• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could it all be about an error of elementary physics?

longview said:
Like I said, run your own calculations and show how much possible feedback there could be.
I say it is minimal.
What does that mean, well if the 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1 C and the feedbacks factor is 1.385 (.277/.2),
then the most warming we could expect out of doubling the co2 level is 1.1X 1.385 or, 1.52 C.
But that would be spread over almost 180 years, and assumes we can actually double the CO2 level.
Click to expand...

And if the forcing is 3.0C?
 
Deuce said:
He invented a chart that was allegedly showing IPCC projections of temperatures, but his chart was of a straight linear temperature progression, which no organization on the planet has ever actually projected.

So where did he get the projection?
Click to expand...

I thought that would be your claim and it's bogus. He used the IPCC's own numbers to create his chart.
 
Jack Hays said:
I thought that would be your claim and it's bogus. He used the IPCC's own numbers to create his chart.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the IPCC projects a perfect straight line temperature trend over the next century?
 
Deuce said:
Are you saying the IPCC projects a perfect straight line temperature trend over the next century?
Click to expand...

I really don't care what the IPCC projects. Monckton made his chart with their numbers.
 
Jack Hays said:
I really don't care what the IPCC projects. Monckton made his chart with their numbers.
Click to expand...

When analyzing the accuracy of IPCC projections... you don't care what the IPCC projects?

That is a very interesting statement.
 
Let me put it this way, Jack:

Monckton used the IPCC's numbers, but he used them incorrectly.

I can reasonably project that a male, American child conceived today will gain 200 pounds over the next 25 years. However, that doesn't mean I am projecting the child will gain exactly eight pounds per year over the next 25 years. Does that make sense?
 
Deuce said:
When analyzing the accuracy of IPCC projections... you don't care what the IPCC projects?

That is a very interesting statement.
Click to expand...

The numbers Monckton used had been presented by the IPCC.
 
Deuce said:
Let me put it this way, Jack:

Monckton used the IPCC's numbers, but he used them incorrectly.

I can reasonably project that a male, American child conceived today will gain 200 pounds over the next 25 years. However, that doesn't mean I am projecting the child will gain exactly eight pounds per year over the next 25 years. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Monckton's point was about the claimed magnitude of warming. The rate of gain at any specified point is irrelevant. A straight line is fair.
 
Jack Hays said:
It doesn't matter. Monckton's point was about the claimed magnitude of warming. The rate of gain at any specified point is irrelevant. A straight line is fair.
Click to expand...

It's not, because nobody predicts a straight line.

The IPCC does not expect the warming in 2020-2029 to be the same as the warming in 2090-2099. Monckton's chart claims they do.
 
Sunsettommy said:
:lol:

Still no counterpoint to Monkton comes from you same man who said recently:



and,



Still nothing but hot air is you have so far.

I am still reading it, reading the comments in the thread and pondering, which is a major reason why I have not set position on it.

Al Gore has been wrong so many times on simple stuff.................
Click to expand...

Greetings, Sunsettommy. :2wave:

Al Gore is not a scientist, but a "repeater" of what someone else has said. He's in it just to make money on the sale of carbon credits, so why would anyone care what he thinks?
 
Deuce said:
It's not, because nobody predicts a straight line.

The IPCC does not expect the warming in 2020-2029 to be the same as the warming in 2090-2099. Monckton's chart claims they do.
Click to expand...

His chart shows the magnitude of warming predicted by the IPCC. Your objections are quibbles and whining.
 
Jack Hays said:
His chart shows the magnitude of warming predicted by the IPCC. Your objections are quibbles and whining.
Click to expand...

It's not. The purpose of his chart is to illustrate how recent temperatures did not match IPCC projections, but his methodology artificially inflates the near-term projections the IPCC really made.
 
Deuce said:
It's not. The purpose of his chart is to illustrate how recent temperatures did not match IPCC projections, but his methodology artificially inflates the near-term projections the IPCC really made.
Click to expand...

The IPCC is responsible and accountable for their numbers. Your objection is special pleading that doesn't matter in the slightest. I grant that you have been able to use it to deflect from the OP, and that's partly my fault. I'm stopping that now.
 
