Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)

Posted on 26 February 2012 by dana1981, Alex C, Tom Curtis

Monckton Myths (200 x 70 pixels) On 19 July 2011, Monckton debated Richard Denniss, a prominent Australian economist, author and public policy commentator.  During that debate, Monckton delivered his usual Gish Gallop, repeating a number of long-debunked myths and misrepresenting climate science research.  A few days later, we at Skeptical Science detailed the various Monckton misrepresentations in the debate.

Monckton has recently responded to our comments, defending his debate arguments.  However, Monckton's defense amounts to little more than additional misrepresentations.  As John Cook recently alluded to, we will proceed to examine the mishmash of Monckton misrepresentations that ensued.  In his response, Monckton misrepresented scientists' own work (as we saw in Part 1), specific situations (as we saw in Part 2), and reality in general (as we will see here in Part 3).

Monckton Misrepresents IPCC Projections

Monckton originally claimed that the IPCC had said future climate change cannot be predicted.  We took issue with this claim, since the IPCC report specifically projects future climate change under various emissions scenarios (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Global surface temperature projections for IPCC Scenarios. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is  constant CO2 concentrations at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range.  (Source: IPCC).

In his response to us, Monckton provides an argument that is based on quote-mining the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report and taking a single sentence out of context - the first sentence in the quote below.  The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences (emphasis added):

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.  Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.  Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential."

In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.  Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.

Monckton Misrepresents Runaway Warming

Monckton claims that the amount of warming that climate scientists expect (~3°C from doubled atmospheric CO2) is based on an "assumption" that climate feedbacks will behave like an electronic circuit.   This is incorrect - as shown in Part 1, the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are based on a wide range of observational data and other lines of evidence.

Monckton also claims that

"A climate subject to the very strongly net-positive feedbacks imagined by the IPCC simply would not have remained as stable as it has."

This is the myth "positive feedback means runaway warming."  The concept is incorrect, as Chris Colose recently explained with great clarity.  In short, a system with positive feedbacks will not be as efficient at changing its outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in response to forcings (like changing sunlight or CO2).  Therefore, a higher surface temperature change must result in order to accomodate the necessary change in OLR to re-establish planetary energy balance.  There are situations in which the OLR cannot increase enough to match the amount of sunlight that Earth absorbs in which case a runaway greenhouse can be triggered; however, Earth is nowhere near this state of affairs (Figure 2).

Figure 2: OLR vs. surface temperature for a blackbody (black curve) and an atmosphere with CO2 and a water vapor feedback (blue curve).  The horizontal lines give two values for the absorbed incoming solar radiation, and the colored shapes give possible equilibrium points.  On the trajectory where water vapor exists, sensitivity is enhanced because the temperature difference between the two red circles (as sunlight goes up) is greater than the difference between the two blue circles.

As Chris explains,

"There is in fact a negative feedback that always tends to win out in the modern climate.  This is the increase in planetary radiation emitted to space as temperature goes up.  Positive longwave radiation feedbacks only weaken the efficiency at which that restoring effect operates."

Monckton neglects this effect in his misrepresentation of the potential for a runaway greenhouse effect, which is not triggered by the moderate climate sensitivity of the IPCC report (2 to 4.5°C surface warming for doubled CO2).

Monckton Misrepresents Expected Global Warming

After attempting to defend his use of the Central England Temperature record as an accurate representation of global temperature in his recent blog post (it is not), Monckton attempts to use the value to estimate the transient climate response (TCR), which is defined as the immediate temperature response when atmospheric CO2 levels double.  Or more specifically, as defined by the IPCC:

"The transient climate response is the change in the global surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centred at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, that is, at year 70 in a 1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase experiment with a global coupled climate model. It is a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing."

In short, the value is based on the climate response to a compounding CO2 increase (linear radiative forcing increase) over a 70-year period, and simply can't be estimated in the way Monckton has attempted, over the 260-year period during which time there were numerous changes in various radiative forcings.  Coincidentally, Monckton also claimed that

"the radiative forcings we have caused since 1750 are equivalent to those from a doubling of CO2 concentration, suggesting that the transient sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 1 C°."

