BPSDB
Christopher Monckton has recently been debunked (again) by John Abraham, Professor of Engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.
The university is a is a Catholic, diocesan university based in the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Abraham’s disecection of Monckton’s talk has predictably gone viral, so you’re probably already aware of it – but if you missed it you can find his talk here. Well worth a listen.
Many blogs have already picked up on this. Mockton replies here, and Abraham in turn replies in a guest post at Skeptical Science (which has a further response from Monckton).
Is Monckton getting increasingly strident with time, or am I just imagining it?
Tom Chivers published a nice post entitled “Viscount Monckton is an embarrassment to global warming sceptics everywhere” on his blog at the Telegraph, but it was very short lived – it’s been pulled. Maybe his bosses were not amused, or maybe James Delingpole has more clout – I don’t know.
Fortunately there is still a copy of the article at Climate Change: The Next Generation. My favourite bit is:
What I want to say is: if I were a climate change sceptic, or denier, or heretic or whatever your epithet of choice is, I would be desperately trying to distance myself from Lord Monckton.
Oddly enough, James Delingpole’s blog post “I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot” has been allowed to stay up on the Telegraph. Presumably he is referring to his colleague Tom Chivers when he states “some other libtard journalist I’d never even heard of before he mentioned me in his blog”, but that is just a guess.
Delingpole is clearly smitten, he actually refers to Monckton as “Chrissy Babes”.
Good grief …
In the recent UK elections, Monckton nailed his flag to the UKIP party, becoming spokesperson for its science policy back in December.
In fact he even briefly stood as a candidate but pulled out at the last minute. The reason he gave was that UKIP had a policy of not competing against any “Restore Trust in Parliament” candidates (we have a plethora of political parties here, but that is one I had never heard of before).
Probably just as well – UKIP didn’t do very well. In fact all but one of their 560 candidates lost their deposits (you need a minimum of 10% of the vote to retain your deposit), but I guess that £500 is small beer to some people. The “Trust” candidate for Perth & North Perthshire managed to obtain just 534 votes (even with UKIP’s support)
Since members of the House of Lords cannot stand as candidates for the House of Commons, does this mean that Monckton will stop pretending to be a peer?
UKIP are so impressed with Monckton that they have given him the job of (joint) deputy leader of the party. Interestingly the party leader is Baron Pearson of Rannoch, a friend and neighbour of Monckton (and a real member of the House of Lords).
Despite doing so badly in the election, UKIP are hailing it as a major success. In their eyes the few votes they did receive were from voters who would otherwise have voted for the Conservative party (this is probably true).
They therefore claim that they are responsible for the fact that the UK has a hung parliament, that this is a good thing, and that this was their cunning plan all along.
OK, back to Schrödinger.
IMAGE CREDITS:
[1] – Deltoid
[2] – The Telegraph
Greenfyre's 
I must agree with James Delingpole when he says “I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot.” I too would prefer he be in a foxhole with Monckton!
PP if you really knew anything about horse racing you should have known that the punters go on “form”.
The discount monk’s only “form” is in lying, ad hominem attacks and serial misrepresentation of his qualifications.
See here for a recent CV:
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents
I see he listed himself as a “Domus Scholar” while at Harrow. It is about 50 years since I did any Latin in school but could this be translated as “dumb scholar”? It certainly it fits.
On the other hand Dr. Abraham’s form seems to consist of winning and placements. I know which horse my money is on.
The discount monk is not even worthy of a bet as a 200 to 1 outsider since he is facing backwards in the starting gate and it looks like his legs are tied together. Also his blinkers are not fixed properly, they are completely covering his eyes so he can’t even see where he is going.
Domus would be house, I presume. As if anyone cares what he got up to at school.
—-
PP, the two sides of the debate are not equal. The climatologists actually look to see what the climate is doing and they report that it is warming. The other side of the “debate” does not look to see what is happening and has repeatedly been caught lying about it. I would trust the side that actually looked.
Also consider that there is an optimum temperature range that plants and animals live in. It can be too hot as well as too cold.
Mongolia has a crappy climate.
Paul,
Is it getting warmer or cooler? You seem to be somewhat unsure. Could it be because you are confusing weather and climate?
Let’s say that we want it to get warmer. What do you suggest to make that more likely?
What research do you expect us to do that isn’t already being done?
Mike, [1] you certainly seem to have it in for one of my heroes, Christopher Monckton, Lord Monckton of Blenchley, don’t you. Are you convinced that you have your facts right about him, Peers, the House of Lords and candidacy for election to the House of Commons? You say with the utmost confidence QUOTE: Since members of the House of Lords cannot stand as candidates for the House of Commons, does this mean that Monckton will stop pretending to be a peer? [2] UNQUOTE, but I’m not aware that Lord Monckton claims to be a member of the House of Lords although it appears that he was in October 1999 (Note 1) [3] just before the House of Lords Act 1999 was given Royal Aproval in November that year (Note 2).
According to the “HOUSE OF LORDS Session 2010-11 Register of Hereditary Peers who wish to stand for election as members of the House of Lords under Standing Order 10 (Hereditary peers: by-elections) as at 25 May 2010 “ (Note 3) QUOTE: .. The House of Lords Act 1999 disqualified all hereditary peers for membership of the House, but excepted from this general exclusion 90 hereditary peers and the holders of the offices of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain. From the end of the 2001-02 parliamentary session, section 2(4) of the 1999 Act and Standing Order 10 provide for a vacancy among any of the 90 excepted hereditary peers to be filled by means of a by-election. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order 10 requires the Clerk of the Parliaments to maintain and publish annually a register of hereditary peers (other than peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any such by-election. The following hereditary peers have indicated their wish to stand in any by-election under Standing Order 10. .. Monckton of Brenchley, V. UNQUOTE and he was there in 2009 (Note 4) and 2007 as well (Note 5).
Going even further back, the “House of Lords Journal 232 (Session 1998-99)” (Note 1) says QUOTE: Tuesday 26 October 1999 The House met at half-past two o’clock. The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present: .. Monckton of Brenchley, V UNQUOTE. According to “United Kingdom peerage creations 1801 to 2009 .. ” (Note 6) QUOTE: .. In the following index, titles are shown in bold and surnames in italics. Bold italics are used where a surname is the same as, or forms part of, a title. Dates of creation act as hyperlinks to the corresponding entries in the chronological list. .. Monckton of Brenchley, V.: 11 Feb 1957 .. UNQUOTE – Monckton of Brenchley in BOLD and the date links to QUOTE: V. Monckton of Brenchley of Brenchley in the County of Kent – Walter Turner Monckton (died 9 Jan 1965) UNQUOTE.
Wouldn’t you agree that Monkton’s claim to being a hereditary peer seems on this evidence to be valid? – unless Lord Christopher Monckton is an impostor and is not really the grandson of Lord Walter Monkton (Note 7). If you do not agree then perhaps you’d be kind enough to “debunk” this claim with sound evidence of your own because I can’t find any. BTW, I don’t recall ever seeing a claim by Lord Monkton that he was a member of the House of Lords (although, as a hereditary peer he but you must have done so please would you provide a link to the evidence.
If you have misunderstood the evidence and are wrong about Lord Monckton then I’m sure you’ll be happy to apologise. Of course, if you show that I’m wrong in my interpretation I’ll be happy to apologise to you.
I may make time to take a look at what Abrahams and Monckton had to say about each other and get back to you on that. In the meantime please consider the possibility that you could have your facts mixed up about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.
Hi Ian (Forrester), we meet again. I see that you have made another earth-shattering contribution to debate. Does this help (Note 8) – QUOTE: Domus Scholar: An undergraduate who has received a scholarship from college funds; also called ‘on the foundation’ UNQUOTE. Perhaps you’d be good enough to substantiate your claim that Lord Monckton’s QUOTE: only “form” is in lying .. and serial misrepresentation of his qualifications UNQUOTE. As for “ .. ad hominem attacks .. “ methinks pan calls kettle black. That is virtually all that you do when pretending to debate The Hypothesis. BTW, have you sorted out your misunderstanding about air in ice cores?
NOTES: Once again I’ve had to remove http://www. from my links in Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and http:// from 6, 7 & 8..
1) see parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld199899/ldjournal/232/146.htm
2) see opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1
3) see parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld201011/ldelect/2/2.pdf
4) see parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/byelectionresults090715.pdf
5) see parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldelect/2/202.htm
6) see website.lineone.net/~david.beamish/peerages_lr.htm#M
7) see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
8) see archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/Exhibitions/exhib01.asp
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
Ridley,
Do you really have to post all this guff when you can just cite the links?
How could Monckton have been an hereditary member of the House of Lords when his father died 7 years after the 1999 Act?
Are you seriously claiming that he has never suggested (claim might be too strong) that he is a member of the House of Lords? Are you simply incapable of reading anything that does not support your hero worship?
Actually TS, if you read through the link S2 provided, he clearly DID claim to be a member of the House of Lords…to the PCC no less. I would not be surprised if that actually contributed to the rejection of the claim. Baroness Buscombe probably wasn’t too happy about someone fraudulously claiming to be a member of the House of which she truly is a member.
I was leaving some room for “semantics”, and TBH I really don’t want to keep rereading his utterances too often.
Hilarious.
Mr Ridley has written a complete post on something that is completely pointless and irrelevant to science.
Very much like Monckton.
Its Brenchley, not Blenchley!
Well spotted. Isn’t it strange that our Monckton groupie is so careless in spelling his hero’s title and was also unaware of when his (Monckton’s) father died?
Ridley, your google machine must be short circuiting. If you used it properly you would find that he himself admits to being a chronic liar. Try updating your google qualifications.
I won’t give a reference since I am sure you will start stalking the miserable lord. He might even invite you to stalk a few stags on his piece of Scottish turf. Too bad that anti-Scots have the nerve to live in the country which they keep on criticizing and trying to steal their resources for the mad dog Sassenachs.
You are pathetic.
Ian,
Are you ready for this? Really, you must not be attempting to ingest food or liquid when you see Monckton in a kilt.
Does a kilt count as a “resource”?
I’ve seen that one or a very similar one before. I’m having difficulty identifying the tartan but it closely resembles that of Liars Anonymous.
I find Monckton’s reply on Skeptical Science interesting. I’m not sure if I can stomach his reply when it’s made availabe, but I’ll give it a shot. If his response is anything like that to Dr Glikson a while ago, it’ll probably be more irritating than rational.
He says that he’ll refute ever one of Prof Abraham’s points, but how will he refute that the authors he reference said that he was wrong in his conclusion of their work? That will be an interesting rebuttal.
He also comments that John was venomous? I thought he gave Monckton too much respect and consideration. I suppose he had his feelings hurt in being caught out.
The recent New Scientist look into Denial which also went somewhat viral covered the point that denial just keeps on denying – even in the face of contrary evidence. I suspect that Monckton will prove nothing more than an excellent example of this.
My hope is not that he finally sees sense, but only that those who sport him as their champion finally come to their senses.
Monckton’s claim that Abraham was venomous is indeed rather…disconnected from reality. Also funny: in the PCC-link that S2 provided in response to Pete Ridley, Monckton complains about being called a “swivel-eyed maniac”, even referring to that remark as discriminatory; in his reply to Abraham, he calls the man an “overcooked shrimp”. I guess his peerage makes him believe that everyone should bow down to the Lord (sorry, Viscount), and that he can insult the peasants every way he wants. He was clearly born a 1000 years too late (hmmm…maybe that explains his pre-occupation with the MCA?).
My apologies to Mike for thinking that he had written this lead article. S2, please accept my initial comments as being directed at yourself. Thanks for providing that link to the appeal by Lord Monckton. The article (Note 1) by Monbiot about which Lord Monckton was appealing links to a Raw Story article “Monckton’s letter to Snowe, Rockefeller on global warming” (Note 2). Lord Monckton’s actual letter “Uphold Free Speech about Climate Change or Resign” (Note 3) does say QUOTE: you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature .. should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature .. UNQUOTE. This provides the evidence that I was looking for that Lord Monckton incorrectly claimed to be a Member of the House of Lords, so thanks for helping me to find it. Although that PCC appeal decision says QUOTE: Date published: 12/05/2010 UNQUOTE it is noticeable that the appeal itself related to an article published in Dec. 2009 which made reference to a claim by Lord Monckton made in 2006, over 3 years ago a few months after the death of his father (let’s show a little compassion for my hero and consider how upset he must still have been).
You repeat your claim that QUOTE: Monckton CONTINUES to pretend that he has a presence in the House of Lords UNQUOTE so would you please substantiate this with evidence that Lord Monckton has done so recently.
Truesceptic, I don’t see you complaining about S2 posting the reams of “guff” above about Lord Christopher Monckton (and elsewhere about catastrophic human-made global climate change). Try being fair-minded just for once, you might enjoy it. I stand corrected on mistakenly thinking that Lord Christopher Monckton was a hereditary peer in 1999 when it must have been his father, however, the remainder of my – how did you put it – “guff” appears to be correct.
