What went wrong?
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml. Click on “PDF” just above the abstract.
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C°. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C° warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.
The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:
Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.
 |
The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4 C° per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.
The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built. |
Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
- The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.
- The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.
- Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 C° of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 C° – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.
- Though the complex models say there is 0.6 C° manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come.
- There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 Cº global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 Cº but 1 Cº or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 C° warming would result.
Lord Monckton, the paper’s lead author, created the new model on the basis of earlier research by him published in journals such as Physics and Society, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and Energy & Environment. He said: “Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggerations in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. For instance, take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”
Dr David Legates, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and formerly the State Climatologist, said: “This simple model is an invaluable teaching aid. Our paper is, in effect, the manual for the model, discussing appropriate values for the input parameters and demonstrating by examples how the model works.”
Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”
Wow.
That’s probably why Will Steffen and others yesterday veered into hyping the breach of nitrogen-phosphorus boundary due to human activity. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115163533.htm
All of K-12 education and governments at all levels via the UN and OECD are shifting us to Marx’s Human Development Model. Facts must not be allowed to get in the way.
That link also explains why Food Equity is now bring pushed as a human right globally. Only enforceable in the West where there is a surplus.
Do you know what Socialists call facts that clash with their ideology?…… They call them Hate-Facts.
They even manage to get laws passed where you cannot use these facts in your argument because they cause insult or offence or contribute to a discriminatory behaviour. Though they may be facts, they are Hate Facts.
Try wading into race, religion or indigenous history using facts…. and you’ll quickly find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit…. Especially in Australia.
One should always start with a pocket calculator model first, before one can even think about flow charts and code ! i believe this based on black body radiation with no green houses 255K vs current and layering each green house gas as one one goes forward using the specific heat of each. I could not load this here, but I remember a paper on this at this website.
So the new paper points out that the feedbacks may not be positive – or only positive feedbacks exist.
It points out that the GCMs don’t accept that.
Thus it gives a lower climate sensitivity figure.
Which is in line with observations. And so more likely to be right.
That’s not new.
What is remarkable is that it got published. And in the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences? that’s a political blow for any Parisiennes beanfests.
But the link to the downloadable paper doesn’t work.
the url you can read is correct, the pdf is called “why” for some reason
To download the paper if all else fails, just go to scibull.com and click on “Current issue”, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Sorry for the problems with the link: technologically speaking I’m still steaming resolutely into the first quarter of the 19th century.
Most likely a result of the filename for the PDF containing a space by extracting from,t eh title, then failing to “escape” it for use on a filesystem or in a URL.
[Reply: I can see how that could happen. ~mod.]
It is indeed remarkable that it got published. It shows the degree of smarts and endurance required to publish academic/scientific papers that fall outside prevalent fashions. It is a process that can be partly justified even when, at times, it is completely abused.
I would like to thank Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs for their efforts.
Many thanks for your very kind words.
In response to Mr Courtney, what is new is the demonstration that one can use a very simple model and, using honest and physically-appropriate values for its parameters, obtain less absurd and exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity than the general-circulation models. Also, what is new is that for the first time the principal elements in the determination of climate sensitivity are made publicly available in a very short compass, and yet with full discussion of the individual equations and parameters and of the interactions between them. It has never been done this clearly or this concisely before. We have done our level best to make the notion of climate sensitivity and of the uncertainties in its determination as widely accessible as possible.
And one can access the paper by going to scibull.com, clicking on Current Issue and then finding our paper, Why models run hot? Results from an irreducibly simple climate model.
Very good
Very kind
Try this
http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
Thanks PaulC it worked. I do not think the model is useful. I realise that Monckton wants to follow the IPCC method so that it could get some acceptance from so-called climate scientists but there are some fundamental errors. 1/ a gas such as CO2 can do no forcing -it is the wrong units. – he should do dimensional analyses. 2/ The Stefan-Boltzmann equation was formulated for surfaces in a vacuum. 3/ radiation is only one aspect of heat transfer. 4/ beside heat transfer there are also energy considerations in mass and momentum transfer etc
1, An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing, and the units are correctly given in the paper – which was scrupulously peer-reviewed – as Watts per square meter.
2. The SB equation operates correctly at the Earth’s characteristic-emission altitude, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere.
3. When we are considering the influence of CO2 on temperature, we are concerned only with the radiative transports, and with consequent temperature feedbacks.
4. There are many factors not specifically considered in the simple model, but it is effective nonetheless because it encompasses their effects. It is valuable as a way to expose some of the errors in the more complex general-circulation models.
Dear Christopher, Lord Monckton,
Congratulations on successfully running the gauntlet!
Regarding, “1. An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing… :”
(you at 9:10am, today)
please forgive me if this is addressed in your paper (I have not read it yet — replying to me, here, nevertheless, may be wise, for there are many readers of this thread who will not read the paper at all…),
it appears that you are assuming, ad argumentum, that CO2 (outside a highly controlled laboratory, i.e., in the context of the entire earth climate system) drives temperature.
Thus, I ask:
Do you disagree with Dr. Murry Salby (and others) who conclude from ice core proxy analysis that temperature drives CO2 emission on earth? (See Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg lecture (April, 2013) on youtube)
Perhaps, when I read your paper I will find an explicit statement to the effect that you and your colleagues assumed CO2 drives temperature on earth only ad argumentum. It would prevent your unintentionally “chant{ing} the AGW mantra” {AGW troll today, below on this thread} to state that here, too, however. So far, the AGW crowd has produced no evidence that the case is otherwise (again, outside highly controlled laboratory conditions which have never come close to replicating the earth’s climate system).
I realize it is, if you are at home, quite late (about 10pm, I think), now. I’ll look forward to reading your response when you have the time.
Yours sincerely,
Janice Moore
********************************************************************
Two other sources supporting Monckton, et. al, (2015):
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/
2. Bob Tisdale’s e book: Climate Models Fail
When can we expect Salby to publish ?
…
Seems he has a problem with the mass balance argument.
I have checked the units of all of the terms in the equation. There are no dimensional errors. One does not have to believe that the equation represents realistic climate change; only that it serves as a check on models that rely on the same descriptors and feedback mechanisms. That is the way that it has been used here.
Thanks, Bones, for your thoughtful response (of 6:51pm today)!
#(:))
Viscount Monckton,
your mealy mouthed response to “cementafriend” says: “I am a squealing AGW apologist”
Let’s review –
1,An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing, and the units are correctly given in the paper – which was scrupulously peer-reviewed – as Watts per square meter.
Oh please! Adding radiative gasses to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability?
2. The SB equation operates correctly at the Earth’s characteristic-emission altitude, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere.
Bullshit. Go outside with your $100 IR detector. Measure the sky. Strongest IR emission is from cloud, average attitude well below 5 Km. Oh, and here’s a hint, where’s centre of density? How does 7.25 km compare with your 5 km assumption? You fail, forever.
When we are considering the influence of CO2 on temperature, we are concerned only with the radiative transports, and with consequent temperature feedbacks.
What bit of radiative subsidence skipped your understanding? Change the concentration of radiative gasses and you change the speed of tropospheric circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. Who’s a snivelling moron? Not me….
There are many factors not specifically considered in the simple model, but it is effective nonetheless because it encompasses their effects. It is valuable as a way to expose some of the errors in the more complex general-circulation model
Who cares about “specific factors”? You got it wrong, bitch. The net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling above all concentrations above o.o ppm.
You talk about speaking the truth softly, Viscount Monckton. I say you can stuff your “Realpolitik” up your ass. After all 72 hour dead man codes,, butterfly wing encryption, and I am incapable of “nice”. I don’t play fair….
Wanna play on warmist?
David Socrates
You say
Everybody who considers it “has a problem with the mass balance argument”; i.e. “the mass balance argument” is circular nonsense and, therefore, is irrelevant to sensible discussion.
Richard
Konrad
You say
That was obvious so you did not need to state it.
You are merely another disruptive troll throwing abuse from behind the cowards’ shield of anonymity.
Please desist from wasting space on threads with your unpleasant nonsense.
Richard
“unpleasant nonsense”?
Unpleasant, yes. Nonsense, no.
Viscount Monckton has just written another “CO2 causes warming, but less than we thought” paper. Little different to those being rushed to publication by climastrologists frantic about the “Pause”.
His mistakes are as bad as theirs. He assumes radiative gases cause warming. The problem is they don’t. 71% of our planets surface is an extreme SW selective surface. Climastrologists and sadly Viscount Monckton assumed “near blackbody”. This is utterly incorrect, as is the claim of average surface temp of -18C without DWLWIR. The sun alone would drive the oceans to Tmax of ~80C if it were not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Viscount Monckton has also tried playing the “ERL” card, essentially claiming that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. This is ridiculous.
The “basic physics” of climate on Planet Ocean are simple –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
Viscount Moncktons “physics”has the atmosphere warming the oceans. I’m not sure it’s possible to be more wrong.
Unpleasant I may be, but that does not stop me from being right.
[Note: at least Monckton puts his name to his words. Your claim of being “right” is valueless without your name to stand behind it – Anthony]
In reply to Konrad, at no point in courteous reply to cements friend did I use of him or anyone the discourteous phrase maliciously attributed to me in quotation marks. A higher standard of integrity is expected of contributors here,
Lord Monckton,
W/m2 does not have the units of force which is a Newton
I respect your knowledge of mathematics but it seems that you do not understand thermodynamics and Heat+mass transfer. Have you looked at the work of Prof Hoyt Hottel whose data, formulation and writings have been read and peer reviewed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of chemical and mechanical engineers over at least 6 decades.
I will in time put a more detailed post in reply to your comments on my blog (http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/) but it maybe of interest to look at the post on Thermodynamics and the one on methane (which is not a greenhouse gas from my knowledge and experience)
In response to Janice Moore, I am impressed by Professor Salby and disappointed by his university’s loutish treatment of him. However, our approach in writing the paper was to adhere as far as possible to the official position, so as not divert attention from the central point that even if that position is as far as possible accepted there is no basis for assuming high climate sensitivity.
“Note: at least Monckton puts his name to his words. Your claim of being “right” is valueless without your name to stand behind it – Anthony”
Are memories short Mr. Watts? We have met. We shook hands. My name, as you would well know from my honest email I use, is Konrad Hartmann.
Perhaps a photo to put a name to a face would jog your memory?
http://i57.tinypic.com/2r6p27l.jpg
No! Not the impossibly cute one you fool! That’s “Rugby”, wolf film actor from “Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” and “true blood”. The other one…
But watts in a name? Let alone a photo….Perhaps my work should count?
http://i57.tinypic.com/23vca6v.jpg
Does landing a mobile art gallery on top of a HK skyscraper count. Sorting the Olympic rings for Vancouver matter? (let alone the attendant nose loader cargo 747). Do the engineering awards matter? The exhibitions in technology museums?
No.
None of it counts. None of it matters regarding the AGW hoax.
All that matters is this –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
FFS it’s painfully simple Anthony. Either you “get it” or you don’t. I follow the scientific method. I does not matter that I have more experience then the “mythbusters”combined. (although this is why I am doing all the primary steel design for POTC5 & 6 and they are not).
You are an empiricist Anthony. That’s why I respect you. Do the experiment. Learn. Illuminate those test blocks for 3 hours of IR at 1000 w/m2, both respond the same. Try it with 1000 w/m2 of SW. Now block A runs 20C hotter. Now do you understand why I get to use the most filthy language against Viscount Monckton now until the heat death of the universe? He claimed to be a sceptic. But he treated the oceans as a near blackbody. There can be no forgiveness.
Mr Hartmann has continued to fail to read the replies to his scientifically inadequate postings. The Stefan Boltzmann equation does not, repeate not, apply at the surface of the Earth (which is where the ocean surface is, for instance). It applies at the characteristic-emission altitude, some miles up from the Earth’s surface (higher in the tropics than at the equator). And that surface, whether Mr Hartmann knows it or not, and whether he likes it or not, is very, very nearly a blackbody with respect to the long-wave infrared radiation with which we are concerned when we consider the greenhouse effect.
I have at no point suggested that the ocean surface has an emissivity of unity; though, with respect to the long-wave infrared radiation we are concerned with, I recall that its emissivity is about 0.96, which is quite close to unity. Be that as it may, it is not the emissivity of the ocean surface that is relevant to the Earth’s effective temperature. It is the emissivity of the characteristic-emission altitude that is relevant. Until Mr Hartmann understands that distinction, he is deluding himself – and he owes me an apology for excoriating me as ignorant when it is he who has been insufficiently schooled in elementary climatological physics.
Admittedly, I have had the advantage of having sat for many dazzling hours at the feet of Professor Richard Lindzen, who knows more about the foibles of the climate object than anyone. it was he who explained to me the importance of what he has described as the “characteristic-emission altitude”, which is that altitude, varying with latitude, at which incoming and outgoing radiation are equal. That altitude, one optical depth (tau) into the atmosphere as seen from space, is the altitude from which satellites see outbound radiation as emanating. The temperature at that altitude may be directly determined from the known influx of solar radiation by the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The calculation to determine the Planck parameter must be carried out painstakingly, latitude by latitude, so as to overcome the Hoelder inequality. What is interesting, on performing the calculation, is that the Hoelder inequality is quite small as applied to the characteristic-emission altitude. The true value of the Planck parameter, after allowing for that inequality, is just one-sixth higher than the Earthwide first approximation based on the mean global effective temperature of 254.9 K.
The math behind all this is actually quite carefully explained in the paper in Science Bulletin, which Mr Hartmann, like so many other trolls here, has failed to read with the attention it deserves. It is admittedly somewhat compressed, for we are rather breathlessly trying to provide in just 14 action-packed pages a much-simplified but nevertheless reasonable description of the entire climate system. But – and this applies to other commenters here – you do not add anything useful to the discussion if you have not bothered to read slowly, and think about, the paper you are so willing to sneer, carp and whine about.
We welcome genuine scientific criticism, but it will not be genuine if the critic has not had the common sense to read the paper. Please read it, carefully, and do not shoot your mouth off until you have made sure you understand what it says.
” It applies at the characteristic-emission altitude, some miles up from the Earth’s surface (higher in the tropics than at the equator) ”
……,,,,……
“and he owes me an apology for excoriating me as ignorant ”
Uh……last time I looked, most of the “tropics” were at the equator.
That should be “higher up at the tropics than at the poles”.
Monckton of Brenchley says: January 19, 2015 at 4:06 pm
”Mr Hartmann has continued to fail to read the replies to his scientifically inadequate postings.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Viscount Monckton, I have read your replies, and I can assure you the scientific inadequacy is not on my part.
You have written another “warming but less than we thought paper” based on the assumption of a net radiative atmospheric GHE.
There are two arguments typically used to promote the idea that adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will reduce the radiative cooling ability of the planet.
The first is the old “two shell”argument. I note here that while you avoided this, it fails on several counts. First the two stream approximation of radiative physics cannot be used within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere as the apparent emissivity of materials will always appear higher than their effective emissivity. Secondly incident LWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool, so 71% of one shell is out of that game.
The second is the “ERL” or effective radiating level or as you call it “characteristic-emission altitude”. This also fails on two counts. First, the 5 km claim. This is a mathematical assumption, it is not measured. Satellites do not measure the altitude of emission. But you can, with a simple $100 IR instrument. Clouds are the strongest emitters in our atmosphere, and due to their average altitude and radiation being a function of the fourth power of temperature, the 5k km claim collapses. Secondly we are dealing with materials, be they gas, liquid or solid, that are UV/SW/SWIR translucent and largely IR opaque. S-B equations cannot be used here, yet this is just what you are attempting.
The experiment I show in my comment above “shredded lukewarm turkey in Boltzmannic vinegar” is a clear demonstration of the problem. S-B equations alone cannot explain the temperature differential between LWIR illumination of the targets and SW illumination.
You have also claimed on this thread that non-radiative transports can be ignored in the calculation of “radiative forcing”. This is exactly what Sir George Simpson warned against in 1939. The primary energy transports away from the surface of our planet are non radiative. Critically vertical circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells depends on “radiative subsidence” for continued circulation. This established meteorology is something climastrologists have been desperate to replace with “immaculate convection” to parametise their failed GCMs. If you don’t model non-radiative transports increasing in speed for increased radiative gas concentration, then you can’t be right.
You have further claimed that surface properties were not needed to determine radiative forcing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simplest way to determine the net effect of all atmospheric processes is to eliminate the atmosphere from the equation, and determine the average temperature for surface without atmosphere. Climastrologists have falsely claimed 255K.
Allow me to demonstrate how surface properties matter for planets without atmosphere illuminated with SW –
1. Planet White Titanium Oxide – average temp 167 K for 240 w/m2 SW
2. Planet Blackbody – average temp 255 K for 240 w/m2 SW
3. Planet Polished aluminium – average temp 450 K for 240 w/m2 SW
4. Planet Ocean, our planet – average temp 312 K for 240 w/m2 (remember that the oceans are an extreme SW selective surface)
What would adding a radiative atmosphere like ours to each of those planets do? Surface properties matter.
We know that our near surface average temperature our planet is 288 K, far lower than 312 K. Therefore we know that the net effect of our radiative atmosphere. Cooling. A non-radiative atmosphere could not provide such surface cooling as it would have no effective way to cool itself.
There is no net radiative atmospheric GHE on planet Ocean. This is why “warming but less than we thought” papers, despite short term political value, are a scientific dead end.
Thanks PaulC. Interesting article and I’m glad for a chance to read it…. so thanks also to the Heartland Institute.
I know in in building enterprise business systems, the mantra we had was “Complexity is common, simplicity takes genius.” In software develpment that basicall meant the more complex a system the more could go wrong and the more it would coast to maintain.
In climate models, complexity hides any kind of rigorous thinking in relation to assumptions, or simply put, a lack of common sense.
To be fair, complexity itself is not bad. It becomes bad when a developer can’t explain it to anyone else, or when no one else can figure it out. I certainly hope climate science is not like this, where researchers scribble complex systems but can’t explain every last detail in simple terms a year later.
It does bring a smile to my face when I see articles like this, because I just know someone somewhere said, while thinking about modern climate research, “Why the hell is there so much complexity?!”
Is anyone else having trouble with the link to the paper?
Yes, getting
Error-Code: 403
To download the paper, go to scibull.com, then click Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Sorry for the messed-up link (though if you cut and paste it into the address field of your browser it will find the paper).
@Jor Born
Donload the file and rename it xxx.pdf
Thanks for the tip, but I get the same result as Alx: there’s no file to download.
try this one:
http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf
Thanks, Stephen, that worked.
We read in the Conclusion:
Actual global warming from all sources is:
…no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.
That includes human and natural, and it completely falsifies the IPCC’s erroneous models.
There is no emergency. What we are observing is the normal ebb and flow of planetary temperatures. The IPCC can now say, “Mission Accomplished”, and MovOn to another way of fleecing Western taxpayers.
Ah, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, there are still lots of moles left to whack…
Thanks, Stephen. That link worked.
Well there’s two idiots that could not even peer review a grocery bill never mind a scientific paper. In peer review the methodology, accuracy, and justification for the conclusions are reviewed. Whether the conclusions agree with the reviewers view or any other organizations view is irrelevant. In fact the purpose of research is to both reproduce if possible and disprove if possible results from other research. This kind of behavior is simply pathetic.
Unless it’s a religious document. Then the reviewers have the moral responsibility to insure that the contents of the document will not harm the faith of believers or contradict Canon Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur
/s
You used the /s symbol, but to some climatologists it IS a religion and it IS their duty to make sure that no document will harm the faith of believers. See some of the early e-mails from the climategate files.
Roda R,
That was my point, exactly. But my comment should be tagged as sarcasm because we really don’t expect SciBull to publish under a religious license. Do we?
Alx, please look at the quote again “at first”. There is nothing wrong with starting off with a jaudiced eye to reviewing something. But it apears that they came around. To put it simply, the paper and model was sent throught the wringer, that is a good thing. Hence the review proccess is more robust and not merely rubber stamped
michael
Mike the Morlock is right. We welcomed the challenge to convince two initially skeptical reviewers that the paper was worthy of publication, in that it correctly criticized the erroneous climate-sensitivity methodologies of the IPCC and the general-circulation models. The reviewers took a great deal of trouble over our paper. One of them, in particular, proof-read it meticulously and greatly improved its precision and clarity. We were very fortunate in our reviewers, and in our editors, who fast-tracked the publication because they wanted it to appear in the first edition of the newly-rebranded Science Bulletin (it was formerly the Chinese Science Bulletin). They were efficient and courteous throughout, and shepherded the paper through to what has been a very successful publication (3000 downloads at scibull.com the last time I looked).
Frankly, this is how peer review ought to work: the reviewers ought to be – as ours were – ready to put aside any preconceptions they might have had and to look with a clear and untainted eye at the scientific argument that we had actually presented. Our reviewers did exactly that, and did not allow their initial distaste for the notion of questioning the holy books of IPeCaC to stand in the way of their giving us a fair review. For our part, we took a great deal of trouble to reply carefully and fully to all of their questions, one of which required us to carry out a comprehensive review of a very large segment of the literature on climate. The reviewers expressed their gratitude that we had taken all their points and dealt with them carefully.
A shame that it is the Orient where true science is now properly reviewed and published, while in the Occident political “correctness” takes precedence over the dispassionate reviewing and publication of scientific results. Full marks to the Science Bulletin, and may the new journal become as successful and respected internationally as its editors would wish.
Climate change is now a religious belief on which the devout base their entire philosophy, which makes them immune to scientific argument. We wil never convert the “true believer” but we might just be able to cut off their lower-level support, and let them spin off into the great intellectual void along with the Hollow Earthers.
Flydlbee, if, like me, you’re fed up with being tarnished ‘Skeptic’ or ‘Denier’ (with their religious connotations), here’s some alternatives (been at it all day).
Apart from Climate ‘Disputant’, ‘Detractor’, ‘Opposer’ and ‘Mollyfier’ – all non-religious, my favourite three are . . . .
(Skeptics – followed by Warmist’s title including definitions)
1. LITIGANT – CLAIMANT
Litigant (pursue a case & engage in dispute): Claimant (person who makes a claim).
2. GUERRILLA – MERCENARY
Guerrilla (motivated to combat stronger forces): Mercenary (motivated to take part in hostilities by the desire for private gain).
3. CHALLENGER – COLLABORATOR
Challenger (engage, question, object to & dispute other’s ideas): Collaborator (colludes, works & cooperates willingly to a cause without questioning the motive).
If anyone wants the full list of all 28 alternatives to ‘Skeptic’ (with their opposite ‘warmist’ name), then I’ll happily post them later. Gotta rush now.
(above posted earlier on WUWT ‘Status & last chance for Josh’s Calender).
Rationalist works for me. Another favorite: non-gullible.
Ding, ding, ding! I think jorgekafkazar has the thread winner.
Like ‘Climate Rationalist’ jorgekafkazar. . . . so it goes in the pot.
Here’s another couple (Skeptic v’s Warmist):
4. Are you an ‘Aspirant’ or ‘Asperser’?
Climate Aspirant (eager for the truth) v’s Climate Asperser (spreads false rumours).
5. Are you an ‘Repealer’ or ‘Postulant ‘?
Climate Repealer (person who revokes or withdraws from a belief or religion) v’s Climate Postulant (requests admission into a religious institute or doctrine).
Full list of Skeptic/Warmist Synonyms/Antonyms here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/15/status-and-last-chance-for-josh-2015-climate-skeptic-calendars/#comment-1837977
lover—-wanker
Personally I prefer to call CAGW skeptics “heretics”, as IIRC Willis Eschenbach suggests. It fully captures the religious nature of the alarmists’ beliefs.
What would be the antonym of “heretic”? Dogmatist, maybe? Zealot? True believer? Disciple?
I was able to get to the page main page by typing the URL text into my browser. You can download the paper by using the pdf download link.
Dan
Thanks, that looked as though it would work. Unfortunately, I got a “Site Adviser” warning that the page exhibits “risky behavior,” so I’ll, regretfully, pass. Too bad; it looked as though it would be one the more interesting posts we’ve seen here recently.
I went directly to William Briggs’ blog, linked in the “Skeptical Views” here, and got a working link there.
Alan McIntire: Thanks, that worked.
Joe – My Mac browser security settings must be set low, because I got no warnings using either Safari or FireFox. The URL: “http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml” opens the Springer “Science Bulletin/Science China Press” page for the paper’s abstract along with download links. Possibly your browser security is wary of links to Chinese sites?
DanMet’al: Thanks. As you can see upthread, I finally got it.
Anyone having difficulty downloading the paper should go to scibull.com, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.
Here is further proof that man’s CO2 has little (or NO) effect on climate:
1:
Here is a NASA graph that shows that 1920-1940 was warmer than now in the Arctic:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
The graph also shows that the rate of warming was faster in the 1920-30s than recently. 1920 had far less of man’s CO2 than recently, which suggests that CO2 actually has NO effect on climate.
2:
Phil Jones told the BBC:
“the warming rates from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
But man’s CO2 emissions during those three warm periods were dramatically different ranging from 91 MT(1) to 4596 MT(1)
Therefore increased emission of CO2 DID NOT increase the warming rate since all three were statistically the same. Again this suggests that CO2 has little/no effect on climate.
3:
The earth warmed for about 22 years, from 1975, then dramatically slowed after 1998. But man’s CO2 was higher since 1998 than in 1975. This implies that man’s CO2 has NO effect on climate.
Thanks
JK
But, Jim, average temps are higher in the 1975-1998 period than in 1910-1940 and tems in that period higher on average than in 1860-1880. Not saying CO2 is the cause, but facts must be acknowledged.
But JP, physics tells us that CO2 could not have caused warming before 1950 and could only be responsible for up to 50% of any warming since then.
Facts must be acknowledged.
Everyone acknowledges that the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age and about 0.6C in the past 100 years. This by definition would make the near end a higher average than the far end. Moreover, the point is temperature has been rising for about 200years, three quarters of which time, Man’s CO2 emissions were small and could not have driven a significant rise prior to about 1950.
Beware of the spin which seems to have affected you and millions of others. If we have a 20 year plateau in significant warming (about equal to the amount of warming time IPCC has been hyping about), then it is easy to set a world record by having a temperature “spike” of a tenth of a degree above the plateau, even it the following year it dips back down again.
More facts to be acknowledged:
The warming trend circa1977-97 has been shown to be due to a decrease in cloudiness, globally, as determined by cloud data. This has resulted in as much as 5W/ sq. meter increase in insolation. This is several times the forcing needed to account for global warming since 1977, and as pointed out above, before 1950 man-made CO2 was too slight to induce any AGW prior to that date.
So, all warming is attributable to natural causes and none to AGW.
Note that climate sensitivity calculations are producing ever lower CS figures. In three or four years there will be papers showing NO effective CS for our planet. Here is the truth: warming will not resume and the AGW types will run out of suckers.
JP, whose figures are you using? Remember the dancing GISS graphs as the older temps were adjusted lower with each publication and the newer temps adjusted higher.
Well. The clock stopped in 2001 in the Arctic?
10 years mean north of 65N 1940-50 (highest previous 10 year period) was 1,2 C LOWER than 2004-2014.
That is a lot.
Here is a more recent article. It goes up to 2010. If you have something more recent, please post it. Thanks.
With such comparisions you can proof, that there is no dangerous warming. But you cannot proof that increased CO2 has no influence on warming. There are simply so much other factors, that you cannot sort out which one has what influence.
In reply to Herr Herbst, it is well established that increased CO2 concentration – all other things being equal – will cause some warming. However, it is not known whether all other things are equal, and it is not known how much warming rising CO2 concentration will cause. Our model suggests that around 1 K per doubling, or perhaps less, is the right ballpark, and that responses as high as 2-3 K per doubling are unphysical and accordingly improbable.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
Of course, but now they need to turn in their supercomputers. Surely can’t change their thinking and assumptions, but let them point an abacus at it instead.
I also find the assumption that if we could remove all “greenhouse” gasses from our atmosphere that our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the moon (33C cooler). The vastly different albedo of the two worlds should show that to be nonsense to a child much less a scientist.
Actually, if you removed the greenhouse gasses, and if the Earth’s albedo somehow stayed the same*, then the Earth would be colder than the moon. Some of the Sun’s radiation would be reflected rather than being absorbed. Less absorbed radiation would result in a cooler planet.
*The albedo wouldn’t stay the same. It also matters that the Earth rotates once a day and the Moon rotates once a month.
BTW: Did you know that at its equator, the subsurface temperature of the Moon is a comfortable 23 degrees C? IMHO, the ‘greenhouse effect’ has as much to do with the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and with the distribution of heat by convection, as it does with blocking radiation.
If there were no GHE, there would be no water and this planet would not be earth. GHE=water and CO2 is, by the evidence, of no account.
But some people reject evidence and stick to pure theory, like a fly sticks to flypaper.
In our paper there is no assumption that without ghgs our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the Moon. Albedo is specifically handled in the equations presented in the paper.
Monckton of Brenchley says: January 16, 2015 at 9:12 am
In our paper there is no assumption that without ghgs our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the Moon.
//////////////////////////////////////////
And that is why you fail.
You should have calculated surface temperature in absence of a radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Climastrologists (and you) claim 255K. But the correct answer is near 312K. After all 71% of the surface of our planet is an extreme SW selective surface, not a “near blackbody”
Viscount Monckton, your failings are as hideous as those of the warmulonians. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling, and you can’t even understand the basics.
Seriously, how hard can it be?
“Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling our solar heated oceans.”
Not hard at all is it? Well, Viscount Monckton, it may be hard for a mathematician, but not hard for the empiricist. Back to school. Try “Engineering”. Remember, maths can model the physical, but it can also model the physically impossible. And what did you just do?
Konrad fundamentally misunderstands atmospheric physics. At the characteristic emission altitude several km above the surface, at one optical depth within the atmosphere, where the 255 K mean emission temperature prevails, the emissivity with respect to the long-wave radiation we are concerned with is as near unity as makes no difference, At that altitude, the radiative characteristics of the ocean are all but irrelevant.
Planetary Physics. A recent paper in Nature Geoscience comes very close to answering the questions you have raised. There are a few problems with the results in this paper which have not been addressed yet but it is quite insightful.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2020.html
Simple outline.
http://astrobites.org/2013/12/31/unifying-planetary-atmospheres/
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
The full Robinson-Catling paper (including supplemental info) can be downloaded at the author’s website:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
It is a very interesting notion, that a trace gas (ozone, ~10ppm) is responsible for the existence of the tropopause and stratosphere. In other words, the notion that, without this source of atmospheric heating, the thermodynamic lapse rate would decrease monotonically to the TOA. But, CO2 is not a player here because it cools, not warms, the stratosphere.
It is not really a new idea. It was clearly stated in Strong and Plass’ 1950 landmark paper on spectral line broadening:
Strong, J. and Plass, G.N., The effect of pressure broadening of spectral lines on atmospheric temperature. Astrophys. J. 112, No. 3 (1950).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1950ApJ…112..365S
It’s bad day for making usable URL links. Let’s try that Strong&Plass link again with a more durable anchor:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1950ApJ…112..365S
Hmm, still not usable.
Just Google the title and author. The Harvard adsabs should be in the first page returned.
You obviously didn’t understand the implications of the paper. Common tropopause at 0.1 bar. Common lapse rate to the surface. How many kms from 0.1 bar to the surface times the comoon lapse rate equals surface temperature. No GHGs need to be involved in that at all, just a gaseous atmosphere. The exception is Mars because it does not get to 0.1 bar in its atmosphere.
“No GHGs need to be involved in that at all, “
I was referring to the stratosphere and the O3 heating that reverses the slope of the lapse rate, which pretty much characterizes what the stratosphere is and how it behaves (very stable, stops convection, hence anvil clouds etc). Also, for me, the “tropopause” embodies this change in atmospheric properties.
Dough Cotton is everywhere, even on DrRoySpencer. Have already wasted some time reading his outpourings and trials to sell his book.
Mr. Watts;
I’ve only had a limited previous experience with this guy here, and another at JC’s, but I followed his link here (before you ID’d him & intervened) … and quickly found myself down Alice’s rabbit-hole in a maze of websites and domains and subdomains. I quit following the links, and just moused over them, marveling at the bizarreness.
… And gaping at this apparition, thought to self; <em"Is this "that guy""?
I make this comment to you, upon reading your remark about contacting his ISP …. because if he is hosting this maze of domains with one ISP (which is very possible, with some affordable hosting packages), it is possible that you could do the wider community a big favor, for relatively little effort.
Ted Clayton
Oops, something went wrong…
Error-Code: 403
Response from clicking on that link. Oh well…
The hyperlink in the OP is (at least now) bad. This works:
http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtm
And here is a direct link to the PDF of the paper:
http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf
If you have difficulty in downloading the paper, go to scibull.com, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. So sorry about the messed-up link in the head posting.
If the feedback in a Bode model is net positive the system “rails”. And we do see that. In the entry to and exit from ice ages. But between those railing events there is relative stability.
No, we don’t see the system heading either for the positive or for the negative rail. Instead, we see a remarkably perfect thermostasis throughout the past 810,000 years across an interval of only 6 or 7 K, which is well below what singularity in the Bode relation would predict.
M Simon
Regarding the starts and ends of interglacials, no need to involve radiative physics, or albedo, or ocean circulation, or Milankovich cycles. It’s ASLAN. He shows up, an interglacial follows – he goes, the ice returns.
The periodic arrival and departure of Aslan can be approximately modelled as an intermittent internally forced nonlinear oscillator.
Link works fine now. Please try again.
This could be the breakthrough that will put an end to the nonsense that is AGW. We should all be very grateful to the authors.
Alx you are quite right, modern science is not about objectivity, it is about formulating a hypothesis, publicising this hypothesis, getting public funding to prove it and then ignoring any experimental results that disprove or question it. The AGWer’s have gone one step further and treated us all like fools, by not only telling us things that defy the laws of nature,but defy common sense too, the prime examples being the “missing” heat disappearing into the ocean depths and their computer models are right, but reality is wrong.
Unfortunately I doubt it will be any such breakthrough. Results don’t matter – propaganda does. As long as people are making money of AGW it is going to continue to be a crisis.
Never ever assume that because the truth is not currently fashionable it should not currently be spoken. Never ever assume that if the truth continues quietly to be spoken it will not in the end prevail.
@ Monckton of Brenchley
January 16, 2015 at 9:25 am
You say:
“Never ever assume that because the truth is not currently fashionable it should not currently be spoken. Never ever assume that if the truth continues quietly to be spoken it will not in the end prevail.”
——————————————
Very well spoken.
The truth I see when I read a paper like one of yours is that even you can’t escape the AGW mentality.
You too are a “slave” of it. Even to you AGW is a certainty, a 95% one, I would say.
According to the abstract of the paper you have published, you sipmply argue the extent and the degree of the AGW, whether is at 3.3 C per a doubling or at 1C per a doubling…… and in the same time accept the AGW as real.
And the main problem is the very considering of your pocket calcualter to be a climate model.
It is only a model for calculating and estimating the CS. Probably a very good one at it, but never the less it is not a climate model.
It does not compensate for climate variations and the CR as it should be according to the value of CS.
You see a climate model can not and will not ever project an AGW at 1C CS, and the GW will not ever pass above 1C no matter what CO2 emission scenarios. That is the very reason that IPCC keeps CS at an average value ~3C.
A climate model will compensate and adjust in accordance to the CS value.
You can’t have the same compensation-adjustments and the same CR for CS at 1C as in the case of the CS ~3C.
Figuratively dealing with a ~3C CS Climate (Atmosphere) will be like holding a kitten by the tail….and with a ~1C CS climate will be like holding by the tail a wild and vicious Tiger.
No matter how wrong is with the climatology, when it comes to AGW the IPCC does not make the guff of considering an AGW below a ~2.4C CS.
Please do forgive me for speaking my mind.
Your paper shows clearly the problem with the GCMs, as claimed, but also shows another very important and ignored problem.
The accuracy and the truth of the 97% consensus about the man-,made global warming.
Is not only a 97% consensus amongst scientists only, but is actually a 97% consensus amongs all concerned with climate change.
And the whole fight lately seems to be over the scale and the degree of that warming, while it will be benign or catasrophic,……….. whether the next new climate equilibrium will be a nice or a disastrous one, but nevertheless a new one due to man-made warming.
From my point of view the truth is simple, no one seems immune and appart from the AGW mentality.
While the AGWers deny the reality about climate……. the rest who do consider themselfs as non AGWers deny the fact that they too are AGW mentally orientated, and unable to consider the AGW as a probability and not as a certainty.
cheers
Monckton of Brenchley (I am a New England Yankee) I have before me a copy of Winston S. Churchill’s “The Gathering Storm” Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1948. I think that says enough.
Respectfully
michael
“modern science is not about objectivity, it is about formulating a hypothesis, publicising this hypothesis, getting public funding to prove it and then ignoring any experimental results that disprove or question it”
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. Since CAGW isn’t testable, in this case there isn’t even a hypothesis.
Philip Tetlock has done a lot of work on expert judgment. He’s the one who said that the average political expert was about as good at predicting things as a dart throwing chimp. His book “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” details his research. As far as I can tell, it’s pretty bullet proof.
Tetlock points out that experts, who modify their theories to account for new information, have some predictive success. Those who ‘stick to their guns’ have predictive success that is no better than random chance.
If the modellers have not adapted to the new data (the ‘pause’), that has to be very bad for their credibility.
p.s. Tetlock likes bayesians. Briggs would approve.
Karlock
You’d better save that graph. They are very likely to remove it ASAP.
I coulda told you that– but I’m not a scientist so no one woulda listened.
Simply sticking your nose out the door would show that most of what we were being told by the “experts” was hooey. Real data that you, yourself could get would show the same thing. But, the AGW religion demands that Man has a lot more power to either wreck or save Earth’s climate than he actually does, so all the fictitious nonsense has to be fed into computer models to produce the debatable results.
Computers themselves are NOT infallible anyway. I remember being taught the GIGO principle way back when I was a young’n– (during the Nixon administration if I remember right) and GIGO tells us that no computer can generate an answer that is better than the data fed to it….. Garbage In, Garbage Out. People who are willing to adulterate the information they feed their computers will get the answer they want— not necessarily the correct answer, but the answer they want— so computer models are not “Tablets of Stone, written on by God Himself” even though the AGW community wants us to regard them that way.
Can we have a negative effect on environment? Beijing shows us that we can, at least locally. Can we have a positive effect? Again, locally yes we can. The problem comes in when we say we’re capable of warming or cooling the entire planet. We’re not anywhere near so powerful as we think we are.
Who’d a’ thunk it? 21st Century Mankind politically ruled by fear mongering about the weather…
How much did it cost , a few meals and some beers?
Nothing new in this. And it will not change the mind of any warmist scientist or the any member of the green blob. They are too committed to their beliefs, carbon taxes and alternative energy subsidies.
It has as much chance of changing warmist beliefs as Charlie Hebdo has of convincing an imam that it is OK to draw cartoons of Mohammed.
The Quoran tells Imans that it’s ok to ridicule the prophet. At least it tells all followers not to idolise the prophet, which getting ones knickers in a twist about a cartoon and making his image “sacred” is the antithesis of the meaning behind the instruction to not make images! It’s lifted straight from the 10 commandments “thou shalt not make graven images”, don’t make false idols, there is but one god and that is god, etc, etc.
Reference? Sura _____?
Unfortunately you’re right. However with James Inhofe now the head of the environmental committee we at least have a chance in the USA to turn this steamer around just a bit.