This is quite incorrect.  The actual best estimate net radiative forcing since 1750, according to the IPCC, is 1.72 W/m2 (human plus natural).  According to Skeie et al. (2011), the best estimate anthropogenic forcing since 1850 is about 1.4 W/m2 (there are of course large uncertainties in these values, particularly associated with aerosols).  The radiative forcing from doubled CO2 is 3.7 W/m2 - we're not even halfway there yet.  In fact, Monckton used to know this, as he got the value correct in his testimony to U.S. Congress in 2010:

"[T]he IPCC’s  estimated total of all the anthropogenic influences on  climate  combined in the 256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m–2."

However, since Monckton's calculation is inapplicable to TCR anyway, this error is beside the point.

On the other hand, over the past 60 years the net forcing has increased fairly linearly, and thus we can use that timeframe to come up with a rough TCR estimate.  Monckton does attempt this calculation, but makes the same error regarding radiative forcing.

"Warming from 1950 to date was 0.7 C°. Net forcings since 1950 were 1.8 Watts per square meter...the transient warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration over the present century would be 0.4(5.35 ln 2) = 1 C°"

Monckton did acknowledge one of the errors in his calculation: 0.4*(5.35 ln 2) = 1.5, not 1°C.  He does have the surface temperature change correct (approximately 0.7°C since 1950, according to NASA GISS and NOAA), but he once again has the radiative forcing wrong.  According to Skeie et al. (2011), the anthropogenic forcing since 1950 is about 1.2 W/m2 (and the natural forcings over this period have been close to zero); not nearly Monckton's claimed 1.8 W/m2. 

As Monckton did, we can roughly estimate TCR using the formula TCR = dT/dF, where dF and dT are the changes in radiative forcing and global surface temperature, respectively. We thus estimate 2.2°C surface warming for doubled CO2 - Monckton's original estimate is off by more than a factor of two, and contrary to Monckton's faulty assertions, the amount of warming we have seen is actually consistent with IPCC expectations (Figure 3).

TCR estimates

Figure 3: IPCC AR4 TCR estimate based on multiple studies (light blue).  Monckton's initial estimate of the transient climate response based on the difference of temperature and forcing 1950 and 2010 (blue) is compared with estimates with mathematical errors eliminated (orange), and with correct values for climate forcing (red).  (Graph modified from IPCC AR4 WG1 Fig 9.21, in part by removing the PDFs of the original studies.  The original graph can be seen here.)  TCRs from various climate models in the IPCC AR4 are also listed here.

Monckton Misrepresents Transient and Equilibrium Warming

Monckton makes one final error, or more accurately, fails to recognize his previous error in his climate sensitivity estimates.  In his debate with Denniss, Monckton claimed that since the surface temperature had increased 0.9°C and the radiative forcing was equivalent to doubled CO2 (the latter claim being false, as noted above), "All of the evidence points to 1°C of warming for a doubling of CO2." 

However, when we talk about warming for a doubling of CO2, we're generally referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity - how much the planet will warm when it reaches a new energy equilibrium.  It doesn't immediately warm this much because of a few factors, including the thermal inertia of the oceans: the oceans store a lot of heat, but they interact with the surface air, so the heat doesn't stay there forever, and eventually the stored heat warms surface temperatures as well.

In his new blog post, Monckton claims

"And of course I have not ignored temperature feedbacks (which Mr. Cook mistakenly confuses with “the thermal inertia of the global climate”..."

 No, we did not mistake feedbacks and thermal inertia - they are two distinct effects, both of which contribute to the difference between transient warming (which Monckton was attempting to estimate) and equilibrium warming (which Monckton at least implied he was estimating).  At least in his new blog post, Monckton correctly identifies that he is estimating the transient response, but fails to acknowledge the implication that he was estimating equilibrium warming in the debate.  Monckton goes on to claim:

"If I am right about temperature feedbacks (see above), then the equilibrium sensitivity will be about the same as the transient sensitivity – around 1 C°."

