Monckton's math error

[skookerasbil]

Everybody is fucking with the math.......dang.......even the NOAA has admitted it!! Oh.......but if you side with the alarmist vision, that doesn't count!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

You dont get it do you. Feedbacks MUST operate within empirical observations, which means they do not go below 0.01 even in our atmosphere.. Yes you are an EPIC FAIL and Monckton is right.

Source please. Feedbacks in the atmosphere operate at much higher values.

IN a word.. NO, there not higher. As each passing day and each revision downward is done. The Current IPCC high estimate of just 1.31 deg C per doubling was even abandoned for "best estimate" in AR5. This move by them indicates THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS except that it is way to HIGH at 1.31 deg C.

The higher the value, the higher the ring back response should be. Were not seeing any ring back, AT ALL! We are seeing a dampening of at least 50% over what empirical closed lab tests on CO2 say it should cause in rise.

 

[mamooth]

Narcissism. Deniers have it, in crazy amounts. A normal person can admit they goofed. Deniers can't. In their own minds, they are absolutely incapable of error.

Thus, if they fell for Monckton's fraud or did something else just as dumb, debunking it won't change their minds. They embraced the belief once, therefore they will take that belief to their graves, since admitting it was a mistake is not an option.

 

[Crick]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

You dont get it do you. Feedbacks MUST operate within empirical observations, which means they do not go below 0.01 even in our atmosphere.. Yes you are an EPIC FAIL and Monckton is right.

Source please. Feedbacks in the atmosphere operate at much higher values.

IN a word.. NO, there not higher. As each passing day and each revision downward is done. The Current IPCC high estimate of just 1.31 deg C per doubling was even abandoned for "best estimate" in AR5. This move by them indicates THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS except that it is way to HIGH at 1.31 deg C.

The higher the value, the higher the ring back response should be. Were not seeing any ring back, AT ALL! We are seeing a dampening of at least 50% over what empirical closed lab tests on CO2 say it should cause in rise.

Radiative forcing only produces 20-25% of the observed warming (American Chemical Society). The rest is from multipliers - feedbacks. Those empirical observations you're so fond of tell us g is GREATER than 1. Methane released by warming will provide feedback of 250-400% all by itself. (Climate change feedback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

 

[IanC]

Methane. Yet another success story for the IPCC. How much of the climate model failures is due to exaggerated methane projections?

 

[Crick]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

 

[Crick]

IPCC Report Graphics

 

[jc456]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

Oh now the IPCC doesn't project. Holy crap

 

[SSDD]

Narcissism. Deniers have it, in crazy amounts. A normal person can admit they goofed. Deniers can't. In their own minds, they are absolutely incapable of error.[q/quote

Talk to mann about that.

Narcissism. Deniers have it, in crazy amounts. A normal person can admit they goofed. Deniers can't. In their own minds, they are absolutely incapable of error..

Tell that to a real narcissist....you might start with michael mann...and go on down the climate science hierarchy. If you think monckton goofed...show us the math error he made and explain why it is an error.

 

[SSDD]

Radiative forcing only produces 20-25% of the observed warming (American Chemical Society). The rest is from multipliers - feedbacks. Those empirical observations you're so fond of tell us g is GREATER than 1. Methane released by warming will provide feedback of 250-400% all by itself. (Climate change feedback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

You say that as if it were actually backed by empirical evidence in the form of experimental results. Can we see that experiment and those results?...wiki doesn't list any.

 

[SSDD]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

You have no understanding...that is half your problem.. You have faith. Are you feeling any symptoms of pre traumatic stress these days? The problem is rampant among climate scientists....it can't be long before it begins to show up among their flocks of sheep.

 

[SSDD]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

Oh now the IPCC doesn't project. Holy crap

The lying just never ends with them does it? All lies all the time.

 

[jc456]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

Oh now the IPCC doesn't project. Holy crap

The lying just never ends with them does it? All lies all the time.

when one can't produce expected facts, one must back away and state one never said such a thing. It's hilarious indeed.

 

[IanC]

IPCC Report Graphics

Thanks for the confirmation. Same source, same graphics, different version.

