Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Jan 7th 2010, 11:57 pm
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
AN OPEN LETTER TO AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER RUDD
Have you ever wondered what the relationship between global equilibrium temperature and carbon dioxide is but were too lazy to find out?
According to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's reading of IPCC’s documents the relationship between change in global equilibrium temperature and carbon dioxide is based on Beer’s Law is simply:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
The clarity that such as simple relationship brings is potentially most enlightening.
Beer’s Law relates to the attenuation of radiation (infra-red for heat radiation to space) through a transparent absorbing medium. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide makes the air more absorbing per unit height and increases the downward re-radiation of infra-red thereby increasing the air and earth temperature. Beer's Law has wide and routine application in a number of areas such as the determination of the concentration of substances using colourimetric and spectrophotometric methods.
Given the current concentration of CO2 of ~388 ppm and the current rate of accumulation of ~2 ppm/year, a doubling of CO2 will occur in roughly 2*388/2 = ~388 years and would cause
4.7 * ln(676/388) = 4.7 * ln(2) = 4.7 * 0.693 = 3.26 C°
change in equilibrium temperature.
The rest of the paper is predicated on similar arithmetic arising from the relationship.
The clarity, due to the simplicity of the relationship, makes it especially interesting and thought provoking.
Have you ever wondered what the relationship between global equilibrium temperature and carbon dioxide is but were too lazy to find out?
According to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's reading of IPCC’s documents the relationship between change in global equilibrium temperature and carbon dioxide is based on Beer’s Law is simply:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
The clarity that such as simple relationship brings is potentially most enlightening.
Beer’s Law relates to the attenuation of radiation (infra-red for heat radiation to space) through a transparent absorbing medium. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide makes the air more absorbing per unit height and increases the downward re-radiation of infra-red thereby increasing the air and earth temperature. Beer's Law has wide and routine application in a number of areas such as the determination of the concentration of substances using colourimetric and spectrophotometric methods.
Given the current concentration of CO2 of ~388 ppm and the current rate of accumulation of ~2 ppm/year, a doubling of CO2 will occur in roughly 2*388/2 = ~388 years and would cause
4.7 * ln(676/388) = 4.7 * ln(2) = 4.7 * 0.693 = 3.26 C°
change in equilibrium temperature.
The rest of the paper is predicated on similar arithmetic arising from the relationship.
The clarity, due to the simplicity of the relationship, makes it especially interesting and thought provoking.
Jan 8th 2010, 1:32 am
#2
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Definitely a scold! I'd hate to get on the wrong side of the Viscount - he doesnt need to rant like Krudd he is so gentlemanly when he tells you you are wrong. Check out his youtube interview with a greenpeace disciple in Copenhagen
Jan 8th 2010, 1:43 am
#3
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Ilukapool. WA
Posts: 12,467
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Who the hell is Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
I never voted for him.
I never voted for him.
Jan 8th 2010, 1:52 am
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion."
Jan 8th 2010, 1:57 am
#5
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I have long taken Moncton's writings and speeches with pinches of salt, together with Christopher Booker's and other assorted "denialists" (for want of a better word).
Blogs in the London Telegraph and thousands of other online sources are choc full of denialist's posts, often quoting scientists and references that don't bear too much investigation.
They are always using words like "sheep", "uncritical", "religion" etc to attack those who take AGW seriously - but if you read through the blogs you find that those who have made up their minds 100% and are pejorative are - denialists.
Moncton is, IIRC, has a history degree. I do wonder how much of the maths and climatology he discusses he actually understands - I certainly don't!
And this is at the heart of the problem with the AGW debate - very very few of us can actually follow the maths and statistics of the conclusions for and against, let alone make rational sense of the raw data. Yes, many quote all sorts of numbers yet when you take even five minutes to Google the sources it becomes a lot less clear who is manipulating whom. Exxon features pretty often in the funding lists and staffing of huge numbers of "research" establishments, together with American coal and gas companies and associations!
It may be that there is a gigantic global conspiracy by scientists, politicians and environmentalist organisations to mislead the masses - this being one of the main attacks of the denial industry - about as likely as the president organising 9-11 or the moon landing being filmed in Nevada. There's no argument possible if you believe that.
I can set up and read a tephigram to determine the heights of cloudbase and thunderstorm tops and am probably more conversant than most on the subject of weather and climatology, but the complexity and chaotic nature of AGW are far beyond my knowledge and I suspect most of the population.
In this internet environment it is only too easy for viral rumours and misinformation to propagate globally and after a while - a very short while - to be accepted as "fact". Often by the same people who will say that the current cold winter in the North "proves" the climate isn't warming!
If I was to make a prediction, I would say that the denialists will gain the upper hand and, through public pressure, prevent any meaningful action to curb possible global warming - which would sit perfectly well with the politicians, since the only two actions which would have any real effect would be rigorously limiting population, and making cuts in emissions that are far beyond anything even being discussed!
Blogs in the London Telegraph and thousands of other online sources are choc full of denialist's posts, often quoting scientists and references that don't bear too much investigation.
They are always using words like "sheep", "uncritical", "religion" etc to attack those who take AGW seriously - but if you read through the blogs you find that those who have made up their minds 100% and are pejorative are - denialists.
Moncton is, IIRC, has a history degree. I do wonder how much of the maths and climatology he discusses he actually understands - I certainly don't!
And this is at the heart of the problem with the AGW debate - very very few of us can actually follow the maths and statistics of the conclusions for and against, let alone make rational sense of the raw data. Yes, many quote all sorts of numbers yet when you take even five minutes to Google the sources it becomes a lot less clear who is manipulating whom. Exxon features pretty often in the funding lists and staffing of huge numbers of "research" establishments, together with American coal and gas companies and associations!
It may be that there is a gigantic global conspiracy by scientists, politicians and environmentalist organisations to mislead the masses - this being one of the main attacks of the denial industry - about as likely as the president organising 9-11 or the moon landing being filmed in Nevada. There's no argument possible if you believe that.
I can set up and read a tephigram to determine the heights of cloudbase and thunderstorm tops and am probably more conversant than most on the subject of weather and climatology, but the complexity and chaotic nature of AGW are far beyond my knowledge and I suspect most of the population.
In this internet environment it is only too easy for viral rumours and misinformation to propagate globally and after a while - a very short while - to be accepted as "fact". Often by the same people who will say that the current cold winter in the North "proves" the climate isn't warming!
If I was to make a prediction, I would say that the denialists will gain the upper hand and, through public pressure, prevent any meaningful action to curb possible global warming - which would sit perfectly well with the politicians, since the only two actions which would have any real effect would be rigorously limiting population, and making cuts in emissions that are far beyond anything even being discussed!
Jan 8th 2010, 2:23 am
#6
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I have long taken Moncton's writings and speeches with pinches of salt, together with Christopher Booker's and other assorted "denialists" (for want of a better word).
Blogs in the London Telegraph and thousands of other online sources are choc full of denialist's posts, often quoting scientists and references that don't bear too much investigation.
They are always using words like "sheep", "uncritical", "religion" etc to attack those who take AGW seriously - but if you read through the blogs you find that those who have made up their minds 100% and are pejorative are - denialists.
Moncton is, IIRC, has a history degree. I do wonder how much of the maths and climatology he discusses he actually understands - I certainly don't!
And this is at the heart of the problem with the AGW debate - very very few of us can actually follow the maths and statistics of the conclusions for and against, let alone make rational sense of the raw data. Yes, many quote all sorts of numbers yet when you take even five minutes to Google the sources it becomes a lot less clear who is manipulating whom. Exxon features pretty often in the funding lists and staffing of huge numbers of "research" establishments, together with American coal and gas companies and associations!
It may be that there is a gigantic global conspiracy by scientists, politicians and environmentalist organisations to mislead the masses - this being one of the main attacks of the denial industry - about as likely as the president organising 9-11 or the moon landing being filmed in Nevada. There's no argument possible if you believe that.
I can set up and read a tephigram to determine the heights of cloudbase and thunderstorm tops and am probably more conversant than most on the subject of weather and climatology, but the complexity and chaotic nature of AGW are far beyond my knowledge and I suspect most of the population.
In this internet environment it is only too easy for viral rumours and misinformation to propagate globally and after a while - a very short while - to be accepted as "fact". Often by the same people who will say that the current cold winter in the North "proves" the climate isn't warming!
If I was to make a prediction, I would say that the denialists will gain the upper hand and, through public pressure, prevent any meaningful action to curb possible global warming - which would sit perfectly well with the politicians, since the only two actions which would have any real effect would be rigorously limiting population, and making cuts in emissions that are far beyond anything even being discussed!
Blogs in the London Telegraph and thousands of other online sources are choc full of denialist's posts, often quoting scientists and references that don't bear too much investigation.
They are always using words like "sheep", "uncritical", "religion" etc to attack those who take AGW seriously - but if you read through the blogs you find that those who have made up their minds 100% and are pejorative are - denialists.
Moncton is, IIRC, has a history degree. I do wonder how much of the maths and climatology he discusses he actually understands - I certainly don't!
And this is at the heart of the problem with the AGW debate - very very few of us can actually follow the maths and statistics of the conclusions for and against, let alone make rational sense of the raw data. Yes, many quote all sorts of numbers yet when you take even five minutes to Google the sources it becomes a lot less clear who is manipulating whom. Exxon features pretty often in the funding lists and staffing of huge numbers of "research" establishments, together with American coal and gas companies and associations!
It may be that there is a gigantic global conspiracy by scientists, politicians and environmentalist organisations to mislead the masses - this being one of the main attacks of the denial industry - about as likely as the president organising 9-11 or the moon landing being filmed in Nevada. There's no argument possible if you believe that.
I can set up and read a tephigram to determine the heights of cloudbase and thunderstorm tops and am probably more conversant than most on the subject of weather and climatology, but the complexity and chaotic nature of AGW are far beyond my knowledge and I suspect most of the population.
In this internet environment it is only too easy for viral rumours and misinformation to propagate globally and after a while - a very short while - to be accepted as "fact". Often by the same people who will say that the current cold winter in the North "proves" the climate isn't warming!
If I was to make a prediction, I would say that the denialists will gain the upper hand and, through public pressure, prevent any meaningful action to curb possible global warming - which would sit perfectly well with the politicians, since the only two actions which would have any real effect would be rigorously limiting population, and making cuts in emissions that are far beyond anything even being discussed!
Taken from the IPCC’s documents according to his letter.
Primary school maths.
Very easy to understand.
Plausible.
If the relationship is near enough to correct then we are better served with knowledge about how long we have to effect means to avoid or adapt to carbon induced climate change.
Jan 8th 2010, 2:31 am
#7
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I wasn't really referring to that specific quote, more to Moncton's prodigious output on global warming or, in his opinion, lack of it.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Jan 8th 2010, 2:43 am
#8
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I wasn't really referring to that specific quote, more to Moncton's prodigious output on global warming or, in his opinion, lack of it.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Last edited by WillBlack; Jan 8th 2010 at 3:15 am.
Jan 8th 2010, 2:59 am
#9
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Originally Posted by WillBlack;8227570
According to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's reading of IPCC’s documents the relationship between [B
According to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's reading of IPCC’s documents the relationship between [B
change[/B] in global equilibrium temperature and carbon dioxide is based on Beer’s Law is simply:
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
The clarity that such as simple relationship brings is potentially most enlightening.
Given the current concentration of CO2 of ~388 ppm and the current rate of accumulation of ~2 ppm/year, a doubling of CO2 will occur in roughly 2*388/2 = ~388 years and would cause
4.7 * ln(676/388) = 4.7 * ln(2) = 4.7 * 0.693 = 3.26 C°
dT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)
The clarity that such as simple relationship brings is potentially most enlightening.
Given the current concentration of CO2 of ~388 ppm and the current rate of accumulation of ~2 ppm/year, a doubling of CO2 will occur in roughly 2*388/2 = ~388 years and would cause
4.7 * ln(676/388) = 4.7 * ln(2) = 4.7 * 0.693 = 3.26 C°
Jan 8th 2010, 3:16 am
#10
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Jan 8th 2010, 3:25 am
#11
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
Jan 8th 2010, 3:38 am
#12
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I wasn't really referring to that specific quote, more to Moncton's prodigious output on global warming or, in his opinion, lack of it.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Despite the denialists' claims that those who accept the IPCC conclusions are "fanatical" about it, the fact is that they themselves appear to be 110% sure of their own case but the IPCC claims no more than 90% confidence in their argument. The latter seems on the surface to be more honest.
Jan 8th 2010, 4:14 am
#13
Account Closed
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 546
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
The essence of his letter is a very simple relationship between the change in carbon dioxide concentration and change in global equilibrium temperture.
Taken from the IPCC’s documents according to his letter.
Primary school maths.
Very easy to understand.
Plausible.
If the relationship is near enough to correct then we are better served with knowledge about how long we have to effect means to avoid or adapt to carbon induced climate change.
Taken from the IPCC’s documents according to his letter.
Primary school maths.
Very easy to understand.
Plausible.
If the relationship is near enough to correct then we are better served with knowledge about how long we have to effect means to avoid or adapt to carbon induced climate change.
quick ... tell everybody ... send you information to the UN ... to leading science research groups etc etc ... and put your name to it.
.....
The interesting thing about the "debate" and "controversy" is that the small minority group of deniers seem to get the same airtime as the scientists from many many countrues and research groups that support theories of humand induced global warming..
What is a worry is that many "deniers" seem to have their minds so open that their brains have fallen right out... this sort of open mind is considered intelligent by many.
Jan 8th 2010, 4:36 am
#14
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
>>What is a worry is that many "deniers" seem to have their minds so open that their brains have fallen right out... this sort of open mind is considered intelligent by many.<<
Jan 8th 2010, 4:53 am
#15
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley scolds Rudd
I'm not sure that you have that right. Monckton repeatedly says - "dont believe a word I (or any other blogger) says, check it for yourself". Whereas the IPCC and the PC rubric is solely "The science is settled" and how dare you even contemplate checking what I am telling you!
The subject is so complex and the disciplines so many, that no-one - including each individual of the IPCC - can follow the arguments for and against. The trouble is, the average Joe tends to accept the simple argument - and there are plenty of *them* about, most from people who have next to no idea about climate. Who think that a snowfall means the climate is getting colder. Who seem to imagine that the IPCC have never heard of the Milankovitch cycle. Or that they haven't taken any account of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nucleus seeding. And so on.
David Bellamy, for example, is a distinguished botanist. But when you read some of the things he says about climate (assuming he's reported accurately) you do wonder if he's not a few years past it.
An expert in tree ring dating probably won't have much idea of the mathematics of solar nuclear physics (another part of the AGW eqution), nor of the paleontological dating of sedimentary layers. But when all the different disciplines are in general agreement even when they can't appreciate the others' research, they have to be taken seriously - more so, IMO, than all those folk who say it's simple sums.
(PS Sorry about the font a couple of paragraphs above - I checked the spelling of Malankovich on Wiki and the formatting somehow imported itself!)
