Comments on: Assuming Your Conclusion

By: willard

willard — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:48:31 +0000

Target paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html

Abstract:

Quantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30–50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

It seems Mr. Monkton confuses the author’s argument with their interpretation of its incidence.

By: baxman

baxman — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:35:27 +0000

wahoo:
It sounds similar to conclusions in Hansen et al. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”
(http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf)
But as far as I can see that paper doesn’t single out a point 3 million years ago to compare with.
Hansen similarly argues that variations in ice sheet cover and GHG concentrations can explain most of the observed variability in past climates.

By: genezeien

genezeien — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:29:49 +0000

How silly… to assume that a direct comparison of climate between today and ~3My ago is reasonable. The continents were not in the same place! The ocean currents were quite different: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n6/full/ngeo520.html Climate is complicated by many factors besides atmospheric chemistry. Without “adjusting” for the change in latitude of the location where the core samples were acquired over the past 3My, these scientists are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. That bit of ocean floor MOVED :-O

As for the OT comments on IR back-radiation, this does take place. However, there can never be a net transfer of heat from a cool body to a warm one. The whole hypothesis of CO2 “warming” is often mis-stated, by hinges upon CO2 simply “slowing” the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. A better analogy is blocking the airflow through your radiator with a postage stamp. Doubling CO2 = 2 postage stamps on radiator. If this makes your car over-heat, you have more serious issues than the reduced air-flow, or a serious lead-foot

By: kevan Hashemi

kevan Hashemi — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:34:41 +0000

Xmas: Thank you for that Angry Physicist paper. I have almost finished it, and I feel humiliated that I did not see these things myself. For example, to answer my own question above, CO2 absorbs IR and gets warmer as a result. The CO2 does not reflect the heat back to the earth. So how can this heat return to the earth? Through conduction? The climate models set the conductivity of the atmosphere to zero. Through radiation? The math does not work out for back-radiation from a body at -40C even if we assume its a black cavity radiator. For this and many other reasons, the paper shows that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is contradictory to the established laws of physics.

Not that anyone cares, of course. But thank you for the link.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:04:26 +0000

Is it possible that Monkton pulled this article out of his royal arse and posted it on a blog and y’all are simply buying into it?

By: Kevan Hashemi

Kevan Hashemi — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:50:14 +0000

I’m looking at the Angry Physicist paper, trying to see if I can confirm they claims. For example, “[CO2] Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.” That sounds interesting. But I can’t figure out how they get there. Can anyone else?

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:06:05 +0000

So has anyone here actually read the paper Monkton takes issue with? Anyone?

By: Bill Parkyn

Bill Parkyn — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:10:55 +0000

The authors even mention the teeny little fact of the Panama Seaway back then, allowing a circumglobal warm current that is no longer with us. (Panama lifted 3 Mya, triggering heightened glaciation.) Their conclusion about climate sensitivity ignores this, absurdly enough.

By: Xmas

Xmas — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:58:01 +0000

Did you read the angry physicist paper yet?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

It’s loads of fun.

By: Paul Maynard

Paul Maynard — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:42:51 +0000

Re Lord Monckton

Christopher is what I would describe a a libertarian rationalist but with perhaps a somewhat contradictatory Catholic Faith.

His views on AIDS have to be seen in the context of the time when they were composed some 30 years ago. In the UK at least, we were bombarded with a government inpired campaign that was swallowed hook line and sinker by the media. The slogan was don’t die of ignorance with the implication that we were all at risk. It was rather redolent of a similar campaign about VD during WW2.

The implication was that the whole population was at risk which history showed it was not. How extreem, you view the measures proposed by Monckton depends upon how you value the millions of deaths from AIDS since. I would say he was right even though I doubt that I would have said so at the time.

Cheers

Paul