You ask QUOTE: .. Are you seriously claiming that he has never suggested .. that he is a member of the House of Lords? . UNQUOTE but once again my words are manipulated by a supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. What I said was “I don’t recall ever seeing a claim by Lord Monkton that he was a member of the House of Lords .. but you must have done so please would you provide a link to the evidence”. I have now seen the evidence that he did so, once in 2006. If you have evidence of a more recent incident thaen I’d appreciate you providing a link to it. That’s a simple enough request is it not?
I’ve had a listen to some of what Professor Abrahams has to say about Lord Monkton’s address at Bethel University in October and I’m adding him to my list of heroes. I love his true sceptic style, his honesty, his helpful manner and his civility, which is clear in his response (Note 4) to Lord Monkton’s attempt to refute what Professor Abraham said initially. It appears that there is little love lost between Lord Monckton and George Monbiot but Lord Monckton would have been better to have left well alone instead of reacting to Professor Abraham’s assessment in the way he did.
I’ve had a quick look at Professor Abraham’s background and can find only three papers related in any way to human-made global climate change that he has been involved in (as co-author), these being on the subject of bio-fuels (Note 4). Professor Abrahams properly acknowledges QUOTE: My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics. .. Just because I publish in this area does not mean that I am right .. We welcome everyone with an opinion on this topic .. nevertheless we want to think about the backgrounds that people have when we ascribe credibility to thwe comment that they make .. UNQUOTE. I will listen to the entire presentation but those initial comments are worth quoting here now for the benefit of those closed minds whith whom I have had the dubious pleasure of exchangng views on Mike’s “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies” thread.
Ian, more of your true colours are showing through. When I worked at Bruce Peebles in the research labs in Edinburgh back in the early 60s my boss, an Englishman, told me a tale about when he met his Glaswegian wife’s family their dislike of the “mad dog Sassenachs” was made clear. On saying “But I’m English” he was told “Yes, but you’re family”. Perhaps that typifies the illogical minds of people who originate from Western Scotland (like yourself?). BTW, still no mention from you of what your friendly scientists told you about clathraytes/hydrates in the firn – perhaps it was something that you would rather not have heard.
NOTES: I have again removed http://www. from the Notes excluding 3) which needs http: only.
1) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/10/viscount-monckton-ukip
2) see http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_1218.html
3) see http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
4) see http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-launches-vitriolic-harmless-attack-critic
5) see http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2009/abs.html?i=10141
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Ridley said:
Ridley, stop obfuscating. You are the only person who has said anything about clathrates in the firn. It is well known that there is diffusion (not fractionation) going on before the ice closure occurs. The clathrates form after that time once the pressure and temperature are such that the clathrates are thermodynamically stable. Thus the gases are unchanged for 100’s of thousands of years. It is well known that the ice trapped below the firn layer represents the conditions in the atmosphere a number of years later than when the ice formed. In the case of the Siple cores this is about 60 years.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013
This is what science is all about, understanding physical and chemical processes and interpreting them logically and accurately so that valuable information can be produced.
You, as an ASS (anti-science syndrome sufferer), try to represent these normal and correct techniques as being dishonest.
You are pathetic.
Pete, you promised to apologise: “Of course, if you show that I’m wrong in my interpretation I’ll be happy to apologise to you.” Where’s the apology for your false claim that Christopher Monckton was a member of the House of Lords?
Quote Mr Ridley:
“I’ve had a quick look at Professor Abraham’s background and can find only three papers related in any way to human-made global climate change that he has been involved in (as co-author), these being on the subject of bio-fuels (Note 4).”
Please tell…
How many scientific papers has Monckton authored ?
Zero might be a good number.
OK, given that the apparent doubts about Abraham is negated by even greater doubts about Monckton, one concludes that the only real issue is the huge number of faults Abraham found in Moncktons school project, i mean presentation.
Hold on, that is probably an insult to many school kids.
Sorry!
OOooppps, I didn’t change the URLs but the comment was posted anyway, maybe because I only had one pdf. Any ideas anyone?
I read Delingpoles latest post on the Telegraph site and lost count of the abusive comments.
One wonders why the Telegraph are willing to allow this sort of garbage, yet Toms post was deleted.
One wonders what Tom thinks about the heavy handed nature of the Telegraphs actions?
Proffessor Abraham’s work does not in any way rely on “trust me I am a professor”. Instead he provides the references, the quotes and shows how he came to the conclusions.
If you look up the online version all the links are there to make verifying his work easy.
Exactly right Tony.
He does what any scientist would do when given a new report to review. If he himself provided such sloppy work to any respected journal, they’d tear it to pieces as well – constantly asking for him to clarify what has been poorly (or not at all) referenced, to assess his interpretation of what work he does does reference (in the case of Monckton – demonstrates that he has not read or does not understand the work) and would include obvious points of bias.
Prof Abraham does what Monckton does not; provide a clear trail for interested individuals to repeat his work – repetition is one of the keys to good scientific analysis. Monckton’s work is not repeatable and is far from scientifically coherent.
Ridley here shows his obvious bias; admitting on the off that Monckton is a hero of his (why, what good has he done but for creating a game?) and then defends what John demonstrates is a flawed and bias presentation. Monckton is not a defender of free speech – to debate against a thuggery style of science. Monckton represents the right the spread ill-informed propaganda in the face of overwhelming evidence in what can be only described as self-interest (look into his funding). Go onto youtube and listening to his disgusting language and venomous attack of a youth group last year; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw
He is the very last person to be hurt by name calling and demonstrates that he is an appalling character. His rubbish about bio-fuels killing millions in that piece is also flawed (but this is not the place for that).
I am all for free speech and I certainly love a good debate, however the arguments this man provides have been shown to hold no weight and do nothing but provoke inaction in a time where we could make crucial headway to improving our activities so that the struggle won’t be made more difficult over the coming century.
Hi Tim,
Monckton seems to have a habit of challenging youth environmentalists. He talks down to them and doesn’t engage with them as equals.
I think the word buffoon comes to mind when watching that Youtube video.
Indeed.. The man fails to do anything constructive exempt build his ego further. I won’t be surprised if his response to John’s rebuttal will fall short of providing anything any closer to science than the original.
Truesceptic, if S2 did not understand my “I stand corrected on mistakenly thinking that Lord Christopher Monckton was a hereditary peer in 1999 when it must have been his father” as being an apology for that minor error then I’m sure he/she would have raised the matter.
The Ville, maybe if you thought a little more before commenting you could save yourself the effort. As far as I am aware Lord Monckton has never claimed to be a scientist so I would not bother looking for scientific papers by him. On the other hand, Professor Abraham is a scientist but there are numerous scientific disciplines involved in improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates. As I have said before, when it comes to considering the credibility of an expressed opinion about this highly complex (almost chaotic) subject it is prudent to find out the degree of expertise that formed it.
For sceptics like myself QUOTE: .. the only real issue is the huge number of faults .. UNQUOTE within the opinions expressed by supporters of the UN’s human-made global climate change propaganda. What do experts in assessing evidence think about the “evidence” used by proponents of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis? Have any of you read “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pensylvania (Note 1)? Here’s what the May 2010 version says QUOTE:
A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change.
Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.
The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss. UNQUOTE.
That’s the opinion of someone with expertise in (Note 2) QUOTE: * Contracts * Environmental Law * Law and Economics * Natural Resources Law and Policy UNQUOTE after expertly assessing the main evidence claimed to validate The Hypothesis. I’m much more prepared to accept Professor Johnson’s expert opinion than those of unknown bloggers like yourself, Truesceptic, Marco, S2, Martha, etc. etc. etc. who hide behind false names.
Ian, even though I find you obnoxious when trying to debate climate change (about which you appears to know little, but are learning through debating it), at least you have the courage of your mistaken convictions, which I respect you for.
On Mike’s “Poptart’s 450 .. ” thread your QUOTE: Ridley you have absolutely no understanding of how CO2 is fixed in the ice in the antarctic ice cores. .. read up on “carbon dioxide clatherates (sic)” also known as CO2 hydrates. That is how the CO2 is stored in the ice UNQUOTE showed clearly how you misled yourself about how CO2 is held in the ice. As you have now been made aware by your friendly scientists QUOTE: The clathrates form after that time once the pressure and temperature are such that the clathrates are thermodynamically stable UNQUOTE.
Would you now like to ask your friendly scientists how long after closure those clathrates start forming and what happens before then. Another question that you might like to ask relates to that table in the “Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core” that I suspect they suggested you look at. Ask them at what depth the firn “ends” – you have suggested 60 years and Wikipedia suggests (Note 3) QUOTE: .. typically 100 m for Antarctic cores .. UNQUOTE. Perhaps you’d like to then compare that with the reconstruction of more recent atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The table suggests to me that close-off is estimated to occur at about 68m after about 90 years so the different air components are diffusing for that length of time as those bubbles and the “capilliaries” between them get smaller and smaller. Perhaps you’d like to ask your friendly scientists to explain why the smaller CO2 molecules do not continue diffusing after the larger O2 and N2 molecules are prevented from doing so, i.e. what I have called preferential fractionation but others may refer to as differential diffusivity. I believe that Jaworowski was suggesting that that would explain the apparent increase in CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial level of about 280ppm to a 1983 level of about 330ppm as presented in the graph (Note 4) from the Goddard Space Flight Centre article “Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core (1734-1983), in CDIAC, Online Trends” article (Note 5). This really is a puzzle for me that perhaps even you can explain.
As the Goddard article says QUOTE: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations for Siple Station (West Antarctica) were derived from measurements of air bubbles in a 200-m ice core drilled during the summer 1983-1984 .. UNQUOTE. Notice that once again, as I pointed out to you on the “Poptart’s 450 .. “ thread that there is no mention at all of any clathrate/hydrate, only bubbles! If in your most recent comment you were trying to imply that I believe that clathrates form in the firn then don’t bother. The reason that I asked you about the firn was because, as I said on that thread, it QUOTE: .. is the main part of the ice wherein I suspect that the differential fractionation due to molecular size .. might occur. .. UNQUOTE. I also said QUOTE: .. Bender et al. muttered on about QUOTE: Differential diffusivity is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition of gases in firn air .. UNQUOTE.
You say with confidence QUOTE: It is well known that there is diffusion (not fractionation) going on before the ice closure occurs. UNQUOTE. Ask your friendly scientists about the possibility of fractionation in the firn due to the differential diffusivity of the smaller CO2 molecules as the bubbles of air and the connections between them get smaller and smaller as close-off is approached. I believe that this is not an unknown phenomenon. It is referred to in “RARE-GAS STUDIES OF CRETACEOUS DEEP-SEA BASALTS “ (Note 6).
BTW, I still can’t find evidence of any papers, patents, etc. by you, even in biochemistry, your claimed area of expertise. Surely someone who has worked in that field for 40 years has something worth looking at.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
2) see http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/jjohnsto/
3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
4) see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif
5) see http://idn.ceos.org/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=%5BKeyword%3D%27GREENHOUSE+GAS%27%5D&OrigMetadataNode=GCMD&EntryId=CDIAC_CO2_SIPLE_ICECORE&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb3
6) see http://www.deepseadrilling.org/51_52_53/volume/dsdp51_52_53pt2_35.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Truesceptic, if S2 did not understand my “I stand corrected on mistakenly thinking that Lord Christopher Monckton was a hereditary peer in 1999 when it must have been his father” as being an apology for that minor error then I’m sure he/she would have raised the matter.
The Ville, maybe if you thought a little more before commenting you could save yourself the effort. As far as I am aware Lord Monckton has never claimed to be a scientist so I would not bother looking for scientific papers by him. On the other hand, Professor Abraham is a scientist but there are numerous scientific disciplines involved in improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates. As I have said before, when it comes to considering the credibility of an expressed opinion about this highly complex (almost chaotic) subject it is prudent to find out the degree of expertise that formed it.
For sceptics like myself QUOTE: .. the only real issue is the huge number of faults .. UNQUOTE within the opinions expressed by supporters of the UN’s human-made global climate change propaganda. What do experts in assessing evidence think about the “evidence” used by proponents of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis? Have any of you read “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pensylvania (Note 1)? Here’s what the May 2010 version says QUOTE:
A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change.
Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.
The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss. UNQUOTE.
That’s the opinion of someone with expertise in (Note 2) QUOTE: * Contracts * Environmental Law * Law and Economics * Natural Resources Law and Policy UNQUOTE after expertly assessing the main evidence claimed to validate The Hypothesis. I’m much more prepared to accept Professor Johnson’s expert opinion than those of unknown bloggers like yourself, Truesceptic, Marco, S2, Martha, etc. etc. etc. who hide behind false names.
Ian, even though I find you obnoxious when trying to debate climate change (about which you appears to know little, but are learning through debating it), at least you have the courage of your mistaken convictions, which I respect you for.
On Mike’s “Poptart’s 450 .. ” thread your QUOTE: Ridley you have absolutely no understanding of how CO2 is fixed in the ice in the antarctic ice cores. .. read up on “carbon dioxide clatherates (sic)” also known as CO2 hydrates. That is how the CO2 is stored in the ice UNQUOTE showed clearly how you misled yourself about how CO2 is held in the ice. As you have now been made aware by your friendly scientists QUOTE: The clathrates form after that time once the pressure and temperature are such that the clathrates are thermodynamically stable UNQUOTE.
