2011-01-13 13:04:44Organizing the Monckton Myth Series - Sign Up
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

If we're going to do these in order, we need to figure out who's got dibs on which myths.  Here's what we've got so far.

1) Ocean heat content and the recent Douglass paper - John did this one

2, 3, 4) Focus on the hottest year and temperature trends.  Easy to rebut by looking at the average of all data sets to find the actual hottest year, then looking at long-term trends.  Robert Way's got these.

5) Here Monckton claims that global warming will be linear even if CO2 increases exponentially.  Clearly he's referring to the logarithmic forcing, but it's a pretty glaring omission that he doesn't say what the exponent would be for a linear warming.  Basically he says the rate of warming won't increase because of the log relationship.  I might take a stab at this one.

6) Climate sensitivity and Lindzen&Choi.  John called this one.

7) Talks about what amount of warming is dangerous.  Monckton attempts to refute the statement that 2-3°C of warming is dangerous by saying that less than 2°C of warming isn't dangerous.  We need to focus on this total failure to address the actual statement in the original article, which is correct.  There's a need to discuss why 2°C is established as the 'danger limit' for this one.  I can probably take this if nobody else wants it.

8) This appears to be correct - who wants to congratulate Monckton on getting one right?  I vote for John.

9, 10) Sea ice and snow.  Monckton claims global sea ice has remained steady, which is very very easy to refute.  He makes a claim about snow cover which can be examined with Rutgers snow cover data.  Who wants it?

11) Sea level rise.  Monckton attempts to refute the claim that sea level is rising by saying that sea level is rising linearly.  Totally stupid.  Then he references Morner claiming that sea level physically can't rise faster than it is currently.  Totally stupid again.  I'd reference the Rahmstorf study on kinematics of sea level rise to refute that one.  Rob P's got dibs.

12-22) These are all about extreme weather to some degree or another.  We could break it up into 2 or 3 posts since there are so many points to address, but several can be grouped together pretty easily by discussing how global warming 'loads the dice' for more extreme weather.  Any takers?

23) Talks about warming in the pipeline and how much we're due for.  Similar to climate sensitivity.  I can take this one.

24) Cost-benefit analyses.  I've got this one drafted up already.

 

2011-01-13 13:27:55I have to congratulate Monckton? Sez who?!?!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112

The blighter will probably be sueing me so a hearty congratulations will likely seem insincere :-)

Note Monckton also has a crack at the tropospheric hot spot, stating incorrectly that it's a human fingerprint. I suggest we revisit our old rebuttals of this topic, showing it's NOT a human fingerprint and that the actual human fingerprint, cooling stratosphere/warming troposphere has been observed.

Re numbering, probably not important to do it in strict order. For the temperature ones, would be good if we could wait till NASA publish the 2010 figures which should happen around the 15th, I believe.

I'm not convinced we need to contratulate Monckton but if we do, I'd lead with the "even a broken clock is right twice a day"

2011-01-13 14:27:42comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.207.106
I somewhat agree with John about waiting until the temperature record comes out for NASA... regarding the sea ice and snow datasets i could probably take them on if no one else wants to.

Finally I love the end quote fyi
2011-01-13 14:30:28NOAA's & NASA's are out already
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
69.129.142.138

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201001-201012.gif

 

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=12&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

2011-01-13 14:42:11Thanks Daniel
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.207.106
Thanks Yooper just saw that before you posted. I guess I have all the data I need for the most part besides hadley

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

The last anomaly is written as 0 so im assuming they haven't finished yet?

Either way I can have the post ready tomorrow evening I suppose although I will pick at it a bit beforehand.


2011-01-13 16:03:03order
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
If John does his in the next day or two, and Robert the following day (Robert are you doing #2/3/4 as one or three posts?), I can have #5 done this weekend to keep it going.  Then back to John at #6.
2011-01-13 16:39:06It's starting to feel like pro-wrestling
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112

Tag... your turn to whale on Monckton.

"Lord Monckton" has a wrestling title feel to it too. I can just hear the announcer before each bout, "Brace yourself for the Looorrrrrrddddd!"

2011-01-13 16:40:54Thoughts on sea ice and snow cover
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.154.212

Though I’d like to help I’m not sure I’m the best person to write any of these particular rebuttals. However I do have a couple of thoughts on sea ice and snow cover.

Regarding snow cover, doesn’t Rutgers data only include the Northern Hemisphere? Monckton makes a claim about global snow cover.

