jo – Deltoid is the smug-blog to end all smug-blogs and isn’t a nice place for decent human beings like you. Leave Lambert and his claque of commenters to stew in their own fetid juices. Nothing you or I or anyone else says will make the slightest difference.
The party’s over.
10
Hi Jo, when you say:
Pinker’s paper shows pretty strongly that on the surface the Earth was getting a lot more shortwave radiation (i.e. sunlight) over the period 1983-2001, probably due to less clouds or some other change in the atmosphere. Nothing Lambert says changes the fact that it’s hard for the Earth to receive more light without warming up. If this extra sunlight did really hit the surface it can explain most of the warming, and carbon becomes irrelevant, unless you can simultaneously show that there was some other factor that neutralized the extra sunlight. (Believing in the carbon crisis is getting more complicated and filled with IF’s by the minute.)
then you are hitting the nail exactly on the head. I don’t understand how there can be so much confusion on this matter. I have already posted previously on the NASA data relating to global cloud cover over the last 28 years.
The mean global cloud cover for the period mid-1983 to mid-2008 was 66.4±1.5% (all erros at ± one standrad deviation level).
It was at temporary maximum of about 68.9% in about 1986 – 1988 and declined to about 64.4% in about 1999 – 2001. This period was characterized by global warming.
Since about 2001 global cloud cover has recovered to be close to the 27-year average. This was a period of negligible additional warming. The 2008/10 data suggests average global cloud cover has recently continued to rise above the 27-year 66.4% average.
Over the last decade from 1999-2001 to 2008-2009 mean global cloud optical thickness increased above the 27-year average of 3.9±0.3% to an annual average of about 4.4% i.e. the clouds were getting denser.
Over the same period the global mean cloud top pressure fell from the long term 27-year mean of 573±15 millibars to around 553 millibars i.e. the mean altitude of clouds was geting higher.
A reducing cloud cover trend over periods of annual and greater timescales increases surface insolation. An increased insolation trend of course leads to increased surface warming. This in turn leads to increased land plant growth, evapotranspiration (ET) and increased emission of biogenic CCN. On the oceans the increased SSTs cause increased cyanobacterial primary productivity and hence increased emission of biogenic CCN (as well as reduced surface albedo due to the increasing frequency of blooms).
So eventually the trend (to increased surface insolation) is reversed to one of increasing cloud cover. More low clouds, more dense clouds, more energetic convection, more cloud getting higher etc. All this leads to a reduced Bond albedo as a consequence of the increased realization of latent heat.
IMHO in a climate of slowly increasing atmospheric CO2 level (and also an increasing nitrogen pollution of coastal shelf waters – something which has never applied before) this can only tend, to slowly increase the generation RATE of low clouds and to increase their mean optical density (i.e. increase their reflectivity) hence driving up the Bond albedo.
Put simply this is a well-adjusting ‘AGW’ world. Lucky for us this in one very watery world.
It is possible to make an ‘energy balance snapshot in time’ of this system in MS Excel in such a way that the effect on surface temperature AFTER the realization of the Latent Heat in the atmosphere caused by the earlier heating and hence ET has taken effect. See:
http://jump.fm/CSOMX
I might add that this (static) spreadsheet is the ‘egg’ i.e. the whole sheet can easily be reversed (actually mirror-imaged) about the current global mean state (e.g. as described by Kiehl, Trenberth and Fasullo 2009) to show the ‘chicken’ which laid that egg!
[Thanks Steve, an excellent comment. I’ve bolded some parts of it. I hope you don’t mind… JN]
10
Sorry Jo, you are wrong. Pinker spelled out very clearly to Lambert that Monckton’s interpretation of her work was wrong.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf
“The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting
refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers
that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the
atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at
their face value. To the best of my understanding this is the source of the
misunderstanding.”
[ Jimmy, I acknowledged that in my first post, and said that Monckton recalculated the numbers from the surface instead of the TOA, which didn’t make much difference to Climate Sensitivity, hence, Pinker had a point, but it doesn’t make much difference and Pinker acknowledged that Monckton’s approach was reasonable with a few caveats.-JN]
10
My Son knows Deltoid at UNSW. My Son is an AGW skeptic and he told me that 50% of the staff and students are also AGW skeptics and they have a good laugh at Deltoid. The other 50% take his stuff seriously though.
10
Whenever I’m tempted to think Timbo must have a point, I know I’ve missed something, but life IS too short to spend following his specious arguments. As soon as you get to the bottom of one, he’ll have thrown up another three, just to wear you down, in the meantime.
Just listening to the tone of Ms. Pinker is so refreshing among all all that noise.
10
Lambert is the best quote-miner outside of the Institute for Creation Research and he’ll never admit that the full quote dismisses his spin.
10
If someone went around falsely alarming everyone that the moon was going to collide with the earth and people start committing suicide, shouldn’t that person be charged with some crime? You bet you life they should be. So why aren’t the likes of Jones and all the other AGW alarmist being charged with various crimes?
10
@ Steve B: #22
Thankyou Steve B.
That is so good to hear.
An impression of some normality at last.
From this unreal world of AGW blogs, I was begining to believe that the whole UNSW thing must be some sort of artificial AGW construct, with it’s 2CO Directors, England & Pitman and its satirical science comic blogg.
I don’t think Timmy can take himself seriously, and must be having a right good laugh at everyone who does.
10
Oops, Sorry ! missed the ‘l, on the end of .htm in that link to UNSW , above
10
Jo you know very well that the quote “[I]f we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.” refers to Monckton’s use of the ‘cloud forcing’ – which is wrong but she gives him the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else and that such use is a fairly common mistake. The phrase “then it can pass” only relates to that specific term, and certainly not the entire analysis.
“People tend to use the concept of “Forcing” kind of “freely”. There are many
concepts of forcing in use, such as aerosol forcing, cloud forcing, which can be related to shortwave or long wave or both (as defined above). Since the energy from the sun is the major driver of the climate system, and since clouds are the major modulators of how much of this energy reaches the surface, people tend to label this effect as “cloud forcing” (which is not the same as the formal definition). I believe that one of the issues pointed out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed, this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”
10
It’s all rather strange really.
One can post some real hard science explication – complete with an Excel spreadsheet showing how the global climate system works with clouds – of why Monckton is essentially right but, as Pinker right points out, for partly the wrong reasons, over at Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog and the warmists all ignore it because they are mentally lazy (?):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php#comments
Here’s the fascinating part. One can post the very same stuff here and the effect is exactly the same!
Could the problem with this great global warming debacle be that we have inadvertently under-educated a whole generation (X? Y?) with easy soft options degrees (at best) and good dose at uni of post-modernist claptrap so badly that they all get a headache whenever asked to actually exercise their brains and all they can do is poor quality science or resort to endless nit picking disputes based more-or-less on the political spin surrounding the whole subject.
Or am I just another grumpy old (well educated) Generation Vee Dub?
10
Steve Short @ 29
You can’t reason with un-reasoning people. The primary motivation for a public response to their public comments is to provide a reasonable alternative. The object is to motivate the audience into thinking for themselves, instead of accepting what is said as gospel.
Keep in mind:
10
Lambert ought to be charged with academic misconduct for what he did. He clearly breached the rules of the UNSW.
He mispreprented through omission that the voice was Pinker on the tape when it was most probably Lambert’s spouse and both conspired to make up what Pinker did say omitting the perntinent points
He ought to be reported to UNSW and let the board decide.
10
Vielen dank Bernd. I have always admired Karl Popper. A great thinker of the 20th Century. I also appreciated that he chose to emigrate to my own country of birth and teach philosophy (before moving to England and great fame).
Karl Popper would have had some amazing things to say about the AGW movement, I am sure.
10
AGW fanatics need to be dealth with in the same manner as “cultists”.
As with individuals in a cult they require deprogramming to bring them back to rational thinking human beings.
This should be the way that the issue should be approached.
10
I understand your frustration with the Deltoid debate. Don’t think for a moment I wrote this for the faithful believers. I wrote it because a) it was easy and fast, b) people like Andrew Bolt and his readers are interested in it, and there is no way they could appreciate just how specious the bluster is if we didn’t sometimes follow it back reply for reply. c) I’ve wanted a decorative cartoon for “confused” writers for a long time and note this is a multipurpose generic cartoon — I will use it again. (There doesn’t seem to be a shortage of people tying themselves in knots). d) Picking up commentators for their errors works. Deltoid himself has reigned in his writing. Compare the latest tame post to the vitriol and baseless drivel from his first post about me. This reply of his was the first time Deltoid has replied to my posts about him.
Seriously, it might be obvious to many of you that Stefan Boltzman applies to Grey bodies, but others are left wondering, maybe there is something to this?
The big problem is that there is just too much bluff and bluster out there to debunk it all. We unpaid sceptical scientists just can’t undo all the un-communication and misinformation from the climate industry. It sure helps that there are skeptical commentators who are dedicated enough to comment on ABC, BBC and major newspapers. The editors are slowly getting the message. (Thanks). I will be writing for the ABC forum this week.
10
Lionell Griffith: #13
I think I understand your position.
I am working from a base assumption that the point of all science is a quest establish the truth.
In some applied fields, an acceptable approximation of the truth is sufficient, and fit for the purpose, but those fields are not pure science – they merely apply the principles developed by pure science as part of the quest for truth. And this is where we differ, I believe.
What I have described in the previously referenced posts is an applied science process that is intended to arrive at an acceptable approximation of the truth, sufficient to take some action, with an reasonable probability of achieving a desired outcome. No more.
If climate science holds itself up as being a branch of pure science, then it should follow the strict scientific method.
But I have always assumed that it is an applied science. In which case, using a less rigourous approach, similar to the one I described, may be acceptable for all practical purposes.
The real issue is that they appear to have avoided both approaches, and instead adopted an ad hoc approach that nobody can agree with.
I think my error has been in equating tools and techniques that I have used for over forty years, with the label of post-modern science. On the surface they look the same, but the response I get to using the term implies that possibly they are not. If that is true, I will stand corrected.
10
I’m going to link to this article SB page every time Eddy, Louis or Lionell have a go at me for citing wikipedia.
10
And Jo in #34… subsequent to Eq18 Monckton develops this to be:
“Since the Earth/troposphere system is a black body with respect to the infra-red radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1, giving the blackbody form of Eqn. (19) – κ = dT / dF = (4 σ T3)–1 °K W–1 m2. (21)”
so the equation he uses IS for a blackbody. He takes e=1. He does this suggesting it does not matter… however there is no reference it is just taken as a given.
Now I don’t know if it is or is not ok to treat emissivity as 1 in this case. But It seems strange that you would harass Lambert for assuming Monckton used emissivity = 1, by linking to equation 18 that introduces the grey-body version of SB, when this is them dismissed by equation 20 and Monckton returns to the blackbody situation “
10
SUBJECT: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009
Everybody should read the section regarding “Monitoring powers”!!
This should be enough to send chills up and down your spine if you value FREEDOM!!
This ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System)/carbon tax/CPRS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS!
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=LEGISLATION;group=;holdingType=;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0020;orderBy=;page=;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0001%22;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=#6c4b9bf970104c28a70c523038ad7b26
10
Rereke Whaakaro @ 35,
The major problem with a successive approximation to the truth is that to know how close you are to the truth you must know what the truth actually is. If you know the truth, why use an approximation? If you don’t know the truth, how can you judge how safe it is to take action? How can you know what action to take or what the consequences of acting or not acting would be? You have no basis for either analysis or decision. You couldn’t even take a calculated risk because you have nothing upon which to base your calculations. It would be guessing and pretending that you are making rational decisions. The best you can possibly do is muddle through somehow and rely on luck to pull you out of the mess you have made for yourself.
There is no substitute for knowledge, actual, real, objective knowledge. If you have that in sufficient quantity, there is no decision to make. The course of action is obvious. If you don’t, you simply cannot make an effective decision.
10
Do you live in Upsidedownland? Let me tell you what she means when Pinker says “Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report”.
She means… drumroll….
“Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report”.
Hard to believe those lying eyes, but that is what she means, and that is refuting Monckton’s point.
10
Steve Short – this paper by Paul Della-Marta and Dean Collins in 2004 (pre An Inconvenient Truth) gives a good summary of the changing climate in Australia. The diminishing cloud cover, the increased minimum temperatures and the .8C warming/century as opposed to the 1.9C bandied about today.
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
10
Big Ted
Just a quick one for you. I missed the early part of this conversation but from Fig 1 it looks like the earth was getting an increasing amount of ergs from the sun (about 0.16 W/m2/year) over the period 1980 – 2000. Wouldn’t that tend to make things warmer all by itself?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
MattB:
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I’m going to link to this article SB page every time Eddy, Louis or Lionell have a go at me for citing wikipedia.
Gentle poster MattB
I have stayed out of this discussion until you brought me into it. I do not know much about the guy so I do not have anything to add to the debate. So, if you want to bring up this “SB page” be my guest. The reason I do not recommend using wikipedia is simple: they are biased. Did you read the article via the link I previously provided to you or were you suffering from sleep deprivation? I wouldn’t call you lazy because you rarely, if ever, reads anything on any link that I provide you so it must be the sleep deprivation caused by your child’s difficulty in sleeping normally. .
Here are a few more links you probably will not click on http://wikipediabias.com/ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/wikipedia-promoting-global-warming-hysteria
BTW, how is your critique of Richard S. Courtney’s paper coming along? Should I bring the matter up every time you say you are going to do something?
10
“BTW, how is your critique of Richard S. Courtney’s paper coming along? Should I bring the matter up every time you say you are going to do something?”
Eddy – but you already do:)
10
And I will continue to do so, Matt;)
10
And just so you can rest easy Eddy, I can assure you that to date I’ve not spent even a fraction of a second researching Richard’s paper. I may well in a few weeks revisit that thread and acknowledge that it is not a priority for me.
10
@MattB
I’ll tell you what I am going to do, Matt: I will make an honest effort not to raise the issue again unless you further damage your credibility by saying you are going to do something and then fail to follow through. Do you want to make a bet on that MattB or should I get together with the rest of the gang and start a pool? Of course, if someone should actually pay you to do some research that will be exempted from the pool bet!