There are several new points in the paper. First, the point that a simple model is capable of determining climate sensitivity less unreliably than the complex models. Secondly, the point that the Bode feedback system gain relation is inapplicable to the climate. Thirdly, the point that the IPCC has reduced its estimate of the feedback sum but has not correspondingly reduced its estimate of climate sensitivity. Fourthly, the point that there is no scientific basis for the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario of the IPCC. Fifthly, there are several new equations presented in the paper, which facilitate an understanding of the determination of climate sensitivity. And so on. Read the paper first, then decide.
Monckton of Brenchley, let me here thank you for your responses to the comments. My few comments on the paper are below.
Lord Monckton: Occam’s razor strikes again – the simple model out performs the more complex models.
As regards feedback, in chemistry, Le Chatelier’s Principle states that If a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change. I’m not sure whether this principle can be applied to climate systems.
If there had been nothing new in the idea of reducing the official methods of determining climate sensitivity to an irreducible simple and accessible form, the paper would not have passed peer review. There are in fact several new equations that greatly facilitate understanding of the interrelation between the key determinants of climate sensitivity. Many of the conclusions are also new.
looks like someone posted a link copied from an email program and the email redirect is in the link and characters are messed up
this is correct link to the webpage version
http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
the pdf link is a mess there on site too, would not even bother messing with that as it involves renaming extensions and stuff.
I still can’t figure out why anyone who is aware of the swings in Earth’s climate over geologic time would ever presume there are positive feedback systems regarding temperature. If there were (in either direction), then the Earth would be either an ice ball or a hothouse. The fact that for the entire history of the Earth the global temperature has stayed within a + or – 4K range should have been evidence enough of that.
LamesS, you must be an engineer.
What repulsed me from the get-go with CAGW is the inability of the scientists to look for, let alone explain, the negative feedbacks that obviously, demonstrably keep our planet confined in a very narrow band of temperatures. If there is no explanation of the stability in your models, then how can you ever expect to model the effect of perturbations to the system?
Pure insanity [from] an engineering POV.
I’m in the same boat.
Simple question … converging system or diverging system.
Follow up queston … why to try to model a converging system with a method of equations that lead to a diverging solution.
… there is really no reason to wait for a response to the follow up question.
All climate models are based on NET NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, which is all that jamesS’ observation “then the Earth would be either an ice ball or a hothouse” implies. The positive feedbacks just make the net feedback less negative than it otherwise would be.
Mike M is incorrect. The general circulation models, followed by the IPCC, assume that temperature feedbacks are strongly net-positive, at 1.5-2 watts per square meter per ºKelvin.
No, Monckton, you are wrong. Look at Figure 9.43 on page 819 of IPCC AR5. “ALL” is the range of roughly 1.0 to 2.5 W/m^2/K. Now look at the caption, it says that ALL is “sum of all feedbacks except Planck”. Now look back at the figure: Planck is about -3.2 W/m^2/K. Add them up and you get a total of -2.2 to -0.7 W/m^2/K. Net negative.
Well, this will be interesting. If the IPCC does say that negative forcings are a problem, they’ve got a lot of explaining to do.
Hockey shctick
Mike M has misunderstood matters, admittedly not helped by IPCC’s habit of making it appear that the Planck parameter is a temperature feedback. See Roe (2009) for a discussion of why the Planck parameter is not a feedback. And even IPCC does not pretend that the Planck parameter should be summed with the strongly net-positive feedbacks so as to make the feedback sum net-negative. It is precisely because IPCC treats feedbacks as strongly net-positive that it triples the small direct warming from CO2.
James S is right. The climate has been spectacularly, near-perfectly thermostatic for at least the past 810,000 years, according to the Vostok ice cores. Altering a minuscule fraction of the atmospheric composition is not at all likely to alter that long-established pattern of temperature stability. That is one reason why we consider that appreciably net-negative temperature feedbacks are physically possible, while the strongly net-positive feedbacks imagined by the IPCC are unphysical.
To get our paper, go to scibull.com, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducible simple climate model.
Let’s see how the paper holds up.
Let’s read the paper first.
And this is if you assume the underlying physics behind “back radiation” is sound! I don’t!
Nothing is more amusing than some theoretician mumbling about 349 W of DWIR.
What is the greenhouse effect?… it is moderation of temperature: higher minimums and lower maximums. This shown empirically, as in the Sahara compared to the humid tropics.
“Back radiation” is not just a theoreticaly abstraction. It can be measured directly.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
The fact of back-radiation is readily observable here in Scotland in the winter, when cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.
However, the principal form of radiation from CO2 concentration changes is not back-radiation at all: this is one of the many nonsenses peddled by a certain extremist faction among skeptics. It is kinetic energy from the quantum resonance in the CO2 molecule when it interacts with an incoming or outgoing photon in one of CO2’s characteristic absorption wavebands. The effect of the interaction is like turning on a tiny radiator, as Chris Essex explains it. So the more CO2 molecules, the more radiators are turned on, the more warming of the atmosphere. The warming reaches the Earth either by direct thermal transfer or, more usually, by subsidence of air warmer than it would otherwise have been.
The fundamental physics of how greenhous gases cause warming is well understood. The far more complex question of how much warming will result from greenhouse-gas enrichment is far less well understood. Our paper is intended to illuminate that question.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
“The fact of back-radiation is readily observable here in Scotland in the winter, when cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.”
Where I live (Mediterranean coast), cloudy nights are frequently cooler than clear sky nights especially in summer.
I am sceptical of the claims made with respect to clouds, and it may be that other factors are at play. First, clouds, frquently reduce convective flow which in turn reduces the rate at which the ground cools. This reduction in the rate of convection therefore causes night temperatures to hold up higher than would be the case if convection flows were unrestricted.
Second, there are humidity issues. It may be the case that on cloudy Scottish winter nights, the air is more humid than on winter clear sky nights, such that the atmosphere at say 6pm had more energy and therefore it takes longer to cool, such that night time temps are higher not because of the clouds, but rather because of the humidity and amount of energy in the atmosphere and the time taken for it to cool close to ground level.
Where I live (the town is on the coast, and I live in the foothills of the mountains less than 1km from the sea), In summer, day time temps are usually 33 to 37 degC. On clear summer nights at about 2am in the early hours of the morning a temperature of 32degC is not unusual. By contrast, if the day clouds over late in the day, say at 7 to 8pm, I would expect to see night time temps (say 2am early morning) more in the region of 25degC.
In the desert one gets clear skies and cold noights, where I live clear skies and warm nights. The difference is one of humidity, not the presence or absence of night time clouds.
I suspect that if one were to have very high altitude clouds one night in the desert, it would be just as cold as on a cloudless night if lowlevel humidity remained constant, notwithstanding that the high altitude clouds would be emitting DWLWIR.
It would not surprse me if the cloud issue is a correlation issue, where there has been an assumption that correlation is causation. It would not surprise me if the proper research has not been carried out, and that there are other factors at play that have resulted in (or at any rate substantially contributed to) higher nightime temperatures, not that passing clouds have warmed the surface by the emission of DWLWIR.
In reply to Planetary Physics, this is not the place to debate whether there is a greenhouse effect. Our paper is predicated on the assumption that there is one. If there is one, then for the reasons set out in the paper the models are exaggerating its warming effect. If there is none, then a fortified the models are exaggerating.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
Planetary Physics, I have found the following paper a good primer on the greenhouse gases :
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
Planetary Physics. The Earth surface receives up to 1,200 W/m2 during the day-time so all your math is completely wrong. Venus receives 800 W/m2 for up to 100 days times 24 hours straight given its extremely low rotation rate, so, again, your math is completely wrong.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
Mr Verney may like to read Pinker (2005) on the influence of cloud cover on global temperature.
OK, so CAGW didn’t work out. There’s another flag just laying there waiting for some of the ecologically tuned in to pick up, rally the troops with and storm the ramparts in the name of Gaia. CAOA, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification . . . Manmade CO2 destruction of the oceans. Oceanographers get those grant requests in. It’s going to kill us all I tell ya.
Sadly, the earlier comment about food inequality is probably closer to the mark.
They are probably going to go with the “Burning fossil fuels is destroying the ozone layer” – it is very difficult to prove or to disprove. It is very difficult to disprove something if you have no data. The ocean acidification is easy enough to shoot down. (I think a few articles here have already shot it down).
Could you remove the link redirect?
If you have any problem downloading the paper, just go to scibull.com, click on Current issue and then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.
Where’s Stokes deploring this blasphemy?
Can I run it on my Raspberry pi ?
Of course you can! Just make sure it’s contained in fire-resistant box and that there’s a couple of fire extinguishers near by.
Yes, Jono1066 can run our fruity model on a Raspberry pi, as long as it’s not a lemon of an Apple running Orange.
Greetings to all:
I would enjoy reading this paper, but [this person] says the link doesn’t work, and [that person] says do a .pdf conversion … … … et cetera
Perhaps one of you computer geniuses can load a copy that us non-geniuses can access easily (I’m not sure where, but there must be somewhere … ).
Karlock & Eliza, I’ve often said we need to archive data and other info that contradicts the CAGW meme. For a while, a website called globalwarmingart (dot) com (yes, it is operated by Wiki) was ‘missing in action’, and I started archiving the graphs and what-not from the Waybac machine; then it suddenly reappeared. Some data are now approaching obsolescence, but much of it is still useful.
If the gate-keepers at Wiki ever figure out that most of the data on Global Warming Art are in conflict with CAGW, they’ll deep-six the website and data in a New York nanosecond.
Regards,
Mark H.
This was my experience : using Firefox and the link given by Paul C above I downloaded the abstract .
The Abstract has a tool bar with PDF (1.5Mb) and the usual citations, references etc .
Clicking on PDF gave a down load copy , but very slowly ( I think the problem is Science Bulletin server ) but eventually you get it . then if you click it , you have an option of Open or Save .
So I saved the file into a temporary folder then right-clicked to open , had a popup asking for which program to open with , including , thankfully Adobe Reader , and lo and behold the paper , clear and clean.
It was really no different from opening other free access papers and actually easier than some which only allow you to bookmark a copy rather than installing a copy on your own machine.
If you are having difficulty downloading the paper, go to scibull.com, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.
Source code for the model, please?
Dave
Dave
I can’t access the paper via the link but if it is a simple deterministic equation then there is no need for code. You’ll be able to reproduce it – as stated – using a pocket calculator or standard spreadsheet application.
Read the paper and write your own code. The relevant equations are all present, and each parameter of importance is individually discussed.
Monckton of Brenchley: Read the paper and write your own code
You ought to make the code, and the data used for the plots, available, as available as the paper itself. That is the standard (not always enforced) of the journal Science, and it is frequently advocated here. [The paper is just the advertisement for the program that supports it], a paraphrase of a statement by a statistician at Stanford, but I have forgotten which one.
In response to Me Marker, the full equations for the model are in the paper. Nothing more complex than a picket calculator is needed. Values of all relevant parameters are discussed. Read the paper, follow the worked examples in the tables and you can be determining climate sensitivity more reliably than the IOCC in minutes,
no code. Lord Mann
If Mr Mosher is incapable of operating a pocket calculator, which is all that is required to run our simple model, then this is not the place to teach him. He should call in at any kindergarten, where he will fit right in.
“He should call in at any kindergarten, where he will fit right in.”
…
Totally necessary Monckton. Could you please show respect for people ?
In answer to Mr Socrates, if he or others behave like children I shall not fear to say so. Grow up and see if you can make a scientific point.
Write your own source code. The paper is the manual for the model.
We need an App for this so we could figure out the climate on our iphones and droids.
I’d be delighted if Mr Mills were to write an app.
Why don’t we want nicer weather and more abundant crops again?
‘Cos then you’d have to be “warm” and everyone knows that being “warm” is bad.
steveta_uk: I’m a bad boy. I left Tasmania to be warm. Eventually I moved to Thailand. Now, it’s 20 deg C. Call that warm??? I better open that other beer and go on the porn sites–obviously I’m not bad enough to be warm /
Come to Scotland. If global warming were going to be as bad as the absurd exaggerations of the IPCC and the climate models (except ours) suggest, Scotland is going to be one of the most pleasant places to live on the planet. Order your grass kilt now …
In answer to Tabnumlock, we’re getting more abundant crops and record yields, thanks in no small part to CO2 fertilisation.
This isn’t a first. There have been countless papers showing that statistical models do a better job than GCMs. I can’t access the paper but if they’ve only ran their model with existing data then they haven’t proved anything. They need to prove its predictive power first. Just another hypothesis I guess.
Any GCM that projects no AGW is verified by the data and conclusions derived E.M.P.I.R.I.C.A.L.L.Y. Hello? Is there a light switch anywhere? Hello?
Try reading the paper before presuming to comment.
In response to CD, our model is not a statistical model. It is a physical model.
LOL! The CAGW crowd has so little respect for their own learning curve, let alone anyone else’s, will this study make a difference? Will they tone down their climate hysteria in the face of new evidence? So many people have fully invested in the catastrophy meme, ie., media, academics, politicians, activists; can they now step back from the ledge? It’s scary to have so many people, with so much power, that are impervious to NEW INFORMATION and the problem isn’t them, it’s YOU, “denier”. They’re like a group of artic lemmings heading over the cliff and attempting to take our 1st world economy with them.
One sympathizes with Mairon62’s exasperation with the true-believers in the New Religion, but in the end the only way we’re going to reintroduce reason is by getting our scientific arguments across, in and out of the reviewed journals. We must have the courage to go on telling the truth, even though we are vilified for it, and we must also encourage others to find the cojones to tell the truth, even though they will be fearful that they will be savaged as we who have already spoken out have been savaged. Great is truth, and mighty above all things.
We get the ¨scientific¨results for which we pay. When governments & foundations start rewarding researchers for finding realistic ECS estimates rather than wildly inflated ones, then science will begin to reflect physical reality rather than political expedience.
If modellers were paid in accordance with how close their predictions matched out turn, I’d be rich one day.
Everybody knows the Chinese are in the pockets of Big Skepticism. (/s)
It is troubling enough that warmists haven’t tried to come up with new modeling concepts to fit reality, but they won’t even act like reality may have a point. That goes with going out on an activist limb, which is exactly what those warmist modelers did.
I think the purpose for creating this model was to counter the irrational claim of the warmests that skeptics needed to have a model of their own to have any say in the matter. They were saying: “if our models are so incorrect, where are your models that are correct? Don’t have one? Then shut-up already!”
So now we have a ‘model’ that fits the observations far better then the GCMs. Now the argument will be that it is too simple and cannot possibly be modelling the complex climate of the Earth. That argument may have some validity, but applies equally to the GCMs, since they are also far less complex than the actual climate.
The complexity of the model compared to the complexity of Earth’s climate is really irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is how well the model predicts the observations. This new model is proving to be far superior to the GCMs in predicting future results; the true test of any model!
Mr Clarke is correct. The purpose of modeling is to be able to make predictions that are likely to prove reliable. It is by now entirely clear that the general-circulation models have failed in the basic task of predicting how much global warming will occur. I am hoping that our simple model, which is designed not to advance any particular view but merely to reflect the truth and hence to make physically-justifiable and respectable predictions, will prove to be closer to real-world outturn than the politicized general-circulation models.
Monckton et al looks like it tries to eliminate some of the main structural errors in the IPCC models – but basically stays with their general modeling approach.
The IPCC climate models and Monckton’s simple climate model are both built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. This approach is a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.
See Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
For further discussion of model inadequacies.
Section 2 shows that the earth is entering a cooling trend which will possibly last for 600 years.
See also
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
for what me might call “ peak heat “ of the millennial trend in about 2003.
The first link also provides forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling and suggests a noticeable
cooling in about 2017-18.
The model is designed to study the anthropogenic component in temperature change. PDO cycles and suchlike peruiosicities are thus largely irrelevant to our work.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
Monckton Until you incorporate the millennial cycle peak into your work there is no possibility of calculating
any possible contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to climate change – see my original comment .You are simply arbitrarily assigning the temperature rise due to the natural solar activity cycle rise to its peak to CO2 – you just assign somewhat less than the IPCC.
Check the links in the original comment for a complete discussion.. Best Regards and thanks for your herculean efforts to stop the UNFCCC – IPCC circus.
Dr Page is not understanding that our model studies only the anthropogenic component in global warming. By all means feel free to add natural influences, but that is not what our model is for.
There a lots of natural cycles- and now they have overlapping summits. All at one time. Means it will go [downwards] with the cycles and the temperature. I fear we will need any help we can get from CO2.
I’m sceptical of models, even those that support ‘my side’.
No model should be trusted until it demonstrates its ability to predict correctly. Certainly it cannot prove its assumptions are correct, despite the claims above. Perhaps there’s more in the Paper that does provide proof, I’ll know more after reading it.
However it turns out, congratulations to Monkton et al. for creating a model that post-dicts temperatures more successfully than any predecessor model.
If it does correctly model the world, and its predictions are validated, and it establishes that there is no ‘thermaggeddon’, then that’s great news for all the world!
Time will tell.
Many thanks to Mr Morgan for his kind words. The proof of the pudding will indeed be in the ability of the model to produce less exaggerated predictions than the billion-dollar brains. Time will tell.
I suspect Monkton of Brenchley has misspoken here.
The test is not the size of predictions of the model, but the accuracy of its predictions.
I’m confident that he knows that, and meant to say just that. I am grateful for his response, and its courtesy. I feel churlish for quibbling, since we both know what he meant. I mention it simply because others will read our words.
From the Abstract “that global warming this century will be < 1 K"
Do i interpret this as 1K =1C from sciencey to novice?
Yes, 1 Kelvin= 1°C. They have the same magnitude – whatever that means for temperature.
The difference between the scales is that the zero in K is extrapolated down to absolute zero and not the freezing point of water.
Thus 0°C = 273.15K = the freezing point of water at sea level (ish).
Sadly, the warmists control the media, so this model will receive little attention. Still, every little bit helps. Congratulations to the authors.
Many thanks to David in Cal for his kind words.
Its not a climate model.
if it only models temperature, its a temperature model.
Mosher:
If the product of the GCM’s were only a temperature forecast, they would be 100% wrong.
As it now stands the GCM’s, with their various products, are….100% wrong!
Mosh: It[‘]s not a climate model.
It’s a very simple climate temperature model (temperature being the most “critical” climate parameter). Its simplicity is a deliberate feature of its design. There does not exist any single climate model, simple or complex, which models all feasible “climate” parameters.
Don’t quibble.
The remark Don’t quibble’ was directed. At Mr Mosher.
If it models various aspects of climate to determine temperature, it’s a climate model.
Elon Musk, all that money, all that brain, lives the CO2 lie, makes gold for his vault off the renewable energy scam, buddy with all the clan of the fake data world.
Don’t knock it. This was an astute businessman does. If it will make money for him (or his shareholders). Probably the inventor of Kool Aid actually drinks real juice himself, but hey, the customer is always right. To not do it, to not go for the grants to do renewable energy with the way the world has gone crazy destroying the economy, is to go extinct. If it’s legal and its what most want, it is almost immoral not to do it in a free enterprise world with normal business plans pre-empted.
But how good is it back to say 1880?
In response to lol, since there is no appreciable anthropogenic forcing till 1950, there is no point in running our model from 1880.
Didn’t choo-choo trains use coal?
A rather foolish retort. Man’s global carbon consumption even now is only 3% of total Co2 emitted from natural causes. Before 1950, total worldwide CO2 emissions were less than 3/4 of 1 percent of natural Co2 emissions each year. Are you going to explain why a natural worldwide climate change processes that forced the Roman Warming Period, the Dark Age, the Medieval Warming Period, and the Little Ice Age are going to be be controlled by 3/4 of 1 percent change in Co2 emissions?
Prior to 1960, a few areas were dirty: London, Paris, the Ruhr Valley, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles. Those few areas did NOT affect global albedo nor global energy absorption. Cleaning up those areas did NOT affect global albedo nor global energy absorption either.
Mr RACookPE1978
If you would take the time to do a mass balance calculation, you would find that humans emit twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. That means that “nature” is adsorbing about 50% of what humans are emitting.
So, go back and re-calculate what happens to a system that is in equilibrium prior to 1850, and is then upset with increased emsssions of CO2
Keep in mind that prior to 1850, no know biological organism was able to drill down 2 miles in solid rock to extract the hydrocarbons.
..
Yes, the data shows that prior to 1850, we have never had atmospheric CO2 at the 400 ppmv level.
Since you seem to know more than everyone else, please tell us what will be the effects of altering the chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere in the coming centuries?
David Socrates
More food.
More fodder.
More feed.
More farms.
More fuel.
Greener landscapes.
Greener forests.
Greener lawns.
Greener fields.
More growth. Better lives for all on earth.
D. Socrates,
That screed makes very little sense. From what I can see, it presumes that CO2 must be a Bad Thing. But of course, there is no evidence anywhere that more CO2 is a problem.
So, you’re wrong from the get-go: more CO2 is a net benefit. There is no known downside, and even at the most optimistic forecasts, we won’t do more than about double it. CO2 will still be a tiny trace gas. No problem — and the biosphere will be very happy.
Well, if you are a bit ‘creative’ with the qt it works.
virakkraft.com/Monckton.xlsx
http://virakkraft.com/Monckton.xlsx
So you are confirming through your claim that your model is a better AGW model than the IPCC AGW GCMs projections!
While the IPCC GCMs fail to prove that the plateua or the hiatus are man-made, your model does prove that and also by default proves that the last century GW (0.8C warming) is therefor proved to be man-made.
Gongratulations….you have succeded where the rest of climatology has thus far faild at on proving the AGW.
So the new meme of AGW has to run on the premise of the new climate equilibrium through a climatic thermostasis…translating as a new extended life support for the AGW.
Congratulations again Monckton…
Good job….much better than M. Mann’s job with his hockey stick on propagating the certanty of the AGW.
cheers
My above is a reply to
Monckton of Brenchley January 16, 2015 at 6:00 pm
“In response to lol, since there is no appreciable anthropogenic forcing till 1950, there is no point in running our model from 1880.”
David Socrates January 16, 2015 at 6:37 pm
¨Yes, the data shows that prior to 1850, we have never had atmospheric CO2 at the 400 ppmv level.¨
YHGTBSM!
For most of the history of planet earth, CO2 has been far higher than 400 ppmv. The intervals below that level have been brief in terms of geological time.
milodonharlani
Re-read the post.
It says, “….the data…”
…
Don’t forget that your claim of higher CO2 in the past is based on models not on data
…
There is a difference
…
Now…if you can show me data that proves otherwise, please post the link.
David:
Are you thinking of GEOCARB? I´m talking about actual proxy data on past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata observations, isotopic composition of organic marine matter & alkenone in sediments. I could show you study after study but you can easily find them for yourself, if you´re actually interested in paleoclimatology. Even the most ardent CACA advocates admit that CO2 was much higher for most of earth´s history.
Since research apparently isn´t your bag:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/papers-on-atmospheric-co2-from-proxies/
milodonharlani
This the the oldest “real” data, and it only goes back 20 million years. (which is one of the links you posted)
…
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.short
…
Funny thing about it, it says that the levels we have today are pretty much the highest they’ve been in the past 20 million years.
…
Got any real data that shows levels were higher than today?
In response to “whiten”, our model does not seek to challenge the notion that greenhouse-gas enrichment cap causes warming. It demonstrates, however, that the warming will be small.
Socrat:
Lots & lots of good proxy data studies find past CO2 levels in the thousands of ppm. Had you ever studied even warmunista literature, you´d know that Snowball Earth hypothesizers assume levels around 90.000 ppm in order to explain how our planet got out of total glaciation scenarios.
But closer to our own time, here are data from the mid´Cretaceous showing about 1400 ppm, in line with if not lower than other findings:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2_bryophytes%28GBC%29.pdf
Why do I have to do all your research for you, while you just embarrass yourself making ludicrous, baseless assertions?
milodonharlani
“A mechanistic model for calculating past CO2 concentrations from bryophyte D13C (White et al., 1994) is extended and calibrated using our experimental results………..Our analysis and isotopic model yield mid-Cretaceous CO2 concentrations of 1000–1400 ppm, in general agreement with independent proxy data
and long-term carbon cycle models.”
…
Model(s)?
You post a link to models?
…
Got real data instead of model output?
What part of ¨independent proxy data¨ do you not understand?
Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Their science sections cite & graph Berner 1997, showing Phanerozoic CO2 concentrations in the thousands of ppm.
Many of the proxy data studies I´ve already linked covering the Mesozoic & Paleozoic Eras found CO2 levels of up to 7000 ppm. Facts are stubborn things but apparently less so than your willful ignorance.
Earth´s second atmosphere was like those of Mars & Venus, rich in CO2. Along with geologic processes on a water planet, photosynthetic organisms helped lower these levels down to less than 10% CO2 by the Cambrian. Ice ages such as during the Carboniferous & now cause it to fall lower still, down to fractions of a percent, a dangerously low level for life on earth. Were it not for the evolution of C4 plants in response to this severe environmental challenge, life as we know it would not be possible.
Yes, 1K = 1C
The IPCC continued with models designed to give strong amplification of warming even though observation showed that this was wrong. Two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
Wow. This is how climate science is conducted.
Well done, Monckton et al.
Many thanks to schroedinger’s cat. The reviewing process at the Science Bulletin was exemplary. Our reviewers came to accept that our argument was science-based, and they recommended the paper for publication. Science or Nature would not have done that, since the have a declared policy of not publishing any paper that in any way questions the climate-Communist party line. The Science Bulletin was, as a journal should be, open-minded.
Then show us the review reports.
Don’t be silly. It is not normal to publish reviewers’ comments. If Mr Svalgaard has never before asked anyone who has published a peer-reviewed article to publish the review comments, but suddenly does so now, it is legitimate to infer that his intent is malevolent.
I ask it all the time. And I do myself as I ask of others, see my website http://www.leif.org/research/ where reviews are published along with the papers and all correspondence from editors and reviewers. Open review is the future. It shows the readers to what extent the reviewers did their job and prevents ‘friendly’ reviews from the ‘team’ and other gatekeepers.
“since the have a declared policy of not publishing any paper that in any way questions the climate-Communist party line. ”
…
Please post a link to where either Science or Nature has made such a declaration.
Do your own homework, Mr Socrates. The laziness of the trolls posting here beggars belief.
Ah….I get it….you deflect when you can’t answer the question.
…
Do your own homework, Mr Socrates. Don’t whine.
As noted above at least twice, the presentation requires source code in eg TI calculator script, or better yet in BASIC.
Nothing cuts through the baloney, like spelling it out in code.
All we have so far in this paper, is more ’round & round & round’.
Let’s have code and quit the fooling around.
The necessary equations are all in the paper. Code them yourself: then, and only then, will you be reasonably confident that the code is suitable. The paper is a devastating blow to the official position, though it will take some little time for some to realize that.
Did the authors of this paper translate it into a computer program, themselves?
Perhaps a cadre of professional friends of the authors were enlisted to whip out a few different versions of elementary executable … ‘to make sure’?
Maybe academics-associates at U volunteered to run it past their classes; offer some inducement to see what good students come up with for code?
Or is it an assumption that the math & logic of the paper will code-up fine & easy, without having tested it?
In response to Me Clayton below, the method by which the model was calibrated is well explained in the paper. Try reading it before commenting.
We ran the model on the pocket calculator on an iPhone so as to make sure that it was readily accessible to all diligent enquirers. Results are in the tables in the paper, so that users can familiarise themselves with the model by studying the worked examples. It is not my custom to use a ball-peen hammer to crack a nut.
Ted – here is Excel Code:
A B
1 qt 0.83
2 k 5.35
3 Ct 400
4 C0 380
5 rt 1
6 lambda0 0.3125
7 ft 1.5
8 deltaT 0.19448556
The formula in B8 is =(1/B1)*B2*LN(B3/B4)*B5*B6/(1-B6*B7)
Thanks Walt! I will go back through the paper and pair these cells up with their sections in the paper.
This is indeed very compact.
Walt D had made a nice attempt at a simple coding. However, it should be borne in mind that on occasion it is necessary to use array variables.
Sorry folks but having Monckton’s name on a scientific paper won’t cut it with the warmist crowd, even if it was peer reviewed. That is simply a fact, and this is not a slur on the Lord.
But it cut it with the Chinese crowd. And that’s important.
Amen to M Courtney’s comment. The Chinese are fascinated. They don’t care who I am, but they do care whether the equations and conclusions in the paper make sense. So far it is easily the most downloaded paper in the current issue of Science Bulletin. The climate Communists will not be convinced by any argument, however cogent, however well peer-reviewed, however prestigious the journal, and however trendy the authors. However, the rest of the world still has open minds capable of being convinced by a sound scientific argument. So Jim S should stop whining and read the paper.
Monckton of Brenchley: “The climate Communists will not be convinced by any argument, however cogent, however well peer-reviewed, however prestigious the journal, and however trendy the authors.”
Absolutely. We know from experience that they wouldn’t take the opinion even of a Nobel Prize winner if that opinion is not congenial to their world view (and grant stream).
This is actually addressed to Lord Monckton:
I was not whining, I was merely stating a fact. Once the warmists see your name on the paper, they won’t read it; but if they do read it, they will read it with an overly critical attitude. It would have been better for the paper to be published without your name on it. Your name is mud in the warmist camp – no whine – simply a fact.
I guarantee you that the Climate Change Establishment will go through this article with a fine tooth comb, looking for the slightest thing to nit-pick. Spin fog and waffle will be the angle of attack. Too bad they don’t devote the same energy to going through their own broken models and trying to fix them.
They will be looking for the splinter in Monckton’s eye, while completely ignoring the 2 by 4 in there own eye.
In response to Jim S, the climate Communists do not like me because I, a mere layman, have pointed out various large holes in the Party Line. The latest paper points out another very large hole – indeed, a fatal hole below the waterline. The truth will prevail whether They like me speaking it or not,
That’s (in part) why we need the source code; a little computer program in common programming environments.
All the fancy hieroglyphics and intellectual athleticism is fine & harmless … but SHOW US THE SCRIPT, and something might actually come of it.
Mr Clayton should not sneer. What he calls “fancy hieroglyphics” are quite simple equations. Let him write his own code – or, having familiarized himself with the essential equations, simply run the model on a pocket calculator. Nothing more complex is needed. This is what it says on the tin: an irreducibly simple model.
That’s not a sneer Mr Monckton. It’s the other half of the “intellectual athleticism” check which was accepted without protest. 😉
The paper and its authors lodge a formal claim as to the simplicity of their argument; and for its suitability to rudimentary computer programming. Demonstrating, ie proving such claims is the clear responsibility of the claimants.
Let’s put it another way. Either:
1.) The construct argued in the paper has indeed been codified in approximately the fashion claimed for it, but the program is not being provided … nor even acknowledged.
2.) Or, nobody has actually written any such simple little piece of software.
Is it the later?
In response to Mr Clayton, our assertion is that the model can be run on a pocket calcukator. We did not use computer code because it was unnecessary.
JimS, I appreciate your comment, but with respect, I think that you are wrong. The paper is too good and too solidly based on respected science to be ignored. It will be critiqued, but anybody who dismisses it superficially without addressing its scientific points will, imho, lose credibility in the larger scientific world — of whom, incidentally, Chinese are a large part now.
I hope you are right, Matthew. We shall see what transpires.
Yes it is.
Mann’s influence on climate science is major!
The fantasy graph at the beginning of this post is Fig 6 in the paper. It appears that Monckton has added time travel to his resume and has posted the Hadcrut4 and RSS observations for 2050!
” It appears that Monckton has added time travel to his resume …”
No, he has simply extrapolated current observations using the “irreducibly simple” model as opposed to the “relentlessly exaggerated” IPCC models (i.e. it back-casts correctly):
Commentary on the commentary below from https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/ ?
” I’m not even sure I actually quite get it, since it is so chock full of stuff that doesn’t really make a great deal of sense.
I, however, think I’ve worked it out. According to their model, temperature T_t at time t after a change in forcing \Delta F_t is given by
\Delta T_t = q_t^{-1} \Delta F_t r_t \lambda_o (1 – g)^{-1},
where q_t is the fraction of the forcing due to CO2, r_t is the fraction of the equilibrium response attained by time t, \lambda_o is the no-feedback sensitivity, and g is the feedback factor, or closed-loop gain.
The fundamental figure is the figure to the right, which illustrates how the feedback factor, or closed-loop gain, would influence climate sensitivity. Now, as is clear from the figure, the maximum value for the closed-loop gain – or feedback factor g – allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions, is 0.1. Therefore, since no process engineer would possibly design our climate to have a feedback factor greater than this, feedbacks have to be small, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity has to be about 1K per doubling of CO2.
So, there you have it, we can’t warm much over the coming century because the designers wouldn’t have designed a system that would allow for this. Of course, I should be honest and admit that I may have misunderstood the paper, but that’s mostly because it’s gobbledygook. “
Could be the reason the paper was gobbledygook to you is because it did not chant the AGW mantra, flash man.
mpainter,
The paper does chant the AGW mantra, it just fills the gaps of observational uncertainty with intelligent design. That’s the gobbeldygook portion.
Gates:
Above, at 9:33am, Monckton states that his study “is a devastating blow to the official position”
You need to correct him and explain that the study “chants the AGW mantra”.
And that the science is _settled_.
And that the Science Bulletin is not up to standards with your crowd.
And that the peer review process is inadequate and sneerworthy, by your lights.
And that ____________(fill in the blank).
And that mpainter is obsessed with Gates.
…
I like this game !!!!
Do not misunderstand me; Gates and you disgust me utterly, your science your persons, both.
The experiment has already been run. The sun was about 70% as luminous as it is now 4.6 billion years ago, and has been warming up ever since. The earth has had liquid oceans and life for at least 3.8 billion years. There have been no frozen solid oceans, and the oceans haven’t boiled away during that time, ergo feedbacks have been strongly negative.
On the (questionable) assumption that one who sneers from behind the pseudonym “Sir Harry Flashman” is interested in science rather than in sneering, there will be some interest in my forthcoming paper in another leading reviewed journal on the question of the manifest inapplicability of the Bode system-gain relation to the climate. “Flashman”, whoever it is, will then be able to understand the excellent point made by other commenters here, and also made in the present paper, namely that the very small changes in global temperature inferred from the ice-cores over the past 810,000 years are inconsistent with a closed-loop gain >>0.1
I’m skeptical of skeptics, but this paper was by all evidence legitimately peer-reviewed and credit must be given where due. However, you’ll know there’s going to be much criticism and I look forward to the ongoing discussion.
Sir Harry Flashman: I’m not even sure I actually quite get it, since it is so chock full of stuff that doesn’t really make a great deal of sense.
You need to read the paper some more then. The simple observation is that, over many millenia, the Earth temperature has remained within bounds, which it would not do if there were only positive feedbacks to temperature. It isn’t that “[the designers wouldn’t have allowed for it]”, it’s that the Earth doesn’t act that way.
I think the mistake made by And Then There’s Physics is that he doesn’t believe in a physical reality. He (or she) reifies an idealistic concept and then assumes that that is how things are. The name is apt.
So observations from outside his or her faith system can only be a heresy from another faith system – all intellectual constructs are equally valid if they are self-consistent. There is no other means of judging idealistic systems.
And Then There’s Physics may be right. But it is entirely unprovable if that is so. The source of this conception of reality is faith, not empiricism.
And if you aren’t of that faith then you can’t ignore reality in the required way.
It really does not matter how many nails go in to the AGW coffin, warmers still control things. Take a look at the news releases: Schools forced to comply with ‘accepted science’ of AGW, projects to sequester CO2, and a host of others. The old addage applies: “Follow the money”.
When I cut & paste the url displayed in the article, I get to the paper fine. But when I click on the url directly, it takes me to this link:
https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/dereferrer?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scibull.com%3A8080%2FEN%2Fabstract%2Fabstract509579.shtml
And displays a ‘403’ error.
To find our paper, go to scibull.com, click on Current issue and look for Why models run hot: results from an irreducible simple climate model. Sorry about the bad link.
“is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes”
I didn’t think teachers were allowed to question the IPCC, this could be considered a thought crime.
Interesting article. The link embedded in this article does not seem to work, however.
Steve Reynolds
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse brevity, typos, and lack of capitalization and punctuation.
If you cannot find the paper, go to scibull,com and click on “Current Issue”, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model”. Enjoy! It’s open access, thanks to the Heartland Institute’s generosity.
The journal is nowhere near the stature of Nature and Science, and it publishes on a wide array of topics. One has to wonder how qualified the reviewers were.
True, we have no idea how many other journals rejected the paper before it was accepted by the Chinese.
One usually does not know how many journals reject a paper before a journal eventually accepts it. So the sneering “David Socrates” is not making a particularly serious or useful or scientific point. However, for the record, the paper was submitted only to the Science Bulletin and, after due peer review, was accepted.
But we don’t like “pal-review” in these parts. Ask anyone.
So, Gates, does Monckton’s new study leave you feeling disgruntled and snarky? It seems so.
Past experience with your claims requires one to take your current one with a grain of salt.
And you too, sockrats?
Well, take as much salt as you like, but my guess that such a study will never go down with the die-hards because it does not chant the AGW mantra.
As for myself, my claim is that AGW has no support but indeed, all the conclusive evidence shows otherwise .
Salt won’t help if you lack science.
mpainter,
The only “novel” parameters in the model are gₜ — closed-loop gain and Gₜ — open-loop (system) gain, where ₜ is any arbitrary time interval one wishes out to about 250 years. The balance of the model is derived from standard radiative physics and IPCC estimates:
——————
4.2 The CO 2 radiative forcing ΔFₜ
(2) ΔFₜ = k ln(Cₜ/C₀)
k = 5.35 W m⁻²
4.3 The Planck climate-sensitivity parameter λ₀
(3) Fᴇ = (πr² / 4πr²) * S(1 – α) | Equilibrium flux
S, total solar irradiance = 1,368 W m⁻²
α, Earth’s albedo = 0.3
Fᴇ = 239.4 W m⁻²
(4) F = εσT⁴ | Stefan-Boltzmann relation
ε, emissivity = 1
σ, Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.67 x 10⁻⁸ W m⁻² K⁻⁴
(5) Tᴇ = (Fᴇ / εσ)^¼ = 254.9 K
(6) λ₀ = Tᴇ / 4Fᴇ = 254.9 / 239.4 * 0.25 = 0.27 K W⁻¹ m²
0.3125 per IPCC for sub-millennial timescales
4.4 The temperature-feedback sum fₜ
As Fig. 3 shows, IPCC’s interval 1.9 [1.5, 2.4] W m⁻² K⁻¹ in AR4 [cf. 33] was sharply cut to 1.5 [1.0, 2.2] W m⁻² K⁻¹ in AR5. Yet, the climate-sensitivity interval [2.0, 4.5] K in the CMIP3 model ensemble [4] was slightly increased to [2.1, 4.7] K in CMIP5 [5]. The user may adopt any chosen value for the feedback sum.
——————
I’m rather going to enjoy quoting this section for the foreseeable future:
——————
4.8 The transience fraction rₜ
Not all temperature feedbacks operate instantaneously. Instead, feedbacks act over varying timescales from decades to millennia. Some, such as water vapor or sea ice, are short acting, and are thought to bring about approximately half of the equilibrium warming in response to a given forcing over a century. Thus, though approximately half of the equilibrium temperature response to be expected from a given forcing will typically manifest itself within 100 years of the forcing (Fig. 4), the equilibrium temperature response may not be attained for several millennia [38, 39]. In Eq. (1), the delay in the action of feedbacks and hence in surface temperature response to a given forcing is accounted for by the transience fraction r t . For instance, it has been suggested in recent years that the long and unpredicted hiatus in global warming may be caused by uptake of heat in the benthic strata of the global ocean (for a fuller discussion of the cause of the hiatus, see the supplementary matter).
——————
The above equations values and concepts should all look familiar. They are also regularly bashed here. So yes I’m snarky, but not at all disgruntled. Faaaaar from it.
Gates:
You should take your litany of unsupported assumptions and misapplied theory to SKS. You might impress someone there. Like rooter. Or HotMoma. But it will not play here.
mpainter,
What litany of unsupported assumptions and misapplied theory? I quoted the paper directly.
Brandon Gates
You say to mpainter
Your question is answered by your statements
Those accusations of “regularly bashed” and confession of snark demonstrate that mpainter was very restrained in his criticism of your offensive comment.
And, yes, it is true that in your attempt at snark you “quoted the paper directly”. However, as I have pointed out before, it is your common practice to copy&paste from papers you don’t understand.
It remains true that none of your many posts on WUWT demonstrate you know and understand anything concerning climate science. Your copy&paste ploy fails to disguise your ignorance which does not excuse your abusive – you say “snarky” – posts.
Richard
That sort of comment may have been acceptable 20 years ago but it is utter nonsense now. When I started research in the field of luminescent materials the only articles of merit came from English , US, Russian sources and Philips and RCA Labs ..Then the Japanese and South Koreans took over
But now if you want to know the latest work on , say , phosphors for LED lighting , you will be directed by Google or Web of Science or PUbMed to a Chinese Lab / university and a Chinese journal . The west contribution in this area has been almost entirely eliminated by comparison.
Just be grateful that the Chinese still publish in English. There is no reason why they should since most of the advanced scientific work in some areas of materials science is in China , for Chinese colleagues.
There are more important changes than that in climate that have occurred in the last 20 years – dont be so patronising .
Reminds me of that interchange in Back to the Future between Marty and Doc Brown:
The longer the West obsesses over non-issues like AGW, the farther ahead the Chinese are going to go.
Nature and Science publish on a wide array of topics. The quality of their peer review has nothing to do with the breadth of the subject matter, only the people who agree to review for them. With an “anonymous” peer review system, it could be anyone and it is the only the trustworthiness of the editor which matters.
To be quite blunt, Nature and Science have published some crap in the past and the only reason everyone still wets themselves over a paper published in these journals is because of how widely read they are. It doesn’t matter where the paper is published, what matters is the content and you have to read it to understand that.
Not being as well acquainted with the physics as some people seem to claim here I won’t make any comment except to say that there are – finally – some papers published which provide counter arguments to the more extreme scenarios used by the IPCC. I eagerly await AR6 to see if they include these papers in their review!
Really Have you read anything in Nature or Science lately? You call that well reviewed?
The Science Bulletin is the journal of the world’s largest academy of sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and is jointly sponsored by the Academy and by the Chinese State Science Funding Council. It has as much influence in the Orient as Science or Nature do in the Occident, and it does not, as they do, have a declared policy of not publishing any papers questioning the “official” view of climate science. In that crucial respect, it is of course vastly superior to either Science or Nature. And it is because of its moral approach to receiving and reviewing papers that it is of no less standing than they.
In response to Barry, the reviewers were climate scientists and were plainly knowledgeable. The Science Bulletin is superior to Nature and Science because they have a policy of not accepting papers that question the climate-Communist Party Line but, ironically, the Science Bulletin has no such policy. It will publish science regardless of where the truth leads.
Could you post a citation for your claim that both Science and Nature “have a policy of not accepting papers that question the climate-Communist Party Line”
…
Most of their policies are on-line, and your posting a link to such a claim would be appreciated.
PS…..If the Science Bulletin in any way, shape or form, questioned the Communist Party line, they would be shut down in a heartbeat.
Mom said, “Go figure. He completely missed the meaning of Mr. Monckton’s statement.” She always wanted to be an English teacher so she reads stuff pretty close.
Babsy…
No “meaning” missed. Monckton claims Science and Nature has a specific policy. I asked him to provide a citation for that policy. I’m sure he’ll do so momentarily. Maybe ask your Mom for the citation. Do you know where it is?
She’s upstairs. I asked her about what you said and she said it would be better if you searched for it yourself. Said you’d learn more that way. PS: She won’t help me with my homework either until after supper.
Tell your Mom, when she serves you supper, that I have searched extensively and found nothing. I would appreciate if you asked her nicely to help me out.
We’ve already had supper. I could ask her but why would I? I care not one whit whether you get your information or not. We’re going out for ice cream now. Bye.
Sigh… still waiting for the BBC to report it on their ‘science’ site!
Nope, still waiting…
The Bolshevik Broadcasting Commissariat will not publish anything that does not accord with the climate-Communist party line. Mere truth is of not the slightest interest to the apparatchiks.
You haven’t called Monckton a “Lord” around here for the longest time – I thought you had accepted by now that he is not a Lord per what the experts had to say on the matter?
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Hereditary British Peer. Real lord.
There is a “cure” for HIV. I guess you have never been exposed to the virus, or people carrying the virus. What a knob!
I have to dash off to work, to pay taxes, to support our Peerage. Dang it. 😉
Keep on ’em about that simple calculator-code, David. Back after lunch (PST).
Patrick, please provide me with a link to Monckton’s “cure”
..
Thank you.
The “cure” to HIV (Prevention) is a condom. Or are you really that ignorant? Don’t answer.
Patrick…..prevention is not a cure for someone that is already infected. But I’m guessing you already knew that.
David: Google Magic Johnson. He was a very high profile basketball star who tested HIV positive in 1991. He is still living.
Walt D.
Magic Johnson was not cured. Anti-retroviral drugs “manage” the infection, they don’t cure it.
And what is the scientific point made by “Matt”, if any? The merit of a reviewed scientific paper arises from its content, not from the identity of its authors and still less from the historically-illiterate ramblings of a climate-Communist Cluck of the Parliaments.
Matt said: “I thought you had accepted by now that he is not a Lord per what the experts had to say on the matter?”
The experts (actually, one expert–who was later rebutted) didn’t dispute that he is a lord; they disputed that he is a member of the House of Commons.
[Snip. Lord Monckton is not the issue. ~ mod.]
Moncktons credibility is the issue
Well, appears that sickrats can find no fault with the study by Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs.
So what does he do ?
He taps his well of ad hominens.
Sockrats, take it to SKS where they love your type.
Here ya go mpainter….
..
“g < 0.1, the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions. "
…
For your information, our climate system is not an electronic circuit. In other words, this is an invalid assumption in the "model"
Sockrats:
You mischaracterize the study by Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs which criticizes the use in the GCM’s the Bodes system-gain equation in their feedbacks, a device borrowed from electronics.
Your sophistry will not play here. Take it to the dupes at SKS, who will lap it up and congradulate you for your astuteness.
Mr Socrates says my credibility is the issue. No, it isn’t. What matters is the soundness of the science in our paper. To think otherwise is to perpetrate the ancient and pathetic logical fallacy of the argument un ad verecundiam.
” our climate system is not an electronic circuit.”
…
That statement has very little to do with “credibility”
The ever-fatuous Mr Socrates says that a statement to the effect that the climate is not an electronic circuit “has very little to do with credibility” It has everything to do with the credibility (or lack of it) of those models which use an equation designed for electronic circuitry in modeling the climate, which does not belong to the narrow class of dynamical systems to which the equation applies. See my forthcoming paper in a leading climate-science journal going into further detail on that subject.
Lord have mercy! Ad Hominem much?
Lord or Viscount or Grand POOba, why is it relevant?.
Comment on what MISTER Monckton says, not who he is.
This “He’s not a Lord” crap comes up EVERY time this gentleman posts something.
Selling snake oil in the past is in the record.
This “paper” is just more of the same from him.
Hey RobRoy……go back into the archives of WUWT and check out the comments section on any article or paper authored by Michael Mann….
For documentation of M. Mann’s mendacious and contemptible science AND behaviour, see the archives at Climate Audit. It is for a good reason that he is also known as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science”.
LOL.
Thanks, Anthony.
I’ll have a look at the new model.
Antony, the link is broken, the text of the link is correct, ” http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml“, but the anchor tag points to a non-working link. Easy to fix.
Interesting article, very interesting.
Here we go, decode of javascript infested server…
http://www.scibull.com:8080/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=509579
Those having difficulty in using the link to the paper should cut-and-paste it into their browser, whereupon it will (usually) work. Failing that, please go to scibull.com, click on “Current issue”, then look for the paper among the articles listed.
Of 2261 downloads of the 11 papers downloadable in the current issue, Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015) accounts for 1708, or about three-quarters of all downloads.
Congratulations! I expect the paper to be widely cited. Further down, I call it non-ignorable and well worth reading.
Many thanks to Me Marler for his very kind comments.
Supplementary data here
http://link.springer.com/content/esm/art:10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2/file/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_MOESM1_ESM.docx
(from Springer page http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2)
Tchannon–thanks for the link. It was mostly concerned with the Trenberth argument that the warming is occurring in the deep ocean, and quotes a few studies showing serious uncertainties in the measurement of temperature there. Supplementary information is typically not peer-reviewed.
Thanks for the link Tim. Yet another large nail in the CAGW coffin.
This link will not break: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2
Over on ATTP’s site, the ever obnoxious John Mashey has posted a list of the mostly-Chinese editorial board of the publisher, presumably so they can be harrased and/or blacklisted for heresy.
He may find that Chinese authorities act differently to the British.
But you have to admire his sacrifice.
Monckton, Legates, Soon & Briggs,
Congratulations on getting a paper published with an independent basis for climate estimates; one that exposes the unscientific exaggerations of the IPCC’s estimates of warming from CO2.
I am almost finished with reading the paper.
John
Many thanks to Mr Whitman for his kind comments.
“Never ever assume that because the truth is not currently fashionable it should not currently be spoken. Never ever assume that if the truth continues quietly to be spoken it will not in the end prevail.”
Above statement made by Lord Monckton is simply amazing. Really. Truly resonated with me.
Excellent initiative. Busy studying it. I like their style of taking the IPCC at face value, using their beloved notion of ‘forcing’ as the way to incorporate the impact of CO2 (a way very convenient for the programmer of big models, as well as those which can be run on a calculator!) without being distracted by complexities such as spatial variations, and then showing how very weak is the case for alarm. Well done the four authors!
Most grateful to Mr Shade for his kind comments.
I am not a scientist but I have some serious doubts about the paper.
First, it is filled with propagandistic language. Most of rhetorical questions – such as “Is the mainstream science settled?” – are completely unnecessary and could be omitted without compromising readability, factual contents, or impact of the paper. They suggest authors are pushing agenda rather than do science.
Second thing is – as far as I got so far in the paper – the way how value of λ0 is calculated. Regardless that they get their value being close to IPCC estimates, the calculation feels rather suspicious to me since it is taken supposedly from “characteristic-emission altitude” where incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are equal. This surface is once treated as a sphere, once as a circle perpendicular to insolation. A boundary with different surface area in each direction (but it makes sense so far) is treated as having single temperature (that’s where it stops making sense) which is then assigned to Stefan-Boltzmann relation in power four. I’m sorry but I can’t accept that even as an approximation. While I agree that such surface exists, the temperature on it varies wildly – by at least 50 K – and the value is too low to have no noticeable impact when taken to the power four. Stefan-Boltzmann relation is way too nonlinear in such a wide range for this approach to be reasonable.
I did not get further in the paper yet and it is possible that this has no big impact on its final conclusions. But it definitely makes the paper suspicious in my eyes so I’m willing to wait what other, more knowledgable people will say about it.
“Kasuha” says our paper is “filled with propagandistic language”, but his only example is an out-of-context quotation of a question. A question is not a statement and is not, therefore, “propaganda”. In the words of Housman’s Greek chorus: “I only ask because I want to know” – and not because I want to make a point. The full quotation is as follows:
“Are global-warming predictions reliable? In the 25 years of IPCC’s First to Fifth Assessment Reports [1 FAR, 2 SAR, 3 TAR, 4 AR4, 5 AR5], the atmosphere has warmed at half the rate predicted in FAR (Fig. 1): yet Professor Ross Garnaut [6] has written, “The outsider to climate science has no rational choice but to accept that, on a balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change”. However, as Sir Fred Hoyle put it, “Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not require complex computer models in order to calculate useful numbers for debating the issue. … To raise a delicate point, it really is not very sensible to make approximations … and then to perform a highly complicated computer calculation, while claiming the arithmetical accuracy of the computer as the standard for the whole investigation” [7].
“The present paper describes an irreducibly simple but robustly calibrated climate-sensitivity model that fairly represents the key determinants of climate sensitivity, flexibly encompasses all reasonably foreseeable outcomes, and reliably determines how much global warming we may cause both in the short term and in the long. The model investigates and identifies possible reasons for the widening discrepancy between prediction and observation.
“Simplification need not lead to error. It can expose anomalies in more complex models that have caused them to run hot. The simple climate model outlined here is not intended as a substitute for the general-circulation models. Its purpose is to investigate discrepancies between IPCC’s Fourth (AR4) and Fifth (AR5) Assessment Reports and to reach a clearer understanding of how the general-circulation models arrive at their predictions, and, in particular, of how the balance between forcings and feedbacks affects climate sensitivity estimates. Is the mainstream science settled? Or is there more debate [8] than Professor Garnaut suggests? The simple model provides a benchmark against which to measure the soundness of the more complex models’ predictions.”
In context, the question “Is the mainstream science settled?” is plainly sensible and proportionate. Don’t be silly.
“Kasuha” goes on to say that he is “suspicious” of the way the Planck parameter is calculated. In particular, it appears to have difficulty in understanding the concept of a mean temperature. I calculated the Planck parameter from 30 years of satellite temperature for the mid-troposphere at latitudes separated by 2.5 degrees, determining the fourth-power relation correctly for each latitude, allowing for spherical geometry and adjusting for the varying areas of the latitudinal frusta. This calculation does not appear in the paper because it is not essential to the argument. I performed it purely to make sure that it was appropriate to accept IPCC’s value as canonical. My calculation agreed with that of most models and authorities – and of the IPCC – to three decimal places. See Monckton of Brenchley (2008) in Physics and Society for a further discussion.
The little bit of bicep-flexing, shadow-boxing and trash-talking going on in the paper isn’t overdone, especially considering the generally-theatrical milieu of climate-discourse.
Truth is, Monckton in particular has done himself proud here. Even if he comes away looking like a 6-hour intellectual bare-knuckle contestant, or even especially “if”.
He & his coauthors have plowed a worthy field and gotten seed down. There likely will be critiques leveled. I ping on one myself (‘where’s the code?!), but this is just life in the big city, for anyone who presumes to ‘mustang’ his way into published science.
Mr. Monckton is himself not exactly the gentlest of souls, and no small amount of flak will go up, from those he’s shot down.
Monckton & Co will have to make effective rebuttals (ie, from the audience’ perspective, not other combatants), possibly correct & back-fill some. None of this is a deal-breaker. NASA scientists recently discovery Alien Life! in a western USA brine-lake … and nobody appears to have lost their job. Some rough & tumble goes with the territory.
I’m pleased to see His Lordship get the feather in his hat, and hope he wears it long & far.
Science Bulletin Impact Factor: 1.365, (http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=LIST_SUMMARY_JOURNAL&cursor=21) way below Science or Nature! Pls do not propagate wrong claims…
Indeed.
Science impact factor 31.48
Nature climate change 15.29
Science: public declaration that skeptical papers will not be entertained: Yes
Nature: public declaration that skeptical papers will not be entertained: Yes
Science Bulletin: public declaration that skeptical papers will not be entertained: No, of course not.
Science Bulletin, therefore, is the only one of the three journals that still adheres to the scientific method. The other two journals have in effect declared themselves to be propaganda sheets for the climate-Communist party line. Shame on them both, and three cheers for the Science Bulletin.
There is no such thing as a “prestigious Chinese journal” unless you mean that in the sense of the tallest midget.
The “model” in the paper is not a climate model, it is merely a curve-fitting exercise. As has been stressed by Nic Lewis (who seems to be the single most effective critic of the IPCC sensitivities) and many others, the big uncertainty in such exercises is the aerosol forcing. I did a quick search of the paper to find what is used for that forcing, but found nothing. Perhaps I will find it when I get the time for a careful reading. Until then, I am skeptical of the paper’s value.
Mike M: ” the big uncertainty for such exercises is the aerosol forcing”
######
So what else is new under the sun and show us which GCM has this aerosol factor nailed, please and thank you.
No GCM has the aerosol forcing nailed down. That is a big part of the problem: the modellers can compensate for too high a sensitivity by using a strongly negative aerosol forcing. The thing is that you can’t get reliable results from historical temperature data unless you have reliable aerosol forcings. I suppose I should have said “Until then, I am just as skeptical of this paper’s value as I am of the climate models”.
In response to Mike M, we did not deduce our parameters solely or even chiefly from past temperature data, except in the important respect – unaffected by the aerosol forcing uncertainty – that global mean surface temperature has scarcely varied in 810,000 years, strongly suggesting that net-negative rather than net-positive temperature feedbacks are operating on the climate object. But, of course, Mike M and everyone should be no less skeptical of our model than of the general-circulation models. They are just analogies, and at some point – by definition – every analogy breaks down.
That’s the baboon jumping on the Land Rover roof.
The Chinese took over leadership in electronics circuit analysis, and microwave integration, over 30 years ago. We should quadruple our immigration quota for them. Our (sci-tech) grad schools are packed wall-to-wall with them.
There are many excellent scientists in China. They generally publish in western journals (at least in the physical sciences). The weaker stuff from China gets published in Chinese journals.
Mhmm. It’s true there are ‘ecosystems’ & hierarchies of journals. Science Bulletin isn’t quite AAAS or Nature, yet? That has a credible ring…
That, as Monckton notes, the issue is dominated by this one paper is … notable.
Mike M.
You say
None of that has any relevance to the value of the paper.
The seminal work on aeronautics was published in a magazine about bee-keeping and was written by two bicycle salesmen with no scientific or engineering qualifications. That paper was at first ignored and then it was reviled by “mainstream” science and engineering. The contents of the paper were not accepted until the reality of the the paper’s contents were seen to obviously and undeniably match reality.
The importance and value of that paper is demonstrated by the existence of the aerospace industry. And that value and importance is not affected by who wrote it and/or where they published it.
Please discuss the contents of the paper by Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs. Who they are and where they published says nothing concerning the value of their paper.
Richard
It is not appropriate for “Mike M.”, whoever he is, to make frankly racialist remarks about science in China. The Chinese Science Bulletin is the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the largest such academy on Earth, and its standards are high. The peer-reviewing, after the initial expressions of dismay that we had dared to fart in church by questioning the IPCC, was exemplary, and the reviewers’ knowledge was formidable.
The aerosol forcing is used by IPCC and modelers as a fudge-factor that has the effect of making climate sensitivity to CO2 seem higher than it is. We were, however, concerned primarily with the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentration. Other forcings do not enter into that calculation.
It is appropriate for “Mike M.”to be skeptical about our paper’s value, but not till he has read it carefully and has made some effort to understand what we are – and are not – attempting to do.
The impact factor for the Chinese Science Bulletin is 1.36. Solid journals are generally around 3 to 5. Prestigious journals have impact factors around 10 or higher, the top journals are at 30 or 40.
I agree that aerosol forcing is used by IPCC and modelers as a fudge-factor.
Before I spend a lot of time deciphering a confusing paper, I try to figure out if it is worth deciphering. I start by trying to figure out just what the authors are trying to do. In this paper, I was frustrated in my attempt to do that. It is clear that Monckton et al. don’t like the IPCC estimates. I don’t either. But beyond that …
Mike M.
…
The problem with Monckton’s paper is that it more of an assault on the IPCC than an advancement of the science.
Mike, impact factor for Nature in this league after all the garbage they have sped through editing/peer reviewing. Is it still up to snuff? I’m suspecting that you are a university professor and therefore somewhat out of date. I was fond of my professors but astounded when I graduated and got a job – I wound up having to have my knowledge upgraded by about 10yrs. The problem with your quaint metric is to have an impact to get hugely cited in climate science, you have to adhere to the old testament from 1990, from which no change is allowed. Aren’t you appalled that a science with essentially one linear equation to learn has to have a couple of hundred thousands practitioners? Where progress is adding factors on (aerosols, etc.) to preserve the 1990 impact of CO2 from anthropogenic sources.
Gary Pease wrote “Mike, impact factor for Nature in this league … I’m suspecting that you are a university professor and therefore somewhat out of date.”
I am a retired professor and probably am somewhat out of date. But, the impact factors for Nature and Science are still very high. That is probably something of a self-fulfilling prophecy – papers in such journals get cited a lot in no small part because they are in those journals. And some of the inverse probably happens at the other end. So the impact factors likely exaggerate the difference. But another related factor is that people try to publish their work in the highest impact journals they can. Which is why the best work from China tends to be published in western journals.
An impact factor of 1.36 means that the average paper is cited 1.36 times. Since some are cited many more times, but none are cited less than zero times, the distribution is highly skewed with the mean much greater than the median. So it seems that most papers in the Chinese Science Bulletin are never cited at all. I am not saying that there is not excellent work done in China. That would be far from true. Some of it may even be published in the Chinese Science Bulletin. I am taking issue with the claim that the Chinese Science Bulletin is a “prestigious” journal. It is not.
“to have an impact to get hugely cited in climate science, you have to adhere to the old testament from 1990, from which no change is allowed”.
There is truth to that, but it is highly exaggerated.
“Aren’t you appalled that a science with essentially one linear equation to learn has to have a couple of hundred thousands practitioners?”
That would be appalling. But that is not climate science. I suspect that a much bigger problem with climate science is that there is so much to learn to truly master the field that many practitioners have huge gaps in their knowledge, leading to take much of what comes out of the models on faith that whoever wrote the code knew what they were doing.
Mr Socrates complains that our paper is more a criticism of the IPCC than an advancement of the science. He misunderstands the scientific method, in which advances are made by the disproof of incorrect hypotheses.
The “model” in the paper is not a climate model, it is merely a curve-fitting exercise.
—
Well, that gave me a laugh. Thanks for that, Mike.
You have to be incredibly stupid, brainwashed or naive to believe that all climate models aren’t curve-fitted to the past. If they were not, why are they so incredibly accurate at forecasting the past and are such abject failures at forecasting the future?
As Yogi Berra once famously said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Actually, our model was not curve-fitted to the past. The first time we ran it with parameter values that were scientifically justifiable, it reproduced a warming rate cissus tent with observation.
“The model is calibrated against the climate-sensitivityinterval projected by the CMIP3 suite of models and against global warming since 1850”
Mr Svalgaard, whose specialty is not climate modeling, seems not to appreciate that to calibrate the model by running it against past temperature change is not to indulge in curve-fitting. It would only have been curve-fitting if we had run the model, found it could not replicate past temperatures, and had then tweaked it until it could. That is what the general-criculation models do. We didn’t have to. It worked just fine first time.
It should be obvious that your specialty is not climate modeling, but back to what the paper said:
Once we had calibrated the model to establish that it was working correctly, we then, chose what we considered to be scientifically justifiable parameter values and ran the model once more. The results conformed to observation first time around.
How did you establish that the model was ‘working correctly’? Because it gave you the result you were looking for…
Let us take small steps here, so I’ll only ask my questions one at at time [you seem overwhelmed by more than one, judging from your non-response].
Mr Svalgaard continues to be relentlessly infantile. The calibrations are described in the paper. They worked first time. Our first post-calibration model run, using parameter values that were scientifically justified, then predicted warming coincident with observation, also first time. No curve fitting obtain a “desired result” was performed.
Since Monkton seems to be replying to posts here, I will see if I can get an answer to some questions that I am having trouble finding in the paper. The model has five tunable parameters. I see some estimates of the ranges, but I can find no clear listing of the final values, the error limits on those values, just how the values were determined, and what the interdependence between the values might be. Where might I find these?
For example, in section 4.3 I find the Planck sensitivity (identifies as a tunable parameter) given as 0.3125 W/m^2/K. Was it fixed at that value, or was it tuned to some other value? Similar for the CO2 feedback gain; was it fixed at the value given in section 4.2? It is even less clear what was used for the feedback sum, the CO2 fraction, and the transience fraction. I am not sure if the last two are even physically meaningful. Any help here?
Read the paper. The values of each of the key parameters are discussed, often in some detail, and worked examples are given in the tables. The paper is intended to address the question why models run hot. But the model may be run with any parameter values the operator considers reasonable.
“one of the world’s top six learned journals of science”
Citation or link, please, thank you very much?
Sci bull.com
Any human being that has discover a cure for HIV infection, that withholds that discovery to file for a patent is a dispensable human Seeking personal profit at the expense of human lives and human suffering relegates you to the lowest of low.
…
Why have you not release your discovery to benefit humankind?
David Socrates January 16, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Any human being that has discover a cure for HIV infection, that withholds that discovery to file for a patent is a dispensable human Seeking personal profit at the expense of human lives and human suffering relegates you to the lowest of low.
…
Why have you not release your discovery to benefit humankind?
——-
Must have missed that. Was this what the paper was about?
Disagree with the science, fine, then step up and offer a intelligent rebuttal — obviously you can’t.
Offering pathetic ad hominem attacks, only proves you are intellectually challenged and feeble minded — par for the course.
Sad that so many people are like you.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley,
Could you please be a little more specific than just pointing to the scibull.com website?
Perhaps a direct link with some tangible information that supports the “one of the world’s top six learned journals of science” assertion made here.
Rankings, impact factors, listings of the top six journals, total articles published per year, anything, something, etceteras.
Thanks.
Mr Socrates, off topic, asks why I have patented my cure for AIDS rather than making it available freely to the world. But I make no claim that I can cure AIDS, though a protease chain-reaction testing has established that the reduction in viral loading following administration of our remedy is indeed accompanied by segments of retro viral RNA from the process by which visions were destroyed. Research continues, and we shall make no claims unless and until further lab testing followed by prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trials have demonstrated whatever efficacy our approach may have, The patent applications, which must be expensively maintained until research is complete, allow U.S. to keep control of the research to ensure that it is conducted to the highest standards.
Sockrats pretends at science. Corner him, and he quickly drops the pretense and draws from his ad hominen well.
He keeps this well flowing by scuttling back and forth between WUWT and HotWhopper, SKS, etc.
He is a troll with a troll’s standards and no pride in himself or his science.
SCImago ranks Chinese Science Bulletin as 14th globally. Two other (domestic?) China journals rank slightly higher.
Lots of data and trend-charts (which I don’t the Flash to view…).
14th, eh? Hmm.
14th globally, in that opinion.
So it would be expected to be in every well-funded university then. How many centres of learning only take 13 journals?
Quibbling aside, surely we can all agree that this paper has been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal with global reach and impact.
So let’s look at the science not the meta-science. The gates have been breached and the Titans are in the city. Chow down.
Among multidisciplinary journals only, 14th out of 112. The number of cites/paper is way below Nature and Science. It certainly isn’t:
the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science
Proceedings of the Japan Academy Series B: Physical and Biological Sciences ranks much higher and has a much better claim to that status.
This just Monckton’s usual bragging.
Agreed. The exaggeration & distortion is a guffaw.
I expected that this journal would be down off the charts in the grass somewhere, but it is up in credible-player range. Which in a way makes the hype-indulgence even odder.
Why claim to bench-press 400 lbs, when the 250 you can handle is not-bad-at-all?
Knock out the non-science journals, like Science and Nature, which are no longer willing to run any paper if it does not accord with the climate-Communist Party Line, and the Chinese Science Bulletin ends up in the the top six.
@Monckton of Brenchley
The reactions here are such that I am convinced that you hit the nail on the head pretty hard. You sent the pretentious IPCC and its abominable “Noble-Prize” Manns et al to their well-deserved scientifc hades. Great!
Many thanks to Non Nomen for his generous comments.
First, I love the Fred Hoyle quotation.
Second, the foundational problems with just one part of the GCMs (forcing) is very well explained in the paper, which, by the way, I found I could only reach by copying the link into my browser (the anchor took me elsewhere and gave a 403 error).
Third, I have some issue with section 4.3 on the Planck climate sensitivity discussion. In a highly simplified model I suppose there is no means other than claiming the effective radiation temperature is 288-6.5*5, but in fact if the air is exceptionally transparent to LWIR, as it is in very dry localities, then the effective temperature could be very close to surface temperature. Or on a planet that moves air masses laterally over thousands of km, the polar surface itself becomes the effective radiating temperature. Or beneath vigorous cumulonimbus the cloud tops provide the effective radiation temperature and it is not likely to be 288-6.5*5. The whole idea of an effective radiating temperature seems bogus to me.
Many thanks to Kevin Kilty for his kind comments. As to the effective temperature prevalent at the characteristic-emission altitude, that is a matter first and foremost of measurement. In determining that the models were using the correct value of the Planck parameter, I obtained 30 years’ mid-troposphere temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, where John Christy was extremely courteous, prompt and helpful. The data were available by latitude in steps of 2.5 degrees. Therefore, I was able to calculate the fourth-power Stefan-Boltzmann relation for each latitude and then integrate over the entire spherical surface, making due allowance for variations in the areas of the latitudinal frusta. My result and that of the IPCC were identical to three decimal places. See also Monckton of Brenchley (2008) and Roe (2009) for discussions of the Planck parameter and its value, and its status not as a “feedback”, as the IPCC misleadingly characterizes it, but as a fundamental near-constant of the climate system.
How does Willis’s even-simpler formula compare with this one?
We were fortunate not to have attempted to make our irreducibly simple model any simpler. As it was, one of the three reviewers – at the last stage of review – threw in what I suspect he thought was a bombshell that would destroy the paper. He said our model did not appear to be able to simulate the accumulation of the “missing heat” in the deep ocean, from which it might emerge one day to say “Boo!”
However, our model is in fact capable of handling such phenomena by means of one of the time-dependent array variables. If we had not incorporated that feature, the paper would have been slung out as too simple. As it was, the reviewer was impressed and he withdrew his original opposition to the paper and recommended it for publication. He made a point of saying he was pleased with the way we had answered all his points, and especially that one about the oceans.
Simple is good. Too simple is pointless.
First of all, congratulations to the authors for their persistence in pushing through the peer review process and getting the paper published in a prestigious journal. Well done.
Second, it is interesting how carefully the authors have read, cited, compared, and extracted information from the IPCC reports. To anyone who expresses respect for the IPCC and its reports, this is an important, nonignorable paper. In a sense it is a landmark, or a standard: the GCMs will be useful when they are consistently more accurate in their predictions that this model.
Third, I shall be interested to see whether this model survives testing against out-of-sample data: with the best parameter estimates available today, will its computations of the global mean temperatures over the next two decades be reasonably accurate? If they are the most accurate among the set of predictions, will the model then be the best model to use for planning purposes?
The paper is well worth reading.
I am most grateful to Mr Marler for his encouraging words. Given the extreme exaggerations inbuilt in the more complex models, I am going to stick my neck out and say I’m reasonably confident that our model, simple though it be, will outperform the billion-dollar brains over the rest of this century. Of course, it is tailored to do just one thing: predict the rate of temperature change in response to a forcing, and in particular to the manmade forcing from CO2. In this respect, our task is much easier than that of the general-circulation models, which are trying to represent thousands of features of the climate that we do not trouble ourselves with.
The point, really, is that if all we are wanting to know is how much warmer the world is likely to be as a result of our environmental footprint, complex models are neither necessary nor particularly valuable, particularly given the sheer quantity of unknowable unknowns in the climate object. Better to concentrate on what we do know – not least the fact that the Bode system-gain relation is inapplicable to the climate. Remove that equation (which belongs to electronic circuitry but not to dynamical systems with irreversible feedback responses nor to systems with outputs that are the instrument of self-equilibration) and the “climate crisis” vanishes. They are using the wrong equation, and that is the sole reason for their finding climate sensitivity to be high.
I shall have more to say on the problem of the Bode system-gain equation in a forthcoming reviewed paper in another climate journal. The paper has been accepted, but must wait its turn for publication. More when it appears.
Bottom line: now and in future, our model may well prove better suited to planning for temperature change than any of the general-circulation models.
Sir Harry Flashman January 16, 2015 at 8:11 am quoting someone over at a website andthenetheresphysics.wordpress.com
You apparently didn’t think about the authors’ statement here. The comparison is to design of an electronic circuit because that is, probably, the predominate experience of the authors with feedback systems. However, no other system, however constructed, involving feedback is any different and the point of the authors was to suggest that greater positive feedback would result in wild climate swings at are not observed. It is a valid point that people on the AGCW side of this debate fail to acknowledge.
Ditto. There is no intelligent design claim in this paper that I can find.
Why didn’t these two admit they either didn’t read the paper or didn’t understand it and leave it at that?
Finally, the truly unforgivable sin in this effort is that of bringing the forcing portion of a complex model, requiring the efforts of experts to explain to the layman, within the grasp of the hoi polloi. The high priests don’ t like that!
Kevin Kilty is right on all points. The reason why we have mentioned the Bode system-gain relation is that Bode (1945) derived it from observations of electronic circuits. It is designed to be applicable only to dynamical systems with two characteristics: a reversible output if the closed-loop gain exceeds unity (in a circuit the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail); and an output that is the instrument of self-equilibration (in a circuit, the voltage is a bare output and has no effect on the feedback response). On both counts, the climate is not that sort of dynamical system. Take out the Bode equation and the absurd doubling or tripling of the 1 K direct temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is swept away, leaving a climate sensitivity that cannot be higher than that 1 K and could – if feedbacks are as robustly net-negative as the long history of temperature thermostasis deduced from the ice-cores suggests – be a good deal less than 1 K. That is why this paper is important.
“High priests don’t like that!”
#####
The inner sanctum has been violated.
I am glad that the paper is busily being downloaded (according to Monckton).
I think the problems with downloading have been from security software at the site due to a sudden jump in the access of a particular file. That hints to how many folks peruse this blog.
Just to confirm that the paper continues to be downloaded. Now over 3000 downloads – far in excess of any other paper in the same issue. People are interested.
Kevin Kilty
You ask of Sir Harry Flashman and Brandon Gates
I answer because the history of those two is that they only post to provide ‘knocking copy’.
My above answer to Brandon Gates which is here concludes saying
That is also true of Sir Harry Flashman. Time is saved by scrolling past their information-free posts.
Richard
OOPS the link to my above post dis not work. This is it in full
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1838003
Richard
@Socks:
Trolling again, I see.
How many times are you going to ask that stupid question? It has been answered, chapter and verse, but you are still acting like an immature child incessantly asking, “But, why …?”
And of course, the planet is recovering naturally from the LIA. Prove it’s not. The onus is on you.
As usual, you give an an inane answer to the fact that nothing being observed is unprecedented. Apparently that bothers you to the point that you have to give a flippant response. But the fact is that there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. Thus, you lose that particular point.
Your final question is just more pointless, inane nonsense. It makes no sense at all. So, maybe you’re simply off your rocker? From your questions, it appears that way to me.
Finally: show respect, and earn respect, and you will get it. Stopping with your senseless, whiny questions would be a good first step.
“the planet is recovering naturally from the LIA. ”
…
What is the physical process that causes this to happen?
Sockrats:
The late warming trend circa 1977-97 was due to increased insolation via reduced cloud cover as verified by cloud data. Previous warming trends cannot have been AGW because of the too slightly anthropogenic CO2 portion of the atmosphere.
Overall, the Holocene has been coolingthe last 6-8 thousand years.
Wake up and stop wringing your hands over CO2.
Mpainter.
…
The supposed “recovery” from the LIA started around 1850-1900
…
Your “1977-97” claim doesn’t explain the “recovery”
In response to Mr Socrates, the physical process by which global temperatures recovered following the end of the Little Ice Age was the remarkable increase in solar activity, particularly in two periods. First, the 40 years 1695-1745; then the 70 years 1925-1995. See Hathaway (2004) and Solanki (2005) for further details,
A re-assessment of solar activity e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf shows that there has been very little upward trend the past 300 years. In particular, there has not been any ‘Modern Grand Maximum’ higher than activity in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“…The recalibrated Sunspot Number series and a trend-less solar climate forcing (CL2.2) [EGU Vienna April 2015]: the high solar activity of the late 20th century does not exceed the levels of past centuries since the Maunder Minimum anymore, thus questioning the notion of a recent Grand Maximum and calling for redoing many long-term studies and reconstructions published over past years…”.
Sockpuppetrats:
The Little Ice Age was caused by lower solar activity during the Spörer, Maunder & Dalton Minima than before or since. In between those events, the secularly cold LIA enjoyed its warmer, counter-trend cycles. The stage was set for it during the Wolf Minimum, which served to start lowering the higher than present peak temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.
Longer & deeper solar minima during the LIA, followed & preceded by higher levels of insolation & magnetic flux, explain both the recovery since its end & its initiation following the MWP. The early 18th century recovery from the Maunder was more rapid & lasted longer than the late 20th century warming. The LIA was cooler & cloudier than both warm periods before (Medieval) & after (Modern) it.
The same is true of the alteration of warm & cold secular trends ever since the Holocene Optimum & Minoan WP, which was followed by the Greek Dark Ages Cold Period, which was followed by the Roman WP, which was followed by the Dark Ages CP, which preceded the Medieval WP, which preceded the LIA, which preceded the Modern WP. The trend however has been down for 3000 years, as shown in multiple proxy data studies & by soil radionuclides around the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The peak warmth of each WP has been lower than for that which preceded it.
The same pattern is observable in prior interglacials.
Mr Svalgaard makes the interesting point that recent revisions to the “settled science” of the sunspot record no longer make the period from 1925-1975 a solar near-Grand Maximum. However, the naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) must also be taken into account. As the Japanese pyrometer record shows (though not all such records from elsewhere show the same), surface temperature change is preceded by change in the number of sunlight hours at the surface. The clouds (and their interaction with changes in solar activity) may have more to do with changes in surface temperature than CO2 does. See Monckton of Brenchley, 2011, in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Annual Seminars on Planetary Emergencies for 2010, for a discussion. The Chinese ambassador to Italy was present when I gave my paper, and his scientific counsellor sent it to Peking that night. Later I went to Shenzhen to brief Chinese leaders and businessmen on this and other uncertainties in the “settled science”.
Monckton of Brenchley
Many thanks for your promotion of the cloud cover issue. I have been attempting to promote the matter with no success since Pinker et al., published their paper in 2005. For example, in a letter of 3 November 2008 which I provided in reply to questions put to me by US Senator Inhofe I included this
Emphasis added in the above quotation: RSC
I sincerely hope your promotion of this important matter will prove successful.
Richard
Apparently, it seems that the way to deal with the problems of the low clouds is as Monckton to ignore them altogether. Homeopathy: less is more, nothing is best of all.
lsvalgaard
Oh dear! Your comment is another proclamation by you that you don’t understand anything about scientific modeling.
I will explain the issues of cloud cover in climate models for the benefit of onlookers
A model is a simplified representation of reality. I explain this here in this thread.
No model is a complete and perfect representation of reality: if it were complete and perfect then it would be reality and not a model of reality. A model is a simplified representation of reality.
There are many reasons why something is omitted from a model; e.g. it is not known, or its effects are known to be insignificant, or …
A scientific model includes a full explanation of its contents, and anything not included in this explanation is assumed to not be in the model.
Sometimes an effect is known to exist but cannot be modeled (e.g. because its behaviour is not known). When this occurs the modeler has two options; viz.
(a) omit the effect from the model
or
(b) include an erroneous representation of the effect.
There are times when either option may be the more correct but option (a) is usually better. This is because if the effect is known then its magnitude can probably be estimated. Hence, it is possible to estimate the maximum potential error introduced the model by omission of the effect. However, option (b) introduces an error into the model which cannot be estimated and may be larger than the actual effect.
The linked and quoted abstract says the NASA GCM lacks sufficient resolution for it to include correct representation of cloud effects and the abstract says that model includes an incorrect representation of cloud effects.
The abstract I linked and quoted says the NASA GCM includes an effect of cloud cover which is known to introduce an error of unknown magnitude which is probably greater than the effect of GHGs.
The model of Monckton et al. omits the effect of clouds and both I and Monckton have each stated the potential error introduced to that model by this omission.
Clearly, in this case the option chosen by Monckton et al. is preferable because it has quantifiable potential error but the possibly larger error of the NASA GCM is not quantifiable.
The following analogy may help understanding of the issue.
Most people prefer indoor plumbing (cloud effects) to be included in their home (climate model). But they will turn off the indoor plumbing if that plumbing has a leak (fault) which can damage the home.
Richard
Are you still beating that dead horse. Our Standard Models are not simplified in any way, shape, and form. The Models express all we know about how the systems work. We can use the Models to explore things we cannot experience first-hand, like the explosion of a supernova, or the end of the Universe. We can use the Models to explore things that don’t even exist [e.g. no reality].
lsvalgaard
I cannot fathom why you are still choosing to make a fool of yourself.
Models are simplified representations of reality.
As Matthew R Marler explained to you in this thread at January 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm
And at January 17, 2015 at 9:28 pm you wrongly claimed but have yet to retract
Please state what “evidence” you have of things “that don’t even exist [e.g. no reality]” to formulate your “evidence based representation” of them.
Richard
Based on observed evidence we construct a model. The model can then be used to tell us something about things that don’t exist. For example: a prediction of what will happen in the future [or what happened in the past].
lsvalgaard
You said
So I asked you
And you have replied
In other words, you construct a model of what you understand to be reality and use that model to investigate what your understanding of the evolution of reality indicates was and will be the state(s) of reality.
Of course, your model is a simplification because it is constructed from your best understanding of reality so cannot include all the known and unknown complexities of reality.
The model you describe is – as all models are – a simplified representation of reality.
Richard
Many thanks to Mr Courtney for his kind remarks about my work on the connection between variability in cloud cover and variability in temperature. I gave a paper on this topic at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual meeting on planetary emergencies in Sicily in 2910 and the paper was published in the annual proceedings the folloepwing year.
Excellent paper. It must be embarassing to those maintaining their multi-milliuon dollar GCMs, to find that a simple little model like this trumps all their models.
Next, K. Kilty says:
Why didn’t these two admit they either didn’t read the paper or didn’t understand it and leave it at that?
For the same reason that the big money modelers do not do the stand-up thing, and congratulate Lord Monckton et al for their efficient, simple, and accurate improvement. The base nature of those high priests simply doesn’t allow them to congratulate anyone who builds a better mousetrap.
Dbstealey….you ought to thank Monckton for answering the question you have been asking for some time.
…
He has provided you with a measure of AGW
Wrong as usual, socks. Lord M has provided a better model.
I suggest you read his paper……and pay close attention to his acknowledgement of the the role CO2 plays in temperature.
..
He has answered your question………his equation shows you the answer you have been looking for.
…
It’s called “climate sensitivity”
Here is my math model for the earth’s temperature anomoly out to the year 2100.
T = 0 +/- 1.
Let’s see how many AGW types offer congradulations to Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs for producing for sockrats this wonderful evidence of AGW. Sockrats, why don’t you go ahead and be the first?
It is sure looking that way, David Socrates. While you gloat, however, over this subtle-but-definite (if I am not mistaken and I hope I am!) support of AGW’s CO2 conjecture in the course of significantly qualifying what AGWers assert as to intensity,
I feel sick to my stomach…, but I haven’t given up hope!
If you are correct, Mr. Socrates, this is NO way for us Truth in Science warriors to fight a war. Truth, the WHOLE truth, is the only safe ground from which to launch our attacks. Any other ground is just shifting sand.
Perhaps, Christopher, Lord Monckton merely overlooked my question
(here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1837423).
I hope so, for his not answering it is troubling. And if I should not be troubled, dear Lord Monckton, please, help me see why I should not be.
Well, David Socrates, I suggest you read Monckton’s paper, page 128, to be precise, where it says:
*******************************
I still stand by the main point of my comment of 3:25pm today, however. Assuming the opposition’s main thesis, without qualification, effectively adopts, sub silentio, the AGWer’s unsupported speculation about human CO2 emissions. This is no way to win a war.
Lord Monckton’s (et al) equation is a description of reality. It is not reality. See the difference?
Wrong as usual socks, and it gets tiring trying to educates someone with a closed mind.
There are no empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW, because if there were…
…oh, forget it. You wouldn’t understand anyway.
“, and it gets tiring trying to educates someone”
…
English 101 failure…
..
The correct word is “educate” using the plural form indicates you are not well versed in the use of English.
who cares?
I believe you forgot the comma between “educate” & using.
Either that, or you are not well versed….
I note that ‘socks’ has again deflected, by changing the subject. As Tom Trevor says, ‘who cares’? Socks was wrong. That’s why he has nothing left, but to try and attack someone for grammar, or whatever he’s trying to do.
Now, regarding models vs measurements: as I have repeatedly stated, there are no measurements quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human emissions, out of total global warming [AGW and natural].
The lack of any objective, testable, empirical measurements quantifying the human fraction of warming drives the alarmist crowd nuts! They just cannot stand the fact that anyone questions how much — if any — global warming is due to human activity.
They don’t have any real measurements, which means one of two things:
Either AGW is so minuscule that it is below the background noise level, and thus cannot be measured using today’s instruments, or…
AGW does not exist.
I think AGW exists. But based on the total lack of any measurements quantifying AGW, it must be a very small number.
AGW also depends on the current atmospheric concentration of CO2. If CO2 is very low, then global warming from adding more may be enough to measure. But at current concentrations, even adding another 25% – 30% of CO2 will not make any measurable difference in global T.
The real world bears this out. And the lack of any global warming for so many years is the reason that alarmists are going ballistic: they predicted endlessly that a rise in CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But that never happened. In fact, global warming has stopped.
The alarmist Narrative is sinking fast. It has taken five or six torpedoes, and it is going down. And not all the deflection, obfuscation or changing the subject will rescue them from total embarrassment, as the public decisively turns on them.
They are toast. That explains the immaturity and tone of Socks’s comments.
Poor Socks! He’s been studying so hard how CO_2 gives the Earth a FEVAH(!), I’ll bet he didn’t know he could save up to 15% with a fifteen minute call.
Tsk tsk tsk…
…
Dbstealey doesn’t even read Monckton’s paper
..
“the simple model determines the approximate fraction of the 0.8 K observed global warming since 1850 that was anthropogenic as 78 %”
…
On page 130
Babsy
..
Cheerleaders for a team have never added a point to the score their team has earned.
Mr Socrates has incompletely and thus misleadingly quoted our paper. We made it plain that, depending on the assumptions used, it was possible that less than half the warming since 1959 was anthropogenic.
Thank you, Lord M.
Socks will never understand, for whatever reason. But you’ve made your position clear to most readers and we appreciate it.
Excellent model, too. It adds to our understanding; always a good thing. It is certainly better than what the IPCC uses. Really, you should be paid with some of the loot they waste on GCMs. It would be money better spent.
PS…..what physical process is involved with “recovering” from the LIA?
Oh, brother, Socrates.
Answer: the same physical processes that caused the Medieval Warm Period.
[facepalm]
Hey Janice Moore
Tell all of us what physical process caused the MWP.
Janice, don’t rise to the troll bait. If anyone knew the answer to that question we would be on to discussing other issues.
And socks, note the word: “model”.
Dbstealey…
…
If you want an answer to your question about AGW, I suggest you ask the great and powerful Wizard of Brenchley……because he knows more about it than you do.
…
So, the answer according to him…..is 78%
And Janice……
…
Your MWP…..was it global?….The jury is out on that question no?
And the absolute answer is
“Yes. The answer has been returned.”
“Yes. The Medieval Warming Period was global in scope and duration.
The subsequent Little Ice Age was global in scope and duration.
”
We are, however, fortunate that we are finally,naturally crawling out of the Little Ice Age towards more productive times. Although the CAGW religion is determined also to kill as many as possible, and force the remainder to live shorter lives in squalid unheated unlit misery in poverty and disease.
Janice, he’s a troll. Don’t respond.
And he still doesn’t understand the difference between a model and a measurement.
Go argue with Monckton………He’s much more knowledgeable about AGW than you
Well, LOL, Dave, I, — lol AGAIN, heh, — I just got here and saw your wise admonition to ignore Socrates. I am grateful for you, Stealey! I WOULD have, but for you!
#(:))
He serves up such big fat soft pitches that it is pretty hard to just let them slide on past, over the plate, into catcher’s mitt. And I don’t like walking…, but, I will.
Well, he can’t do any harm, at least not with what he’s muttering about at the moment.
P.S. (in a whisper) You know what I think… I think Mosher and Socrates and Gates are the same guy adopting a different persona for each, e.g., Gates gets pretty uptight about “Berkeley.” What?! Mosher is acting just like he really IS???
RACookPE1978
…
In your world the jury has returned a verdict. However, in the real world, I doubt you can point to an accepted reconstruction that shows it was global in scope. Was it regional? Yup. Did it occur in geographically dispersed areas? Yup… Did it occur in geographically dispersed areas in synchrony? ….Nope.
As I have said, the jury is still out on that.
..
I also ask you what is the physical process behind “naturally crawling out of ?????
This is the principal reason I can’t take this site seriously – the utter conviction with which commenters and posters proclaim to have received truth about things that remain massively uncertain, and in some cases are almost certainly wrong. Ironically, this is precisely what they claim AGW proponents are doing.
David Socrates.
Getting warmer between 600 and 710.
Getting warmer between 710 and 810.
Getting warmer between 810 and 910.
Getting warmer between 910 and 1010.
Getting warmer between 1010 and 1110.
Getting warmer between 1110 and 1210.
Getting warmer between 1650 and 1710.
Getting warmer between 1710 and 1810.
Getting warmer between 1810 and 1910.
Getting warmer between 1910 and 2010.
Getting warmer between 1650 and 2015. It is natural. If any is anthropogenic, and some part of the warming may well be anthropogenic, no one has stated what part is anthropogenic.
I stated yesterday that we do not know the reason the earth cooled and warmed before, and today’s theories fail to explain ANY recent rise and fall of global average temperatures.
Sir Harry Flashman
…
You have to admit that at times this site can be entertaining. Humorous in fact.
“Getting warmer” is not a physical process.
..
Again, can you tell me what physical process cause it to “get warmer?”
I stated yesterday that we do not know the reason the earth cooled and warmed before, and today’s theories fail to explain ANY recent rise and fall of global average temperatures.
1. I stated few minutes ago above that we do not know what caused that warming. I stated yesterday, and several times before that, that we do not know what caused that warming. Many readers here have stated we do not know what caused the warming.
It is NOT a problem nor hypocritical to state “We do not know.” it is, rather, honest.
It is dishonest to claim a cause without reason nor evidence. It is murder to claim a false cause that that, by artificially and deliberately limiting energy and deliberately raising energy prices, will kill millions and harm billions more over the next 85 years.
2. Because your CAGW religion cannot tolerate a recent change to global average temperature NOT caused by man-released CO2, Mann was rewarded so vigorously, and Mann’s hockey Stick was promoted so desperately for the simple reason BECAUSE it removed the Inconvenient Truths of recent global warming and recent global cooling several centuries BEFORE man’s release oif CO2.
If you do not know why it is getting warmer, then how can you possibly say we ” “naturally crawling out of…” anything.
…
If you don’t know, please don’t use the word “naturally”
” deliberately limiting energy ” ……strawman….that has nothing to do with global T
…
” deliberately raising energy prices,” another strawman…..has nothing to do with global T
…
” will kill millions and harm billions more over the next 85 years.” What is the make and model of your crystal ball? Are your predictions based on a computer model?
..
“Mann was rewarded ” What does he have to do with “naturally crawling??????”
…
Do you realize that political science has very little to do with real science? Do you know the difference between the two? I don’t think so.
” deliberately limiting energy ” ……strawman….that has nothing to do with global T
WRONG, [trimmed]! It is the CENTRAL TENET in your religion! The Earth has a FEVAH and the ONLY way to stop it is by a reduction of the POLLUTING GAS, Carbon Dioxide, by the world’s governments! Thanks, for playing, Champ!
Oh, that’s easy! It’s CO_2, the Magic Gas! There ain’t NUFFIN it can’t do! What did I win?
“Buffalo Breath”
…
Name calling is frowned upon, and is nothing more than an ad-hom technique used by someone that can’t argue the facts.
..
“limiting energy” is not a part of the hypothesis put forth by Svante Arrhenius over 115 years ago.
,,,
You can expand energy consumption for example by using solar, wind and nuclear.
…
Do you understand the difference between “science” and “political science?”
..
No. I live with my parents in their basement. I’m very shy and don’t get out much except sometimes they take me for ice cream.
SHFlashman and socks,
Since you don’t like it here, and never have anything positive to say, why don’t you both just get lost?
Who needs site pests? We have enough as it it. Most of us just want to discuss facts. Not you. You would rather be a crybaby over being called a name. It’s not the first time. Try putting your too-sensitive ego aside. This is the internet. Discuss science instead. In fact, why not limit your comments to verifiable, empirical facts?
If you did that, you would not have much to say, isn’t that true?
Go ahead. Try it.
The planet is recovering from the LIA. Naturally.
It is the alarmist crowd that has the onus in this debate. YOU were the ones claiming that “unnatural” emissions are changing the climate. So the onus is on you to support that, and to fend off any attacks by skeptics.
You have failed. There is nothing unusual happening. There is nothing unprecdedented happening. Everything we observe is well within past *natural* parameters — EVERYTHING.
Therefore, your cAGW scare fails. QED
Because there are a few people on this site who retain some vestige of objectivity and critical thinking ability, and they may be worth talking to. Anyway, it would be easy enough to block me if I’m disrupting the echo chamber; but I reckon all this name-calling and piling-on drives valuable eyeballs.
“why don’t you both just get lost? ”
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/.
“Respect is given to those with manners”
….
“The planet is recovering from the LIA. Naturally.”
..
You have not explained exactly what physical process is the cause for the “recovery”
..
” There is nothing unprecdedented happening.”
..
There has never been a biological organism on this planet that was able to dig down thru 2 or more miles of rock to extract and burn the sequestered carbon. THAT is truly unprecedented.
…
” Discuss science instead ”
…
Good!!!!
Explain to us why….” those of us up to speed on the subject know that global temperature (T) rises or falls the most at night,”
…
You said it, now what is the “science” behind your statement???
D. Sockrates,
Trolling again, I see.
How many times are you going to ask that same ridiculous question? It has been answered, chapter and verse, but you are still acting like an immature child incessantly asking, “But, why …?”
And of course, the planet is recovering naturally from the LIA. Prove it’s not. The onus is on you, because CAGW is your conjecture. But it has been decisively falsified. Why do you keep fighting your losing battle? You lost the debate. CAGW is evidence-free nonsense.
As usual, you give an an inane answer to the fact that nothing being observed is unprecedented. Apparently that bothers you to the point that you have to give that flippant response. But the fact is that there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. Thus, you lose that particular point. Don’t you? If you thought you could refute it, surely you would at least try. But, no. You lose the point because of your non-answer.
Your final question is even more pointless, childish nonsense. It is wrong. It makes no sense at all. Are you simply nuts? That would explain it. From your incessant questions, it appears that way.
Finally: show respect; earn respect, and you will get it back. Stop with your senseless, whiny questions — that would be a good first step for you. You complain, but your own thread-jacking violates the rules here as much as anything. So man up, and defend your position here if you can. So far that has been impossible for you, so you deflect, and you change the subject, and you complain like a child. Everyone sees it, except maybe you.
You lost the debate, so you are lashing out and being a crybaby. Instead, try to act like a skeptic: the facts simply do not support your conjecture, so just re-assess. That is what a skeptic would do. You were wrong about your ‘carbon’ scare. So admit it, otherwise you look more than a little bit crazy.
Finally, socks says:
Go argue with Monckton………He’s much more knowledgeable about AGW than you
And both of us are much more knowledgeable than mr socks is. All sox is good for is asking inane, pointless questions repeatedly, and for running interference. He’s pretty good at those two things. But climate knowledge? He has a lot to learn.
You can tell we’re on to something when socksgate shows up! LOL!
Thank you, Janice.
He’s like a little kid who craves attention:
“But why …?” etc., etc., &etc.
My pleasure, Mr. Stealey. Thanks for your kind acknowledgement.
Downloaded and studied the simple model. Ran a few calculations, and have some interesting observations. First, thanks for the clear equation derivation and bounded parameter derivations (most from AR4 and AR5, so not quibbleable by warmunists- clever).
Second, the model can be backfit to the several recent observational energy budget approaches estimating TCR and ECS. My prefered paper is Lewis and Curry, TCR~1.3, ECS ~1.7, giving the simple model r transience ~ (1.3/1.7) = 0.76. That foots well with paper table 2 with f < 0.5 for time scales of a few centuries.
Third, it is possible to delve into AR4 and AR5 feedbacks at an observational level. Doing so shows gross selection bias by the IPCC. When surveying all the relevant literature, it appears reducing the positive water feedback by about half, and resetting the positive cloud feedback to zero or slightly negative, are observationally justified. AR4 details in the climate chapter of my book The Arts of Truth, and AR4/ AR5 in several essays in newest book Blowing Smoke. Together, these suggest an f~ 0.3 ( after L&C, ~ 0.25). Derived from Lindzens 1/(1-f) version of sensitivity explicitly in The Arts of Truth. Those values also foot well to the curves in paper figure 5. Higher than the posited f=0.1 max stable, but obviously still well behaved and "stable" even though not in that figures asserted "stable" zone. Just look at the figure.
So my only quibble with this paper is the figure 5 shaded stable zone. It would have been better to use the entire roughly linear portion of the curve out to ~0.5, or (to be risque, the inflection point at ~0.75). Otherwise, everything here can be footed to much other stuff. Instead of 1.0C for RCP6, you get maybe 1.7C with r=0.75 and f= 0.25-0.3. So what, as the higher value is not a problem for the planet. Remember, 2C from 1850 was an arbitrary Schellenhuber fiction done for political communication reasons, as he himself proudly proclaimed.
Again, thanks for the clear derivation and nifty new tool. This comment is simply trying to foot it to much else.
Mr Rud Istvan has done what we hope many scientists will now do: he has run the simple model for himself and has, in minutes, been able to draw some very interesting conclusions. We have taken climate sensitivity modelling out of the temple of the Archdruids and made it accessible to all.
I should be thanking you, not vise versa. Highest regards from someone who took a different approach, yet reached similar ‘truth’ conclusions. Explained in the books.
Thanks Rud. You’ve done what all the above trolls should have, wish they could have, or simply refuse to do.
The trolls, of course, miss the point entirely — the super-computer-byte-gobbling “models” don’t even do as well as a simple but solid equation. The real climate won’t conform to a simple equation, but that’s the point — how can such an equation do better than billion-dollar models running on megawatt-sucking supercomputers?
The Callender posts over at ClimateAudit demonstrated the same thing.
Nice work but I can’t get the web site your article is posted on – each time I try it gives me an error message. Periodically I have called for abolition of climate modeling based on their performance. They were introduced by Hansen in 1988 and his predictions were all wrong. They have not improved in 26 years meaning that none of them are any good, a reason for dumping them. Your work shows just how they got that way. Your first three points deal with feedbacks and you are on the right track but you don’t go far enough. There is no feedback, period, not even a “..new, lower feedback…” from the IPCC that counts. This follows from the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT) and from existence of the hiatus/pause.The hiatus by itself nullifies the validity of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, still used by the IPCC, and written into their model code. According to MGT carbon dioxide and water vapor form a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. if you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just like Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as it happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC claim that water vapor triples Arrhenius warming. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor will keep the total absorption constant and no warming is possible. It is this warming that is prevented from happening by reduction of water vapor that would have been called greenhouse warming, the foundation stone of the alleged anthropogenic global warming. With that, AGW is proved to be nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to support their sagging greenhouse hypothesis. The huge sums of money used to fight it are a total waste. Any projects set up yo fight AGW should be defunded and the employees fired. In case you don’t think it possible, Richard Nixon fired ten thousand people when he cancelled the last three moon shots.
Mr. Arrak,
Several of us read Monckton, et. al. (2015) via Paul C’s link here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1836916
The lyrics from the Shaker song “Simple Gifts” seem appropriate here:
In my book this is not a ‘model’, but just an exercise in irreducible curve fitting. The real climate models solve the governing equations that describe the physics [as we know it] on a fine grid of points across the globe with a time resolution of minutes and integrate the system of equations forwards in time. This is hard to do and they have evidently failed, so far. Curve fitting is easy and always works, but has no predictive value. People who fall for this and believe otherwise are just suffering from confirmation bias.
Dr. Svalgaard,
If you have the time, would you please reconcile (with your view stated at 4:44pm today) or explain your view vis a vis this comment by Johanus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1837394.
Thanks!
Janice
That is just hand waving fluff [with its categorical ‘all’]. Thus has no bearing on my comment, nor on Mr Monckton’s [as far as I can see]
In my book a “scientific model” is nothing more than a simplified version of reality. It does not have to be a complex computer code with fine grid points, but can be any kind of cognitive activity which makes some part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate. Models do not have to ‘predict’ the future. An ‘explanation’ of the past or present is equally useful.
So, in that sense, Monckton’s equation (below) is a very simple but useful scientific model, which explains why IPCC models run “hot” by computing the expected temperature response (ΔTt) to anthropogenic radiative forcings and consequent temperature feedbacks over any given period of years t, given the same anthropogenic forcings used by the more complex IPCC models. The correctness of this equation is elaborated in detail in the paper.
http://i57.tinypic.com/24vuycn.jpg
Most grateful to Johanus for his perceptive comment on the simplicity and utility of ours model.
Yes, indeed, thank you, Johanus, for your helpful response.
Read the paper. First we constructed the model. Then we ran it. It tracked observation better than any of the GCMs, first time. There was no curve-fitting, Any fool can do that, and with the tough reviewers we had the paper would not have survived if we had merely resorted to curve-fitting, less U generosity of spirit, please,
I’t is irritating that comments appear in random positions. My remark about curve-fitting was directed to Mr Svalgaard but has appeared out of sequence,
Can you post the computer code you used to “run” the model?
That is because you don’t know how to use a computer
The paper states “The simple model has only five tunable parameters”. Recall what von Neumann admonished us: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
Monckton,
Your comment has not appeared out of sequence.
Note the indents associated with the comments/replys. There were two Replies to Svalgaard & four intermidiate replies to those two Replies. Your Reply was the third.
… as of the Time stamp on this reply. There may be more Replies and intermediate replies before you read this (if you read this).
socrates says:
That is because you don’t know how to use a computer
That was directed at Lord Monckton??
Some folks are bigger fools/tools than we give them credit for. Lord M is a published mathemetician, thus he probably knows far more than you do about computers. So could you please take your ad-hom insults elsewhere, maybe to hotwhopper or a similar blog?
They would appereciate it. We don’t. ‘K thx bye.
Mr Socrates (below), a regular and silly troll here, whines that I have not produced any computer code because I do not know how to use a computer. The same remark might reply equally to him. The equations in the paper – which he has plainly neither read nor understood – are not particularly difficult to understand with a little effort, and, as more constructive commenters here have discovered by experiment, they can program even simple calculators to run the model – which was precisely the intention. The inference from Mr Socrates’ whining is that he is not only unable to operate a computer but even has difficulty with a pocket calculator. Or is it that he is paid to troll here? Certainly his points are not very grown up,
lsvalgaard
January 16, 2015 at 7:33 pm
The paper states “The simple model has only five tunable parameters”. Recall what von Neumann admonished us: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”
====
..and with a GCM I can make it dress in drag and lip sinc to Donna Summer
It worked [got what you desired] the first time. So you never tested it with other parameter sets? Never did a parameter sensitivity analysis? When you said ‘tracked observation’ that implies there was a ‘track’, a curve that could be plotted revealing the track. Show us that curve. And show us the ‘tough’ review reports.
Mr Svalgaard persists in complaining that we did not test the model more than we did. With his customary nastiness he says this was because we got the results we wanted first time. Don’t be childish. We ran two detailed calibration tests, one to replicate a result published by IPCC, which used IPCC’s parameter value,ps, and another to compare the model with observed temperature change since 1850. The forcing value was calculated from the observed increase in CO2 concentration, not picked by us. Perhaps Mr Svalgaard would like to try reading the paper before commenting on it,
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
Thank you for taking the time to write to waft away (heh) Johanus. I write again with great hesitation, for I barely understand what I am talking about, but, I have to say that Johanus’ comment just below this (at 6:15pm) is, in spite of your wafting, highly persuasive to me. I realize that I do not have the knowledge to intelligently discern, here. In fact, my grasp of the topic is so rudimentary that I feel kind of sheepish even trying to ask, BUT I AM ANYWAY!
#(:))
Okay. I’m finally asking my question:
Given: there is no evidence proving
(I don’t deny that there is laboratory chemistry to indicate the theoretical possibility under laboratory conditions)
human CO2 emissions drive any climate effects
(and also, given that ice core proxies offer strong indication that CO2 lags temp. by a quarter cycle, per Salby)
Q: Do you think there is a significant
(or highly likely or some other way of stating a confidence level)
possibility that the main reason that the IPCC’s models fail is because their assumptions about/assigned values for CO2 sensitivity are grossly in error?
Your Intro to Science Student,
Janice
The failure of the IPCC models is IMHO opinion due to that we don’t know how the climate works in enough detail on the small scales [e.g. clouds] to be able to model it applying the relevant physics. This is even more true of simple-minded curve fitting a la Monckton. His refusal to apply his ‘model’ to the climate since [say] 1850 speaks volumes. Einstein once said that one should make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. Now, it is Monckton’s prerogative to be wrong, and I will defend his right to be so. Bottom line: I’m not impressed. The paper does not pass the smell test, but, hey, most papers don’t, peer-reviewed or not [weren’t Mann’s and Hansen’s papers peer-reviewed as well].
Thank you, very much, Dr. Svalgaard, both for the thoughtful and well-informed answer and for the boost your bothering to reply gave to my self-esteem.
Janice
Janice Moore and lsvalgaard
I strongly agree with Leif when he says
However, the IPCC models (i.e.CMIP5 models) are also “simple-minded curve fitting” because they utilise completely arbitrary aerosol forcing to force a fit between model-derived temperature time series and measured time series of global temperature. See this Fig.2 from Kiehl’s paper.
The fact is that the Monckton et al. model manages to hindcast better than the IPCC models while using lower climate sensitivity. This demonstrates that there is no reason to trust the IPCC projections based on higher climate sensitivity although – as Leif says – whether the Monckton et al. model proves to be a better forecaster remains to be seen.
Richard
Mr Svalgaard (below) says I have “refused” to apply the simple climate model as far back as 1850. Since the model is specifically designed to address the effects on temperature of anthropogenic CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere, which were negligible till 1950 and near-non-existent in 1850, this crass statement of his shows that he has not read the paper before choosing to snipe at it in a characteristically petty and unconstructive fashion. Do grow up.
Isvalgaard:
What you say about understanding and modeling the detail is true. However, this is very difficult. From other fields, it is very difficult to produce an animation of waves breaking on a beach that looks realistic; it is only recently with high speed photography that we can model the movements of a bird’s wings. In the Earth Sciences, key processes, even though they are well understood are difficult to model – porosity in a petroleum reservoir comes to mind. How is this addressed? Collect a lot of detailed data and force the model to honor the data. This will tend to make up for deficiencies in the model. As one professor taught me – all models are wrong! – there is no such thing as a perfect gas, an inelastic solid, or a rigid body!
The reason the models fail is not necessarily because the models are wrong. It is because most of the measurements are too sparse. Without good finely spaced data, the models are just glorified video games, and also have no predictive value. Collecting data in the Earth Sciences is expensive. It oil companies could get away with running models on a sparse grid instead of collecting more data, they would.
Walt, thanks for the help, but (see Bob Tisdale’s book: Climate Models Fail) the GCM’s can’t even hindcast.
Walt,
You may find this interesting (if you missed this when it first appeared on WUWT): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/.
Not that it directly speaks to your point about sparse data, but quite illuminating!
Thanks again for responding. Being ignored here today makes me so grateful for those of you who have considered me of high enough worth that I merit a response.
Janice
If the models fail, they are wrong.
And where is the ‘good finely spaced data’ that validates Monckton’s ireducible simple-minded ‘model’. To me it smacks of homeopathy: the less data, the better.
One reason why the models are wrong is that they are using incorrect physics. The Bode system gain equation, for instance, is inapplicable to a climate with strong net-positive feedbacks, and strong net-positive feedbacks are in any event contra-indicated by the paseo-temperature record.
Janice: “The GCM’s can’t even hindcast”.
You’ve heard of “20/20 Hindsight”?
Here we have “Legally Blind Hindsight”.
To quote a baseball metaphor -“They couldn’t get to first base even if they were walked”.
“You may find this interesting (if you missed this when it first appeared on WUWT): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/.”
Janice – I am aware of this. One of the reasons that the same code gave different answers on different machines is that the arithmetic on different machines has different accuracy.
The key problem was that when the were computing scalar products (dot products), the were summing series with alternating signs. This produces numerical instability.(You can see this effect by trying to calculate exp(-x) using a power series where terms are rounded to six decimal places at each step of the calculation).
The scientists at Lawrence Berkeley developed code (ARPREC) which uses arbitrary precision arithmetic. This solved the numerical problem – in other words, the same code gave the same answer when run on different computers. (Whether or not they all told the truth or just told the same lies is up for discussion.) Needless to say, the paper that describes this (it only really mentions Climate Models in passing) is no longer available on line.
While this is in response to you, Walt D., I write here mainly for other readers just to correct any potential misimpression created by your focus on the floating point math issues of the GCM software discussed on the thread (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/)
I cited above.
The MAIN point that was made (along with an exceptionally fine discussion of math and computers, IEEE standards, etc…) was summarized nicely by Brian H in his comment of July 28, 2013, 12:22pm (here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/#comment-1373459) on that thread:
(emphasis mine)
Janice: Here is the article, from 2000, I was referring to: “Using accurate arithmetics to improve numerical reproducibility and stability in parallel applications ”
Yun He, Chris H. Q. Ding
Published in: Proceeding
ICS ’00 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Supercomputing
Pages 225-234
ACM New York, NY, USA ©2000
table of contents ISBN:1-58113-270-0 doi>10.1145/335231.335253
you can find it here.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=335253
It identifies very serious numerical problems with the climate models prior to 2000.
Thank you, Walt D..
And, just to close the loop, here is the link to the abstract (and also where one can purchase the paper) of the paper discussed in the thread I linked to about GCM software:
Song-You Hong, Myung-Seo Koo, Jihyeon Jang, Jung-Eun Esther Kim, Hoon Park, Min-Su Joh, Ji-Hoon Kang, and Tae-Jin Oh, 2013: An Evaluation of the Software System Dependency of a Global Atmospheric Model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 4165–4172.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00352.1
Leif Svalgaard: Curve fitting is easy and always works, but has no predictive value.
Curve fitting sometimes works, but can’t be relied upon until the resultant model has been tested against out of sample data. Successful curve-fitting can be used by others in deriving or validating more complex models, as when Kepler influenced Newton. They are not the only examples. We shall have to wait and see whether their model fits subsequent data.
Curve fitting might work in extremely simple situations, which does not describe our complex climate system. Of course, my comment had to be seen in that context. Kepler’s curve fitting was not curve fitting in this sense, but was simply a construction of the orbit based on observations, not trying specifically to fit a model [he had a model, but it was completely wrong http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/kepler.html ]
We shall have to wait and see whether their model fits subsequent data
The authors are not that humble [as they should be], but baselessly and brazenly bassoon that their model already demonstrates its worth. As you point out, it does not.
Ms Svalgaard is unscientific in repeating that our simple model is a curve-fitting exercise. I have already explained that there was no curve-fitting. Besides, depending on the choice of parameter values, it is possible to replicate the IPCC’s results, as the paper makes clear. That is how we calibrated the model. Does Mr Scalgaard bear some sort of a grudge?
Mr Svalgaard (below) says we baselessly but brazenly bassoon that our model already demonstrates its worth. Read the paper before sneering about it. What we actually say is that the simple model has its limitations, but it has its uses too. We also make it explicit that the new model – for obvious reasons – is not a substitute for more complex models. However, the first time we ran it with parameter values that seemed to us to be reasonable and proportionate, for reasons explained in the paper, it correctly back cast recent observed temperature change. We thin our model may well prove closer to the mark on climate sensitivity than the complex models in future decades. But, as with all predictions, only time will tell.
lsvalgaard: [he had a model, but it was completely wrong http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/kepler.html ]
The model that he started with was wrong. After he conjectured that the paths might be ellipses, he calculated parameter values that yielded the paths approximately as modeled values. As he became more confident in his modeling results, generalizing from planet to planet, he became less rigorous in checking the procedure.
Kepler observed [by plotting out the orbit from Tycho’s observations] that the orbit of Mars was an ellipse. No concept here of introducing a ‘model’.
lsvalgaard: Kepler observed [by plotting out the orbit from Tycho’s observations] that the orbit of Mars was an ellipse. No concept here of introducing a ‘model’.
Are you asserting that an ellipse is not a model? Or that something that looks like an ellipse is an ellipse because it looks like one? Kepler confirmed by calculating model values that the observations were closely approximated by the computations from the mathematical ellipse.
No, Kepler did not ‘confirm’ the model that the orbits were ellipses. He discovered that fact, grudgingly.
lsvalgaard:No, Kepler did not ‘confirm’ the model that the orbits were ellipses. He discovered that fact, grudgingly.
Are you sure that you know about this? Kepler certainly did the computations necessary to confirm that the planets had ellipsoidal orbits, once he adduced that they might..
Leif Svalgaard, you quoted the following and linked to a cite that had it:A ‘model’ is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly.
It seems to me that you are not adhering to that definition, but adding and subtracting from it as you go along, as with your claim that the “Standard Model” is not a model because it is not a simplification of a more complex model, and your claim that the Monckton et al model is not a model because it entails “curve fitting”. Neither of those narrowings is actually part of the definition.
The real climate models solve the governing equations that describe the physics [as we know it] on a fine grid of points across the globe with a time resolution of minutes and integrate the system of equations forwards in time.
OK, but the definition of model does not require that a model solve governing equations.
You have some things backwards. The Standard Model is not a simplification of nature. It is nature’s reality: http://www.stfc.ac.uk/images/web/1297_web_1.png where is the ‘simplification’ of a more complex reality? In fact, earlier versions of the Standard Model were much more complex, with hundreds of different particles, and several fundamentally distinct forces, which if ‘models are simplifications of reality’ imply that reality is even more complex. E.g. there was a magnetic force and an electric force and a weak force. The modern Standard Model show that reality is simpler than the earlier models by showing that those forces are just different aspects of the same underlying force, so reality turned out to be simpler than our models. Thus it is not a characteristic of a model to be a simplification of reality, often it is the other way around. Now, we can, for other purposes, e.g. educational, choose to construct a simplified model, that is a completely different issue.
Yet the standard model equation cannot yet reconcile gravity with the other forces. Like all models, it’ll the standard model is not a complete description of reality, and would not be even if gravity were eventually unified with the other forces.
Leif Svalgaard: The Standard Model is not a simplification of nature. It is nature’s reality:
Yes ! You got it !
As always, anything I say has the caveat ] ‘as far as we know’.
As in the past, we have always found that reality is simpler than our models. It is very likely that when we figure out how to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity it will be within an even simpler underlying reality.
For those having trouble with the link!
The hyperlink in the original post is bad. Here is the correct link:
http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
That page includes a link to a PDF of the paper. However, it generates a file named simply “Why”. You can rename that file, if you like, and give it a PDF extension. But here is a direct link to another PDF of the paper:
http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf
Either route should get you a PDF file of 1,546,492 bytes. It is, by the way, a very well-made PDF.
Why has this so called “model”, like the rest of them, failed to forecast the lack of warming for the past 2 decades?
Does this model, include and predict the formation and effects of key climate negative feedbacks such as thunderstorms for example? I think not. It is not a model. It is just a simple formula. GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out).
Just like the ill-fated Evans’ Notch ‘model’ so applauded by Monckton. Perhaps Monckton could comment on how those two ‘models’ support each other… What their common physics is…
Mr Svalgaard, as so often these days, is being petty and unscientific. The timescale for Dr Evans’ predictions is nowhere near past, so there is no basis in observation for the suggestion that his proposed model is “ill-fated”. A more adult, objective approach would surely be preferable.
You fail to comment on the support [or lack thereof] of your ‘model’ and the ill-fated Evan’s Notch theory [an example of GIGO], and instead resort to more ad-homs [as per your M.O].
Mr Svalgaard continues to be petty and unscientific. Only time will tell whether there is “support” for our model. Only time will tell whether Dr Evans’ model is “I’ll-fated”. Wait and see, and don’t prejudge these matters. No scientist would behave as you are behaving here.
You persist in non-responsive and vacuous commentary and continue to evade my very reasonable requests. An honest scientist would do his utmost to respond to such in a substantive way.
What requests?
This is a big reason there should have been a computer-code “instantiation” – a basic but real “program” – written by the authors of this paper: Code makes it a lot clearer whether an analysis is successfully modelling, or is merely formulaic.
Repeatedly advising various people inquiring about such code (which is a leading claim of the project and its authors) to RTFM could be tacit recognition that this is not a model.
Additionally, an implied expectation that every person reading a given set of parameter-descriptions will write the same code, also suggests a formula, and not a model.
The ocean-heat anecdote Monckton mentions, and the use of an open array is favorable, but millions of spreadsheets use the same array technique, and are pure formulas.
Mr Clayton seems not to have grasped that a model need not be complex to be a model. And several commenters here have had no difficulty in writing the simple code that is required, or in simply using a pocket calculator. Stop whining.
Mr Clayton also appears unaware that a model may be represented by code written in different ways that nevertheless generate the same results if the same parameter values are used.
Try reading the paper before commenting on it.
I came to the topic of models & modelling, when the instantiation method in vogue was the vacuum tube (British “valve”) Operational Amplifier. A dominant sub-current of tension among practitioners pitted Single-Amp versus Multi-Amp (often single vs multi tube) circuit-design camps against each other. (Quasi-religious circuit-complexity tensions had predated OpAmps, and their use in modelling, and this had probably continued/spilled over into the new modelling-venue/application.)
Models that run on a single tube (or transistor) based opamp, are (thus) by definition encapsulated within a single (mathematical) “operation”.
The operation implemented by an opamp (speaking here of esp. ‘homemade’ or bread-boarded or ‘(lab)-bench-amps’, which would be the norm in modelling-research), can be highly specific and “tuned” (in the vernacular of our current discussion). They combine an explicit “formula” or “calculation”, with a robust model-analogy. In one & the same package.
A model, under this simplicity-driven paradigm, is said to be “reduced”. Workers then seek (compete) to create (or at least claim) an “irreducible” model, which of course is the characterization applied in Monckton et al.
When using an electronic (analog) circuit to model (reduced or irreducible) medical or biological or climate questions, the difference between the mathematical operation (or formula) and the intended model-analogy is explicit. It is the circuit itself that ‘enforces’ the distinction between the two components of the formula-analogy dualism.
Thus, it was imperative that one publish his opamp circuit design, alongside his model-proposal. Today, we achieve the same necessary dualism-explication goal, by writing an example-program, which exposes the model, and clarifies the formula-model distinction.
Our model, when reasonable and scientifically justifiable parameter values are adopted as explained and justified carefully in the paper, comes visibly closer to observed temperature change than the more complex models. If you want perfection, pray.
“Tony” should appreciate that our model has come far closer to predicting outturn than the general-circulation models.
The model is capable of encompassing any feedback sum, net-positive, net-zero or net-negative.
and to fitting to any curve.
Mr Svalgaard continues childishly to repeat himself. As a scientist would know, a model is not a curve-fitting exercise. Nor, in making our own best estimate of anthropogenic warming using the model, did we use curve fitting to choose the parameter values before the model run. We chose the parameter values, ran the model and found that the output was far closer to observation than the GCMs. A scientist would know that that is nit curve-fitting. A bearer of grudges would, however, continue in the teeth of the evidence to assert tha we had indulged in mere cypurve fitting. That would not have passed oeer review,
Repetition seems to be necessary to coax any responsive comments from you. So, show us the ‘first’ try computed curve that “tracked” the observations. This is a very reasonable request that you could easily comply with. Failure to do so would count very strongly against any interest in your musings.
Mr Svalgaard should have read the paper before commenting on it.
There is a long running and pointless argument about this effort being a model or just a formula. Here is a formula and a model E=IR. Yes, Ohm’s law. As a model it isn’t correct in any detail. It assumes a linear relationship. It’s formulaic. Is it useful? I cannot imagine doing electronics without it. So, the model in this paper is too simple to be correct in the details. Fine. But is it useful?
I would say that it is, seeing that its point is, according to the authors themselves, to 1) demystify a complex topic, 2) illuminate the climate forcing at issue in the debate, and 3) allow one to play with feedback and learn why certain values of feedback are non-credible or even non-physical. A full climate model would do a very poor job of illustrating such things–like using a searchlight to read a book. Even climate models that happened to be very accurate would do a poor job of this and we have no such accurate models at present. I believe that the arguments made though it regarding feedback are pertinent–and I do not say so because I have questioned the positive feedback issue for twenty years, but because explaining how a system with large positive feedback is not driven to the rails, as the authors say, is essential to the credibility of estimates of sensitivity.
Then someone just above asked why this model could not explain the hiatus or even map climate history forward from 1850 to today. The answer is that it is not constructed to do so and was not its purpose. The authors stated clearly that it is not a global climate model. Look, if someone tells me they have a widget that will do X and Y but not Z, I don’t judge their efforts by insisting it do Z and harping on the failure. It’s like insisting that Ohm’s law is deficient because it cannot tell us what R should be in arbitrary circumstances.
If models were really being used, they would be built from fundamentals. Most of the science relating to climate is unknown, such as cloud formation. This makes it impossible to build a true model. Moreover the grid size used in the finite element approximations is so large as to exclude even major climate components such as thunderstorms. Imagine designing a bridge using FEM where the elements were bigger than the bridge itself!
Climate “models” are hence not real models of any sort. They aresimply black boxes with enough variables to do historical curve fitting, and include the unverified T=Fn(CO2), in order to support the theory they are built for. Pure GIGO.
Tony implies we used curve fitting. We did no such thing. Our model is a much simplified representation of the current state of climate physics. Time will tell whether it works better than GCMs.
I would define E= IR as both a definition and a predictive model. I believe you’ve written the same thing using slightly different wording.
Hey, Leif, Ted, et al. First, you all whine about providing code when I have already run the simple paper equation multiple times on an HP 12c…without even programing same. Trust me, I have programmed that ancient device to do more commodities trading stuff than most here could ever imagine. Just multiplying stuff does not require any programming at all…unless you want to explore the resultant space. I suggest you take some remedial math stuff.
Second, the parameteriztion is more important than the trivial code doing the computatioms. That was, I think, the core of their paper, and where I ‘disagreed’ on r and f. Only a little bit.
So either show up as competent, or get out of here permanently. Please.
I did not ask for the code. I couldn’t care less. Curve fitting is curve fitting is curve fitting. No stinking code needed.
In reply to Mr Svalgaard, we did no, repeat no, curve fitting. The paper would not have passed stringent peer review if that was all we had done. Please read the paper and think before commenting.
Santer once used this same argument with McIntyre.
The code was trivial, write it yourself.
Of course we were all of one voice.
Show your work.
A paper advertises the work.
Is the code trivial?
Good, then there is no bogus IP defense.
Is the code trivial?
Good, then supply it.
Made the same argument about GISStemp. Hansen released it
made the same argument about hadcrut, they released it.
Now days the only people refusing to release code are skeptics. Evans, Monkton, Scaffetta.
In the best tradition of Mann
Mr Mosher is sour and petty, as usual. The entire model is thoroughly laid bare in the paper. Every equation is there. Every parameter is there, with a reasonably thorough description of where it came from. Ther is no code to release, because the model is simple enough to be run without it,so we did not write any except for esoteric tasks not essential to the paper’s argument, such as the non-trivial spherical geometry to confirm the complex models’ value for the Planck parameter. It is not for us to instruct Mr Mosher in how to use a pocket calculator.
Other commenters have found not the slightest difficulty in using the model Om the basis of the detailed information provided in the paper, on a variety of devices from simple and programmable calculators to computers. So stop whining and read the paper and then, if genuinely interested, run through some of the worked examples and then have fun spchoosing your own parameter values. The model is just a model. It will produce the extreme predictions Mr Mosher seems to favour, if silly enough parameter values are chosen.
One suspects Mr Mosher’s true concern is not that the paper reveals too little but that it reveals too much. For the first time, it enables non-soeapcialists to do their own modelling, and to understand how climate sensitivity is actually determined, and to appreciate, therefore, how large the uncertainties are.
Moshe, Newton and Einstein didn’t provide “code” for their equations. One can write the code for calculating the volumes of parallelepipeds but why bother. It seems to me code, like its root meaning, is a way to obfuscate. If the problem can be solved with simple equations, one can throw together a code quickly for running iterations, but there is nothing magical about code. I believe someone upthread threw the simple code together in minutes to do just that.
If Mosher really gave a hoot about the code, he could devise it himself from the equations, as Monckton says.
So why does Mosher harp on the lack of a code?
Precisely my point. Parallelepiped-volume is a formula, and not a model.
It’s this confusion of a formula, with a model, that is the problem.
Had Monckton et al claimed they had a neat formula, a mathematical relationship explicating certain phenomenological aspects of climate, there would be no issue or problem.
But the claim has been for more than a formula. Calculations, in & of themselves, are not models.
Ted Clayton
You say
Sorry, but that displays lack of understanding of basic modeling principles. Indeed, most scientific models are presented as equations (e.g. E = IR) and many are derived by calculation.
A model is a simplified representation of reality.
Being simplified, no model is an exact emulation of reality; i.e. no model is a perfect and no model is intended to be perfect. If it were perfect then it would be reality and not a model of reality.
A model is constructed for a purpose and there are infinite possible purposes for models.
For example, a model of heat loss from a cow may assume that a cow is shaped as a sphere with the surface area of a real cow. And this simple model may provide an adequate quantitative indication of how heat loss from a cow varies with the cow’s metabolic rate. Thus, this hypothetical model may be very useful.
But that model of a cow cannot be used to indicate the movements of a cow. A model of a cow which includes legs is needed for that.
Another model of a cow may be constructed purely for the pleasure of the modeller. In this case it may be carved from wood and painted.
Most scientific models are merely descriptive (e.g. of blood circulation around a body) but the most useful are predictive.
A model may have many forms.
It may be physical, abstract, algebraic, numeric, pictorial or an idea. If its form fulfills the desired usefulness then it is an appropriate model; i.e. it can fulfill its purpose.
Science used models long before there were digital computers.
Richard
Richard Courtney,
In meaningful qualitative ways, analog models seem preferable to digitized and programmed methods, on computers. I learned modelling-approaches, before computer-methods had entered education. Later, I became interested in programming, and have compared digital versus analog model-principles since the Personal Computer became available.
But what we have here, in Monckton et al, is a focused campaign to enter a pre-existing digital computer climate-modelling game. These authors have directly addressed themselves to a specific type & form of contemporary modelling, and want a seat at this particular ‘game-table’. It’s a choice they made, not one that anyone else is projecting onto them.
Models are flexible, and variable, but the broader intellectual potential of the tool is not what Monckton et al are about, and this makes our response to them easier & simpler.
Can they sell their “analysis” in the market place of ideas, as a “model”?
Is it going to pass as a model, in the minds of buyers?
Ted
Monckton of Brenchley: One suspects Mr Mosher’s true concern is not that the paper reveals too little but that it reveals too much.
No. Steven Mosher has consistently supported the more modern standard, required (inconsistently) as I wrote above, by Science Magazine.
Ted Clayton: Parallelepiped-volume is a formula, and not a model.
If it is used in the calculation of the volume of dirt removed from a cut, then it is a model.
A ‘model’ is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly. The dirt you talked about is very visible and there is a formula to calculate its volume easily.
lsvalgaard
You say
NO. A model is a simplified representation of reality.
The formula to calculate the volume of the dirt is a model of the dirt’s volume.
It is a simplified representation of reality because the precise nature and shape of the dirt cannot be perfectly known.
Richard
My definition of a model is the usual one employed [at least] in physics. E.g.
https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/the-basics-of-physics-1/the-basics-of-physics-31/models-theories-and-laws-195-6078/
lsvalgaard
I refuse to get into an argument about semantics about the definition of a ‘model’. However, I think the ‘dirt’ example demonstrates my choice of words is more useful than that which you apply.
The ‘dirt’ is assumed to be a perfect cylinder. That assumption is adoption of a simplification and, therefore, is a model. Recognition of this demands that the estimated volume of ‘dirt’ has uncertainty.
Richard
yet you persist, quibbling about semantics [go figure]. In physics, we have a very precise meaning of ‘model’ [and of ‘theory’ etc]. For example, the Standard Model in particle physics is not a simplified description of reality, it is our very best description, not made any simpler. Same with our Standard Model in Cosmology. No simplification here, either. In either case there are underlying reality we do not know or understand or choose to ignore, so our models cover that up.
lsvalgaard
You say to me
Well, yes. This conversation began because I refuted the assertion of Ted Clayton that Monckton et al. had not presented a model but had only provided an equation. That refutation is a semantic argument and is here.
Your comments support the untrue assertions of Ted Clayton.
And you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. The remainder of your post I am answering says
“Very precise”? Really?
You asserted that
and you linked to a page which said that. I replied that I did not want to have a semantic argument about choice of words but explained that for practical reasons I prefer my choice which is
A model is a simplified representation of reality.
Importantly, in my explanation to Ted Clayton (which I have linked from this post) I wrote
You now support that by saying
That is merely another example of what I had said.
Very importantly in the context of your quibbles, you have asserted
“A ‘model’ is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly.”
and you have also asserted
“Same with our Standard Model in Cosmology. No simplification here, either. In either case there are underlying reality we do not know or understand or choose to ignore, so our models cover that up.”
Perhaps you would attempt to
(a) equate those two assertions
and
(b) try to explain how a description has “No simplification” when there is an “underlying reality we do not know or understand or choose to ignore”.
In summation, the “quibbling” is yours. It is incoherent and it is illogical.
Richard
The difference is that a simplification is something made simpler. The Standard Models are not made simpler, but are the very best descriptions we have of their phenomena. If you choose to employ a non-standard, homemade definition of ‘model’, it is your choice and your loss.
Matthew R Marler said to Ted Clayton;
The volume-formula itself, like those of the other simple Euclidean solids, gives only the ‘same answer’, every time, no matter what’s going on or the goal. Now, one might see a modelling context based on the type of spoil being excavate; the haulage distance to a dump or storage, or the equipment being used…
But the volume per se doesn’t ‘stand for’ something else; isn’t being employed in an analogous or representative role. Doesn’t simplify or encapsulate reality or a component of it.
It is for sure true that models versus formulas can blur at some interfaces; and that what serves as and therefore is a model, can morph & ‘depend’. Very true.
The legal Prudent Person Test is surely applicable, when it is explicit that part of the goal of model-development/deployment is to induce audiences to accept, and verily to incorporate and apply our proposed model, in their own work & career. If we can’t ‘sell’ our proposal to others, then it was a model only in our own private perception.
In the case of Euclidean solids and other elementary geometry equations, posing the volume-formula in & of itself as a ‘model’ will usually trigger a prudent person’s BS-detector.
In the privacy of our own bedroom or the space between our ears, we can do anything we want. If we’re going public with it, and hope others will adopt it, then we have to mind the envelop with those bounds in view.
lsvalgaard
I said to you
and your response supports that view.
I quoted you and asked you for two clarifications when I wrote
Your reply says in total
Well my “homemade definition of ‘model’ ” is more useful and more accurate than your “homemade definition of ‘model’ “, but if you insist on yours then that is your loss.
You have not answered (could not answer?) my first question (a).
I will spell out the issue for onlookers.
You asserted that
1.
“A ‘model’ is an evidence-based representation of something”
and
2. the “Standard Model in Cosmology” is of something which has “underlying reality we do not know or understand or choose to ignore”.
It is not possible to equate those two assertions because there cannot be “evidence-based representation of something” that has “underlying reality we do not know or understand”: if we had evidence of the “underlying reality” then we would know what it is.
And your answer to my second question (b) is fatuous.
If a description is simpler than reality then the description is made simpler than reality when it is made; i.e. it is a simplified representation of reality. That is not altered by the fact that lack of complete knowledge prevents construction of an unsimplified description.
A model is a simplified representation of reality.
Richard
You seem to be on an ego-trip. Enjoy it. Don’t let my comments ruin your experience.
As to the questions: One is not obligated to answer or respond to questions [especially not when they are ill-posed], but It is possible to equate those two assertions because they are, indeed, “evidence-based representation of something” that has “underlying reality we do not know or understand”.
Your mistake is this “if we had evidence of the “underlying reality” then we would know what it is.”
For the Standard Models, experience has shown that there is always layers below what we have evidenced so far, so we presume that that holds generally. The Models describe what we have evidence for, and we are fully aware that there very likely are further layers [‘turtles all the way down’] on the way down to ‘reality’ [whatever that is], so there is no confusion [except perhaps in your mind].
lsvalgaard
Following my twice pointing out that you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing you have now replied to me with a post that begins saying.
A more clear example of psychological projection is hard to imagine.
You rightly say there is no compunction to answer questions. There is also no compunction to answer posts, but you chose to make a fatuous answer to one question and to ignore the other in m y post so I addressed both.
I have already answered all the rest of your points and onlookers can see I have no “confusion” but I have explained why and how your assertions are incoherent and illogical nit picks.
Richard
No, I’m not arguing for the sake of the argument, but for your erudition as to what constitutes a ‘model’ in the physical sciences, e.g. http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/physicalsci/session2/closer1.html
‘One can drag a horse to water, but not make him drink’ seems to characterize the situation here.
lsvalgaard
I leave the last word to you because onlookers can assess the matter for themselves but I regret that you failed to “drink”.
Richard
You reached a low point in your commentary. Obviously the lack of drinking was yours.
Lsvalgaard
I saw your post at January 18, 2015 at 12:31 pm immediately it appeared and its nastiness gave me an initial reaction which was to respond. However, I had said I would give you the ‘last word’ so I ‘bit my tongue’. Despite that, after reflection I consider a factual reply is required to inform onlookers.
At January 17, 2015 at 9:28 pm you said
and at January 18, 2015 at 12:28 am you said
Then at January 18, 2015 at 1:11 am you claimed
To which I responded at January 18, 2015 at 1:11 am
The reason for my response was that your link refutes your claim and I was offering you a chance to retract.
The link does provide a bullet point which defines a model as you say, but it also provides another bullet point which defines a model as
So, your link was to a web page of an unknown source that provides two definitions of ‘model’. That is NOT “very precise” and is certainly not cogent.
Subsequently, at January 18, 2015 at 12:15 pm you provided another link this time to a web page for children at http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/physicalsci/session2/closer1.html
It says
That is a direct refutation of your assertion that [your] “definition of a model is the usual one employed [at least] in physics” and it is “very precise”.
However, it agrees with my explanation which is in my above post here where I wrote
I ask onlookers to check YOUR links for themselves and to decide which of us refuses to “drink” the information they contain.
Richard
You are still not drinking.
The link for children I thought would be suitable for you.
And who actually cares what you and I think? Physics does well with the usual definition of model regardless.
lsvalgaard
Your recent posts are not benefiting you.
If you could have provided links which supported your assertions then you would have.
You provided the link for children both because it was the best you could find – although it directly refutes your assertions – and you were amused by its provision being offensive.
I repeat,
I ask onlookers to check YOUR links for themselves and to decide which of us refuses to “drink” the information they contain.
To assist that, I again copy them to here.
https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/the-basics-of-physics-1/the-basics-of-physics-31/models-theories-and-laws-195-6078/
http://www.learner.org/courses/essential/physicalsci/session2/closer1.html
Richard
I provided that link because is is suitable for you. Perhaps simpler to understand. But I don’t deal in links. I am a practicing physicist and don’t need links to tell me what to do. As for benefiting: it seems that you have not benefited from the discussion.
To continue your education about models:
A model can also be looked at as an expression of our knowledge about a system. A good model expresses all we know about the system. Sometimes we choose to model only the essential features, so leave out things that we deem don’t matter [perhaps we don’t know all the details anyway]. In any case, with a model we can explore the system in ways that cannot be done direct manipulation of the system or perhaps even predict how the system will evolve in time and space.
lsvalgaard
Your arguing for the sake of arguing is becoming pathetic.
You claim
The only links in this discussion were provided by you and were unsolicited but you now say you “don’t deal in links”.
And the links you provided directly contradict your assertions which you now try to support by an appeal to authority citing yourself as the authority and by throwing and ad hom.
As I said, if you could have provided links which supported your assertions then you would have.
I have benefited from this discussion by learning much of you, and it saddens me.
Richard
As I said, I’m not arguing but educating.
lsvalgaard
I am pleased that you are starting to learn. You say
Well, yes. That consideration of a model agrees with my above explanation here and denies your subsequent assertions which I have been disputing.
I can only assume you were addressing yourself when you wrote “To continue your education about models:”
Richard
No, it was directed squarely at you. The essential point is that what characterizes a model is not that it is a deliberate ‘dumbing down’ or simplification, but that it can capture all we know about a phenomenon or all that we think are important. We do not simplify things for the sake of simplification.
lsvalgaard
I am fed up with your arguing for the sake of arguing.
I have not said, I have not suggested and I have not implied that a model is a “dumbing down”. I again link to my explanation that a model is a simplified representation of reality.
I shall ignore any more of your mental masturbation, insults and illogical verbal contortions which attempt to excuse your errors.
Richard
no drinking, thus. your loss…
Mr Istvan has it right. The model is an irreducible simplification of the more complex models’ approach to determining climate sensitivity. The discussion of appropriate parameter values is indeed at the heart of the paper, and Mr Istvan adopts a reasonable scientific approach when saying he disagrees with our choice of one or two values. He is, after all, free to substitute his own preferred values.
So I hope that people will do us the courtesy of reading the paper, thinking about it and then having a go at running the model for themselves, usin whatever parameter values they consider appropriate. Each parameter is discussed in the paper, so as to give some guidance on the appropriate interval of values.
Have some fun with the model. As we say at the end of our paper, it has its limitations, but it has its uses too.
There are calculators, and then there are programmable calculators. Why the distinction? Is it important?
The comparison between a formula or calculation, and a program or model, points to a watershed in intellectual, scientific and technological history. Ie, there isn’t a realistic comparison.
Formulas and direct calculations of course are not useless. They are indeed extensively used, and important to our well-being. But they are vastly eclipsed by computer (even HP-12C) programs and good models, for exploring, probing and investigating.
Mr. Monckton sees himself challenging an existing model-based (climate-study) paradigm, with an alternative – highly simplified – approach, which he refers to as a “model”. If his greater audience (his opponents with careers based on complex models) can successfully show his analysis to be in fact ‘merely’ a formula, and not a model, then his work will be dismissed for model-purposes.
It was incumbent upon Monckton et al to determine that their new, interesting and very likely useful addition our toolkit is actually a model, before it was dramatized as such. The easiest, best and most-convincing way to do that, is to write a nice example-program.
Resistance to requests for a code-example, suggests the analysis is already recognized as a formula, and not a model.
Ted Clayton
You say
The “addition our toolkit” is a model and your assertion that this needs to be “determined” is merely another display of your ignorance of basic modeling principles.
I explain what models are for you above here.
Richard
Richard Courtney,
Here on a skeptic blog, the natural tendency is to applaud any proposed model that tries to show the GCM King Has No Clothes. We’re generally a friendly audience, in that respect.
But what happens when the proposal encounters the general scientific community (which includes and largely acquiesces to the so-called ‘97%’)?
They will look for weaknesses & strengths, evaluate whether it’s something they feel comfortable getting firmly behind … or should shy away from.
Monckton et al made some smart choices in their paper. They use some of IPCC own computations. This will help folks say positive things, if they want to. The technical execution is professional, throughout. The rhetoric gets slightly ‘racey’, but Monckton’s hand can be very practiced & smooth at this sort of thing, and I think it’s an asset here.
Unfortunately, the accentuated claim that their nicely-made arguments can be easily coded-up as an important computer-program model, looks like a choice that many might see as over-hyped. Oh, it codes-up easily enough – but as a game-changing model?
If we wrote up a nice analysis of the parallelepiped, and tried to sell it as “model”, readers would mostly shake their head & mumble “That’s just a formula”. And that might be the overall reaction to An irreducibly simple climate model, too.
They should have either:
1.) Just put their analysis out there ‘cold’, and let folks ‘discover’ for themselves how/whether it codes easy as a convincing model. Or;
2.) Included their own little program, designed to highlight what they believe makes their proposal a real model, and not just a figurative parallelepiped-formula.
They could have ‘set the tone’, and ‘suggested the direction’ for the programming, but instead what we are tending to see is ‘plain ol’ formulas’.
It’s not too late.
Ted
Ted Clayton
Having displayed that you don’t have a clue about modeling principles, you now try to misrepresent me by writing
But I did NOT “applaud” the model under discussion: on the contrary, my above which is here begins saying
And, having failed in your disruptive attempts to pretend the paper of Monckton et al. does not present a model, you now complain that Monckton has “over-hyped” his report of it and say of Monckton et al. “They could have ‘set the tone’ “.
Which is it; Monckton “over-hyped” or did not “set the tone”?
Your two assertions are mutually exclusive.
And you say “They could have ‘set the tone’ ” by providing their own computer code. But they say their model is so simple that it only requires a pocket calculator. So, they DID ‘set the tone’ as you have defined it, and you have presented no suggestion as to why the “tone” they “set” is wrong and/or inappropriate.
You conclude your post I am answering by saying
It certainly is not too late for you to apologise for your ridiculous concern trolling.
Richard
Richard Courtney said,
Mr. Courtney;
When I compose a comment on a post or a reply to another comment, I am guided by several things:
1.) By far the largest audience are those who read, glance at or skim the post & the comments, without participating.
a.) This is where the real ‘action’ or ‘opportunity’ is.
b.) These people don’t know you or me, and don’t care.
i.) Silent readers are attracted to the overt content, and meaningful commentary.
ii.) Non-participating audiences avoid ‘private issues’ and personalization.
2.) The comments embody debate; often on several different stages & topics. I often try to let my remarks ‘touch on’ more than one of the active debate-forums.
3.) The author of the post is interested in “points” and “arguments” and “criticisms” – as well as plaudits and attaboys.
Bringing up the tail-end of the priority-queue, comes the other commenter himself.
Ted
Ted Clayton
I see that instead of apologising for your concern trolling you have iterated your attempt to misrepresent me when you now write
I again direct you to my post which provided significant criticism (n.b. NOT “plaudits and attaboys) of the paper by Monckton et al. which is here.
Richard
von Neumann famously said that with four parameters he could fit an elephant (he exaggerated). This paper seems to use “five tunable parameters” to fit a straight line. For that is all the output we are shown – a linear trend coefficient, which is supposed to be closer to observations than the models (though “observations” are hardly unanimous). The Fig 6 shown in this post is just bizarre. The only data claimed is a set of trends. Single numbers. Yet somehow drawing a diagram projecting these to 2040 is supposed to prove something?
Astonishing how the true-believers in the climate-Communist party line, such as Mr Stokes, complain that our model has as many as five parameters, and yet they are silent about the fact that the general-circulation models, with six orders of magnitude more parameters than that, can make an elephant waggle its ears at will still more easily. That is a truly dopey objection to our model – in fact, it is childish.
As for Fig. 6, it shows least-squares linear-regression trends, which – as anyone with an elementary knowledge of statistics might be expected to know – are straight lines. This figure has been much cited elsewhere as showing the startling discrepancy between the exaggerated predictions of the climate Communists and the far slower rate of warming evident in the real world.
Fig. 6 demonstrates that the climate-Communist theory is prone greatly to exaggerate the true underlying rate of global warming. This is a point made every month by my monthly analysis of the global temperature record. Watch out for the forthcoming annual update, where all five of the principal global-temperature datasets are compared, and the startling increase in the supposed warming rate demonstrated by the terrestrial datasets after the past year’s co-ordinated tampering is exposed.
Oh dear…First of all, there are not “six orders of magnitude more parameters” in general-circulation models. That is just nonsense. And, while there may be several parameters, like in Monckton et al.’s model, there are many, many more ways in which the parameters can be constrained because there is so much more output that can be compared to climatology. Also, the parameters in general are no even designed in such a way that they can be tuned to provide a better fit to the data for the global temperature record. Instead, they are tuned to better represent things on a more fundamental scale, like cloud fraction.
Second, Monckton’s name-calling (“climate-Communist party line”) shows his true colors: that he is some sort of market fundametntalist who subscribes to theological doctrines that are not based on the economic science of markets, with their virtues and limitations, but rather on fundamentalist beliefs. This is the only reason explanation for him referring to anyone who doesn’t sure these doctrines as subscribing to the “climate-Communist party line”.
I thought rabid fear of communism went away with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the transformation of China into a Capitalistic economy,, albeit with still a repressive government). Apparently, I was wrong.
After reading many of the comments concerning provision of code I have to ask Monckton of Brenchley, why not acquiesce to this particular request. I’ve argued that the equations are simple and sufficient, but this is obviously the loose thread that critics have pounced on in some desperation. It means that nothing substantively threadbare has presented itself, so I think you have had a fairly easy time of it really. Someone upthread apparently has put a satisfactory probram together. Use it or have another written. At least you will see what else they have to move onto.
Regarding the model, I have to admit my scepticism runs deep and can border on being debilitating. It is perfectly clear probably to all, that any number of alternative models could be devised that would give roughly the same result. There is no guarantee in this science that “correct” models have much to do with reality. I recall the old observation that the height of ladies hemlines was a good fit to copper prices over half a century. Had some one guessed this absurd relationship at the beginning, he could have become a trillionaire on pure nonsense. The IPCC, indeed, has partially corrected their hottest models by adding aerosols. My biggest fear was, with all the funding for this modelling stuff, that someone was going to hit upon a ‘hemlines’ type program that would carry the day for a few decades and kill us all. Fortunately we were saved by hubris that caused them to cling to the 1990s climate catechisms. Give them the code and let them knock themselves out.
Whether or not you believe that CO2 levels drive temperature, within the class of models that do, Monckton’s models clearly dominates all the others in terms ability to model temperatures in the real world. It is true that Climate Models have much more lofty objectives than just modeling temperature. However, until they can produce output that looks like the real world they are useless – you may as well look at the Farmer’s Almanac.
Monckton I repeat here as this seems to be your latest comment a reply to your earlier comment.
Until you incorporate the millennial cycle peak into your work there is no possibility of calculating
any possible contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to climate change – see my original comment .You are simply arbitrarily assigning the temperature rise due to the natural solar activity cycle rise to its peak to CO2 – you just assign somewhat less than the IPCC.
Check this link in my original comment for a complete discussion.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
. Best Regards and thanks for your herculean efforts to stop the UNFCCC – IPCC circus.
Indeed climate-Communist is a good name for it. On a political blog I post daily at all the liberal-left are full bore for the lie of AGW. While using the word ‘Communist’ might upset some tummies, it is accurate. And the Communist Chinese are playing it for all it is worth, witness their taking Obama to the cleaners recently. Yet the left in America trumpeted that as an Obama victory. Well, perhaps it was an Obama “victory”, if you catch my drift.
From yourself, a person who has taken a large brunt of cheap shots, so typical of Progressives, nee Communists, you are more than entitled.
“Fig. 6 demonstrates that the climate-Communist theory…”
Which is the theory that was published in the People’s Republic “equivalent of Science or Nature”?
Don says: “Indeed climate-Communist is a good name for it.”
It’s a good name for it if you are politically immature enough to consider anything Left of extreme right wing to be “Communist”. In fact, it is about as mature as if I were to call anyone to the right of Obama “a fascist”.
[But Obama’s supporters regularly do just that. .mod]
Struck a nerve, eh? 🙂
joelshore says:
Apparently, I was wrong.
True dat. Not for the first time, either.
Reblogged this on Ekstase Leidenschaft und Schmerz.
computer models wrong again….
After Stephen Wilde’s ozone-based hypothesis getting an airing last week, and now this simplified model from Monckton+Soon+Legates+Briggs, I suspect 2015 may be the Year of The Alternative Climate Models.
On the one hand, we must admit, by making a simplified model we are leaving aside a lot of complexities which could perhaps lead to more useful results in the short term if they were modelled (regional agricultural investment springs to mind).
On the other hand, the simplification to one number, globally average temperature, makes replication, inspection, and testing all so much easier. Not to mention that the lesser cognitive and computational resources required makes climate modelling affordable by the masses.
So affordable that now every man and his dog has made a simple climate model that performs better than the IPCC. When I say “better” I mean it uses 3 free parameters for the much maligned “curve fitting” phase up to 1990, then everything after 1990 is a model projection. The predictive value still seems pretty good for something so simple.
May the most accurate model win.
Probably the pocket calculator model will turn out to run too cool since the temperature keepers are still busy inflating temperatures. I think we need to take this job away from these guys so that we can at least compare the model results to reality.
The situation for warmists is dire. Since they fundamentally believe rising CO2 causes rising temperatures, and CO2 continues to rise, temperatures cannot be seen to decrease. They can talk around a plateau, calling it a “pause”, but they absolutely must prevent a decline. First they got rid of the high temperatures in the 1930s, then 1998 went, now 2014 is the new record. Yet future years must surpass this last one, in order to hide a decline. Cooling is not an option
By the way, I question this description of the journal that published the article: “the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science”.
According to this list http://scienceimpactfactors.blogspot.com/p/science-overall.html, Nature and Science have impact factors of 38.6 and 31.0, respectively. The Chinese Science Bulletin has an impact factor of 1.32 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Science_Bulletin) I don’t see how it can be compared to Nature or Science with a straight face.
I’d be curious to know from the authors how they came to choose this journal to publish in.
joeldshore, you are a bright guy. How do you think these impact factors are calculated? They are calculated by the number of citations by other authors. What do you think would happen if you had hundreds of billions of dollars made available for hundreds of thousands of scientists who all agreed with each other and published in the same journals. More: what would you say would happen to impacts if the bulk of such papers were each authored by a dozen or more authors in the solidarity. What if they were to write papers like the recent one on the breakthrough discovery that cooking and heating with dung in a sealed hut in winter was bad for your health and they cited papers on carbon and CO2 in the high impact journals. Like peer review, the impact factors have been corrupted irrepairably.
So, you don’t like impact factors because they don’t give you the results that you desire. Then, by what standard is the Chinese Science Bulletin comparable to Science or Nature?
Joel:
It is the journal of the Chinese Academy of Science & NNSF, just as Science is of the AAAS.
joelshore says:
So, you don’t like impact factors because they don’t give you the results that you desire.
If that isn’t pure psychological projection, I don’t know what is.
The alarmist crowd hates facts that don’t give the results they want. Maybe that’s because their Beliefs are simply wrong.
joeldshore: According to this list http://scienceimpactfactors.blogspot.com/p/science-overall.html, Nature and Science have impact factors of 38.6 and 31.0, respectively. The Chinese Science Bulletin has an impact factor of 1.32 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Science_Bulletin) I don’t see how it can be compared to Nature or Science with a straight face.
Impact factors depend on the papers being cited by Americans and Europeans in articles in the journals that are counted for impact factors. the impact factor of CSB will rise as more and more people become aware of the high quality of Chinese science and science publication. Reportedly, Americans and Europeans are way behind the curve on this.
You would think that for a model driver like feedback, which is such an important but hard to quantify process, the climate model keepers would be constantly updating their models with adjusted feedback numbers so they can match measured temperatures. The fact that they don’t update their models, that they maintain feedback ratios that keep their models out of line with measurements even though they have little or no justification to support their values, tells you the climate model predictions purpose is more for political purposes than for science.
The link is not working for the access to the paper, error code instead.
https://3c-lxa.mail.com/mail/client/dereferrer?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scibull.com%3A8080%2FEN%2Fabstract%2Fabstract509579.shtml
To download the paper, go to scibull.com, click Current issue and find our oaoer, Why models run hot: results from an irreducible simple climate model.
Janice Moore: My apologies. My comment to your post on January 16, 2015 at 4:08 pm was intended for David Socrates’ post time-stamped January 16, 2015 at 1:58 pm.
Well, dear Babsy, how very kind of you, for I might well have taken that comment wrongly. Since, however, I had already been educated about “Babsy” by reading several of your posts, I was not offended in the least. And my guess turned out to be correct!
NICE RIPOSTE AND REFUTATION here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1838347
Wish I had your wit!
Thanks again for considering me worthy of taking the time to address. Much appreciated.
Your Ally for Truth,
Janice
****************************************
@ Socrates — Babsy shut you down better than any of us. In case you don’t get how, I will explain it to you. Her point boils down to essentially: SO WHAT! Heh, heh. What? That still makes no sense to you? Okay, here you go, Socrates, one more time: “So what” as in: THAT MONCKTON’S PAPER PROMOTES AGW DOES NOT MAKE AGW ANY MORE TRUE.
And truth (about human CO2 emissions, here) is all that matters.
Bye for now!
Until next time lololol,
Janice
Monckton’s paper does not promote global warming. It explains why there will be very little.
And that’s a suitably conservative position, during the ongoing near-standstill Pause.
But have Monckton et al in the course of designing their model(s), given special attention to the prospect of clear cooling, in the near future?
Many check the news closely, anticipating that ‘any ol’ time now’, trends suggesting a downturn will become hard to hide … and that the advent of even slight cooling will set off a furious melee of model-reexamination, and alternatives.
Since Monckton et al is in the alternatives-biz, it would be interesting to hear how they have scouted-out the cooling-possibility.
This sentence needs the end added to be grammatically correct (and to be completely candid). Given the first sentence, the two-sentence paragraph is, however, still: nonsense.
“Monckton’s paper does not promote global warming. It explains why there will be very little {global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions}.”
Ms Moore appears unfamiliar with the syntax of sentences in which terms are understood rather than explicitly stated.
I am considering writing and providing code for this model. If I do so it will be written in c# (pronounced c sharp) and runs on a Microsoft Windows O/S. I use a development technique called Test Driven Development whereupon I write a test first before I write any production code. What this means to you is your will be able to exercise the code from the tests, individually or by various groupings. This also means I do not have to provide a user interface (UI), at least not at first. You can step through the code, set break points to examine values. If that sounds to complicated for you, you will have to wait until I build a user interface for the code.
This will require some work from you however, you will have to install Microsoft Visual Studio :
http://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2013-community-vs.aspx
It is free.
I am still reading the paper, with the intent to understand every last bit of it, so I may not get to the coding for quite a while. I am also waiting on what next generation technology Microsoft is going to announce on the 21st of this month, next Wednesday.
I just downloaded Visual Studio Community 2013, from your link. I’ve used VB environments, and savvy the event-driven and forms-building approach.
I have also been reading the paper with an eye to coding it as a model. I agree that this likely to be a larger, rather than smaller undertaking.
I was thinking generally of a more-rudimentary programming environment, but the main thing is that others are familiar & comfortable with whatever is used, and if VB fills the bill, it’s fine by me.
I see your site online…
I confused Studio with VB. C(#) is ok too … but it looks like I do not meet Community 2013’s system requirements. There are multiple options available to me, though.
[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]
“Why have you not release your discovery to benefit humankind?”
Like everyone else has throughout history?
The braying of a Jackass.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
When will Man ever learn? Pseudoscience and/or political science aren’t real Science. One has to use Theories of Science, good knowledge and good analyse-technique in order to go from point A = a Theory to point C a conclusion holding water due to good Akrebi!
Those who forget that they must prove that A leads to B and that B always leads up to C, they have lost their dignity hundred times over. Not to mention that bad input always leads to bad output. Corrections are nothing but humbug!
Mods, Planetary Physics is just the old lunatic D C under a different moniker. His rants are basically the same including his favourite term ” valid physics “.
Venter,
I question your assessment. DC has never previously shown an understanding of the difference between a SW selective surface and a near blackbody. “Planetary Physics” seems to have a vague understanding, which is more that can be said for Viscount Monckton.
Konrad has failed to understand the important differences between the radiative characteristics of the Earth’s actual and characteristic-emission surfaces.
The sceptic community should be thankful to Lord Monckton et al for showing a simple way to gain knowledge. Call it a model, a formula, an equation or method, it doesn’t really matter. It shows that “less is more” may well be true in science as well. I hope, “The Monckton Model” will give sufficient impetus so that the traditional keepers of false wisdom, unless they are in a complete state of mental disarray(or under frustrating pecuniary embarrassment allowing fabricated results only), start thinking their “models” over. I still believe in the good in man, with one exception: I do not believe in the good in Mann and people of that ilk.
The ‘Monckton Model’ is utterly unconvincing curve fitting and will have no significant ‘impetus’ [like homeopathy: less is more and nothing at all is best]. It is telling that Monckton does not show a graph of the ‘modeled’ temperature year by year since 1850 [or 1940 or whatever] comparing it to the observations.
As Mr Svalgaard understands perfectly well, a model is not a curve – fitting exercise. It will accept whatever values the operator chooses.
One realizes that climate sensitivity is not his specialty. Perhaps, therefore, he does not understand the paper.
It would be refreshing if you would produce the graphs that I asked for, instead of baseless ad-hom drivel.
The paper clearly states that the parameters were chosen to fit IPCC models and ‘observations since 1850’.
As I suspected, Mr Svalgaard has not understood the paper. He has even misquoted it. He says “the paper clearly states that the parameters were chosen to fit IPCC models and ‘observations since 1850’.” What the paper actually says is this: “The model is calibrated against the climate-sensitivity interval projected by the CMIP3 suite of models, and against global warming since 1850.”
If Mr Svalgaard had actually read the paper and understood it, he would have realized that the model was calibrated using IPCC’s values for various parameters, so as to ensure that IPCC’s sensitivity was obtained when those values were input to it. Mr Svalgaard, of course, is not of English origin and may have difficulty with the language. If so, he should not sneer until he has made sure he understands what he is reading.
You seem to labor under a misconception: the equations are, of course, not examples of curve fitting, the choice of parameters and your conclusion therefrom are curve fitting in the usual sense of that concept. Now, there is nothing wrong with curve fitting as long as it is labeled as such. In fact, one way of calibrating a model is precisely to fit its output to the curve given by the data, as you did. That you interpret my comments as ‘sneering’ just shows that you are paranoid and not used to scientific discourse and displays a deep sense of uncertainty and doubt about the road you have taken. You have still not produced the graph I asked for. You claim the paper was rigorously peer-reviewed. Given your often economical relationship with the truth, it would be of considerable interest to see those reviews. So, produce them.
I understand the English language quite well, Lord Monckton, and, until you amend it, your comment of 12:11pm today (directed at Dr. Svalgaard) communicates only a disingenuous distinction without a significant difference.
And, a bit of friendly advice: your audience-alienating, sneering, condescension toward a scientist of Dr. Svalgaard’s widely-known calibre will win you no arguments.
Isn’t winning the battle for truth about human CO2 what this is all about?
(Dr.Svalgaard, today at 11:07am)
I have no idea whether Dr. Svalgaard’s request is reasonable, but, if your goal, Lord Monckton, is to persuade those brainwashed by the AGWers, it would be wise to either:
1. Provide the graphs
or
2. Provide a reasonable explanation for not doing so.
Mr Svalgaard continues not to understand our paper. To calibrate our model we used IPCC’s parameter values to ensure that our result and that of IPCC were close under the particular conditions studied. At no stage did we start with a curve and then tweak the model until it’s results fitted the curve, And in answer to those who whine tha I have been too blunt with Mr Svalgaard, he has adopted a sneering tone throughout and his vexatiously-repeated allegation that we have indulged in curve-fitting was based on what I must now assume was a deliberate misquotation from the press release. Such deliberate misquotations are immoral and are not how a true scientist would behave. Mr Svakgaard should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
What you did is the very definition of curve fitting. There does not need to be an actual curve, the numbers are enough. Now you have not defined which observational data you used in your fit, you have not show us any metrics of the goodness of the fit, you have not produced the graph of modeled temperatures year by year, you have not produced the reviewers’ reports. You have not done what an honest scientist would not be afraid of doing. That invalidated your paper right there.
From your paper: “The model is calibrated against the climate-sensitivity interval projected by the CMIP3 suite of models and against global warming since 1850”.
Describe how the fitting to ‘global warming since 1850’ was performed. Which data set? Which metric for goodness of fit? What were the error bars? You might not know the usual standards for such fitting or calibration, but you can start by answering the above questions. And try to post a comment without venom.
Process control engineers rarely design electronic circuits.
Electronic engineers design the circuits, the process control engineers oversee the manufacture of the designed circuits.
…
You really need to fix that issue in the paper.
[Reply: You are free to submit your own article. ~ mod.]
Mr Svakgaard asks for some unspecified graphs. I refer him to our paper, which he should surely now take the trouble to read before criticising it.
Nonsense. You claim that the model ‘tracked’ the observations. Show the graph that supports that. Perhaps you don’t have any and that is why you call it ‘unspecified’.
¨Model¨ means different things in science:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/models-science/
The Copernican Model, Bohr´s Model of the Atom, the Standard Model of Fundamental Particles, etc, are decidedly different from a GCM run on a computer, IMO.
Does it matter if the Monckton, et al Model counts as a model under one definition or another, if it says worthwhile things about the GIGO climate models, so called, which have failed so miserably?
Mr Svalgaard continues to ask questions all of which he would find answered if he could only bring himself actually to read the paper he whines about. A true scientist, rather than a sneering bearer of grudges, would have read the paper first, and thought about it, and perhaps made some enquiries to shore up his understanding of matters that are not his specialism. Mr Svalgaard, however, continues to demand information that is plainly set forth in the paper, which, therefore, he has plainly not read. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Read. The. Paper. Then think. Then check. Then, and only then, whine.
Read my comments and comply.
Comply with what?
Non Nomen said;
Let’s say it matters whether the paper is influential or not.
The question would matter less, had it not been claimed to be a “model”, and to be suitable for a computer program. (A program is not need for the formula for eg parallelepiped-volume.)
Monckton et al address themselves to a number of stakeholders in the climate-industry, and whether those cohorts think the paper describes an important model or a merely descriptive formula will affect its reception & application … ranging potentially from nil to a watershed.
It matters less what you or I think, and more what the working audience-communities think … and their probable definitions of formulas & models (as best we can reckon) are what counts.
If we were what counts, it would have just been published on WUWT.
For non- mathematicians and non-logicians such as Mr Clayton, a mathematical model is an equation or set of equations (in the present instance a set of equations) that describes an object. Thus a formula is a model.
For a more formal definition of a model, one must go to general mathematical logic. But the above definition will do for present purposes. Not one of our three reviewers at any time queried whether our model was a model. For anyone with an elementary knowledge of math or of general logic, our model is of course a model.
Our paper will be judged not on futile questions of semantics but on whether our model has indeed identified errors in the official approach to determining climate sensitivity that have led to the over prediction of the global warming rate that has occurred.
Bottom line, I hope that you, Soon, Legates and Briggs are successfully at opening doors and taking a meaningful place in vested climate-discourse. I understand that you have further work in the wings, and will wish you all the best with it, and a growing profile, as well.
That you are engaged, and peer reviewed, is a big accomplishment & the main thing.
Congratulations!
Non Nomen rightly takes the trolls to task for nit-picking. Looking at this thread, it is clear that the has been practically no attempt by any of them to look closely enough at the science in the paper to produce anything recognisable as scientific criticism of it. Their comments are mostly vapid and often intellectually dishonest yah-boo. We shall have to wait and see whether the reviewed literature can do better.
The leftosphere elsewhere has also been remarkably childish and unscientific. One commenter wilfully misrepresents our point that in view of the thermostatic behaviour of the climate over the past 810,000 years the feedback closed-loop gain in modern conditions is unlikely much to exceed 9.1. Another accuses us of plagiarism and then admits we had, after all, acknowledged the origin of every part of the model that came from earlier papers. But no attempt by either of these two climate Communists actually to challenge the scientific conclusions.
Perhaps we have them all worried.
Monckton of Brenchley: Looking at this thread, it is clear that the has been practically no attempt by any of them to look closely enough at the science in the paper to produce anything recognisable as scientific criticism of it.
I have read all of the comments and your rejoinders. I [thank] all. I agree with that assessment. I am surprised at the number of people who believe that all of your parameters were “tuned”, or that you promote any assumption that you made to see what its consequences would be. imho. I am only 1 reader.
Mr Marler has been more than usually diligent in reading this unusually long thread with – alas – very little in the way of scientific criticism in it. The trolls have been out in force, which indicates that they and their paymasters are worried, but I think it is fair to say that none of them has landed a blow. And Mr Marler is correct in his assessment that we did not tune any of the parameters to achieve any particular result. Our interest was in reaching the truth, and one cannot do that by fudging either the equations or the values of their terms.
On a climate-Communist blog elsewhere, the best the sneering classes could do was to say that we had not acknowledged the role of James Hansen in introducing the Bode system-gain equation to the models. We had in fact cited IPCC (2007), from which we had originally obtained the system-gain equation, and we had then gone back to the source and cited Bode himself, whose magisterial book of 1945 provides a discussion of it. It is reasonably clear that, if temperature feedbacks are truly as high as IPCC thinks they are, the Bode relation is inapplicable to the climate object. That will be the subject of a further paper that has been accepted after peer review but not yet allocated to an issue of the journal where it will be printed.
I do not recall the trolls ever having been in such childishly spiteful and unconstructive form ever before on these threads. Not a single useful scientific point has been advanced by them. It may be that they are beginning, at last, to realize that scientifically speaking the game is up. It will take a little longer, alas, for the politicians to catch up.
I’ve watched this thread unfold with some amusement. “Trolls” – sure, I’ll own that. But “climate Communists”? “Paymasters are worried”? If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop talking like Conspiracy Dude who sleeps on the steam grate across the street.
Many thanks to Non Nomen for having gotten the point of the simple model. We have provided a highly compressed but, I hope, very clear account of how the complex models determine climate sensitivity, so that it is no longer a secret reserved to the priests of the machines. Now everyone can see for themselves the self-evident defects in the official approach to the determination of climate sensitivity, to say nothing of the uncertainties in what we had been falsely told was the “settled science”.
You have to keep grinding away against the consensus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/health/11docs.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
attn: Anthony Watts and MOD
Doug Cotton
[Thanks, deleted. ~mod.]
A Doug Cotton in any other language is till a Doug Cotton.
“… more junk from… ”
See Anthony’s NO TRESPASSING warning here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1837061
A Dug Cottn in any other language is still a Dug Cottn.
Mr svalgaard continues otiosely, vexatiously and incorrectly to repeat that we had indulged in curve-fitting. He bases this malevolent and untruthful allegation on a deliberate misquotation from the press release accompanying our paper. Such misquotations, in which he has been caught out before, are the conduct not of a scientist but of one who bears a grudge, A more adult approach would have been preferable.
Nature is not an electronic circuit. Your assumption that g < .0.1 is invalid.
An electronic circuit is a physical construct of objects that still obey the laws of nature.
Note, I spent 10 years full time drawing electric circuit diagrams for high tech companies.
You are 100% correct to say that an electronic circuit is a physical construct of objects that still obey the laws of nature. However, nature is not an electronic circuit. To compare the two is not valid, as there are too many differences of note.
That’s true; but the best modelling-base is the electronic circuit.
Analog computers, based on opamps, could indeed outperform digital climate models, both in sophistication and sheer computational power.
The advantage of digital is not that it’s better, or faster than analog. It is neither. Rather, that it is repeatable, that the program can be rewritten rather than rewired, and it’s amenable to lossless and non-degrading data storage and retrieval.
The word “analog” derives from “analogy”, which is the essence of a model. Analog computers are intrinsically (electronic circuit) modelling-machines.
Eh, Gary?
Ted……you seem to be mentioning three separate items.
1) Analog computer
2) Digital computer
3) Electronic circuit.
Nature is none of the above.
..
Lets just say that I am afraid to plug in my analog, tube based radio, cause I got a shock last time I did that.
Ah, I see the problem. You do not know what nature is. Hint, gravity is nature. You can sit in a closet and experience nature.
Mr Socrates, as ever, is hopelessly out of his depth. It would have been wiser if he had read the paper before criticizing it. It is not we but official climate science that has misappropriated an equation from process engineering that does not apply to the climate. It is nevertheless appropriate for us to draw attention to the fact that the climate has remained near-perfectly thermostatic for almost a million years and that, therefore, a loop gain much above the process engineers’ upper bound is implausible in the real climate. Read and then think before commenting.
Electronic circuits and ‘nature’ frequently obey equations of the same form and therefore obey the same mathematical rules. The assumption that g < .0.1 is indeed invalid, it is not a requirement for stability.
An electronic circuit, such as the Wien bridge oscillator, has both a positive feedback loop and a negative feedback loop with delay, for stability the requirement is that the net gain be less than 1.0, if greater than 1.0 then oscillation occurs. Jeff Hasty has designed a biological oscillator based on the same principles: "Here we describe an engineered genetic oscillator in Escherichia coli that is fast, robust and persistent, with tunable oscillatory periods as fast as 13 min. The oscillator was designed using a previously modeled network architecture comprising linked positive and negative feedback loops.”
Jesse Stricker, Scott Cookson, Matthew R. Bennett, William H. Mather, Lev S. Tsimring &
Jeff Hasty, Nature 456, 516-519(27 November 2008)
Socks: “Nature is not an electronic circuit.”
Nature is full of electronic, thermodynamic, and mechanical systems. Many of these share the same mathematical forms and variables. The variables can be viewed as analogs, which do not necessarily denote entities and phenomena in each system, but otherwise share identical mathematical properties:
http://lpsa.swarthmore.edu/Analogs/ElectricalMechanicalAnalogs.html
We often say “Nature ‘obeys’ such-and-such Model”. But we have no way of knowing that as absolute truth. What we really mean is “we believe, with some confidence, that phenomenon X, which is observed in Nature, obeys such-and-such Model”.
Mathematical models are not part of nature, but are merely symbolic relationships elaborated in our minds (i.e. man-made) to help us understand and explain nature. All models tend to be wrong (G. Box), but some are useful.
One of the most useful model equations, used to describe natural systems, is the Laplace/Poisson equation: div(grad(X))=f, where X can be a scalar (e.g. electrical potential, temperature or density) or a vector (e.g. electric field, heat flow or diffusion flux) and where f denotes some kind of source, possibly nothing, or perhaps an electrical charge density, heat source or fluid source.
So, it would be incorrect, IMHO, to state that “Nature obeys Bode’s Law”, but this law may be useful as an abstract model to better understand or explain natural feedback systems. Useful even if it ultimately some other other model explains it better, because we learn. Even from models which fail to explain nature perfectly.
Johanas
So, it would be incorrect, IMHO, to state that “Nature obeys Bode’s Law”, but this law may be useful as an abstract model to better understand or explain natural feedback systems. Useful even if it ultimately some other other model explains it better, because we learn. Even from models which fail to explain nature perfectly.
Far better, actually, to say “Bode’s Law describes how Nature theoretically would behave in a mathematically perfect universe, if Nature followed all of perfect theoretical assumptions in physics.”
(Aside: … why are we allowed to capitalize and personify (and deify) Nature’s random actions as they follow the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, but cannot mention an Intelligent Designer? ..)
But since the only “theoretical assumptions in physics” are the ones made by humans, wouldn’t that imply that Nature must do what we assume it should do in a perfect world? Rather presumptuous I think.
Yes, Laws are sometimes deified and worshiped, but they all come from that law-making animal called Man.
But Man didn’t make his own Mind, which makes our law-making possible. And I don’t believe it evolved through random permutations of molecules either. I believe science will some day understand the Life Principle, which will explain consciousness and the robustness and intelligence of living systems.
In response to “Phil.”, who appears to know no more about electronic circuits than about the climate object, the reason why process engineers hold the loop gain at a maximum of 0.01, or in well-controlled conditions 0.1, is to ensure that defective components and environmental factors will not combine to generate an oscillation under certain conditions. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to the climate. Such is the variability at every point in the system that in a million years the Earth might well on several occasions have had to endure the extreme oscillations that the Bode singularity foreshadows. That is why a feedback loop gain <0.1 is to be expected – and, indeed, is found in the literature (e.g. by Lindzen & Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011).
And hand-waving about how some equations apply to most dynamical systems does not cut it. In numerous respects, electronic circuits and the climate are in different classes of dynamical systems, and the Bode relation applies only to a narrow class of dynamical objects that does not include the climate. This is briefly explained in the paper, and more fully explained in a further paper to be published in another journal (it has just passed peer review and been accepted).
You continue to evade the science issues, and indulge instead in blather about my person. What do your lawyers say about such behavior?
Be specific. At Scots law, your persistently repeated and false allegation that we had indulged in the dishonest practice of curve-fitting would be regarded as a grave libel, to which a vigorous reply would be regarded as fair comment. So try to be less malevolent and more like a scientist in future. Your third-rate contributions to this thread reek of a small mind bearing a grudge.
Is Svalgaard saying that for example the derived value of say that Planck constant was from curve fitting ?
Absolutely, yes. It was so when Planck derived the value by fitting to the observed black-body radiation http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf
Exactly Svalgaard. So what is your beef with Monckton ?
For example, that he claims he is not doing curve fitting. He is, as all calibration fits are. And, of course, his despicable behavior when criticized.
I should add that the first guess at estimating the Planck constant was inaccurate until a mathematical model was finally devised that resolved things.
Note, I am going by memory of what I read recently, as I am extremely busy with two lifetimes worth of work backlog.
Planck found 6.55E-27 cgs; the modern value is 6.63E-27 cgs, so Planck’s first stab was pretty accurate [only 1.2% wrong]
Mr Svalgaard continues to be vexatious. If he now concedes that he has been condemning our model because we calibrated it (which on a dozen occasions he has described pejoratively as curve fitting) then he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Once we had calibrated the model to establish that it was working correctly, we the, chose what we considered to be scientifically justifiable parameter values and ran the model once more. The results conformed to observation first time around.
Mr Scalgaard now seems to be saying that any model is a curve fitting exercise, in that event, why does he sneeringly and repeatedly single out our model for criticism on this ground rather than being scientific enough and intellectually honest enough to admit that he considers all models, not just ours, to be valueless in that on his definition thy are mere curve fitting exercises? Mr Svakgaard forfeits all claim to be regarded as any sort of scientist.
You are still evading the real issues. Let me try another tack. With five ‘tunable’ parameters you have a 5-dimensional parameter space. For each point in this space you can define a goodness-function that expresses how well the particular set ‘tracked’ the observations. For another point in parameter space, you have a [most likely] different value of the goodness-function. A good parameter set is that point which maximizes the goodness-function. You say that you found that point in your first try, but without further exploring in parameter space you don’t know if that point is the best. There could be many other points that are as good or better. So you don’t even know if the solution is unique. Nowhere in your paper does it mention any such exploration, which is the barest minimum that must be carried out for a meaningful conclusion. Your ‘time will tell’ is simply not good enough. One can say that about any wild speculation, a la Scafetta’s, Evans’, or even IPCC’s.
Once we had calibrated the model to establish that it was working correctly, we the, chose what we considered to be scientifically justifiable parameter values and ran the model once more. The results conformed to observation first time around.
How did you establish that the model was ‘working correctly’? Because it gave you the result you were looking for? So you ran it once more, i.e. you have run it many times before that, so this was not a ‘first try’.
Then finally you say that the model conformed to observations first time around. Don’t you see the contradiction here. Your statements are woolly and vague. The procedure you have to go through to validate the model is at the crux of the matter. Everything hinges on you doing this right. There are no indications in the paper that you did. Your puerile protestations don’t cut it.
I think Mr Mount may have intended to refer to the Planck sensitivity parameter, not to Planck’s constant. For the record, we did not derive that parameter by any kind of curve-fitting. We obtained 30 years of latitudinal mid-troposphere temperature data and by a feat of spherical geometry, determined the value of the Planck parameter. Our result was in accord with that of IPCC, to 3decimal places.
Don’t be silly. If Mr Svalgaard had actually read the paper before sneering at it , he would see that we put official parameter values into the calibration runs, then chose our own parameter values that we considered more appropriate, and ran the model to see what result it produced. It broadly coincided with observation. Do stop being childish, read the paper, think, and then try to comment in a manner that at least attempts to be scientific.
You are still spouting personal attacks [what else is new?] instead of addressing the scientific issue which I laid out up-thread. Why don’t you make a contribution and respond substantively to that. To repeat [as is my wont] you have not made a case for meaningful exploration of the parameter space. I posed a number of specific questions. Answer them in order to gain at least some respect.
What “specific questions” has Mr Svalgaard raised? And, in asking them, is he genuinely interested in receiving answers, or is he merely trying to sneer interrogatively? He has not approached this matter with an open mind but with an open mouth.
If Mr Svalgaard wishes to write a different model, or to perform parameter-space tests on mine, he should feel free to do so. Our model has the limited purpose of illuminating the official method of determining climate sensitivity: accordingly, the parameter values we were using for the calibrations were those that the CMIP models and the IPCC used, just so that we could confirm the model delivered results within their interval. We ran several calibration tests, all of them successful. Only when we had done those tests using what I shall call the “official” parameter values, achieving much the same results as the more complex models, did we move on to alter the values of some of those parameters to identify the effect on climate sensitivity.
In particular, we were interested in the value of the closed-loop gain, which is absolutely dependent on the feedback sum and the Planck parameter. We did not need to perform sensitivity tests to establish that this was the most influential quantity. After reviewing the growing literature on net-negative climate feedbacks (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011), we also consulted feedback specialists known to be supporters of the official position, to obtain their views. To our surprise, they were also moving in the direction of reconsidering the strong net-positivity of the feedback sum that is really the sole reason for high climate-sensitivity predictions in the current generation of models.
We also studied some of the earlier literature, from the ground-breaking papers by Manabe and Wetherald to Hansen’s 1984 paper on the influence of feedbacks on climate sensitivity. Indeed, in our forthcoming paper for another journal on the Bode question, we made explicit the derivation of the Bode equation from first principles at which he hints in his paper. However, It remains plain to us that the Bode equation is applicable only to a quite narrow class of dynamical systems, and the climate does not fall into that class. Though our forthcoming paper does not presume to offer a new equation to replace Bode, we are coming to the provisional opinion that the relevant equation is that of an epidemic curve bounded by upper and lower asymptotic limits. The asymptotes are, broadly speaking, those that yield the maximum and minimum inferred temperature values of the past 810,000 years.
Because the closed-loop gain is the dominant influence on climate sensitivity, we had no need to perform the usual sensitivity analysis to identify the parameters that mattered. Please look at what we actually did and make specific comments on where, if anywhere, we went wrong. Do not just hand-wave as you have so far. There is simply need for complex sensitivity or other parameter-space analyses when using a simple model. It is feedback amplification that is the chief defect in the general-circulation models, and our model demonstrates with great clarity and simplicity the difference between the high climate sensitivity in response to strongly net-positive temperature feedbacks whose sum approaches the singularity in the Bode system-gain relation., on the one hand, and the much lower and surely more realistic sensitivity to the appreciably net-negative feedbacks that appear to have ruled the climate throughout almost all of the past million years.
We ran several calibration tests, all of them successful
The paper hangs completely on those tests so they need to be discussed in detail, yet there is no such discussion in the paper. This is a serious deficiency that should be remedied. In addition, the paper claims that the model was fitted to the observations [I presume of temperature] since 1850 and that the model ‘tracks’ the observations. Nowhere is that discussed in detail, and, yet, such is vital for a viable model and a meaningful conclusion. It is a puzzle that such basic things got by the reviewers, hence my request to see their report(s).
P.S. I’m missing your usual nasty references to my person and my dishonesty, incompetence, and other goodies. Please revert to your usual self [at least for my amusement]. Thanks in advance.
You referred to my as malicious. A Danish proverb says “a thief thinks everybody steals”. This seems to apply to you in full measure.
Mr Svalgaard says there is no discussion of the calibration tests in the paper. As I have said before, he should really read the paper before making any more of an idiot of himself commenting on what he appears neither to have read nor to have understood.
If he does not like our model, he is of course entitled to his opinion, though we should have liked some proper scientific reasons for his dislike of it. But America, unlike Britain, is a free country. If he wants to write his own model, then by all means let him do so. In our paper he will find the key parameters well described and discussed in a shorter compass than anywhere elses. But, for Heaven’s sake, if he cannot find any scientific objections to the paper, he is wasting his breath huffing and puffing here.
Prove that you are not the idiot here, by showing the page number, line number, and quote where the calibration and test against global warming since 1850 are discussed in detail.
Let Mr Svalgaard read the paper. It is high time he did so. His inconsequentiual criticisms of various irrelevancies do not look impressive given that he has plainly not read the paper. No doubt he will be able to enter the search term “calibrat” into the Acrobat search box, which will take him straight to the passage he requires. I do not propose to spoon-feed someone who has sneered and whined to such little purpose without having had the courtesy or common sense to read the paper he is sneering and whining about before sneering and whining about it. Grow up, for heaven’s sake.
On the contrary, I have read the paper carefully. That is how I can provide the sharp criticism you have seen here. You see: I know whereof I speak. It is depressing to come across such an insecure person who has to resort to your standard profanities and who cannot take valid criticism like a man.
Let us demonstrate that Mr Svalgaard has not read the paper he has so pathetically attempted to criticize. He has repeatedly asked where the description of the calibration of the model against the climate since 1850 occurs. If he had read the paper he would not have said, repeatedly and without the slightest justification, that there is no such description in the paper. I do not propose to tell him where it is. He can find it in seconds by searching for it. Then – if he is man enough, which I doubt – he can apologize for all his criticisms of a paper he is now proven not to have read before he started shooting his mouth off about it. His conduct is not the conduct of a scientist but of a mere bearer of grudges. He should be thoroughly ashamed of his pathetic behavior.
Nonsense. You demonstrate that you have not read my comments, but let that ride. If you look at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
you can see that there are very many intervals to test the model on, so Table 4 should have been augmented with a test, say, every decade. This would be a standard test of parameter sensitivity, but you fail that, and thus fail generally.
Mr Svalgaard’s latest whine to the effect that we had not done as much testing as he would have preferred takes absolutely no account of the long and careful explanation I had already given. He continues to behave like a small child. We are not, repeat not, interested in short-term fluctuations in temperature. The purpose of the model is to determine climate sensitivity over the long term.
The difference between a formula and an equation :
Example
Equation ;
y = x^2 (y equals x squared)
Formula ;
For all x equal to or greater than 1
y = x^2
else y = 1 (all other values of x maps to, equates to, equals 1)
– – –
Note, this is just one example of infinitely many.
Note, infinity is not a number.
I’ll just add that a model can model an equation or a formula, or combinations of such. That doesn’t make a model a formula.
I am grateful to Mr Mount for making it independently clear that a model is simply a mathematical representation – inevitably simplified – of some object, whether the object be a formula, or – as here – a cascade of equations, or an entire climate with billions of parameters. Mr Svalgaard, in maintaining that the standard model of cosmogony is a complete description of the universe from its origins to the present, is flagrantly exaggerating. At its simplest, the standard model boils down to a single equation that – in a remarkable degree – describes all the particles and forces at work in the universe with the vexing exception of gravity, whose place in the scheme of things is not yet pegged down. Yet to maintain that that single equation is enough for us to describe every star and its origin and its destination, let alone the complexity of the planets and life on planets such as ours, is obvious nonsense. The standard model is a simplification – remarkably elegant and powerful, but a simplification nonetheless.
Simili modo, our model is a simplification of the climate object, designed to illuminate certain features of that object’s past and future behavior but not – of course – to provide a complete description of it. But our model is still a model, so I hope there will be no more semantic quibbling on that score. It would really have been far more interesting if anjyone commenting here had found some defect in the model that we could have addressed to put it right. Instead we have had whining about why we have not made our code available (answer: because we didn’t write any, for a pocket calculator was all we needed); and whether our model is a model or something else that behaves like a model; and whether I am a real Lord (yes, get over it) and whether I claim I can cure HIV (no: get over that too).
We are hoping, however, that there will be reviewed replies to our paper – by real scientists – in the Science Bulletin, and that in accordance with immemorial custom we shall be given the courtesy of answering any such rebuttals in the issue in which the rebuttals are printed. I suspect that the quality of the comments here has been rather poorer than usual because various trolls and people with grudges have piled in to make a nuisance of themselves because they fear we may, after all, be right. They should not fear our being right: for, if we are right, then there is no climate crisis and every Western nation can save trillions over the coming century by not squandering any more taxpayers’ money on it.
Mr Svalgaard, in maintaining that the standard model of cosmogony is a complete description of the universe from its origins to the present, is flagrantly exaggerating
Talking about misrepresenting. The Standard Model is an expression of our knowledge so far, and you missed the point that models are needed because there are unknown layers of reality below that we are at at the moment, so can never be a complete description.
Mr Svalgaard, in his first reference to the standard model of cosmogony in this thread, explicitly stated that there was “no simplifciation” in it. Now he says that it is of course a considerable simplification. Of these two mutually exclusive positions, the latter is scientifically correct.
Just as the standard model is a simplification of the evolution of the universe since a fraction of an isntant after its origin, so our model is a simplification of the climate object. As we concede several times in the paper, our model is not a substitute for the more complex models. It has its limitations. But it has its uses too.
No, the Standard Model is not a ‘simplification’ of the Universe. It is ALL we know about it. Whether or not it is even correct is not a given, even though we think that it is not far from the truth. You did not understand anything of the discussion about this.
leif svalgaard: No, the Standard Model is not a ‘simplification’ of the Universe. It is ALL we know about it.
What a peculiar pair of sentences. Unless we know everything, then the Standard Model is a simplification.
No. The Standard Models incorporate all we know about their subjects. They are not a simplifications of a wider body of knowledge. They may not be correct, but that is for the future to tell. For now, they represent the best we can do. One can make simpler versions [‘simplifications’], e.g. by imagining the electrons trapped in an atom as a miniature solar system. Is treating matter as in Classical Physics rather than Quantum Mechanistically a simplification [that model works well most of the time]? No, it is not. It is just Wrong. Models do not as their defining characteristic have the property of ‘simplification’. Instead, they are tools to gain understanding of something difficult at the level of discourse.
Mr Svalgaard makes the remarkable assertion that the standard model is all we know about the Universe. It is not, of course, and it is fatuous to suggest that it is. Indeed, it cannot even be said with complete confidence that we know the standard model to be correct, for we know for certain that it is incomplete. Mr Svalgaard, in his anxiety to avoid producing a respectable scientific argument against our paper, is digging himself an ever-bigger hole. He should really stop digging. He is not making himself look like a serious contributor to scientific debate.
Our model is a simplification of the climate, much as the standard model is a simplification of the universe. it matters not that we could produce more elaborate versions of the climate model, or of the standard model. For these, too, like all models, would be analogies, and it is of the essence of any analogy, whether simple or complex, that it will break down at some point. So there is no sound intellectual basis for Mr Svalgaard’s failed attempt to discredit our model on the ground that – like all models – it is a simplication. And his assertion that the standard model is not a simplification because it is all we know about the universe has only to be repeated to be seen for the arrant nonsense it is.
Verdict: must try harder. Take an F.
Mr Svalgaard makes the remarkable assertion that the standard model is all we know about the Universe.
Perhaps you should think about what you write before pressing the Send Key. And do I have to spoon-feed everything to you? The Standard Model is all we think we know about how the Universe works. See the difference? If not, I can recommend several good books on the subject. Just let me know.
there is no sound intellectual basis for Mr Svalgaard’s failed attempt to discredit our model on the ground that it is a simplication.
That is, obviously, not the basis. The paper fails because of shoddy ‘science’. Because of lack of detail about the fitting procedures. Because of no exploration of the parameter space. Because of …[etc]. Many reasons. The fate of such papers is to be ignored in well-deserved obscurity.
And furthermore, every model is by its nature a simplification. Perhaps Mr Svalgaard, instead of making up ever more feeble and inaaccurate definitions as he loses the argument, would refer to any textbook of general mathematical logic, where it will become at once apparent to him that in practice any model is a simplification of the object it is intended to represent. it is not the object itself.
Besides, if Mr Svalgaard had read even as far as the title of our paper, he would have noticed that it talks of “results from an irreducibly simple climate model”. Our model, like it or not, is a simplification, just like all other climate models. If Mr Svalgaard is criticizing our model on the ground that it is simpler than the object it represents, then he is by implication criticizing all other climate models, for they, too, are simplifications.
It looks to me as though he has lost the thread of whatever argument he was once advancing, and is thrashing around in his desperation to find fault with a paper he has not read or understood. Perhaps he should take a few days of to read it and think about it, and then return with an organized list of questions. And let him frame them as straightforward questions, so as to free himself from the bearing-a-grudge, sneering tone in which he has unfortunately conducted this matter. He must raise his game, and show a genuine interest in the scientific argument we are advancing, and ask sensible, scientific questions about our results, rather than complaining that we have not explained our calibrations when we rather obviously have, or complaining that our model is not a model when it rather obviously is.
Or perhaps he could go away altogether and write his own model and submit it for peer review. But he would have to have better answers for his reviewers than those he has given here, or he will not get his paper published.
Or, if he really wants to manifest his unreasoning hatred of us, he can offer to the Science Bulletin an attempt at a rebuttal of our paper. But he should be aware that we shall be given the right of reply in the same issue, so he will need to make a proper job of his rebuttal. And he will have to raise serious points. The series of futile inconsequentialities with which he has sought to disrupt this thread would not withstand peer review even for five minutes. Let him go away and do some propler thinking, and replace his hatred and his grudge with real, dispassionate, fair-minded science. That is the way grown-up scientists behave.
he can offer to the Science Bulletin an attempt at a rebuttal of our paper
No rebuttal needed. Bad papers die all by themselves.
I am not at all surprised that Mr Svalgaard, non-scientist and bearer of grudges, is not man enough to attempt a rebuttal of our paper – a rebuttal that would have to face both peer review and a refutation from us in the same issue. He prefers to snipe and carp here, without even having read the paper he is sniping and carping about. That is why his “criticisms” are so unfocused, non-specific and unscientific.
As I said ‘bad papers die all by themselves’. There are papers worth rebutting, yours is not among them. Any scientist worth his salt can see that from the shoddy parameter exploration. It is bad form to publish what is evident to everybody.
Well, three peer reviewers thought the paper worthy of publication. Not one of them commented that the model had been inadequately calibrated. And if our paper is not worth rebutting, why, one wonders, has Mr Svalgaard spent so much time here bad-temperedly trying – and spectacularly failing – to criticize a paper that, thoughout most of this thread, it can be proven he had not even read? Does he, perhaps, bear some sort of a grudge – perhaps because I came to the defense of my friend Dr Evans when Dr Svalgaard unfairly subjected him to the same ugly and loutish and relentlessly unscientific treatment he has now lavished foolishly on me?
At any rate, let us accept that Mr Svalgaard is defeated. He does not dare to try to rebut our perfectly reasonable and sensible paper, because he knows full well – now that he has actually read some of it – that there is nothing wrong with it (or, rather, that if there is anything wrong with it he does not know what it is). So he retreats from the field, unable and unwilling to face the same peer review that we faced. Certainly, what he has presented in this thread would not pass muster on peer review. He has been indulged here for too long.
This ugly argy-bargy about the “Monckton Model” being a model or whatever has one positive result: the Alarwarmistas will choke with laughter. It’s nit-picking at its best. The question cannot be: “What is the ‘Monckton Model'” but it ought to be “Can it deliver better, plausible results?”. The future will show whether the latter is the case, until now it is -at least to me- highly probable that it will. I always thought of dogmatism as a vice of the Alarwarmistas. I don’t want to live to see that the sceptics can do so much better,,,
The ‘wait and see’ attitude seems very much at variance with the headline of the post that the model “reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible”. So the conclusion has already been drawn regardless of what happens in the future. That is not science.
Don’t be childish. If you are incapable of adopting a scientific approach, be silent. If Mr Svalgaard had read the paper he so sneeringly but ineffectually presumes to criticise, he would realise the reasons why we say the influence of Man on global temperatur is negligible. However, only time will tell whether our model will do a better job of predicting global temperatures than the politicised GCMs.
If only time will tell, you can not categorically assert the conclusion already. And you call that science.
>> lsvalgaard January 18, 2015 at 11:02 pm
If only time will tell, you can not categorically assert the conclusion already. And you call that science.<<
But it is science that corresponds with reality. All "models" of the established 'science' have utterly failed. They do deliver krap at its best. 'Monckton Model's" results correspond with reality.
So: reality check passed, carry on!
Monckton of Brenchley
You say to lsvalgaard
History shows that although your admonition is warranted it is pointless because it will have no effect.
lsvalgaard has great knowledge and understanding of solar matters but he cannot resist the temptation to make a fool of himself on other matters. This is a great pity because he harms his very deserved credibility on solar matters by pontificating about other matters he does not understand.
I have corrected blatant nonsense from him in two WUWT threads. The first is here and the most recent is in this thread where he made untrue assertions concerning modeling and provided two unsolicited links to support his assertions. When I pointed out that both of his links refuted his assertions and one supported my comments which he was disputing he here wrote
I genuinely hope lsvalgaard will adopt your admonition for his own sake, but I suspect that he will not.
Richard
You bet I won’t.
Richard, you are quite right that Mr Svalgaard is making a spectacular idiot of himself by attempting to criticize a paper he has not even read, and has been proven not to have read. Let him continue to make an idiot of himself, for all of these threads are being archived by the Lord Monckton Foundation, where future generations will be able to see how uncivilized and unscientific Mr Svalgaard has become.
Perhaps he was once a reasonable solar physicist, though his loutish, not-invented-here mistreatment of Dr Evans suggests that even in that field he is not all he cracks himself up to be: but in matters of climate sensitivity and modeling he is well out of his depth.
And how many real scientists do you know who would wade in and go on and on whining about a paper (“criticizing” is perhaps too grown-up a word to describe Mr Svalgaard’s sniveling) without having taken the elementary trouble to read it first? Perhaps it is old age. Who knows?
But he has one value: his idiocies here will be studied with a mixture of horror and amusement by future generations, and they will perhaps learn from the absence of scientific integrity or intellectual honesty in his contributions to this thread that they should not emulate him, and that they should be as vigorous as you and I have been in not accepting pseudo-scientific nonsense: for there is too much bunkum already in climate science, and it is time for us to speak up against those whose conduct falls so very far short either of the scientific method or of common courtesy.
Once Mr Svalgaard has read the paper, and has apologized for not having read it before presuming to snivel about it, perhaps we can move forward. As it is, he has not come gloriously out of this affair. Imagine how silly he must feel, now that he realizes that the calibration against the record since 1850 that he has been asking for, and that he has repeatedly sworn is not in the paper, has a section all to itself? But will he apologize for not having read the paper? Let us just say that we ought not to hold our breath.
Did Hans von Storch get a copy of “Monckton’s Model”?
First of all, I must say that this discussion is taking place on a completely wrong setting that has been taken as the basis for finding the causes of climate change. It is a mistake and deception and scientific public and all participants in thinking about the causes of climate change. Looks like someone deliberately put CO2 as the main culprit for the warming of our planet, in order to draw attention to something else that is “behind the hill wrong,” and that should bring some new tax.
Science has “derailed” and completely forgot about the laws of nature and their study and application of knowledge to further the true causes of the phenomenon. Instead, they chose themselves over time to some sort of model of “telling fortunes,” what will prove to be something they like. Thus, the models become “golden calf” which experts “poured” into the PC and after praying this model to tell them what’s out there about which they have no idea. Well i have no idea. Is it the result of your model smarter than you who you are as your idea of “baked” in the PC so you now all “tastier”. And what is actually a model? It should be an attempt to based on natural phenomena, which are related to what we investigate, get something fairly and in accordance with natural phenomena and in compliance with the law by which all takes place in nature.
Gentlemen, climate change, in general, in the solar system, not only on Earth, depend exclusively, from the relation between celestial bodies (both who influences whom in the movement, with its: Weapons “(attractive force, magnetism, electrical boxes and everything else related to their behavior in space). do not forget that it is the size of a human being can not even comprehend, let alone change. We can pollute the air or water, or who may be reheated Earth to temperature changes on it. Did not clear sunspot cycles that are just indicators of some changes in the system, which should be on the basis of study.
When speaking of Kepler’s laws, when you know that the planets do not move in ellipses according to Kepler, but it is another way to explain the causes of spin planets and their proportions and in the bulk and at distances from each other (System planets and their barycenter ) and so on !!
These discussions and models will never give true causes of the phenomenon.
I’m a little sharper, but excuse me, I have to, because this leads to something, so far at least someone to prove something.
Mr Milovic is right that CO2 has been unduly demonized, as though it were the only – or the principal – influence on the climate. To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air at all. So, though it can exercise some influence, it is not very likely to exercise an overwhelmingly dominant influence.
I am not sure about the extent to which planetary influences on the Sun have an effect on Earth. Some scientists say this is the case, and there are identifiable cycles of climatic activity which appear coincident with orbital cycles of the major planets, but – although a small but dedicated group of scientists asserts that the “planetary beat” is influential, the jury is still out on this question.
What we should certainly study, however, is whether the methodology by which we are told the initial small direct warming from CO2 is tripled is correct. For the reasons briefly touched on in the present paper, and expanded on in a forthcoming paper now accepted for publication after peer review, i consider that the tripling of global temperature to allow for imagined strongly net-positive temperature feedbacks is unphysical and should be rejected.
This point of view is gaining ground in the climate-science community and – in my opinion – deserves to prevail.
Mr Milovic is right that CO2 has been unduly demonized, as though it were the only – or the principal – influence on the climate.
Suggest you read Hansen’s 1988 paper you have appeared to missed the point.
Or perhaps you could read Hansen’s presentation (below) where he points out that in the short term it would be better to focus on Methane. “The best opportunity for a decrease is in methane, and thus also tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor”
To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air at all. So, though it can exercise some influence, it is not very likely to exercise an overwhelmingly dominant influence.
Frankly that’s nonsense, since 99.9%+ of the atmosphere (the three gases which are more abundant than CO2) aren’t IR active! That’s like saying that you only need 8mg/day of iron in your diet it can’t have much effect.
Phil.:
Has not CO2 been fingered as the climate culprit? Is not 99% of the alarmism directed at CO2?
And please show us where CO2 has had any effect on climate. You are one of the die-hards.. 18 years and counting.
Phil says I should read Hansen’s 1988 paper. In fact, I recently reviewed the predictions from that paper, in which he had forecast 0.5 K/decade global warming by now as his business-as-usual case (Scenario A). The actual rate of warming since 1988 has been little more than 0.1 K/decade, so Hansen’s predictions have turned out to be laughably extreme.
Phil then says Hansen recommends we should focus on methane [which has a global-warming potential, mole for mole, that is 21 times that of CO2]. However, unlike CO2, the concentration of methane has not been rising all that fast since 2000, and in fact has risen at below the least rate predicted in IPCC’s assessment reports 1-4. The primary biogenic source of methane, in any event, is not cattle demenant: it is termite ants. And have you heard of the Greens’ mighty campaign against the white ants? No, I thought not. Our emissions of methane are, frankly, negligible. The total methane concentration, from all sources, is less than 2 – yes, 2 – parts per million, or the equivalent of about 40 ppm CO2. So, on the elementary math, there is practically no point in our trying to address emissions of methane, when our agricultural sector and even the gas pipeline from Siberia to Europe (now that it has been repaired) are so very small to start with, and when the concentration in the atmosphere is barely measurable.
And, whether Phil likes it or not, to the nearest tenth of 1 per cent there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at all. As I correctly stated, that trace quantity can have some effect on temperature, but adding CO2 to so low a concentration will make – in practice – remarkably little difference to global temperature.
Finally, Phil should know that water vapor is far more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and it too is a greenhouse gas. The estimates of CO2’s contribution to the greenhouse effect range from 10-25%. But that is the effect of the total accumulated concentration. Each additional molecule has less forcing effect than its predecessors (Myhre et al., 1998); so that in today’s conditions we can’t make much difference to global temperature.
Phil says I should read Hansen’s 1988 paper. In fact, I recently reviewed the predictions from that paper, in which he had forecast 0.5 K/decade global warming by now as his business-as-usual case (Scenario A). The actual rate of warming since 1988 has been little more than 0.1 K/decade, so Hansen’s predictions have turned out to be laughably extreme.
Read it perhaps but clearly didn’t understand it. Scenario A was intended to be extreme, ‘business as usual’ referred to continuing emissions at the 1970-1980s rate indefinitely, which he didn’t expect to be the case.
“These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns,”
“Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2, and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e., the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases.”
Notably in your paper you only included Hansen’s high prediction not the other two, in fact Scenario C was surprisingly accurate in its estimate of future emissions (see Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/17/hansen-ghg-concentration-projections/)
Phil then says Hansen recommends we should focus on methane [which has a global-warming potential, mole for mole, that is 21 times that of CO2]. However, unlike CO2, the concentration of methane has not been rising all that fast since 2000,
A good match for Scenario C! You had claimed that “Mr Milovic is right that CO2 has been unduly demonized, as though it were the only – or the principal – influence on the climate“, anyone able to read a graph can see that Hansen did not do so in either the 1988 paper, or the other report I referred to.
By the way I suggest that you adopt the practice recommended by Willis, i.e. quote verbatim what I said, don’t make it up. Water vapor is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, its concentration is dependent on temperature and indeed in major parts of the atmosphere is at a lower concentration than CO2.
I apologise that the link to Hansen’s report didn’t appear above:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdf
In further reply to the less than fully informed “Phil.”, Scenario A from Hansen’s paper was his business-as-usual case. How do I know? Because he is on record as having said so in subsequent Congressional testimony.
“Phil.” goes on to say that Scenario C was “remarkably accurate” in its projection of future global warming. No, it wasn’t. Global temperature is running well below even Scenario C, which – though “Phil.” is very careful not to say so, was predicated on the assumption that from 1988 to 2000 there would be drastic reductions in CO2 emissions, which would remain stable from 2000 onward. Since this rather obviously did not happen, and yet global temperatures are still running well below Scenario C, this was a predictive failure of a heroic order.
“Phil.” then gives me a characteristically bossy lecture about quoting his drivel verbatim, and then succeeds spectacularly in misquoting himself. I had said there was more water vapor than CO2 in the air, and Phil, alleging I had misquoted him, said that water vapor is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas. But I can find nothing in Phil’s earlier posting that mentions that water vapor is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas.
In short, Phil. is trolling in his usual feeble-minded, sneering, whining fashion, without displaying the slightest intention of conducting the conversation in an honest fashion. His postings here are flagrantly mendacious and dishonest, and fall well below the standard of intellectual integrity and scientific knowledge that are expected here. One hopes he is paid well by his climate-Communist masters, for he is a standing advertisement for the utter bankruiptcy of the climate-Communist party line.
“and fall well below the standard of intellectual integrity and scientific knowledge”
…
From a third party observer, you have miss characterized Phil. Judging by both his and your postings here, I would say, it is very possible and highly likely that his grasp of the subject matter is well above yours.
….
Would Mr Socrates care to be specific? As any impartial observer can observe, and as future generations will observe, Phil has been caught out again and again getting his facts wrong.
It is obvious to even the most casual observer that ‘socrates’ is a third-party observer, as he states. Perhaps he should read the WUWT archives for a few months, in an effort to get up to speed on this subject.
As for Phil., he is his usual grumpy self, adding nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
Dbstealey posts….
..
“in an effort to get up to speed on this subject.”
…
I’m surprised he continues to use that sort of language.
..
Remeber this post Mr Dbstealey?
..
“Yes, those of us up to speed on the subject know that global temperature (T) rises or falls the most at night,” ???
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/31/2014-in-review/#comment-1825830
…
Thank you, but I don’t want to get up to YOUR speed.
Mom and Dad enjoy reading Mr. Stealey’s posts and think he has a good grasp of the subject matter. At the very least he knows the difference between an algebraic expression and a temperature measurement.
Something with which I have at my disposal: four planets, their positions in space cause maximums and minimums of sunspots, which occurs mainly in the global cycle of about 44 years, but the cycles of about 11.2 years repeated with different intensities. If this lending inters, there is a possibility that this agreement and demonstrate. In this there is plenty of other evidences.
Therefore I suggest that all of the major phenomena in the solar system depend on the relation between participants. We do not know, because we are not aware that the planet and act as “living beings”. Can someone from the “makers” model, to make a model that will show you how to successfully treat cancer, AIDS and the like?
Mr Milovic may like to read the forthcoming book by Niklas Moerner and others on the interaction of the major planets with the Sun and the consequent effects on Earth’s climate. This area of research is not one of my specialisms, so I have no idea whether they are on to something, but there is some interesting material in the papers there, and the book should be available for download in a month or two.
As to the research on broad-spectrum treatment of infectious diseases, we shall keep plugging away until we have results that are verified and publishable according to the very high research standards that are expected (though not always achieved) in the field of medical research. In the meantime, please do not believe the various climate-Communist sneerers who say I have claimed to be able to cure HIV and many other diseases. We make no, repeat no claims. We are quietly getting on with the research and, when and if we are satisfied that our results deserve to be communicated, we shall publish them after due peer review in one of the leading learned journals of medicine. My guess is that we are many years away from being able to publish. But thank you very much for your interest, though it is off the topic of this thread.
[Deleted. You were warned before about posting that link. Any more such ad hominem links will be deleted, and this commenter will be invited to comment elsewhere. This discussion concerns models, not someone’s gratuitous attack/hate links. ~ mod.]
[Trimmed. A bit excessively critical of Socrates. .mod]
And what scientific point, if any, is Mr Socrates making? Cures have been effected, but we make no claim that we can replicate them till proper laboratory and clinical trials have been conducted and the results evaluated, a process that takes years to decades. And what has any of that got to do with a scientific paper on the climate, published after independent and thorough peer review?
Interestingly, my original answer to the BBC’s question had been a long and cautious one about how we had had some promising results against various diseases but were not ready to make any claims till we had completed the trials. The journalist wanted a blunter, plainer version – presumably so he could spin it up with his preceding (and inaccurate) remark that I had no background in science.
A truly honourable commenter would wish us well with our research, and hope that some of the diseases against which we propose to investigate our broad-spectrum treatment can indeed be cured one day. Until then, – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – we make no claims.
Monckton There is an obvious millennial cycle in the temperature and driver data see Figs 5 -9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
any calculations of climate sensitivity or forecasts of future trends which ignore the contribution of this natural periodicity to 20th century warming are pretty much irrelevant. As I said earlier
” This approach is a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.”
As I also said earlier
“Best Regards and thanks for your herculean efforts to stop the UNFCCC – IPCC circus.”
Dr Page fails to appreciate that our paper concerns itself only with the anthropogenic component in global radiative forcing, and with the consequences for global temperature of that anthropogenic influence. Add the natural to the anthropogenic and you are predicting real-world temperature change. Consider solely the anthropogenic, as our paper does, and you are predicting the manmade component in any future temperature change that may occur.
I am well aware of the claims made by various parties for various cycle lengths. I have sympathy with some – such as those who talk of the ocean oscillations (see e.g. Anastasios Tsonis’ paper of 2006 on the subject). And a millennial-scale cycle is also possible, though I am not sure we can predict when it will change its sign. Fred Singer is a pioneer on the millennial-scale cycle, and has written a book about it. But all the key predictions of the IPCC are at sub-millennial timescales. Even if we were considering the human contribution to warming (which we were not), it would still be inappropriate to assume that we know when the cycles start or stop or how big they will be.
Monckton I agree that the main uncertainty in my cooling forecasts is the exact timing and amplitude of the millennial cycle. However reasonable working hypotheses can be made by looking at the proxy data for solar activity. First , for the suggested peak of the millennial cycle see
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There is an estimated 12 year lag between the solar driver peak at about 1991 and the RSS climate temperature trend peak at 2003.
For the driver peak see Fig 14 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The major solar driver shift into the cooling regime is suggested to be at 2005/6 in Fig 13 of the same post.
I suggest that the validity of this approach and my forecasts would be given a boost therefore if there is a significant cooling in 2017- 18 .or thereabouts.
It should also be noted that the lags between the driver change and the particular climate metric being used (e g SSTs, OHC, Land Sea Temp series.) vary – guesstimate 20 years +/- 10
I think the RSS data is the most useful as the canary in the coal mine because it has been the less homogenized, statistically adjusted and otherwise reanalyzed the others.
Sorry to poop on Dr Page’s party, but our paper concentrates solely on the anthropogenic influences on global temperature. It is silent on the natural influences, except to the extent that it was natural influences that determined the temperatures of the past 810,000 years as evidenced by the d18O ratios in ice-core samples. Promotion of Dr Page’s opinions on the natural cycles of climate is off topic here.
Monckton Perhaps I am not understanding your model As I understand it your paper states that the model outputs depend on – and I quote from the paper:
“Assuming that all global warming since 1850 was anthropogenic, the model fairly reproduces the change in
global temperature since then, suggesting that the 0.6 K committed but unrealized warming mentioned in AR4,AR5 is non-existent. If some global warming was natural,then a fortiori the likelihood of committed but unrealized warming is small.”
I think that it is entirely pertinent and on topic to point out, and link to data which shows, that the fundamental assumption that all warming since 1850 is anthropogenic on which your model is based is probably wrong
For the last time I must ask Dr Page to Read The Paper and then to Think and then, and only then, to comment. We do not say that all global warming since 1850 was anthropogenic. We draw a conclusion, based on one of the calibration runs, that even if all global warming since then was anthropogenic one would not expect 0.6 K unrealized but committed global warming as imagined by IPCC. We specifically go on to state, in the very passage cited by Dr Page, that if in fact some global warming was natural then, as fortiori, the likelihood of committed but unrealized warming is small.
There is absolutely no basis, in the cited passage or elsewhere in our paper, for Dr Page’s statmetment that our model is based on a “fundamental assumption that all warming since 1850 is anthropogenic”/ Our model is constructed so as to allow any assumption to be made – that all, some, or none of the warming since any chosen start date was anthropogenic. It is a model. It does not prescribe or proscribe any viewpoint on the magnitude of the anthropogenic as opposed to the natural component in warming. It determines, if our chosen parameter values be accepted, that the amount of anthropogenic warming from a CO2 doubling will be small. It is, as I have repeatedly stated, silent on the extent to which recent warming was anthropogenic.
I draw attention to section 9 of the your paper
“How skillful is the model?
Remarkably, though the model is very simple, its output proves to be broadly consistent with observation, while the now-realized projections of the general-circulation models have proven to be relentlessly exaggerated. If, for instance,the observed temperature trend of recent decades were extrapolated several decades into the future, the model’s output would (be)coincident with the observations thus
extrapolated (Fig. 6).”
I submit that there is reasonable evidence that the global warming temperature trend peaked in about 2003 and that the earth has cooled since then. If that cooling trend was extrapolated several decades into the future the models output would bear little relation to observations.
I would contend that the GCM models are not just relentlessly exaggerated but simply meaningless as a basis for discussion of future climate.
In response to Dr Page, I am leery of arbitrarily extending very short observed trends into the future and assuming that the prediction will be accurate. The basis of our paper – which was rigorous – was the physical equations determining climate sensitivity. The observed record since 1850 was used purely for calibration, as the cited passage makes quite clear. The science establishing that one should expect some warming from CO2, all other things being equal, is clear, and, as I have said before, it was not our intention to re-examine that question. Our paper is concerned solely with the anthropogenic component of past and future global warming, and projections of naturally-occurring cooling are wholly irrelevant to it.
The observed record since 1850 was used purely for calibration, as the cited passage makes quite clear
So you say, but the paper does not describe how and so your statement no little value. Get it into your head: it is important that those details be spelled out.
Mr Svalgaard should read the paper, where he will see the calibrations well described, with worked examples. It is scandalous that he is still whining about the imagined content of a paper he has so obviously taken little or no trouble to read, and still less to understand. He does himself no favors by behaving sourly and pettily as one who bears a grudge rather than as a dispassionate scientist.
Your so-called test against global warming since 1850 is not a test at all, but simple curve fitting. If the model can describe the climate it should work for all years since 1850, not just for the end points of that interval. So Table 4 should have included an entry for each year, or at least for each decade [to save space perhaps].
I agree that the cooling trend is short but the cooling trend extension is not arbitrary – it stems from the reasonable working hypothesis that the millennial cycle peak likely occurred in the first decade of the 21st century and that trends in solar activity since 1991suggests that the peak has passed. .When in about 2110 a useful 60 year moving average of the global temperature data is run and we may get general agreement as to when exactly that peak was. Obviously we will get indications of the general cooling -or lack of it much sooner than that.
Dr Page continues to be off topic. The paper is about the anthropogenic contribution to global warming, not about various cycles of unknown aetiology or periodicity.
With due respect ,how is it off topic to point out that it seems difficult for a model to calculate a purported human contribution to global warming if in fact in the future the earth is actually cooling.
For the nth time, our model is concerned with th anthropogenic, not the natural, component in climate change. If the Earth is cooling p, then the manmade contribution is still more obviously insufficient to cause a climate problem. But the map natural component in temperature change is not, repeat not, the topic of the head pisting,
Mockton the point I am trying to make , with little success so far is, exceedingly simple i.e that until you know within reasonable limits what the natural variation is and account for it , it is not possible to calibrate either your models or the IPCC models against the empirical data. The IPCC actually agrees.Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., they don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
By the time of the AR5 report even the IPCC has given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on
values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
but paradoxically they still claim that we can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be crazy.
The successive uncertainty estimates in the successive “Summary for Policymakers” take no account of the structural uncertainties in the models and almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case.
Dr Norman Page: Mockton the point I am trying to make , with little success so far is, exceedingly simple i.e that until you know within reasonable limits what the natural variation is and account for it , it is not possible to calibrate either your models or the IPCC models against the empirical data.
With respect, I think that you are confounding two questions: (1) whether the Monckton et al model can be calibrated and compared to data and (2) whether the Monckton et al model is complete and accurate. For sure, if the periodicities identified in the data are a result of a persistent physical process, then the Monckton et al model will soon fail to agree with the data. At present, the best we can say is that there are a lot of models, some have those periodicities, and some don’t. If the models with the periodicities are in fact the most accurate (hence likely “realistic”) then the sensitivity to CO2 is even less than computed by Monckton et al. Which models will be shown in the future to be least inaccurate we do not know.
Meanwhile, the IPCC reports are viewed as eminently respectable by many scientists and policy makers. For and to that audience, Monckton et al have written a paper and model that is based on a close reading of the reports.
Mr Svalgaard continues to insist that we have indulged in curve-fitting. He only gets away with this by serially enlarging the definition of curve-fitting. Properly speaking, curve-fitting is altering the parameters or design of a model so that it more closely replicates a given body of observations. We did not do that, and we should not have passed peer review if we had done so. Our model is soundly based in climate physics, and – as Mr Svalgaard has now very belatedly realized, having been shamed into at least glancing at the paper he has been so unbecomingly ready to snivel about before he had even read it, that there is indeed a description in the paper of how we calibrated the model against temperature change since 1850.
So now he shifts his ground, like a schoolboy debater caught out in a lie, and says that he is not satisfied with our calibration, and that he would prefer it to have been performed against periods starting every year. Don’t be childish. If you want to do such tests, do them. If you find the results render our model unsuitable, say so. But don’t whine till you’ve done the work. This is a simple model that does not – for instance – take into account the ups and downs of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so of course there will be mismatches in individual years or even decades. Overall, though, what we are concerned with is the long-run trend of global warming. And the model seems to be doing a lot better in that regard than the billion-dollar brains. And, though it is rash to make predictions, I expect our model to outperform the GCMs in future: for our model is a genuine search for the truth, while the GCMs have become politicized and also corrupted by intercomparison, so that their results are ever closer to each other and ever further from observed reality.
Well, from the very beginning it was clear that the so-called test was insufficient and that the model should also work with intermediate years, but you failed to make that simple accommodation [and failed to describe how you showed that the model ‘worked’. So, the only ‘test’ was a two-point curve fitting. I have spent time on this because there are lessons for you and lurkers to learn from this. At this point, perhaps one should let the paper wither on the vine as it surely will do.
Well from the beginning and for several days Mr Svalgaard pretended he had read the paper when it can be proven he had not done so. Yet he attacked it when he had no basis for doing so. He went on and on, repeatedly refusing to take the elementary step of reading what he was attacking. That was not the conduct of a scientist.
When he was at length shamed into looking at the paper, he discovered to his visible discomfiture that the account of the model’s calibration that he had several times declared did not exist was there all the time. Two sections of the paper were devoted to it. That is how we know he had not read the paper.
Did he apologise for his days of scientific dishonesty? No.
Curve-fitting, of which he has accused user least a dozen times without having read the paper, is a dishonest technique by which, if a model is found not to work, it is adjusted till it fits some desired real-world iutput. That is what it means. Mr Svalgaard has p, in effect, repeatedly accused us of intellectual dishonesty, and our three excellent reviewers of egregious ineptitude.
In fact, we had not one any curve fitting at all. There would have been no point. Unlike Mr Svalgaard, we were looking for the truth, not to score points by the fabrication of which his allegation of curve fitting accuses us,
Now Mr Svalgaard, instead of apologising for his repeated allegation of dishonesty against us for a paper he had not even read, doubles down on his allegation of curve fitting by the ridiculous further allegation that we had taken two points in the past temperature record – 1859 and today – and, after finding that our model did not fit the temperature change between these two points – had tampered with the design or parameters of our model till they fitted the measured temperature change between the two points.
In fact, we used two standard statistical techniques to establish the least-squares linear-regression trend from 1850 to the present. One of us, after all, is a statistician. Why did we determine the trend? Because that told us, not on the basis of two end points but on the basis of every monthly dada point in the entire record – by just how much global temperature had risen since 1859. One cannot, as Me Svalgaard suggests, simply take the two end points of the entire global temperature record and subtract one from the other, because if either or both of the endpoints is far from the trend line quite large errors can intrude.
Having determined the warming since 1850′ we then used the model to estimate the radiative forcing from Nan’s emissions since 1850. From this, we used the model to determine how much man made global warming we’d have expected to occur since 1850. We then concluded, reasonably and oroportionately, that if all of the global warming since 1859 had been caused by Man there was no 0.6 K committed but unrealised global warming in the pipeline. If some of the warming had been natural, then it was still clearer that there was no global warming in the pipeline that was yet to emerge as a result of our past sins of emission.
Then, having conducted this perfectly proper and diligent research, we reported, in detail, exactly what we had done and how we had done it. From that report, any scientist would know we had not done any curve fitting.
Mr Svakgaard, however, not only persisted in his allegation of curve fitting when it can be proven that he had read the paper and knew there had been none, but now triples down on his flagrant double scientific dishonesty by claiming that we should have compared prediction with observation between every pair of dates in the record since 1950.
Here, Mr Svakgaard, who is not a statistician, misunderstands least-squares linear regression. One usually takes the longest available run of data in order to get the most representative and reliable trend line. Besides, the purpose of research into global warming us not to examine every jiggle and wiggle in the data but to find out how much has occurred over time. And our additional stated purpose in performing this calculation was to determine whether the 9.6 K in-the-pipeline warming imagined btpy the IPCC was plausible. For this we needed the longest available run of data.
Furthermore, it is self-evident that if the complex models cannot represent the stochastic temperature data month by month, with every up and down, our far simpler model would not be able to do it either. Heck, the models did not even predict the Great El Nino of 1998.
Thus Mr Svakgaard owes us the following apologies. 1. For having repeatedly criticised a paper he has been proven not to have read. 2. For having on multiple occasions accused us baselessly of the dishonest technique of curve fitting when he had no idea whether we had done any such thing because he had not read our paper. 3. For having repeatedly alleged that we had not provided deaptails of how we had calibrated our model when we had devoted two sections of the paper to calibration. 4. For having persisted in his allegation of curve fitting when he had eventually been shamed into looking at the paper he had been coat tacking for so long and with such sullenly malevolent frequency, when he now knows full well we had not indulged in any firm if curve fitting.
His behaviour here constitutes grave and malicious research misconduct,
You persist in your misguided diatribe. The fact is that you did not do a proper parameter space exploration [resorting to two-point curve fitting] and you have still not responded to my question ‘how did you establish that the model worked correctly’.
Your nonsense about my not reading the paper is just that, nonsense. I did not in the paper find satisfactory answers to my relevant and probing inquiries. Instead I get a shitload of ad-hom attacks, which border on the humorous and are characteristic of your insecurity when it comes to science. As I said, let your paper die on the vine as it surely will.
I have provided a detailed answer to Mr Svalgaard down thread. He had at the outset said there was no account of how the model had been calibrated in the oaoer, he had plainly not read it, or he would have known that there was an account of it. Have actually asked for the page and line number, which he would not have needed to do if he had read the oaoer. For the calibration since 1850 that he had said was absent has an entire section to itself. A detailed account if that calibration is down thread.
There was no detailed and satisfactory account of the calibration. Only vague references to hand waving banalities. My valid criticism stands: the paper is un-convincing and shoddy.
Sorry. That should be upthread. Mr Svalgaard’ ps latest response is on any view inadequate. It is self-evident that we had not indulged in antsy form of curve fitting, and that Mr Svakgaard had not read the oaoer before making his characteristically malevolent allegation. That was serious research misconduct on his oart, as well as shamefully unscientific.
Try to control your temper a bit to avoid all those typos and various other excesses. As I said: the paper is poor, un-convincing, shoddy, and destined to a silent death in obscurity. The fate of bad papers in general.
Does Mr Svalgaard have any serious scientific point to make? Or just yah-boo as usual? He has lied and been caught out. And the paper has been downloaded 3500 times.
Whoever chose this journal deserves an additional pat on the back. Too many westerners are ignoring the Chinese scientific societies and journals. Also, it seems that Chinese scientists have less of a commitment to the idea that CO2 is the only or most important culprit in global warming.
Mr Marler is right. Our reasoning was that sending to any Western journal a paper that raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the climate models would have a very small chance of success, since the climate-science journals have been captured by climate Communism and are no longer willing to be dispassionate about the climate issue.
Our guess was that the Chinese, noticing the collapse of Western scientific integrity, seized the opportunity to run our paper to demonstrate that they are as we once were – open-minded enough to take a line that may depart from the climate-Communist party line, provided that the new line is properly justified by scientific argument. The Chinese are, in effect, going to take over scientific publishing from the West, where editors have abandoned intellectual honesty and independence in favor of a cloying, fatuous adherence to the climate-Communist party line.
It is a pretty paradox that a Communist country should now have become the one place on Earth where climate Communism can be questioned in the scientific learned journals.
Were the reviewers friendly Chinese, bent on getting the scoop on Western Journals?
We have deduced that at least one of the reviewers was Chinese and at least one from North America. Beyond that, we cannot say, for the review process in a grown-up journal is of course double-blind. Our paper was considered on its merits, and by people from both East and West who demonstrated that they were well qualified to conduct the review.
Many ‘grown-up’ journals [e.g. JGR] reveal who the reviewers [and the editor] were. And I doubt the review was double-blind, meaning that the reviewers didn’t know who the authors were. The Science Bulletin website does not specify that the authors’ name be withheld.
If the reviewers knew the paper was written chiefly by a layman, and yet they passed it after thorough peer review, then they would surely have been no less likely to pass it if they had known it was written chiefly by a climatologist. Why cannot Mr Svalgaard make a genuine scientific criticism of the paper, rather endlessly whining and sniping about irrelevancies? Grow up.
So you [as often] were economical with the truth when you claimed that “of course” the review was double-blind…
Don’t be childish. If you can find a legitimate point of scientific criticism, make it. Otherwise, be silent and stop making yourself look silly.
“since the climate-science journals have been captured by climate Communism”
So you sent it to a Communist journal?
Does Mr Stokes have a scientific point to make? Interesting how few scientific points the trolls have managed to muster in this thread. I have already pointed out upthread the pretty paradox that a Communist country’s journal has published a paper that questions the climate Communist party line. Mr Stokes should try to keep up with the debate, rather than adopting his rather silly and negative habit of drive-by shooting.
Let him read the paper and see if he can muster some proper scientific criticisms, rather than his current childish inconsequentialities.
Could one explain to me the laboratory experiments that declared that co2 was a greeen house gas. If I take 2 test tubes of equal volume and shape and fill one with air and one with only co2 .The co2 one will be 67 % hotter than the one with air according to the gas law PV=RT. Where does IR radiation enter into this?
Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere :
http://warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
Nowhere, the premise is false, they’ll be at the same temperature according to the gas law.
Mr Prudhomme may like to read accounts if the original experiment by John Tyndall at the Royal Institution in1859. That is a good starting point.
Monckton of Brenchley January 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm
In further reply to the less than fully informed “Phil.”, Scenario A from Hansen’s paper was his business-as-usual case. How do I know? Because he is on record as having said so in subsequent Congressional testimony.
And of course because I told you, I even explained what it means which apparently you were unaware of! I also quoted his statement from the paper explaining why he didn’t expect it to occur.
“Phil.” goes on to say that Scenario C was “remarkably accurate” in its projection of future global warming.
No I didn’t, apparently you didn’t heed my warning about misquotations, I can’t say I’m surprised.
No, it wasn’t. Global temperature is running well below even Scenario C, which – though “Phil.” is very careful not to say so, was predicated on the assumption that from 1988 to 2000 there would be drastic reductions in CO2 emissions, which would remain stable from 2000 onward. Since this rather obviously did not happen, and yet global temperatures are still running well below Scenario C, this was a predictive failure of a heroic order.
Apart from your misquotation you also fail to understand that the most important contribution to greenhouse forcing in the early 21st century would be trace gases other than CO2 as shown in Hansen’s Fig 2, the trend of those was well described by Scenario C. Scenario C showed a temperature increase of ~0.6ºC from 1960 to 2015, not well below observations.
“Phil.” then gives me a characteristically bossy lecture about quoting his drivel verbatim, and then succeeds spectacularly in misquoting himself. I had said there was more water vapor than CO2 in the air, and Phil, alleging I had misquoted him, said that water vapor is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas. But I can find nothing in Phil’s earlier posting that mentions that water vapor is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas.
Your reading comprehension hasn’t improved I see.
In short, Phil. is trolling in his usual feeble-minded, sneering, whining fashion, without displaying the slightest intention of conducting the conversation in an honest fashion. His postings here are flagrantly mendacious and dishonest, and fall well below the standard of intellectual integrity and scientific knowledge that are expected here.
Your usual ad hominem attack, a sure sign that you’re losing the argument as well as your deliberate misrepresentation and dishonesty. As for intellectual integrity and scientific knowledge those are areas where you are sadly lacking.
Phil,hanging been caught out in serial mendacity, resorts as usual to trolling bluster. Hansen made it quite plain in his subsequent Congressional testimony that he regarded scenario A as his best estimate on business as usual. And there has been business as usual ever since, which highlights just how exaggerated Hansen’s predictions were.
As for scenario C, that scenario was predicated on the assumption that ther would be no increase in CO2 concentration after 2000; yet, even though the concentration continued to accelerate after 2900′ the temperature curve fell ever further below scenario C. Hansen’ ps 1878 predictions were gross exaggerations. Reality has been far less exciting,
More lies from Monckton, as stated by Hansen in the original paper Scenario A was what would happen If emissions continued indefinitely at the levels of the 1970s and 80s, he clearly stated that he expected Scenario B to be the most likely:
“Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource and environmental concerns….”
“Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases”.
Those are Hansen’s actual words not your unsupported handwaving, which is clearly not true.
There has not been “business as usual ever since”: CFC emission was eliminated by 2000 (Scenario C), Methane growth reduced to near zero (lower than Scenario C), “no increases occur for the other chlorofluorocarbons, O3, stratospheric H2O”, (Scenario C). Scenario A also included “several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C”, which is an additional reason why Hansen thought it was unlikely. Hansen anticipated in Scenario C that CO2 would stabilize at 368 ppm from 2000 whereas it has actually been 370-398ppm ( a 7% increase ). The temperature has not fallen “ever further below scenario C”, in fact Scenario C models reality rather well.
By the way, I endorse Lief’s recommendation that you calm down when posting and do some proof-reading, the multiple errors you’re making mean your posts are more difficult to follow.
http://chemlinks.beloit.edu/Ozone/thumbs/CFCem.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/ghg-concentrations-download2-2014.png
Don’t be pompous. I’m traveling and have had to do some posts on an iPad that, irritatingly, substitutes its own words randomly for mine. So there are several errors, but not enough to whine about.
Hansen, in his Congressional testimony, said that Scenario A was his business-as-usual scenario. Scenario C assumed that CO2 growth would slow till 2000 (i.e., that it would be less than the 368 ppmv that actually occurred in the absence of the slowdown imagined on Scenario C), and that it would not rise further thereafter. CO2 concentration was about 350 ppmv in 1988 and 368 ppmv 12 years later. Suppose that the rate of increase had fallen to zero at a more or less uniform rate over the 12 years, CO2 concentration would have been 359 ppmv by 2000. it is 400 ppmv now, an 11% increase on where it would have been if Hansen’s Scenario C had obtained. Yet the temperature trend is now well below Scenario C.
In short, Hansen’s predictions, like so many others, were flagrantly excessive. Not surprising, since the fudge factors or “flux adjustments” in the Giss ModelE were an order of magnitude larger than the small warming signal the model was supposed to detect. It was, in short, guesswork – and the guesswork has been proven wrong, and that fact can no longer be concealed or denied.
Monckton of Brenchley January 20, 2015 at 8:06 am
Don’t be pompous. I’m traveling and have had to do some posts on an iPad that, irritatingly, substitutes its own words randomly for mine. So there are several errors, but not enough to whine about.
So if you know it happens proof-read, it’s not hard.
Hansen, in his Congressional testimony, said that Scenario A was his business-as-usual scenario.
Yes a phrase you appear unable to understand, and you continue to ignore his other statements which indicate that he did not regard that as a plausible scenario.
Scenario C assumed that CO2 growth would slow till 2000 (i.e., that it would be less than the 368 ppmv that actually occurred in the absence of the slowdown imagined on Scenario C), and that it would not rise further thereafter.
No, he actually said that it would be 368ppm (page 9362): “after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”
CO2 concentration was about 350 ppmv in 1988 and 368 ppmv 12 years later. Suppose that the rate of increase had fallen to zero at a more or less uniform rate over the 12 years, CO2 concentration would have been 359 ppmv by 2000. it is 400 ppmv now, an 11% increase on where it would have been if Hansen’s Scenario C had obtained.
Try reading the paper you’re making too many errors. I note that you omit all the predicted changes that he explicitly stated and which have happened.
Yet the temperature trend is now well below Scenario C. It isn’t.
You can’t blame your computer for the following:
I said: “Notably in your paper you only included Hansen’s high prediction not the other two, in fact Scenario C was surprisingly accurate in its estimate of future emissions
Monckton substituted: ““Phil.” goes on to say that Scenario C was “remarkably accurate” in its projection of future global warming.”
That this was a deliberate misquotation is indicated by his only including two words in quotation marks and didn’t do so with the words he changed. That is dishonest and is typical of Monckton’s mendacity
The troll “Phil.” said Scenario A was his “business-as-usual” scenario. And there has been business as usual ever since. CO2 concentration has continued to rise at an ever more rapid rate. In his testimony he said Scenario A assumed that the rate of increase in concentration observed over the previous 20 years would continue. He thought that rate was about 1.5% a year, but it was actually just 0.4%. However, the rise in CO2 concentration from 1988-2000 was about 1% a year – halfway between the 1.5%/year he thought had occurred in the previous 20 years and the 0.4%year that had actually occurred. So it is on Scenario A that he should be judged. Not that it makes all that much difference: all three of his scenarios have proven to be exaggerated.
And it is baffling that “Phil.” imagines that Hansen’s scenario C (which predicted temperature change, not emissions) had been “successful in predicting emissions”. CO2 concentration did not stay at 38 ppmv from 2000 on: it rose to 400 ppmv, because CO2 emissions had continued to rise. Hansen’s temperature predictions – all three of them – have accordingly proven exaggerated, as have the temperature predictions of the IPCC in 1990.
“The troll “Phil” ”
..
Is it possible for you to discuss things without resorting to calling people names?
After reading your response, Dad said there might be a lesson in this…
Thank you Babsy
I appreciate the fact that you seem to feel the need to respond to my posts
…
Dad says we have to look out for those less fortunate than ourselves and help them along whenever we can.
Monckton of Brenchley January 20, 2015 at 10:33 am
The troll “Phil.” said Scenario A was his “business-as-usual” scenario. And there has been business as usual ever since.
There has not been as detailed above, since you say you’ve read Hansen’s paper your constant misrepresentation of it must either be because you don’t understand it or you’re deliberately trying to deceive. Yet more errors are detailed below.
CO2 concentration has continued to rise at an ever more rapid rate. In his testimony he said Scenario A assumed that the rate of increase in concentration observed over the previous 20 years would continue.
No he didn’t, he said that: “the growth rate of trace gas emissions” would continue indefinitely.
He thought that rate was about 1.5% a year, but it was actually just 0.4%.
Over that time period emissions from fossil fuel increased from ~60000 MtCO2/y to 140000, an increase of ~1.8%/y, the 0.4% you refer to is concentration not emissions!
However, the rise in CO2 concentration from 1988-2000 was about 1% a year – halfway between the 1.5%/year he thought had occurred in the previous 20 years and the 0.4%year that had actually occurred. So it is on Scenario A that he should be judged. Not that it makes all that much difference: all three of his scenarios have proven to be exaggerated.
No they haven’t because as shown in his Fig 2 and discussed on pages 9361-2 the other trace gases included in Scenario A were more important in the increase in forcing over the intervening period and Scenario A was therefore much to high (as intended it was supposed to represent an upper bound).
And it is baffling that “Phil.” imagines that Hansen’s scenario C (which predicted temperature change, not emissions) had been “successful in predicting emissions”.
It projects emissions upon which the calculations are based, as I’ve posted above the projections for the trace gases were very close to what occurred, CFCs stopped before 2000, methane leveled at a lower level than projected etc.
CO2 concentration did not stay at
38368 (glad to see you’ve corrected the value) ppmv from 2000 on: it rose to 400 ppmv, because CO2 emissions had continued to rise. It’s the only one that did, by now Hansen’s Scenario A would have been ~0.6º above C due to trace gases and CO2 but only ~0.1º above due to CO2 alone (Fig 2).Hansen’s temperature predictions – all three of them – have accordingly proven exaggerated,
No Scenario C turns out to have been good, because the ‘more drastic curtailment of emissions’ actually happened except for CO2.
In answer to the troll Mr Socrates, I call trolls trolls. Don’t whine. Raise your game and discuss sience properly rather than sneering to no purpose.
Calling Phil a troll is serious mistake on your part.
…
You might learn a lot from him.
Not much science in your paper to discuss.
We could discuss why you neglected to give credit to Gerard Roe whose prior work you derived your “model” from.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yp_W6pxtv0g/VLyN4mhkZyI/AAAAAAAABH8/OmDIvYMzyZI/s1600/roe_etal_areps2009a_eqs9-11.png
It would help if the sniping troll Mr Socrates were to read our paper before waffling about it. The sources for each term or equation in our model are cited in our paper. We took the system-gain relation from IPCC (2007) and traced it back to its origin in Bode (1945), to whom we also gave credit. We also cited Roe (2009) with approval and specifically credited him with the derivation of the system-gain equation for non-linear feedbacks. So, not another squeak from Mr Socrates till he has read our paper.
In normal science publication, the credit is given the introduction of your work, you don’t bury the source of our model deep in the 38th citation.
No wonder the world of science doesn’t take you seriously.
Monckton of Brenchley January 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm
In answer to the troll Mr Socrates, I call
trollsthose who disagree with me trolls.Don’tI indulge in ad hominem attacks on them and I whine.There it’s corrected for you, as amply demonstrated by the contributions to this thread.
Monckton of Brenchley January 21, 2015 at 4:45 am
It would help if the sniping troll Mr Socrates were to read our paper before waffling about it. The sources for each term or equation in our model are cited in our paper.
Socrates point was that your model is equation 10 from Roe and that you did not acknowledge that, on that he is correct you did not acknowledge Roe as the source of the equation.
We also cited Roe (2009) with approval and specifically credited him with the derivation of the system-gain equation for non-linear feedbacks.
Really, where?
“In [38], a simple climate model was used, comprising an
advective–diffusive ocean and an atmosphere with a Planck
sensitivity ∆To = 1.2 K, the product of the direct radiative
forcing 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W m-2 in response to a CO2 doubling
and the zero-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter
𝝀o = 3.2^-1 K W^-1 m2. The climate object thus defined was
forced with a 4 W m-2 pulse at t = 0, and the evolutionary
curve of climate sensitivity (Fig. 4) was determined. Equilibrium
sensitivity was found to be 3.5 K, of which 1.95 K is
shown as occurring after 50 years, implying r50 = 0.56.”
By the way why do you use ‘𝝀o = 3.2^-1’ rather than 0.3125?
Also
“∆Ft is the radiative forcing in response to a change in atmospheric CO2
concentration over t years, which is the product of a constant
k and the natural log of the proportionate change (Ct / Co) in CO2 concentration
over the period [3, 32]”
Correction in bold.
It would really be wiser if Mr Socrates were to troll a little less incompetently by actually reading the paper he so ineffectually and serially sneers at. There is internal evidence from his comment about my having allegedly “neglected to give credit to Gerard Roe” that he had lifted that point from another blog. He now tries again to echo without acknowledgement that blog’s suggestion (firmly dealt with by me) that, though I had indeed given credit to all from whom elements of our model were derived, I had not given them credit early enough in the paper. In short, this is a particularly futile whine about the ideal geographical locations at which Mr Socrates (or, rather, the blogger from whom he has plagiarized the point) would have preferred me to acknowledge the contributions of earlier researchers in the field.
If Mr Socrates had bothered to read the paper for himself, rather than lifting climate-Communist talking-points from another blog without acknowledgement, he would have discovered that the introduction to our paper was a very short general introduction saying why the new model was needed. Next came a short section on the growing discrepancy between prediction and observation of global warming.
The third section of the paper is where the model is outlined in mathematical terms for the first time. And, as each sub-equation or parameter is described, its source is at once acknowledged. Had Mr Socrates actually read the paper, he would know that we did not obtain the Bode system-gain equation from Dr Roe (our 38th of almost 60 references): we obtained it from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (our fourth reference). We acknowledged Dr Roe at the point in the paper where we discussed the technical question whether the Planck parameter should be regarded as a feedback or as a sensitivity parameter. And we acknowledged him again in the Appendix, where we explained that the derivation of the system-gain equation as modified to handle non-linear feedbacks would be found in his paper.
I can find no fault in our referencing of prior authorities. Everything that we did not originate is most carefully acknowledged and referenced. True, the blogger from whom Mr Socrates has lifted his latest whine says we ought to have given acknowledgement to Dr Budyko as the originator of zero-dimensional models such as ours. However, our model contains elements not in Dr Budyko’s models, and his models are far more extensive and complex than ours. There was, therefore, no particular value to readers in being referred to Dr Budyko’s work. And, by chance, I recently read a paper by an eminent professor specializing in climate feedback analysis. The paper was specifically about zero-dimensional models and – for reasons similar to mine – Dr Budyko was not referenced in that paper either.
Trolls, of course, when they cannot find any scientific fault, will try ad-hom attacks such as that by the blogger whom Mr Socrates is copying without acknowledgement. Plagiarism is a serious charge, which is why I have had to deal with it firmly at the blog where it was originated and have had to deal with it equally firmly here. Anyone actually reading the paper will realize at once that Mr Socrates’ characteristically malicious allegation of unacknowledged repetition of material from earlier publications is untrue and without foundation. Mr Socrates should have the grace to apologize. His contributions to this thread have been more than usually valueless.
“Phil.” should read the paper before criticizing it. The derivation of the system-gain relation as it applies to non-linear temperature feedbacks is acknowledged in the appendix in which the derivation appears.
And it is plain that global temperature has risen far more slowly than Hansen had predicted even on his scenario C, where CO2 was supposed to stop increasing in 2000 (hint: it hasn’t stopped). The excuse that various other gases have not risen as Hansen had predicted is no excuse at all. He misled Congress by making them think he had a sound basis for his predictions when, manifestly, he didn’t.
Like very nearly all of the predictions of the climate Communists for whom “Phil.” acts as though he were a paid shill, Hansen’s predictions were wildly exaggerated. Indeed, few others have made such wildly overblown predictions. One might mention Murphy (2009), who predicted up to 10 K global warming per CO2 doubling, on the basis that strongly net-positive temperature feedbacks would drive warming towards infinity; Stern (2006), who predicted up to 11 K warming per doubling because otherwise he could not make a case that acting to prevent warming was cheaper than letting it happen; and Thatcher (2008), who thought temperature would rise by 1 K/decade unless something was done about CO2. Unlike the other two, she later had the grace to admit she had been misled (by my successor at 10 Downing Street).
Sorry, but Hansen got it wrong. Whether he got it wrong because he used the wrong model or whether he got it wrong because he used the wrong parameter values is of little relevance. He made predictions that, if he had been honest, he could not justify: predictions that have proven in every scenario to have been exaggerated, and no amount of sophistry will convince anyone but a climate-Communist otherwise.
It is both ironic and humorous that the author of the paper throws around the term “climate-Communist” yet had to go all the way over to a Communist country to get the paper published.
David Socrates
It is clear that you really, really don’t understand this thing called science. There is a difference between consideration of information and consideration of those who respond to the information.
I refer you to my post in this thread here.
Richard
Thank you so much for your input Mr richardscourtney.
..
I however, am thoroughly enjoying watching your Viscount squirm.
..
David Socrates
The only “squirming” I have seen in this sub-thread is your response to my rebuttal of your daft accusation of irony and humour.
Richard
Again, thank you so much for your input Mr richardscourtney.
..
If you enjoy watching the two of us squirm, all I can say, is “whatever floats your boat”
David Socrates
Oh! You now say you are two people!
Well, I am not surprised at that: trolls are rarely the individuals they pretend to be.
Henceforth, if I address you it will be as “The pair of trolls posting as David Socrates”.
Richard
Gee Mr. richardscourtney, I don’t know how to express my appreciation for your follow up posts.
…
I do think your use of name calling (i.e. “troll”) represents one of your most distinguishing argumentative techniques. But the point is that being called that name by you is extremely satisfying, it means I have made the grade.
..
Feel free to address me any way you please.
…
Again, thank you so much for your input.
The pair of trolls posting as “David Socrates”
Thankyou for your kind offer saying to me
In response, I address you honestly.
You are an obnoxious and dishonest fake personality whose intentionally disruptive trolling of threads has yet to rise above the nuisance level.
Richard
Mr Monckton, I’m just wondering if anyone can make such a computer model to show that the solution of treatment of various diseases. I know it will fail no one, but it is proof that all the models that scientists made with the intention that their model is “baba fortune teller,” does not represent any connection and the ability to get out of something useful and can be accurately obtained.
But there is something more important, I want to ask you, not only you but also other high-ranking experts. What do you think “whether science can progress further in knowledge about the behavior of the planet, if you do not know the causes of spin planets and their true and real path around the sun and around its axis.” You are all investigating the causes of climate change, and to me it looks like no one has the interest to consider what I have said above, because without this knowledge, nothing can be further understand, explain or prove. How can discuss the warming of the planet, and not understand the state of our planet, as, for example, the question: why is Earth, the past five billion years and has cooled down what it is that this state remains within certain limits which no one understands.
Are today’s scientific circles (universities, institutes, academies and the like, really, so strayed from the true interest in deepening knowledge, but only if they benefit from it. Should such people to pay for something useful for science can be published.
You recommend me a book that will come out and you think that I would change its stance on climate change-related behavior and mutual influence of the heavenly bodies. And your discussions and all the works of all of you are called into question, because you’re going the wrong way, you forgot the laws of nature or misapplied. Many do it for the sake of businesses and not for science and its advancement.
If you do not know the true characteristics of the planet, there is a possibility that their influence “altered” and explain in a way that suits your models (I do not mean personally to you).
Is there anywhere with you the possibility that I may give an explanation on climate change in the behavior of participants in the solar system.
I’m afraid that with you now with a system of police, more dangerous than the police in one-party systems that are already “died out”. That’s why none of these circuits must not engage to help such as I am, and that they can get a place to give their opinion.
We wander off topic: but prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trials, honestly and properly conducted, are an excellent way to determine whether a proposed treatment is efficacious. Prospective trials are described mathematically in detail and in advance and, in particular, the criteria for regarding the trial as a success or a failure are carefully spelt out before the trial is conducted. Randomized trials choose two cohorts – one to receive the treatment and one to receive a placebo – by proper methods that, as far as possible, ensure a total absence of bias in the allocation of the patients to one cohort or the other. Double-blind trials are conducted so that neither those administering the treatment or placebo nor the patients receiving them know whether they have been given the treatment or the placebo. These trials, properly conducted and analyzed according to strict statistical criteria, are far more rigorous than most of the procedures in climate science.
To determine how the climate will behave in the next few hundred years, we do not need to know what caused the planet to spin: we merely need to know that it will continue to spin. The principal criteria for establishing how much global warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will cause are spelt out in our paper, which makes it possible for anyone with sufficient mathematics and physics to determine climate sensitivity, arguably more reliably than the bigger general-circulation models.
Robert R. Prudhomme : reference Phils comment to my comment on the gas law .Lets assume that the tubes are of large height in a vacuum .and of equal volume
– – left off too soon. Since co2 is 1.67 times as dense as
air . The bottom of the tube would be 1.67 times as warm as the tube with air. T=PV/R R is a constant. and the volume is the same. Venus if had an equal volume of air instead of appox 82% co2 ,neglecting the suns influence, would be cooler..
No, the bottom of the tubes would be at the same temperature. The temperature lapse rate is given by g/Cp, so in the tube containing air the lapse rate is ~9.8 and for CO2 ~11.6.
Under ‘Empirical Evidence of models running hot’, the paper states that the IPCC FAR predicted a trend in global mean temperature of 2.8K / century 1990-2025, and correctly states that the actual warming (so far) was rather less.
Fair enough, this was IPCC Scenario A, described as ‘business as usual’. However, 25 years later we now know that Scenario A did not come to pass. It had a CO2 forcing of 1.85 W/m2 by 2000 and 2.88 by 2025. Actual outcome, as stated in the paper was a rather smaller 1.82 by 2011. In reality, IPCC scenarios B, C and D were closer, with CO2 forcing values of at around 1.75 by 2000 and 2.35 by 2025. For these scenarios, the IPCC actually projected:
“average rates of increase in global mean temperature over the next century are estimated to be about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C per decade (Scenario D) ”
Which, given that the paper estimates the actual trend at 0.14C /decade, apparently means that IPCC FAR was spot on!
I would be interested in learning why the paper uses the 1990 Scenario A projection to illustrate ‘model failure’, when it was based on forcing projections that simply did not materialise. It may show that the IPCC were unduly pessimistic about emission trajectories, but tells us naught about model performance.
We did not use any of the scenarios in the First Assessment Report. We used the central prediction for medium-term global warming that appears in the Summary for Policymakers. It [] was that estimate that started the scare. It was based on modelling, and it was double what has transpired. It was wrong. On that exaggerated prediction the scare was built.
If this is the case, perhaps this should have been mentioned? The references section cites the FAR itself only. I can find references only to scenarios in the policymakers summary and none to a central medium term prediction (or projection) in the policymakers summary. Could you perhaps help me with a page number? And also where the range 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K is stated, because I am unable to locate these numbers anywhere in the summary or the report.
The figures stated in the paper are consistent with Scenario A, which was not ‘central’, but considerably higher than Scenarios B-D, which turned out to be closer to the reality of how forcings evolved.
Also the words ‘substantial confidence’, quoted verbatim in the paper, appear not in the Policymakers Summary but in the body of the report and only in the phrase :
“Nevertheless, for reasons given in the box overleaf, we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad scale features of climate change”
certainly not linked to a specific number.
The Executive Summary of the Policymakers Summary states this clearly
“Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before
the end of the next century The rise will not be
steady because of the influence of other factors
• under the other IPCC emission scenarios which
assume progressively increasing levels of controls
rates of increase in global mean temperature of about
0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per
decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade
(Scenario D)”
As we now know Scenario A did not come to pass, actual forcings were substantially less (so far) whereas Scenarios B-D turned out to be more prescient, and their temperature predictions on the money.and so it would appear that ’empirical evidence of models running hot’, is in fact no such thing.
In answer to Mr Clarke, there is a prominent section in the summary for policymakers in the First ASSessment Report, headed by the words “We predict” (which shuts up those who quibble about the difference between prediction and projection). The prediction was that there would be 1 K warming by 2025, plus 50% or minus 30%. That’s 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K. We’re so far below even the least estimate that there’d have to be a great deal of global warming over the next decade to put global warming back on the IPCC’s predicted interval.
CO2 is brought before the International Court of science as a major “klimatocid”, who is accused as someone unauthorized weapons in the hands of those who carelessly used for private gain, causing great damage to all the problems.
I think you caught completely innocent participant in many processes in nature that many do not know, but they are important to be sentenced this particular CO2, because they will insted him to set some of whom they will benefit greatly.
How can one know anything about the behavior of the planets and their participation in all events in the solar system, if you are not familiar with their movement and position in space?
Leave this defendant (CO2), let him do his duty as it has done for thousands of years, looking for a real cause of climate change. If you find the right person, you will not be able nothing to prevent him from performing his duties, can only advance, for hundreds of years, to know his movements and prepared to defend themselves from possible harmful consequences of its application.
And who is this suspicious? We can only find out if we analyze the interaction of the planet, but there is a need to know who is the cause of the spin and everything will be easier to understand. Why are many ways of escaping from that of many other solutions non decoded phenomena around us.
Mr Milovic is of course correct that CO2 has been unduly demonized – or, rather, our sins of emission have been demonized. In fact, the current increases in CO2 concentration are proving beneficial. They are doing far more good than harm.
As to the influence of the major planets on the Sun and thus on our climate, this remains a contentious and unproven hypothesis, though there is certainly some suggestive (though not definitive) evidence.
What seems clearer is that the major changes between ice ages and interglacial warm periods are chiefly attributable to the three Milankovich cycles in the Earth’s orbit: the variations in the eccentricity of the orbit (i.e. the ratio of the major to the minor axis of the orbit), in the obliquity of the Earth’s axis with respect to the plane of the ecliptic (i.e. the orbital plane); and in the libration or wobbling of the Earth’s axis (i.e. the cause of the precession of the equinoxes).
As our model shows, we should expect to see some warming from our returning to the atmosphere some minuscule fraction of the CO2 that once occupied at least 30% of the air. However, we should not expect to see very much warming, not only because the direct warming caused by doubling a concentration that, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, is zero but also because the paleoclimate record powerfully suggests that the singularity in the Bode system-gain relation and very high net-positive temperature feedbacks cannot coexist in the modern climate object.
Monckton of Brenchley January 21, 2015 at 8:10 am
“Phil.” should read the paper before criticizing it. The derivation of the system-gain relation as it applies to non-linear temperature feedbacks is acknowledged in the appendix in which the derivation appears.
I did, I even asked you a couple of questions about it which you have avoided answering.
Can you give us a link to the appendix you refer to, since there’s no link to one at Scibull.com.
And it is plain that global temperature has risen far more slowly than Hansen had predicted even on his scenario C, where CO2 was supposed to stop increasing in 2000 (hint: it hasn’t stopped). The excuse that various other gases have not risen as Hansen had predicted is no excuse at all. He misled Congress by making them think he had a sound basis for his predictions when, manifestly, he didn’t.
Clearly he did, please stop lying about the temperature record and Scenario C.
From GWPF:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d6bd651970d-pi
Like very nearly all of the predictions of the climate Communists for whom “Phil.” acts as though he were a paid shill, Hansen’s predictions were wildly exaggerated.
Your usual ad hom attack, his predictions were remarkably good considering when they were made, had he used the modern value for the sensitivity rather than the accepted value from the 80s, they would be even better.
Sorry, but Hansen got it wrong. Whether he got it wrong because he used the wrong model or whether he got it wrong because he used the wrong parameter values is of little relevance. He made predictions that, if he had been honest, he could not justify: predictions that have proven in every scenario to have been exaggerated, and no amount of sophistry will convince anyone but a climate-Communist otherwise.
Repeating your usual nonsense doesn’t make it right.
Try the supplementary material. If the appendix was inadvertently deleted, I’ll send a copy. However, it was only in the appendix, where the system-gain equation for non-linear feedbacks was given, that it was necessary to acknowledge Gerard Roe’s derivation of it: the non-linear form of the equation does not appear elsewhere in the paper. We did try to persuade the editors to send us a copy of the supplementary material as prepared for publication, but we did not receive it.
I note that the GWPF graph to which you refer draws exactly the same conclusion that I or any honest man of science would draw: that Hansen’s predictions had spectacularly failed. Even the HadCRUT3 terrestrial dataset shows that in 2013 the global temperature anomaly was running below even Hansen’s Scenario C, where he had assumed no increase in CO2 concentration after 2000. As previously explained, CO2 continued to increase after 2000, but global temperatures (on the satellite records and, until this year’s tamperings, the terrestrial records) did not.
And it is very clear that Hansen’s business-as-usual scenarios A and B were disgracefully exaggerated. There was and is no scientific basis for such extreme predictions. Hansen had thought that CO2 concentration had been increasing at 1.5% a year for 20 years, and extrapolated that forward from 1988 as the basis (using the exaggerated and error-prone and fudge-factored ModelE) for his wild Scenario A prediction. In fact, as previously noted, the annual compound growth in CO2 concentration in the 20 years before 1988 was not 1.5% but just 0.4%.
His scenario B assumed modest CO2 growth, not the record growth that in fact ensued. And the temperature projection is nearly as much of a wild exaggeration as Scenario A, which, no doubt, is why the GWPF’s graph, to which you refer me, labels these projections as “failed”.
At least “Phil” now accepts that Hansen’s climate-sensitivity estimates were exaggerated in the 1980s. His estimates were always somewhat higher than nearly everyone else’s, and this, combined with his inability to calculate the rate at which CO2 concentration had actually been rising (for it is concentration, not emissions, that determines the amount of warming to be expected), led to his absurd exaggerations, which even climate-Communist lecturers usually prefer not to dwell upon.
Hansen got it wrong. Badly wrong. And, as the temperature trend extends to the end of his prediction, you will be able to crow, perhaps, that his scenario C and the satellite temperature trend coincided, just briefly, at the point a couple of years from now when he somewhat arbitrarily predicted that there would be a major volcanic eruption, causing a transient dip in the global-temperature anomaly.
But, whichever way one stacks this, it is a failed prediction, and I shall be using this graph (with the satellite as well as the terrestrial datasets) in my next Congressional testimony, to illustrate the absurdity of the exaggerations – now repudiated even by “Phil.”, who has accepted that the 1980s climate-sensitivity estimates were on the high side (to put it mildly) – on which the climate scare was unsoundly founded.
It is really pointless of “Phil.” to try to pretend anything other than that Hansen’s predictions in 1988, given in a congressional hearing room on a very hot day in the hottest June for some time (indeed, there has been no hotter June in Washington since), on which Senator Wirth and Senator Gore had deliberately turned off the air-conditioning – exactly the sort of spin that has given the climate Communists a bad name.
The more “Phil.” tries to defend his fallen hero, the sillier both of them will look in the world’s eyes. Come off it, mate: pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Try the supplementary material. If the appendix was inadvertently deleted, I’ll send a copy. However, it was only in the appendix, where the system-gain equation for non-linear feedbacks was given, that it was necessary to acknowledge Gerard Roe’s derivation of it: the non-linear form of the equation does not appear elsewhere in the paper. We did try to persuade the editors to send us a copy of the supplementary material as prepared for publication, but we did not receive it.
There is no accessible supplementary material at scibull.com, so contrary to your earlier statement there is no acknowledgement of that aspect of Roe’s contribution in the paper.
“Phil.” should read the paper before criticizing it. The derivation of the system-gain relation as it applies to non-linear temperature feedbacks is acknowledged in the appendix in which the derivation appears.
You omitted to answer my earlier question and correction to the paper so I’ll repeat them below.
“why do you use ‘𝝀o = 3.2^-1′ rather than 0.3125?
Also
“∆Ft is the radiative forcing in response to a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration over t years, which is the product of a constant k and the natural log of the proportionate change (Ct / Co) in CO2 concentration over the period [3, 32]”
Correction in bold.
I note that the GWPF graph to which you refer draws exactly the same conclusion that I or any honest man of science would draw: that Hansen’s predictions had spectacularly failed.
Only if you choose to ignore the fact that the three scenario’s were designed to span a range of possible outcomes: “These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings” An honest man of science would recognize that instead of pretending that it was otherwise. That GWPF would come to that conclusion is hardly surprising since that is their raison d’être.
Even the HadCRUT3 terrestrial dataset shows that in 2013 the global temperature anomaly was running below even Hansen’s Scenario C, where he had assumed no increase in CO2 concentration after 2000. As previously explained, CO2 continued to increase after 2000, but global temperatures (on the satellite records and, until this year’s tamperings, the terrestrial records) did not.
By continuing to focus of CO2 only you are indicating your misunderstanding of the Hansen paper or deliberately misleading. By the way note that GWPF ‘adjusted’ the temperatures downwards in that graph.
And it is very clear that Hansen’s business-as-usual scenarios A and B were disgracefully exaggerated. There was and is no scientific basis for such extreme predictions.
Yes there is and it’s given in the paper and stands up.
Hansen had thought that CO2 concentration had been increasing at 1.5% a year for 20 years, and extrapolated that forward from 1988 as the basis (using the exaggerated and error-prone and fudge-factored ModelE) for his wild Scenario A prediction. In fact, as previously noted, the annual compound growth in CO2 concentration in the 20 years before 1988 was not 1.5% but just 0.4%.
As previously noted by me that is not true as explicitly stated in the Hansen paper, repeating that statement after you have been corrected is not telling the truth, please desist!
At least “Phil” now accepts that Hansen’s climate-sensitivity estimates were exaggerated in the 1980s. His estimates were always somewhat higher than nearly everyone else’s,
No they weren’t they fell within the range of contemporaneous data.
and this, combined with his inability to calculate the rate at which CO2 concentration had actually been rising (for it is concentration, not emissions, that determines the amount of warming to be expected), led to his absurd exaggerations, which even climate-Communist lecturers usually prefer not to dwell upon.
Again your absurd mis-statement about what Hansen did. His study estimated emissions of various GHGs and calculated the concentrations from that.
Hansen got it wrong. Badly wrong.
No monckton has it wrong, badly wrong.
But, whichever way one stacks this, it is a failed prediction, and I shall be using this graph (with the satellite as well as the terrestrial datasets) in my next Congressional testimony, to illustrate the absurdity of the exaggerations
Excellent, you can incorporate the rest of what I have taught you about the subject, point out the arbitrary adjustments that GWPF made to the temperature, point out how well Hansen’s Scenario C predicted the future trajectory of the trace gases, leading to his predicting a pause in the temperature growth.
– now repudiated even by “Phil.”, who has accepted that the 1980s climate-sensitivity estimates were on the high side (to put it mildly) – on which the climate scare was unsoundly founded.
No, I did not, see above.
It is really pointless of “Phil.” to try to pretend anything other than that Hansen’s predictions in 1988, given in a congressional hearing room on a very hot day in the hottest June for some time (indeed, there has been no hotter June in Washington since), on which Senator Wirth and Senator Gore had deliberately turned off the air-conditioning – exactly the sort of spin that has given the climate Communists a bad name.
You appear to have got lost in the middle of this long, rambling, meaningless sentence.
The more “Phil.” tries to defend his fallen hero, the sillier both of them will look in the world’s eyes. Come off it, mate: pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Not a ‘fallen hero’, I object to someone lying about what the paper says and how it does it.
Come on monckton, start telling the truth.
Saying you are acting like a paid shill isn’t ad hominem attack…its an observation of your behavior….not you as a person.
Its akin to the difference between saying you are acting like an ass, and that you are an ass.
I am sure we all wish the peer-reviewed literature to be accurate. This paper is flawed. Here is some free peer-review:
The only section in the Policymaker’s Summary of the FAR that meets Lord Monckton’s description (‘We predict’) is the one I quoted above. Here it is again
Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before
the end of the next century The rise will not be
steady because of the influence of other factors
• under the other IPCC emission scenarios which
assume progressively increasing levels of controls
rates of increase in global mean temperature of about
0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per
decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade
(Scenario D)
(Policymakers summary page xii)
This, despite his Lordship’s insistence that ‘we did not use any of the scenarios’. The paper has
“In 1990, FAR predicted with‘‘substantial confidence’’ that,
in the 35 years 1991–2025, global temperature would rise by
1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K century-1.”
This is wrong, the words ‘substantial confidence’ have been borrowed from another paragraph, which refers only to ‘broad scale features of climate change’, and the 1C by 2025 prediction was clearly conditional, based on a particular scenario – Scenario A, under Scenarios B-D, the prediction was for 0.1-0.2C per decade, which is what actually occurred. The report later gives the forcing trajectories for each scenario and Scenario A had CO2 forcing at 1.85 in 2000 and 2.88 in 2025. (Scenarios B-D all had around 1.75 and 2.3 respectively). This information is in Table 2.7, page 57.
Monckton et al state that the 2011 value for CO2 forcing was 1.82 W/m2, in other words by 2011 we were still below the value Scenario A, the one used by Monckton et al, reached 11 years earlier! The forcings for Scenarios B-C were closer to the mark, as were their temperature projections. No doubt one can find empirical evidence of model-observation discrepencies but this is not it. The IPCC gave 4 predictions for 4 scenarios, this paper misrepresents 1 of those scenarios, which did not come to pass as the IPCC prediction. It was not. This should be removed.
Also, Fig 1 in the paper has the following flaws,
– As proven above, it plots just 1 of the 4 FAR scenarios. One which did not materialise.
– It is wrongly captioned. The caption says the blue line is ‘RSS, UAH, NCDC, HadCRUT4 and GISS monthly global anomalies’. It is not, it is RSS and UAH only, as the graph legend correctly states (the most basic peer review should surely have spotted this?)
– There are no error bars on the observed temperatures
– The FAR trend line should start with the 95% confidence interval bounds associated with the uncertainties of the underlying time series (in other words, not a point start but an interval start). It does not.
You’re welcome.
At last, some genuine and valid criticism. I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred.
Figure 1 is indeed incorrectly captioned, though the graph itself is explicit. And the difference between RSS+UAH and those two plus all three terrestrial datasets is 0.01 K over the period.
There are no error bars on the temperatures because (apart from HadCRUt) none are supplied.
The FAR trend line commences at the same point, relative to the data, at which the projection was made. In the absence of uncertainty values for four of the five datasets, that is a respectable starting point. And wherever one starts it, it is the slope of the prediction that matters, and that slope (on all datasets, or just on RSS and UAH) is approximately twice the observed outturn.
In short, though there was business as usual after IPCC 1990, in that CO2 concentration continued to rise at ever-faster rates, the prediction under the business-as-usual scenario was wildly wrong. And that prediction, which was of course the principal feature of the climate system that the models were expected to capture correctly with “substantial confidence”, ought not to have been made with “substantial confidence”, for it was substantially incorrect.
“At last, some genuine and valid criticism. I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred.”
Thanks, but that was my point. The forcing scenario on which the projection was made did not transpire, the other scenarios B through D turned out to be closer and yet the paper uses the temperature plot only for Scenario A, even though you must have known that the forcings were unrealistic, as ’empirical evidence of the models running hot’. This is plain wrong, it is no such thing; scenario A was never tested with real world data whereas the temperature trends that the models predicted under Scenarios B-D, were 0.1-0.2C / decade which is in line with the 1.34C/decade plotted. It is evidence that the models work, but that one of the four IPCC forcings predictions was unduly pessimistic, but forcings are not the point of the paper, are they?
As an aside, you are making too much of the term ‘Business as usual’, it was defined as “the energy supply is coal intensive and on the demand side only modest efficiency increases are achieved. [..]”)
And once again, the IPCC were clear that they had ‘substantial confidence’ only in the ability of the models to capture ‘broad scale’ features of climate change …
“climate models are only as good as our understanding of the processes which they describe, and this is far from perfect The ranges in the climate predictions given above reflect the uncertainties due to model imperfections, the largest of these is cloud feedback (those factors affecting the cloud amount and distribution and the interaction of clouds with solar and terrestrial radiation), which leads to a factor of two uncertainty in the size of the warming Others arise from the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and ocean, the atmosphere and land surfaces, and between the upper and deep layers of the ocean The treatment of sea-ice and convection in the models is also crude Nevertheless, for reasons given in the box overleaf, we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad scale features of climate change”
Phil Clarke: scenario A was never tested with real world data whereas the temperature trends that the models predicted under Scenarios B-D, were 0.1-0.2C / decade which is in line with the 1.34C/decade plotted.
Is there a typo? How is 0.1-0.2C / decade in line with 1.34C/decade?
we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad scale features of climate change
Are the “broad scale features” defined so vaguely that no misfit between models and temperature can discredit the models? With the CO2 trajectory that has actually evolved, the modeled values of temperature are too hot. Are the models and data broadly consistent in the sense that the model inaccuracies are not yet 10C?
In response to Mr Clarke, the business-as-usual forcing scenario was the one predicted by the IPCC if business went on as usual. Which it did. Power generation remains coal-intensive – indeed, with China’s huge coal-fired expansion, more coal-intensive than in 1990. And on the demand side only modest efficiency advances have been achieved. It is not the slightest use defending the IPCC on the ground that its 1990 forcing predictions were unrealistic. It should not have made unrealistic predictions and then claimed it had captured the essential features of the climate – not the least of which, in the context of Man’s supposed alteration of it, were the predicted rates of forcing and of temperature change, both of which were wild exaggerations.
How much warming we’re going to get is a broad-scale feature of the climate. The plain intention of the IPCC was to convey the impression that they knew what they were talking about and were confident of their predictions. Their substantial confidence, however, has turned out to be substantially misplaced, and no amount of semantical prestidigitation will alter that fact. They made business-as-usual predictions; business carried on pretty much as usual; CO2 concentration continued to rise; but neither the forcing nor the warming they predicted came to pass.
In 2007 IPCC made further predictions, a little more modest than those of 1990. But those, too, have not come to pass. Compared with the 2005 baseline, we have now had ten years – but there has been practically no global warming over those ten years, contrary to the IPCC’s then prediction. Over and over again, the predictions have been prodigiously exaggerated. Just look at RCP 8.5 in IPCC’s 2013 report. Expert reviewers (this one, at any rate) told them RCP 8.5 was absurd, based on exaggerated population growth estimates that the UN has long abandoned. But they pressed ahead anyway, and it is the RCP 8.5 graph – nonsense from top to bottom – that the Leftosphere reproduces time and again.
These exaggerations are now being noticed. Apologists for them – paid or unpaid – are inexorably losing ground to those who can see perfectly well that the various predictions of doom that were made have not come to pass and have not the slightest probability of coming to pass. In 1990 the IPCC wrote that the ranges (what real mathematicians would call intervals) were designed to allow for the uncertainties in the climate. But the observed rate of warming since 1990 does not fall anywhere on the IPCC’s business-as-usual interval. It is significantly below even the least value there. Whichever way one looks at it, the IPCC got it wrong.
Which is why the IPCC itself has been reducing some of its predictions in recent reports. Indeed, between the pre-final and final drafts of the 2013 report, at my insistence among others, it cut its near-term predictions by well over a third. But, as our paper points out, even though the IPCC reduced its estimate of the feedback sum from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, it failed to reduce its central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity correspondingly from 3.2 to 2.2 K as it should have done. Instead, in a multi-thousand-page report whose principal task was to tell us how much global warming would occur at a CO2 doubling, it said it did not propose to give an estimate any more (though, buried deep in the report, it did mention that the CMIP5 models’ central estimate was 3.2 K, much the same as the CMIP3 projection of 3.26 K).
Frankly, it is simply disingenuous to seek to maintain that the IPCC’s track record of predictions has been a success. It has been disastrous. Why? Because there is a huge financial incentive to predict disasters, and none to tell the truth, which is that our contribution to global temperature over the next 500 years will be unexciting even on the business-as-usual scenario.
Is there a typo?
Yes. Apologies. Should be 1.34/century.
Are the “broad scale features” defined so vaguely that no misfit between models and temperature can discredit the models? With the CO2 trajectory that has actually evolved, the modeled values of temperature are too hot. Are the models and data broadly consistent in the sense that the model inaccuracies are not yet 10C?
No. The period under discussion in the paper was 1990-2025. To date, if one uses the forcings that actually transpired, the IPCC FAR projections were bang on the money. Monckton’s Fig.1 should have included the more realistic Scenarios B-D, but this would have revealed that his chosen exemplar actually demonstrates the exact opposite of his representation, that is, empirical evidence of the IPCC models being accurate.
Phil Clarke, thank you for your reply.
Well, Scenario A is the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario. That was the one, just like Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario A a couple of years previously, that got all the headlines. That was the one they ought to be judged on. For it has been business as usual. CO2 emissions are not declining. CO2 concentrations, therefore, are rising at an ever-faster rate, after a brief respite during the recession years. And yet the global warming they predicted has not transpired. Their “business-as-usual” predictions were wrong.
No. The paper is about model performance. The scenario on which the IPCC should be judged is thus the one which most resembles how forcings actually evolved, which would be any of B, C or D, but not A, as the paper itself confirms that the 2011 forcings were lower than the 2000 value in that Scenario. But the temperature trends predicted under Scenarios B-D turned out to be within observational bounds…..
As the paper stands, Figs 1 and 2 are grossly misleading and should be removed or amended.
Oh, and you’re wrong about Hansen, also.
“Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality”
“Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases”
Congressional Testimony.
The paper is about model performance. That means predicting not only temperature change but the forcings that bring it about. The IPCC’s business-as-usual case was incorrect. It forecast twice the warming that has been observed since.
Many thanks to all who have commented on this thread. If anyone has the time to emulate the indefatigable Mr Marler and to read through the thread from beginning to end, he will see that every time I was sneered at or was accused of scientific malpractice (such as “curve-fitting” to make our model represent past temperature change) I replied vigorously. Every time someone posted something infantile – another climate-Communist habit – I told him or her not to be childish.
It is time to demand that those who want to maintain the Party Line in the teeth of scientific the evidence should do so in a civilized, adult, and scientific fashion, in which event I shall respond – as I have here – with scientific discussion, straightforwardly expressed.
What is evident, when all that is said, is that there is a great deal of interest in our model, from both sides of the debate. There have been some 9000 downloads of either the abstract in Chinese or the full text in English from the Science Bulletin website – an almost unheard-of number for a scientific paper. There have been leading articles in the largest national daily paper in Germany (climate-Communist) and in the Daily Mail in the UK (climate-realist). The leftosphere has gone ballistic with sneering but scientifically limp responses.
I am looking forward to the inevitable rebuttal paper by various climate bigwigs, but am hoping that the Science Bulletin will not be bullied, as the craven publishers of journal Physics and Society were seven years ago, into failing to print our refutation of any such rebuttal. We have only a few months left before a totalitarian, unelected climate “government” is put in place at Paris, with nearly all nations sleep-walking into tyranny. There will be further papers supporting our argument this year – one of them, intriguingly, by a former true-believer who found himself in debate with me at a European university a couple of years ago. He was – and I was proud to be able to say he was – an honourable scientist of the old school, who was genuinely interested in the scientific concerns I raised during the debate. He has kept in touch since, and is now on the verge of publishing a major paper that will come to much the same conclusions as ours – if, that is, the Western climate journal that is now reviewing it will dare to allow it to be published. He now says, as we do, that climate sensitivity will be 1 K or less. But I cannot say who he is, for if he was known to have discussed the science in his paper with climate skeptics he would not be able to publish it in the West.
That, above all, is why I am so very angry at the trivialization and denial of science by so many climate-Communists. The scientist, as al-Haytham said, should be a seeker after truth. Whether the thermo-Fascists like it or not, the road to the truth is long and hard, and that is the road we must follow.
Many thanks to all genuine and scientifically-minded contributors (whatever their viewpoint) for their contributions.
Many thanks to all genuine and scientifically-minded contributors (whatever their viewpoint) for their contributions.
You are welcome.
No. Forcings are an input to the models. Scenario A indeed turned out to be an underestimate of the way emissions would develop, in no small part due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now few people foresaw that event, least of all the IPCC, and it is precisely because forcings are unpredictable that the IPCC run the models with a range of scenario inputs, high to low.
To take just a single scenario, once we know it did not transpire, and ignore the more realistic scenarios, because the predicted trend turned out to be accurate, and to label this as ’empirical evidence’ of the models running hot falls well short of the level of accuracy, not to say honesty, expected in the academic literature.
But I tire of repeating myself.
On the mistake in using classical Voigt line shapes for climate models . . . .
. . .
http://marshall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Happer-Speech-8-10-13.pdf . . .
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/ . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMdYmAo08O4 . . .
If i understand correctly a key element of failure in the climate models is the classical expressions for
Lorentzian and Voigt line shapes are wrong,,, and its not just co2, but all the EM effected gasses . . .
The far wings of Voigt lines on the absorption bands do not exist in the real world . . .
simple straight line formulas for Del/Co2 = Del/Tp dont work, and it means positive feedback theories are in even more trouble.. A discovery that looks to date to 2008 . . .
J.-M. Hartmann, C. Boulet, D. Robert, “Collisional effects on molecular spectra. Elservier, 2008.
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1758603/collisional_effects_on_molecular_spectra.pdf . . .
and
http://lmsd.chem.elte.hu/hrms/Tran.pdf . . .
///… It is now well known that the widely used Voigt profile does not well describe the measured absorption shapes of molecular gases. For an isolated optical transition, this is due to the neglect of the collision-induced velocity changes and of the speed dependences of the collisional parameters. Examples of the influence of these non-Voigt effects on the extraction of spectral line parameters from laboratory measured spectra as well as on atmospheric spectra analysis will be presented. …///
And i suppose this information will reach them eventually , ,
I
looks like “it is now well known that the widely used Voigt profile does not well describe the measured absorption shapes of molecular gases.” does not apply to the climate modelers . . . .
The ramifications are ,,, CO2 effect is logarithmic. and we are well into the flat of the curve , ,
,, the same thing effects the water vapor lines too , , ,
Pressure effects on water vapour lines: beyond the Voigt profile
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012) 370, 2495–2508
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/370/1968/2495.full.pdf . . .
So if the AMO has rolled over and we head back toward the conditions of the 70’s Ice age scare ? . .
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mann14_1_amo_noaa_kaplansst2.png . . .
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/ . . .
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html …
Detailed analysis of classical vs wing suppressed Voigt is a bit above my pay grade,
but i think i understand the ramifications of the recent work , , the 2008 Paper appears to
be one of the data points bringing Professor Happer to his conclusion . .
there are other derivatives popping out of peer review since.
So perhaps we have some clues to how the models went wrong, beyond the mistake of curve fitting the rising slope of the AMO et al . .
Too bad we wont be able to see the modelers frantically attempting to curve fit the down slope of the AMO in combination with the Log-Realities of mixed EM active gases . . .
It looks to me,,, its going to turn them into a clutch of screaming frustrated poo tossing monkeys.
Perhaps they will post the best parts on youtube,, it would get a lotta hits , , ,