It seems that Tim did pretty well in his debate with Monckton in Sydney. The whole thing isn't on video (yet? Unless anyone knows differently) but the final summing up is worth watching. I thought that using the Last Glacial Maximum was a great choice for indicating to a non-specialist audience how sensitive the climate is to forcing changes, then I looked at his slides (see here) and saw he cited us for the calculation :-) The figures are taken from the literature and the calculation is standard, and while there is room for debate over exactly how accurately the ~3C result can be interpreted, it is hard to justify a figure which is too far either side. Probably the highlight of Tim's talk was to get quotes from someone saying that Monckton had misinterpreted their work and the IPCC had not, though.
If anyone doesn't read Tim's blog, it is well worth a look, though I don't often (ever?) wade into the debate there. His experience of dealing with credulous contrarians on many subjects probably puts him is a better position than most climate scientists, so I hope he makes a habit of taking on such debates.
If anyone doesn't read Tim's blog, it is well worth a look, though I don't often (ever?) wade into the debate there. His experience of dealing with credulous contrarians on many subjects probably puts him is a better position than most climate scientists, so I hope he makes a habit of taking on such debates.
17 comments:
Imho, Monkton got the best of that debate.
...and your reason for saying that is?
I doubt that anyone really gets their minds changed at such events. However given that it was Tim's first go, I expect he will do better next time, and would like to encourage him to keep at it!
I think Tim did a great job and showed a lot of moxy agreeing to a debate with a contrarian moderator and (judging from the questions) largely sceptical crowd.
However, I'm sceptical of the benefit of events like this. As James points out, I doubt anyone alters their opinion either way. But even if they did, what would the change of mind be based on? Which debater sounded most convincing? Who had the flashiest slides? Who made them laugh with a witty one-liner? Very scientific.
Well, there seems to be an appetite for such events, and it looks bad when no scientists can be found to take part in such debates. It's even worse when someone eminent and famous makes a mess of things! Therefore I think a good scientifically literate non-specialist is probably the least-bad option.
Monckton annihilated the corrupt Lambert
Now here are the facts: The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could've had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.
The medieval Warm period was warmer than today, Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.
Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.
In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.
The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet.
The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there.
Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.
Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.
Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn't support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and guts as opposed to cowardly scumbag scientific worms and political doxies masquerading as journalists (you know who Im talking about)that don't contribute to civilisation, only destroy,and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.
"Therefore I think a good scientifically literate non-specialist is probably the least-bad option."
Well when you put it that way I can't disagree :)
I especially liked Tim's recording of Dr Pinker...
Anonymous at 9:20 - hmmm, poe or idiot? Hard to say really. Note the usual lack of supporting evidence and total ignorance of the work of the last 120 years on climate.
Apparently it wasn't a recording of the real Dr Pinker, but an american woman reading out what Pinker had written. Good showmanship and also a way of showing Monkcton's research was bad, since apparently he refered to Pinker as a he.
Picking up on what guthrie said, Tim's accompanying slide (p. 11) makes it clear that Prof. Pinker's e-mail was read by P. Furst.
I love the smell of anonymous ignorant rant in the morning.
@ guthrie + P. Lewis - oops, my bad! Still a good stunt.
Eli rather suspects that Dr. Pinker has a non-US accent, but then again Chris M thought she was a he
"I love the smell of anonymous ignorant rant in the morning."
Did you used to live on a farm?
Guthrie, moron, the ususal ad hominem with no supporting evidence.
Perhaps you'll note I provided comprehensive scientific explanations of why AGW is a sham. Perhaps you'll also note (but I doubt it) that you offered nothing.
By the way Monckton destroyed him in the summing up. Associating low CO2 with climate sensitivity in the mini ice age is fallacious and idiotic as CO2 does not correlate with climate change very much at all, and lags behind climate change.
Solar activity (e.g. sunspot activity) correlates much more precisely with climate trends, and was low in the mini ice age.
His analogy was tantamount to claiming that because a drunk teenager crashes her car and the spare tyre is missing, that means that missing spare tyres cause crashes.
Lol, Lambert, gutsy, but a fool.
Guthrie, you're just a fool.
Anonymous
I provided comprehensive scientific explanations of why AGW is a sham.
What, "evidence" like this?
Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
Comedy gold!
By special request then,since I'm avoiding Latin homework.
"300 years of warming" - apart from the cold spots in the 19th century, and after WW2. Besides, what was causing all this warming? What was the mechanism? The climatologists know what, how and why, but you appear not to.
8 years is not enough to establish a climate trend, so irrelevant, although seeing the warmest was actually 2005, shouldn't that be a 4 year cooling trend?
There is no evidence for a global warm period in the medieval period that is warmer than today. There is lots of evidence of less sea ice, whether pictures by satellite, or from large ships passing through bits of ocean they have never been on before.
Oh, and the sea level is rising, get used to it. Where do you get the lie that it is not?
The rest of your post is just as entertaining, but your argument style regarding oceanic acidification reminds me of Neil Craig, a first class numpty who spent days trying to prove to me that oceanic acificiation was wrong, because he didn't know any chemistry. He failed, naturally. I would love to know where you get the lie that coral also does better under increased CO2. You should contact Neil, I'm sure you'd have a lot to rant about together.
And anonymous, your reference to Lindzen interests me, can you say any more, or do you not actually comprehend the science enough to say?
Post a Comment