10
Eddy I don;t mind you raising it. Just would prefer that every time you raise it it is not as a question “would you like me to raise it”.
Just raise it or don’t – I’m fine with it either way:)
My trouble is that I thought I’d go to a local University Library to enable me to read the paper, check up references, and also cross reference with other articles that may provide a counter view. And unfortunately none of the 4 universities in this city hold E&E in their libraries. Hmm I should change what I said earlier as I did actually spend time searching the library websites.
10
Matt,
Didn’t Baa Humbug or Mr. Courtney tell you that you could buy it on line for nine or ten dollars? Seriously, you could have saved some time and gas! I am impressed by your effort, though.
10
Lionell Griffith: #39
So, if my understanding is correct, you are saying that you either act on the truth, or you take no action at all. It is a binary choice.
It seems to me that your argument excludes any variability (which is implicit in real-world interactions). What is “signal” and what is “noise”?
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember tuning an analogue radio by turning a dial. But if you are, and if you did, I would bet that you vary rarely tuned the radio perfectly, but you always tuned it “close enough”.(1) That is what I am talking about, when I refer to successive approximations.
I agree that there is no substitute for objective knowledge. But how would you define “sufficient quantity”?
——————
(1) Even when you did tune it perfectly, changes in temperature, expansion in capacitors, etceteras would subtly off-tune it for you anyway.
10
Eddy you’ll be happy to find out that I was able to access the library databases from the comfort of my computer:)
Seriously Eddy, my gut feeling is I’ll be disappointed reading it if I get it for free, let alone have to fork out $10.
10
I just want to repeat my post 37 since it may be missed readin my and Eddy’s chit chat.
Jo States “Lambert makes a last ditch effort at the end to “talk science” when he claims that Monckton can’t use Stefan Boltzman equations on the Earth because it’s not a black body. But, it’s very well known that all you need to do is include emissivity, and Stefan Boltzman applies to gray bodies just fine, which of course, is what Monckton has done (see Eq 18 on page 13). It’s another non-point dressed to kill.”
However Monckton’s paper goes on about half a page later to remove the emissivity term saying that for this purpose you get close enough just treating things as a black body. i.e. he didn’t include emissivity.
Thoughts?
10
Rereke,
I think Lionel is pointing the idea of falsibility of an experiment – true or false – a binary outcome. In science we do not have partial outcomes. Would you fly in an airplane that was designed on the basis of that outcome?
Fred Hoyle pointed out years ago that when you have a scientific problem that after much spending of money, employing a vast number of scientists and the scientific problem remains disputation, then its likely that the problem is being thought about with the wrong ideas.
Being half right over something seems to be an intellectual issue, not a scientific one.
I think Lionel is also averring to the fact one cannot be half pregnant, either one is, or one isn’t.
10
This being a Lambert focussed post, I will do what I usually do when Lambertian Merde is dropped on me – Google my name and see where his site is in the search result. And if I am AWOL here and at other blogs, it probably because the 10 year old Silicon Graphics Flat Panel has died; trying to decide whether to by another flat panel, or ditch the Mac Mini and got for an i7 Imac with 16Gb ram.
10
Taling of Spin – just been on the ABC Drum Unleashed site. Talk about a target rich environment! But the locals certainly aren’t very friendly…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Update: I am ignoring Lambert as Googling my name does not dredge up the current, so I am told, pasting I am supposed to be getting. His blog will be ignored for the moment, though I might suggest that those interested read what Andrew Bolt posted recently concerning defaming comments posted anonymously on the internet, specifically the Hot Copper website and Martin Bennett’s warning that slanderers cannot escape the law.
As Martin Bennett is a West Australian lawyer, parochial self interest comes into play and perhaps Tim Lambert might take this on board. Some of us remember when Professor John Quiggin threatened Jennifer Marohasy with litigation over some slight Quiggin noticed on her blog some years back: those of you with spare time could track that incident down for historical purposes; I can’t.
10
Mattb: #52
How about supporting your view that Monckton did so and so, with quotations? Your opinion on what he did/wrote does not wash here. SHOW that he did what you accuse him of, and not by obliquely referring to something he wrote, thereby relieving you of the effort of substantiating your debating point.
10
Speedy:
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Just been? You’ve been serial posting there for days, stirring up those poor alarmists with “show me the proof, show me the proof”
Been expecting you to link to a youtube clip of Cuba Gooding jr in Jerry Maquire, “SHOWWW MEE DAA MONNAYY.
Hang on, isn’t that what Tim Flannary says now?
10
Big Ted @ 40:
says:-
Isn’t that
‘lying eyes’
expression another Deltoid’ism.
It couldn’t be Timmy, or one of his trolls, sharing the Deltoid tone with a proper site … could it ?
10
BTW for the trend in land plant growth over 1982 – 1999 i.e. the ‘Pinker period’, which I contend led to the resulting post 1999 – 2001 increase in ET, CCN and hence cloud cover refer:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
10
Ok Louis.
This is the last paragraph of Jo’s post above:
“Lambert makes a last ditch effort at the end to “talk science” when he claims that Monckton can’t use Stefan Boltzman equations on the Earth because it’s not a black body. But, it’s very well known that all you need to do is include emissivity, and Stefan Boltzman applies to gray bodies just fine, which of course, is what Monckton has done (see Eq 18 on page 13). It’s another non-point dressed to kill.”
And here is equation 18 on page 13 of the SPPI paper Jo Links to here:
“http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.html”
Note Jo just links as it is a PDF… but since you insist I’ll type it: F = emissivity * Sigma * T^4
with the emissivity demonstrating that Monckton in fact knows the earth is not a black body, but a grey one.
However if you continue to read just the next half page of the SPPI report MOnckton continues with an equation 19 and equation 20.
“Since the Earth/Trophosphere system is a blackbody wrt to the infra-red radiation that Eqn (20) shows we are concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if emissivity = 1, giving the blackbody form of the equation: k = dT/dF = (4*sigma*T^3)^(-1)
that is – MOnckton’s work estimates the earth to be a black body indeed, which is Lambert’s accusation, which Jo shoots down.
10
Rereke Whaakaro @ 50:
You: So, if my understanding is correct, you are saying that you either act on the truth, or you take no action at all. It is a binary choice.
Me: No, you can act if you don’t have the truth but then you are basing your action on a guess. Your act might be the right thing to do but since there are more ways to be wrong than right, the likelihood you will be doing the wrong thing. The same thing applies to not acting. If you don’t have the truth, you are simply stuck with a random chance outcome no matter what you do and the odds are strongly against you.
You: (1) Even when you did tune it perfectly, changes in temperature, expansion in capacitors, etceteras would subtly off-tune it for you anyway.
Me: It is clearly true that such tuning is an approximation of the desired frequency. As a consequence, your statement is not an approximation of the truth. You know this to be the case and can act accordingly by either accepting the slight mistuning or attempt to adjust it further.
There is an enormous difference between striving to achieve a physical goal by successive approximation and trying to discover the truth (an epistemological goal) by successive approximation. In the first case, you are acting by knowing what you are doing. In the second case, you are acting without knowing what you are doing, what your goal is, nor that what you are doing is helping you to achieve your goal.
Ultimately, you can only act rationally based upon what you know. Acting based upon what you don’t know is simply doing something because you don’t know what to do.
The phrase “approaching the truth by successive approximation” has no and can have no referent in reality. It is an empty misleading word salad. You may feel/fantasize that it has meaning but that is only your intent and not an acuality. Reality is real and it cannot be faked no matter how much you want, need, hope, fantasize, or command.
10
And for the record, Louis, I’m not accusing Monckton of anything. I’m just saying it looks like Jo clearly think’s Lambert’s accusation that Monckton uses a black body earth is significant. So Lambert gets a rebuke from Jo, showing that Monkton’s eq. 18 shows emissivity (a grey body not a black body where emissivity < 1). However Monckton half a page later uses emissivity =1 i.e. uses a black body earth as the difference is insignificant.
Would I know if it is significant? no. But I can see clear as day that Lambert thinks it is significant, and Jo thinks it is significant enough to correct Lambert and show that Monckton did not use a black body earth. I can also clear as day see half a page later that Monckton reverts to a black body model.
10
Jo, can you tell me what Pinker means when she says
These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.
and
Indeed, this [referring to Monckton’s usage] is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”
and
The fundamental issue is related to the concept of “radiative forcing” as
used in climate research and as related to CO2 and its comparison to a quantity that is
something else. The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is
quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described in [the IPCC report].
Is that agreement with Monckton?
I don’t think so.
It looks very much like “Monckton doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. Not a good look for a supposed “Nobel Prize winner” hey?
10
Had to share this. From a poster at the ABC Drumline..
My response
10
I’m surprised it isn’t a million people dead from AGW. The media seems to really like that million number. Hardly anything happens until it’s a million man march, a million missing kids each year, a million starving, a million skeptics, a million dead from .5 degrees warmth.
10
Steve B. at 22
That is good to hear! I have a son at college 200 miles away. He too mentions that there are a lot of skeptical bloggers (students and faculty) where he is. It is a rather small private college so I can’t be certain that it is a trend (but I am hopeful!)
10
LMFAO have to share this too from drumline.
My response?
Great effort michaelw, how you peddle power your computer whilst typing away. because if your computer was plugged into the wall socket, powering up via coal burning power generators, you’d have to take out a class action against yourself.
p.s. careful with them there candles m8, they cause house fires.
10
@ Mark D #67.
Skepticism is certainly trendy amongst students, particularly when it comes to anything their parents tell them.
Where indoctrination of children becomes so insidious though, is when it leads them to assume a moral authority over their parents.
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie had a very powerful & emotive message and was being deliberately targeted at impressionable children.
It’s a very effective way of imposing your message on society.
10
Joe you are absolutely right. I have 3 sons ages 21 to 14 they are all very conservative (USA style). My youngest has been battling with this AGW for two or three years (yes the first time was when he was 11). He has argued with both teachers and classmates. He had one experience with a crying girl in his class where she was CONVINCED that the world will end in 20 years unless Co2 increase was stopped.
It is chilling to me just how calculating the forces behind this have been. Are they using children to advance their world view? NO DOUBT!
IMO this is tantamount to child abuse (psychological trauma). (and charges should be leveled accordingly). There is no reason an 11 year old child should be fearing the end of the world by the time they get to age 31.
My youngest says he wants to go into politics. I pity the other side if he ever gets elected 🙂
10
@ Mark D. #70:-
For any school pupil to feel the need to argue against nonsense being taught by their teachers, let alone one so young, is truly disgraceful.
Where do they get their education from, to protect them from such nonsense, if not at school ?
Even AGW proponents were horrified by the Government’s use of a CO2 Monster and a Drowning Dog at Bedtime story, over in England.
ASA to probe drowning dog climate ad.
and now their Communications Regulator, OfCom, has been forced to open an investigation, into such cynical abuse of the broadcast media.
Ofcom … too late to save Drowning Dog.
Apparently they do have some laws against such things, which have already been used to rein in some of the the worst excesses of AGW – (Al Gore’s Warm-mongering) 🙂
British Court: Gore Film ‘Political’.
10
JM #64 etc
It is definitely true that Monckton misused the term ‘cloud forcing’
There are two types of cloud forcing at the SURFACE (bottom of atmosphere = BOA; noting cloud forcing can be defined at top of atmosphere = TOA also):
(1) There is a negative BOA forcing (anti-Greenhouse) which is the SW cloud forcing caused by increasing cloud cover. That is the surface (downward) SW flux (insolation) is reduced by increasing cloud (because Bond albedo increases with increasing cloud cover). This forcing is typically in the range -0.8 – -1.0 W/m^/&. The ‘%’ refers to % cloud cover.
(2) There is a positive BOA forcing (pro-Greenhouse) which is the LW cloud forcing caused by increasing cloud cover. That is the surface (downward) LW flux radiated off the bottoms of clouds is increased by increasing cloud. This forcing is typically in the range +0.5 – +0.7 W/m^2/%. Again the ‘%’ refers to % cloud cover.
(3) Thus, overall the forcing effect of clouds is negative (anti-Greenhouse) by a factor of (say) -0.9 + 0.6 ~ -0.3 W/m^/% cloud.
This is illustrated in the two right hand columms in my spreadsheet (post #20) where the negative (SW) cloud forcing over all albedos is seen to be estimated at 0.854±0.002 W/m^/% and the positive (LW) cloud forcing is seen to be estimated at +0.563±0.018 W/m^/%. Thus the net (negative) forcing of clouds is estimated in my little spreadsheet to be -0.289±0.018 W/m^/% – say 0.29±0.02 W/m^/% i.e. the consensus ~-0.3 W/m^2/% cloud.
Obviously this exercise lumps all types of clouds together. The same exercise can be conducted for low, intermediate and high altitude clouds in which case it is essentially only the low level cloud (cumulus) which have a strong net negative cloud forcing.
Having said all this I don’t see much of an issue with Tim Lambert picking up and making much of on Monckton’s error (with the support of Ms Pinker). As Jo said it was only a fairly trivial debating device. Overall, Lambert is just another AGW lay fanatic demonstrably less across the overall body of climate science than Monckton.
10
@ Grant #1:
Well here is one very hurt AGW proponent who has had his Damascus road experience,
George Monbiot of the UK Guardian
with a piece almost worthy of Lord Monckton himself [Gasp] ! – whom he must always have secretly admired, despite his years of ad hom vitriolic invective & ridicule against the good Lord in particular, as marked by his
Denier Cards
Such true believers must be very hurt when they realise they’ve just been used.
10
Some of you people are much braver than me. I’ve just browsed the comments on the Moran piece on ABC’s the drum. Just reading them and I could feel the daggers in the back and the poisoned chalices forced down the throats of any dissenter, they really are a hostile lot.
10
Bob/Baa humbug,
Yeah, they’re a pretty rabid lot over at the abc blog. They must be getting tired of fighting after a week and a half.
