Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

[sunsettommy]

Science and Public Policy Institute

Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

Written by Christopher Monkton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley

Wednesday, 22 August 2007

EXCERPT:

The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicted by computer models is absent from real-world, observed trends in atmospheric temperature change..."

THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Yet the scientific “consensus” is that, though the rapid climatic warming from 1906 to 1940 was a natural recovery from the historically low temperatures of the Little Ice Age, it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present.

Since some climatologists challenge this consensus, can we settle the debate by predicting with models and then detecting by observation a characteristic “signature” in the climate data that allows us definitively to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming of the Earth’s atmosphere? This paper answers that key question.

To identify the distinctive signature of anthropogenic warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, we begin with a little elementary atmospheric physics.

The surface of the Earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, generally maximizes at the surface in the tropics and sharply decreases with both altitude and latitude. There is so much greenhouse opacity immediately above the ground that the surface cannot effectively cool by the emission of thermal radiation.

Instead, heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extratropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to the “characteristic emission level” one optical depth into the atmosphere, known as τ=1. From here emitted thermal radiation can escape to space. Crudely speaking, the emitted thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature at the characteristic emission level.

In the diagram, lighter shading represents reduced opacity as water-vapor density diminishes with altitude. Largely because of the motions of the atmosphere, the temperature decreases with altitude to a level known as the tropopause. The height of the tropopause varies with latitude. In the tropics it is about 16 km, dropping to about 12 km near 30 degrees latitude, and 8 km near the poles. Beneath the tropopause, we have the troposphere.

LOT MORE HERE

[buffycat]

Interesting site, thanks for the link. I'll take some time later and go through it more extensively.

IMO the whole GW movement is a fabricated diversion, keeping our eyes and thoughts off of far more dangerous pollutants - which we CAN do something about.

Heck, boys and girls if we can't predict the weekend weather with any real degree of accuracy how in the world does one expect to predict what the climate is going to do in 50 years or more?

There are other reasons why we should be reducing our use of fossil fuels - not just the CO2 output (which is relatively minor wrt socalled greenhouse gases).

When was the last time you heard anyone addressing the pollution of our freshwater resources? The toxins rampant in our food chain? Loss of arable lands? Creation of super bugs in hospitals? (The list is endless - but all we hear about is GW this and GW that and OPEN your wallet!!).

[Bonam]

While I agree that control and reduction of some of the other pollutants that we produce is very likely more important than control of global warming, I disagree strongly with this statement:

Heck, boys and girls if we can't predict the weekend weather with any real degree of accuracy how in the world does one expect to predict what the climate is going to do in 50 years or more?

The fact is, it is much easier to predict large scale, long term effects than small scale, short term ones. Why do economists have no clue what an individual is gonna do with their money in the next few months, but can predict the overall trend of what hundreds of millions of individuals will do? Why do doctors have no idea whether a particular smoker will get lung cancer in a year, but know that in general, smoking leads to lung cancer eventually? Why do nuclear physicists have no idea whether or when a particular radioactive atom will undergo a decay, but can predict, with great precision, the overall behaviour of countless trillions of atoms?

Same exact thing with the weather. You might not know where exactly a particular cloud formation will be in a day, but that doesn't mean you can't make predictions about the overall cloud cover of the Earth over the next few decades, for example.

[noahbody]

The fact is, it is much easier to predict large scale, long term effects than small scale, short term ones.

Is that a fact? Wouldn't you agree that if there are a number of unknown variables, making accurate predictions, short-term or long-term, is difficult?

[sunsettommy]

While I agree that control and reduction of some of the other pollutants that we produce is very likely more important than control of global warming, I disagree strongly with this statement:

The fact is, it is much easier to predict large scale, long term effects than small scale, short term ones. Why do economists have no clue what an individual is gonna do with their money in the next few months, but can predict the overall trend of what hundreds of millions of individuals will do? Why do doctors have no idea whether a particular smoker will get lung cancer in a year, but know that in general, smoking leads to lung cancer eventually? Why do nuclear physicists have no idea whether or when a particular radioactive atom will undergo a decay, but can predict, with great precision, the overall behaviour of countless trillions of atoms?

Same exact thing with the weather. You might not know where exactly a particular cloud formation will be in a day, but that doesn't mean you can't make predictions about the overall cloud cover of the Earth over the next few decades, for example.

This is nonsense because they are based on FUTURE projections.Those long range climate models have 50 to 100 year projections in them.Will we live long enough to find out?

Not scientifically verifiable.Therefore worthless.

Why do people get so excited over them?

[sunsettommy]

Meanwhile still no meaningful rebuttal has been posted.

I have posted this Monkton paper in 5 forums and so far NO rebuttals have been posted.

I have seen smears and personal attacks against the Viscount,against the website the paper originated from.

The AGW crowd simply have trouble being nice and just respond to the CONTENT of the paper.

This is the second time I have done this and the second time I see are smears and namecalling against the author of the paper.No rebuttals in the meantime.

The other paper was: The Aquittal OF CO2 .

I have posted this a while ago in 4 forums.Including here.

[stevoh]

And yet, the northwest passage is somehow mysteriously opening up enough to allow transport and cause various contries to claim transport rights. Hmmm....

[stevoh]

Who is Christopher Monckton, a pre-eminant climate scientist with the knowledge to write such a paper? Lets see...

He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.

A diploma in journalism hardly gives someone the qualifications necessary to rebuf climate science.

Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party, so he can hardly be described as unbiased.

What about the Science and Public policy institute? Where his paper is published, are they a science based unbiased organization?

The Science and Public Policy Institute, part of Frontiers of Freedom, are a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools.

So, we have a man with no scientific training, strong right wing ties, supported by an organization funded by ExxonMobil, that is critical of global warming science? Hardly the voice of scientifically based unbiased truth, quite the opposite in fact.

[jester]

So your point is that you don't like where the money came from and you don't think the person who wrote it was smart enough. What points do you have that disprove his arguements or are you just showing your own bias. How about this little bit....

quote:"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."

LiveScience

June 29, 2005

"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming."

New Scientist

August 23, 2007

What a difference two years makes ................ :lol:

[stevoh]

So your point is that you don't like where the money came from and you don't think the person who wrote it was smart enough. What points do you have that disprove his arguements or are you just showing your own bias.

Why would I accept any paper on climate science from a person who is not a scientist? Even better, a climate scientist, but at least have some formal education within the scientific method.

Why is the northwest passage opening up and becomming a hot news item if global warming isn't occuring?

quote:"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."

LiveScience

June 29, 2005

"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming."

New Scientist

August 23, 2007

Read the quotes a little more closely and you will find your answer. The first states that parts of the north atlantic ocean are becoming less salty. This is true, waters below 1300 meters have been getting less salty since the 1980's. The top 400 meters has been getting more salty.

[sunsettommy]

Who is Christopher Monckton, a pre-eminant climate scientist with the knowledge to write such a paper? Lets see...

He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.

A diploma in journalism hardly gives someone the qualifications necessary to rebuf climate science.

Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party, so he can hardly be described as unbiased.

What about the Science and Public policy institute? Where his paper is published, are they a science based unbiased organization?

The Science and Public Policy Institute, part of Frontiers of Freedom, are a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools.

So, we have a man with no scientific training, strong right wing ties, supported by an organization funded by ExxonMobil, that is critical of global warming science? Hardly the voice of scientifically based unbiased truth, quite the opposite in fact.

Translation:

I have no comments on the CONTENT of the posted paper written by Viscount Monkton.

Instead post the usual smear against the writer.

So typical of the AGW believer.

WHAT ABOUT A REBUTTAL!

Is that so hard for you to do?

[sunsettommy]

Why would I accept any paper on climate science from a person who is not a scientist? Even better, a climate scientist, but at least have some formal education within the scientific method.

But he did write it.

Somehow YOU can not post a rebuttal.

Where is YOUR scientific expertise?

LOL

I have posted this on 4 other forums and except for one person.There has been NO one else posting a rebuttal.

That person does not address the central point either.

Lets face it you guys can not offer a good rebuttal because most of the paper is based on PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE.Monkton refers to the IPCC and the CCSP 2006 report for most of the information.

Pay attention next time and try posting a rebuttal and leave out your dumb smears.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Why is the northwest passage opening up and becomming a hot news item if global warming isn't occuring?

It has been open for some time now in the summer time of the year.

At this time there is no actual global warming going on.Has not been since 1998.

Most skeptics accept that it has been warming since the 1850's.

[AndrewL]

Heck, boys and girls if we can't predict the weekend weather with any real degree of accuracy how in the world does one expect to predict what the climate is going to do in 50 years or more?

How can i predict winter will come after fall and spring will precede summer? I hereby predict this January to be snowy and and cold in Edmonton. Wow, im amazing.

Localized weather cannot be tied to the macro-climate system at this point, probably never. But we can certainly predict climate patterns and changes.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Meanwhile still no meaningful rebuttal has been posted.

I have posted this Monkton paper in 5 forums and so far NO rebuttals have been posted.

I have seen smears and personal attacks against the Viscount,against the website the paper originated from.

The AGW crowd simply have trouble being nice and just respond to the CONTENT of the paper.

This is the second time I have done this and the second time I see are smears and namecalling against the author of the paper.No rebuttals in the meantime.

The other paper was: The Aquittal OF CO2 .

I have posted this a while ago in 4 forums.Including here.

Hey ill give it a try.

The conclusion of the report states quite clearly that climate sensitivity (defined as the amount of temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric CO2 in ppm) is actually much lower than what was reported by the IPCC. The IPCC says this number is closer to 3 degrees celsius. This report states that it most likely only a sixth of that. Meaning the consequences of global warming are not to concern us in the near term, i.e., we can go on business as usual.

Apparently this is all based on discrepancies between observed temperature on the ground and in the atmosphere that don't line up with models. This reveals an absence of the greenhouse signature.

However here is what it states on CCSP executive summary that is sourced in the report posted in the OP. They are talking about all the same data from the same instruments:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

This Synthesis and Assessment Product is an important revision to the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S.

National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For recent decades, all current

atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are

consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

Nevertheless, the most recent observational and model evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of

observed climatic changes and their causes.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...nal-execsum.pdf

It is important to note that the paper you posted does not deny AGW, it simply questions the severity of the near term consequences.

Also, it could be im missing something in the report (kinda complex and i certainly do not understand it all) but it seems Christopher Monckton of Brenchley might have neglected the corrections made to the data.

Andrew

Edited September 6, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

how do i delete

Edited September 6, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

how do i delete

Edited September 6, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

At this time there is no actual global warming going on.Has not been since 1998.

How do you explain this graph then?

Obviously there has been warming since 1998.

Hmmm, it wont let me post the image....

here is a link to it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=11

Andrew

[stevoh]

But he did write it.

Somehow YOU can not post a rebuttal.

Where is YOUR scientific expertise?

LOL

I have posted this on 4 other forums and except for one person.There has been NO one else posting a rebuttal.

That person does not address the central point either.

Lets face it you guys can not offer a good rebuttal because most of the paper is based on PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE.Monkton refers to the IPCC and the CCSP 2006 report for most of the information.

Pay attention next time and try posting a rebuttal and leave out your dumb smears.

Ok, so I am supposed to believe what Mr Monkton writes in some paper, even though he isn't a climate scientist, or even a scientist, and yet, in the same paper, Mr Monkton himself dismisses a real scientists evidence based on his qualifications:

In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology,

So, I am supposed to BELIEVE a non-scientist attempting to rebuff climate science, and yet am supposed to DISBELIEVE an actual scientist because he is not a climate scientist? Really? Monkton shouldn't be dismissing someones data as inaccurate when they have no qualifications in climatology, WHEN HE HAS NO SUCH QUALIFICATIONS HIMSELF.

This is not a science based paper, it is a political paper.

[sunsettommy]

Hey ill give it a try.

The conclusion of the report states quite clearly that climate sensitivity (defined as the amount of temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric CO2 in ppm) is actually much lower than what was reported by the IPCC. The IPCC says this number is closer to 3 degrees celsius. This report states that it most likely only a sixth of that. Meaning the consequences of global warming are not to concern us in the near term, i.e., we can go on business as usual.

Apparently this is all based on discrepancies between observed temperature on the ground and in the atmosphere that don't line up with models. This reveals an absence of the greenhouse signature.

However here is what it states on CCSP executive summary that is sourced in the report posted in the OP. They are talking about all the same data from the same instruments:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

This Synthesis and Assessment Product is an important revision to the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S.

National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For recent decades, all current

atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are

consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

Nevertheless, the most recent observational and model evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of

observed climatic changes and their causes.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...nal-execsum.pdf

It is important to note that the paper you posted does not deny AGW, it simply questions the severity of the near term consequences.

Also, it could be im missing something in the report (kinda complex and i certainly do not understand it all) but it seems Christopher Monckton of Brenchley might have neglected the corrections made to the data.

Andrew

Golly a good rebuttal FINALLY show up.

You did better than a few scientists of other forums who would not even do that.

That was all I wanted was a counter to the Viscounts paper.

It appears that he did not take note of the corrections.

I am going to copy your reply and show up those nasty people at another forum and show that a layman can make a good post to counter the Viscount.

Thanks.

Edited September 7, 2007 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Stevoh:

Ok, so I am supposed to believe what Mr Monkton writes in some paper, even though he isn't a climate scientist, or even a scientist, and yet, in the same paper, Mr Monkton himself dismisses a real scientists evidence based on his qualifications:

In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology,....

I agree that disparaging a persons background does not disprove that persons claims in an ESSAY.

It was NEVER peer reviewed!

Yet several people who found errors in her conclusions were not allowed to publish a counter reply.I think that is wrong.

Meanwhile Monkton is correct that she was wrong in SOME of her conclusions.Despite the unwarranted swipe at her lack of a climate degree.

So, I am supposed to BELIEVE a non-scientist attempting to rebuff climate science, and yet am supposed to DISBELIEVE an actual scientist because he is not a climate scientist? Really? Monkton shouldn't be dismissing someones data as inaccurate when they have no qualifications in climatology, WHEN HE HAS NO SUCH QUALIFICATIONS HIMSELF.

This is not a science based paper, it is a political paper.

It is a science based paper.Most of the data and the charts are from a science report.He made his own interpretation on it.

Try taking AndrewL's example instead.Your whining get tiresome after a while.

LOL

[sunsettommy]

How do you explain this graph then?

Obviously there has been warming since 1998.

Hmmm, it wont let me post the image....

here is a link to it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=11

Andrew

Good try.

This time it is wrong because he is replying to Bob Carter who was wrong too.

I had gone over this a while ago with B.Max.

LOL

Here from the IPCC's favorite climate data center.Hadley Centre.

The image refuses to work here.

They say there is no warming since 1998.

They even made a press release admitting to it.

Edited September 7, 2007 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

You missed this part from the Monkton paper.

The contrast between the five computer models’ predicted signature of greenhouse warming and the Hadley Centre’s plot of observed decadal rates of change in temperature could not be starker. This result is explicitly confirmed by the UN’s 2007 assessment report, which describes the near-total absence of its own predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming in the observed temperature record, but apparently without appreciating its significance – emphasis mine

“9.4.4.1 Observed Changes

“... All data sets show that the global mean and tropical troposphere has warmed from 1958 to the present, with the warming trend in the troposphere slightly greater than at the surface. Since 1979, it is likely that there is slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface, although uncertainties remain in observed tropospheric warming trends and whether these are greater or less than the surface trend. The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean tropospheric temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade based on satellite-based estimates (Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade for the global surface warming. “

[AndrewL]

Good try.

This time it is wrong because he is replying to Bob Carter who was wrong too.

I had gone over this a while ago with B.Max.

LOL

Here from the IPCC's favorite climate data center.Hadley Centre.

The image refuses to work here.

They say there is no warming since 1998.

They even made a press release admitting to it.

I think you maybe missed the point. In the short term climate has a natural variance. For instance, 98 was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Nino. If you plot the temperatures with a 'line of best fit' you do in fact see warming since 98. This is basic statistics, and universally accepted. The data is pretty clear. You just gave us the same graph without the 'line of best fit'. Here, in case you have never heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_best_fit

Id like to see the press release you speak of though. Can you provide that?

Andrew

Edited September 7, 2007 by AndrewL

[AndrewL]

Golly a good rebuttal FINALLY show up.

You did better than a few scientists of other forums who would not even do that.

That was all I wanted was a counter to the Viscounts paper.

It appears that he did not take note of the corrections.

I am going to copy your reply and show up those nasty people at another forum and show that a layman can make a good post to counter the Viscount.

Thanks.

Your welcome. I know more about the troposphere from this exercise. Thank You.

Andrew