Would you now like to ask your friendly scientists how long after closure those clathrates start forming and what happens before then. Another question that you might like to ask relates to that table in the “Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core” that I suspect they suggested you look at. Ask them at what depth the firn “ends” – you have suggested 60 years and Wikipedia suggests (Note 3) QUOTE: .. typically 100 m for Antarctic cores .. UNQUOTE. Perhaps you’d like to then compare that with the reconstruction of more recent atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The table suggests to me that close-off is estimated to occur at about 68m after about 90 years so the different air components are diffusing for that length of time as those bubbles and the “capilliaries” between them get smaller and smaller. Perhaps you’d like to ask your friendly scientists to explain why the smaller CO2 molecules do not continue diffusing after the larger O2 and N2 molecules are prevented from doing so, i.e. what I have called preferential fractionation but others may refer to as differential diffusivity. I believe that Jaworowski was suggesting that that would explain the apparent increase in CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial level of about 280ppm to a 1983 level of about 330ppm as presented in the graph (Note 4) from the Goddard Space Flight Centre article “Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core (1734-1983), in CDIAC, Online Trends” article (Note 5). This really is a puzzle for me that perhaps even you can explain.
As the Goddard article says QUOTE: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations for Siple Station (West Antarctica) were derived from measurements of air bubbles in a 200-m ice core drilled during the summer 1983-1984 .. UNQUOTE. Notice that once again, as I pointed out to you on the “Poptart’s 450 .. “ thread that there is no mention at all of any clathrate/hydrate, only bubbles! If in your most recent comment you were trying to imply that I believe that clathrates form in the firn then don’t bother. The reason that I asked you about the firn was because, as I said on that thread, it QUOTE: .. is the main part of the ice wherein I suspect that the differential fractionation due to molecular size .. might occur. .. UNQUOTE. I also said QUOTE: .. Bender et al. muttered on about QUOTE: Differential diffusivity is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition of gases in firn air .. UNQUOTE.
You say with confidence QUOTE: It is well known that there is diffusion (not fractionation) going on before the ice closure occurs. UNQUOTE. Ask your friendly scientists about the possibility of fractionation in the firn due to the differential diffusivity of the smaller CO2 molecules as the bubbles of air and the connections between them get smaller and smaller as close-off is approached. I believe that this is not an unknown phenomenon, for example it is referred to in “RARE-GAS STUDIES OF CRETACEOUS DEEP-SEA BASALTS “ (Note 6) and plenty other papers.
I’ve been trying for months now to resolve this uncertainty so would appreciate any help.
BTW, I still can’t find evidence of any papers, patents, etc. by you, even in biochemistry, your claimed area of expertise. Surely someone who has worked in that field for 40 years has something worth looking at.
NOTES: I have had to remove http://www. from Notes 1) and 6)
1) see probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
2) see http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/jjohnsto/
3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
4) see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/siple-gr.gif
5) see http://idn.ceos.org/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=%5BKeyword%3D%27GREENHOUSE+GAS%27%5D&OrigMetadataNode=GCMD&EntryId=CDIAC_CO2_SIPLE_ICECORE&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb3
6) see deepseadrilling.org/51_52_53/volume/dsdp51_52_53pt2_35.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete, we already discussed Jaworowski at length. You still tout his “preferential fractionation” without even a shimmer of evidence that this has taken place.
The whole fractionation story is highly questionable, as Ferdinand Engelbeen also nicely argues. For starters, you would expect the CO2 peaks in the ice core records of the last few interglacials to become broader and broader with every earlier time period (that is, further back in time). This is not observed, and that simply not possible if fractionation is a major factor.
Recent fractionation is not likely either. We have direct evidence with overlap between three (THREE!) ice cores and the Mauna Loa record. Etheridge et al. 1996:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
Last time point is 1969 with ca. 323 ppm CO2. Mauna Loa was at ca. 325 ppm in 1969.
That’s FOURTEEN years ago, and yet Jaworowski still tries to push his doubts.
(note that Etheridge also debunks a few other claims Jaworowski made)
Give Jaworowski up, he really has lost all credibility with his attempts to ‘prove’ the ice core record wrong (“prove” amounting to distortion of what others claim, and failure to provide direct evidence).
Pete Ridley:
“As far as I am aware Lord Monckton has never claimed to be a scientist so I would not bother looking for scientific papers by him. On the other hand, Professor Abraham is a scientist but there are numerous scientific disciplines involved in improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates.”
The Ville:
Good grief. How do people like you get away with bull shit like this?
You pointed out deliberately that Abrahams had only 4 research papers related to climate change. Yet you are here defending Monckton who has none.
But here we have you defending Monckton who apparently does have “numerous scientific disciplines”. Since he doesn’t, then stop ignoring your own advice and start putting the money where your mouth is.
Pete Ridley:
“As I have said before, when it comes to considering the credibility of an expressed opinion about this highly complex (almost chaotic) subject it is prudent to find out the degree of expertise that formed it.”
The Ville:
Indeed. So maybe you should take your own advice and stop defending Monckton.
Pete Ridley:
“Have any of you read “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pensylvania ”
The Ville:
He has no publications on climate science.
Just two that are connected to the consequences of climate change, eg. cap and trade and pollution permits.
Zilch on climate science.
Similar to Monckton.
Jason Johnston’s CV:
Click to access cv.pdf
“Have any of you read “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” by Jason S. Johnston”
Why, yes, actually, I have. And unlike Peter, I understood it.
“I’m much more prepared to accept Professor Johnson’s expert opinion than those of unknown bloggers like yourself, Truesceptic, Marco, S2, Martha, etc. etc. etc. who hide behind false names…” blah blah
Strange, I didn’t know I had a false name.
What’s even stranger is that Peter, despite his best denier efforts, just can’t get anything right. He cites an economics-oriented paper that does not seriously challenge AGW, even though he believes it does.
Of course Peter is absolutely free to believe whatever he wants, but this is a working paper by law and economics specialist Jason Johnston that heavily relies on the debunked science of Lindzen and Pielke and an appeal to the authority of commercial law (not science) to argue against the regulation of greenhouse gases via cap and trade.
It’s a very sloppy working paper by an otherwise competent academic whose policy concerns are fairly well known to me.
Johnston has in the past also written on equity and the differential impacts of climate change. Despite his consistent objections to cap and trade schemes, he does NOT deny climate change. He prefers to advocate for solutions based on technological innovations.
cheers
Nice riposte, Pete. I doubt the warmists will give you any credible response to that.
John, welcome!
Now, perhaps YOU can explain to us whether you believe Miskolczi (greenhouse effect) or Thieme (no greenhouse effect) ? They can not both be right…
I have just read a blog post by John O Sullivan which apparently is also lovingly supported by Pete Ridley (see Mr Ridleys blog).
The post is about the BBC’s pension fund:
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/14373.html
Sullivan claims in the article that the BBC Pension fund is “invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds”.
This gives the impression that IIGCC is a company that manages a fund for the 51 members.
The IIGCC states:
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors.”
“The IIGCC currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing around €5trillion.”
The BBC pension fund is not ‘invested’ in this group, all the members carry out investments as is normal, individually.
To say that the BBC has invested in a climate group is bull shit.
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us
He also says
“The total assets of this consortium is around €4trillion (Euros) that, in turn is invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillions (US).”
So having grouped the BBC into a fictional pot of money that the IIGCC allegedly controls en masse. He then extends that connection to a bigger pot called the UNEP FI.
Guess what (and not surprising) the BBC pension fund isn’t listed in UNEP FIs list of members and neither is the IIGCC:
http://www.unepfi.org/signatories/index.html?&no_cache=1
And of course, the 200 institutions that are UNEP FI members do not invest en masse in some fictional UNEP FI financial scheme.
Apologies for the off topic post. But I believe it adds context to Sullivans appearance and support for Ridley.
I am certainly quite interested in seeing the considered responses to the “Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination” paper by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pensylvania
It has very certainly been a most interesting read !
Good grief ridley will be back with more of his nonsense since he is getting his ego boosted by well known climate deniers.
Ridley, as I have told you many times, go and get a science education then come back and debate in a rational and honest manner. Until then you are just an obnoxious idiot who has a major infliction of Dunning Kruger Syndrome (The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it – Wiki). I put that in just in case you don’t know what DKS is and accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
Repeating the same nonsense over and over again when everyone who is knowledgeable in the area is telling you is wrong is just pathetic. Citing a “paper” by some one who probably has as little knowledge of science as you is also pathetic. I just glanced at his “paper” and he is a qualified member of the “I don’t know science, but everything about AGW is wrong” club. That is, he is an AGW denier. Why do you only read papers by people who know nothing about science or are so distorted by their political biases, there arrogance and selfishness that they will tell lies?
Just looking at a list of people who you call heroes and who you repeatedly quote and who show up to support you just shows how selfish and arrogant as well as stupid you are.
You are pathetic.
Marco, you say QUOTE: You still tout his (Jaworowski’s) “preferential fractionation” without even a shimmer of evidence that this has taken place UNQUOTE. To my knowledge Jaworowski never used the term. 6 months ago on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. “ thread (Note 1) I pointed you to empirical evidence that preferential fractionation is a process which is known to occur and is used to purify mine gas to commercial specifications by removing CO2 and CH4. James Claridge and I also pointed to evidence that the process is acknowledged and even used when analysing air from ice cores, e.g.
Huber et al (Note 2) QUOTE: .. Although the data from NGRIP and Devon Island are rather different, we found very similar close-off fractionation factors for both sites from fitting our model output to the data (Fig. 8). This might indicate a universal physical process of bubble inclusion. However, we do not expect these fractionation factors to be fundamental physical constants, but rather they should be affected by the speed of the bubble close-off process and are a complicated integral of the gas fractionation with the bubble pressure and close-off history. .. UNQUOTE.
Severinghouse et al. (Note 3) QUOTE: .. The fractionation of nitrogen and argon isotopes at the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, recorded in Greenland ice, demonstrates that warming at this time was abrupt .. UNQUOTE.
You claim QUOTE: .. you would expect the CO2 peaks in the ice core records of the last few interglacials to become broader and broader with every earlier time period .. UNQUOTE but why? Do not each of those earlier time periods experience a similar time duration for which firn exists before “close-off”? Please would you expand on this part of your comment of link to a paper that does so for you.
I do not find at all convincing the opinions of someone like yourself who provides no evidence of expertise in this subject or any other. I may get back on the matter of Mauna Loa but right now the boss is calling me.
I see thatg we have another stimulating contribution from Ian.
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
2) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Huber_closeoff_EPSL2006.pdf
3) see http://homologa.ambiente.sp.gov.br/proclima/artigos_dissertacoes/dissertacoes_ingles/timingofabruptclimatechange.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you may point to articles, but do you know what they really mean? You simply show no evidence (just like Jaworowski) that CO2 fractionation is taking place. You just speculate this happens, but don’t provide any proof for that speculation. That certain other gases show preferential fractionation is not evidence, in particular if the data in the article you provide as evidence shows that you have to go significantly smaller in diameter to get any appreciable fractionation in ice cores.
Note also that the mine gas fractionation process is different from the fractionation discussed above, and is the process that would lead to broadening of the CO2 peaks during interglacials (diffusion through the ice crystals – which would be similar to the zeolites used in mine gas fractionation).
I’ll leave your “expertise” remark for what it is. People here will have seen you consider Monckton your hero, despite being a proven non-expert in climate science (perhaps anti-expert is better, considering all the times he twists the scientific literature to something it does not say).
Marco, in searching my files for this paper I came across a more recent paper by Severinghaus than the 1998 one that I referenced earlier today. The 2006 paper “Fractionation of gases in polar ice during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air Ne, Kr and Xe observations” (Note 1) relates to the differential fractionation process and you may recall that I drew this to your attention on 2nd June on the “Poptart’s 450 .. ” thread. As I recall you chose not to pursue the matter then, just like on Chris Colose’s blog.
Regarding the alleged seamless merging of the ice core reconstructions and Mouna Loa measurements, I wonder if the statistical manipulations to which the raw data have been subjected can be trusted any more than can those applied to the raw global surface temperature measurements. Have you any idea how the raw data manipulations are audited?
Lord Monckton is regarded as a hero by sceptics of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in the same sense that Al Gore is regarded as a hero by supporters of it. Your comments about Lord Monckton seem to apply equally to Al Gore.
Thanks for that link to the CDIAC article about the investigations by Etheridge et al. I had a paper version at one time but couldn’t find it when I started commenting recently on Mike’s blog.
The Ville, you miss the point. Professor Johnston makes no claim to being an expert in climate research but he is an expert in analysing evidence. He has analysed the evidence claimed to support The Hypothesis and presented his report.
Ian, did you notice in that article linked to by Marco that once again QUOTE: Air bubbles were extracted .. UNQUOTE and no mention of clathrates/hydrates! Here is a definiton for your edification (i.e. “Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.” – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edification) QUOTE: ad hom·i·nem – Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason UNQUOTE (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem).