This is incorrect.  Even if the net feedback is zero - which it almost certainly is not - transient and equilibrium warming will still differ due to the thermal inertia of the oceans - the heat stored in the oceans which eventually interacts with the surface air.  

Additionally, as discussed above, the net radiative forcing since 1750 is approximately 1.7 W/m2.  Combined with Monckton's estimated 0.9°C average surface warming over this period, we get 0.53°C warming per W/m2.  For the 3.7 W/m2 radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2, this is the equivalent of approximately 2°C surface warming, which not only is larger than all of Monckton's TCR and equilibrium sensitivity estimates, but also well within the IPCC range for TCR. 

Given that 70% of the change in forcing since 1750 has occured in the last 60 years,  we have not yet reached climate equilibrium.  Therefore, Monckton's calculation shows the equilibrium climate response to be greater than 2°C per doubling of CO2 - well within the IPCC range.  Consistent with this, the IPCC models typically yield an equilibrium sensitivity of approximately 1.8 times their TCR. Using this rule of thumb on Monckton's incorrectly calculated TCR yields an equilibrium sensitivity of 2.7°C, or close to 4°C using our more accurate (but still very rough) calculation, again well within the range of IPCC estimates.

As noted above, this is not an accurate way of estimating TCR, particularly since most of the radiative forcing increase has occurred over the past 50 years.  However, it does demonstrate that Monckton has badly underestimated the climate response to increasing CO2.

Monckton Mispreresents IPCC Graphic

Monckton takes issue with this figure from the 2007 IPCC report (Figure 4).


Figure 4: Depiction of various long-term global temperature trends in the 2007 IPCC report

The figure is used in FAQ 3.1 and the Technical Summary of Working Group 1.  Monckton asserts that this graph uses a "fraudulent statistical technique" and

"At each place where the altered graph is displayed, the incorrect conclusion is drawn that because trend-lines starting closer to the present have a steeper slope than those starting farther back, the rate of warming is accelerating and that we are to blame."

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the report.  The IPCC makes the following claims using this figure:

1)  The pace of warming accelerated over the course of the 20th Century. Notice the past tense.  Here is the specific claim (from the caption for Figure 1 of FAQ 3.1, emphasis added):

"Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming."

2)  That the pace of warming over the last 25 years is greater than that in preceding years on the record.

3)  That the "... global average temperature has increased, especially since 1950."

All of these statements are true.  The IPCC does not state that the rate of warming continues to accelerate, and does not use this figure to claim that humans are to blame for the accelerated warming, although in the FAQ 3.1 figure caption, the IPCC does explain how we know humans are the cause of the acceleration:

"From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s."

Monckton's claims of a "fraudulent statistical technique" are without merit, and a misrepresentation of the IPCC report's actual content.  Note that this point has also been developed into the rebuttal to the myth "IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading."

Perhaps worst of all, Monckton has engaged in this same "fraudulent statistical technique" himself.  In his St Paul adress (and other places) Monckton has cited the IPCC as predicting a 6 cm contritubtion from the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica to global rise in sea level by 2100.  The IPCC, however, quotes no such figure.  Indeed, Monckton bases his claim, not on any statement from the IPCC about the contribution of the great ice sheets by 2100, but on the trends from 1961 and 1993 to 2003, as shown on the IPCC WG1 Table 5.3, and displayed on Monckton's slide.  Monckton clarifies how he derived the figure in his response to Abraham, saying:

"[N]otice the IPCC’s table of observed contributions to sea-level rise over the past 40 years, from which it is not difficult to calculate that on present trends the great ice-sheets will contribute around 6 cm to sea-level rise over the next 100 years".

"Present trends," if extrapolated linearly only show a rise of 4 cm by 2100, so Monckton must have calculated a change in trend based on the greater trend between 1993 and 2003 than that between 1961 and 2003 (see Figure 5).  That is, Monckton has made the same type of inference which the IPCC refused to do, and which he describes as  a "fraudulent statistical technique."

monckton fraud

Figure 5: IPCC Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level rise (linear trends) from 1961 to 2003 (blue, solid) and 1993 to 2003 (green, solid).  These trends are extrapolated forward in time (dashed), and Monckton's claimed 6 cm per century rise is shown in comparison (red, dotted).  Note this figure is our interpretation of Monckton's argument, and was not created by Monckton himself.

Summary of Monckton Misrepresentations

We have recently examined Patrick Michaels' serial misrepresentations of other scientists' work (here, here, here, and here).  Like Michaels, Monckton has a long history of similar scientific misrepresentations (i.e. here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Now we have seen that in his debate with Denniss and subsequent self-defense, Monckton has misrepresented scientific research, data, and reality in general in virtually every one of his arguments.  It seems as though Michaels and Monckton are simply incapable of accurately representing scientific literature, and the state of climate science research in general.

As with Michaels, we are forced to conclude that websites which purport to exhibit climate skepticism but which continue to publish Monckton's serial scientific distortions greatly diminish their own credibility.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This


Comments 1 to 19:

  1. Can't we start arresting some of these frauds for, well, fraud??
    0 0
  2. JoeTheScientist @2, No! And nor do we want to. Even on an issue so important, science works by the open exchange of ideas. Well, actually it works by the open and honest exchange of ideas, so what Monckton does is anti-science, but because of the way science works, it can only defend itself by the open exchange of ideas. As soon as scientists think they can rely on more than that, they kill that which they are trying to defend, as Lysenko did in the Soviet Union.
    0 0
  3. The obvious question with the IPPC graph which shows that warming has been accelerating is to what extent it is dependent on start dates. It would be interesting to graph the rate of increase to 2005 from each year from 1856 to 1981.
    0 0
  4. Tom Curtis @ 2, that is the Catch 22, isn't it? Scientists need to follow the scientific method in opposing the psuedo-science of people like Michaels and Monckton. Non-scientists like me could presumably take them on in civilian court action only if we could prove they are causing us harm through their actions and that would be a very slippery slope, as we non-scientists would have to rely on science to prove our case, but that is not the scientific way.

    The underlying problem is one of publicity, not science. Eliminating Michaels and Monckton would only result in some other sock-puppets taking their place.

    If only there was a Heartland equivalent working to promote truth and reality. Clever marketing is creating the political inertia and I suspect only clever marketing will be able to overcome the inertia. By the time Earth's climate is so badly dislocated that Mr. Average can understand what is happening, it will be too late.
    0 0
  5. Good dart-point responses to Moncton's mumbo-jumbo.

    ... except for the 'magic' about the heat transferred to the deep ocean coming back and adding to surface heating in the near term. That description:

    "so the heat doesn't stay there forever, and eventually the stored heat warms surface temperatures as well."

    ... is the type of tilt usually associated with pro-pollutionists. The fallacies are rift. SKS really needs to walk through a warming-force in the atmosphere partnered with a huge reservoir of ice-cold deep ocean currents and pools.

    The claim states the deep oceans are the destination of recent warming, versus recent flattening in both atmospheric and 0-700metre ocean depths. Then that heat is getting down into currents that may not surface for a 1,000 years:

    "The deep water slowly travels south through the oceanic abyss, eventually mixing upward to the surface in different parts of the world up to 1,000 years later."

    If the gyres are the transport down, and the current is slow, the heat will also spread into the surrounding deep cold currents. It's not magic - it's the same process that warmed all spheres - atmosphere, land, and oceans - during deglaciation periods.

    The starting point for the analysis is to confirm deep ocean warming. Then put focus on the downward transport during three distinct sea-surface states: El Nino ENSO-neutral, and La Nina.
    0 0
  6. Sceptical Wombat @3, you raise an interesting point.

    As it happens, in his St Pauls address, Monckton accused the IPCC of "... a statistical lie known as the start point or end point fallacy" based on the same graph. That is, of course, a very different argument to that which he made in response to Dana, and which is discussed above. But while Monckton's purported reasons change, his conclusion (that the IPCC lied) never does.

    His argument against the IPCC in St Paul was, of course, entirely invalid. The start point fallacy is committed when just a small change in start point makes a large change in the determined trend. The way you avoid the start point or end point fallacy is you ensure that all trends shown are statistically significant. As the shortest trend shown by the IPCC is 25 years, all the trends they show are statistically significant. Therefore they did not commit the start point fallacy.

    It really is that simple, but you don't need to know statistics or check statistical significance to see that Monckton was entirely misrepresenting the facts of the matter. Nick Stokes has developed a trend viewer, which is available at his blog, Moyhu.

    The viewer shows all trends in the given data set, from any start date to any end date. To read it, you pick a start year on the Y axis, then scan across till you come to the end date that you want, on the X axis (or vise versa). The colour of the relevant point on the graph will then show you the trend. Care does need to be taken because of Nick's unusual colour scheme. Specifically, he uses the yellower shades of green to indicate small positive trends, and bluer shades of green to indicate small negative trends. When looking at shades of green, therefore, look for the grey zone indicating near zero trend to make sure you know the sign of the trend in that area. Just to confuse things further, he also uses grey between to shades of orange to indicate a strong positive trend, so those regions of grey are not to be confused with the grey sections found in green areas and indicating near zero trends.

    With that warning in mind, here is the HadCRUT3 plot with the end year 2005 (approximately) marked out clearly by a black border:

    First, you will notice that for every trend with start year prior to 1987 that ends in 2005, the trend is positive.

    Second, you will notice that for every trend with a start year prior to 1987 that ends in 2005, the general pattern is that the more recent the start year, the stronger the trend.

    Third, you will notice that the same is true for all end years between 1995 and 2012, provided that you only consider trends at least 20 years in length.

    The reason for the twenty year limit is only to ensure statistical significance. However, with that limit you can see that the general pattern is robust with respect to start points and end points. That is, there is no start point (or end point) fallacy involved.

    I should further not that I have only used HadCRUT3 to enable direct comparison with the IPCC Graph. HadCRUT3 is less accurate than either the NCDC or GISTEMP temperature indices, and indeed is soon to be supplanted by HadCRUT4. All of NCDC, GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 show this pattern even more strongly than does HadCRUT3.
    0 0
  7. Owl905 @5, while I agree saying that the heat in the deep ocean will return to the surface in the near future is slightly inaccurate, never-the-less the heat in the deep ocean will contribute to future warming. That is because warming the deep oceans makes it harder for heat to flow to the deep oceans, so that in the near future we can expect a greater proportion of the warming from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations and feedbacks to be retained at the surface. The effect of that will be a more rapid temperature rise. Consequently, while the language may not have been precise,the point being made was entirely accurate.
    0 0
  8. Tom Curtis @ 6

    0 0
  9. @Tom 7, thanks for the reply, but it doesn't register here. The heat sink capacity of the deep oceans is too large to suggest it's a temporary exception. 'Warming the deep oceans will make it harder for heat to flow' ... then it shouldn't have started in the 00's after almost two centuries of rising temperatures. And suggesting that one or two degrees in deep currents or the Thermo conveyor creates resistance ... another non-starter here.

    It doesn't end. This theory of the 'temporary deep ocean sink' still looks very fundamentally flawed. If something new, or different, or an oscillation, provides transport to the deep ocean - there's nothing obvious that's going to drive it back to the surface.
    0 0
  10. Tom Curtis @6

    All your points are well taken. However one thing that stands out to me is that the triangle at the bottom left of the diagram is remarkably similar to the one at the top right. That is is looks as if warming was accelerating to about 1940 then took a dive before accelerating again in the 1950s. Any comments?
    0 0
  11. owl905 @9:

    1) The flat lining of surface OHC gain, accompanied by a more rapid warming of the deep ocean did not start suddenly in the 00's. It is a periodic occurrence that has happened in at least two major prior episodes, and two minor episodes in the last fifty years:

    Consequently your assumption that the situation is remarkable is unwarranted.

    2) Below 500 meters, the temperature gradients in the ocean are very small, being in the range of just 1 or 2 degrees C over several hundred, or even thousands of meters. Consequently small changes of temperature in the deep ocean can significantly change the temperature profile and hence the rate of heat transfer to the deep ocean:

    What is more, the effect can apply over very large areas so that a small change in the rate of heat transfer can add up to a lot of heat.

    3) If you have an issue with this (and it certainly appears that you do), can I suggest that you discuss it on this thread where the issue is canvassed in depth, and where the relevant evidence is already presented.
    0 0
  12. Tom Curtis @2,

    While I agree with the overall intent of your comment, I believe if there is a clear case of fraud it should be pursued.

    Bear in mind I do not think there is likely to be enough evidence to convict Monckton. My understanding of the legal requirements is that he would have had to deliberately misled or falsified information with the intention of financial or personal gain. Proving that the deception was deliberate, or that the intent was financial or personal gain, would be hard without some smoking gun.

    Bear in mind, this is also quite distinct from instances where people are simply (and demonstrably) wrong, even if they argue loudly and repeatedly for those wrong positions.
    0 0
  13. @Tom Curtis, thanks for the effort, but you angled off in the wrong direction. The objection isn't that heat doesn't get to the deep oceans. The objection isn't that an energy-imbalance is masked at the surface by the oscillation ('hiatus' is a mirage). The objection is to the unsupported claim that the heat transfer down deep is interim or temporary (and it is part of this article).

    Maybe the words from the recommended thread will register:

    "The model therefore shows that greater amounts of heat are being sequestered in the deep ocean when global surface temperatures are in hiatus periods."

    For THC cycles, that's 800 to 1,000 years ... and longer if the only draw out is during the millennial cooling towards the next Ice Age.

    Again, thx for the time and effort in responding.
    0 0
  14. I think talk of fraud is wrong headed. I think Monkton indulges more in willful blindness than in lying. He knows what he wants to believe and reads to find something that supports it. He belives his own BS because he can't bear to admit that he might have to come to an accomodation with political opponents. Like most deniers!

    And there can be other things such as conceit as well.
    0 0
  15. owl905 - The model therefore shows that greater amounts of heat are being sequestered in the deep ocean when global surface temperatures are in hiatus periods

    And note the summary at the end:

    "Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. It is not involved in the heat exchange occurring in shallower layers"

    But the surface layers are warming. We experience that as global warming. This appears to be a common fallacy - that the deep ocean warming means the surface ocean isn't warming. That's clearly not correct, and perhaps needs a blog post to dispel this canard.
    0 0
  16. I don't know if old posts are reviewed, but I hope that this is read by someone at sks, because something is wrong with the way posts are notified to recipients of your daily updates.

    I did not receive notification of this being posted, and I assume by the low number of comments this post has attracted, I am not alone in this regard. It is all the more galling because I was waiting for it. Monckton's behaviour is an important example of the sort of behaviour that is stopping the world from taking the action necessary to thwart the worst effects of climate change.

    If only for the sake of posterity, it is necessary that posts such as this attract as many comments as possible so that future historians will have a clearer knowledge of the perverse human behaviour exhibited by Monckton and his ilk and seek to structure society in a manner that will stifle obnoxious individuals of a similar character.

    Please try to ensure that all posts are notified via your daily emails.
    0 0
  17. funglestrumpet @16: Thank you for the notification - I was under the assumption that the daily email service had slightly changed (I for one am no longer getting emails, I think it is a something you select for?), but I'll pass on your comments.
    0 0
  18. @Alex C:

    The SkS system automatically generates a single daily email alert about all of the articles posted on a given day. You are correct. One does have to sign-up for this service.

    To the best of my knowledge, there have been no glitches in this system since it was created in mid-2011. Prior to that time, an email alert would automatically be generated each and every time an article was posted.
    0 0
  19. Monckton tries his hands at some anti-Muller math.
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website



(free to republish)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us