And Jo hasn’t even posted anything yet – GO JO GO JO….
I quite like this little parry:
Me: Lotharsson said “The core science is pretty settled” Stop cracking jokes, my lungs hurt…..
Paul Maul: Stop smoking asbestos cigarettes then….
Me: I just love the taste of asbestos in the morning, don’t you? Yummy…
10
Just for everyone’s edification this poster “Big Ted” TROLLS Andrew Bolt’s Blog also.
Must be very busy lately!
10
@ Baa Humbug
Dude,
ABC Drumline! Huevos grande, amigo!
I just took a quick look at Deltoids link that Jo provided. It was disgusting. Very little comment on the science and a lot of ad hominem attacks, especially on Jo. I think we should form an international rapid response team to go in and inundate sites like deltoids with a coordinated campaign. We have posters on this site that are real intellectual heavyweights and they are scattered across various continents and time zones. When Marc Morano posted a link to a mother jones article on the anti AGW opinions of John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods (alias whole paycheck) a lot of Climatedepot readers went to the site and the regulars didn’t know what hit them. They were stunned and most of them just faded away. There was one troll that was a real piece of work. It took me three days to finally hammer the guy into submission but he finally surrendered and actually thanked me for relenting. I’ve noticed on another blog that he is back but another blogger, an Aussie who goes by hartlod, had already hammered the troll so I moved on.
I am serious. Now that that AGW scammers are back on their heels lets go on the offensive!
10
MattB:
When your argument is reduced to obfuscation, semantics, nitpicking and finally lying by omission you really should stop digging.
10
Eddy,
You have a point, and yes, I agree we need an offensive – it is nothing they wouldn’t do or haven’t done, but surely it would be best to conduct those offensives at the ABC? If we hit the hard cores at the other blogs, they might just return in kind which would frustrate the science based discussions.
Then again, I understand we have 24*7 Mods now…
BTW: I do hope Jo’s ABC posting isn’t on Firday, I am going to be too busy to be able to slap around the sloppy ones.
10
MattB: refer to Alan S Post 76.
10
Joe Veragio: #73
George Monbiot wrote that ????? Good grief, things are on the up. The Guardian even seems to have agreed to stop using the perjorative “denier” according to Anthony Watts’ latest post.
10
SUBJECT: GLOBAL WARMING BRAINWASHING
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_wednesday_march_3/P40/
The Australian Psychological Society (APS) is apparently perpetuating the global warming myth, directing readers to Al Gore and Tim Flannery for authorative information (links provided), offering tips on how to indoctrinate children with warming mythology and even psychoanalyzing skeptics. The diagnosis of the APS is that denialism is a common reaction to global warming;
“Sometimes, if the information is too unsettling and the solutions seem too difficult, people can cope by minimising or denying that there is a problem, or avoiding thinking about the problems.
Being sceptical about the problems is another way that people may react. The caution expressed by climate change sceptics could be a form of denial, where it involves minimising the weight of scientific evidence/consensus on the subject. Or it could indicate that they perceive the risks of change to be greater than the risks of not changing, for themselves or their interests.”
I wonder if climate change skeptics need to be medicated or whether long-term psychological treatment is sufficient to cure an enquiring mind?
Rather than maintaining an objective and apolitical stance, as you might expect from a group of psychologists, the APS is in overdrive to promote its view of climate change, at the expense of objectivity and reason. As a mental health professional and skeptic, it is dissapointing to say the least.
10
@ Madjak
We have seen coordinated smears on this blog by AGW kamikazis. We would need to avoid the ad hominems and the juvenile tactics they employ but if we take the fight to them it will keep them busy and on the defensive. If we do not then they will continue to attack sites like this and it will get worse. They are desperate and have no qualms of conscience when it comes to their religion. When the light of truth shines upon them they run for cover just like cockroaches. The good news is that they are easier to destroy. Bullies, when cornered and forced to fight fair and square usually soil their shorts in fear.
I am serious about this!
10
Eddy,
I agree. Count me in. On the latest moderate blog posting on the abc the eugenics movement have some in – just when it looked like there might be some common ground.. Not a big movement there though, today.
One thing I think we can count on is that if we propose something initially, with a view to defending it, they will invariably disagree with it straight away and then end up getting themselves in a tangle.
BTW: “AGW Kamakazis” – fantastic.
10
Hahahahahahahah Lambert is the victim again. He must have always been the victim even in childhood. He’s just a pathetic bum.
10
ANGRY: #76#:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Well does our Tim (Lambert) ever post under his own name ?
– ‘Bus Ted’ or what ?
10
Eddie @ #77 & #83 & Madjak @ #79 & @ #84
I know it’s only fun, but you’re beginning to sound like the Climategate E-mails.
Could picking on soft targets like at the ABC, easily be mis-construed as bullying ?
10
Joe,
My take on the people over at the ABC blogs is that they’re more dangerous than they know and in a way they’re too naive to realize.
Right now they’re rabbiting on about how the worlds population will drop down to 2 billion people by the end of the century due to starvation after the locusts.
My fear is that someone of a delicate mind will read those comments without seeing a counterbalancing argument and do something stupid as a result.
10
to see all those greenies at the Drum supporting nuclear power only goes to show that the AGW scare campaign has worked.
10
Alan S in 78… is that your standard reply when you’ve got nothing to add to the the discussion? That is the ultimate in non-debating style – bluster and avoidance.
And Louis in #80 I’d have expected better than you. I assume this also means you cannot logically defend Jo’s claim that Monckton uses a grey-body earth, when in fact he says emissivity = 1 as it doesn’t make much difference…
If anyone has a science based response to post #61 feel free to post it. Until such a time I’ll take it as a given that the following paragraph from Jo is demonstrably false:
“Lambert makes a last ditch effort at the end to “talk science” when he claims that Monckton can’t use Stefan Boltzman equations on the Earth because it’s not a black body. But, it’s very well known that all you need to do is include emissivity, and Stefan Boltzman applies to gray bodies just fine, which of course, is what Monckton has done (see Eq 18 on page 13). It’s another non-point dressed to kill.”
10
janama,
yep, of course, i never needed a scare campaign to convince me that nuclear was the most efficent means of producing energy.
10
Janama can you provide some sort of explanation how you could come to the conclusion that “to see all those greenies at the Drum supporting nuclear power only goes to show that the AGW scare campaign has worked.”
I’m a greenie who supports nuclear power. Are you saying you oppose nuclear power? on what grounds?
10
You have a point MadJak @ # 88.
Do do you really imagine such delicate souls will be ploughing through these comments ‘though ?
It’s the content of the main article you have to worry about them seeing and your comments on that are still going get lost in the comment soup. Me thinks you enjoy this rather much.
10
MattB your guilt is showing again. Tone down some or I’ll have to suggest you take your Diazepam.
If anyone else has noticed that Mattb has gotten more >^&%$##>?>-hole since this thread started?
Eddy, I am with you on the idea. Can we communicate freely? (I have an idea)
10
MadJak I include you too!
10
Mark D… Pardon?
10
Hi Eddy and fellow coolios
I’ve been doing my bit at the ABC (even tried at Deltoid but they refuse to answer my question)
Co-ordination will be difficult. But all we need to do is each of us spend as much time as possible replying to the (often) stupid claims by the alarmists. Speedy has been doing it and so has madjack.
I found the hardest thing to do is to not get sarcastic, I say it’s hard coz some of the claims are just so so old outlandish “we’re rooned” type of comments.
There are a few who get into the science, but it’s the usual links to realclimate etc.
I’m waiting for Jos article. I reckon Drumline will set a record for comments. Will hit 1000+ for sure.
We could invite some of the alarmists back to here where debate is real time.
In the mean time, keep hitting them with “show me the proof”
10
MattB in #90 said –
10
I do believe that others here would consider your argument in #98 to be logically flawed o/s insider.
10
So I’m assuming you are going to refuse AGAIN to provide your evidence and argue insignificant issues??
10
Lord Mockton said
“Since the Earth/troposphere system is a black body with respect to the infra-red radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1, giving the blackbody form of Eqn. (19) – κ = dT / dF = (4 σ T3)–1 °K W–1 m2. (21)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
4.3 Temperature of the Earth
“The Earth in fact radiates almost as a perfect black body in the infrared…..”
Uhm seems Monckton is correct again and MattB is clutching at straws again.
10
Steve B, What’s new??? You expect too much.
Sorry, I shouldn’t use personal attacks, but when he is asked repeatedly to provide CAGW evidence, he runs off at the mouth about semantics etc.
10
MattB that is!!
10
Steve B I’ll have to correct you – I’ve clearly simply asked for clarification on the matter. If you read my 1st post way up in the 30s I state clearly:
“Now I don’t know if it is or is not ok to treat emissivity as 1 in this case. But It seems strange that you would harass Lambert for assuming Monckton used emissivity = 1, by linking to equation 18 that introduces the grey-body version of SB, when this is them dismissed by equation 20 and Monckton returns to the blackbody situation”
The point is that Jo defended Monckton against the claim that he used a black body. If he did use a black body (which he did) and it was appropriate, then Jo’s response to Lambert should have been “of course he did, the earth acts as a BB in the infra red.”
10
Also – a more expanded quote from wikipedia (which I’m glad to see is more and more accepted round these parts each day) is:
“This is the temperature that the Earth would be at if it radiated as a perfect black body in the infrared, ignoring greenhouse effects, and assuming an unchanging albedo. The Earth in fact radiates almost as a perfect black body in the infrared which will raise the estimated temperature a few degrees above the effective temperature.”
so “almost” still is a few degrees different than “black body”.
Now Lambert clearly thinks this IS an issue. Jo does to which is why she was keep to highlight Eq18 which uses emissivity. Monckton claims it doesn’t matter. Well does it?
10
Overseas insider since you claim to read this blog a bit you should be aware that my position is that I find the IPCC’s and mainstream climate science’s “evidence” to be sound. I know of no other evidence, and Jo dismisses that evidence. I have nothing to bring to the table that is not in the realms of mainstream peer-reviewed science, and I disagree with Jo’s assessment. If you too dismiss the evidence then bully to you, but could I ask what merit it would have if I trotted out scientific “evidence” that you’ve already dismissed? Over and over again?
So once we’ve moved on from that point, you seem to imply that I should not be able to highlight inconsistency and contradiction when I see it published on this site. My question is above is good because either Monckton is right and Jo and Lambert are wrong, or Lambert and Jo are right and Monckton is wrong, as Lambert and Jo clearly think it is important not to treat the earth as a black body.
I’ve asked the same at Deltoid. If you guys all think it is ok to treat the earth as a black body then I suggest you head to Deltoid and argue your case.
10
MattB
Then you should also be aware that there is no such thing as a perfect black body and that “almost” is close enough to use the equations as if they were a black body. In that case everything including Earth is a grey body so Jo is also correct.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
That is the ultimate in non-debating style – bluster and avoidance.
WOW!!! I am stunned! MattB, the Artful Dodger, Mr. Segue asking for proof?
“I assume this also means you cannot logically…”
Did you use the “L” word?
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I do believe that others here would consider your argument in #98 to be logically flawed o/s insider.
You again used the “L” word? That is amazing! However, “believing that other would consider an argument to be logically flawed” is fallacious as you gave no reason to substantiate your claim (Argumentum ad populum, Straw Man)
Have you actually clicked on the links I gave you on logic and rhetoric! Well, thats what I am hoping for!
Matt, I have seen you make, on occasion, intelligent and cogent statements. Unfortunately, when painted in a corner your normal modus operandi is to evade and avoid citing any evidence whatsoever to bolster almost any claim or argument you have ever made. I could cite numerous examples but I am sure there has to be some size limit to a post. I hope you have turned over a new leaf because it would wound me deeply to have to think of you as a consummate hypocrite.
Well, at least you haven’t quoted wikipedia to bolster an AGW argument today, right?
10
In fact if yuo were to read my post at Deltoid you would see I post:
“Do you or anybody have any comment about the validity of treating emissivity as 1 – I note Monckton provides nothing to back up his claim that using 1 “will not introduce any significant error”.”
To me that is important – Lambert should be able to explain why he thinks treating the earth as a black body is a problem in this instance, since he made the initial comment.
Lastly SteveB can you explain why I “Should also be aware that there is no such thing as a perfect black body and that “almost” is close enough to use the equations as if they were a black body.”
just who says almost is good enough? I’d rather be alive than almost alive that is for sure.
10
Morning All
Had a look at the ABC “Drum” at lunchtime. Sweet Lord, it’s ugly there! Generally inhabited by a breed of Warmist punter who is only interested in getting as much venom onto paper as possible. These guys seriously need to put their analyst on danger money! Anyone who posts there (e.g. Madjak & Jamama) should be getting double pay from Exxon this week. (Oops – I wasn’t supposed to mention that was I?)
By comparison, MattB, you’re the sweet voice of manners and reason…
Joanne – Good luck for Friday.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
No Eddy but I have Steve B quoting wikipedia at me.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
If you too dismiss the evidence then bully to you, but could I ask what merit it would have if I trotted out scientific “evidence” that you’ve already dismissed? Over and over again?
Gee wiz, Matt, I dunno, but it sure would be a calendar marking event if you ever did “trot” out some evidence! Oh ya, thats right , I almost forgot that you say you need to get paid to do so. Would you like me to cut and paste the example I am talking about, Matt?
10
Eddy A: /snip/
10
Matt, you could call him on using wikipedia if you had read and bookmarked the links I gave you! But, oh well!
10
Where is Mr. Krueger? Now would be a convenient time for him to drop by!
10
Mark D #94
I don’t think MattB deserves those remarks. He is not a troll, he is almost always polite and reasonable, sometimes shows his sense of humour and generally seems like a nice guy. If he didn’t join in the discussions, you would only have the dull trolls to argue with, and they get flattened here pretty fast and don’t often come back. Let’s give MattB credit for his convictions and determination, and hope he keeps coming back.
Baa Humbug, MadJak and Speedy: great job over at the ABC. I dipped my paws in a couple of times, but I don’t like the venom and bile and it’s hard for a bunny to take on a pack of rabid dogs.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
No Eddy but I have Steve B quoting wikipedia at me.
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Also – a more expanded quote from wikipedia (which I’m glad to see is more and more accepted round these parts each day) is:
I thought you were getting your sleep?
10
And Eddy, both you know and I know that OSInsider’s post in 98 is a logical fallacy. Instead of giving a science based response he dismisses my right to request one based on what he considers to be my track record on debate here.
10
Eddy in 117 – I merely quoted a sentence or two around Steve’s wiki reference. I’m not relying in wiki, just showing that the quote he used is harvested out of context.
10
Eddy the only evidence you have that I don’t read your links is that they have not changed my mind? Do you really think your links are that game changing that any warmist who reads them will convert? 😉
10
@ Mark D. 94
I share your pain but please try and be nice to MattB. Without Matt it would be a lot more boring around here.
Bunny, I do not think MattB is a troll, either. He is just a guy that hangs out and rarely, if ever, responds with citations or evidence when he is asked to produce it. Based on his responses to some of my queries I think it is highly unlikely that he views or considers anything from a link that I take my valuable time to provide to him. He did write once that he would start to do so but I have yet to see any evidence of it. Still, i am hoping Matt will get beyond his standing appeal to the authority of the IPCC.
10
It is not a standing appeal to the IPCC, it is a standing appeal to my assessment of the science. But simply it is true that I don’t know of any secret science that the climate scientists, or Jo for that matter, have not considered. I do not have a backlog of unpublished climate papers that scientists send me to read instead of publishing in journals.
10
Bunny @ 116
It’s definitely not nice there – one can only speculate what their world is like from the inside. There’s an old quote – “We don’t see the world the way it is, we see it as the way we are.” In which case they have a lot of serious issues.
Jo posted an article about a month ago about the degree of bullying and plain poor manners that get into the “debate” and how this is a real turn off for the ladies.
Most of the time, I try to get by with a thick skin and a general sympathy for the poor sods.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Speedy I replied to one of your ABC posts fyi:) I had a read all seems pretty above board to me. it is just what blogs are like. If you can’t stand the heat…
10
Also guys, since you are hanging at The Drum today, do take the time to check out Barry Brook’s excellent contribution. Slices through the mire to the core of the energy debate… we should all be focussing all this energy on the future of energy, rather than worrying about argy bargy over climate science.
10
Ok,
Some humour for the troopers back from the front lines…
http://failfun.com/funny-pictures/demotivational-global-warming/
http://www.motifake.com/global-warming-global-warming-demotivational-poster-75130.html
So yesterday their mantra was we’re all tobacco shills, today it was there’s too many people. Any bets on what tomorrows take will be?
10
MattB@125,
Unfortunately, some members of the other team seemed to be against nuclear power and also, incidentally, against humans having kids too…
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Eddy the only evidence you have that I don’t read your links is that they have not changed my mind? Do you really think your links are that game changing that any warmist who reads them will convert?
Matt, when you stick your foot in your mouth do you at least take your shoe off first?
MattB:
February 15th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Maybe I misjudged you so I indeed will read your links…
10
MattB
Do your own research. Google “Black Bodies” and “Black Body radiation”.
I am not wasting my time on a person who won’t look things up themselves.
10
Jo, I SO want you to read this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece
I think you will find he part that I am on about 😉
10
Eddy that was 2 whole weeks ago!
Steve – ahh easy way out? ahh well.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
It is not a standing appeal to the IPCC, it is a standing appeal to my assessment of the science.
Does this mean you are going to start responding with empirical evidence from the “science” you have assessed or will you continue to evade and segue? If you have a reason for believing in anthropogenic global warming thats fine. If the evidence is there to support your claim start citing it.
BTW, do you put both feet in your mouth at the same time?
MattB:
February 11th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
“I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer…”
Unsolicited advice: never use the word “bet.”
10
Now you are confusing state changes with variable changes.
Don’t compare apples with oranges.
10
No, you are a lazy arguer. You want the easy way out. I have dealt with people like you for years. To lazy to do their own research but willing to believe anybody whose ideas sound good and then criticize those who have a different viewpoint without any sound knowledge of your own.
You want people like me to do your research. Uhuh won’t wash.
10
Well I happen to like cruising around at The Drum (am I a troll?)
It gets a bit repetitious though, “show me the proof, show me the proof” etc
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Eddy that was 2 whole weeks ago!
Gee wiz, Matt, maybe you should think of what you have previously posted before you hit the “submit comment” button? You remind me of Homer Simpson trying to remember how to shut down the reactor before it goes critical mass. If only Homer could remember! Sigh!
10
Steve imagine if every time someone asked me for evidence I said “do your own research” lol.
10
No Eddy I mean that since two weeks I now read all your links religiously.
10
Dear Mr. Humbug
That’s how it is though – they’re the ones wanting to dismantle society and take society to their idea of a green utopia – so they’re the ones that have to put up the proof. It’s not up to us to prove AGW DOESN’T exist – it’s up to them to prove that it DOES.
Along the way, I like to throw in a few points that falsify the theory but they generally fall on deaf ears. We live in hope.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Now indulge my use of wiki a bit further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
“The average emissivity of the earth is readily estimated from available data. The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99[5][6] (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7). Clouds, however, which cover about half of the earth’s surface, have an average emissivity of about 0.5[7] (which must be reduced by the fourth power of the ratio of cloud absolute temperature to average earth absolute temperature) and an average cloud temperature of about 258 K (−15 °C; 5 °F).[8] Taking all this properly into account results in an effective earth emissivity of about 0.64 (earth average temperature 285 K (12 °C; 53 °F)).”
So there emissivity of the earth is taken as 0.64. This simple research leads me to believe that Monckton thinks you can approximate emissivity as 1 because the emissivity of terrestrial surfaces is 0.96 – 0.99. However clouds only have an emissivity of 0.5, and they cover half the planet at any given time.
Thanks for suggesting I do my research guys… not I’m fairly confident that you can;t use emissivity = 1, and that monckton is wrong.
referring to Monkton’s paper k should equal 0.2884, where he gets 0.185 in his equation 21.
10
Thats because we have gone looking for it and it can’t be found.
Black Body radiation theory has been around since 1905 and has stood up to scientific and mathematical rigor. Hence you look up why grey bodies are considered black bodies.
10
Hey Dirty Eddy, remind me never to get on your wrong side. You pull out old MattB quotes faster than Wyatt Earp of OK Corral fame.
10
Unfortunately that applies to all radiation. The Monckton quote specifies infra red radiation.
“In regards to infra red…..”
And what I showed before was “In regards to infra red…”
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Eddy that was 2 whole weeks ago!
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
No Eddy I mean that since two weeks I now read all your links religiously.
From ‘How The Grinch Stole Christmas” 1966
“But do you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick, that he thought up a lie and he thought it up quick.”
10
Yes Steve, but the planet does not only receive infra red radiation from the sun, does it? If it did I wouldn’t be able to see anything? it may well be a black body to infra red, but I’m not convinced that is relevant.
10
Here is a helpful reply I got at Deltoid. Monckton calculates at ground level with emissivity 1, and then uses SB to convert that to “top of the atmosphere” – which ignores the atmosphere… ie clouds et al.
“Monckton writes:
I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows.
Which is wrong as stated by Pinker, explained by Wild and cited by Lambert (i.e. wrong becasue of atmospheric effects).
Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, etc., etc.
Monckton continued:
However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculates raditaion as a function of temperature of a body. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not correct Monckton’s error in equating the Surface radition with radiation at the Top Of Atmosphere. It does not addresss the atmospheric effects described by Wild.”
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Now indulge my use of wiki a bit further:
Dude, read those links I gave you about how biased Wikipedia is. They even have a website dedicated to it http://wikipediabias.com/
Gee, were the other links more than two weeks old?
10
Sorry some quotes did not carry though there:
Monckton writes:
“I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows.”
Which is wrong as stated by Pinker, explained by Wild and cited by Lambert (i.e. wrong becasue of atmospheric effects).
Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, etc., etc.
Monckton continued:
“However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover.”
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculates radiation as a function of temperature of a body. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not correct Monckton’s error in equating the Surface radiation with radiation at the Top Of Atmosphere. It does not address the atmospheric effects described by Wild.”
10
Eddy I’m going to use wiki sorry. You will need to refute that particular wiki entry if you want – but it is just a basic summary of a non-controversial science area.
I love that you think wikipedia is biased, but wikipediabias.com is even handed:)
10
Lionell @39
yes, that long ago you wrote:
The not-so-obvious problem is that the factors that you might think important are included in the approximation; when they may be insignificant. You scale up the factor until it approximates the the real world, but dominates the solution. Oh dear … we have sudden, catastrophic, positive feedback in climate models.
What would otherwise fall below the noise threshold of measurement, is digitally enhanced (aka sleight of hand to produce the desirable result) to be a dominant factor.
You may be able to get enticingly-close in a climate model, but the longer the period of forward projection the less likely the particular projected outcome. In effect, the degree of uncertainty quickly grows to such an extent that the model becomes useless; even positively dangerous to use.
So how can we build a working climate model?
Not at all. The processes and boundary conditions will always be partially unknown. One can only model a deterministic system.
The scale of attempting to model climate must not be under-estimated. I’m not talking about statistical models where one fits a curve and then hedges on the projection of a curve. I’m talking about taking a snapshot of the state of the known climate system, then project each of the known variables forward (non-linearly as observable in nature) to the desired point in time, incorporating any coupling effects between the variables.
Seems like a lot of effort for a result drowning in error bars.
It’s far less wasteful to invest in the ability to adapt to changing climate. We know it’s going to change, naturally.
10
Also Eddy – excuse me for asking – but do you actually have any useful science to bring to the table here? Or are you just blustering and bullying using irrelevant sidetrackerry to avoid the issue?
147, 144, 136, 132, 128, 121, 117, 115, 114, 112, 108, 83, 77, 49, 47, 45 and 43!!!!
Wow that is a whole lot of posting without once addressing even vaguely the essence of the thread, or the science I raise, simply you playing the man (me). I’d never actually realised that underneath all your bluster and hand waving that you have… precisely… nothing… to contribute to the debate Eddy:)
10
MadJak @126
Big Carbon perhaps. I’ve already declared that I get nothing from them; except bills.
OTOH, they may be licking wounds from Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise (At The Register).
Telling quote from the article:
Yes; they defined “peer review”. Perhaps as being a spelling check. 😉
10
Matt,
if you would have read the links I provided to you, you would have seen that it was a scandal requiring the termination of an editor. If you want to use them for anything after they have been so discredited that is your choice. Then again, you often cite the IPCC even though their scientific integrity has been thoroughly impeached.
It is interesting how fast you replied. Let me guess, you hit the “submit comment” button without even reading the link?
Good night, all!
10
In that case, use wikipideabiasbias.com, then log onto wikipideabiasbiasbias.com, then log onto……..
10
you referred me to wikibias earlier Eddy. Or do I have to read your links every time you provide them?
10
Eddy Aruda:
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
MattB:
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I’m going to link to this article SB page every time Eddy, Louis or Lionell have a go at me for citing wikipedia.
Gentle poster MattB
I have stayed out of this discussion until you brought me into it. I do not know much about the guy so I do not have anything to add to the debate.
Gee wiz, Matt! And that wasn’t even two days ago, let alone two weeks ago! You appear to have a memory problem!
You brought me into it and you got your ass handed to you, again!
10
MattB,
Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you…. What gets me is that you blindly accept what International Panel of Climate Cheats say WITHOUT vetting them yourself. Yet, you won’t admit that ANY evidence AGAINST CAGW has any merit. I took the time to do my own research, to check the evidence, to do the B***s**t test and see which side the actual EVIDENCE pointed to. As an intelligent western adult, I’ve learned not to trust what the global media tries to feed me without checking for myself. I would expect other intelligent people to either do the same. I’m sorry if this is beyond you….
10
Scratch the “either” above!!
LOL
10
Getting back on topic….
Let’s assume Monckton got it completely wrong on this whole subject.
It still doesn’t change the fact that CAGW is a crock with foundations of sand!!
10
Dear Mr. Humbug
Back at 97 you noted that the hard part is not getting sarcastic at the ABC Drum – agreed. But getting nasty and abusive serves no purpose – firstly because we have to assume these are simple misguided souls who are capable of redemption – otherwise we might as well ignore them eh? And the second is that even if we put together the clearest, most undeniable (pardon the expression) and logical argument possible – then call someone a stupid jerk, the only part they’ll remember is the stupid jerk bit, and they won’t remember it fondly!
Easier said than done, especially when there’s some people who obviously didn’t do very well at charm school.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Guys, sorry I’m not able to answer questions immediately. I thought Mattb’s initial question #37 was a good point and worth following up. It seems researchers on both sides of the fence, consider it reasonable to estimate that the emissivity is close enough to 1 not to make much difference (including Keihl and Trenberth (1997, 2008)). I can make the paragraph above more accurate and informative in the post (so I will update it). Thanks Matt.
Monckton writes:
When calculating at the surface, one uses the SB equation, but this will not give you climate sensitivity: it will give you temperature change. We are dealing with long-wave outgoing radiation (by Wien’s displacement law, any incoming radiation that is not reflected harmlessly back to space is displaced to the near-infrared long-wave). The Earth is a blackbody, or very nearly so, with respect to long-wave radiation: hence, as Kiehl & Trenberth (1997, 2008) do, I take emissivity as 1, for no great error will thus arise. One might take 0.96, to be more precise, but that is not particularly helpful to the warmist argument. – Christopher
10
Mattb – as an extra note, I know you accept the processes of the IPCC – but you do realize don’t you, that we’ve read their report searching for any empirical evidence. We’ve asked them, and the only evidence in support of their theory are climate model calculations. A calculation is never empirical, but if the models were making accurate predictions I might accept them as something worth taking action over. But the missing hot spot, Lindzen and Choi 2009, Spencer 2007 & 2008, Pinker 2005, and others suggest the models exaggerate carbons effect (through feedback) by around 6 or 7 fold. Not to mention that there is little correlation with carbon and temperature in a causative way over the last 500,000 years.
Do you not consider it possible that if political forces (ie: who know who) paid scientists to find a crisis, but left it up to unpaid volunteers to find something other than a crisis, that possibly the IPCC process might be stacked with many paid supported scientists who simply had never been pulled up and held to account because there was no paid opposition? Sure the truth will come out in the end, but is it hard to believe that billions of dollars could skew the output of papers for a decade or two before competition from unpaid unsupported researchers finally exposed the exaggerations, false assumptions and miscalculations?
PS: I think my ABC article (on the one sided funding of climate research) will be appearing tonight. I will try to copy here as I suspect that the references I sent in late this afternoon won’t be included. No doubt, even if the refs are included they will be attacked. But that’s really is my point, there is plenty to debate and discuss, and the one-sided Wall of Money (combined with the bullying) means that a rational unbiased discussion is almost non-existent. Commenters pop up talking about “glaciers” and “cyclones” without realizing that they are mixing up cause and effect and none of those things tell us about whether carbon caused the warming. Then those same illogical commenters just pronounce so and so (a professor at MIT say) is completely wrong (though they can’t explain why)… the arrogance makes a discussion mindless.
10
Jo thanks for that. I genuinely, sincerely and in a non-troll like manner, however, think that Monckton is misusing the near-blackbody properties of the earth’s surface, and then using that for the earth as a whole, which does not account for clouds etc.
He refers to Kiehl & Trenberth 1997. Here is a link to the abstract: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html which has quite a well respected diagram.
Look at the diagram. 342 W/m2 SW coming in. 107 reflected SW. 235 LW emitted. Emissivity = 235/342 = 0.68. very close to the 0.64 I refer to above.
You can also easily look at the figure and see that there is 324W/m2 of IR back-radiation all of which is absorbed (ie emissivity of 1 = blackbody) and then re-emitted as IR…
Can you see from that simple diagram that emissivity of 1 applies only to LW radiation incident at the surface of the earth, and NOT to the whole spectrum of solar energy that arrives “at the top of the atmosphere”.
To quote overseasinsider “Let’s assume Monckton got it completely wrong on this whole subject.
It still doesn’t change the fact that CAGW is a crock with foundations of sand!!”
I’m certainly not saying that this emissivity issue is a fatal flaw in the skeptical argument… just that I think Monckton has it wrong.
10
Yes Jo – I do believe that it is within the realms of what could be possible for political forces to construct such a thing as AGW.
Pinker 2005? Surely she’d have mentioned that to lambert;)
I also choose to accept the rebuttal of L&C 2009.
And you know I don’t have that evidence that will satisfy you Jo… my thoughts are that maybe more $$ should have been spent looking for it rather than solutions to it and evidence of just general warming. Even the IPCC says only 90% chance doesn’t it? I think it is a good point you make – and why I don;t get baited by people who ask me for the evidence. I really am comfortable with the general position that it is greenhouse gases and it would be wise to act, despite the lack of “evidence” of the kind that would appease skeptics. I can imagine that is a very frustrating position for some to come to terms with and accusations of anti-science whatever get bandied about… but it is just where I am at with the whole thing.
But I do refuse to be told by another poster that I can’t debate an honest point of science unrelated to the “evidence” issue simply because that “evidence” issue exists:)
10
Seriously though Jo, I honestly believe that a well written and researched article on this “evidence” issue would be worth writing by a top tier team of skeptical scientists and submitted to a serious journal. Without sounding naive, I can’t imagine it would not get published and attract some interesting peer review along the way.
Start at the top and work your way down… my advice is avoid E&E as they will publish it even if you are wrong, and even if you are nto it will be ignored/dismissed.
Successful publication would not debunk AGW, but it would certainly highlight some areas that need more work, and more funding;)
10
Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s global energy budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, No. 3, 311-324, which is much more up to date that Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997, states that the mean LW IR emission of the Earth’s surface is close to 396.0 W/m^2 although there is some discussion that it could be 396.4 W/m^2. For an emissivity of 1.0000 this gives temperatures of 289.08 or 289.15 K respectively i.e. 15.93 or 16.00 C.
It is generally believed that the actual mean global surface temperature is closer to about 15 C i.e. ~288.15 K. Thus the mean emissivity would be closer to 0.996, not the 0.96 quoted by Monckton.
There is a sort of convention in climate science that the Earths surface and effective emissivities (plural -they being two distinctly diffent things) are arbitrarily set to 1.0000 but it is just that, a working convention to help make the overall math simple (it being complex enough).
This is not a point to quibble about nor to make juvenile brownie points off. Lambert is simply a twit. It is a trivial issue and any genuine climate scientist would regard all this ‘argy bargy’ (Thanks Kev) about the value of ‘the emissivity’ as completely silly.
And that MattB is all there is to it – your comment about “that emissivity of 1 applies only to LW radiation incident at the surface of the earth, and NOT to the whole spectrum of solar energy that arrives “at the top of the atmosphere” is so silly I nearly fell out of my chair.
The SW solar energy is incoming, not outgoing, thus the only emissivity of any body involved in that is the emissivity of the Sun! Emission from the sun corresponds approximately to a blackbody with a 6000 K surface temperature for reasons that are not relevant. Not thinking about studies of nocturnal emissions by any chance?
So – in the immortal words of my dearly departed Mom – enough already! Emissivity, schlemielissivity.
10
Speedy:
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Please call me Baa. My dad was Mr Humbug
I don’t believe I’ve been nasty and abusive. Have I?
Sarcastic. Yes. Taking the P. Lightly
I’ve by now posted dozens at the Drum. most have been references to papers and others have been replies to other posters asking them to show me the evidence etc
The two who I’ve tangled with the most have been Lotharson and MichaeW. I can assure you I have been much more civil than they.
10
Friends:
This matter is a distraction. It is a trivial addendum to the real debate. So, I interpose in hope of lowering the heat in this issue so there can be some meeting of minds.
I think Overseasinsider (at #159) and Matt B (at #163) each has a good point when they write, respectively:
and
The two ‘sides’ in this debate are each supporting one of two altrnative views; viz.
Either,
Monckton is correct because he is using an approximation that does not significantly affect the accuracy of his calculation.
(I think this is correct for the reasons Jo states at #161)
OR
Monckton is wrong because he was calculating that the IPCC calculation was inaccurate but he failed to state an approximation in his calculation and, therefore, his analyis lacked full scientific rigour.
(I think this is correct, too, so – in my opinion – Matt B is right about this).
But these are not really alternatives. They can both be true, and I think they both are true.
Or to use the words that Jo used in her above article.
Indeed, in her article, Jo also says quotes Pinker as saying;
I understand this to be Pinker stating that she – like me – thinks both the apparent alternatives are true.
Threfore, as Jo’s article says, Lambert is ‘knit-picking’ when he elevates this issue to a level that warrants debate. And, assuming his elevation of this trivial matter is sincere. So, as Jo’s article also says, Lambert is a victim of his own spin if he thinks elevation of such a trivial point to a level of debate.
Can we stop wasting time on this ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion and return to discussion of serious matters, please?
Richard
10
Matt B:
At #165 you again make daft statements when you say;
Funny how the Climategate emails reveal how much time and effort the self-titled Team spent trying to discredit E&E if they “ignored/dismissed” it.
And E&E would not publish such a paper unless it passed real peer review (n.b. not the pals’ review practiced by e.g. Nature).
Facts really are inconvenient to you, aren’t they?
Richard
10
MattB: #165
” ….my advice is avoid E&E as they will publish it even if you are wrong, and even if you are nto it will be ignored/dismissed.”
I was published in E&E and it was not a case of me sending an unsolicited paper for publication but like the Lord Monckton, who was also requested by a journal to write a contribution, my article was specifically solicited by the guest editor. As an article rather than a scientific paper per-se, or rather a quasi op-ed, it was not subject to peer review but did have to pass two anonymous reviewers who asked for significant changes to be made which were done as requested; it was a rather daunting hurdle to surmount at the time. One reviewer said it should be published, the other not. The guest editor made the casting vote and it was published. Subsequently after publication the article was recommended by a third party (anther scientist) as required reading for anyone interested in understanding the application of the plasma model to understanding the Earth’s weather; the group which that recommendation was addressed included a wide variety of PHd’s etc.
But for you to disparage E&E in the way you day makes you no better than the Twit who is the subject of Steve Short’s short post at #166. Neither of you seem to understand science per se but I must admit to your collective superiority extolling the virtues of pseudoscience.
10
Baa@167,
I had a look too and could see no evidence of abuse from anyone on team sceptic. I saw heaps of abuse from the others, and no references to jerk (other than from CLive Hamilton, suprise suprise)
I think speedys’ post may have just needed a bit of rewording. I know I need to take a break before re-engaging in civil conversation after dealing with Clivites.
10
#170
I err with my last sentence, the two who are interpreted to have erred are MattB and, of course, the inimitable Tim Lambert.
(Kowtows metaphorically to Steve Short).
10
I do not have a science background and I find that Jo’s posts makes it easier to understand what are for me complex issues. Likewise the discussions following the posts are generally informative.It has been good to see that the hard work that Jo has put in has generated more traffic in the past few months. Success also has it’s downside and Jo has attracted participants whose only aim has be to hijack threads. A review of the comments on some recent posts indicate that they are succeeding. There are many visitors to this site who do not comment but like me are probably finding some of the threads frustrating. The response to MattB on this thread makes is symptomatic of the problem.
MattB has been active on this site for much longer than most of his most vehement detractors and in the early days he engaged with others on the science. As he has said on a number of occasions there is nothing that he can add to his earlier exchanges that will change people’s opinions on this site. Being the recalcitrant that he is he has remained firmly in the AGW camp and whilst I like to rattle his cage occasionally he often comes up with insightful comments. In recent times it seems that even when he makes an innocuous comment people climb all over him. I personally think that it good for the blog to have someone from the other side interacting with us and how Jo responds to Matt would be a good template for others.
10
Baa
A mark of respect, sir, no offence intended.
As to being nasty and abusive, I was referring to the tempation, not the fact. I know from personal experience that the tempation is pretty strong to be “forthright” but we know it won’t do any good. Mr. Humbug Sr would be proud.
Especially in relation to some of the people we may have met there. Those names are familiar, now you mention it… I keep wondering who’s paying them. I had some serious catching up to do today and tomorrow I’m stuck in a meeting all day. I might get 30 minutes at lunch – but obviously these guys have a very understanding employer.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Madjak
You’re quite right – I’ve had a re-read and realised it could be taken the wrong way, especially after a hard day at “our” ABC site. Clarifiction and apologies to Baa above.
However, I reserve and retain the opinion that there are some on the gullibles side who could use a few months at charm school.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Steve I’m comfortable making comments that make you fall out of your chair if they are replied to with an explanation. I’m just trying to get my head around the reason that both Jo and Tim thought it was important the emissivity not be 1. I feel that Jo maybe was just reacting to Tim’s comment without reading a half page more and finding out that in Monckton’s calcs it is irrelevent as he uses 1. I must admit I almost deleted the sentence you refer to as I was not 100% convinced I’d got it, but I was pressed for time and thought I’d throw it out there.
Also louis I thought I WAS the idiot in steve short’s post in 166?
And finally to Louis and Richard… my advice to not publish in E&E on the topic in question was sound advice. If at the end E&E is the only taker then I guess you are stuck with it, but my advice was not based on criticism of E&E, rather simply strategic advice to be taken as such. Ignore it if you like but you will have more impact publishing elsewhere. E&E is, much as you complain, not taken seriously and you give it the opportunity to simply be dismissed out of hand.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Matt, my blogger friend (I think I can call you that now, I’ve spoken more to you these last few months than my real friends {and family members for that matter lol}) you are a bit of an enigma. You endear yourself to most here, then it takes you just one or two posts to offend people. STOP IT please.
Matt you’ve conversed with Jo for a long time. You’ve read many of her articles and posts. Do you really believe this woman would comment without reading the full piece? Do you really believe she “shoots off at the mouth”? The woman has demonstrated over and over again that she is considered, considerate, concise, articulate, fair, no-nonsense and able to mix it with the best of ’em. How could you possibly make that statement? And effectively at her place no less? It’s offensive, NOW STOP IT.
10
Thanks to the authors of 166 (Steve Short) and 168 (Richard S Courtney):. Examples of “peer review” blog style IMHO and have summed up this topic well.
And allen mcmahon: @ 173 you have made good observations and comments. I imagine there are a lot of “outside observers” that come here for information without ever posting and will find some of our banter off-putting.
I will add though that blogs would be pretty dry and uninspired if we didn’t have some banter. Then there is the roving Troll problem: stopping by to drop some mindless text bomb and then can only stay around for two replies. I consider that “jumping” on them early causes them to leave sooner and cause less problems.
10
MattB:
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Similar with regards to Richard S Courtney. The man probably has lots more important things to do than to handle questions from scientifically ignoramuses like myself and others. But he takes the time to answer our questions. He takes the time to reply to emails. I learn from him, I suspect others do, dare I say even you do. So..
Richard already told you he was an editor at E&E. Even if you believe your advice was sound, why volunteer it? Why state it? Why denigrade the mans magazine? What did you gain?
Maybe it’s OK at your place to tell your Mrs her new dress and hairdo looks like chit, but somethings are best left unsaid.
Diplomacy and tact goes a long way in relations, even acrimonious ones.
10
Humbug – personally I feel that jo’s addition to her blog article “UPDATE: Monckton includes emissivity, then assumes it’s unity, because Earth is considered to be very close to a black body radiating in the IR. This is standard practice and even pro-AGW modellers Kiehl & Trenberth (1997, 2008) assume emissivity is 1 also. (Thanks Mattb for spotting the issue.)” indeed shows that she did miss this – I’m glad to have helped out. The correct rebuttal to Lambert in this instance would have been “Monckon is aware the earth is not a black body, however it is a useful approximation as earth is essentially a black body in the IR.” (note I still am not convinced).
