sites.duke.edu/mslozier/files/2010/11/Riser.Lozer_2013.pdf · PDF file

Shows study that faded into obscurity.

Why don't you do your own research or are you unable to accept alternative explanations?

Why don't you do your own research or are you unable to accept alternative explanations?

Mar 19, 2018 at 7:53 PM | Supertroll

He is not allowed to. That is the way Climate Science funding works.

Trump can dismiss Climate Science as a Logical Fallacy with as much expertise as Climate Scientists have demonstrated. Or as little. No evidence is actually required.

Trump can point at Stern's failed Economic Models. Stern will defend himself by pointing to the Climate Science, and their failed models. Without Stern's Logical Fallacy, who needs Climate Science?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/

"Therefore, I am at last free to reveal what we have discovered. There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models’ calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K. We say we can prove it."

According to Climate Scientists we have warmed that much already, but nobody has noticed.

"That's all folks" is how cartoon classics used to end. At least they had comedy value.

Golf Charlie

Did you spot Monkton's error?

He failed to account for the 25-30 year ocean heat content lag. That is why his group's sensitivity calculations are too low.

Supertroll

Neither of your Seager links worked.

Supertroll

Ah, got it!

Please put links on a separate line in isolation. It helps pick them out from the surrounding text.

Your Seager link is from 2006. That is as far as I got, too.

Riser and Lozer discussed three alternative hypotheses, they differ in detail but agree that 0.8 petawatts is transported northwards from 35N and has mostly dispersed by 55N. That energy has transferred to the atmosphere and warmed Europe.

Seager's hypothesis was discarded, with the influence of the Rockies regarded as negligible.

Mar 20, 2018 at 11:36 AM | Entropic man

Why hasn't Climate Science acknowledged any of Mann's errors, from the Hockey Stick to Harvey et al 2017?

As Climate Science has a track record of complete incompetence, why do you think anyone should trust Climate Science when it comes to evidence?

Is your post simply another attempt to draw attention to an Illogical Galloping Squirell Fallacy?

It is not just the ocean lag - Monckton's latest discovery of a fundamental physical error in climate science is based on a transparent nonsense, that
'climatologists had made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature TE (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback.'

It does not, because it can not, as Roy Spencer points out in the

'But then, classics scholar Monckton has regularly been finding 'fundamental errors' in climate science since 2006.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton

It is not just the ocean lag - Monckton's latest discovery of a fundamental physical error in climate science is based on a transparent nonsense, that 'climatologists had made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature TE (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback.'

It does not, because it can not, as Roy Spencer points out in the comments.

'But then, classics scholar Monckton has regularly been finding 'fundamental errors' in climate science since 2006.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton

He failed to account for the 25-30 year ocean heat content lag. That is why his group's sensitivity calculations are too low.

Mar 20, 2018 at 11:36 AM | Entropic man

Is this why Mann failed to account for the MWP and LIA?

Who is Climate Science proposing as reliable Climate Scientists to challenge Monckton?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton

Mar 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM | Phil Clarke

You are relying on Leo Hickman with this, from 2010, in the post Climategate coverup phase of Climate Science?

"The rebuttal was organised over the summer by five scientists, including Prof Michael Mann, the director of the Earth system science centre at Pennsylvania State University, and John Abraham, the associate professor of engineering at the University of St Thomas in Minnesota. Both scientists have sparred with Monckton in the past over his various claims about the veracity of climate science.

The document contains referenced responses from 21 leading climate scientists, including James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and David Easterling, the chief of the scientific services division at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Centre (NOAA)."

Was Mann still a Nobel Prize Winner in 2010?

I don't really follow Monckton's argument, nor see what feedback he's talking about, nor accept any form of 288 - 255 = CO2, nor positive H2O vapour feedback. Nor the 30-year ocean lag, come to that.

Why doesn't ANY temperature perturbation, up or down, kick off water vapour positive feedback? Why does it have to wait for CO2?

DWIR or TOA/lapse rate? Which is it to be, the actual mechanism whereby anything gets warmer than it would have been?

EM. You seem to want to ignore my main criticism of your calculation. Using your logic we can compare the annual rainfall amounts: Prince Rupert (wettest place in Canada) has c 2.5m of rainfall per year, compared with just over 1m in Donegal. Using your logic we might argue that the missing 1.5m in Donegal was due to the presence of the Gulf Stream.

I dunno, was Monckton still claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords?

Mann's poor wording about his contribution to work that lead to the IPCC's receipt of the Nobel Prize is 100%, utterly, completely irrelevant to pretty much anything. It is clear that's all you have against the man, though.

As noted, the response had 21 contributors, all eminent and published scientists. There's a summary here.

Then there's this amusing irrelevance. Apparently His Lordship's …

…. contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.

His Lordship, describing himself in the 3rd person in a letter to Senator John McCain. (the typo was spotted long before Monckton raised it).

Ho ho. If Monckton is your best hope, all is lost.

Mar 20, 2018 at 2:18 PM | Phil Clarke

So you have full confidence that Climate Science can put up a convincing case to retain US Taxpayer Funding?

Have you been convinced that Monckton is wrong, by the same people that propagate the lies that you broadcast?

Did you find Harvey et al 2017 as convincing, as you did Gergis (twice)?

You do not need an expert to determine that Lord Monckton is wrong, in this case GCSE Physics will do it.

You do not need an expert to determine that Lord Monckton is wrong, in this case GCSE Physics will do it.

Mar 20, 2018 at 2:44 PM | Phil Clarke

But liars in Climate Science still refuse to accept anything wrong with Mann's Hockey Stick, Gergis, or Harvey 2017. Obviously GCSE Physics is easily forgotten in Climate Science.

Phil Clarke & Entropic Man,

You both fail to see, acknowledge or accept anything wrong with Climate Science, even though the real world keeps demonstrating it.

Trumps wants to employ those that live in the real world, not in failed Computer Generated Imaginary Models of how the real world should be, in accordance with failed Climate Science.

Using data submitted as evidence in Harvey et al 2017, Trump can determine where Climate Science reliability lies.

Phil Clarke, from your link to Skeptical Science (an unreliable source as the 97% Consensus demonstrates)

dana1981 at 03:07 AM on 22 September, 2010
"That list of 21 climate scientists has some very impressive names. It's just too bad they have to waste their time debunking Monckton's nonsense."

What is so impressive about that list of 21 names, is that they can't find fault with Mann's Hockey Stick, because their income depends on it.

A 97% cut in Climate Science funding by Trump, plus substantial cuts to the UN for promoting IPCC Propaganda, seems more probable than 97% of Climate Science.

Mar 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM | Radical Rodent

We do not know if the ocean heat lag incorporates Trenberth's Missing Heat, and if it wasn't for Climategate, we would not have known what else had gone missing from Climate Science either.

Supertroll

Tell me. Why does Prince Rupert have a higher rainfall than Donegal?

Entropic Man

Tell me. Why do you believe in Mann's Hockey Stick?

EM. I'm really surprised that you need to ask, especially when it's possible that there might be some link between differences in average temperatures and differences in average rainfall. How much fog and low cloud does Donegal experience?, I've only been there once and that was a wet summer.

Mann's poor wording about his contribution to work that lead to the IPCC's receipt of the Nobel Prize is 100%, utterly, completely irrelevant to pretty much anything.

Here are the claims he made in his deposition in the Mark Steyn case. I'll let the readers decide whether this is "poor wording" or the words of a charlatan.

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose work has focussed on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century, and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

"...It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient."

"In 2007 Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace with other IPCC authors prize for their work on climate change…"