 

[IanC]

In Monckton, Legates, Soon and Brigg's "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". MLS&B set a maximum value they allow for closed-loop gain (the feedback factor g) is 0.1. This is a value they get from process engineering methods for the analysis of electronic circuits. It has no applicability to climate modeling and artificially and erroneously restricts warming response.

If you'd care to see a fair collection of other Monckton claims illustrating his propensity for knowingly publishing technical falsehoods regarding climate change visit
RealClimate Monckton makes it up

I just read the RealClimate piece. The author was pissed off at Monckton's version of IPCC numbers for CO2. Apparently it wasn't a prediction, just a hypothetical projection.

For someone like crick, who states that forced corrections to warmers' papers don't matter, nitpicking over a few percent of CO2 out to 2100 doesn't really seem like a game changer.

Just what is all that supposed to mean? What is your opinion of limiting the feedback factor to 0.1 on electrical engineering design grounds?

Here we have another example of crick's thinking. He puts up some links that supposedly rebut Monckton but he doesn't read them. I took the time and responded but crick changes the subject and acts like I am the one who is confused.

Here is the summary from the RC piece...

.
Summary

I have shown here that in order to discredit the IPCC, Lord Monckton produced his graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature anomaly in the following manner:

He confused a hypothetical scenario with a prediction.
He falsely reported the data from the hypothetical scenario he was confusing with a prediction.
He plugged his false data into the wrong equation to obtain false predictions of time-series temperature evolution.
He messed up the statistical analyses of the real data.

The piece is on CO2 predictions/projections. And how they don't like how Monckton used the IPCC s own evidence against them.

 

[Crick]

That is incorrect. Do you or do you not see the word "FALSE" in that summation?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Radiative forcing only produces 20-25% of the observed warming (American Chemical Society). The rest is from multipliers - feedbacks. Those empirical observations you're so fond of tell us g is GREATER than 1. Methane released by warming will provide feedback of 250-400% all by itself. (Climate change feedback - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

You say that as if it were actually backed by empirical evidence in the form of experimental results. Can we see that experiment and those results?...wiki doesn't list any.

They are estimations, best guess. There are no empirical experiments that I can find, Once more Wiki is shown as a propagandist tool being used by alarmists. William Connolly would be proud!

 

[flacaltenn]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

If you were following along (and SURPRISE -- you are not) -- you'd realize the discussion is about the MULTIPLIERS --- NOT man-made emissions of Methane. So GWarming goes NOWHERE important if tiny amounts of man-made emissions don't trigger MASSIVE positive feedbacks like NATURAL releases of CO2 and Methane.

Thus -- what the IPCC produced that Ian posted was a PROJECTION of methane increase LARGELY due to TEMPERATURE as the independent variable. NOT emissions.. Melting of ICE mainly..

So ya gotta ask yourself.. What percentage of frozen tundra and calthrates actually REMAIN to thaw? And how much of that WOULD thaw for this scary 2degC "trigger" scenario -- that your flawed theory relies on...

 

[jc456]

It is my understanding that the IPCC does not make projections or predictions of future emissions. Instead it crafts a range of scenarios covering the results of varying levels of emission control action. What is the source of this graphic Ian? Monckton?

If you were following along (and SURPRISE -- you are not) -- you'd realize the discussion is about the MULTIPLIERS --- NOT man-made emissions of Methane. So GWarming goes NOWHERE important if tiny amounts of man-made emissions don't trigger MASSIVE positive feedbacks like NATURAL releases of CO2 and Methane.

Thus -- what the IPCC produced that Ian posted was a PROJECTION of methane increase LARGELY due to TEMPERATURE as the independent variable. NOT emissions.. Melting of ICE mainly..

So ya gotta ask yourself.. What percentage of frozen tundra and calthrates actually REMAIN to thaw? And how much of that WOULD thaw for this scary 2degC "trigger" scenario -- that your flawed theory relies on...

Yet he said they were Not projecting so I'm not sure exactly what his thoughts are on what the IPCC was actually doing.

 

[IanC]

Global warming.... Became climate change...then climate disruption

Predictions....became projections.... Now scenarios.


Is that about right? Every name change needs less proof and carries less responsibility if it is wrong. The warmers' side is getting more and more frantic. They have stopped making the effort to explain/prove their position and now just call everyone who disagrees with any part, no matter how small, a DENIER!!!!!