Secondly, as I’ve explained, my comment on E&E was not to criticise E&E, although I can see why Richard may have read it that way given my off-hand dismissal of E&E a week or so ago. It was genuinely what I thought to be sound advice. Don’t focus all your eggs in E&E as it is an easy target. Get published elsewhere with references from E&E, then come back to E&E bringing the science trail in that direction. As I say feel free to ignore my thoughts, but I repeat I was not having a go at E&E. I have nothing to apologise in this instance, but I will apologise for my earlier dismissal of E&E a week or so ago. Sorry Richard.
10
Incidentallly this is a good summary of someone’s opinion of MOnckton’s errors. E64 to E 69 relevent to discussion at hand, including:
E68
the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation
Wrong: Uh, no it isn’t. That’s sort of the whole point of the influence of greenhouse gases on radiative transfer. If Earth was a black body this would be much simpler. Earth’s surface (not including any atmosphere) isn’t far from a black body (though it doesn’t ever carry a single uniform temperature, another issue for this), but Monckton specifically includes the troposphere here. Wrong.
E – 69: At the Earth’s surface, TS ≈ 288 K, so that κS ≈ 0.185 KW-1m2. At the characteristic-emission level, ZC, the variable altitude at which incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes balance, TC ≈ 254 K, so that κC ≈ 0.269 KW-1m2.
Red Herring and Confused: at least Monckton implicitly acknowledges through the subscript labels “C” and “S” that these κ’s are not the same as the κ associated with climate sensitivity. The one associated with climate sensitivity is in particular defined by flux at the tropopause. Since by definition the temperature change in this bare “Planck” response is assumed to be uniform, the response change in temperature delta TS at the surface would be the same temperature change at the tropopause. Therefore, to the extent it has any validity for this purpose, one could use the Stefan-Boltzmann approach Monckton has outlined here provided the temperature used is the one that follows the “rule” he lays out: “the temperature and radiant-energy flux must be taken at the same level of the atmosphere”. I.e. the relevant temperature is not at the surface, nor at the “characteristic-emission” level, whatever that’s supposed to be, but at the tropopause, because that’s the altitude at which radiative forcing is defined.
Now, the average temperature of the tropopause is quite a bit lower than either of the two temperatures Monckton cites, at roughly 220 K. Plugging that into Monckton’s equation 21 we find a value for κ at the tropopause of about 0.41 KW-1m2. Of course the black-body assumption that went into equation 21 is wrong as noted above (E68); the actual value for κ is lower thanks to the frequency dependence of emissivity and the atmospheric layering and temperature and pressure variations with altitude that contribute to the outgoing thermal radiation spectrum.
10
Oh, come on…
“So when Pinker says: “Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report”, she is not refuting what Monckton says, but is sidestepping the point.”
So you and Monckton know better than the sceintist who wrote the original paper? It was a good post up to that point … you are desperately trying to cover Monckton’s ass.
10
Toby – If Lambert is so confident in what she has said in relation to his inquiry why doesn’t he publish the emails involved. We are left with only what he wishes to share with us so here’s what Ms Pinker has to say via Lambert’s .pdf file
5. While our work dealt only with the variability of solar radiation reaching the
ground at a global scale, it is legitimate to interpret the results in a new direction, as was
attempted by Mr. Monckton. The question raised by you is related to this interpretation.
I will try my best to understand the comments of all sides and clarify the concept of
“cloud forcing” used by Christopher Monckton.
She then goes into explain the “Official” version of the term and then adds:
I believe that one of the issues pointed
out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed,
this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher
Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the
surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.
10
Approximations can be necessary, to cut through the complexity and get to the essence of a problem.
It’s right to question approximations, to ensure accuracy isn’t lost in the process.
For some the significance of an approximation is intuitively obvious while the rest of us have to do the math to see it.
Ultimately though, while it may be intellectually self gratifying, to argue endlessly over the minutae, once its significance has been established, is just a distraction and one which Lambert deploys very effectively – time & again.
Sadly it isn’t Lambert who’s being hamstrung by this spin.
Indeed one might wonder is his blog just a honeypot, to keep the pedants amused while the scientists get on with their work ?
10
toby:
toby at #182 you make a scurrilous assertion when you say of my post at #168:
Absolutely not!
How dare you take what I said completely out of context then assert that your misquote justifies attributing me with a nefarious purpose?!
I wrote; the following:
Or to use the words that Jo used in her above article.
Indeed, in her article, Jo also says quotes Pinker as saying;
I understand this to be Pinker stating that she – like me – thinks both the apparent alternatives are true.
that
Spin such as yours is very inappropriate when commenting about an article concerning offensive spin.
Richard
10
Matt B:
At #176 you say to me and Louis:
Bollocks!
Neither Louis or I have made any such complaint. On the contrary, we have each rejected your silly assertions concerning a very highly respected journal.
You wrote the untruth I cite in this posting in response to my rejecting your previous statement of a similar untruth. I answered that at #169 by saying:
You repeatedly claim that the actions of those shysters is worthy of respect. So, it is nonsense for you – at the same time – to claim E&E is “not taken seriouisly” when the “Team” fears it so much.
Richard
10
Grant #1: I agree with you. But I am not concerned about the masses, just the scientists first. Once they see the truth (or stop accepting what others say blindly), then most of the masses will fall in line. The core believers never will, but then there are still some flat-earthers out there as well.
10
Let’s be clear. The way it works with our resident warmer MattB is that, fundamentally, he understands very little at a technical level but does not hesitate to lift and quote masses of stuff from AGW web sites and other various sources and then (usually) embed it into a nice smoky matrix of mildly eloquent verbiage just like a high school debating marathon.
Christopher Game was quite good at doing the same thing over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog – far more eloquent in fact (and he wasn’t even a warmist – I think – it was hard to tell).
But at the end of the day it is all a waste of time with such types because there is no real internal comprehension going on. Nothing technical that makes any kind of real scientific sense gets put into their – signifying it has actually been processed through the blogger’s critical facilities (coz there ain’t none).
MattB #181 says “Incidentallly this is a good summary of someone’s opinion of MOnckton’s errors. E64 to E 69 relevent to discussion at hand, including:….” where ‘this’ is the site laughingly called Skeptical Science – Getting Skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Then he quotes the text to be found on this ‘Skeptical Science’ site in which in E-69 the site goes to very great pains to insinuate that:
(1) Monckton gets confused between the temperature of the tropopause (which ranges between about extremes of 193 and 227 K (average about 210 K) depending upon whether you are talking about the polat, mid-latitude or tropopause and whether you are talking about June July August or June July August and the characteristic BLACK-BODY emission temperature of the Earth which is about 254 – 255 K; and
(2) that somehow Monckton has the temperature of the tropopause all wrong in a way that actually constitutes a critical boo-boo.
Good grief! Quite frankly, this stuff (at Skeptical Science’) is just more of the same, nit picking pedantic begging-the-question BS that types like Tim Lambert specialize in. It is meaningless debating rhetoric at best and pathetic sophistry at worst.
Sadly, MattB hasn’t the wherewithal to detect this.
It is becoming clear to me why all these AGW people hate Monckton. He is a lay person, with a good core math training who, although not a specialist in climate science, has clearly spent a lot of time getting to grips mentally with the whole AGW thing. Sure he makes minor errors of terminology but his grasp of the basic fundamentals is impressive. And that is all that is required to point out that if the emperor does have clothes they are riddled with holes.
I can find no prominent lay AGW enthusiasts, even those who supposedly got a good math education who have bothered to do the same. If only there were ordinary people in the AGW camp who could put these fundamentals into as plain an English as Monckton generally achieves. I yearn to hear them.
10
MattB:
“And finally to Louis and Richard… my advice to not publish in E&E on the topic in question was sound advice. If at the end E&E is the only taker then I guess you are stuck with it, but my advice was not based on criticism of E&E, rather simply strategic advice to be taken as such. Ignore it if you like but you will have more impact publishing elsewhere. E&E is, much as you complain, not taken seriously and you give it the opportunity to simply be dismissed out of hand.”
Do you have reading difficulties? I did not set out to publish in E&E – I was ASKED to submit a paper. Richard Courtney answers to you responses need no further elaboration from me. I might add that as an editor of a professional society’s publication, I have often received condemnatory letters from AGW supporters demanding I not publish sceptical AGW articles – but I have never ever received a demand to not publish pro AGW articles from the sceptics. The mainstream journals are in the business of making money by selling publications, and as such they will only publish what sells, scientific papers included.
The former editor of Nature publicly stated he never sent any paper submitted by Fred Hoyle or Tommy Gold for peer review because they would fail the review. He just published them.
So please don’t think that the mainstream journals are the epitomes of scientific balance – they are money making machines and the name of the game for academics is guaranteeing one’s future income from grants, for which incessant publication is mandatory since it is the KPI the university administrations use to measure the performance of academics, especially non tenured ones.
10
Jo, shouldn’t Lambert’s head be up his rear end in that drawing? Even if it is his natural state of being.
10
my link wasn;t to skeptical science. It was to http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
you can talk nitpicking all you like – but fromthis science educated layman it appears to me that at every opportunity Monckton fudges the figures to get he answer he wants. A bit of rounding there, a “insignificant if we just use 1 ” there.
Louis, I’m not surprised you don’t get my point.
10
“I understand this to be Pinker stating that she – like me – thinks both the apparent alternatives are true.”
sorry Richard that is rubbish.
10
MattB:
“Louis, I’m not surprised you don’t get my point.”
William Sowell wrote in “Intellectuals and Society” that intellectuals, in academia and those in the penumbra around it, often accuse their critics of “not getting” it.
10
Wait on – You nitpick Monckton for supposedly fudging figures but not a word on Phil Jones adding a fudge factor in his programming code to get a warming trend.
Whats the word I am looking for – eh eh hypocritical sounds like it.
10
Thomas Sowell
10
MattB:
And like Lambert you pick nits – I made a mistake, but so what?
10
Actually I had no idea who he was, googled William Sowell, found nothing, googled the name of the book, found Thomas Sowell, read a few very interesting commentaries, and thought I’d post the correct name for others interested. sorry if it was a short post.
10
Matt B:
At #192 you quote m and say:
Please explain.
Any unjustified assertion that a statement is “rubbish” suggests the person making the assertion wants to deny the statement but cannot because s/he knows it is true.
Richard
10
Richard it has been discussed above. “It can pass” clearly (at least to me) refers to Monckton’s use (technically incorrect) of the term “cloud forcing”. She says “it can pass” as long as it means something other than the technically correct meaning, and acknowledges it is not an uncommon error. However, to then use his incorrect understanding of the term in an equation which requires the technically correct version to be used, is incorrect.
This is the full quote:
“People tend to use the concept of “Forcing” kind of “freely”. There are many concepts of forcing in use, such as aerosol forcing, cloud forcing, which can be related to shortwave or long wave or both (as defined above). Since the energy from the sun is the major driver of the climate system, and since clouds are the major modulators of how much of this energy reaches the surface, people tend to label this effect as “cloud forcing” (which is not the same as the formal definition). I believe that one of the issues pointed out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed, this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”
the key bits… “since clouds are the major modulators of how much of this energy reaches the surface, people tend to label this effect as “cloud forcing (WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS THE FORMAL DEFINITION). If we give Monckton the benefit of the doubt… assume he meant “the impact on SW radiation”… then it can pass.”
The following is what Pinker says about the use of Monckton’s incorrect use of the term. (you can read it here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf)
“The CO2 radiative “forcing” that Mr Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the earth’s radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the chance in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols, water vapour). THESE TWO NUMBERS CANNOT BE COMPARED AT FACE VALUE. To the best of my knowledge this is the source of the misunderstanding.” (emphasis added by me).
Do you see that? CANNOT BE COMPARED AT FACE VALUE… which is what Monckton has done. She DOES NOT SAY “it can pass” in reference to comparing them at face value … just that his use of the term cloud forcing can pass as colloquially it is often used in the non-technical manner… it is apples and oranges.
This is why I was “nit picky” the other day… to me this is quite crystal clear. That you pin your faith on this is of significant concern to me. It is so astoundingly obvious.. a clear misunderstanding (I’ll hold off on calling it misrepresentation) of Pinker’s comments. I simply cannot understand why you would need, if the rest of the AGW science is so weak, try to make this out as anything other than what Pinker says.
I know Jo says elsewhere that just because Pinker says Monckton is wrong does not make him so, but that does not excuse trying to pretend pinker says he is right!
10
MattB @ 199: Since the energy from the sun is the major driver of the climate system, and since clouds are the major modulators of how much of this energy reaches the surface, people tend to label this effect as “cloud forcing” (which is not the same as the formal definition).
What then is the formal definition or where can one find it?
On the surface, the effect of clouds on the radiation energy reaching the earth being called “cloud forcing” appears to be a sensible use of the term. Unfortunately, there are numerous terms in the present lexicon of climate science that appear not to be in accordance with their surface meanings.
“Climate Change” does not mean changes in the climate, it means man caused changes in climate. “Global warming” does not mean that the globe is warming, it means the warming of the globe that man is causing. One easily gets confused by such shorthand verbiage. It always seems to mean something other than what it looks like it means.
10
It’s been said before but a reminder doesn’t hurt. Correct use of “force” in physics applies only to mechanical force, measured in Newtons. Slightly archaic use of “force” also applies to “electromotive force” which is measured in Volts. There is no such thing as a force measured in degrees, or Watts per meter or any such thing. It ain’t Physics.
Correct use of the word “forcing” in English is never as a noun. For example, “Some bastard is forcing me to read Climatology papers.” Trying to use “cloud forcing” as a noun is not even English.
Arguing over the official definition of some silly misnamed nonsense is a complete waste of everyone’s time.
10
MattB #191
“my link wasn;t to skeptical science. It was to http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html”
Maybe not. FYI, the text you quote, which can be found at the http://www.altenergyaction.org had also been previously posted at skeptical science some time back. I had already put a copy in my files and remembered the exact text. Looks like some cross quoting had been going on.
Either way, it doesn’t matter – its drivel.
