2011-01-29 06:54:27BBC4 Storyville: Meet the Climate Sceptics
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Interesting fortnight for the BBC. This week Horizon, with Singer and Delingpole.

Next week Monckton!

(Monday BBC4 10pm)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v

I hope the BBC have the sense to not let him come across as being credible.

2011-01-29 07:44:36
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206
All the more motivation to get the Monckton Myths post wrapped up ASAP.
2011-01-29 07:46:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206
I can;t wait to see what BS Monkey spouts in the documentary.
2011-01-29 18:20:25Monckton documentary
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

I heard about this about a week ago and was what caused me to set the date of the Monckton launch for the same time as the airing of the programme.

As for the Monckton Myths posts, well, they are an ongoing thing and I'm so busy with getting the MM page perfect, I don't think I'll have time to write my Myth #9 before Tuesday. But that's not the priority. The priority is adding Monckton articles to the MM page and writing rebuttals to some of the arguments that lack rebuttals, that wouldn't require too much work to cobble together a rebuttal (eg - something we can grab from existing blog posts). Will post on this in the Deniers forum shortly.

2011-01-29 19:57:49
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

I spoke with a guy who debated Monckton last night. He said that Monckton is very clever and very good at debating, so it's very hard.

The problem is, he presents data that doesn't support his view, twists it to claim it does, and this confuses the audience into thinking he might be right. If he had to sit down, write it out and present it to a learned journal it would simply be rejected for being wrong.

 

 

I'm thinking I might write a couple of 'Monckton Miscellany' on some of the points he slipped through the radar for the Monckton's myths series. Linear temperature time response to linear forcing, and his contradictions on lapse rate and hot spot are the ones I spotted.

2011-01-29 20:41:54
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.201.111
Yes, Mark he's a master debater. I was one of a few who warned Tim Lambert (of the Deltoid blog) about debating him, but he went ahead anyway. Debating is often about style over substance. That's why con men and lawyers are so good at it. 
2011-01-29 20:51:41Lapse rates
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Mark, I've added a new argument "upper troposphere should warm 2 to 3 times faster than the surface" which Monckton has repeated several times. I had no idea where that comes from, it seems to be some obscure paper by a skeptic. Would be great if you could have a look at that one in your travels.
2011-01-29 20:58:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.52.112

Rob:

Yes, debate is a very inappropriate way to resolve scientific controversy. Real scientists discuss things over beer, or write papers.

2011-01-31 02:12:54
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

The upper troposphere is simply the 'hot spot' from the lapse rate.

 

You've already looked at it in some detail, but here's a quick run through including some stuff that you might have missed:

 

1) 'hot spot' comes from increased evaporation at the surface leading to increased condensation higher up. This is a negative feedback and it's expected (with slightly different patterns iirc) with any warming in the tropics. It's effectively the lapse rate feedback.

2)  climate models expect around ~3% increase per degree, whilst Clausius-Clapeyron alone expects more like 6% per degree increase in evaporation. This comes from balancing precip vs evaporation, and precip appears to be limited by radiative cooling in the upper atmosphere. Models say this will balance because of things like weakening of the Walker circulation and some other complicated stuff I don't follow yet.

3) Monckton claims we've seen 6%, based on a paper that uses some microwave soundings. This is a negative feedback, and should cool the surface, but it should also lead to increased water vapour greenhouse effect - models tend to agree that the combined effect is a positive feedback of magnitude ~1 W m-2 K-1.

4) if we really have seen such a drastic increase, then there should definitely be a big hotspot, because it must be evaporating up there and if it isn't, then it isn't transferring the heat away from the surface. So Monckton claiming no hotspot whilst claiming this is contradictory.

5) We struggle to detect the hotspot because satellite channels pick up signal from all over the atmosphere and pinpointing particular heights is difficult - although particularly low and particularly high look pretty reliable. Meanwhile, weather balloon instruments start getting condensation and freezing and the likes up there, amongst other effects (like exposure to sunlight etc) which means that we're not very confident in the radiosonde record either.

 

 

The impression I got from the conversation combined with the bits I have checked out properly is that Monckton's 'no hotspot' + '6% increase in evaporation' are effectively physically impossible to have at the same time (although it's possible there is condensation much lower in the atmosphere, say, but that wouldn't be as efficient at cooling us). Either he's ignorant, or doing his usual misleading the public.

2011-02-01 10:06:28
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183
Just finished watching this.

Interesting programme, I'm guessing it is a matter of a day or few days before it gets onto the internet.

Although it did allow Monckton some air time, he didn't come out very well from it. Murray interviewed John Abrahms which was interesting and I doubt if Greg Craven ever expected to be in a BBC documentary. They used some of his 'risk' videos in the programme.

A lot of it was shot in Australia and the vast majority of his followers seemed to be pensioners!??!!

One criticism would be that it seemed to be a personal project of Murrays. In fact it looks like he did everything, eg. he was the whole crew, from directing, to camera and editing.
2011-02-01 23:46:01
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Actually, with no disrespect for Moncktons health issues.

Towards the end of the documentary he is interviewed by Murray and admits he might have misused some info.

During that sequence I was quite disturbed by his left eye which looked like it was going to pop out of its socket.
It made me think about his claims about finding a cure to his ailment.
My cure for a problem in my knee is to cycle and walk, it may ease the problem, but it isn't a cure.

2011-02-02 00:56:45
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Just shows you how different people can perceive something:

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/140337.html?mode=reply

"The presenter then nailed his colours to the mast, and declared that he believed that the threat humanity was facing demanded that he surrender his freedom. He personally would agree to this. He would gladly become a serf."

But the whole point is of course that we should understand what is going on with the environment, to do that we use science and then it is upto the policy makers whether they do anything.

What seems to be forgotten by sceptics and deniers is that even if AGW is correct, it doesn't have to drive policy, that is up to voters.
Yet they seem to think that they have to prove the science is wrong, because it automatically drives policy.

They could just say: 'yep the science is fine, but I'm sticking with freedom of choice etc. screw the science'. That's a difficult one to do, it's far easier to attack science.

2011-02-02 01:45:05
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144

Ville, I think it's very difficult to do that and not feel guilty.

Even the most hardcore Daily Mail reading foaming-at-the-mouth nutter probably doesn't like the idea of being seen as selling out their own children because of their greed. But that's what they actually want to do... so my guess is that they just want a way to solve this dissonance so they subconciously choose science denial.

I know fuck all about psychology, so maybe I'm suffering some Dunning-Kruger myself.