One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Phydeaux -> One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 10:35:34 AM)

Interesting article. What do you think?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/



DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 10:38:19 AM)

I think the claim is full of shit
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=



mnottertail -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 11:07:53 AM)

I think it is not at all an interesting article.



Yachtie -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 11:12:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think it is not at all an interesting article.



I find it quite interesting.



Hillwilliam -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 11:14:04 AM)

Well, I feel that the thread title is quite misleading.
According to the article, quoted, the paper isn't what the theory is based on (that's the absorption curve of CO2 which is chemistry 101) the paper was about the derivation of one of the constants that is used in climate modeling. It was also supported by a couple of others etc, etc.

Now, let's look at this opinion piece that people were supposedly not supposed to look at.

The author is no less than Viscount Monckton (sounds fucking impressive doesn't it)
Let's look at Mr Monckton's qualifications, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Mr Monckton's degree is in..............................Journalism

That's right kids. He has no scientific training. That MIGHT be why there was a cautionary note in front of his opinion piece in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society.

Quite bluntly, he isn't a Physicist or a Chemist. He's a journalist and Conservative gadfly.
Based on that, I would take his OP Ed in a journal of Physics with more than a grain of salt because of his total lack of qualifications in the sciences involved.

ETA. I do believe this whole foofaraw was initiated in the Drudge Report, was it not?



mnottertail -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 11:21:13 AM)

As an effect of gazing upon his visage and his cirriculum vitae, I am forced to the realization, that William F. Buckley has done some venal sinning by tatting in the tweeds with Mère Letitia.



DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 12:32:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

As an effect of gazing upon his visage and his cirriculum vitae, I am forced to the realization, that William F. Buckley has done some venal sinning by tatting in the tweeds with Mère Letitia.

Considering that the linked article is 5 years old I think its likely.

And in case anyone with an open mind is curious, here is a detailed debunking of Monckton's lies from the first time he put that crap out there.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/



Hillwilliam -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 12:44:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

As an effect of gazing upon his visage and his cirriculum vitae, I am forced to the realization, that William F. Buckley has done some venal sinning by tatting in the tweeds with Mère Letitia.

Considering that the linked article is 5 years old I think its likely.

And in case anyone with an open mind is curious, here is a detailed debunking of Monckton's lies from the first time he put that crap out there.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

If I'm not mistaken, Monckton is the guy I saw on Glen Beck a few years ago when he was still on TV.
His statements didn't sound right so I looked up his credentials.

Long story short, I have a lot more qualifications commenting on Arthurian literature through the centuries than he does on anything scientific. But, as he was willing to say what his employers wanted to hear, there he was on TV,



DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 12:50:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

As an effect of gazing upon his visage and his cirriculum vitae, I am forced to the realization, that William F. Buckley has done some venal sinning by tatting in the tweeds with Mère Letitia.

Considering that the linked article is 5 years old I think its likely.

And in case anyone with an open mind is curious, here is a detailed debunking of Monckton's lies from the first time he put that crap out there.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

If I'm not mistaken, Monckton is the guy I saw on Glen Beck a few years ago when he was still on TV.
His statements didn't sound right so I looked up his credentials.

Long story short, I have a lot more qualifications commenting on Arthurian literature through the centuries than he does on anything scientific. But, as he was willing to say what his employers wanted to hear, there he was on TV,

Yeah that was probably him. He's making a lot of money sounding like he knows what he's talking about and claiming stuff is simple and then presenting total crap it takes a lot of knowledge on the subject to see through.



thompsonx -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 1:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Interesting article. What do you think?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

It is what we have come to expect. Moronic bullshit.



Phydeaux -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 2:57:34 PM)

I read the rebuttal which actually had nothing that rebutted the point of the claims.


For example - find in your rebuttal anything that addresses the following:

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis]

Its relatively simple. Show that that coefficient for forcing depends on 20 papers for example. Show that K isn't depending on a lead researcher and one other....



mnottertail -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 2:58:38 PM)

OH, well we dismissed the OP as asswipe out of hand so the rebuttal apologism will not be necessary.



dcnovice -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 4:22:35 PM)

FR

I shared this earlier, but we seem to need it again.

[image]http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/10/climatedenierspapers.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg[/image]



Hillwilliam -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 4:30:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature;

There are 2 keys to the article.

1. Someone disagrees with a constant derived in an article that is plugged into models predicting future climate.

The title of your thread is "One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on"

That is incorrect. the theory of global warming is based on the physical properties of CO2 which are set and immutable and that's Chemistry 101.

2. Mhe guy that is quotes again and again in the article is a known charlatan tho is quite ignorant about chemistry and Physics but he gets press because of his hereditary title in Merrie Olde England.

You really should read the wiki article on him. He's your classic Brit upper crust never worked a day in his life crackpot.



Phydeaux -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 5:07:11 PM)

Hey Hill

1. I think your quibble is a bit symantecs. If the theory hinges (critically) on one value derived from one paper - thats a terrible weakness. Should be easy to disprove his allegation. Show where that value has been verified by others. I have a completely open mind on this . If not admit that Monkton is right.

2. Broadly, I know Monkton's background. Doesn't matter. 1000 people can say the world is flat. Consensus and pedigree matter not one whit if you're wrong. And the IPCC 2007 global warming report was clearly and spectacularly.. wrong.

3. Regarding CO2. Its wrong to say that global warming depends solely on the physical properties of CO2. Nasa latest research which i pointed to earlier, says that the net effect of carbon depends on its altitude and concentration. Other studies have confirmed that troposhperic co2 is migrating to the exosphere. Nasa's research said (paraphrasing) the net greenhouse effect of CO2 is much less than expected.

Think about it. The volumetric arc decreases with altitude....



Hillwilliam -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 8:10:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Hey Hill

1. I think your quibble is a bit symantecs. If the theory hinges (critically) on one value derived from one paper - thats a terrible weakness. Should be easy to disprove his allegation. Show where that value has been verified by others. I have a completely open mind on this . If not admit that Monkton is right.

2. Broadly, I know Monkton's background. Doesn't matter. 1000 people can say the world is flat. Consensus and pedigree matter not one whit if you're wrong. And the IPCC 2007 global warming report was clearly and spectacularly.. wrong.

3. Regarding CO2. Its wrong to say that global warming depends solely on the physical properties of CO2. Nasa latest research which i pointed to earlier, says that the net effect of carbon depends on its altitude and concentration. Other studies have confirmed that troposhperic co2 is migrating to the exosphere. Nasa's research said (paraphrasing) the net greenhouse effect of CO2 is much less than expected.

Think about it. The volumetric arc decreases with altitude....

I did not quibble on semantics.

The theory hinges on the absorption curve of certain gasses. This is immutable. The models hinge on certain constants derived in a paper which, according to the article, was supported by others.
Please take time to learn the difference between theory and predictive computer models.

As for Monckton's background, as I stated earlier, he is about as qualified to comment on planetary meteorology as I am to comment on the history of Arthurian literature. (actually, I may be more qualified as I once studied it)
Unfortunately, he has one of those British 'hereditary titles' so that makes him acceptable to the masses as an 'expert' because he has a "Degree from Cambridge" (In letters)[8|].

Remember what I said earlier. Searching for data in biased sources (I believe this originated in the Drudge Report) leads to biased results.

Biased results are useless.



DomKen -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 8:29:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Hey Hill

1. I think your quibble is a bit symantecs. If the theory hinges (critically) on one value derived from one paper - thats a terrible weakness. Should be easy to disprove his allegation. Show where that value has been verified by others. I have a completely open mind on this . If not admit that Monkton is right.

Grotesque lack of knowledge of how science works. Of course the constant is based on a single paper. How else could it be? Do you think dozens of researchers independently performed the same research and published simultaneously? Of course. One paper got published and a bunch of others verify the data and use that constant in their own work and it works which is enough confirmation for all but lying asshole Lords getting rich by selling snake oil to rubes.


quote:

3. Regarding CO2. Its wrong to say that global warming depends solely on the physical properties of CO2. Nasa latest research which i pointed to earlier, says that the net effect of carbon depends on its altitude and concentration. Other studies have confirmed that troposhperic co2 is migrating to the exosphere. Nasa's research said (paraphrasing) the net greenhouse effect of CO2 is much less than expected.

A tiny amount of CO2 rises into and above the stratosphere. The rest stays low in the atmosphere. Since CO2 holds heat and then reradiates some of it the huge amount lower in the atmosphere completely trumps the tiny quantity at the top of the atmosphere.

And no research by NASA says that the net greenhouse effect is less than expected. Present a link to NASA or it is simply a lie.



tweakabelle -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/25/2013 10:51:55 PM)

It's good to see that the venerable old English tradition of the aristocratic-half-wit-in love-with-the-sound-of-their-own-voice is still alive and kicking in the form of Monkton. His true role in life lies in bit parts in "Carry On" movies. In another couple of years I can see him graduating to playing Colonel Blimp characters ....

Any one who thinks that this moronic nutcase has anything to offer the debate (apart from providing comedy relief and excellent parody material ) needs to think again.



Phydeaux -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/26/2013 1:15:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Hey Hill

1. I think your quibble is a bit symantecs. If the theory hinges (critically) on one value derived from one paper - thats a terrible weakness. Should be easy to disprove his allegation. Show where that value has been verified by others. I have a completely open mind on this . If not admit that Monkton is right.

Grotesque lack of knowledge of how science works. Of course the constant is based on a single paper. How else could it be? Do you think dozens of researchers independently performed the same research and published simultaneously? Of course. One paper got published and a bunch of others verify the data and use that constant in their own work and it works which is enough confirmation for all but lying asshole Lords getting rich by selling snake oil to rubes.


quote:

3. Regarding CO2. Its wrong to say that global warming depends solely on the physical properties of CO2. Nasa latest research which i pointed to earlier, says that the net effect of carbon depends on its altitude and concentration. Other studies have confirmed that troposhperic co2 is migrating to the exosphere. Nasa's research said (paraphrasing) the net greenhouse effect of CO2 is much less than expected.

A tiny amount of CO2 rises into and above the stratosphere. The rest stays low in the atmosphere. Since CO2 holds heat and then reradiates some of it the huge amount lower in the atmosphere completely trumps the tiny quantity at the top of the atmosphere.

And no research by NASA says that the net greenhouse effect is less than expected. Present a link to NASA or it is simply a lie.



Three times I have asked that anyone provide a fact that ANYONE has verified (and published) a paper on that constant. To shut me up all you need do is present that paper and I will happily conclude that monk is wrong. (in his claim that it rests on the work of a single paper).

Bloviation is all that ensues. So I presume monk's criticism valid.



thompsonx -> RE: One Paper in toto is what the theory of global warming is based on (9/26/2013 1:40:03 PM)

So I presume monk's criticism valid.

To presume unvalidated research is true would seem consistant for some.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125