Jack Hays said:
The IPCC is responsible and accountable for their numbers. Your objection is special pleading that doesn't matter in the slightest. I grant that you have been able to use it to deflect from the OP, and that's partly my fault. I'm stopping that now.
Click to expand...

It does matter a great deal. Here is the actual IPCC projections superimposed over Monckton's presentation.

TZD1irr.png
[/IMG]

They're not the same. He made up a graph that doesn't reflect what they truly project, in an attempt to demonstrate their projections are wrong. You can twist and spin and pretend that's valid all you want, it's not fooling anyone here. Monckton is a fraud. You're done with it? Great. See ya.
 
Deuce said:
It does matter a great deal. Here is the actual IPCC projections superimposed over Monckton's presentation.

TZD1irr.png
[/IMG]

They're not the same. He made up a graph that doesn't reflect what they truly project, in an attempt to demonstrate their projections are wrong. You can twist and spin and pretend that's valid all you want, it's not fooling anyone here. Monckton is a fraud. You're done with it? Great. See ya.
Click to expand...

Your graph confirms the validity of Monckton's presentation. Thanks for taking the time to post it before you go.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your graph confirms the validity of Monckton's presentation. Thanks for taking the time to post it before you go.
Click to expand...

:lamo

You're saying the pink area is the same as the model lines.

This is always entertaining, Jack. Keep it up.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Sunsettommy. :2wave:

Al Gore is not a scientist, but a "repeater" of what someone else has said. He's in it just to make money on the sale of carbon credits, so why would anyone care what he thinks?
Click to expand...

Hello Polgara, :2wave:

I agree with you.
 
Deuce said:
Which is why if I post links to stuff he says, you're not going to bother with "counter research."
Click to expand...

Ha ha, the topic is about Monckton's presentation, which you have yet to address in any form of a counterpoint.

Waiting

Waiting for an actual counterpoint...... Waiting.

Still waiting.
 
Deuce said:
And if the forcing is 3.0C?
Click to expand...
The current peer reviewed published work says the forcing from 2XCO2 is between 3.44 and 3.71 Wm-2 or 1.00 and 1.11 C.
 
Jack Hays said:
Could concerns about the negative consequences of global warming derive from an elementary physics error? I'll be the first to admit I don't know, but it's a provocative question. Some will be put off by Christopher Monckton's authorship, but the old adage that even a blind hog will find the occasional acorn applies here as much as anywhere else.


Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This will be a long posting, but it will not be found uninteresting. Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8…

Continue reading →

". . . Therefore, I am at last free to reveal what we have discovered. There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models’ calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K. We say we can prove it.
The proof: I shall now outline our proof. Let us begin with the abstract of the underlying paper. It is just 70 words long, for the error (though it has taken me a dozen years to run it to earth) really is stupendously elementary:
Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback. Hitherto, however, the large feedback response to emission temperature has been misattributed to warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. After correction, the theoretically-derived pre-industrial feedback fraction is demonstrated to cohere with the empirically-derived industrial-era value an order of magnitude below previous estimates, mandating reduction of projected Charney sensitivity from to . . . ."
Click to expand...

Since these cities haven't banned on oil products and their use in their limits, they aren't serious and the judge should toss the case out on that basis.
 
Deuce said:
And if the forcing is 3.0C?
Click to expand...
I thought it might be interesting to show what I am speaking about graphically.
From the known .2C of 70 plus year warming, the only unknown warming is .077 C.
So what does this observed data look like when compared to the IPCC's 3 C prediction and 4.5 C prediction?
Climate_feedbacks.jpg
For the same .2 C input, the feedback necessary to produce an ECS of 3 C would produce .345 C of unknown warming.
The feedback necessary to produce and ECS of 4.5 C would need to produce a whopping .618 C of unknown warming.
What is ironic is the very low observed unknown warming of .077 C in response to a .2 C input,
is still within the IPCC's ECS range, but not of much concern!
 
[h=1]Climate Debate begins: Sceptic v. Sceptic[/h]Posted on 23 Mar 18 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 2 Comments
Four days ago I posted an article publicising one by Christopher Monckton at WattsUpWithThat because the first salvo of comments at WUWT made me despair that the comment thread there would produce any enlightenment. I was wrong. Though Monckton very kindly came to my article at Cliscep to try and clear up my confusion, and …
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom