I saw the incoming ping from Monckton’s post at WUWT. The post contains quite a bit of nonsense. I’ll eventually discuss the aspects that touch on my previous discussion of his paragraph 3. For now, I wish to present three simple questions or possibly challenge to Monckton. To preface the challenge questions, I quote this:
Secondly, since Kiehl and Trenberth are using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at the surface in order to obtain their imagined (and perhaps imaginary) outgoing flux of 390 Watts per square meter, it is of course legitimate to take the surface differential of the equation that they themselves imply that they had used, for in that we we can determine the implicit Planck parameter in their diagram. This is simply done: 288 / (4 x 390) = 0.1846 Kelvin per Watt per square meter. Strictly speaking, one should also add the non-radiative transports of 78 Watts per square meter for evapo-transpiration and 24 for thermal convection (see Kimoto, 2009, for a discussion) to the 390 Watts per square
As you see, we are asked read Kimoto to understand why “Strictly speaking” one should include surface heat fluxes due to evapo-transpiration and thermal convection in a calculation to figure out the “implied” Planck constant from Kiehl and Trenberth (1997).
My challenge questions to Monckton are:
Monckton,
- Starting from equation (17) in Kimoto, please state all assumptions and show all mathematical steps required to obtain (18) focusing especially those assumptions not mentioned by Kimoto in the text between equations (17) and (18). Note: Please do not omit assumptions related to the functional form of the upwelling radiative flux, flux due to evapo-transpiration and the flux due to convection (i.e. $latex (F_{s,r} $ , $latex F_{s,e} $ , and $latex F_{s,t} ) $)
- Please explain why all of the assumptions made to obtain (18) from (17)– especially those not stated in Kimoto’s text between equations 17 and 18– are appropriate and
- Please go through the list of assumptions identified above and explain how each follows from something in Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997 Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208.
For your convenience and that of my readers, I have provided some text from Kimoto:
(17) $latex \displaystyle \lambda_0 = \frac{\partial OLR }{\partial T_s} = d (F_{s,r} + F_{s,e} + F_{s,t})/ dT_s – \partial(F_{sun } – F_{b} ) / \partial I_j (dI_j/dT_s) $Here, $latex I_j $ is the vector of the internal variables in the climate system.
Since the second terms are the climate feedback parameters of the internal variables $latex I_j $, they are zero when Planck feedback parameter $latex \lambda_0 $ is calculated. Thus, Eq. (17) is reduced to Eq. (18) utilizing the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
(18) $latex \lambda_0 = -d(F_{s,r} + F_{s,e} + F_{s,t})/dTs = -4(F_{s,r} + F_{s,e} + F_{s,t})/T_s $
Monckton, when providing your explanation, I most specifically would like to you to explain how you, Kimoto or anyone would demonstrate the correctness of this portion of equation 18:
This should be an easy question for someone who is suggesting that we review Kimoto to understand why this equation can be used to estimate the Planck function. There are neither very many assumptions nor very many steps.
However, if we are to evaluate the correctness of equation (18), the answers to these questions are very much to the point. I would suggest the answers will reveal that the value of a Planck constant estimated using (18) is no more likely to be correct than the value of one pulled out of a hat.
Update(Sept 29. 7:49 pm): Some of the initial comments focus on non-technical issues unrelated to the challenge presented. I will be moving these the side thread for issues that are both unrelated to the substance of Monckton’s technical claims in paragraph 3 of his letter to RS and unrelated to the technical challenge in the current post. Feel free to post comments on the technical issues presented in this post. Otherwise, post your comments on the the side thread.
I notice over at WUWT Monckton is now claiming this 0.15 or so is not *his* number, rather he agrees with the IPCC 0.32 value (actually I believe it is only stated as the inverse in the 2007 IPCC report – and is fully explained via reference to Bony et al and Soden and Held that we discussed on the other thread). But he still claims the 0.15 is Kiehl and Trenberth’s number, via Kimoto.
It seems he is not presenting stuff that he himself believes, but rather is providing as many as possible different (and mutually incompatible) arguments from *other* people that sensitivity is low. Then, challenged on any one of them, he can choose to defend it as best he can, or fall back on blaming it on the other person.
I mean the David Evans paleoclimate argument depends on a non-feedback sensitivity of 1.2 K, so it’s quite at odds with the 0.6 K Monckton talks about via Kimoto. But no matter, they’re both arguments for low sensitivity so he happily provides both.
I predict he will completely ignore these technical questions from you, by the way.
Once you get down into the technical “long grass” I can no longer follow the arguments. While I used to be comfortable with four dimensional Riemannian manifolds, I now have trouble with partial differentials.
I sincerely hope that you and Lord Monckton can simplify your differences to the point that us ordinary mortals can understand what you are arguing about.
Monckton’s “Big Picture” is the contention that the climate sensitivity per CO2 doubling is 1.0-1.2 Kelvin. He advances multiple arguments to support his hypothesis.
You seem to be nit picking on only one of his arguments so I would like to hear your views on what is a more realistic figure for the climate sensitivity.
What I find bizarre in his last two WUWT threads is this:
“If, however, the loop gain in the climate object is no greater than the theoretical maximum value g = 0.1, then, by Eq. (4), the corresponding overall feedback gain factor G is 1.11, and, by Eq. (1), climate sensitivity in response to a CO2 doubling cannot much exceed 1.2 K.â€
The basis of his restriction on CS is now “the theoretical maximum value g = 0.1”. But if you look at where that came from, it’s just a rule of thumb that he claims engineers use when designing feedback circuits (x10 for luck).
He has responded to my complaint, but in a very odd way, with stuff about Bode plots etc. I’d be happy to argue about that (he’s wrong), but the fact that he can’t see the basic issue is just strange. Why does an engineer’s design rule for circuits have anything to do with how the atmosphere actually is?
galloping camel–
Manifolds? Good! Then you know how to differentiate.
There are several assumptions. But the important ones are the *unstated* ones. So, we are going to put you through baby steps to find ONE of them– and important one. In this regard, I want you to just look at 18LHS. Just that. Ignore everything else for now.
Now… let’s take baby steps. Suppose
F_sr= σ Ts^4. That looks like stefan-boltzman. What’s dF_sr/dTs? (Use the rule you learned first semester calculus.)
Now, suppose F_s,e is… oh… say hTs. What’s dF_sr/dTs? (I’m not saying it is hTs– just suppose. By playing “what if” we can get to the issue of what the assumptions are.)
Answer these and then we will move on. If you know how to do derivatives, you’ll know how to do the algebra. And by tomorrow night we can probably get you to the “I get it!” moment. (It’s 11 pm here, so we ain’t gonna get you there tonight. Well… unless Nick Stokes gets you there!)
No. He claims 0.18 is Kieh and Trenberth’s number. Via Kimoto without the evaporative terms. It’s AMAZING!!!
Yes. But we may be able to get galloping camel to see what I’m talking about. And then, we may be able to nudge other people who know how to differentiate and do 8th grade algebra to see what is wrong Kimoto (2009) which we are supposed to “see”.
galloping
I am focusing on this one thing because it is only by focusing on individual things that we can get the point were we can say: This shouldn’t be in there.
The alternative to focusing on one argument in the long sting of arguments is for me to write:
Look at pargraph 3: Wow! That’s wrong! And look at paragraph 4: Unbelievably wrong, wow! And 5?!! Wow! Wrong-o! 6? wrongo!
It seems to me that most the arguments are likely wrong, or at least seriously flawed. But it takes quite a bit of detail to explain why these claims Monckton flings out like mud hoping they will stick to the wall are wrong.
I can think of no reason why it should. Electrical engineers didn’t design the climate system.
Honestly, reading what he wrote, I suspect he may not he really know how to differentiate. He keeps writing that if the you take the derivative of the stefan-boltzmann law with respect to T you get
dT/dF= T/(4F). While this relationship is not incorrect, it’s not what you get if all you do is differentiate. I suspect he’s just imitating Kimoto and figuring that’s “differentiating”. But… of course… it’s not.
I think we may be able to get galloping camel to see the problem with 18LHS by doing examples where 18LHS is wrong.
Lucia,
It seems that the only argument over at WUWT against your analysis is that you are “not polite”.
OK. That’s a start…
Rob–
The arguments seem to be:
1) I’m not polite because I don’t address Monckton as “lord”.
2) I didn’t post my blog post at WUWT and
3) If Kimoto (18) is wrong, the way to deal with that is submit an article to E&E.
It might almost be worth submitting articles rebutting things in E&E, but I estimate 90% of the things in that Journal are wrong. I also have no reason to believe it is any easier to submit a criticism of an article to E&E than any other journal.
The big question is how we go from a calculated surface dF/dT of 0.1844C/W/m2 to the IPCC’s estimate of 0.75C/W/m2 (after feedbacks are added).
It is the IPCC’s number that should be questioned.
Well, is he or is he not correct that the error precedes Kimoto?
=======================
> The big question is…
This contrasts with the angle Lucia is taking.
> I am focusing on this one thing because it is only by focusing on individual things that we can get to the point where…
I think the latter approach offers a better chance for insight. [Lord] Monkton might show that he’s correct (informative as to the issue), he might offer faulty arguments (same), or he might allow that he was mistaken (informative as to approach to inquiry (Keynes quote)).
Lucia
“I’m not polite because I don’t address Monckton as “lordâ€.
Not what they are saying.They are saying you address him as Monckton,not Chris or Lord Monckton.
Wires crossed there I believe.You call most scientists by their surname,but when you are addressing him personally maybe you should be more polite(none of my business really).He’s a big boy,he can look after himself,but you are supposed to be grown-ups.I do remember your post on whether he should be called lord or not.I have a suspicion he does too.
I think it’s a shame that you both are publically brawling,pity you can’t both solve your differences because neither of you are nasty people.
Noelene:
That’s the BFD moment for me this morning. “Lord” Monckton is something brits can call him if they want. We stopped recognizing the monarchy and nobility ranks in this country about 225 years ago. Hereditary titles are about maintaining a class division, and reminding the lower class in Britain who still runs the show, IMO. Why should anybody idolize this?
Generally it’s Paul McCartney not Sir Paul in this country, unless somebody wants to be seen licking his boots.
And people say McCartney and Lennon not Paul and John and nobody bellyaches about it.
Many also say “Steig” instead of “Eric” 99% of the time. And “Mann” instead of Michael.
Are these terms of disrespect all of a sudden?
Noelene,
Monckton is sly, which is far more damaging than nasty.
Mr.Carrick, referring to a person by his surname in third person is not rude. Calling a person by his surname when you are addressing him personally, is rude. This is part of the common courtesies observed in the usage of English Language.
Did I miss something? Is Lucia referring to Monckton in the third person in her emails to him?
A post discussing his ideas and arguments wouldn’t be an example of “addressing him personally”. So perhaps you have an example, or is this just a hypothetical situation?
It’s also interesting to go back and look at which cultures address people by surname alone. Couple of examples:
In the US military it is done, when addressing an subordinate. (Often, you’ve drawn unwanted attention if they include your rank.)
In some cultures, you use the person’s surname only if you know them personally (but don’t have anything other than a professional relationship with them).
I think we should call this “LordMoncktonOrChristropherGate”. It is indeed one of those burning issues, of the proper level of respect for somebody who compares his critics to “overcooked prawn”.
That was funny. Not licking his boots, not so funny?
Lucia, So far in all of these threads you’ve bashed Monkton but have not provided the correct alternative.
oh… and I wont call him lord either as Carrick is right, we kicked their royal backsides outta here centuries ago
Nuff said…
MikeC, I don’t think the correct alternative is known.
Hoi Polloi, um…. that’s an example? Wow! Ima gonna cry. XD
Some attempt at sensibility here on the parts of people who apologize for, and nay! praise, the obfuscations of politicians with pretenses of scientific punditry might be in order here.
I wonder if those pontificating about etiquette have any comment on our host L.L.’s new status as “she who must not be named” or something of that sort over at WUWT?
Monckton’s oblique response is as nonsensical as the original – some snippets with commentary:
That’s interesting. Monckton claims Kiehl and Trenberth, in their peer reviewed papers on this subject, made an “incorrect assumption”. Has he prepared a response to the journals in question? Or is it only some peer-reviewed articles that are to be taken on faith, while others are clearly incorrect? Which is it to be?
Moreover, Monckton provides no citation or explanation to indicate why he thinks Kiehl-Trenberth were wrong in this, or the magnitude of the error they made. In fact, Stefan-Boltzmann never applies exactly anywhere since it is specific to black bodies, an imaginary physical construct. But it is extremely close to correct – within 1% or so – for Earth’s surface, because most of Earth’s surface is covered with water. That is, it is extremely close to correct for what Kiehl and Trenberth were doing: calculating upward radiative energy flux from the surface. It says nothing about any other energy fluxes, because it’s specific to radiation, and Kiehl and Trenberth didn’t use it to describe any other energy fluxes. Moreover, it’s my understanding (though I haven’t looked at their papers recently) that Kiehl and Trenberth even took into account the non-black-body nature of the surface in estimating upward flux, so it wasn’t strictly a Stefan-Boltzmann number in the first place, though the Stefan-Boltzmann estimate is very close.
But the logical sense of Monckton’s criticism of Kiehl-Trenberth on this point completely escapes me, because he is then arguing that the Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law (which he claims Kiehl-Trenberth used incorrectly) allows one to calculate an “implicit” Planck (no-feedbacks) sensitivity. So Kiehl-Trenberth were wrong, but if you abuse their numbers you get low sensitivity. Why does Monckton feel it’s ok to use a result which he believes is wrong to get a number he likes? Does he not believe in the single unifying objective truth that science argues for?
But Kiehl and Trenberth don’t calculate, discuss or talk in any way about a “Planck parameter”. Monckton calls it “implicit”. Where is the logic, peer-reviewed or not, that turns the basic question of surface radiative flux vs temperature (Kiehl-Trenberth’s Stefan-Boltzmann relation) into a “Planck parameter”, the no-feedbacks sensitivity? Here is where Monckton is exhibiting his typical sleight-of-hand, so aptly illustrated in all those other instances John Abraham reported in his video last year.
Because the definition of sensitivity is the temperature response to an increment of energy flow on the Earth as a whole. The flux change has to be measured from outside the atmosphere. Otherwise there are countervailing flux changes that can greatly amplify or damp down any particular energy flow within the system. You have to measure the change for the system as a whole. In particular a flux change at the surface (the Kiehl-Trenberth number) is quite different from a flux change at the top of the atmosphere. Kiehl and Trenberth never argue that their surface flux change is a measure of Earth’s total energy balance – in fact their diagram quite clearly shows strong countervailing fluxes from back-radiation, and additional upward fluxes from non-radiative sources.
So Monckton describing their numbers as giving an “implicit” Planck response is a product only of his own fevered imagination. He provides no citation or reference to back this up, you will note.
Evidently he doesn’t care whether a calculation is right or wrong. Apparently there’s more than one way to get a number he likes. Who cares about the relevance to actual real physical reality! If you take either of these incorrect calculations, you get 1 K. Wee!
But when you do the calculations as correctly as we know how, splitting the surface of the Earth into small squares, applying layers to the atmosphere, adding in all the physics we can think of regarding ocean and surface and atmospheric interactions, modeling clouds as best we can, etc. etc. we always end up with somewhere around 3 K, typically ranging from 2 to 4.5 K. Sometimes we get a much higher number, occasionally a lower one.
So we have – a variety of calculations that can easily be shown to be incorrect (Monckton even says he knows they are incorrect!) that give 1 K, or doing the calculations as best as we can to get a sensitivity of about 3 K. Which do you believe, and why?
The other thing is, if Monckton used an E&E article as a reference in his derivation, that simply illustrates the dangers inherent in using publications that didn’t receive a full level of vetting. And the dangers in an inadequate training in something that you are trying to pontificate on, while using articles that appear in sub-standard journals.
Even in the best of circumstances, the peer review process is spotty. Using E&E without thoroughly vetting it, is a bit like treating a preprint from http://arxiv.org/ at the the same level of authority as e.g. something that appears in Physical Review Letters.
Monckton could also learn to more clearly elucidate his arguments. Clearly spoken English (big words are OK), with clearly delineated equations and explanations of where each one came from or how it was obtained from the prior equations, is standard art in the physical science, and not impenetrable prose appropriate for a political speech.
It’s almost like Monckton’s supporters say “Wow! I can’t understand a single word he’s saying! He must be very smart!”
When I see somebody who is carrying on without an transparent argument to follow, I personally don’t think “wow he must be very smart!”
The Lord doth protest too much, methinks.
“So we have – a variety of calculations that can easily be shown to be incorrect (Monckton even says he knows they are incorrect!) that give 1 K, or doing the calculations as best as we can to get a sensitivity of about 3 K. Which do you believe, and why?”
Do we have to pick one? Most readers of this blog are probably not inclined to put much faith in either calculation.
Carrick, bless your presence here.
.
Although I happen to think Monkcton is VERY smart. In a yucky, crafty, non-transparent way. His “florid prose” does impress. The clarity of his arithmetic logic does not.
Carrick, Not known and not possible. Any attempt to package this in a tidy equation will always be wrong and thus open to lash. They don’t have all of the variables for the heat budget… for example, changes in ocean upwelling… go figure
Carrick, He used the E n E article on the blogs, not in his letter to RSS
RE: Arthur Smith (Comment #82619)
The problem is, when your likely uncertainty is (+- 3K) the accuracy of your RT calculations doesn’t bring us much closer to predicting future climate. There are still too many missing pieces to the sensitivity puzzle. We still need to solve the equations, but we need those missing pieces more.
“Do we have to pick one? Most readers of this blog are probably not inclined to put much faith in either calculation.”
.
No one has to pick anything. But which number was yielded through a transparent process of wide, critical review? As Steve McIntyre has said, there is nothing wrong, in his opinion, about employing an IPCC-like proceess of consensus-oriented science, as long as it is openly transparent in where its numbers come from. Is Monckton conforming to that standard of openness and acceptance of heavy scrutiny? Kimoto?
.
And how about Liljegren?
.
You are not obliged to choose any number. But I very much like the methods employed by Lady Liljegren and Lord McIntyre – the two who can not be named.
MikeC:
I wouldn’t go as far as “not possible”, but I’d agree it is much more difficult to get right than say regress t on t + noise. The biggest problem is lack of data (especially a long enough duration thereof), IMO.
I would agree it’s more likely than not Monckton is a smart guy. It’s hard to judge though, when he hides behind his “florid prose”. That smacks of a defense mechanism, not something people would do who have certitude about their intellectual ability and knowledge. It actually serves to undermine my trust in anything he says.
Carrick, I’d agree with you on your point about “not possible” except it would take computing power that is not available yet.
As for his “florid poise”, I’ve always thought it was his personal style, more of his way of standing out.
Carrick
This post by Lucia is addressed to Monckton.
Carrick,
I agree: his florid prose is a cloak, not just “his style”. But it’s not his intellect that is lacking. It’s his experience. He uses his intellect to cover his inexperience. Unfortunately, climate sensitivity is a problem that requires lots of both to solve – plus reams more data. What impresses me about many here, but especially lucia, is the rare combination of intellect + experience + transparency.
“The problem is, when your likely uncertainty is (+- 3K) the accuracy of your RT calculations doesn’t bring us much closer to predicting future climate.”
ivp0: how was this uncertainty calculated?
Carrick: “illustrates the dangers inherent in using publications that didn’t receive a full level of vetting”
Yeah. Like Remote Sensing. If you don’t run it by Trenberth, it isn’t vetted.
Noelene:
It’s a post not a personal email.
If she wrote it in the same style as a personal email, it would actually be kind of weird:
Make that … “creepy”.
Bruce:
it’s got nothing to do with Trenberth. I am the first to say that the peer review system is flawed, and possibly even corrupted in some cases. Climate science, where policy implications and message control seem more important than truth, is one of those cases. There are others, which I won’t bring up here as too OT.
But the point is, everything else being equal, getting more structured criticism of a paper makes it stronger, and more likely to be right. That’s why we put the submission dates on a paper. If the submission date is too soon to the publication, we factor that in, just as when the submission date is very long previous to the publication.
By the way, Bruce, how dare you say Trenberth instead of Professor Trenberth. Unlike titles like “Lord” that are no longer recognized in America (by sensible people anyway), Professor is.
😉
Carrick,
There was a trend in the US of A some years ago to use titles as first names, so folk had monikers like Earl, Duke, Lady, Baron, Marquis, and others were common, but oddly Lord didn’t seem to get used. Perhaps religious overtones got in the way.
Does this still happen much?
RE: bender (Comment #82635)
Uncertainty is of course… uncertain. Here are the estimates from the IPCC:
“IPCC AR4 projected a range of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C increase in GMT from 1990 to 2100 (5) based on 6 IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) nonmitigation scenarios (6). Although uncertainty in the response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations contributes to this very broad spread in projections of increase in GMT, the magnitude of future emissions driven by alternative development pathways plays a comparable role.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648893/
Here’s let me google that for you. 😉
popularity of Earl.
Don’t know how they get their numbers, but if accurate, it’s pretty interesting.
The other names barely make a blip.
Try “Mark” or “Marcus” if you want to see popular names.
Here’s the most popular names in the US currently.
Correct. In the letter to RS he provides no traceable justification for his claimed equation.
Arthur Smith,
Kiehl and Trenberth provide this exact discussion as follows:
It’s clear they are saying it’s an approximation, that it’s a pretty good one and providing a link to a reference that discusses the point further.
For all I know Trenberth thinks I am a diddly-boob. I sent him an email and later– before getting the answer– but long enough after to not just send “ignore that it was stupid”, I thought “oh, what I wrote was unclear and sounds stupid”. But he sent a polite answer that was easy to understand. My impression is he would likely think Kimoto has not interpreted his paper correctly.
You are in danger of losing normally loyal readers here.
Kimoto makes it quite clear after (18) that he is aware it is an approximation and that the other fluxes are not T^4.
Why is this fact not mentioned?
The reason he uses T^4 as the first approximation is mainly because this is the largest of the fluxes.
If a different form was used the result would not be hugely different – if we suppose the other fluxes are linear in T, for example, Kimoto’s equation becomes
lambda = -(4 Fs,r + Fs,e + Fs,t)/T
and his 6.8 becomes 5.8, a change of only about 15%.
Furthermore, the numerical values of Fs,e and Fs,t are not well known and neither is the form of their dependence on T.
My question yesterday regarding whether you contacted Kimoto to ask him about this was not answered.
Why devote so much time and energy to this anyway?
CM has posted something at WUWT which has no chance of publication, yet you demand that he justify every step of the mathematical arguments in a paper written by someone else! (Something which we are aware he is not able to do, so your attempts to catch him out are quite pointless).
He has explained where he got the numbers from, and yet the false accusation in the thread title (‘out of a hat’) remains.
Why not insist that climate scientists whose papers ARE published, explain every step and assumption in their derivations?
I hope you will take note of the comments from Noelene, MikeC,
gallopingcamel, Heretic and PMH. This blog is normally a good example of balance and fairness, but when the subject of CM arises, all this seems to be abandoned.
Carrick, the point I am trying to make is that vetting more often than not is used to keep papers out of peer reviewed journals that the team finds objectionable. From what I’ve read, the teams papers are not better than others and more often than not turn out to be crap.
PaulM has it right: “Why not insist that climate scientists whose papers ARE published, explain every step and assumption in their derivations?”
PaulM:
If he lacks the technical ability to defend a position, then certainly he lacks the technical ability to judge its merits, and what he says is worthless.
I think that’s what you’ve just said. Though I think it’s even worse, he can’t even understand what people are saying, where it comes from etc, let alone be able to defend it.
I have a better idea. Why don’t you start your own blog and do just this? Maybe Bruce, Noelene, etc can help you write the criticisms.
Actually it appears lot of you are the ones who want him to be treated differently than everybody else. Wonder why that is?
It appears that for some policy implications and message control are taking precedence over truth, and it isn’t just “warmers” who suffer from that malady.
Bruce:
That would fit in with your agenda much more comfortably, wouldn’t it?
As I said, I acknowledge the weaknesses of the peer review system. Not all papers that make it through are “good papers”, regardless of whether they’ve been given the Trenberth kiss of approval or kiss of death.
ivp0 says:
“Uncertainty is of course … uncertain”
Oh really?
PaulM says:
“you demand that he justify every step of the mathematical arguments in a paper written by someone else”
.
Ah, there’s that little pea in the thimble again. This is His Lord’s argument, no one else’s. When it suits his purpose he will attribute it to either himself (when he wants to take credit for its merits) or someone else (when he wants to absolve himself of blame for its flaws). Flip-flop, flip-flop. That blogger woman does not exist.
Bruce
Is this question intended to be rhetorical? Or is it just intended to be loaded? I think it’s the latter and the answer is: I do read published papers and criticize them for hidden assumptions that change their answers. I’ve done so for a long time.
That happens. But it doesn’t change the fact that Kimoto’s assumption are either unstated or hidden away obscurely and more over, they appear to be untenable.
PaulM– You seem to be unaware that this challenge was stripped down in size to make it a small mouthful for Monckton. Recall that Kimoto makes assumptions starting at 14 and on his way to his equation 17. All need to be recognized and stated. But the challenge only asks the easy questions staring at 17.
If Monckton’s explanation for the equation he used is “See Kimoto” Monckton should be able to explain the derivation– including the assumptions and steps. It appears Monckton either does not wish to do so or that he cannot do so. I’m not going to speculate which.
“In the letter to RS he provides no traceable justification for his claimed equation.”
And yet this has already been mentioned. Y’all are forcing lucia to have to repeat herself. This “non-loyal” portion of the audience here does not appreciate that.
RE: bender (Comment #82672)
Sorry Bender, I am at a total loss from your response. Does this mean that you do/do not accept my source for estimated “calculated” climate sensitivity uncertainty of approximately (+-3C)?
For reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2648893/
I am disappointed and surprised to have attracted so much sarcasm for asking what seemed at the time to be a reasonable question. So Lucia will understand my limitations, after two years studying physics I switched my major to electrical engineering because matrix algebra, tensors and vector calculus (Div, grad and curl) were making my head hurt. An electrical engineer can get by with Fourier and Laplace transforms.
Monckton is saying that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 1.0 to 1.2 Kelvin. You were talking about “5” and “6” in an earlier comment. Did you mean 5.0 to 7.2 Kelvin per doubling?
Is anyone going to respond to Bill Illis (Comment #82597)?
ivp0:
I asked a rhetorical question, for which I apologize. My only point was that uncertainty is not uncertain *by definition*. It is only uncertain when the items contained in the uncertainty analysis are themselves uncertain. While this may be particularly the case in climate science wrt the climate sensitivity problem, it is not true in many other science problems, where the physical model is well specified and well parameterized, and the uncertainty arises more as a function of chaotic elements (whose variances are often known). There are many domains of science where the level of uncertainty is not uncertain.
gallopingcamel–
My comments weren’t meant as sarcastic; I hope you didn’t find them so. I thought your comment was explaining that you did know some differential calculus, but would like help stepping through. In that case, the best way to start is just to look at bits and step through. So, I posted somthing that gives a start and anticipated you’d say whether you agreed to that point. Sorry if I misunderstood.
On this
by Paul
Although Monckton cites Kimoto, Kimotos definition of the Planck parameter is -1/(MoncktonsPlank). I think Paul may be providing Kimoto values, but he lost the ‘-‘ sign.
Naa Carrick, that’s not an but the example. Blogger Liljegren tries to be willfully rude, which shows her being irritated for whatever reason.
.
Adressing him with the question she could have simply said “Dear Monckton” if she insisted to use his surname. Just a matter of manners., not a matter of playing the tough guy/girl.
Hoi P., if it were a pattern, or regarding somebody who wasn’t a pompous a**, I’d be more concerned about it.
Hoi–
You addressing me as “blogger Liljegren” while lecturing me that I should address Monckton as “Dear Monckton” and suggesting that calling him “Monckton” is willfully rude or that addressing him as “Dear Monckton” is required by manners strikes me as odd and discombobulated.
“Blogger Liljegren tries to be willfully rude”
Well, someone besides me is actually paying attention. 😉
Lucia,
Well, you actually have his Lordship’s attention, although he is not able or not willing to address you by your name (neither first nor last, nor any title). For His Lordship, you are simply “the blogger” who “If she wants to faff about any further in her little molehill, she can”.
I think we are making progress…
Re: Carrick (Sep 30 12:06),
Heh. Not a bad idea! A less-global approach is actually easier and more productive: select a few issues that you think are important, ask questions, and fill-in-the-blanks yourself.
(Kind of like what that blogger is doing with paragraph 3 of His Excellency Lord’s letter. Now that I think about it.)
Also, now that I think about it, it seems that those who’ve been derisive of my criticism of the drunken-cowboy use of the Tiljander proxies share certain articles of faith about the science, and certain prejudices about What Must Be Done, policy wise.
[rhetorical] Could there be any similarities, though in mirror image? [/rhetorical]Lucia,
Glad to see that you are back to analyzing data. This site is valuable because of your competent and honest data analyses and not the ‘disputes among monks’ that crop up from time to time.
Of far greater relevance are the discussions of the thaumaturgics of ‘The Team’ that can be found at ClimateAudit, for example.
-Joe
Joe–
I think discussions of thaumaturgics on the part of “The Team” and “The Moncktapus” are equally important. Of course, you aren’t required to think so.