Monckton's math error

[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...

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

Short answer.. That graph is what you get after you pile flawed projections upon flawed projections about 5 times.
It's like a graph of flawed projections to the fifth power.

 

[Crick]

Short answer re this thread. Monckton, Legates, Soon and Briggs got the results they got because they restricted feedback to 0.1, a tiny fraction of what is seen, EMPIRICALLY, in the Earth's climate

Addendum: Monckton has a history of knowingly making false arguments regarding global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Short answer re this thread. Monckton, Legates, Soon and Briggs got the results they got because they restricted feedback to 0.1, a tiny fraction of what is seen, EMPIRICALLY, in the Earth's climate

Addendum: Monckton has a history of knowingly making false arguments regarding global warming.

Show us where this happens on the Vostok Ice Core because they show about an 800 year lag. If it worked as your theory suggests CO2 increase would PRECEED temperature increase. So the EMPERICAL evidence over several hundred thousand years, for the entire course of the data set fails your theory

 

[Crick]

Short answer re this thread. Monckton, Legates, Soon and Briggs got the results they got because they restricted feedback to 0.1, a tiny fraction of what is seen, EMPIRICALLY, in the Earth's climate

Addendum: Monckton has a history of knowingly making false arguments regarding global warming.

Show us where this happens on the Vostok Ice Core because they show about an 800 year lag. If it worked as your theory suggests CO2 increase would PRECEED temperature increase. So the EMPERICAL evidence over several hundred thousand years, for the entire course of the data set fails your theory

Show us where what happens? Feedback? I assure you the data is there. However, your argument, that the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature somehow precludes what we see happening today is logical nonsense Frank.

For probably the tenth time:

NO ONE DISPUTES THAT RAISING THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WILL CAUSE CO2 LEVELS IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO RISE.

That point does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT preclude CO2, released by other means (the combustion of fossil fuels, for instance) from causing the Earth's temperature to increase. The record in Vostok and other places clearly show that it does: warming continues after CO2 is released long after the original cause has faded.

 

[jc456]

Short answer re this thread. Monckton, Legates, Soon and Briggs got the results they got because they restricted feedback to 0.1, a tiny fraction of what is seen, EMPIRICALLY, in the Earth's climate

Addendum: Monckton has a history of knowingly making false arguments regarding global warming.

Show us where this happens on the Vostok Ice Core because they show about an 800 year lag. If it worked as your theory suggests CO2 increase would PRECEED temperature increase. So the EMPERICAL evidence over several hundred thousand years, for the entire course of the data set fails your theory

Show us where what happens? Feedback? I assure you the data is there. However, your argument, that the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature somehow precludes what we see happening today is logical nonsense Frank.

For probably the tenth time:

NO ONE DISPUTES THAT RAISING THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WILL CAUSE CO2 LEVELS IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO RISE.

That point does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT preclude CO2, released by other means (the combustion of fossil fuels, for instance) from causing the Earth's temperature to increase. The record in Vostok and other places clearly show that it does: warming continues after CO2 is released long after the original cause has faded.

More assurances without actual data to support the statement. but see, take a look at temperature and CO2 from 1940 to 1970 and that simply isn't true.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

It's more of a gut feeling than any actual experiment.

Trust them on this, they have "Consensus" because the "'science' is settled"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Short answer re this thread. Monckton, Legates, Soon and Briggs got the results they got because they restricted feedback to 0.1, a tiny fraction of what is seen, EMPIRICALLY, in the Earth's climate

Addendum: Monckton has a history of knowingly making false arguments regarding global warming.

Show us where this happens on the Vostok Ice Core because they show about an 800 year lag. If it worked as your theory suggests CO2 increase would PRECEED temperature increase. So the EMPERICAL evidence over several hundred thousand years, for the entire course of the data set fails your theory

Show us where what happens? Feedback? I assure you the data is there. However, your argument, that the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature somehow precludes what we see happening today is logical nonsense Frank.

For probably the tenth time:

NO ONE DISPUTES THAT RAISING THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WILL CAUSE CO2 LEVELS IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO RISE.

That point does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT preclude CO2, released by other means (the combustion of fossil fuels, for instance) from causing the Earth's temperature to increase. The record in Vostok and other places clearly show that it does: warming continues after CO2 is released long after the original cause has faded.