NOTES:
1) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, that new paper still doesn’t change what I said. In fact, it makes the notion that fractionation of CO2 is, if it occurs at all, very very small.
It is quite typical, and something I already noted earlier you do, that you just dismiss the paper that shows there is no appreciable CO2 fractionation by trying to cast doubt on its methods (without you even having a remote idea about the methodology, it must be added).
Regarding Al Gore: he’s regarded as a good communicator of climate science, mostly working on communicating the message he gets from climate scientists. He’s corrected himself when he made a mistake. There are various differences with Monckton: Monckton pretends that he is an expert *himself*, that he has original criticisms and interpretation of the literature, and I’ve yet to see him correcting a mistake. Au contraire, whenever people catch him in mistakes, he starts an ad hominem attack and tries to intimidate the source by threatening with action. It’s also quite telling Monckton complained to the PCC about being called a swivel-eyed maniac, and then writes about Abraham that he looks like an overcooked prawn.
Mr Ridley wrote:
Thanks for bringing my attention to the Poptarts thread, I took the liberty of finding what part of Amec you worked for.
Interestingly it appears to be:
Amec Process and Energy Ltd.
Producers of fine Oil And Gas Field Machinery.
It’s interesting just how many retired engineers and scientists from the old carbon intensive industries take it upon themselves to campaign to support their ‘comrades’ jobs and industries.
Pete Ridley:
“Lord Monckton is regarded as a hero by sceptics of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in the same sense that Al Gore is regarded as a hero by supporters of it. Your comments about Lord Monckton seem to apply equally to Al Gore.”
The Ville:
Monckton has a habit of referring to climate campaigners as Nazis. He doesn’t need to be prompted to immediately engage Godwins law, he just leaps into it.
Taking a look at your own blog. It seems you to refer to climate campaigners as Nazis.
Pete Ridley:
QUOTE
“The structure of Al Gore’s climate change organisation bears a lot of similarities with Hitler’s NAZI party.”
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
“It is clear that I am not the only one to recognise the similarities between Hitler and Gore.”
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Hitler set up his “Hitler Youth” organisation. Gore set up his “An Inconvenient Youth” organisation.
UNQUOTE
Yes, that is something you find at Ridley’s site.
I do like your QUOTE … UNQUOTE.
But perhaps we can get back to Abraham vs Monckton?
Here is the final nail in the coffin for Ridley’s fantasy about how ice core data is meaningless in determining past concentrations of atmospheric gases due to “fractionation at ice close off.”
Interestingly, it is taken from the last paper he cited, another indication that he neither reads nor understands the papers that he cites:
Thus the size fractionation is limited to small molecules and the changes found due to the fractionation are in the region of 1 to 2%, a very small change.
Will we have heard the last from Ridley on this matter? Somehow I doubt it as those inflicted with such a major dose of DKS never seem to admit their errors.
I’m glad that this guy is probably retired and will not be in a position to make any major decisions based on a scientific understanding which could prove deleterious to people near by.
Ian, I was getting really excited when I started reading your QUOTE: Here is the final nail in the coffin for Ridley’s fantasy about how ice core data is meaningless .. UNQUOTE. I thought “oh, good, Ian’s friendly scientists have come up with something conclusive about preferential fractionation of CO2”. What a disappointment! If you bothered reading and trying to understand what others offer you then you’d know that virtually the same comment was made on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. “ thread (Note 1) by Bob A on 20th January @ 19.00. In an attempt to help move the debate along Bob provided links to three relevant papers and ended by quoting precisely what you have. Marcus (Note 2) challenged my opinion with reasoned and helpful contributions but did concede that the CO2 molecule might be smaller that that 3.6Å, as I had suggested in Dec.
As you are aware the debate continued for another month without the issue being resolved and unfortunately was destroyed by a staunch DAGWer who hid behind several false names and pretended to be several sceptics. You were involved in that debate but as usual made no helpful contribution, simply throwing your invective at anyone who dared to suggest that The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is flawed. It is obvious that your mind is completely closed, whereas I, being a sceptic, am searching very hard for the evidence that shows that preferential fractionation of CO2 does not occur. Please try to be sceptical instead of simply accepting and repeating what others tell you. If you really are a research scientist you should know how essential that is.
Well, at least I can get some satisfaction from the fact that thanks to our exchanges you now understand something about how the attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from ice cores is really done. Keep learning Ian. In a few years you may be able to debate the issue of human-made global climate change from a position of knowledge. I anticipate that by then it will be accepted by most people that humans have a negligible impact through using fossil fuels and that the whole issue was an UN-inspired scam aimed at:
– redistributon of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
2) Marcus is not to be confused with Marco, who, like Ian, has never made a helpful contribution to this particular aspect of the human-made global climate change debate.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, you were looking for evidence that CO2 is not fractionated. The link to an article showing no fractionation was provided. You link to the article yourself. Your conclusion? “I can’t find evidence there is no fractionation”.
You end with the typical conspiracy theory, which lacks any evidence (I guess Guy Callendar in the 1930s was visited by a time traveller? Perhaps Keeling also in the 1950s? Or how about Charney et al in the 1970s?).
It’s therefore no surprise you believe I (or Ian) do not provide a helpful contribution: you simply dismiss our contributions, because they do not fit your desired outcome! Just like you try to dismiss Etheridge by casting doubt on his results, simply because those results more than just suggest there is no appreciable fractionation of CO2.
You’re not a skeptic, Pete. You are a hardcore denier of anything that does not fit your preconceived notion.
How often I hear that kind of tripe (Pete – you’d get along well with Rogerthesurf – a NZ bloke who takes the same approach as yourself and one many religious folk also use when they say, “disprove to me that God exists.”)
There’s no question that the science is not prefect, indeed that’s the best part of science and scientific research – getting a different look at the universe.
The point remains that temperature trends have been on a sharp upward slope following the industrial revolution kicking into gear. From an ecological point of view, we’re seeing a whole host of behavioural changes (ie. changes to first bloom, distribution range etc etc). Over the past century we’ve increased the concentration of CO2 – a known greenhouse gas – by a third in the atmosphere, as much of a third of this has been taken up by the ocean, decreasing the pH of the ocean so far by 0.1 and with ever increasing emissions pH will decrease more so and do incredible damage to any life form which rely on calcium carbonate (exoskeletons and coral).
Although predictions are difficult it’s very likely we’re a decade or two away from peak oil, soon followed by both natural gas and coal and with our population ever increasing and our energy consumptions per capita always on the rise, the downward slope is sure to be steeper than the incline over the 20th century – and as we all know, as we start down that oily slope, fossil fuel related industries (which is pretty much everything) become more expensive.
We cannot continue on this oil pipe dream for ever and the sooner we shift our ways, the more likely we’ll be able to do less damage to economics rather than by keeping our heads in the tar sand and listening to world government delusions such as yours that do nothing short of provoking inaction. This isn’t green – it’s long sighted economical and ecological foresight.
Oh, by the way, Mike over at watching the deniers wrote a wonderful bit about this world government paranoid propaganda (albeit focused at Nova and her husband) here http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/jo-nova-is-about-to-reveal-an-even-bigger-conspiracy/
Cheers,
Tim
What a good discussion of the facts of the science, and also related issues. 🙂
Climate change has brought the economic issue of peak oil into the foreground.
And with it, political and value issues into the foreground, too.
The difficulty for deniers is that the way forward is complex: there are diverse stakeholders and diverse impacts, and they cannot conceptualize this so they create a simplistic conspiracy theory.
Indeed Peter, for example, is so behind and so oblivious that he is unaware that the focus is no longer on mitigating the effects. They are already here, and if he lifted his head up from his computer for a few minutes or learned something – anything at all – from all the knowledge and experience he has been exposed to, he would be aware that the public, with scientists and policy makers, are now forced to look at adaptation.
Contrary to Peter’s delusions, there is no victory on the horizon for a group of world conspiracists and socialists.
(Not that socialists have ever had any interest in one-world government. And the idea that there could be international applications of Marxist ideas passed away with Trotsky –with apologies to the IS even though they often offer some very good critical social analysis.)
Some people might interpret Peter’s denial as fear. It isn’t.
Engineers have university degrees and jobs that often make direct contributions to how we live.
Peter presents himself here as surprisingly stupid and selfish for a man who worked as an engineer.
And surprisingly ignorant about the science, including real questions and problems. 😦
UKIP did get nearly a million votes though.
Marco, you are wrong once again when saying QUOTE: .. The link to an article showing no fractionation was provided. You link to the article yourself. Your conclusion? “I can’t find evidence there is no fractionation” UNQUOTE.
Referring again to the Severinghaus & Battle paper (Note 1), they say QUOTE: The data presented here suggests that close-off fractionation increases very non-linearly with decreasing molecular size .. The pattern of fractionation in different gases deduced from the firn air samples shows a strong inverse relationship with effective molecular diameter inferred from viscosity data, but no clear trend with molecular mass. We conclude that the close-off fractionation is primarily size-dependent .. The large atoms .. show no significant trends in the lock-in zone, .. This observation implies the existence of an effective size threshold of 3.6Å, above which molecules have a low probability of escape from the bubbles and therefore do not become significantly fractionated. This places constraints on proposed mechanisms for the size-dependent fractionation. Our data are consistent with the recent suggestion .. that the regular crystal structure of the ice lattice contains a hole 3.6Å in diameter that sharply increases the escape probability of gases smaller than this size. Our data also are consistent with the hypothesis .. that fractionation occurs because of size-dependent differential permeation of gases through the ice lattice .. no evidence for close-off fractionation is seen for molecules larger than 3.6Å UNQUOTE.
The sizes of various molecules shown in Table 1 are effective collision diameters inferred from viscosity data which I understand to be different from the “physical” size (if such a term is appropriate when considering molecules) of an individual molecule passing through a porous material. If there is an expert out there who can clarify this for me then I’d appreciate it. Compare those inferred collision diameters for CH4, N2, O2 and CO2 used by academics with the sizes used by engineers to design mine-gas purification plant (Note 2). In both cases O2 = 3.5 Å and CH4 = 3.8 Å; N2 = 3.8 Å (inferred) v 3.6Å (empirical) but CO2 = 3.9Å (inferred) v 3.3Å (empirical). “Materials science of membranes for gas and vapor separation” by Ingo Pinnau, Benny D. Freeman distinguishes between “Lennard-Jones collision diameter” and “kinetic diameter” (“Chung diameter” – not relevant?) and in Table 1.1 (Page 6 – Note 3) gives figures (rounded up) for each of these gases as O2 = 3.5, 3.5; CH4 = 3.8, 3.8; N2= 3.8, 3.6; CO2 = 3.9, 3.3. Am I correct in thinking that it is the kinetic diameter that is relevant to the issue of the preferential fractionation of CO2 in ice cores rather than the Lennard-Jones diameter quoted by Severinghaus and Battle? If not then I’d appreciate help in finding out why not. Note that “Materials Science … ” says (Page 8/9) that QUOTE: .. The value reported as the kinetic diameter by Breck for CO2, 3.3Å, is significantly lower than the Lennard-Jones collision diameter ????????
You may recall that James Claridge made a helpful comment on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley .. “ thread (something that you never did) about collision diameters. You may also recall that I commented that Severinghaus and Battle do acknowledge QUOTE: .. that effective diameter depends on the nature of both molecules in a collision. .. so the values given here (which were measured in pure gases) may have limited relevance UNQUOTE. Note also that they say QUOTE: .. a simple model of the bubble close-off fractionation and lock-in zone enrichment fits the data adequately UNQUOTE but their data appears to include nothing specific to CO2 other than perhaps the assumption that the Lenard-Jones diameter was appropriate.
If this assumption is incorrect and CO2 has a relevant diameter of only 3.3Å, not 3.9 Å then their conclusion that QUOTE: Importantly, no evidence for close-off fractionation is seen for molecules larger than 3.6Å. This is true for the noble gases Kr and Xe as well as the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O, confirming the integrity of the ice core archive for records of these atmospheric gases UNQUOTE could also be incorrect. (As a matter of interest, kinetic diameters are quotes elsewhere for Xe = 4Å, Kr = 3.6Å. Another source quoted N2 = 3.3Å so I’m also puzzled by the inclusion of N2O alongside CH4, Kr and Xe.)
I hope that you can understand that as a retired engineer I am inclined to prefer the 3.3 angstroms for CO2 used in a commercial application to the 3.9 angstroms inferred by academics when looking at the use of ice cores to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 content.
In your opinion I should QUOTE: .. Give Jaworowski up .. UNQUOTE but Professor Jaworowski has a background in research involving ice cores. You have a background in what ??? For obvious reasons I place more credence in Professor Jaworowski’s opinion and will be sending an E-mail on this to him and to his associates Professors Segalstad and Frank. Hopefully they will respond.
I repeat what I previously quoted from that presentation by my most recent hero Professor Abraham QUOTE: .. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics. .. Just because I publish in this area does not mean that I am right .. We welcome everyone with an opinion on this topic .. nevertheless we want to think about the backgrounds that people have when we ascribe credibility to the comment that they make .. UNQUOTE.
I’m not insisting that you accept that it does happen, only that there is a possibility that it could happen and that it should be properly researched. Would you please, just for once, try to open your mind to the possibility that Professor Jaworowski and other scientists like Professor T. V. Segalstad were correct in suggesting that air trapped in ice cores is subjected to processes that change the composition over time, one of which is the preferential fractionation of CO2. I ask you to try to consider the evidence that this process can (and does) take place within the ice cores. Evidence has been provided that this happens for gases other than CO2 therefore why should it not occur for CO2 which appears to be a smaller molecule than O2, N2, etc.
Professor Hartmut Frank, Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth said in his forward (Note 4) to Professor Jaworowski’s 1994 paper “Ancient Atmosphere – Validity of Ice Records” QUOTE: Every single parameter relevant to this suggestion must be carefully scrutinized …. We hope that the present article will induce a wider interest and discussion about the validity of the postulated CO2 increases and the ensuing global climate changes. This needs to be clarified beyond any doubt before legislative measures are taken which have potential similarly severe economic effects as an eventual global warming UNQUOTE. That statement is as valid today as it was then.
Ian, with your 40 years experience of research in the biochemstry field surely you have some helpful comment to make about the relevance of the “Lennard-Jones” and “kinetic” diameters with regard to movement of CO2 through the different layers of ice, firn, lock-in zones, crusts and snow that form an ice sheet. You should find Professor Jaworowski’s 1997 paper “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase 97” (Note 5) helpful in understanding the ice structure, especially his Figure 2 “Processes Ocurring in Polar Ice Sheets”. I haven’t come across a better description yet but if you or anyone else knows of one then I’d appreciate a link.
De Ville, you advise me to QUOTE: .. take your own advice and stop defending Monckton. .. UNQUOTE but I don’t consider that he needs me to defend him as he is quite capable of doing that himself. All that I aimed to do here was point out what I saw as errors in what S2 had said about him. In my comments here I have mentioned Lord Monckton several times but I don’t agree that I have been defending him. I challenged what S2 said about him on the basis of my interpretation of facts. I think that I was wrong about two things, which I acknowledged and was pleased to be corrected on. It was the same for S2. If it is so important to you and you can substantiate your claim that I defend Monckton then please go ahead, however, as I have suggested before, please try to get your facts straight before commenting. I certanly won’tlose any sleep over it. I would much rather you provided convincing evidence that Jaworowski is wrong to claim that fractionation changes the composition of air trapped in ice cores for decades.
Tim (Mothincarnate), I have the feeling that I have come across you and your moths before. I visited your site and using your words “I hear that kind of tripe” over and over again. As you admit on yur blog QUOTE: Often a rant… UNQUOTE. You are accepting an assumed cause and effect relationship which has not been validated. It always warms up during an interglacial then cools down again as it heads into the next ice age. We’ve been very lucky to have relatively stable climatic conditions for a few thousand years but who knows when the downturn will be upon us. Give me warm any day. As for fuelling global economies, oil will be available for decades, natural gas for many more and coal for centuries. We have abundant fossil fuels and nuclear is available when they become too expensive for base-load electricity, so there is no need to panic into building those useless wind farms or solar energy plants in deserts supported by extremists like Polly Higgins (“Trees Have Rights Too”). We will do far more damage to global economies through being panicked unnecessarily into wild renewable energy schemes than continuing to use fossil fuels and nuclear for as long as they are economically competitive with other energy sources, which will be well into the next century.
Am I correct to assume that you have not read the Draft Treaty (Note 6) that the UN would like to have obtained agreement on at Copenhagen (Note ?)? I suggest you read it carefully or you can look at my comment ahead of the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen (Note 7). As for delusions, I’m more interested in Vincent Gray’s “The Greenhouse Delusion” and Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” than your “Global Government Delusion”.
NOTES: NB. I have removed http:// from Notes 1), 3) & 6) and http://www. from 4) & 5).
1) see icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf
2) see moleculargate.com/nitrogen-rejection-N2-removal/Coal-Bed-Methane-Upgrading.html
3) see also media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/5X/04708534/047085345X.pdf
4) see warwickhughes.com/icecore/frank.pdf
5) see warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
6) see unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
7) see open.ac.uk/platform/campus/your-subject/environment-development-and-international-studies/7-weeks-till-cop15-climate-pro
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, I also pointed you to Etheridge et al (1996). You ignore their results. Why? Because it contradicts your claims, which are based on…no actual experimental evidence! NONE! Your mine gas infatuation doesn’t even come close to evidence, it’s based on a sales pitch of a company.
All the evidence shows, especially since the Etheridge paper, that Jaworowski has absolutely nothing to stand on. Nothing. Severinghaus&Battle also point to other papers on which the zero fractionation of CO2 is based (hint: references 23 and 24, one of them the Etheridge paper you ignore).
You also state “I hope that you can understand that as a retired engineer I am inclined to prefer the 3.3 angstroms for CO2 used in a commercial application to the 3.9 angstroms inferred by academics when looking at the use of ice cores to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 content.”
That’s an outright lie. You are not inclined as a retired engineer, but as a pathological climate change denier to prefer the 3.3 angstroms. It fits your preconceived desirable outcome.
I’m sorry, but I can’t see a panicked cry out for renewables on my blog. In fact I’ve had a bit to do with that industry for a few year (since moved on) and am very sceptical on such a temperamental supply. In fact, I don’t really think I’ve actually made many forward suggestion to date. I certainly don’t scream out for a sudden change, just for more appropriate debate and innovation.
Please don’t compare me tree-hugging ideology. My very is quite different to theirs.
I would argue that my “rant” is more or less based on sustainability and addressing various impractical practices.
Don’t compare yourself to Dawkins; his arguments are yet within the realms of reality and he demonstrates a fair amount of humility. You on the other hand are onto a ridiculous fiat money collapse orchestrated by UN??
As is clear throughout here, you’ve certainly made you mind up and have collected what ever evidence supports your views, while the bulk of the scientific community disagree with this due to overwhelming contradictory evidence. My addition to this is that AGW debate is pointless.
Mr Ridley said:
Rubbish, your comments here can not be taken in isolation and in any case you contradict yourself many times.
Mr Ridley said:
If you don’t criticise him, then you are defending him. Simple as that.
You appease his views. If not then start criticising his efforts at pseudo science.
Mr Ridley said:
The facts are embedded in your character and the views expressed in your blog.
Pretending that you are being something different here doesn’t cut the mustard. My facts are straight.
Ridely, why on earth would an expert verify anything for you when you will only stalk him, insult him and belittle him?
You are pathetic.
Pathological.
Marco, you appear to me to be talk more tripe when saying QUOTE: Your mine gas infatuation doesn’t even come close to evidence, it’s based on a sales pitch of a company. UNQUOTE. Have you tried Google? – I find papers, patents and sales literature on the subject all over the place saying things like “ .. CO2 has a smaller kinetic diameter than N2 .. “ or “ .. Since the CO2 molecule has the smallest kinetic diameter among carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, oxygen .. ”.
One paper “Adsorption Kinetic Behaviour of Pure CO2, N2 and CH4 in Natural Clinoptilolite at Different Temperatures” says QUOTE: The ability of the natural zeolite to adsorb these gases depended on the gas-adsorbent contact time, t. For short values of t, the gas adsorption uptakes decreased in the order CO2 >> N2 > CH4. However, for long t values, the adsorption uptakes decreased in the sequence CO2 >> CH4 > N2. It was established that the activation energies (kJ/mol) for the adsorption process increased in the following order CO2 (15) < N2 (18) < CH4 (40), correlating fairly well with the increasing order of kinetic diameter (Å) of the molecules: CO2(3.3) < N2 (3.64) < CH4 (3.8). .. UNQUOTE.
Another paper “Highly Permeable Zeolite Imidazolate Framework-8 Membranes for CO2/CH4 Separation” (Note 2) says QUOTE: Although ZIF-8 is composed of large 11.6 Å pores and small pore apertures of 3.4 Å, density functional theory simulation data suggest that the smaller pores are the preferential adsorption sites for CO2 molecules.(17) Therefore, the small pore aperture of ZIF-8 may favor the diffusion of CO2 (kinetic diameter ≈ 3.3 Å) over CH4 (kinetic diameter ≈ 3.8 Å). UNQUOTE. All of these use the kinetic diameter, not the Lennard-Jones collision diameter. Do I take it from your response that you reject the suggestion that kinetic diameter is more appropriate than collision diameter. I believe this to be relevant to the debate and await a response from Professors Jaworowski, Segalstad and Frank as I don’t anticipate getting anything worthwhile from you or others on this blog.
Once again you and Ian (despite his claim to expertise n biochemistry) offer nothing worthwhile, but hopefully both of you are learning something, as am I.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.bentham.org/cheng/samples/cheng%201-1/Sandra%20E.%20Kentish.pdf
2) see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja909263x?cookieSet=1
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, evidence from the ice cores strongly favors the collision diameter over the kinetic diameter. Etheridge et al shows it. You *still* ignore it.
And I wonder (actually, I do not) why you would take the opinion of the non-experts Jaworowski, Segalstad and Frank (they have done no experiments in this area) over the opinion of Severinghaus et al, who *have* done actual measurements. The latter come to the conclusion there’s no fractionation. Must be tough when the true experts show you are wrong, and your heroes are thus wrong.
Also Pete,
I think we bumped into each other on braveNewClimate – you were sporting a, let’s say, interesting paper there to support your claims (you’ve come a long way since then). However, as you’ve probably noticed, I’ve not joined in the debate here because they’re all the same;
Denier: “I disagree ‘cos this paper says as much, and Monckton is my hero.”
Reasonable folk: “Well that was a flawed argument ‘cos of A, discussed in B, C, D, and then they went on and showed, E.”
Denier: “Haha! I also have this other paper, which agrees with the first and newspaper agree with Monckton.”
Reasonable folk: “That’s all well and good, however the science demonstrates F, G and H and etc etc etc”
And this goes on and on until;
Denier: “You can’t say it’s conclusive so there.”
and lastly;
Denier: “World government paranoia!!”
You’ve found the papers that agree with your views and anything else is simply part of the conspiracy. It’s a pointless debate.
But I will address you’re paranoia.
“redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies”;
Money redistribution fears comes in all forms. In your particular delusion; what? is it developing countries who have secretly conspired against the developed world to con trillions out of us? That’s absurdly unlikely.
Another angle on this that I’ve heard Monckton use is that it’s the scientists that have orchestrated the whole this, and invested big in other forms of energy (nuclear, renewables etc) to gain trillions from all us suckers. Again this is insanity, however, let’s look at it a bit – I mean it sounds genius enough. if you broke down all human activities, all money comes back to energy. That is, harvested from the sun (agriculture and solar energy) and dug up from the soil. Even harvested energy is heavily reliant on oil and natural gas. If there was such a scheme to move away from fossil fuel (which is inevitable and as much, as you said, oil will be around for much longer, we’re around peak so it’ll be around at ever increasing prices – putting stress on most other industries), it’d be in fossil fuel companies best interest to be the leaders in that inevitable transition rather than spending big on the denial campaign (which they’re guilty of doing) and thus, being such big players, one could suggest the required transitions would do less hard to economies.
“establishment of a framework for global government”
who? The UN? do you really think the US, China or any European combination would sit idly by as some fascist command moved in to take world wide control? That is nothing but the product of paranoia fueled from near a century of widening conflict spanning the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th which peaked with the cold war propaganda. the free world would fight back regardless of fiat money systems etc.
“enhancement of the finances of a privileged few”
What? bank leaders and (referring to your first point) underdeveloped countries? Nasty scientists? the UN? As stated above, the free world, indeed across Europe and north America for arguably half a millennium, the mass has stood up against tyranny, stripping the power of monarchy and religious supremacy. The royals of England are little more than a face. The pope may have the hearts of millions, but he has a fraction of the power of those before him. The idea of the communists taking over is just as ridiculous as more of the fanatical religions nowadays.
Your fears are not part of a rational and practical world.
Moth, you nicely summarize Peter’s particular problems with reasoning.
Marco and Ian, you have done a thorough job of showing that Peter is not someone with any real understanding or knowledge of the science.
Last but not least, it is impossible to ignore that Peter’s political view amounts to saying that people are ‘free’ to starve to death.
He is irrational, ignorant — and apparently an enthusiastic racist, too.
mothincarnate’s blog is very interesting reading – especially if you know anyone living in Australasia (as I do).
Moth (if we can call you that) – I love your artwork – would you mind if I borrow the odd graphic occasionally (with credits, of course)?
S2
Cheers S2, Moth; TiMOTHy.. lol.. Tim or Moth is fine.
As my background is ecology and environmental monitoring and before that graphics and website design – hence my flavour; graphics and sustainability.
Feel free to use my graphics (most of them have credits on them), linking back to my site if it suits.
🙂
Tim
I might add that, although I do rely on local examples, I do hope (and expect) that it can be extrapolated out to similar areas outside the Austral-Asian region 🙂
Marco, why don’t you stop simply defending your support for The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis which is based upon poorly understood global climate processes and drivers? If you try being just a little open-minded you might recognise that evidence is widely available demonstrating that kinetic diameter is appropriate when considering how gas molecules found in the atmosphere move about in an environment having a micro-porous structure. Equally, evidence is widely available showing that the different kinetic diameters of the various gases can be used in practical applications for removing selected gases in preference to others. CO2, having a small kinetic diameter in relation to the main atmospheric gases like N2 and O2 as well as other trace gases like Ar, CH4, etc. can be separated from these other gases (Note 1).
I was particularly interested in the comment in the “Results & Conclusions” of the second example QUOTE: .. An interesting feature of these membranes is that the permeance of CO2 is higher than that of any other gas tested, including He or H2, even though the kinetic diameter of CO2 is significantly larger than that of He or H2. This property is observed reproducibly for every membrane synthesized and tested in our lab. .. The higher permeance of CO2 than other gases is likely due to surface diffusion of the CO2 (coexisting with Knudsen diffusion), which has apparently a good affinity for this zeolite surface. We tested a broad series of light gases (He, SF6, H2, CO2, O2, CH4, N2, and CO) .. UNQUOTE.
Another interesting point is highlighted in the third example which in Fig. 1 presents a graph of permeance v temperature for Co2, He, N2, CH4 and C3H6. Over the range of 230-30C the permeance of CO2 and He is relatively stable whereas N2, CH4 and C3H6 falls dramatically. It would be interesting to see what happens at even lower temperatures.
Although I’ve searched for Etheridge “ice core” “collisional diameter” and “kinetic diameter” I cannot find any paper by Etheridge showing that your QUOTE: . evidence from the ice cores strongly favors the collision diameter over the kinetic diameter UNQUOTE is correct so would you be good enough to provide a link to such evidence.
BTW, I haven’t previously mentioned the main trace gas Ar, which is not listed in the Table 1.1 of my previous reference. Ar is reported in “Membrane technology and applications” by Richard W. Baker, as having a Lennard-Jones collision diameter of 3.54Å and kinetic diameter of 3.4 (Note 2). That book makes the point that QUOTE: .. The absolute magnitude of the estimated diameters is not important but the ratio of the diameters can give a good estimate of the relative diffusion coefficients of different gas pairs .. On this basis the kinetic diameters do a better job .. UNQUOTE.
There are plenty other papers relating to this debate about the validity of the reconstruction of past atmospheres from air “trapped” in ice which I would like to have a look at but they have to be paid for. One example is “Effects of molecular diffusion on trapped gas composition in polar ice cores” by Tomoko Ikeda-Fukazawa et al. The abstract says QUOTE: Enrichment of nitrogen gas has been found from gas analyses of ice cores retrieved from deep parts of Antarctica. Neither climate change nor gas loss through ice cracks explain the enrichment. .. The difference in the (mass diffusion) coefficient between N2 and O2 causes the change in the O2/N2 ratio of the trapped gas in the ice core during the storage. During the storage period of 1000 days at 248 K, the O2/N2 ratio changes from −9.9‰ to −20.5‰ UNQUOTE.
(Ian, if you – or your friendly scientists – have any expertise in clathrates perhaps you can advise on investigations into a similar effect on CO2/N2 or CO2/O2 ratios.)
Another interesting paper is “CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core” by Ahn et al. The abstract says QUOTE: One common assumption in interpreting ice-core CO2 records is that diffusion in the ice does not affect the concentration profile. However, this assumption remains untested because the extremely small CO2 diffusion coefficient in ice has not been accurately determined in the laboratory. In this study we take advantage of high levels of CO2 associated with refrozen layers in an ice core from Siple Dome, Antarctica, to study CO2 diffusion rates. We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years. .. Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion at this depth/age (287m/2.74 kyr) is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing in the firn. However, simulations for depths of 930-950 m (60-70 kyr) indicate that smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified UNQUOTE
Another angle on this that I came across when looking into Ar is the different molecular width and length dimensions, calculated using the Pauling method but are there others? (Note 3). This issue of molecular size is just another of those many uncertainties affecting our understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates.
In response to my request for help, Dr. Hartmut Frank (Professor of Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth, Germany) says QUOTE:
It is a simple, undisputable fact that carbon dioxide is chemically completely different to nitrogen and oxygen. Since meteorologists and climate change researcher are almost all no chemist they have completely overlooked this fact: for physicists the various molecules are just volumes with different diameters. The preferential escape of carbon dioxide from the air bubbles within decades or even centuries of storage under increasing pressure (or rather back diffusion of nitrogen and oxygen into the secondary bubbles which are formed when the ice core is horizontally stored for a while) depends just on their completely different chemical behaviour and the slow reaction rates typically for carbon dioxide.
So Prof. Jaworowski’s main argument is valid and will remain valid because it is based on simple, but hard physicochemical facts. Most of the facts can be found in the old, traditional “Gmelin’s Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry” – but nobody reads such books anymore today. The facts are so basic that one cannot even start a research project on an investigation of the validity of such carbon dioxide analyses in ice cores because the referees would judge it too trivial. But if one would apply proper quality assurance/quality control principles, as
they are common in most other areas of application of chemical-analytical methods (for instance in drug control or toxicology) the whole building of climate change would collapse because of the overlooked fault.
And so one continues because there are so many living in or from this building UNQUOTE.
(I love his final sentence)
NOTES:
1) see e.g. http://www.bentham.org/cheng/samples/cheng%201-1/Sandra%20E.%20Kentish.pdf (particularly Table 1 and Section 2.2); http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/49_1_Anaheim_03-04_0803.pdf ; http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=12234&DID=262840&DOC=FILE.PDF
2) see particularly Page 531 Table A15.
3) see “Fundamentals of Adsorption” by Professor Suzulki particularly Table on Page 49.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, once again you decide to ignore the results of Etheridge et al. Yes, they did not look at kinetic vs collisional diameter. However, they DID look at CO2 concentrations in recent firn ice versus air bubbles. No difference. Moreover, the measured CO2 concentrations were the same as those measured in the same year at Mauna Loa. That by itself already puts major doubt on any significant fractionation.
All you do (and Frank also) is handwaving away ANY evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion. Frank, for example, tries to put doubt on the results on ice cores by stating so few climate scientists are chemists. Well, too bad that people who look at ice cores so often involve people who have at least ten times more relevant background than Jaworowski, Segalstad, and Frank. Take Jaworowski: a nuclear physicist. By Frank’s own admission thereby disqualified. Segalstad? Geologist. Perhaps by Frank’s own admission thereby disqualified? Hartmut Frank? An analytical chemist, focused on toxicology. Hmmm….not quite the expertise to be so arrogant about ice cores either.
So, let’s compare to just two ice core researchers who do actual research on ice cores:
Eric Steig: geochemist.
Jeffrey Severinghaus: geochemist.
I’m sure I will find many, many more people who look at ice cores, have the relevant background, and put your professor Frank to shame. Or rather, already HAVE put your dear professor Frank to shame.
I see Bam has already put you straight. But let me add a few points:
1. Ikeda-Fukazawa’s work shows fractionation may occur. But have you noted the magnitude? I guess not. Moreover, her work shows that one should not expect anything major (or even minor!) in the last 1000 years or so. Which is, notably, one of the areas where Jaworowski claims the ice cores are unreliable.
2. The fractionation that Ikeda-Fukazawa discusses would reduce the actual maximum concentrations of CO2, and increase the actual minimum concentrations of CO2. That is, the top-to-bottom difference would be larger. Which gets me to point 3
3. Did you read the Ahn et al paper? Here you go:
Click to access j07j102.pdf
The paper indicates there may be some smoothing of the peaks. Now, my requests to you are quite simple:
a) tell us how much smoothing you think has taken place (based on the results of Ahn et al)
b) explain to us how this affects AGW
Based on prior experience, I’m sure I will be met with a decided absence of an answer to these two simple requests.
The Ville, I would much rather spend my time researching those many different scientific disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates and challenging what I believe to be mistaken interpretations than waste it in challenging what Lord Monckton of Al Gore say. Neither are scientists and both are excellent at presenting their opinions. Your suggestion that facts are embedded in an individual’s character is a new one for me and I don’t swallow it, like most of what you say. For me facts are facts and opinions are opinions.
Ian, I’m sure that you’ll be delighted to see that Professor Frank (a recognised expert in Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth) responded to my E-mail about attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric compositions from air “trapped” in ice. He obviously has no concerns about being stalked, insulted or belittled by anyone, although based upon your repeated invective on the Internet I can imagine that he would be subjected to the last two by yourself and many other blind supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Since you are about the same age as Professor Frank you should have come across “Gmelin’s Handbook .. ” during your studies at Edinburgh and Calgary universities so perhaps you’d like to respond to the comment in his E-mail that I quoted above. You could also send it direct to him by E-mail as you can find his address by Googling (or as you put it – “stalking”).
I hope that Professors Jaworowski and Segalstad can, like Profesor Frank, make the time to offer their expertise in this debate. It is so helpful to get the benefit of real experts in this subject rather than depending upon the opinions of non-scientists like ourselves.
Marco, there is no need to insult Ian by suggesting that he or his comments are “pathological”. Please show some respect for him. He at least has the courage not to hide behind a false name.
Phil (Mothincarnate), it’s good to hear that you are sceptical about renewable energy schemes. Regarding your QUOTE: I’m sorry, but I can’t see a panicked cry .. I certainly don’t scream out for a sudden change, just for more appropriate debate and innovation .. UNQUOTE, I had interpreted your earlier QUOTE .. we’re a decade or two away from peak oil, soon followed by both natural gas and coal .. the downward slope is sure to be steeper than the incline .. the sooner we shift our ways .. provoking inaction .. UNQUOTE as urging urgent attention to alternative (i.e. renewable) energy sources. Do I take it that you (like I) see no urgency?
On the matter of sustainability, I think most of us who think about this do recognise that what humans do to our various environments must ultimately sustain human life otherwise we’ll vanuish from this wonderful world before nature intended our extinctin as a specie.
I see that you, like other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, are prone to distorting what others say. How on earth do you interpret my QUOTE: I’m more interested in .. Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” than your “Global Government Delusion”. UNQUOTE become your QUOTE: .. Don’t compare yourself to Dawkins .. UNQUOTE? the realms of reality and he demonstrates a fair amount of humility. You on the other hand are onto a ridiculous fiat money collapse orchestrated by UN?
As for your QUOTE: .. the bulk of the scientific community disagree with this .. UNQUOTE, see the quotation below from Professor Frank.
As is clear throughout here, you’ve certainly made you mind up and have collected what ever evidence supports your views, while the bulk of the scientific community disagree with this due to overwhelming contradictory evidence. My addition to this is that AGW debate is pointless. UNQUOTE.
You show your true colours with your “Denier” v “Reasonable folk” rant. On the matter of finances, wealth and global government may I suggest that you try a little research into Gore, Strong, Sorros, Goldman Sachs, Wirth, Mueller, Benedick, etc. Money, power and control are the relevant words. Give some consideration to the fact that there is a big difference between an objective and an achievement.
Martha, you’re off again with your chuntering. How on earth did you form your opinion that I’m racist? (perhaps you ‘d like to tell me which race you are referring to) and that QUOTE: .. political view amounts to saying that people are ‘free’ to starve to death. .. UNQUOTE. I have never suggested that aid should not be given to those who need it (my preference is for helping people to help themselves where this is an option). My gripe with the UN on that score is pretending that humans are causing catastrophic changes to global climates through using fossil fuels as a means of raising money.
To all readers, it is worthwhile drawing the attention to all who steadfastly support The Hypothesis a comment which I posted over a year ago on the blog of staunch UK environmentaist Jonathan Porritt (Note 1) QUOTE: Dr. Hartmut Frank, Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, U of Bayreuth, Germany, sums this up. He says “Also in scientific discussions the sentiment of the “generally accepted view of the scientific community is heard – as if verification or falsification of scientific hypothesis is a matter of majority vote. There are many historical examples when the common belief, the majority of those who knew, hindered true progress. Derogatory statements about a person’s scientific reputation are least helpful. Often the less firm arguments are, the more is the interpretation placed upon scientific “authority through majority” UNQUOTE.
This comment, made by Professor Frank in his Forward (Note 2) to Professor Jaworowski’s 1994 paper “Ancient Atmosphere – Validity of Ice Records”, aligns with the one that I posted on 8th June from that new-found hero of mine, Professor John Abraham.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/04/uk_is_right_to_trial_carbon_ca.html
2) see http://www.springerlink.com/content/284n23943h8g687p/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Mr Ridley said:
Some facts…
Mr Ridley quotes:
You seem to be obsessed with comparisons with Hitler.
By using the Hitler card you place yourself in opposition, not in a position of neutral interest or of seeking ‘facts’.
Judging by his copypasting so far, I’d say that Ridley scrupulously distinguishes between facts and opinions in order to avoid the former.
Pete,
Phil??? I’m Tim – sorry bud, you’ve obviously not bother reading my work properly (here or on my blog – actually, it looks like you read my light-hearted use of the word “rank” and ran with it – typical of a denier – just go with the evidence that fits your world view!).
As for the rest of your little spit, I have to admit, it made me chuckle. I won’t both following up the names you listed (something that you may not believe – as it doesn’t fit your reasoning – but I don’t even like Gore very much). I only care for research and as I’ve previously stated, the overwhelming scientific view is that our reliance on fossil fuel has a much bigger impact on biodiversity and sustainability than just the AGW debate that people like yourself are obsessed with. Climate change is underway. We’re around peak oil (meaning every increasing prices to EVERYTHING that relies on oil – ie most things). About half of our current population is fed by natural gas (via fertilizers) and it is likely that by the time I’m on the way out, so will natural gas which means that nearly 2/3 of the population (provided we hit the 9 billion mark) will be fed by natural gas (overlooked the increase cost beyond peak natural gas) – where will they get this extra fixed nitrogen from? Unlike AGW, decreasing pH of oceans is predictable and the result of chemistry understood by high school students. The results of our CO2 emissions have already decreased ocean pH by 0.1 units. Extra stress = a decrease of ecological fitness – paper emerging already showing this occurring. Glacier ice melts are accelerating – which will over the next few centuries will have massive impacts to coastal wetlands.
Just ignoring the changing world won’t make the problem go away. Arguing over all the trivialities of AGW will do nothing to change the much more predictable and better understood issues also related to fossil fuel use.
There is no doubt the fossil fuel has been a wonderful tool for humanity. But it is not sustainable to rely on a finite supply without appropriate awareness of this limitations and addressing mitigating actions sooner rather than later to ensure that impacts to human activity are less overwhelming (far from being urgent and panicked, more practical).
I refer to you as a denier rather than a sceptic (ie. reasonable) because you ignore everything outside your world view. My true colours, as far as I see it, are of an ecologist who recognizes an over-exploitation of a finite resource and a lack of awareness of various processes that are increasingly stressed due to a plague species. We are reliant on a wide range of ecological services that are expensive, if not impossible without other species. Without those species we will be stripped off the Earth. As we slide down the waning side of the peak, all industries reliant on fossil fuels will be increasing expensive – which will ultimately lead to a collapse of our species.
By failing to recognize these simple facts you show your true colours of a denier. Mine is an argument over debating sustainable practices (as the path forward is far from clear), while yours is nit-picking forcings and celebrating a fool like Monckton which proves to be nothing more than keeping your head in the sand of a plant out of whack.
Cheers,
Tim (not Phil – no offense Phil :))
Phjil (mothincarnate) sorry about leaving your QUOTE: .. the realms of reality and he demonstrates a fair amount of humility. You on the other hand are onto a ridiculous fiat money collapse orchestrated by UN? .. UNQUOTE without my respnse. I intended to ask what on earth “fiat money” has to do with the UN?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
sorry for the confusion. I just group all such silly ‘world domination’ and ‘money manipulation at the expense of the masses’ paranoia in the same boat.. It takes too long addressing each such fears.
Cheers,
(Tim) mothincarnate
It’s sad that Ridley doesn’t appreciate his boatmates more. Perhaps they’ll grow fonder of each other when they draw straws to see who gets eaten first?
Jes,
He’s since moved over and started on me personally on my blog – seems he must have felt he can better argue one on one (not to mention attack some focused on ecology about this AGW “debate”).
Btw, my photo appears for my name doesn’t it? He thinks I hide.. I think I’m one of the few who uses a photo of themselves and certainly make no effort to hide my name. I guess he’ll just fight easy (and off the point) fights which he somehow feels wins his argument… C’est la vie.
Tim
[…] on this by George Monbiot and at Greenfyre blog. ————————- Share this […]
Sorry for neglecting you for a few days but I’ve been chatting with Tim (Mothincarnate) on his blog. I’ve also been reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrewe Montford of Bishop Hill blog fame (Note 1) which presents the facts behind the efforts by “The Hockey Team” to get rid of the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age through the use of inappropriate statistical manipulations. It’s well worth reading and you may be interested in the interview that he gave with The Register (Note 2) around the time of its publication. I’ve suggested that he consider doing a similar analysis of that related “hockey stick” resulting from the reconstreuction of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air in ice cores (Note 3 – Pages 13/14).
Global warming may have been happening during the 19th and 20th centuries but it looks as though it may be cooling now. That’s what nature does. Man has an insignificant impact upon global climates. Perhaps you’d like to read “Rescue from the Climate Saviors Is the “Global Climate” really in Danger?” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33181109/Rescue-from-the-Climate-Saviors-1-1) provided by “The Hockey Schtick” (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html) which concludes QUOTE:
* The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are deli-berate misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
* Earth has a “cooling system”. If our planet gets warmer, it will automatically raise its cooling power (Fig. 28).
* An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then (and that is our point) to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
* CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.
* The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
* IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface.
* IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire coo- ling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air the surface and the air immedia- tely above the ground would heat up more.
* The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true me-chanisms explained above.
* As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to fore- cast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” ac- cordingly dispensable.
* Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion
UNQUOTE.
It’s being sent to politicians all around the globe. They may start to realise that their propaganda about our use of fossil fuels causing catastrophic global climate change is failing to impress the voters.
NOTES:
1) see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/21/the-hockey-stick-illusion.html
2) see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/
3) see http://www.climatecommunication.org/PDFs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, are you seriously trying to promote the nonsense of Gerlich & Tscheuschner again, combined with the even greater nonsense of Heinz Thieme? You do realise that they essentially claim Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are idiots, yes?
You do also realise that the article claims to have interviewed climatologist, upon which there are ZERO climatologists listed? Should tell you everything about how trustworthy it is. But since you are Pete Ridley, you will likely come with some more handwaving, because my arguments go against your beliefs.
Nothing can be said to you Pete.
I could give you a wealth of scientific literature, however, you’ll write-them off as propagating a swindle of the people. You then rely on grey literature and notorious character that have a track record of opposing the general consensus for whatever personal reason. These people say what you want to hear and thus all else is wrong.
This is a typical faith based view.
I’m sorry you will not entertain me any longer – indeed there is little point when you refuse most scientific literature and I refuse to read near (if not entirely) fictitious opinion based books.
If the globes cooling, how do you suppose that the record is demonstrating another record breaking years?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Plug in all the past 12yrs and look at how special this year is.
However, I guess it’ll make you happy – as you’ve said on my sight, you’d actually quite like it if the temperature increased in the UK.
You’re getting what you asked for.
talk about spelling mistakes! lol
“record breaking year?”
sight-site
Do excuse my haste! 🙂
I might also add that I like your cooling system… it’s interesting that you largely say the AGW is rubbish, but then follow to state even if it’s happening, the earth has a cooling system… It would be nice huh? No matter what we do, the earth has the climate control on – it’ll take care of us.
It’s a bit like when you argued that biological indicators that show a poleward shift of species distribution only show that species move to higher latitudes because the weathers nicer.. That would be nice.. Gum tress and platypus going on holidays… Certainly ignores that species are adapted to certain climate zones and the high productivity of lower latitudes, but gives a warm fuzzy feeling to think about.
That’s language i’m afraid.
People choose terms early on during the knowledge process, then the metaphor breaks down as knowledge or an idea moves on.
Mitchell didn’t like the name Spitfire, probably just as well since it was the best name for his design.
I’m guessing you think the word windows is inappropriate when used in computer operating systems. The metaphor is now dated.
Or maybe people called Fletcher should change their name now because they don’t make bows and arrows?
Oh good grief.
And the IEE accepted you as a chartered engineer?
Come on Mr Ridley, I presume you did at least some science whilst training to be an engineer?
I realise you are quoting someone else, but you know enough about physics to recognise when you are reading garbage.
I’m sort of trying to believe Mr Ridley isn’t being serious by quoting this sort of stuff:
Actually reading the first comment in the HockeySchtick article that Mr Ridley links to gives an incite into the thinking. Apparently the magical nature of CO2 only occurs at night! Silly me, I should have guessed that the night fairies come out and wiggle the CO2 molecules.
Another comment in the article states:
Geez. erm actually the graph the commenter links to clearly shows water absorbs mainly in the infra-red band and incoming sunlight is concentrated in the visible band.
eg. outgoing IR is going to be ‘trapped’.
You wonder what world these people live on?
Obviously not on ones where eyes are adapted to visible wavelengths!
“Perhaps you would like to read… blah blah blah” Peter
Perhaps not. It is yet another example of his blind devotion.
The Klaus Ermecke is a marketing consultant, and press officer for the european institute of climate and energy – an anti-science libertarian lobby.
It is a lobby that claims all the science is bogus, the more C02 the better plants will grow, etc., who could possibly object to feeding more people, more etc. It’s amazing what smart people wish to believe, sometimes.
It’s main founding member is primarily funded by Exxon.
My, what a surprise.
Dear Martha,
you start up with an insult, and continue with a serious of false claims.
Regards
Klaus Ermecke
Anyone who is interested in seeing how misinformed and misinforming KE is should look at this this “paper” of his:
“Rescue from the Climate Saviors”
Click to access report_climateSaviors-1-3.pdf
Make sure you have not eaten recently since the contents of your stomach may be violently ejected while reading his nonsense.
What a strange piece of work – I only got as far as finishing the 7th page before I grew bored.
He uses many of the tired and over-used denial claims, confuses many things, such as a scientific, political and public debate, and thermal dynamics… What’s with claiming that CO2 would have to increase energy flow into the system? He tried to explain this on pages 4-5, yet this needlessly difficult write up just doesn’t make sense. It simply jumbles a number of subjects into one to draw quite odd conclusions..
And the greenhouse effect was apparently disproved in 1909, yet we continue to use this flawed technology to grow pineapples in temperate zones… I’m not going to both with this one.
The fact that he does no real study of this own, favouring instead ancient studies over more recent work (much like creationists find flaws in studies from the 50’s and 60’s to “disprove” evolution), makes many denial claims that have already been answered in great detail (the “no scientific consensus” line should set the alarm bells off as meaningless and baseless), the confusing of many different aspects (concluding CO2 needs to increase energy input being one example) and continuously makes statements like, “climate dogma”, clearly expose this nauseating work for the tripe that it is (I recently got around to watching Jesus Camp, and in this section, the child watching the Creationism movie where science is mocked as a belief is very much in the same tone as KE on climate science).
It’s ever more proof that we are still in the infancy of Enlightenment and critical analysis.
Which part? The part where you employ yourself as a marketing consultant? The part where EIKE is a transparently free market think tank? The part about following the money to CFACT and front organizations for Exxon (despite German law that protects disclosure of financial backing to private institutes like EIKE)? Or the part where you are at one point listed as a press officer?
But you have a point. It is also relevant that you have hired yourself to publish your personal opinons on climate change. Thank you for clarifying that with your link.
It is a really big stretch to say you do any meaningful policy analysis, my friend. In order to do that work, you need to be capable of recognizing not only the facts and nature of climate change, but the array of stakeholder concerns and what matters to people, their social conditions and needs.
Your ‘studies’ are anti-scientific and spin the work of real scientists to suit your free enterprise and personal beliefs. You completely ignore the overwhelming science, preferring instead to blatantly distort research conclusions or rely on one or two studies known to be nonsense.
My, what a surprise. Again.
Tim (mothy), if you re-read my comment of 22nd June @ 7:59 pm you not see me anywhere saying that I “ .. argued that biological indicators that show a poleward shift of species distribution only show that species move to higher latitudes because the weathers nicer”. That’s another example of how supporters of The Hypothesis distort the facts (and the statistics). What I said was “ .. better living conditions .. ”. One of those conditions is living space and the human population, like other species as they thrive, find a need for more “lebansraum” (but that takes us back to Hitler again). As you acknowledged to TrueSceptic on your blog “ .. you’re right – I miss read him .. ”.
As I understand it, those expert statisticians McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman showed that the removal of the medievil warm period and Little Ice Age by Mann, Bradley anf Hughes was achieved through the use of inappropriaste statistical manipulations.
You may be interested in reading the article “The role of statisticians in public policy debates over climate change” (Note 1) by Richard L. Smith, Professor of Statistics at the University of North Carolina, in the American Statistical Association Section on Statistics the Environment Newsletter, Spring 2007. I’ll update you on the follow-up meetings by this expert body.
I expect that this expert opinion will be considered by you to be some of that “grey literature” that you refuse to read, but, as you have said several times “C’est la vie”.
In my previous comment I made reference to the CO2 hockey sticks from ice cores as presented in “GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES”. In checking up on a response that I received yesterday from Professor Jaworowski about the validity of those ice core reconstructions I happened across his comments on the 2008 1st draft (Note 2). Have a read of it but here are some pertinent extracts QUOTE: ..
Without human intervention and without influence of CO2, climate was changing constantly over the past several billion years, sometimes much more and much faster than now (Veizer, 2005). The Dansgaard-Oeschger events (D-Os), extremely rapid changes of climate, occurred about 20 times during the past 100,000 years. One of them, the so called “Younger Dryas”, happened 12,800 years ago, when the warm climate switched rapidly to a cold one, and then after 1300 years, almost immediately returned back into warm phase. Both times the switching took one decade or just few years, i.e. much less than the recovery from the Little Ice Age after 1900 AD, which “is now upon us“. The current Modern Warm Period is one of innumerable former natural warm climatic phases; it is less warm than four such former phases, which the planet has seen over the past 1500 years (Grudd, 2008). This information is ignored in the Report, and the influence of man-made CO2 is utterly exaggerated. The key requirement of objectivity does not hold in this Report, not only in presenting the facts, but also in its style. .. The first problem with CO2 “hockey curves” in pages 17 and 19 is the unreliability of proxy CO2 determinations in old polar ice .. UNQUOTE.
After the weekend I’ll post a comment based upon his response to my request for expert opinion on this issue, meanwhile you may wish to read Professor Jaworowski’s excellent 2009 article “The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate” (Note 3) or his article “Reliability of CO2 Ice Core Studies” in the Institute of Physics Energy Group Newsletter (Note 4).
Martha, I see that your blaming all this scepticism on those nasty “big oil” people again. The DAGWers’ bogey.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
2) see http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CCSP-USPclimatereportJuly2008corr.doc
3) see http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09.pdf
4) see http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/Energy/Newsletter/file_31726.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
” I see that your blaming all this scepticism on those nasty “big oil” people again” Peter
Nope. I blame the denialism that presently delays action on climate change squarely on the shoulders of citizens such as Peter who posted irrelevant and uninformed comments by a marketing and PR employee paid to make those comments by a privately-funded libertarian think tank funded by Exxon (as anyone can see, using Google). It is what it is — and it is clearly not science.
Skeptics are intelligent and informed citizens who know how to critically evaluate sources of information when they appeal to an authority. Let’s not degrade them by comparing them in any way to Peter.
A week or two ago, Dr Glikson wrote a piece on Climate Shifts that covered people like our friend Pete here.
Gliskon said that it is often denialists who feel that they win the argument, however this is based on an unfair playing field; the rules and scientific rigor do not apply to many of those who deny the scientific understanding regarding climate science. Denialists are happy to go below the belt and rely on substandard evidence which becomes tiresome in correcting.
I’ve grown bored of talking to you Pete. I’ve offered a wide number of papers as suggestive reading. I’ve wasted thousands of words discussing the issues with you.
How could anyone ever get some sense into you when you blatantly believe that scientists cannot provide the answers?
That’s like saying that it’s only the doctors opinion that this strange mole on my neck is malignant. They’re only human and probably after a quick buck in my paying them to remove it. How can I trust them?
In doing so you reduce science as nothing more than a dark art in your own eyes and thus nothing within scientific reason or even more philosophical probability will get through.
It’s all us with our “friendly scientists” and a total disregard for any of the current understanding (ie. most of the references I’ve provided you are from with that past few years). You’ve developed what you can see as a perfectly plausible hole in which you’re quite able to ignore anything that you don’t like. Monckton remains your hero and we’re all hooked on some hockey stick.
Please refrain from haunting my blog anymore, it’s becoming painful.
Cheers,
Tim
(be thankful I often rely on C’est la vie – it usually helps me keep my head on relatively straight when people are driving me nuts.. probably why you saw me write it so often)
Tim, Pete does sometimes rely on scientists: those that confirm his ideologically-based bias. He calls Jaworowski an expert in ice-cores, despite the fact that Jaworowski never ever published a paper with his own experimental research on ice-cores. All he has done is publish criticisms, making large claims that have frequently been refuted by simple experiments, and sometimes contradict basic physics (as Hans Oeschger has pointed out, but also Ferdinand Engelbeen). Pete also does not mind pointing to Lindzen, but does not realise that he dismisses anything Lindzen claims when he promotes the Gerlich & Tscheuschner nonsense.
If Jaworowski just publishes criticisms outside his field that are largely ignored, then he’s the same as Pete’s other friend McIntyre. Lindzen is another questionable character.
These types of experts are hardly worth being called scientists in their criticism.
I’ve offered Pete at least 20+ papers with their own valid references – I’ve recently even quoted sections for the easy of his reading. I’ve tried to explain that his argument towards Mann and the IPCC is irrelevant when we look are more than a century (in some cases that I provide, more than 2 centuries) of collected data and a number of bio-physical indicators.
he largely ignores this and continues little more than personal attacks over semantics and hasty mis-reading, all while obviously attacking the way I write. I won’t be surprised if he turns your comment into an attack on my understanding of him.
This is not science and nothing can be done about it.
Dare I say “C’est la vie”? lol
Cheers,
Tim
“C’est le Pete”. Brain fossilisation (as Judith Curry once said, and still uses as her defense (“I’ve been involved in big conflicts, too!”)).
Paul, no-one suggests uniformed warming. There numerous papers that look into the changes in weather patterns relating to climate change. Your, what can only be described as a gloat, is little more than Trumps argument that a snow storm disproves climate change.
It also ignores long term trends and the fact that experiencing the hottest year in over decade (which further suggests that increased snow events in that region are probably the result of changing weather due to warming trends).
I am preparing, but not for your mythical global cooling bud.
Cheers,
Tim
So you’re on the sun spot delusion Paul?
Surely you’ve heard that over the past 40yrs solar activity has barely changed and in no way can explain the climate change that we’re experiencing.
But good luck with that.
Cheers,
Tim
Erm, so the Southern Hemisphere is in Winter!!??
And the news is?
The UK had some snow this year during winter.
It’s summer now and we have a drought up north.
Doesn’t really prove a lot does it.
Floods and snow… then water shortage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8763729.stm
It shows how misleading ‘headline’ reports about snow and flooding can be.
They make good news but hide the underlying trend.
My God. Paul Spamett is back. And still on about sunspots. Unbelievable.
More Pierett:
“The problem is too much population, animals and reptiles where they don’t belong and too many people. So for the next 30 years we are going to see reductions in populations… We will get rid of our … enemies”
He is not only scientifically illiterate, but racist.
Just because you’ve sent your work around doesn’t give it validity.
If it was worth reading, NASA and NOAA would certainly take it on board and I’m sure you’d be able to get it published somewhere noteable rather than distribution via email.
As I said before, solar activity over the past 40yrs cannot account for the warming.
If sending your ‘research’ around to everyone was considered a measure of strength, it’d make life scientific work much easier to do and much less worth reading.
Again, good luck with your spots and with sharing it around.
Cheers,
Tim
You have your research posted on a blog?
Yet most published science literature in respected journals agree that solar activity since the 1960’s has lagged…. I’m sorry – I’ll stick with that rather than blogged research that’s been emailed around the place.
If you’ve sent it to NASA and NOAA and it was worth looking into, as I said, I’m sure they would’ve let it been known.
This would seem to suggest that something doesn’t add up.
Breaking news regarding solar activity resulting in the observed climate change would be all over the media – not just on some blog and self-promoted in comments. People have been looking into this hypothesis for some time and so I’m sure one of the people you emailed would’ve looked into it and if it were true, it’d have been promoted and you would’ve been “the star that crushed climate change!”
There’s enough people out these who want to believe as much to pay Monckton’s globe trotting ways, so you would be getting more notice.
You’d have a different hobby?
If it hadn’t been for Monckton’s trip here last year, I wouldn’t be blogging at all myself – I’d just be focusing on my work in eddy flux measurements. Until I watch him, I had no-one such stupidity was being so entertained.
You have a good weekend yourself. 🙂
Cheers,
Tim
Mr Pierett said
In 2008 Pablo Mauas at Buenos Aires University published research in the Physical Review Letters about sunspot activity and the flow of the Parana river. He found the flow changed with sunspot activity.
In fact overlaying the sunspot activity was a climate change influence and an el Niño influence. They were separate from the sunspot activity.
He seems to have published research this year that South American regional river flow has a link to sunspot activity, using data of the Parana, Colorado, San Juan and Atuel rivers:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2010.02.019
I don’t have access to the full paper but note that he states:
“after eliminating the secular trends…”
Which implies the same method as used previously when he removed climate change and el Niño influences.
Precipitation cycles of the Yellow River show that the link with sunspot activity is getting weaker.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/534j8253l7311015/
The indication is that if there was/is a sunspot activity influence it was a background one and is probably weakening.
That’s quite a list of countries and important people, and you suggest you have their ear.
Your fear of the future is understandable but what you transparently illustrate is that the gap between denial and reality can be too large to deal with on a science blog.
That still doesn’t give notice to the fact that solar activity has decreased since the 1960’s and even if there is eminent cooling or warming, that doesn’t change the fact that we need to address agriculture, species loss, peaking oil and alternate energy sources, impractical and inefficient social infrastructure.
At this point, you’re work is either flawed or something of the unknown future, however at this point, the world is warming and there are a number of bio-physical indicators that demonstrate a changing world.
Business as usual is dead and (to bring this back to the point of the original post) people like Monckton need to be debunked and pushed aside so that real discussion can begin regarding how we can make meaningful changes to ensure survival beyond change.
Cheers,
Tim
Everyone,
We seem to have left Monckton and Abraham far behind here. There is a thread for challenging the core science. Mike used to be quite strict about this whereas S2 and I have let things slide somewhat. I think the time has come to say “enough!”.
Feel free to copy and repost your comments into the science thread.
Monckton has published his reply to Abraham on line, courtesy of WUWT (which is where I imagine Paul got his information (or some other such link, as Ian suggests.
I’m not going to spend much time on it as it has already been well covered by William Connolley, Eli, Deltoid, Gareth, etc. etc.
I haven’t read all of Monckton’s questions (and I’m not going to), but it’s worth reading a few. Some are really very funny.
A cursory visit to WUWT shows what Paul Pierett is all about: apparently, Abraham has a presentation on the university website that is 10 minutes shorter than the original. Hence, victory for Monckton!
Don’t blame me, it’s WUWT and Moncktonian logic.
Pretty funny indeed…. I’m not surprised that he’s illustrated just how hurt he is by what he sees as an unwarranted attack (but how often has the fool flown off the handle at someone?).
It demonstrates how little he understands science and scientific understanding – just pulling graphs out of papers doesn’t cut it. When you present a view and others look into the science and find that it doesn’t weigh up – you’ll find out soon enough.
It was never an attack, it was an informed rebuttal that shed some light on the buffoon. It’s like as Laframboise puts it; “climate scepticism is free speech..” – of course it is, but climate science is not. If you’re argument is flawed, you’ll soon know about it. 🙂
Monckton has now published a shortened version (executive summary?) for the benefit of those WUWT readers who found the original too hard to take in.
Further down, he claims that Abraham climbs down.
Eli sees it in a slightly different light.
Monckton also (apparently with Watts’ approval) posts the email address of the President of St. Thomas University and asks the WUWT readership to write to him demanding disciplinary action, something he had previously done on The Alex Jones channel (whatever that is).
Gareth has taken umbrage, and has started an online petition in support of Abraham. I note that some of our regular commenters have already signed.
This could get interesting …
The bizarre support for Monckton at WUWT has led to a follow-on thread. It seems that anyone who doesn’t agree with Watts’s views is a cockroach.
They really don’t know when to stop, do they? Things are hotting up and the delusionals think they won’t get toasted?
And yes, anyone who cares should go to Hot Topic and register their support for Dr Abraham and his university.
Re Alex Jones:
Illuminati everywhere!, 9/11 inside job, David Koresh was just peaceful, NWO. Just a few of the buzzwords that’ll tell you what kind of person that is. No surprise, therefore, that he also is a AGW hoax-conspiracist.
—-
Having threatened legal action against the University, the tables have now been turned – the university is no longer prepared to talk to Monckton and their lawyers have written to him:
Eli has the details.
I suspect that he will turn chicken, but you never know how he will react.
He is wildly unpredictable and unreasonable… he might not be able to back down.
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned Lord Monckton’s 6-part presentation (Note 1) and his 12th July Science & Public Policy Institute document (Note 2) refuting what Professor Abraham said in his June presentation. Enjoy
NOTES:
1) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00L2uNAFw8&feature=player_embedded#at=17
2) see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf
Best regards, Pete Ridley
That’s because it’s not worth mentioning.
You’re continuous support of that fraud is just as absurd as your continuous adherence to climate change denial.
Look at Barry Bickmore’s Monckton rap sheet if you need to.
Monckton is not a science, demonstrates constantly flawed knowledge, representation of the available literature and basic maths (not to mention moments that can only be described as blatant lies).
If you wish to discussion/debate climate science Pete, I suggest you learn about the science and read much of the literature rather than denial books and the gospel of frauds like Monckton.
Cheers,
Tim
Monckton is not a science = not a scientist.
Hi Tim(Mothy), You used to be a reasonable guy but now you’re nearly as bad as Marco, with another rant from you, devoid of logic and loaded with nonsense. What a shame but I’ll put your “know it all attitude down to your youth.
Read and learn my friend but venture away from sites like this, Realclimate and Climate Progress.
Best regards, Pete Ridley