The most obvious way to counter Monckton’s claim that global sea ice hasn’t declined significantly is to show the usual graph of global sea ice which clearly does show a decline. However, I think a more impressive way to do it is to compare Arctic and Antarctic sea ice trends. I can think of two good graphs that do this. The first is this one from James Hansen's book:

The other one is from the NSIDC State of the Cryosphere page on Sea Ice:


2011-01-13 18:54:26
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.99.160

Here's a must read paper on the 2 degree limit (which turns out to have not so good scientific basis):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r706586g762877m3/fulltext.pdf

2011-01-14 03:55:37#7
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Yes, a very useful paper Ari.  Do you want to take Myth #7?

Nice graphs James.  You sure you don't want to take a stab at #9 and 10?  We can split them up if you just want to take sea ice.

2011-01-14 16:13:29Okay, I'll take #9
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.154.212
I'll take the global sea ice claim.
2011-01-15 04:09:14Not sure about the numbering
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.136.160

Hi Folks,

as it's not yet "cut in stone" which post will go when and how far apart they'll be posted, wouldn't it be easier and a lot more flexible if each post just gets identified by a catch-phrase or word instead of a number? If you then have a kind of cross-reference posting here in the forum to show which "Monckton-numbers" are rebutted in which post, you'd still be able to keep track of this effort internally.

I'd also avoid using words like "yesterday" as refernces to earlier posts in this series as this is somewhat meaningless anyway just due to timezone-differences.

Cheers
Baerbel

2011-01-15 06:33:15
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.102.166

Dana: "Yes, a very useful paper Ari.  Do you want to take Myth #7?"

Probably not, because I don't think I have the time for it. I already have two other climate news articles I have to write to my Finnish publishers waiting. I did a news article on that 2 degree paper a while back, so I'm sure I can help on that if there is a need. I would like to be able to contribute more, though.

2011-01-15 07:12:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Baerbel - that might be a good idea.  I kind of like the numbering concept though, so that if a reader sees "Monckton Myth #5" or something like that in the title, they know there are 4 other Monckton Myths they could go read.  Maybe we could identify a catchphrase in a sub-title?

Ari - do you still have the news article?  If you don't have time to do the blog post, maybe you could email me the article (dana1981@yahoo.com) and I could implement it into the rebuttal.

2011-01-15 07:15:50Tamino Weighs in
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Sea ice is addressed by tamino

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/monckton-skewers-truth/
2011-01-15 08:24:04How about...
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.135.158

....creating one "overview" blog-post about the Monckton-myth-busting-posts which will get updated whenever a new post gets added? This could start out as a short introduction and would then contain at first a link to the first post in the series. Once the next post goes online, the overview document gets updated with the new link and so on. Each of the detail posts would contain a link back to the overview-post. I'm not sure if readers necessarily want to know how many other posts there are in the series if they have an easy means to access them.

Cheers
Baerbel

 

2011-01-15 10:02:44I like it
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I like that idea.  It would be nice to do the same thing for the Climategate series too.
2011-01-15 15:19:32Overview series
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
This is a good idea. Perhaps with a few posts under our belt or at the end of the series, we post a summary. In fact, I have an idea for a Monckton summary page which includes all the arguments he uses. Will post this later.

This is an amazingly effective and productive set up we have here. Within a week of the idea first being mooted, we've set into motion a whole comprehensive series. And we can unroll this machine whenever new disinformation comes out. Perhaps we can down the track do series on other skeptics. "Spencer's Slip-ups". "Lindzen's Lapses" :-)

2011-01-15 15:22:22I like that idea
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
"Watts' WTFs" and "Goddard's Goddamn that Guy is Nuts!"
2011-01-15 15:24:16Numbers in heading
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
Btw, Baerbel, I thought about whether to omit the numbering from the posts. But I kind of like them there. It creates a sense of continuity when the post is taken out of context. And it reminds me of Deltoid's "The Australian's war on science" series - by numbering them, it reminds people of just how often the Australian newspaper posts anti-science articles.
2011-01-15 17:53:47
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.102.166
I have been thinking that it would be a good thing if you would have all the sins of these people in one page, so that one can give a link and show it to a denier referring to them. It would be handy to show other people in a discussion, when someone suggests that people should read climateaudit, that here McIntyre cherry-picked this data, used selective quotation on that article and made this kind of fraudulous graph, etc...