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

 

[SSDD]

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

Crick can't read graphs even though he claims to have aced statistics....what a laugh. You could show it to him a thousand times and it will never mean anything to him...graphs apparently look like some sort of constructivist art to him.....little real meaning to be extracted from them.

He often provides graphs that prove his opponent's point thinking that he is bolstering his own. Hell of a thing for someone who claims to have aced statistics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

Crick can't read graphs even though he claims to have aced statistics....what a laugh. You could show it to him a thousand times and it will never mean anything to him...graphs apparently look like some sort of constructivist art to him.....little real meaning to be extracted from them.

He often provides graphs that prove his opponent's point thinking that he is bolstering his own. Hell of a thing for someone who claims to have aced statistics.

His best work is, when asked to show the relationship between CO2 and temperature, he posts a chart without a temperature axis and then accuses of of being "stew-pit"

 

[mamooth]

So, how's Monckton's cure for AIDS going? If you'll recall, Monckton wants every person with AIDS forcibly quarantined, forever. That's the kook that deniers have hitched their wagon too. And they don't care, because they're just as crazy.

ATTP debunks Monckton much like Crick, though there's a lot more debunking in the comments.

The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

This talks about how deniers sleaze past the peer review process

How Climate Change Denial Still Gets Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals Motherboard

And more debunkings ....

Factcheck Scientists hit back at claims global warming projections are greatly exaggerated Carbon Brief

Thought Fragments Monckton Soon Legates and Briggs falsely claim to have presented a new climate model

the Monckton et. al sic paper is complete trash Stoat

It's quite pathetic, how complete nonsense like the Monckton piece is what deniers pin their hopes on. Then when the whole planet just ignores it because it's so 'effin stupid, the deniers pout and whine about the big conspiracy against them. Gutless crybaby wankers, the whole lot of 'em. Deniers are ignored not because of a socialist plot, but because they're all such pathologically dishonest morons.

 

[Crick]

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

Crick can't read graphs even though he claims to have aced statistics....what a laugh. You could show it to him a thousand times and it will never mean anything to him...graphs apparently look like some sort of constructivist art to him.....little real meaning to be extracted from them.

He often provides graphs that prove his opponent's point thinking that he is bolstering his own. Hell of a thing for someone who claims to have aced statistics.

His best work is, when asked to show the relationship between CO2 and temperature, he posts a chart without a temperature axis and then accuses of of being "stew-pit"

Stewpit.

 

[SSDD]

Stewpit.

Just noticed your signature....very sad....and telling that you can't differentiate a fundamental difference between those two statements...very poor analytical skills if you think that they are analogous.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

Crick can't read graphs even though he claims to have aced statistics....what a laugh. You could show it to him a thousand times and it will never mean anything to him...graphs apparently look like some sort of constructivist art to him.....little real meaning to be extracted from them.

He often provides graphs that prove his opponent's point thinking that he is bolstering his own. Hell of a thing for someone who claims to have aced statistics.

His best work is, when asked to show the relationship between CO2 and temperature, he posts a chart without a temperature axis and then accuses of of being "stew-pit"

Stewpit.

Altered data fed through flawed models and validated by climate 'scientists' paid by the AGWCult leaders. Yeah, that's not science

 

[jc456]

You can pretend this is the first time you're seeing this graph, but here is a 450,000 year data set.

Please point out when imaginary CO2 "Feedback loop" drove or influenced temperature, because the chart shows CO2 following temperature like a obedient little puppy...

for all 450,000 years

Crick can't read graphs even though he claims to have aced statistics....what a laugh. You could show it to him a thousand times and it will never mean anything to him...graphs apparently look like some sort of constructivist art to him.....little real meaning to be extracted from them.

He often provides graphs that prove his opponent's point thinking that he is bolstering his own. Hell of a thing for someone who claims to have aced statistics.

His best work is, when asked to show the relationship between CO2 and temperature, he posts a chart without a temperature axis and then accuses of of being "stew-pit"

Stewpit.

So, you have a graph with temperatures to parlay with?

 

[jc456]

Stewpit.

Just noticed your signature....very sad....and telling that you can't differentiate a fundamental difference between those two statements...very poor analytical skills if you think that they are analogous.

wow, guess i hadn't really paid that much attention to his signature. But man, is that a sad representation for the warmers.