BTW – you are forgetting the key issue in all this, based on the observations that:
(1) The surface warming between 1983 and 1999-2001 (~0.6 K) can be ascribed to a marked reduction in global cloud cover over that time (NASA data) and hence decrease in Bond albedo.
(2) The markedly reduced surface warming or maybe slight surface cooling over the last decade (depending upon who is massaging what data) can be ascribed to a recovery in cloud cover (NASA data) to at least the 27 average hence equivalent increase in Bond albedo.
(3) Given that low cloud is the major part of cloud cover this means that these changes correlate closely with the equivalent changes in surface SW cloud forcing – the very parameter Pinker was addressing.
So at the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether some obscure person called MattB is nit picking about who said what regarding ‘cloud forcing’, or some far less obscure persion called Ms Pinker, or some obscure Down Under character called Tim Lambert.
The fact of the matter is that we have clear evidence that cloud-induced changes in SW surface irradiance (insolation) i.e. surface SW cloud forcing (to be precise) over the ENTIRE period since 1983 correlate well to low cloud induced changes in the Bond albedo and (hey presto) NOT to the ever upward tend in atmospheric CO2 over this ENTIRE 27 year PERIOD.
Make no mistake about it – as the period since the early 1980s continues to inexorably lengthen the real gurus of the AGW movement like Trenberth, Wigley, Phil Jones (choke) have become increasingly nervous that the timescales over which (appropriately smoothed) AGW is supposed to be manifesting itself just ain’t working out like it should.
We possibly wouldn’t have been given a heads-up on this for another 5 – 10 years if it wasn’t for some OBSCURE hacker.
Its a pants-down situation for the AGW ‘gods’ and its a pants down situation for you too young MattB. Forget the nits, it’s yer skinny ass you need to be worried about.
10
@Tel 201:
Just love your example LOL:-).
Made up words for a made up science ‘though, means we all have to get used to the common abusage -(which I’ll admit is just such another silly word).
10
Steve Short , I found your Post very Informative. I have a Question. Earthshine project out of Big Bear Observatory reported that the Earth’s Albedo increased between 1998 and 2000 by approx 2% . You state that it decreased during that period. Could you please clarify for me where this apparent discrepancy comes from. It’s probably just a mis-understanding on my part. Your imput would be most appreciated. -Thanks, Dave
10
Hi Dave
If you look here:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
you will see that the 27 year (NASA) multi-source record (which I think might have included Project Earthshine data since ~2000) indicates:
The mean global cloud cover for the period mid-1983 to mid-2008 was 66.4±1.5% (all errors at ± one standard deviation level).
It was at temporary maximum of about 68.9% in about 1986 – 1988 and declined to about 64.4% in about 1999 – 2001. This period was characterized by global warming – possibly by about ~+0.6 K.
Since about 2001 global cloud cover recovered to be close to the 27-year average. This was a period of negligible additional warming.
BTW, the 2008/10 data (which can be downloaded separately as an ASCII text data file) suggests average global cloud cover has more recently continued to rise above the 27-year 66.4% average.
Over the last decade from 1999-2001 to 2008-2009 mean global cloud optical thickness increased above the 27-year average of 3.9±0.3% to an annual average of about 4.4% i.e. the clouds were getting denser.
The period 1998 – 2000 which you meantioned was also covered by the Big Bear Earthshine Observatory (Colorado?) wasa period in which the NASA data indicates this was period in which mean annual global cloud cover went from about 64.9% to 64.4% i.e. decrease of about -0.5%. However it did recover sharply over the 2000 – 2002 period to about 65.9% – an increase (from 1998) of about +1.0%.
BTW, I am not sure whether, for Big Bear, you meant 1998 – 2000 (small decrease according to NASA) or 1999 to 2002 (strong increase according to NASA)? I was under the impression that Big Bear only started getting good data in early 1999? Please confirm.
Additionally, as you may be aware, there is quite a lot of discussion about the precision of the earthshine method and (of course) the accuracy of the algorithms required to get good data from that method.
The official Project Erathshine site:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
shows the Big Bear record starting in early 1999 and an increase in (Big Bear-measured) albedo between 1999 and 2007 of +1.0%.
As you can see, the last decade has undoubtedly been characterized by a recovery in Earth’s Bond albedo back to the long term (27 year) average since satellite-based measurements commenced with some suggestion that in recent years the anomaly has gone positive to the order of +0.5 – +1.5%.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
10
Hi Steve , Thanks a bunch. I think part of the problem with Earthshine is that they don’t update very often. The last update If I remember correctly stated that from 1998 to the end of 2000 there was an increase in global reflectivity with no apparent trend from 2001 to 2008! I’m probably just off a year on my start dates. What I found interesting was that when I went to the GISS site to look at Pacific Decadal Occilation indices I found that the PDO had gone Negative right around the same time. Spencer has spoken about the PDO & AMO having a bigger influence on Global Cloudiness Than climate models give credence to . Latif seems to have borne this out with his latest findings as far as IRF’s impacting GMT trends over the next 20-30 years. Once again Thanks and pardon me while I go do my homework and follow up on those links you supplied . Best Regards- Dave[SAGWH]
10
Matt B:
Thankyou for your clarification at #199.
Steve Short at #202 makes the response that I would have made. Hence, I thank him for that contribution, endorse what he said, and need to add nothing further.
However, I also point to the contributions of Lionel at #200 and Tel at #201 because I agree them, too.
But you follow your clarification by saying:
Frankly, I take those comments as being offensive.
I “pin [my] faith” on God and nothing else. Observational data, logic and sound scientific interpretation gain my respect and I trust their conclusions. They tell me the scientific truth. But all scientific truthy is transitory: it gets replaced by a new truth when better data and/or analysis is obtained.
There was – and is – no “misunderstanding … of Pinker’s comments” by me. Read what I wrote at #185 because I stand by all of that. In fact, it seems to me that you and Lambert have tried to elevate trivia to a level worthy of debate because you have nothing else to rely upon.
The difference is not significant to Monckton’s calculation as Pinker says herself when she says “it can pass”. You attempt some kind of arcane textual analysis to try and make the difference seem important. But it is not important if it makes insignificant difference to the calculation, and importantly, it makes no significant difference to the calculation.
And I do not “try to make this out as anything other than what Pinker says”. I quoted Pinker verbatim and stated my understanding of that quotation. Nothing you or anybody else has said has altered my understanding of that quotation in any way: i.e. the difference is not significant to Monckton’s calculation.
My view is not that “the rest of the AGW science is so weak”. My view is that all of the science of AGW denies that AGW is or can become sufficient for it to be detectable so it is impossible for AGW to become a problem.
I did not raise the trivial point concerning Monckton and Pinker. My first post on this matter was at #168 it began by saying:
And it concluded by asking:
But you accuse me trying to “pin [my] faith on this”. Have you left leave of your senses?
I agree with you that “I know Jo says elsewhere that just because Pinker says Monckton is wrong does not make him so”.
But you go on to assert “that does not excuse trying to pretend pinker says he is right!”
No, it does not, but I have not tried to “pretend” anything. I have stated what Pinker said.
You are trying to assert a meaning to Pinker’s words that I think is incredible.
Richard
10
You may say it is a trivial issue Richard, but I’m not the one who started a blog post on my popular science blog about it defending Monckton’s use and claiming Pinker says “it can pass”. I’m just commenting on it.
Tel – you say “Arguing over the official definition of some silly misnamed nonsense is a complete waste of everyone’s time.”
Note – no one is really arguing over the official definition of some silly misnamed nonsense, but the number that Pinker uses is only attributable to one of those definitions, and Monkton is using a number assigned to a different definition. “The two numbers are not interchangeable” (Pinker to Lambert). Monckton has interchanged them.
And then Richard we get back to the point, and I’m afraid that yes indeed, you have in my opinion misunderstood Pinker’s words, although it does not surprise me that you still hold to your initial interpretation.
10
Pilkie’s thoughts in a timesonline article say it all really
Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of molehills.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece
10
According to Pinker, surface solar irradiance increased by 0.16 W/m^2/year over the 18 year period 1983 – 2001 or 2.88 W/m^2 over the entire period.
This is almost exactly 1.2% of the average surface solar irradiance of recent decades of 238.9 W/m^2 (K, T & F, 2009).
According to NASA, mean global cloud cover declined from about 0.677 (67.7%) in 1983 to about 0.644 (64.4%) in 2001 or a decline of 0.033 (3.3%). The 27 year mean global cloud cover 1983 – 2008 is about 0.664 (66.4%) (NASA)
The average Bond Albedo (A) of recent decades has been almost exactly 0.300, hence 1 – A = 0.700
It is possible to estimate the relationship between albedo and cloud cover about the average cloud cover and it described by the relationship:
Albedo (A) = 0.25C + 0.134 where C is cloud cover
For example; if A = 0.300 = 0.25 x 0.664 + 0.134
This means that in 1983 A = 0.25 x 0.677 + 0.134 = 0.303
and
in 2001 A = 0.25 x 0.644 + 0.134 = 0.295
Thus in 1983; 1 – A = 1 – 0.303 = 0.697
and in 2001; 1 – A = 1 – 0.295 = 0.705
Thus between 1983 and 2001 the known reduction in the Earth’s albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased solar irradiance by 200 x (0.705 – 0.697)/(0.705 + 0.695) = 200 x 0.008/1.402 = 1.1%
This estimate of 1.1% increase in solar irradiance from cloud cover reduction over the 18 year period 1983 – 2001 is very close to the 1.2% increase in solar irradiance measured by Pinker for the same period.
Within the precision of the available data and this exercise it may be therefore concluded that it is highly likely that Pinker’s finding was due to an almost exactly equivalent decrease in Earth’s Bond albedo over the same period resulting from cloud cover reduction.
10
Allen how is Lambert any less qualified than Jo? Lambert already has an entire blog about how that article is competely lopsided, a bit of a revenge his for his pursuit of a journalist called Leake.
10
Matt B:
You say to me:
It is a trivial issue. I did not raise it, either: Lambert did and Jo pointed out he was wrong.
And you are not “just commenting on it”. You are harping on and on and on and … about it.
Indeed, you go on at me saying:
You are the one making convoluted interpretation of Pinker’s words. Her statement that “it can pass” requires no interpretation and I accept it to mean what it says.
Warmers always make much of anything trivial thing they can because they know they have no evidence for AGW to proclaim.
But if you want to make a ‘big thing’ out of such trivia then take that pleasure and interpret the matter in whatever peculiar way you want to. After all, you get slammed whenever you make wierd interpretations of important issues here.
Richard
10
I’d love to know, Richard, why you are so intent on bullshitting your way through this remarkably trivial issue.
10
“Dear Dr. Short, – Many thanks for your very kind and helpful analysis. I am copying it to my co-author Dr. Joseph Boston, who is at present finalizing what we hope will be a robust determination of the change in surface radiative flux attributable to the decline in cloud cover from 1983-2001. – Monckton of Brenchley”
10
Matt B:
Read what you wrote at #213. Think about it.
Then was your mouth out and apologise.
Richard
10
Ok RIchart I’ll apologise for my language. How about you apologise for your science.
10
MattB #211
Qualifications don’t come into it. I simply find Jo’s is logical, polite and addresses relevant issues. Lambert is, in the main, an offensive, illogical, nitpicker.
Matt #213
Could not have said it better, remarkably trivial issues Lambert’s forte.
10
Amen !
10
MattB:
March 6th, 2010 at 11:43 am
What does that even mean?
I guess when one gets intellectually pounded day after day, inane things dribble out of ones mouth. Something akin to a boxer, having been pounded round after round, the arms keep flailing at fresh air.
Is there a medical term for “flailing brain syndrome”?
10
Your GP is probably very familiar with the condition.
10
MattB:
“Actually I had no idea who he was, googled William Sowell, found nothing, googled the name of the book, found Thomas Sowell, read a few very interesting commentaries, and thought I’d post the correct name for others interested. sorry if it was a short post”.
As I have previously mentioned Thomas Sowell on Jo’s various threads in terms of “Intellectuals” etc, and to which you commented to – but short term memory loss at your age……worrying.
10
MattB #187 on Deltoid thread ‘Andrew Bolt takes back “nice words”‘
“yeah I guess it depends on numbers of people who read the comments other than those who are commenting. Make no mistake I have no DILLUSIONS that my time spent at the Nova site is contributing to a better planet:)”
Never was a truer word spoken in jest!
10
Mattb,
Bear in mind after all this, that Pinkers Opinion is just that, an opinion. It would be interesting and worthwhile to listen to her thoughts, but we’d have to email her, since Lambert has not posted his email to her in full and may not have posted her full reply.
In other words:
1/ Lamberts question is unknown.
2/ Pinkers Reply may be incomplete.
3/ Even if we assume we have Pinkers full reply, it’s still an opinion and without explicit reasoning, doesn’t contribute much. (The Evidence man. The Evidence!)
4/ I’ve reread the Pinker statements. I don’t see any reason to change anything I said above, except the black body para, which I’ve updated.
And incidentally, Thomas Sowell writes with a insight and clarity that is rare.
10
Steve (#72) It is definitely true that Monckton misused the term ‘cloud forcing’
Thanks. Now that we’re agreed Pinker is talking terminology not substance perhaps Jo can (substantially) revise this very misleading and accusatory post.
Jo: because Earth is considered to be very close to a black body radiating in the IR.
Jo is referring to the Wiki page which says (my bold)
This is the temperature that the Earth would be at if it radiated as a perfect black body in the infrared, ignoring greenhouse effects, and assuming an unchanging albedo. The Earth in fact radiates almost as a perfect black body in the infrared which will raise the estimated temperature a few degrees above the effective temperature. If we wish to estimate what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere, then we could take the albedo and emissivity of the moon as a good estimate
So Monckton is on the right track only if we assume no atmosphere and the albedo of the moon. Nice one.
I might come back to this particular piece of lunacy later.
10
Sorry, JM, evidently without realising it, you are being very, very silly.
You really do need to read a few textbooks and ‘get with it’ on the various conventions relating to emissivity which everyone uses who is across the literature – both mainstream and sceptical alike.
When the Wiki page says: “The Earth in fact radiates almost as a perfect black body in the infrared which will raise the estimated temperature a few degrees above the effective temperature.” what it does not explicitly say (but should) is that it is referring to the (hypothetical) Top of Atmosphere (TOA) which is a conceptual altitude where, ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0000 the (black body) emission temperature of the Earth can be defined. This temperature is close to 255 K.
The term cloud forcing can be applied (alternatively) to the conceptual Bottom of Atmosphere (BOA) or to TOA.
The definition of TOA cloud radiative forcing (CRF) for both incoming short wave (SW) and outgoing long wave is given by Ramanathan et al. 1989 and Harrison 1980 as:
SW CRF = R – Rc,
where R denotes the TOA all-sky reflected SW and RC
that for clear skies, while
LW CRF = Fc – F,
where F and Fc, respectively, denote the all-sky and
clear-sky TOA emitted LW.
Typically SW CRF is negative
(cooling) and LW CRF positive (warming).
Please very well that these are emissions (heat fluxes) NOT temperatures, and are obtained in both cases BY DEFINITION by subtracting one flux from another. In the case of TOA LW CRF the emissivity for both the terms is 1.0000 because that is the definition of TOA is! Other than that, emissivity (eta) does not come into it!
Actually, to be precise I might add that:
(1) for the incoming SW this (same emissivity) assumption is not necessary as in both cases the SW flux is coming from the Sun; and
(2) yes, it is possible to calculate an arbitrary emissivity for LW emission from the atmosphere under varying cloud cover etc and yes, they are different, but the CRF calculation does not need the emissivity as it applies to fluxes, not to temperatures.
By the same token the SW and LW CRF at BOA is defined similarly i.e they are (respectively) the equivalent differences between the downward net SW and LW flux at the surface under all sky and clear conditions. In the case of the BOA LW CRF again the assumption is that it applies to fluxes so emissivity doesn’t come into it But you can if you like say it applies under an assumption of emissivity = 1.0000 in both cases – but why would you bother?
Radiative forcing, by definition uses (differences between) actual heat fluxes not temperatures!!!!!
There is no mystery to any of this and all the kerfuffle about emissivity in the context of arguing about TOA and BOA SW and LW CRFs is a complete furphy deriving from a complete and utter technical ignorance of the subject.
10
Jo in 223 – actually I don’t think Pinker’s is just an opinion. Simple terms – Pinker has produced a number, and Monckton has used that number to mean something that it is not. That is not really an opinion is it?
10
Steve – this “You really do need to read a few textbooks and ‘get with it’ on the various conventions relating to emissivity which everyone uses who is across the literature – both mainstream and sceptical alike.” is quite funny, given then entire discussion is based upon Monckton not being “with it” in the various conventions relating to cloud forcing.
10
How you can possibly claim any technical high ground on the basis of all the drivel you have posted here, and in dollops, is the really funny bit.
10
Yes Steve I wish I had an email from the good Lord showing how smart I am.
10
OK MattB
We can very easily fix that problem. I hereby issue you with a technical challenge which I will also post on Deltoid for you (or any of the other AGW wallies) to take me up on.
I propose to set you two, highly relevant test problems and then to provide the answers for each, without revealing the working of my calculations.
It is up to you to solve the same problems (mathematically), provide your answers and thus verify/state that I am right or I am wrong. If you verify my answer you do not need to reveal the logic of your calculation.
If you don’t verify my answer then we both have to reveal/justify our method of calculation. Fair enough?
Problem #1: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean Bond albedo of the last decade is 0.298 as stated by Trenberth, Fasulo and Kiehl, 2009, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo to (say) 0.302?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.20±0.01 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
Problem #1: If we were to agree that the best estimate of the global mean cloud cover over the last 27 years is 66.38% as stated by NASA, 2010, then what would be the mean global surface temperature change for a shift in mean global mean cloud cover to (say) 67.38%?
I assert the surface temperature change would be -0.13±0.02 K (error at ~± 1 s.d.)
Ball’s in your court, Mr. Smartguy.
10
Excuse me sir! There are two question 1s?
10
Sorry, typo – Problem #1 and Problem #2. Gopher it, big guy!
10
Do you mind if I ask you to solve just one problem Steve? It is a lot quicker than the ones you set me so feel free to post in advance.
Problem 2: Lets just assume I showed my working and it was the same as yours giving the same answer for both of your problems… what would your response be?
10
The ones I set are very quick – that’s why I set them. Not up for it?
10
Nope not me. You are stepping out of my current range of maths skills sorry. It is a bit like languages. I can still read maths and French, and I can see when they are dubious, can compare different methods and assess, but from scratch I can say my name and tell you the length of the hypotenuse.
But for the benefit of me and most others here, why not show your working anyway, and explain the consequences for the AGW theory.
In perspective I’m not going to agree that the AGW debate is restricted to those who can do the maths from scratch.
10
And before Brian starts waxing lyrical in French again, I’ll restrict that to basic french.
10
Le dernier mot.
FIN
10
c’est domage.
10
Dommage nigaud.
10
hey no need to be racist.
10
Steve, I say that Monckton has modeled a planet without an atmosphere because he explicitly says that. He’s trying to calculate the no-feedback parameter and does that by assuming no atmosphere.
255 K is the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere. (Monckton actually uses 254, but that’s neither here nor there.) This is a black body calculation.
He then tries to introduce an atmosphere by simply increasing the temperature to 288 (ie. 15C) and asserting that the earth/troposphere combination remains a black body at the higher temperature.
He’s done no such thing. All he’s done in his model is move the earth closer to the sun. He’s modeling a planet without an atmosphere.
10
Me: He’s trying to calculate the no-feedback parameter and does that by assuming no atmosphere.
Sorry, that should probably be: He starts by trying to calculate the no-feedback parameter and does that by assuming no atmosphere.
10
JM
I’m flying in and out of remote mine sites in another country at present so am having great difficulty accessing the Net but here is a reply I’ve just sent off to a polite person who sent me a personal email (noting I don’t hide behind an avatar name and my email address, web site and academic qualifications are freely accessible).
Dear Steve
I very much appreciated your analysis comparing surface solar irradiance with cloud cover over the period 1983-2001. I was trying to double-check your calculation, but haven’t been able to locate all of the data and formulae you used. I’d be very grateful if you would find a few moments to point me in the right direction.
[1] When you mention K, T and F 2009, I assume you mean http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/3/pdf/i1520-0477-90-3-311.pdf. Is this right? If so, how have you extracted the total surface solar irradiance from here?
[2] I haven’t been able to locate the source for the NASA cloud cover data you mention. Do you have a URL for this data?
[3] I also haven’t located the source for the albedo formula, A = 0.250C + 0.134. Could you suggest a reference for this as well?
I hope you don’t mind me quizzing you like this, and thank you very much in advance for your help.
Kindest regards, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX
To answer your questions:
(1) Yes I do mean Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl, 2009: Earths Global Energy Budget. As I’m sure you know, total surface solar irradiance is quoted therein (Table 2b and Figure 1) as = net surface solar 161.2 + surface reflected 23.1 = 184.3 (noting the surface reflected will be included in the albedo-reflected). I had mistakenly quoted the average (238.9) of the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR; 239.4) and Outwards Longwave Radiation (238.5) i.e. 238.9 rather than the net surface solar. I will probably issue a correction to Benny when I can find a moment although this doesn’t alter the overall gist of my argument at all as I was trying to show that the % change in total surface solar irradiancewhich Pinker measured more or less matched the change in % (1 – Albedo).
(2) URL for the NASA cloud data is http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
Note the long term mean cloud cover given therein is 66.38%
(3) The albedo stuff is very interesting. Here you will find data for albedo over the ISCCP-FD data period March 2000 – May 2004 which Trenberth et al., 2009 referred-to: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
This shows that ISCCP-FD got albedos between around 99.6% and 100.0% of the long term average albedo over that period (but note the error bars). If the average albedo in this period is 0.2986 (=101.9/341.3) as Trenberth et al claim then the long term average albedo is about 0.2986/0.998 = 0.2992.
We can easily check the range of mean global cloud covers which applied over that March 2000 – March 2004. I blew up the plot at the NASA web page a bit and got about 65.1% around March 2000 and about 66.1 around May 2004. For a nominal long term albedo of 0.299 this enabled me to make a rough estimate of how one could vary albedo with cloud cover over relatively small variations in albedo and cloud cover.
Thus was derived the simple algorithm I used. It does not appear in the literature.
But I might add that provided one is dealing with small variations about the mean long term albedo of 0.299 and mean long term cloud cover of 66.38% it really doesn’t matter much what simple algorithm one may come up with to fit those small variations.
In retrospect I possibly should have fixed the constant term (0.134) to 0.067 which Trenberth et al. identify as the surface component of SW albedo i.e. 23.1/341.3 = 0.067. Then the algorithm should have been Albedo (A) = 0.35C + 0.067 where C = cloud cover.
So let’s do that and find out what happens.
For example, this would mean that in 1983; A = 0.35×0.677+0.067 = 0.304 and
in 2001; A = 0.35×0.644+0.067 = 0.292
Thus in 1983; 1- A = 1 – 0.304 = 0.696
and in 2001; 1 – A = 1 – 0.292 = 0.708
Therefore, between 1983 and 2001, the known reduction in the Earth’s albedo A as measured by NASA would have increased effective surface solar irradiance (which partially warms the surface) by 200 x [(0.708 – 0.696)/(0.708 + 0.696)]% = 200 x (0.012/1.404)% = 1.7%
Note that there is only ~161 W/m^2 of SW heating the surface rather than the ~184 W/m^2 (23 W/m^2 being reflected) then 0.017 x 161 = 2.7 W/m^2 is actually the effective warming the surface. However 2.7 W/m^ = 1.5% of the 184 W/m^2 which is still very close to Pinker’s 1.2%.
I hope this is an adequate response.
Best regards Steve
10
Steve I don’t quite know what the point of your response to me is as it doesn’t seem directly relevant. Also you accuse me of being impolite, but unless mere disagreement is impolitic I can’t see what your complaint is.
Can I expand on my comments a little so you can perhaps better understand what I’m saying?
The Earth is not a black body. Period. I know many textbooks and other sources appear to say that, but what they actually say is:-
the Earth is nearly a black body in the infra red
That’s quite different. It’s restricted to the infra-red and it means one of two things (depending on the context):-
a.) infra-red radiation at the surface, ie. excluding atmospheric effects, or
b.) infra-red in the far infra-red beyond the absorption band of CO2 (that’s the bit to the right hand side of the diagram I’m about to show you)
In those restricted contexts the statement is true.
But it is not true if it is used as a justification for using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for calculating irradiance of a planet with an atmosphere. In that case – which is the case relevant to climate – it is decidedly untrue.
Here is the absorption curve for the Earth at 390ppm CO2 together with the absorption curve for a black body at the same temperature. The red line is the actual spectrum of the Earth, the other lines are the theoretical curves for a black body at various temperatures. The blue line is the one for a Black Body at 280K – pretty close to the Earth’s surface temperature.
I’ll talk to that diagram from here on.
Those curves show the Planck equation for the radiative emissions from a black body at various temperatures, together with the red line showing the actual radiative emission of the earth including the atmosphere with about 390 ppm of CO2 sitting there absorbing part of the infrared spectrum.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation represents the area under each curve, but is only applicable to the Planck curves. The SB equation is essentially the integral of the Planck equation (or the area under the curve). ie. a Black Body will necessarily emit a flux which is summarized (integrated) in the SB equation.
A body which is something else, will not. In that case the SB equation does not accurately represent the radiation of the planet
In other words, a body is only a Black Body if its spectrum is that of the Planck curve. The Earth’s is not. The Earth is not a Black Body. It’s spectrum is different.
You will note the huge notch in the spectrum of the red line. That’s CO2 absorption for the Earth. So the SB equation does not accurately calculate the emission of the Earth at any temperature in the presence of CO2. The area under the red curve is significantly less than that under the blue curve.
That notch accounts for about 15% of the radiative output of the Earth’s surface which is absorbed by the atmosphere – ie. about 150 W/m^2 – and CO2 is responsible for nearly all of it. In other words, the tiny proportion of trace gas that is CO2 really does trap a very significant proportion of the Sun’s illuminance. The rest of the atmosphere is essentially transparent.
Ok, so much for theory, how do we figure out what’s going on in reality? Rather than use mathematical models we let the atmosphere do the integration for us by measuring emissions at the top of the atmosphere . This is exactly what the IPCC (or rather the research they quote) do. (Remember this bit)
Now what does Monckton do with all of this?
The first thing he says is that SB is applicable. Clearly it is when applied to a planet without an atmosphere, such as when he uses 254K as the surface temperature of the Earth he’s on safe ground.
But SB is not applicable to an atmosphere with an absorptive atmosphere – the equation doesn’t represent the full power being emitted – less is being emitted because of the absorption effect.
Monckton ignores this. In fact he absolutely decries it when he accuses the IPCC of ignoring the “rule” that emission and temperature have to be measured at the same height and insists that he can simply difference the SB emission of two planets – one at 254 K and another at 288 K.
Both without atmospheres.
He’s wrong. There is no such “rule”.
He’s wrong. What he should be comparing is the area under the blue curve with the area under the red curve. A planet without at atmosphere and a certain radiative input, with another planet with the same radiative input but a different spectrum.
His model is bogus and all the rest of his paper is garbage as a result. It’s just noise to distract from the fact he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or doesn’t seem to be aware of the implications.
And that’s leaving aside his explicit manipulation and distortion of the data that he feeds into his bogus model – a fact noted by Lambert amongst others. He arbitrarily reduces the value of several input values based either on unsubstantiated “research” or his own gut feel.
Jo really needs to retract her insinuations in this post and apologize.
10
[…] did a similar thing when he ambushed Monckton with quotes from Pinker that he arranged with emails he still hasn’t revealed. And when it comes to attacking things, graphs and arguments that weren’t made, John Cook of […]
10