I find it hysterically funny/absurd that anyone claiming to believe in "scientific rigor" would then turn around and cite Christopher Monckton. For those not familiar with that charlatan Monckton, here's an introduction:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monck...Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords, a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.Monckton's quite a character and a darling of the Denialist Industry. But, hey, enough about the man, let's examine his cited APS "paper" regarding climate sensitivity.It should come as no surprise to any reasonably astute individual that scientists weren't all that impressed by Monckton's "paper":http://tinyurl.com/a3qlxheArthur Smith has read "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" by Christopher Monckton published in the APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter just a couple of months ago. Should someone of your acquaintance inquire, Arthur finds 125 errors. He separates them intoErrors or fallacies in the text are categorized and denoted under the following headings:Errors of fact: "Wrong"Irrelevant conclusions and non sequiturs: "Red Herring"Other errors of logic: "Nonsense"Errors of interpretation or misunderstanding: "Confused"Arguments that only work for specially selected data: "Cherry Picking"Other arguments that have no scientific validity: "Invalid"Statements that contradict or conflict with other statements in the text: "Inconsistent"Arthur, unlike Chris, is a nice fellow so he sums it up at the beginning...please note that simply itemizing errors in an article doesn't prove one way or another whether the central premise of the article is wrong or not (the "fallacy fallacy"). Monckton's central question is on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of that sensitivity is a central question of climate science as a whole, and in particular centers on the sign and magnitudes of various feedbacks to temperature increase in Earth's climate system. The most recent IPCC report (AR4, Working Group 1, 2007) presented a robust collection of evidence from physical modeling, paleoclimate, and observed recent response of the climate system for their conclusions of a temperature response to CO2 doubling of between 2 and 4.5 K, with a best estimate around 3 K. The substantial collection of errors in Monckton's article renders his arguments against this IPCC conclusion quite unconvincing.For those wishing to review Arthur Smith's thorough dissection of Monckton's "paper" you can read it here:http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.htmlFor another recap of what actual scientists have to say about climate sensitivity, here's a detailed article, chock full of useful links and references:http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced...Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.Knutti and Hegerl (2008) presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity. In their paper, they present a figure which neatly encapsulates how various methods of estimating climate sensitivity examining different time periods have yielded consistent results, as the studies described above show. As you can see, the various methodologies are generally consistent with the range of 2-4.5°C, with few methods leaving the possibility of lower values, but several unable to rule out higher values.The terms "Christopher Monckton" and "scientific rigor" are mutually exclusive.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat