By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
My commentary written for Remote Sensing on the empirical determination of climate sensitivity, published by the splendid Anthony Watts some days ago, has aroused a great deal of interest among his multitudes of readers. It is circulating among climate scientists on both sides of the debate. Several of Anthony’s readers have taken the trouble to make some helpful comments. Since some of these are buried among the usual debates between trolls on how awful I am, and others were kindly communicated privately, I have asked Anthony to allow me, first and foremost, to thank those readers who have been constructive with their comments, and to allow his readers the chance to share the comments I have received.
Joel Shore pointed out that Schwartz, whose paper of 2007 I had cited as finding climate sensitivity to be ~1 K, wrote a second paper in 2008 finding it close to 2 K. Shore assumed I had seen but suppressed the second paper. By now, most of Anthony’s readers will perhaps think less ungenerously of me than that. The new .pdf version of the commentary, available from Anthony’s website (here), omits both Schwartz papers: but they will be included in a fuller version of the argument in due course, along with other papers which use observation and measurement, rather than mere modeling, to determine climate sensitivity.
Professor Michael Asten of Monash University helpfully provided a proper reference in the reviewed literature for Christopher Scotese’s 1999 paper reconstructing mean global surface temperatures from the Cambrian Era to the present. This, too, has been incorporated into the new .pdf.
Professor Asten also supplied a copy of a paper by David Douglass and John Christy, published in that vital outlet for truth Energy & Environment in 2009, and concluding on the basis of recent temperature trends that feedbacks were not likely to be net-positive, implying climate sensitivity ~1 K. I shall certainly be including that paper and several others in the final version of the full-length paper that underlies the commentary published by Anthony. This paper is now in draft and I should be happy to send it to any interested reader who emails monckton@mail.com.
A regular critic, Lucia Liljegren was, as all too often before, eager to attack my calculations – she erred in publishing a denial that I sent her a reference that I can prove she received; and not factually accurate in blogging that “Monckton’s” Planck parameter was “pulled out of a hat” when I had shown her that in my commentary I had accepted the IPCC’s value as correct. She was misleading her readers in not telling them that the “out-of-a-hat” relationship she complains of is one which Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) had assumed, with a small variation (their implicit λ0 is 0.18 rather than the 0.15 I derived from their paper via Kimoto, 2009); and selective in not passing on that I had told her they were wrong to assume that a blackbody relationship between flux and temperature holds at the surface (if it did, as my commentary said, it would imply a climate sensitivity ~1 K).
A troll (commenter on WUWT) said I had “fabricated” the forcing function for CO2. When I pointed out that I had obtained it from Myhre et al. (1998), cited with approval in IPCC (2001, 2007), he whined at being called a troll (so don’t accuse me of “fabricating” stuff, then, particularly when I have taken care to cite multiple sources, none of which you were able to challenge) and dug himself further in by alleging that the IPCC had also “fabricated” the CO2 forcing function. No: the IPCC got it from Myhre et al., who in turn derived it by inter-comparison between three models. I didn’t and don’t warrant that the CO2 forcing function is right: that is above my pay-grade. However, Chris Essex, the lively mathematician who did some of the earliest spectral-line modeling of the CO2 forcing effect, confirms that Myhre and the IPCC are right to state that the function is a logarithmic one. Therefore, until I have evidence that it is wrong, I shall continue to use it in my calculations.
Another troll said – as usual, without providing any evidence – that I had mis-stated the result from process engineering that provides a decisive (and low) upper bound to climate sensitivity. In fact, the result came from a process engineer, Dr. David Evans, who is one of the finest intuitive mathematicians I have met. He spent much of his early career designing and building electrical circuitry and cannot, therefore, fairly be accused of not knowing what he is talking about. Since the resulting fundamental upper limit to climate sensitivity is as low as 1.2 K, I thought readers might be interested to have a fuller account of it, which is very substantially the work of David Evans. It is posted below this note.
Hereward Corley pointed out that the reference to Shaviv (2008) should have been Shaviv (2005). Nir Shaviv – another genius of a mathematician – had originally sent me the paper saying it was from 2008, but the version he sent was an undated pre-publication copy. Mr. Corley also kindly supplied half a dozen further papers that determine climate sensitivity empirically. Most of the papers find it low, and all find it below the IPCC’s estimates. The papers are Chylek & Lohman (2008); Douglass & Knox (2005); Gregory et al. (2002); Hoffert & Covey (1992); Idso (1998); and Loehle & Scafetta (2011).
I should be most grateful if readers would be kind enough to draw my attention to any further papers that determine climate sensitivity by empirical methods rather than by the use of general-circulation models. I don’t mind what answers the papers come to, but I only want those that attempted to reach the answer by measurement, observation, and the application of established theory to the results.
Many thanks again to all of you for your interest and assistance. Too many of the peer-reviewed journals are no longer professional enough or unprejudiced enough to publish anything that questions the new State religion of supposedly catastrophic manmade global warming. Remote Sensing, for instance has still not had the courtesy to acknowledge the commentary I sent. Since the editors of the learned journals seem to have abdicated their role as impartial philosopher-kings, WattsUpWithThat is now the place where (in between the whining and whiffling and waffling of the trolls) true science is done.
The fundamental constraint on climate sensitivity
A fundamental constraint rules out strongly net-positive temperature feedbacks acting to amplify warming triggered by emissions of greenhouse gases, with the startling result that climate sensitivity cannot much exceed 1.2 K.
Sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration is the product of three parameters (Eq. 1):
- the radiative forcing ΔF2x = 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W m–2 at CO2 doubling (Eq. 2), from the function in Myhre et al. (1998) and IPCC (2001, 2007);
- the Planck zero-feedback climate sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.3125 K W–1 m2 (Eq. 3), equivalent to the first differential of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer in terms of mean emission temperature TE and the corresponding flux FE at the characteristic-emission altitude (CEA, one optical depth down into the atmosphere, where incoming and outgoing fluxes are identical), augmented by approximately one-sixth to allow for latitudinal variation (IPCC, 2007, p. 631 fn.);
- the overall feedback gain factor G (Eq. 4), equivalent, where feedbacks are assumed linear as here, to (1 – g)–1, where the feedback loop gain g is the product of λ0 and the sum f of all unamplified temperature feedbacks f1, f2, … fn, such that the final or post-feedback climate sensitivity parameter λ is the product of λ0 and G.
The values of the first two of the three parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are known (Eqs. 2-3). The general-circulation models, following pioneering authors such as Hansen (1984), assume that the feedbacks acting upon the climate object are strongly net-positive (G 1: the IPCC’s implicit central estimate is G = 2.81). In practice, however, neither individual temperature feedbacks nor their sum can be directly measured; nor can feedbacks be readily distinguished from forcings (Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011; but see Dessler, 2010, 2011).
Temperature feedbacks – in effect, forcings that occur because a temperature change has triggered them – are the greatest of the many uncertainties that complicate the determination of climate sensitivity. The methodology that the models adopt was first considered in detail by Bode (1945) and is encapsulated at its simplest, assuming all feedbacks are linear, in Eq. (4). Models attempt to determine the value of each distinct positive (temperature-amplifying) and negative (temperature-attenuating) feedback in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of original warming. The feedbacks f1, f2, … fn are then summed and mutually amplified (Eq. 4).
Fig. 1 schematizes the feedback loop:
Figure 1. A forcing ΔF is input (top left) by multiplication to the final sensitivity parameter λ = λ0G, where g = λ0f = 0.645 is the IPCC’s implicit central estimate of the loop gain and G = (1 – g)–1 = 2.813 [not shown] is the overall gain factor: i.e., the factor by which the temperature change T0 = ΔF λ0 triggered by the original forcing is multiplied to yield the output final climate sensitivity ΔT = ΔF λ = ΔF λ0 G (top right). To generate λ = λ0 G, the feedbacks f1, f2, … fn, summing to f, are mutually amplified via Eq. (4). Stated values of λ0, f, g, G, and λare those implicit in the IPCC’s central estimate ΔT2x = 3.26 K (2007, p. 798, Box 10.2) in response to ΔF2x = 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W m–2. Values for individual feedbacks f1–f4 are taken from Soden & Held (2006). (Author’s diagram from a drawing by Dr. David Evans).
The modelers’ attempts to identify and aggregate individual temperature feedbacks, while understandable, do not overcome the difficulties in distinguishing feedbacks from forcings or even from each other, or in determining the effect of overlaps between them. The methodology’s chief drawback, however, is that in concentrating on individual rather than aggregate feedbacks it overlooks a fundamental physical constraint on the magnitude of the feedback loop gain g in Eq. (4).
Paleoclimate studies indicate that in the past billion years the Earth’s absolute global mean surface temperature has not varied by more than 3% (~8 K) either side of the 750-million-year mean (Fig. 2):
Figure 2. Global mean surface temperature over the past 750 million years, reconstructed by Scotese (1999), showing variations not exceeding 8 K (<3%) either side of the 291 K (18 °C) mean.
Consistent with Scotese’s result, Zachos et al. (2001), reviewing detailed evidence from deep-sea sediment cores, concluded that in the past 65 Ma the greatest departure from the long-run mean was an increase of 8 K at the Poles, and less elsewhere, during the late Paleocene thermal maximum 55 Ma BP.
While even a 3% variation either side of the long-run mean causes ice ages at one era and hothouse conditions at another, in absolute terms the temperature homeostasis of the climate object is formidable. At no point in the geologically recent history of the planet has a runaway warming occurred. The Earth’s temperature stability raises the question what is the maximum feedback loop gain consistent with the long-term maintenance of stability in an object upon which feedbacks operate.
The IPCC’s method of determining temperature feedbacks is explicitly founded on the feedback-amplification equation (Eq. 4, and see Hansen, 1984) discussed by Bode (1945) in connection with the prevention of feedback-induced failure in electronic circuits. A discussion of the methods adopted by process engineers to ensure that feedbacks are prevented in electronic circuits will, therefore, be relevant to a discussion of the role of feedbacks acting upon the climate object.
In the construction of electronic circuits, where one of the best-known instances of runaway feedback is the howling shriek when a microphone is placed too close to the loudspeaker to which it is connected, electronic engineers take considerable care to avoid positive feedback altogether, unless they wish to induce a deliberate instability or oscillation by compelling the loop gain to exceed unity, the singularity in Eq. (4), at which point the magnitude of the loop gain becomes undefined.
In electronic circuits for consumer goods, the values of components typically vary by up to 10% from specification owing to the vagaries of raw materials, manufacture, and assembly. Values may vary further over their lifetime from age and deterioration. Therefore engineers ensure long-term stability by designing in a negative feedback to ensure that vital circuit parameters stay close to the desired values.
Negative feedbacks were first posited by Harold S. Black in 1927 in New York, when he was looking for a way to cancel distortion in telephone relays. Roe (2009) writes:
“He describes a sudden flash of inspiration while on his commute into Manhattan on the Lackawanna Ferry. The original copy of the page of the New York Times on which he scribbled down the details of his brainwave a few days later still has pride of place at the Bell Labs Museum, where it is regarded with great reverence.”
One circuit parameter of great importance is the (closed) feedback loop gain inside any amplifier, which must be held at less than unity under all circumstances to avoid runaway positive feedback (g ≥ 1). The loop gain typically depends on the values of at least half a dozen components, and the actual value of each component may randomly vary. To ensure stability the design value of the feedback loop gain must be held one or two orders of magnitude below unity: g <0.1, or preferably <0.01.
Now consider the common view of the climate system as an engine for converting forcings to temperature changes – an object on which feedbacks act as in Fig. 1. The values of the parameters that determine the (closed) loop gain, as in an electronic circuit, are subject to vagaries. As the Earth evolves, continents drift, sometimes occupying polar or tropical positions, sometimes allowing important ocean currents to pass and sometimes impeding or diverting them; vegetation comes and goes, altering the reflective, radiative, and evaporative characteristics of the land and the properties of the coupled atmosphere-ocean interface; volcanoes occasionally fill the atmosphere with smoke, sulfur, or CO2; asteroids strike; orbital characteristics change slowly but radically in accordance with the Milankovich cycles; and atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse species, vary greatly.
In the Neoproterozoic, 750 Ma BP, CO2 concentration (today <0.04%) was ~30%: otherwise the ocean’s magnesium ions could not have united with the abundance of calcium ions and with CO2 itself to precipitate the dolomitic rocks laid down in that era. Yet mile-high glaciers came and went twice at sea level at the equator.
As in the electronic circuit, so in the climate object, the values of numerous key components contributing to the loop gain change radically over time. Yet for at least 2 Ga the Earth appears never to have endured the runaway greenhouse warming that would have occurred if the loop gain had reached unity. Therefore, the loop gain in the climate object cannot be close to unity, for otherwise random mutation of the feedback-relevant parameters of vital climate components over time would surely by now have driven it to unity. It is near-certain, therefore, that the value of the climatic feedback loop gain g today must be very much closer to 0 than to 1.
A loop gain of 0.1, then, is in practice the upper bound for very-long-term climate stability. Yet the loop gain values implicit in the IPCC’s global-warming projections of 3.26[2, 4.5] K warming in response to a CO2 doubling are well above this maximum, at 0.64[0.42, 0.74] (Eq. 8). Values such as these are far too close to the steeply-rising segment of the climate-sensitivity curve (Fig. 3) to have allowed the climate to remain temperature-stable for hundreds of millions of years, as Zachos (2001) and Scotese (1999) have reported.
Figure 3. The climate-sensitivity curve at loop gains –1.0 ≤ g < +1.0. The narrow shaded zone at bottom left indicates that climate sensitivity is stable at 0.5-1.3 K per CO2 doubling for loop gains –1.0 ≤ g ≤ +0.1, equivalent to overall feedback gain factors 0.5 ≤ G ≤ 1.1. However, climate sensitivities on the IPCC’s interval [2.0, 4.5] K (shaded zone at right) imply loop gains on the interval (+0.4, +0.8), well above the maximum loop gain that could obtain in a long-term-stable object such as the climate. At a loop gain of unity, the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation (Eq. 4), runaway feedback would occur. If the loop gain in the climate object were >0.1, then at any time conditions sufficient to push the loop gain towards unity might occur, but (see Fig. 2) have not occurred in close to a billion years (author’s figure based on diagrams in Roe, 2009; Paltridge, 2009; and Lindzen, 2011).
Fig. 3 shows the climate-sensitivity curve for loop gains g on the interval [–1, 1). It is precisely because the IPCC’s implicit interval of feedback loop gains so closely approaches unity, which is the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation (Eq. 4), that attempts to determine climate sensitivity on the basis that feedbacks are strongly net-positive can generate very high (but physically unrealistic) climate sensitivities, such as the >10 K that Murphy et al. (2009) say they cannot rule out.
If, however, the loop gain in the climate object is no greater than the theoretical maximum value g = 0.1, then, by Eq. (4), the corresponding overall feedback gain factor G is 1.11, and, by Eq. (1), climate sensitivity in response to a CO2 doubling cannot much exceed 1.2 K. No surprise, then, that the dozen or more empirical methods of deriving climate sensitivity that I included in my commentary cohered at just 1 K. If that is indeed the answer to the climate sensitivity question, it is also a mortal blow to climate extremists worldwide – but good news for everyone else.
References
Bode, H.W., 1945, Network analysis and feedback amplifier design, Van Nostrand, New York, USA, 551 pp.
Chylek, P., and U. Lohman, 2008, Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the last glacial maximum to Holocene transition, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.
Dessler, A.E., 2010, A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science 220, 1523-1527.
Dessler, A.E., 2011, Cloud Variations and the Earth’s Energy Budget, Geophys. Res. Lett. [in press].
Douglass, D.H., and R.S. Knox, 2005, Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2009, Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth, Energy & Environment 20:1-2, 177-189.
Gregory, J.M., R.J. Stouffer, S.C. Raper, P.A. Stott, and N.A. Rayner, 2002, An observationally-based estimate of the climate sensitivity, J. Clim. 15, 3117-3121.
Hansen, J., A., Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984, Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms, Meteorological Monographs 29, 130-163.
Hoffert, M.I., and C. Covey, 1992, Deriving global climate sensitivity from paloeclimate reconstructions, Nature 360, 573-576.
Idso, S.B., 1998, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Clim. Res. 10, 69-82.
IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
Kimoto, K., 2009, On the confusion of Planck feedback parameters, Energy & Environment 20:7, 1057-1066.
Lindzen, R.S., 2011, Lecture to the American Chemical Society, Aug. 28.
Loehle, C., and Scafetta, N., 2011, Climate change attribution using empirical decomposition of climatic data, Open Atmos. Sci. J. 5, 74-86.
Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong 2009, An observationally-based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
Myhre, G., E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998, New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25:14, 2715–2718, doi:10.1029/98GL01908.
Paltridge, G., 2009, The Climate Caper, Connor Court, Sydney, Australia, 110 pp.
Roe, G., 2009, Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red, Ann. Rev. Earth. Planet. Sci. 37, 93-115.
Schwartz, S.E., 2007, Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system, J. Geophys. Res. 112, D24So5, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746.
Schwartz, S.E., 2008, Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat Capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system”, J. Geophys. Res. 113, D15015, doi: 10.1029/2008JD009872.
Scotese, C.R., A.J. Boucot, and W.S. McKerrow, 1999, Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology, J. African Earth Sci. 28:1, 99-114.
Shaviv, N., 2005, On climate response to changes in the cosmic-ray flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029.
Soden, B.J., and I.M. Held, 2006, An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Clim. 19, 3354–3360.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2010, On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2011, On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant-energy balance, Remote Sensing 3, 1603-1613, doi:10.3390/rs3081603.
Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups, 2001, Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present, Science 292, 686-693.
Christopher,
I would be happy to write a post engaging what you claim and publish the contents of my emails to you and yours to me in their entirety.
Trolls need to distinguish “Planck” from “planking”. Too little understanding of the former due to engaging in excess in the latter.
WOW.
Just Wow.
Challenge Lord Monckton if you dare!
I can’t understand the maths but I can recognise proper research when I see it.
The Feedback gain numbers were the thing that turned me off to this whole affair when I first heard ALGORE’s utterances about it in the beginning. I’ve worked too many electronic circuits to see something with feedback near unity survive in the real world for long. Catastrophic runaway is not slow, it is nearly instantaneous! There is no way the climate is in that range.
REPLY: Yes, it takes only a tiny little push to put a 741 op amp into squealing feedback when setup that way, but op amps aren’t climate 😉 – Anthony
And the best that Jeremy Grantham’s batch at the LSE can do is to have Lord Stern make ad hominem attacks on people. Jeremy, whose real first name is Robert, is free to do what he wishes with his significant wealth. Sadly, he has all the scientific understanding of a cockroach. When I went over to the dark side and became a quant, I worked at GMO for quite a while before I retired. When the first “cold fusion” stuff happened he came to me to ask if this was possible. No Jeremy it isn’t and here is why. I would have told him the same about AGW since I got my PhD at MIT under Prof. David Staelin who was one of the pioneers in microwave remote sensing of vertical temperature profiles. There is a difference between funding real research and funding those guys at the LSE.
Lucia you say elsewhere :
“The letter (Lord Moncktons to RS) is written in the floridly opaque, obscure prose typical of its author. I suspect I was not alone in scratching my head and wondering Christopher Monckton meant to communicate when crafting this…….”
Many readers here will be scratching their heads and wondering what you were trying to communicate in with your first post. Floridly opaque, obscure prose seems somewhat of an understatement.
“In fact, the result came from a process engineer, Dr. David Evans, who is one of the finest intuitive mathematicians I have met. ”
About time people from the process control environment gets involved. They are the most brilliant scientists there is. An ordinary climate scientist would never have the knowledge these people have. Except perhaps Spencer and a few more.
Christopher Monckton,
I think it would be good if you visited Lucia’s blog, or contacted her directly by email, if you think she has be less than completely honest about the information she received from you. I have known Lucia for some time, she is (in my experience) both honest and forthright; I would be very surprised if there is not a perfectly simple explanation or misunderstanding.
NOTE: The 4 equations under “The fundamental constraint on climate sensitivity” got mangled in format translation, they are fixed now.
@Owen,
The terms feedback and forcing are not synonomous with what we, as electronic engineers would suspect. I am struggeling with their weird definitions as of today. For me, their definitions are completely bogus. Note: none of these feedbacks or forcings are ever be given in the form of a formula. Never.
This is junk ^2 science.
“In the Neoproterozoic, 750 Ma BP, CO2 concentration (today <0.04%) was ~30%: otherwise the ocean’s magnesium ions could not have united with the abundance of calcium ions and with CO2 itself to precipitate the dolomitic rocks laid down in that era"
I would be very cautious in making that statement. It is very common for carbonates to be diagenetically altered to dolomite long after deposition. Even with much younger, unaltered rocks, it is difficult to ascertain when the dolomite was formed–at time of deposition or later. There are numerous papers on the subject and the determination of early vs late dolomite is the subject of many days of discussion in a typical graduate level carbonate petrology course. I would look for a more robust proxy.
Free the mails, Christopher.
Richard Lawson–
Sorry if I was unclear. Monckton wrote this paragraph containing some claims
I would be happy to engage those in a blog post, and also upload the two emails he sent me and the three I sent him.
Lord Monckton
Thanks for all you do. I may not always agree with everything you say or publish, but then again on most days I can’t be guaranteed to agree with myself all the way through, so that’s no real demerit. That said I do very much admire the open, honest, responsive, and generally good spirited manner in which you deal with the many critics you attract, who, to my mind, seldom display many or any of those qualities in their criticisms of you. If more of the folks engaged in this controversy, myself included, could act with the equanimity that you almost always present we would all be better off and the many questions at issue would be much closer to being resolved
I would like to add a caveat. Christopher treats linear feedbacks with his Fig. 3. But there are nonlinear feedbacks in climate – the Stefan-Boltzmann law as the fourth power of local temperature comes to mind ; another one is Willis’ Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis – a negative feedback that kicks in as soon as a warm threshold is reached, leading to formation of thunderstorms in the tropics, which transport huge amount of heat upwards.
So it would be theoretically conceivable to have a combination of a relatively high-gain linear positive feedback loop but with an added thresholded device that kicks in with a heavy negative feedback as soon as the system reaches a very hot state – like the thunderstorm in the tropics. Such thresholded devices in analog electronics can be found as Zener diodes or UJT transistors, for instance.
Speaking about an averaged global linear feedback gain, unfortunately, makes as little sense as speaking about a global average temperature – it doesn’t exist in the real world.
Hmmmmm.
Whilst I feel that climate varies – we had Ice Ages, didn’t we? – this maths is well above my head.
I suggest that the paper by Lord Monckton means that –
based on actual obsrvation – and working rom that – our planet’s climate is not very sensitive to CO2 levels.
Hence – the climate shanges seen in the last 50-100 years are probably, or very probably – not linkd to CO2 levels. Further back in time – the Gundel Ice Age, or the Mississippian – plainly it wasn’t Anthropogenic Warming – or Cooling.
I think that’s what it means.
Typo(s?)? in:
There shouldn’t be a comma, I don’t think, and “species” doesn’t sound right.
steve fitzpatrick says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Forgive me for this observation … but in relation to Christpher Monckton’s writing, it appears to me that pro-CAGW authors / bloggers rely on the “surprised if there is not a perfectly simple explanation or misunderstanding” excuse too often in order to extract their feet from their mouths.
“the original forcing is multiplied to yield the output final climate sensitivity ΔT = ΔF λ = ΔF λ0 G ”
[Giggle] Oooo, you are awful!
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
Thank you for choosing my favorite science focused blog, WUWT, as the venue where you engage both the protagonists of alarming AGW and their subjective subset which I call the protagonists of concernist AGW.
Your input serves the need to hear the discourse openly.
I also get to observe some elegant English prose. : )
John
Nasif S. Nahle: Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime
Abstract
Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=8402
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I would be happy to engage those in a blog post, and also upload the two emails he sent me and the three I sent him.
—————–
lucia,
On the contrary, I strongly recommend you engage Monckton here in neutral corners where there is more moderation coverage 24/7 and where there is more reach to the discourse.
That is if Anthony agrees.
John
It is all very well to use math to decide what the climate sensitivity can be or cannot be based on earths climate history, however, if you want direct measurements of CO2’s effect on climate, I know a way you can get the very most DIRECT measurements there are.
The basic idea of global warming is that more CO2 will result in heat radiated by the sun warmed earth being trapped in the CO2 and radiated back downward, resulting in greater heating of the surface. If this can be shown to be true, we can measure the amount radiated down now and compare it to the amount formerly radiated down in earlier times when there was less CO2, say, several decades at least. We would then be able to DIRECTLY measure the effect of CO2 on climate, correct? In fact, you cannot get a more direct test of CO2’s effect than this, nor is there anything more important, or even close to as important, as this, to the whole global warming debate. Simply put, if we have more CO2, which we do, and we do not have more infrared radiation at the surface, the entire global warming idea, which is entirely based around this idea, is falsified scientifically by direct measurement.
A recent poster on this site, who works with observatories telescopes, pointed out that they make just such direct measurements of the infrared radiation. First, they must know how hot the atmosphere is, because they must use motors to flex the telescopes to correct for the atmospheric distortion this causes. Second, some of these telescopes are infrared telescopes, which directly measure infrared. Over a period of 15 to 25 years, he stated that there is actually less infrared radiation then there used to be. This is both by the amount less that they must flex the telescopes to account for it, and by direct measurement by the infra red telescopes and the special infra red detectors they must use to tell them how much to flex the telescopes. Conclusion, over that time period, when CO2 has gone measurably up, the amount of infrared radiation has slightly dropped, and certainly has not increased. Therefore, by DIRECT MEASUREMENT, not models, not theories, DIRECTLY, they have completely and totally falsified the very basic linchpin on which the entire theory of global warming rests.
To sum up:
CO2 has gone up.
For global warming to be true, this MUST result in increased infrared radiation.
There is the same or less infrared radiation.
Global warming is falsified.
And why has no one bothered to even look at the very basic and easily measured parameter upon which all of the theory of global warming rests? Everyone dances around it but no one even thinks to once look at the basic idea and take the simple and easy measurements which we already have the equipment for at every observatory? This is the very basis of the entire theory, easily measured, why has no one ever measured it? Why has no one even MENTIONED it?
You stated:
“I should be most grateful if readers would be kind enough to draw my attention to any further papers that determine climate sensitivity by empirical methods rather than by the use of general-circulation models. I don’t mind what answers the papers come to, but I only want those that attempted to reach the answer by measurement, observation, and the application of established theory to the results.”
There can be no more direct and applicable measurement or observation than the direct and easy to do measurement of the parameter that alone will directly determine whether there is or is not global warming, and to directly measure the exact warming effect, if any, of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.
SteveF–
I have reviewed my emails. It appears that I was mistaken when I wrote
“Monckton would provide no further information to permit me to find the paper.”
This is how it came about:
In the first, Monckton refers to “Kimoto 2009”, as I mentioned in my blog. That was the extent of the citation.
I received a 2nd email from Monckton,
which began
in which he provided numerous inline comments (which respond to my inline comments in response to his email:
I took this as a claim that he had given me the reference, when all I had been given was “Kimoto (2009).”
I took “Don’t be silly” to be refusal to supply the document.
Monckton’s response continues in this vein.
Reading further, I arrived at my closure
and intepreted that to be then end of Monckton’s response. However, it was followed by the contents of my original email which began
I admit believing Monckton had written what he was going to write, and that he had refused to supply details on the citation, I down past the requote of my first email. Had I done so, I would have found this:
”
So, it seems I did err both in believing Monckton has refused to provide further details and in saying he had refused. I apologize for this and will update my post inform my readers.
I remain be happy to post my three emails and Monckton’s in their entirety so people can assess how I came make this error. The would also provide supporting information regarding other issues both Monckton and I have discussed in our respective posts.
[note: The post was edited at the request of Lucia to fix three minor typos, no meaning was changed – Anthony]
Stephen Brown says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm
WOW.
Just Wow.
Challenge Lord Monckton if you dare!
I can’t understand the maths but I can recognise proper research when I see it.
____________________________________________________________________
I will second that comment.
I can sort of follow most of the math and the concepts. However the great thing about WUWT is I know the guys with the superb Engineering/Math background will soon be here to dissect and “Peer-review” the information and with luck I can follow the debate….
I’d like as much input from process control folks as is possible! Seems like they could hold the key regarding CAGW.
Bart has some very interesting input on the threads over at Climate Audit, referencing negative feedback. Most of it is over my non-science/math head, but a lot of the right kind of heads seem properly intrigued.
Sir Monckton,
Okay, first let me appologize for misspelling your name in the previous thread. I’m sorry for that, but I don’t think it’s any worse than the electric bill I have received for the past year addressed to Garg Swift, despite numerous attempts to get them to fix it. lol.
Second, since the bulk of this post seems to address very issue I was having such a lively discussion about on the other thread, thank you for taking the time to illuminate your application of engineering principles to climate feedback.
Please understand that I’m not trying to be a pain in your rear. I agree with the conclusion, but I do not agree that the method above is a good way to reach that conclusion. All your other points and methods are much stronger.
My reasoning for feeling uncomfortable with the use of the engineering feedback theory is that it is grossly oversimplified for use in climate analysis. For example, as Willis has been arguing recently, clouds may have a powerful damping effect on feedbacks. That does not mean that the feedbacks are not strong though. It is possible to have multiple and offsetting feedbacks, and I do not think the way your equation above handles the problem is comprehensive enough in this context.
Please be patient with me, I’m not trying to say you are wrong. It’s more of a technical burr under my saddle, rather than claiming that you made an error. It looks like your method supports your conclusions, but in this case it might be that correlation is not the same as causality.
I offer your figure 2 as evidence. You pointed out that the temperature stays within a relatively narrow range. I agree that there is some mechanism which appears to damp the system and allow it to stay within relative equilibrium (as opposed to a runaway feedback). On the other hand, notice how the temperature swings rapidly (in geological time) from max to min and spends very little time in the middle range. Does that look like a system with or without feedbacks?
The data paleo data seems to indicate an on/off switch effect very much like a system with strong positive/negative feedbacks. You can see the same kind of thing when you look at aerodynamic feedback effects, which might be a better fit in this context. You can get feedback on the pressure over a wing, where turbulence can amplify the drag, but there’s a finite limit on how much amplification you can get.
Here’s one paper that talks about an effect similar to what I’m talking about.
Modulation of wind ripples…
As you can see, there it is possible to have a strong positive feedback and also have a boundary on the extent of the magnitude of the feedback.
Once again, thank you for the elaborate explanation of your feedback gain limit theory. I have very little issue with any of the other brilliant points you have made. I just don’t see that this one method is valid in this context.
free the mails.
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Christopher,
I would be happy to write a post engaging what you claim and publish the contents of my emails to you and yours to me in their entirety.
======================================================
You could have made a modicum of inquiry, first.
I’d be happy not to care about your e-mail wars.
Reverse engineering is tricky enough without assumptions that can easily be verified or refuted. Unless you can show where you asked and Monckton refused to answer, your protests hold no value.
James
Sorry again,
I’ve been reading too much George R. R. Martin. I meant to say Lord Monckton in my previous post. There’s too many Sir’s in this book. lol
Sincerely,
Gary
Lord Monckton, please don’t lump Lucia Liljegren with troll detractors. While not labeling her so directly, you appear to do so by inference in your above post.
It has been my experience that Ms. Liljegren seeks truth through rigorous means. She is equally brutal to all who seek to use math and science to bolster their political opinions. I would venture therefore that if she was critical of your math, there was good reason for it.
I had a structural geology prof as a senior who was rumored to have never issued a first class on his final exam (He was an Imperial trained doctorate and one of Ramsay’s students). I got a high second class on his exam and was the top in my class. I felt cheated a bit at the time, because I had studied very, very hard.
Years later when I returned to academia for graduate studies I took graduate level structural geology courses (from another student of Ramsay coincidentally) and aced all my exams and projects – not because I studied particularly hard, but because I actually remembered all the stuff from years before, taught by that stern, uncompromising nit-picker, who demanded complete rigor.
I think of Lucia in the same way as I think of that prof from Imperial so many years ago – If you come up against her you better be prepared.
BTW, like Ramsay, he was a Scot.
At some point the coffin is so full of nails that it becomes entirely metallic.
steven mosher says:
September 27, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Steven , that’s a bit obscure. Care to fill in the blanks? Is it regarding Lucia’s misunderstanding, which she (properly and correctly) acknowledged above?
The world wonders …
Thanks,
w.
I think they have been; check up-thread …
.
As one who built his first hi-fi amplifier kit more than half a century ago, and has a practical if amateur understanding of analog circuits, this made no sense to me at first:
It took a bit to realize that what was meant here is, in electronic terms, the effect of closing the feedback loop on the amplifier, that is, the ratio of the closed loop gain to the (theoretical) open loop gain of the amp. A typical power amplifier might have a (theoretical) open loop voltage gain of 10,000 — theoretical because it would fry both itself and anything it was connected to if it were run that way — with negative feedback applied to reduce the voltage gain to, say, 20 for a typical 50-watt audio amplifier. Thus the “closed loop gain” in normal electronic terms is 20, but the “closed loop feedback gain” as used here is 20/10,000 or .002 . Unfortunate terminology.
Forgive my interjecting here with such a maudlin comment, but it is this sort of post that keeps me coming back here — sometimes several times a day. Great stuff! Particularly the continuing excellent comments. Absolutely fascinating to see this aspect of science in action.
Many thanks to Sir Anthony and his merry band.
0.1? That seems to be the crucial figure. Where did it come from?
Looking through, I find, assertion:
“To ensure stability the design value of the feedback loop gain must be held one or two orders of magnitude below unity: g <0.1, or preferably <0.01.”
then a claim of practical backing:
“A loop gain of 0.1, then, is in practice the upper bound for very-long-term climate stability.”
and then it’s promoted to:
“the theoretical maximum value g = 0.1, “
But where did it come from? Is it to be found in the long list of references?
Thank you bold, Monckton. Your work is greatly appreciated.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035
Christopher, that is a wonderful post. I’m sorry that personalities get in the way in the argument against this blight on humanity we call the CAGW hypothesis. Keep up the good work. While this post goes through the details of reaching the most sensible conclusion, to wit, the feed-backs can’t possibly be as dramatic as purported, else we’d have experienced runaway something or another in the past. I’m not sure your efforts will be properly appreciated. This avenue has been explored, and explored, and shown, and shown, and still the illogical persist.
Your methodical approach renders me useless in your search for more thoughts of sensitivities based on observations. But, I think an approach that may further your argument would be to define the percentage of energies of IR per bandwidth. The GHGs only absorb so much of the spectrum. A small portion of the IR spectrum, and most overlap. Given spherical shape of the earth, < 50% is re-emitted back to earth from any given GHG molecule and lessens as the elevation of the molecule increases. The 4 wavelength can only emit a small percentage of the total IR energy. And given the increase pant wetting of methane, the same could be said of the 3 wavelength. I'm engaged in other avenues at the time, so I haven't properly investigated the obvious questions. I don't know if the energy is evenly reflected by the earth per wavelength or what the distribution may be if it isn't. But, I think that's a way of presentation that may provide more force in the argument.
My best,
James Sexton
Nice apology Lucia. Basically, you made the assumption and went so far as to admit to making the assumption but then attempted to blame someone else for making an ass out of both you and your communicant.
Science should be nothing else unless first and foremost humbling.
The issue with the Schwartz approach is that there appear to be two relaxation times, as pointed out originally by Nicola Scafetta. Then how one combines them becomes an additional source of uncertainty.
Still Lord Monckton’s conclusion is right. In summary, none of the empirical approaches is althogether convincing, but taken together the body of evidence points to a climate senitivity around 1 degree for 2 x CO2. The uncertainty is still large, but there is a very high likelihood that sensitivity is far less than the IPCC’s model based determinations.
James Sexton says:
September 27, 2011 at 4:45 pm
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:35 pm
You could have made a modicum of inquiry, first…………
======================================================
Please note, my comment was made before Lucia’s comment towards the correspondence that led to her errors was posted at WUWT.
This is to her credit.
James
Does it look this will be the first year warmer than 1998? I always wonder when that will happen again so the climate religionists can say “see I told you so!”
First, as always, I am captivated by the inimitable Monckton style, always great stuff.
I enjoyed the argument that the net feedback, if positive, cannot be more than about 0.1 from arguments regarding long-term temperature stability. I have noted this stability often, as it implies not positive feedback, not negative feedback, but the combination of the two that makes up a thermoregulatory system.
I have shown that in the tropics, this thermoregulation is achieved by a threshold-based system of changes of circulatory regimes. Climate sensitivity (lambda) varies greatly between these regimes, with the sensitivity being lower and lower with the passing of each successive threshold. I have shown that locally the response is strong enough to actually reduce the temperature despite strengthening sun. This means that at certain times and in certain regimes, the climate sensitivity lambda can actually be negative.
Unfortunately, this has huge implications for your argument. Your argument is based on the idea that the climate sensitivity lambda is a constant. But it is far from a constant—lambda is a wildly non-linear, threshold based function of temperature.
This means that your lovely delta-flog equation above, viz:
ΔT = ΔF λ = ΔF λ0 G
needs to have the substitution
λ = NonlinearF(T)
to give us
ΔT = ΔF * NonlinearF(T)
And that, my dear Lord, makes the entire equation unsolvable …
Keep up the great work, between your peregrinations and your gyrations you are always a source of great entertainment.
w.
PS – the existence of threshold based, self-organized criticality means the climate system can’t be analyzed using the whole classical feedback system you show in Figure 1. Threshold-based systems, particularly those involving emergent phenomena, are not describable as simple feedbacks of the type you propose.
Note to Willis and others, I just updated for the SECOND time, Monckton’s 4 equations, because not only did they get mangled in Open Office (converting from MS Word 2007) the free MSWord reader also failed to display them properly, and I used a screencap from that for the first edit.
I believe the four equations are correctly displayed and formatted now, if not please make a note in comments.
Just goes to show that if you get a science paper written in MS Word, and the math looks wonky, it may be format/conversion issues and program versions.
Legatus says @ September 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm
“…A recent poster on this site, who works with observatories telescopes, pointed out that they make just such direct measurements of the infrared radiation….”
_________________________________________________________________________
It would be nice if you could give us a pointer to that comment or at least a name.
I find it curious that Christopher Monckton would appear to be troubled with the seemingly hostile tone of people who critique his work: He responds to one of the generally reasonable Lucia’s emails as
Without having seen the entire exchange (publicly anyway), it is clear, he is quick with the jibe and insult, which maybe a useful skill in disconcerting prospective car buyers if you are a used car salesman, but isn’t so useful if the purpose were to truthfully and accurately convey information that they had inquired about.
Moreover, he has his own propensity for letting fly the primary school ad hominems himself:
Given Monckton’s somewhat unusual visual appearance (which I agree should not be made fun of, regardless of whether it is related to an illness or otherwise), I do think it’s a bit odd he’s willing to be so cheeky in describing a critic as “an overcooked prawn”.
I would respectfully suggest that the above paragraphs, had they been written by Monckton’s critic as a comment on this blog aimed at the good Mr. Monckton, would not have passed moderation. I also respectfully request that Monckton be held to the same standards of fair play in his posts and comments on other posters on this blog that his respondents would and will be.
Great post and comments – thank you.
Mr Monckton
You might come up against heady resistance against your concepts merely because of a reflexive dislike of good English. I don’t think you should mind that.
Best
S
To Willis E.
Your argument strongly amplifies mine, but in a different way. I think we are on different pages of the same book here. I strongly agree with your points. Good post.
I just don’t understand all of this. The maths, yes, its still fairly easy to follow. STILL!!!! HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SHOWN?
It is established regardless of how many misanthropist pinheads line up to dispute it. In the mean time, while we’re arguing over statistical acrobatics, people are getting burned in their homes and out of them. If that’s not enough, which it should be for any person, how long do we have to suffer through the impoverishment of our own communities to realize the real harm this hypothesis is doing? WTF?
So many people, for all their talents and abilities, can’t find a way to mathematically define the harm? It is because they’ve no desire to do so. This would require some introspection about their own beliefs and they don’t have the courage to do so.
James Sexton
The surface of the Earth was radiating at 386 W/m2 in the year 1700 (before any increase in GHGs started) which produced an average temperature of 14.3C.
Today, the surface is radiating at 390 W/m2 which produces an average temperature of 15.0C (20C at the height of the day and 10C at the low point at sunrise and +0.7C higher than 1700).
Okay, so CO2 doubles from the year 1700 level or an extra 3.7 W/m2. The other GHGs such as Methane, N20 and the CFCs add another 0.22 W/m2 so we are at +3.92 W/m2.
From this extra +3.92 W/m2, tTemperatures increase by 1.04C at the tropopause and just 0.74C at the surface (which might imply, the lapse rate also falls from the current 6.5C/km to 6.4C/km which is close to what the IPCC estimates for the lapse rate feedback so that counts in feedback No. 1).
So what about the other feedbacks.
Water Vapour seems to increase by about 4.0% per 1.0C temperature increase (which is a little less than the climate models have and is indicated in the Classius Clapeyron equations at 7.0% per 1.0C but this is the consistent empirical estimate from all sources).
4.0% * 113.2 W/m2 * 0.5 (log impact) = +2.25 W/m2 for water vapour from this 0.74C to 1.04C temperature increase [which is very close to what the climate models have].
What about clouds? Clouds go up by about 3.0% (a little less than the water vapour increase).
Cloud long-wave positive forcing = 32 W/m2 * 3% * 0.5 (log impact) = +0.5 W/m2.
Cloud short-wave reflectance = -53 W/m2 * 3% * 1 (no log impact here now) = -1.6 W/m2.
Lets now add-in the IPCC Albedo feedback of +0.26 W/m2.
We then have —> 386 W/m2 + 3.92 W/m2 + 2.25 W/m2 + 0.5 W/m2 – 1.6 W/m2 + 0.26 W/m2 = 391.3 W/m2
—-> 15.3C or just 1.0C above the year 1700 level with just 0.3C more to go.
There you go, another estimate. All the forcings included (except for the Aerosols and solar changes which could net to Zero or a small negative if you believe Hansen which would just further reduce the numbers).
DirkH says:
Those aren’t caveats, they are factors that make Lord Monckton’s conclusions all the more justified. Willis’ negative feedback adds to Christopher’s argument, and the T^4 power in Stefan-Boltzmann means that a small T increase results in a massive shedding of heat by radiation, which is yet another negative feedback. If S-B were T^1, it would be linear; T^0.5 would be a caveat to Christopher’s argument – but T^4 ! That is an overwhelming reason all by itself why the GW theory is on shaky ground.
Lord Monckton,
Like you, I’m not a professional scientist, but I have sufficient grounding in both mathematics and physics to follow both the climate debate in general and your explanation above (I spent ten years or so doing “design wins” for manufacturers of electronic components). As Willis pointed out, the analogy to negative feedback loops in electronics doesn’t hold up 100%. Part if the “art” if you will, of designing an analog amplifier, is biasing the power transistors into their operating range. Their “operating range” is that part of their performance curve which is relatively linear. Outside of that range the slope of their output (vs input) can range to much higher gain (at the low end) to much lower (at the high end). But I understand completely the point you are trying to make, it was a very similar analogy that I used to use myself when I first started participating in this debate. Recently I’ve settled on a simpler approach, and one that I find leaves the trolls and warmists and even the lukewarmists pretty much without response. Here’s the short version:
o According to the IPCC, “doubling” of CO2 = 3.7w/m2 = ~ +1 degrees C “average”
o The reference to “doubling is defacto” acceptance of CO2’s direct effects being logarithmic, and no IPCC reference I’ve seen claims otherwise
o Initial conditions per the IPCC are 280 PPM in the atmosphere. (The IPCC quotes 278 PPM, for simplicity I’ve used 280 PPM). They fix the initial date as about 1920, the beginning of the industrial age.
o The current concentration of CO2 is close to 400 PPM, with the increase over the last ~90 years being about 120 PPM.
o Keeping in mind that CO2 is logarithmic, and lab results can easily quantify that fact, we can arrive at the following. (Gory math not shown for brevity, all values approximate for simplicity):
280 + 120 = 400 PPM
Direct warming vs 280 PPM is ~ 0.6 C
400 +120 = 520 PPM
Direct warming vs 400 PPM is ~ 0.3 C
520 + 120 = 640 PPM
Direct warming vs 520 PPM is ~ 0.15 C
640 + 120 = 760 PPM
Direct warming vs 640 PPM is ~ 0.08 C
640 + 120 = 880 PPM
Direct warming vs 760 PPM ia ~ 0.04 C
So there is the part where the scare mongerers simply stop responding to me. If we start at 400 PPM, where we are now, and produced CO2 increases every 50 years in the same order of magnitude as we did in the last 90 years, the direct effects of CO2 would be, in 50 year increments:
+ 0.3, 0.15, 0.08, 0.04
That’s two HUNDRED years, another 480 PPM, and the direct effects have dropped from 0.6 degrees per 120 PPM to 0.04 degrees per 120 PPM.
Can anyone propose a feedback mechanism that would result in LINEAR (let alone exponential) increases in average temperature? I think not.
To go back to your analog amplifier analogy, when one drives the darlington pair of power transistors beyond their operating range, their output becomes decreasingly sensitive to input. If the input is ALSO falling…why would anyone expect the output to be linear? And what bizarre branch of physics (be it radiative or semi-conductors) claims otherwise?
NONE. And that is why the trolls retreat into silence when I present this argument.
timoric says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Does it look this will be the first year warmer than 1998? I always wonder when that will happen again so the climate religionists can say “see I told you so!”
================================================================
Uhmm, no….. not even close, but you make the call…… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995 . Now, that doesn’t mean GISS won’t devalue some of the other years in their graph, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995 , but they’d have to work harder than what they are today. Expect are re-evaluation soon. Historical temps for GISS are subjective, and dynamic….. as you can see, 1998 there doesn’t measure up to what it once was…….. turns out, we didn’t know how to read a thermometer back then…… as temps get further in the past for GISS, they tend to decrease. But, we can look elsewhere for temps….. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995
No, we’re not coming close to 1998, even if GISS plays their expected games.
James
With regards to mangled equations, maybe it is time to explore the use of such suitable software as LyX or TeX/LaTeX, available for most platforms of interest!
Usually, I dodge these threads even though 99.9% of the material may be correct it’s that nagging smallish balance that could make a difference by a casual read by the wrong individual.
Done properly, one can use an op-amp in the design of a comparator and using a measured, controlled, calculated positive feedback create a specified amount of hysteresis (as might be seen in a Schmitt trigger for instance). Doing so avoids the ‘glitching’ that might otherwise occur as the two voltages input to said comparator come to be nearly equal (the differential input voltage of the comparator that determines output state). Of course, if your circuit is not DC coupled AND your poles and zeros are in the wrong place one could have an oscillating, squealing LM741 op-amp instead. It’s ALL in the design. A quick tutorial, see: http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/3616
Full disclose: I used hysteresis in this manner in conjunction with a four-quadrant ‘multiplier’ circuit (MC1494) and a 400 Hz 11.0 V AC source to synthesize resolver I and Q output signals for testing shaft position A/D decoders in the (Panavia Tornado
) MRCA computer/processor during a re-design of the LRU 1 computer/processor test set in the mid 80’s …
.
When in a tough neighborhood, one had best learn to speak the native dialect.
Christopher masters the tongue and makes a mockery of it at the same time.
Bravo!
It is a shame that such brilliant minds have to spend so much time proving what is self-evident to most sensible folks. We have so much more that we could be doing to improve our well being.
steven mosher says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Free the mails, Christopher.
==========================================================
Wouldn’t it be easier if you and Lucia would assign a modicum of character to Chris Monckton and quit assuming and insinuating that he’s trying to hide or deceive something or someone?
Its BS what you people do. I’ve seen Monckton make errors. It has been pointed out to him. He’s corrected the errors and moved on. Is there something more you wish? WTF is wrong with you people? Damn, Steve, I like you, but what you and Lucia are doing is nothing more than character assassination.
I suggest you people get a grip and look around for a bit of reality.
James Sexton
I should add that the historical climate seems to be better explained by the amount of ice that builds up at the poles (which depends on how much land-mass there is above sea level close to the poles and the Milankovitch Cycles as well).
The amount of sunlight reflected by the ice at the poles (which can also move down toward the equator if enough ice builds up) and by the cloud on the Earth can vary by between 25% to 50%.
The current amount reflected is 29.83% which puts us in a cold episode historically (still warmer than the 33% reflected during the ice ages) but go back to Pangea when there was very little land-mass near the poles and most of the land-mass was near the equator. You still have clouds reflecting the sunlight back but it is only 25% and there is no ice and the Earth is the hottest it has ever been at close to 25.0C versus today at 15.0C.
No CO2 needs to be involved in this explanation at all. In fact, in the early years of the Pangea hothouse, CO2 levels were lower than today. At other times, CO2 was 30 times higher than today and almost the entire Earth was frozen.
That signals a negative feedback for GHGs (clouds most likely) but a strong ice-Albedo feedback (which is still hard to change – it takes a lot of extra ice or a lot less ice at the poles to change the Albedo numbers by enough).
Great post, Lord Monckton. The process control approach is the key to debunking the global warming alarmism.
I have long stated that the key to the entire man-made global warming debate is one of process control. The evidence is clear that CO2 cannot do what the alarmist community insists that it does.
A highly acclaimed professional engineer in Control Systems Engineering, also a PhD in Chemical Engineering, agrees with my assessment. Dr. Pierre R. Latour, of Houston, Texas wrote letters on the subject in January 2009, in Hydrocarbon Processing. I also wrote about his statements in hopes of clarifying and bringing the important points to a broader audience.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
@Gary Young Swift says:
September 27, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“…On the other hand, notice how the temperature swings rapidly (in geological time) from max to min and spends very little time in the middle range. Does that look like a system with or without feedbacks?…”
You might want to get an expanded geological time scale and check this out. Inflection to inflection (turn up from low point to turn flat at high point) will be on the order of millions, or even a few tens of millions of years. The PETM was one of the really brief excursions; this took place over a few hundred thousand years.
The interesting thing, assuming Scotese et al. are reasonably accurate in their estimates, is that the temperature really spends most of the time at one extreme or the other. I suspect we could handle the high end, but the low extreme probably takes us back to a time of a handful (a few hundred thousand, perhaps) of humans huddling in caves and eking out a living a la Ayla and the Clan of the Cave Bear. And lately (geologically speaking) it grows cold.
“Given Monckton’s somewhat unusual visual appearance (which I agree should not be made fun of, regardless of whether it is related to an illness or otherwise), I do think it’s a bit odd he’s willing to be so cheeky in describing a critic as “an overcooked prawn”.”
This caught my attention as well. I simply do not understand how supposedly brilliant people don’t have the common sense to understand that bad manners, snark, sarcasm, and the rest only serve to make THEM look bad. That e-mail exchange did not make M. look good.
Has the “greenhouse effect” as proposed by Arrhenius ever been replicated experimentally? I’ve never seen it anywhere in lo the many years I’ve been trying to understand the theory.
Surely such an elementary experiment has been performed? R. de Haan posted one such experiment. Is it correct? Meaningful? If not why not?
Truly awesome post. I ask myself, is this the Waterloo of fake science, the day true science returned to the surface of the planet.
In the spirit of this thread, I humbly ask, please, will somebody address the point made by Legatus, re measurement of Infra Red at the surface. This seems a brilliant thought experiment for Willis, which if he then confirms the hypothesis, can be taken further..
The weak point in my view is that these instruments are not at the surface but high on mountain tops.
To Legatus says:
September 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm
You asked Everyone dances around it but no one even thinks to once look at the basic idea and take the simple and easy measurements which we already have the equipment for at every observatory? This is the very basis of the entire theory, easily measured, why has no one ever measured it? Why has no one even MENTIONED it?
See also CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”
FERENC MISKOLCZI’S SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY
by Miklos Zagoni, 2007 IPCC Reviewer, Physicist
Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary
December 18, 2009
as reported at http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi’s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is:
* constant, not increasing;
* equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
* equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.
James–
Monckton and I exchanged 5 emails. I initiated one containing a question, received a reply, sent more questions, received a reply– prefaced with a decree that the conversation was over and I replied.
I would be happy to make these public if Monckton agrees.
I don’t believe I’ve I haven’t assumed such thing and I don’t believe I’ve insinuated that Monckton’s trying to hide anything or to deceive.
I do disagree with some substantive statements in his paragraph interpreting which involve interpreting what he or I said in the email exchange. I would be happy to discuss those issues. In that regard, I think it would be helpful to make the emails available as the emails themselves supply information about their contents. I suspect the “fair use” provision under copyright permits me to make the full contents available for purpose of comment. However, at the moment, I would prefer to only do so if Monckton agrees that the emails should be made public.
My request for agreement is not intended as an insinuation of anything.
To JimF:
just to be clear, I’m not saying Lord Monckton is wrong. I’m just saying that the particular method he is using in this one instance is not adequate to prove he is right.
I think you are basically understanding my point and agreeing with me.
In electrical engineering tihings are simpler than they are in aerospace, but I think climate engineering would be even more complex, if such a thing existed. I agree with you about the high end versus low end, and I thank you for being open to my criticism.
To Lord Monckton:
I’m sorry to harp on a technical issue, but you know that the guys on the other side will pick at stuff like that, so I’m trying to add to the discussion in a positive way.
“Global mean surface temperature over the past 750 million years, reconstructed by Scotese (1999), showing variations not exceeding 8 K (<3%) either side of the 291 K"
Would this not be proof that while things may get very hot or very cold and it may take thousands of years to get back to 'normal', whatever that may be, there are no tipping points?
I believe Lubos' article on Le Chatelier's principle and climate would be an interesting read: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/le-chateliers-principle-and-natures.html
From this article:
"But the idea that positive feedbacks dominate or that they are the ones who win at the end simply contradicts basic laws of thermodynamics."
We know how Le Chatelier's principle applies to basic chemical systems when a single variable such as temperature, pressure, or concentrations changes. However indications are that it applies to climate as well.
Two concrete examples: according to how much CO2 man is putting into the air every year, only half shows up in the atmosphere. That is because photosynthesis uses more than normal and much CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans.
Then Earth's temperatures are not rising nearly as fast as the models believe they ought to be. That is because the feedbacks due to clouds are negative and not positive.
So while Le Chatelier’s Principle initially just basically applied to simple systems, I believe a much more complicated set of Le Chatelier’s types of Principles could be developed for climate, but we are not there yet. Perhaps 50 variables may be changing at any given time. While many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, papers like SB11 fill in some of the pieces.
BTW, the little dispute over the emails and who said what and when is typical misdirection away from the technical points which are really key. I would suggest taking the “he said, she said” discussion into a totally different thread, if it is worth talking about at all. Franky, I couldn’t care less about that.
In the interest of full disclosure I suggest we do so.
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:47 pm
James–
==========================================
Lucia, thank you for the response. It wasn’t necessary. I would point out my comment here….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/#comment-753692
That said, while I disdain wars of personalities, I can’t help but note the attack on Christopher Monckton. Why? Is it because you don’t like his style? Or is it his politics? It certainly isn’t because of his maths, because you jumped to an assumption before the full explanation was available to you. And, worse, you did this before you allowed it to be available to you.
Lucia, it isn’t my purpose to attack you. Though, I see where it can be construed as such. I’m tired.
I’m tired of watching the suffering because of this asinine subject. I’m tired of watching the devotion of great minds and energy devoted to such madness. I’m tired of watching people ride the fence. But most of all, I’m tired of seeing people attack people that would help end this insanity.
It is past time. And you of all people should know the cost. Stand up and be counted, or go home.
James Sexton
Legatus
You presume the Warmistas are amenable
to scientific argument via measuring the sky’s LWIR,
when actually they are self-blinded ideologists
who will never let mere measurements upset their received wisdom of Alarmism.
Even another Little Ice Age will not make them admit falsification.
I’ve done lots of of infrared sky-temp measurements,
thirty-five years ago, and today, with the same pyrgeometers.
Their unchanged readings contrast sharply
with Alarmism’s computer-predicted increases.
The Inquisition refused to look through Galileo’s telescope,
and Warmistas refuse to even spell ‘pyrgeometer’,
since for them data isn’t data until it’s been properly ‘adjusted’ (quasi-faked).
Having been shrieking the sea-level false-alarm for decades
with nobody calling them out,
it’s easy for Warmistas to studiously ignore actual data
that so immediately disprove their insane hysteria.
Really, this makes no sense; can someone disabuse me of the notion that an EM wave (LWIR) does not care a whit about the ‘temperature’ of the reflecting surface (or the energy level of a vibrating molecule in a gas some distance away.)
Check your various modes of molecular ‘vibration’ for CO2 and H2O absoption and re-radiation (molecular vibration modes couple to LWIR via EM – ElectroMagnetic wave action) via the various molecular vibrational modes seen in CO2 and H2O molecules. Liquid water (clouds) are similar but shifted spectrum-wise …
Insert a reflecting 3-D (gaseous) medium (absorb/capture EM wave and then re-rad the energy via another EM wave results in much the same effect as ‘reflect’ for conceptual purposes here), and viola … the energy flow to space must now traverse a ‘bounce’ diagram from surface into the medium thusly:
(1) Some EM energy is reflected back (this is a re-radiation process actually)
(2) while some re-rads into space (assume simplistically that our molecules radiate isotropically)
(3) while some EM energy makes it straight through to ‘space’ in the first pass. Rinse, repeat.
Remove the ‘media’ and you have a straight-line path to space, which is the ‘sink’ (as opposed to ‘source’ which is the surface of earth). Obviously, this does not ‘warm’ the surface, but rather changes the rate at which it will cool.
Elementary.
Or so it seems …
.
James said
Quote
I’m tired of watching the suffering because of this asinine subject. I’m tired of watching the devotion of great minds and energy devoted to such madness. I’m tired of watching people ride the fence. But most of all, I’m tired of seeing people attack people that would help end this insanity.
Unquote
Post of the day
Lord Mockington strikes at the heart of AGW…
A very interesting read through the posts.. Some very valid points to be sure. The math simply dos not support the IPCC models used to prophesy a fatal feed back loop.
And to Luci.. it takes great fortitude to admit being incorrect in an open public forum.
Even with the trolls (i might even be considered this) and arm chair scientists to boot, this is by far the best moderated and civil discourses between professionals on the Net. Thanks Anthony! I hope you keep this going… information is the key to the public not being lead to their own destruction.
Bill
Craig Goodrich says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:13 pm
One circuit parameter of great importance is the (closed) feedback loop gain inside any amplifier, which must be held at less than unity under all circumstances to avoid runaway positive feedback (g ≥ 1).
It took a bit to realize that what was meant here is, in electronic terms, the effect of closing the feedback loop on the amplifier, that is, the ratio of the closed loop gain to the (theoretical) open loop gain of the amp. A typical power amplifier might have a (theoretical) open loop voltage gain of 10,000 — theoretical because it would fry both itself and anything it was connected to if it were run that way —
—————————————————
Actually it wouldn’t fry itself and anything it was to which it was connected, or at least not as long as the load was larger than the minimum required for the power stage of the amplifier. A dead short on the output could do bad things depending on the amp used, but assuming you have a sufficiently large resistive load all that would happen is that the amplifier would go to one of its rails depending on the signal you were injecting and assuming you simply put a reference on the other input terminal.
I generally enjoy Monckton’s stuff but he was a bit sloppy on the electronic description. In order to assess stability you have to look at both gain and phase margin. It is perfectly acceptable to have the feedback exceed 1 and still have a stable circuit as long as the phase of the feedback does not hit 180deg at unity gain. Additionally, the way he’s formulated his equation he’s running the feedback into the positive input terminal on the amplifier which can also be done in a stable manner (tricky) but generally isn’t the way the equations are formulated. Let’s take a look at what his G term does for a couple values of g:
g=0.01 => G~=1.01: the output signal is in phase with the input signal and virtually the same magnitude.
g=1.01 => G=-100: the output signal is 100x (but stable!) and out of phase with the input.
There is no instability in either case.
And, as _Jim mentioned this gets a lot more complicated in a multi-pole, multi-zero systems with phase shift in the feedback which I am fairly certain is the case with global climate.
“”””” Roger Knights says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Typo(s?)? in:
“… and atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse species, vary greatly.”
There shouldn’t be a comma, I don’t think, and “species” doesn’t sound right “””””
Fiddle faddle ! “species” is perfect to use in that situation; well unless Roger you aren’t aware that there are different species of Greenhouse Gases, such as H2O, and O3 for example; well CO2 is one also.
Well Dr Richard Lederer, the world’s foremost authority on the English language, would say you need at least a comma, any place you might have to pause for a breath in normal conversation; so I say the comma stays; since I have to pause for a breath right there at “species”.
So to re-iterate, fiddle faddle !
Doug says: September 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm Re dolomite minerals and proxies
Agreed. Years ago we introduced aspiring geos to the tern “penecontemporaneous dedolomitisation”. Are there any robust papers on this rather complex topic?
The whole discussion of focings and feedbacks belongs to the realm of climate theology. [How does a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration change the number of photonics angels that may reside on a climate pin?] The fundamental error in climate modeling was made a very long time ago. This is the assumption that there is some kind of average climate equilibrium state that can be perturbed. In reality there is no such thing as climate equlilbrium. The Earth’s climate (weather) is always changing. The climate equilibrium assumption throws out the baby along with the bathwater. The piece that is missing is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat transfer requres a thermal gradient or temperature difference.
The daily solar flux reaching a point on the Earth’s surface can vary from zero to about 25 MJ.m-2. How is this heat load dissipated each day through radiation, moist convection, thermal conduction and subsurface transport?
Go back and have a good look at the original assumptions made by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967. They include a blackbody surface for the Earth that has zero heat capacity [See the 2nd page].
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
The whole discussion of forcings and feedbacks and CO2 sensitivity is just computational climate astrology.
Climate change can only be understood in terms of quantitative energy transfer. The flux has to heat something with a finite heat capacity to produce a change in temperature. This requires a thermal gradient and a time dependent heat ransfer analysis.
The IPCC propaganda has been very successful in getting most people to accept the wrong assumptions and argue about the theology instead of the real science.
Let me see if i’ve got this straight, just to amplify what I see are over-riding points that Lord Monckton is making relative to the discussion of feedbacks in electronic circuits, as applicable to the climate system. I think the picture is good for concepts of feedback in general, but in fact the two systems aren’t comparable at all. As he pointed out, engineers work very hard to keep their creations operating in stable domain, where regular analytical methods apply. The climate system is nothing like this at all. The system picture of multiple feedbacks and influences is conceptually accurate, but the result is hardly linear.
I’ve years experience in control system application and theory. All linear systems are analyzed with essentially the same mathematical tools. An electronic amplifier is one instance of such a system. In these systems, correct analysis must include the frequency domain of the response, expressed using complex math (real and imaginary parts). For unconditional stability one must locate the frequency at which the phase of the otherwise negative feedback becomes positive due to inherent system time delay. It is only at this frequency (and harmonic multiples) that the feedback gain must be less than unity to enforce stability. At frequencies much lower than this critical harmonic, it is very possible to have feedback gains orders of magnitude greater than unity and still achieve stability. It is because of this fact that super-linear amplifiers exist.
The climate system is inherently different from the electronics system because it is a free body system. There are no arbitrary constraints on time domain response or feedback gain. The interactions of physical movement and energy transfer are dispersed over wide domain. The system at no time operates with stable feedbacks (in the linear system sense); rather, it always operates as a non-linear system with chaotic, fractal response. It is always unstable and never in equilibrium. It is infinitely sensitive to initial conditions. That said, the climate stays within boundaries *because* it is a chaotic, fractal system; the system follows the rules of Lorentz’s “strange attractors” which enforces the boundary conditions by that very non-linear response to non-equilibrium conditions. The system response is empirically derived to equations that appear to be analytic. Such a view is empirically correct and useful, but otherwise deceiving. In such a system, any data set correlation is evidence of first principle response, but hardly definitive.
The mathematics of chaos is hard. Electronic circuits can be analyzed on paper; the climate system cannot be analyzed on paper. The best one can do is discover empirical relations of various components of the system that happen to give rise to measurable boundary response. For sure, each mode of the system must obey the laws of physics, but the resulting interactions are so complex and the internal system gains so high, that chaos is the natural and only possible outcome. The climate system feedbacks don’t just squeal, they scream with uncertainty and noise.
To correctly generate a time domain model of processes that are inherently chaotic requires super-fine granularity and almost infinite knowledge of state, which is just another way of saying it takes more computing power and knowledge than you can possibly imagine. It’s so hard, that on first principles there is no climate model that, given certain initial conditions, is specifically accurate beyond a few days. Chaos theory doesn’t support the idea that model accuracy will exist beyond a just a few system macro-cycles if there is any uncertainty in the initial conditions. From this view, Piers Corbin’s phenomenal accuracy in long term weather predictions must be tapping into knowledge of certain fundamental forcing functions of the climate system. In effect, he is discovering the tiny influences on these sensitive initial conditions that push the climate system into various quasi-stable states. This is perfectly consistent with the essential nature of chaotic systems. And he is exactly correct that throwing more computing power at the problem won’t make it any better.
The whole climate sensitivity problem is finding the appropriate relations that give rise to specific boundary response. It may be possible that one day we will have clear understanding; it appears that we have some understanding now. But as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, pinning climate response down to any one factor is a cruel joke. Like most people here, I trust no one that pretends to know what is going on based on such a simplistic view.
-William Rostron
@ Jim,
Maybe the greenhouse effect is as elementary as all the ‘greenhouse effect in a bottle’ experiments anyone can find on YouTube and other sources. OTOH, what is really happening?
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Site/Greenhouse%20In%20A%20Bottle-Reconsidered.html
I still want to see a published experiment that demonstrates the greenhouse effect. BTW, why is the desert warmer during the day than in the tropics at the same latitude and altitude? Maybe convection and gravity explains a lot more than meets the eye? I don’t know, being a simple man, I just ask questions because all this talk about “trapping heat”, “back radiation” and the like still doesn’t make much sense, but maybe there’s hope for me yet.
Gary Swift
I agree. But this section in Monckton’s main post discusses my blog post without engaging my technical points, but instead resorts to discussing what was communicated in the emails about these claims:
I would be happy to discuss the technical claims in my blog post which Monckton linked.
My technical claim at my blog is that the method derived in Kimoto (and relied on by Monckton) is no more likely to result in correct estimates of λ0 than merely pulling numbers out of a hat. The reason is that the derivation of their equation (18) — used by Monckton–relies on unstated physical assumptions. While implausible, some of the mathematical steps involve such highly restrictive assumptions that some assumptions must be incorrect. Consequently, the reason Kimoto’s plank parameter differs from those of others by a factor of roughly 2 likely arises from his resorting to unphysical assumptions, and consequently, Kimoto’s Plank Parameter (and Monckton’s which agrees with it.) appears to have no basis in our understanding of physics.
Unfortunately, Monckton did not engage any of the technical points in my post. He wrote a he-said/ she-said discussion of the email exchange instead.
With regard to the he-said/she-said element introduced by Monckton in his post, I will say this: I don’t quite know why Monckton has the impression Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 have an “implicit λ0 is 0.18”. Nor do I know why he thinks I “She was … selective in not passing on that I had told her they were wrong to assume that a blackbody relationship between flux and temperature holds at the surface”.
Since Monckton these issues up reporting them as having been discussed in our email exchange, I would be willing to have a conversation about these. But I think any such conversation would best accompanied by the emails themselves.
A 15 degree climate range shown in the article therefore implies 15 doublings of CO2 (or equivalent forcing) at 1 degree per doubling. 2 to the 15th is 32000, so the difference between the lowest CO2 values and highest would need to be a factor of 32000 or equivalent forcing (maybe albedo helps at the cold end, but ignoring the cooler periods we still can get 2 to the 8th which is 128). So this is the amount that CO2 would have to be larger than the low-end values (near 200 ppm) to account for the described range with a 1 degree per doubling feedback. CO2 levels in the last few hundred million years have not exceeded 20 times the current values. It just does not work. The feedback has to be much higher for a factor of 20 in CO2 to have as much effect as 15 degrees: somewhere in the range of 3-4 K per doubling.
James–
I don’t know why you think I’ve attacked Monckton. I have criticized the derivation of a mathematical-physical result he reported in his letter to RS. I explained at some length that the derivation is unreliable. I don’t consider this an attack.
To the contrary. In my initial email to Monckton, I enquired how he’d derived an equation he used. We discussed this. After examining Kimoto– which is the derivation he seems to insist he follows– I wrote my blog post criticizing the derivation in Kimoto. Go read my post.
I did err in thinking that Monckton had refused to supply the full citation. That meant I had to hunt down the reference before reading it and criticizing it.
“”””” Tsk Tsk says:
September 27, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Craig Goodrich says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:13 pm
One circuit parameter of great importance is the (closed) feedback loop gain inside any amplifier, which must be held at less than unity under all circumstances to avoid runaway positive feedback (g ≥ 1).
It took a bit to realize that what was meant here is, in electronic terms, the effect of closing the feedback loop on the amplifier, that is, the ratio of the closed loop gain to the (theoretical) open loop gain of the amp. A typical power amplifier might have a (theoretical) open loop voltage gain of 10,000 — theoretical because it would fry both itself and anything it was connected to if it were run that way —
—————————————————
Actually it wouldn’t fry itself and anything it was to which it was connected, or at least not as long as the load was larger than the minimum required for the power stage of the amplifier. A dead short on the output could do bad things depending on the amp used, but assuming you have a sufficiently large resistive load all that would happen is that the amplifier would go to one of its rails depending on the signal you were injecting and assuming you simply put a reference on the other input terminal. “””””
Well tsk-tsk, I could say the same to you. Feedback amplifiers don’t have to fry themselves or anything else whenn you put a dead short on the output. Many of them are designed specifically to operate into a dead short.
You obviously are not a process control geek, or the very common 4-20 mAmp current loop would be old hat to you. Yes a short is bad for an Amplifier whose output is supposed to be a Voltage; but a great many are designed to provide a current output, and they operate best into a dead short.
You can run a current signal over miles and miles of wires and get absolutely no signal loss at the other end. Of course you have to use a quality insulated wire so there is no current leakage; so nyet on the badness of shorts.
The very last feedback amplifier I have designed is in fact a current output Amplifier. It also has a current input signal; namely the photo-current from a very low noise photodiode; which is integrated on the same Analog CMOS IC.
99.99% of all photodiode amplifiers are photocurrent to Voltage converters, so they have a Transimpedance gain rather than a Voltage gain. They get this by incorporating a high value feedback resistor from the output node to the inverting input node, where the photodiode is also connected.
They do this because the majority of so-called analog designers are brain dead, and they were taught by equally brain dead professors or instructors that that was the right way to do it.
Problem is you can’t put a 0.1% accuracy 100 megOhm resistor onto any CMOS process IC chip, and to put such a resistor externally, you have to have a connection pin to that input current summing node; and that “pin” has to have all the usual “pin” protection circuits connected to it so electrostatic discharges don’t zap the amplifier.
The input capacitance and noise penalty that reults means a very ho-hum gain bandwidth product and a low performance photo-detector amplifier.
But you can incorporate a roughly 100 megOhm but quite non-linear resistance in the form of a P-Channel FET. Actually, you incorporate two P-FET resistors, a high value, and a much lower value. And the circuit architecture maintains exactly the same Voltage across both resistors at all times, and you end up with a feedback amplifier that has a controlled current gain, instead of a Voltage gain or Transimpedance. And you use multiple copies of the same low resistance P-FET, to get the 100 megOhms, and the gain is simply the ratio of those two resistors, which is simply the number of “kit” fets that form the high resistance. And because they both have the same Voltage across them at all times, they have the exact same non linearity, so even though the resistors are non-linear, the current gain is quite linear. And because you didn’t bring the summing node to the outside world, you don’t need any pin pad protection becaue there is no pin.
So the summing node capacitance can be extremely low, so you get a very high gain bandwidth product that you can’t even approach with a Transimpedance photo-amplifier. The one I designed has a current gain of 500 from the input photo-current to the short circuit output current; and I don’t know of a higher gain bandwidth photo-amplifier anywhere. This one is a very low current (fempto-Amp) photo-signal, and around one MHz for the 3dB bandwidth.
Current gain feedback amplifiers are also inherently more stable than transimpedance designs; but as I said most designers are brain dead.
It so happens, I also used a current feedback amplifier for the very first transistor circuit I ever designed around 1957. Quite primitive compared to the latest one.
So shorts are ok for current out amplifiers, and often preferred for process control loops because of the ease of propagating signals over long distances. Of course today, you can also do the A-D conversion thing and send ones and zeros
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 9:27 pm
My technical claim at my blog is that the method derived in Kimoto (and relied on by Monckton)
=================================================
This is entirely without merit.
First and foremost, Lucia, you are implying that Monckton’s entire comment to RS rests on Kimoto. It does not.
Later you state, “Unfortunately, Monckton did not engage any of the technical points in my post. He wrote a he-said/ she-said discussion of the email exchange instead. “…….. That is most incredulous. I understand defending yourself, as well you should, but don’t pretend you didn’t participate in such.
Your comment,“But this section in Monckton’s main post discusses my blog post without engaging my technical points, but instead resorts to discussing what was communicated in the emails about these claims….”
Well, how would you expect a person to respond? First on the technical issues or the attack on character? That’s the dumbest damned statement I’ve ever seen from you. I would defend my character first, before defending my maths.. I think most rational people would.
Gail Combs says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Legatus says @ September 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm
“…A recent poster on this site, who works with observatories telescopes, pointed out that they make just such direct measurements of the infrared radiation….”
_________________________________________________________________________
It would be nice if you could give us a pointer to that comment or at least a name.
IAmDigitap says:
September 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm
[SNIP: Anthony has already stated that this is an over-the-top rant and has no place on WUWT. Do not try and sneak it in via a back door. -REP, mod]
(when I posted it to the tips and notes section as interesting data contained in the rant that was of crucial, even central importance)
I am unable to point to it since i has been snipped, as you can see here. It was indeed rambling, however, in it IamDigital said that he worked with telescopes, some of them infrared telescopes, and that they needed to know what the infrared was to tell how much to flex the telescopes to adjust for the distortion of the atmosphere from heat. He stated that they now have to adjust for heat slightly less than they used to. This means there is less infrared radiation. This is also seen by the infrared telescopes, which, of course, can see infrared.
IamDigital should repost something, this time without all the ranting, in a more coherent and organized form, and with DATA. If he really feels emotional enough to make such a rant about this subject, well, now he know what to DO about it. rants will get you nowhere, science will.
Note to moderator, at the time I posted this, the post had not been snipped. Since it was unsnipped, and had been passed onto these boards in the first place after having been previously seen by a moderator (and thus I saw no reason to think it would then be snipped by somone else later, which is what happened), I was not trying to “sneak it in via a back door”, since it had not been snipped at that time. Or do I have to resort to the wayback machine…
However, whether that original was written in rant style or not, my original idea stands.
The very basis on which all of global warming theory stands or falls is based on increasing CO2 causing increasing infrared rediation.
This infrared radiation can be measured directly, and is being so measured at observatories.
They keep records of that sort of stuff (at least, as scientists, they are supposed to).
We can, therefore, compare old records of infrared radiation to current ones.
We know that there is more CO2.
If there is not more infrared radiation, than the basis upon which all global warming theory rests has been scientifically falsified.
Is there something wrong with this as a scientific hypothesis complete with proposed experimental method using already existing equipment and even existing records?
What, exactly?
And why has this not been done yet?!?
Why has this not even been suggested yet?!?
Thank you, Christopher Monckton! Thank you, Anthony! Thank you, Lucia! And thank you to all of the participants above!
This has been one of the most engaging and enjoyable discussions on WUWT. Much food for thought and much that is useable to educate legislators and believers alike.
Interstellar Bill says:
September 27, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Legatus
You presume the Warmistas are amenable
to scientific argument via measuring the sky’s LWIR,
when actually they are self-blinded ideologists
Who cares what the ‘warmistas” think about this, this is about science. There are some people who will be interested in this DATA. the people who read THIS SITE. Lots of people, some scientists, some amature scientists, some correspontants (James Delingpole comes to mind) some regular citizens. If this is science, just throw it out there, the people did not at first believe Galileo, they do now. It has to start somewhere. What if Galileo had just kept it to himself and never told anyone? What if all scientists had done that?
I’ve done lots of of infrared sky-temp measurements,
thirty-five years ago, and today, with the same pyrgeometers.
Their unchanged readings contrast sharply
with Alarmism’s computer-predicted increases.
Well, lets see some DATA! Why not take this data, which is central to the whole global warming idea, and make a guest post? If Willis can do it, you can do it. After all, YOU have the DATA.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.
It’s long been my suspicion this is the case. If true it invalidates the Forcings Model and therefore the climate models.
The Earth’s climate does change over periods of decades to a few hundred thousand years. Periods too short to be caused by plate tectonics moving continents around, which begs the question, if changes in radiative forcings don’t cause climate change, what does?
The only answer I can come up with is something that affects the phase changes of water. Changes in GCRs being a possible mechanism.
It’s important to understand that the Radiative Forcings Model/Theory gained acceptance because it was the only theory that could explain the fact the climate changed. Not because of any evidence it was correct.
This is still the situation today, and the reason for many of the adjustments, assumptions of measurement error, and search for the missing heat. For most scientists, a bad (or flawed) theory is better than no theory at all.
I see Monkton’s paper as a critique of the Forcings Theory predicting a 3C+ temperature increase from 2XCO2. Not an argument that the evidence supports a ~1C rise and by extension the Forcings Model is correct.
According to Monckton I am a “troll” for claiming that Monckton has “…’fabricated’ the forcing function for CO2.” In crafting his characterization of me, Monckton erects and knocks down a strawman by misrepresenting what I have actually said.
I do not say that Monckton has fabricated a “forcing function.” I do say that Monckton has fabricated “information.” “Information” is not a “forcing function” hence Monckton has misrepresented what I have said.
The information which Monckton has fabricated is of the existence of a functional relation that maps increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increases in the global equilibrium surface air temperature. As the equilibrium temperature is not an observable feature of the real world, Monckton’s assertion of the existence of a functional relation is non-falsifiable thus lying outside science.
Though Monckton disagrees with IPCC Working Group I on the sensitivity of the equilibrium temperature to the CO2 concentration he agrees with them on the existence of a functional relation. This contention is, however, scientifically untenable for the existence of a functional relation is insusceptible to being refuted by reference to observational data from the non-observability of the equilibrium temperature.
While Monckton’s allusion to trolls is cute, it distracts the audience’s attention from the scientific issue. Is he prepared to address this issue?
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm
James–
I don’t know why you think I’ve attacked Monckton……….. Go read my post.
==================================================================
Lucia, I didn’t see your comment before I posted the one prior to this one. My verbiage certainly would have been different. Feel free to regard or disregard the comments to my post prior to this one. Any questions I would answer. I am at your mercy in this regard.
I have read your post(s). Lucia, it is quite plain to me that we don’t see things the same. It is to the pity. Lucia, I’ve great respect for your numerical intellect. I can not fathom how or why you don’t apply it towards the loss of humanity or humanity’s loss.
But more, you’ve the knowledge. You have the ability. And you have the proofs. There is an entire nation that turns their eyes to you. And you quibble with Chris Monckton. Why? Isn’t there something else to be doing? Are you going to pontificate about Monckton’s conformity to accepted science? Or, are you going to do something?
James
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm
James–
I don’t know why you think I’ve attacked Monckton.
Monckton Planck Parameter: No better than pulling numbers out of a hat.
That title strikes me as more than a bit pejorative. I don’t know if someone directed such a post at me if I would necessarily consider it an attack (in my case it might be likely to be true) but you ought to able to recognize that Monckton and those who don’t hold the same dim view of him that you appear to, might be less understanding, given his situation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 27, 2011 at 5:29 pm
****************************************
Willis – you may be right, but I think Christopher Monckton is just doing what he has been doing all along – hoisting climate alarmism with its own petards.
All the best.
Doug says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm
“In the Neoproterozoic, 750 Ma BP, CO2 concentration (today <0.04%) was ~30%: otherwise the ocean’s magnesium ions could not have united with the abundance of calcium ions and with CO2 itself to precipitate the dolomitic rocks laid down in that era"
I would be very cautious in making that statement. It is very common for carbonates to be diagenetically altered to dolomite long after deposition. Even with much younger, unaltered rocks, it is difficult to ascertain when the dolomite was formed–at time of deposition or later. There are numerous papers on the subject and the determination of early vs late dolomite is the subject of many days of discussion in a typical graduate level carbonate petrology course. I would look for a more robust proxy.
****************************************************************************
Doug, and Chris,
Doug, diagenesis in a rapidly-deposited carbonate sequence like that in the Cryogenian would likely occur reasonably quickly simply due to burial-depth increasing quickly. From what I have read, at least some of the dolomite of that age is a primary feature, pointing to some unusual seawater chemistry at the time.
One mechanism for development of an "aragonite-dolomite sea" would be enhanced weathering episodes. These may, for example, occur after large-scale volcanism, orogenesis or major eustatic sea-level falls – the latter an expected occurrence in glacials, of course. Weathering is a major carbon dioxide sink and a enhanced weathering can lead to a major CO2 drawdown: carbonic acid (i.e. carbon dioxide dissolved in rainwater/groundwater) attacks minerals, the most unstable of which dissolve readily and release cations to the aqueous system. The last major weathering episode likely brought about the end of the Cenozoic "hothouse" climate and led to the onset of Milankovitch-driven glaciations in the Quaternary.
Older glacial episodes such as the Cryogenian may well have been influenced in their fluctuations by Milankovitch cycles: do not forget either that solar output was several percent below that of the present day, too: in essence we had a different planet back then.
Chris, this paper published a couple of years ago in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08120090903005378
is of interest because it details the stratigraphy of one of these Neoproterozoic sequences, in the Flinders ranges. It suggests that the thick carbonate sequences lie in between glaciogenic sequences – diamictites etc – and raises the possibility that they were deposited during interglacials: it does not appear that said interglacials were as short as those of the Quaternary. During glacial retreat, sea-levels rose and flooded low-lying areas where carbonate reefs developed: these were subsequently destroyed during reglaciation and sea-level falls. Abstract:
************************************
A detailed sedimentological and chronostratigraphic analysis of the Umberatana Group in the northern Adelaide Geosyncline has uncovered a depositional history involving the rapid progradation (at least 20 km) of a giant reef complex (up to 1.1 km relief) during mid-Cryogenian interglacial times. The reef complex, which occurs in the Balcanoona Formation, displays facies similar to Phanerozoic reefs. These include a basal forereef (slope) facies, overlain by a reef-margin facies (consisting of both stromatolitic and non-stromatolitic frameworks), and an upper backreef (platform) facies consisting of shallow-water peloidal and oolitic carbonate. The thickening of the reef complex in a basinward direction, and the distribution of the key facies are consistent with the progradation of the platform into deep water. Progradation was contemporaneous with deposition of the upper Tapley Hill Formation and had largely ceased after a major margin failure event. Following this event, reef growth continued for a short time before becoming extinct, possibly as a result of global climatic cooling and/or eustatic sea-level fall.
************************************
Note that these carbonates tend to display a conformable relationship to the glaciogenic sediments they overlie, but their tops are in unconformable contact with succeeding glaciogenic rocks, in some cases with karstification of the carbonate palaeosurface. This would all be consistent with sea-level rise and fall in a glacial-interglacial-glacial cycle, just as we have seen in more recent times, with the estimated 120m sea-level rise following the last glacial maximum and subsequent deglaciation. I would be interested to see if any detailed reconstruction of carbon dioxide levels across these Neoproterozoic cycles is possible – the further back in time one goes, of course, the more difficult that is.
Regards – John
Down here, where the ice that is supposeldly melting is (which would cause the sea to rise, when we see that it is dropping) is where we need this measurement. This is where they say the danger of global warming is, hence why we need to measure down here (also around a few glaciers I suppose). This is also where supposedly species will go extinct from too much heat (also not happening). Besides, we have already measured the atmosphere at all altitudes to see if the air is heating up, such as at 10 kilometers altitude in the tropics, which, occording to global warming theory, must be heating up with increased CO2, yet is not.
If they make these things, someone must be using them. If they are scientists, they keep records. Well, could I see some? Then, we can compare the amount of infrared radiation to the increase of CO2, and see for ourselves if infrared goes up with increasing CO2. Then, we can release these two graphs (incrweasing CO2 and increase or lack thereof for infrared) together as our own “Hockey stick”, complete with the same hype. This time, it would deserve the hype.
I just don’t get it.
Global warming theory is BASED around more CO2 causing more infrared radiation down here, causing things to heat up.
When I search in google for Pyrgeometer, I get 33,200 results http://www.google.com/search?q=Pyrgeometer&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=
Yet, no one thinks to use these things, or to obtain the direct measurements of this, the very heart of the whole theory of global warming, the infrared radiation, when we can so easily do so, and have been able to do so for many years?
It is as if we decided to never measure air temperature with thermometers of any kind, but instead decided to only do indirect measurments, say, estimates of the temerature from, say wind shear (oh wait…).
We have the capability to confirm or falsify the whole global warming theory NOW, why have we not done so?
It would also be interesting to see what the reaction is in certain quarters if they discoverd that people were seeking their Pyrgeometer readings over time, would it take a freedom of information act, would even that work? I mean, I would like to know why no one has tried this very simple and oh so very OBVIOUS experiment.
Global warming can be directly measured by existing instruments.
If we can do so, and find no increase in infrared over time.
We should take that gun, point it right at the heart of the whole idea, and…
BLAM
DEAD
IT’S OVER
And then we can get on with our life.
Or we can continue to pussyfoot around with indirect measurements, proxies, models, obscure studies many of which will never be heard of, and, basically, what we have been doing…
What a brilliant posting and debate. Speaking only as an armchair / pseudo scientist I think I can say this is one of those occasions where we are beginning to see more light than heat.
Somehow, the top part of my post above got snipped in pasting, this is it:
Grey lensman says: (about measuring infrared radiation directly over time and seeing if it goes up with increased CO2)
September 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm
The weak point in my view is that these instruments are not at the surface but high on mountain tops.
Uh, they don’t have to be, look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
It appears that it can be measured by this releatively small and possibly even relatively cheap (compared to, say, giant telescopes) device.
Lord Monkton, have you seen:
– On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications (PDF)
(Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2010)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
I don’t know if it was eventually published or not, but passing it along in case it might be useful for you.
If you haven’t already, you might want to take a run thru the papers listed at: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#uds-search-results
to see if there might be any of interest.
Legatus says:
September 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm
/////////////////////////////
I have seen this point made several times before. It seems an inportant point, however, I have not seen any empiral observational data backing this up. Has any one compiled a data set covering the last 20 to 30 years?
Terry Oldberg:
The subject of this thread is important. Several posters have pointed out that a CO2 forcing function as defined by the IPCC is unreal. Of course, they are right, but so what? The IPCC defined what it asserts is the forcing function, and Lord Monckton points out that acceptance of that IPCC definition means empirical data denies the possibility of CAGW.
Your post at September 27, 2011 at 11:05 pm is laughable. It begins by saying;
“According to Monckton I am a “troll” for claiming that Monckton has “…’fabricated’ the forcing function for CO2.” In crafting his characterization of me, Monckton erects and knocks down a strawman by misrepresenting what I have actually said.”
Firstly, a troll is a web poster who attempts to disrupt discussion of the subject in hand. Clearly, and on your own admission, you want Lord Monckton to discuss something other than “the forcing function for CO2” which is defined by the IPCC. Hence, it is a fact that you are a troll.
And your post concludes:
“While Monckton’s allusion to trolls is cute, it distracts the audience’s attention from the scientific issue. Is he prepared to address this issue?”
No! You are trolling by attempting to deflect attention onto “the scientific issue” of your choice instead of the subject under discussion. The subject of this thread is too important for the thread to be allowed to be deflected onto a red herring of your choosing.
Richard
lucia says:
September 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm
James–
I don’t know why you think I’ve attacked Monckton.
Your post leads off with this
WUWT reports that Christopher Monckton sent a letter to Remote Sensing providing his musings on climate sensitivity and gave Monkton an opportunity to present his letter to the public. The letter is written in the floridly opaque, obscure prose typical of its author.
and finishes with this
“Thank You
My to the 6 people who skimmed to finding typos, broken latex and obvious grammatical infelicities or suggested inserting a bit more text for clarity. They found plenty; all remaining typos or lack of clarity are my own!
Note on comments
On this particular post, I am going to enforce people focus on the topic which is comments on paragraph 3 only. I am requesting people do not engage notions after paragraphs 3 of Monckton’s letter to RSS nor on political issues. I will created an open thread and you can discuss those issues on that thread. To do so, click here.
Josh asked for clarification. Above, I edited to identify which paragraph in Monckton’s post is “paragraph 3″. What I don’t want is for discuss Monckton his claims or arguments about climate sensitivity, “hot spot” or anything in his letter that appears after paragraph 3, nor to discuss his notions based on the evidence based on the surface temperature record etc. nor to discuss the context with Spencer and Braswell. If you wish to discuss those, discuss them on the other thread.”
When you are putting out literary product like the latter it takes quite a set of stones to be criticizing Monckton, who has a mastery of the language to rival the late great Bill Buckley, for his writing style.
“…This is admirable disputation, and to the complete refutation of the warmists on this subject. Their incompetence is obvious, and their hypothesis is dismissed, categorically and completely…”
(apologies to James Blish)
ΔT = ΔF * NonlinearF(T)
And that, my dear Lord, makes the entire equation unsolvable …
Not so. Not so at all for at least 2 reasons.
1)
Mathematics are not reduced to linear relationships (straight lines). There are non linear ODE (ordinary differential equations) and non linear PDE (partial differential equations).
The former give raise to temporal chaos (f.ex the famous Lorenz “butterfly” attractor) and the latter to spatio-temporal chaos (f.ex weather or crystal growth).
Mathematics deal as well with these non linear cases as with the linear cases, the only difference is that the non linear case is more, sometimes much more difficult. But non linearity never meant that a problem would be “unsolvable” per se.
2)
Taylor expansion. Any function can be expressed as an infinite Taylor series. This is especially simple in the present case where the NonlinearF(T) is function of only one variable T.
Then in a neighbourhood of the temperature T0 (f.ex 15°C what we have now) we have the following relation :
NonlinearF(T) = NonlinearF(T0) + Constant.(T-T0) + ε(T)
The Taylor theorem proves that the unknown function ε(T) is very small as long as one stays rather near to T0.
Therefore it can be neglected and what is left is :
NonlinearF(T) = NonlinearF(T0) + Constant.(T-T0)
And THIS is a linear F(T) !
As long as the T in this equation is considered the global mean temperature then it is perfectly legitimate to use the Taylor expansion and therefore a linear T.
However if one points out that the system is not governed by global averages but by local values of the parameters (all laws of nature are always strictly local) then the whole relation becomes invalid regardless whether it is linear or non linear. Taylor can’t help with invalid relations.
So the right criticism of this relation is not its linearity or non linearity – it is the illegitimate use of averages instead of local values.
In that sense is Willis approach (Thermostat theory based on local laws) more legitimate than IPCC and Lord Monckton approach (global warming theory based on global averages).
I’m confused as to why Lucia would use such an inflammatory title:
“Monckton Planck Parameter: No better than pulling numbers out of a hat.”
Also:
As is often the case with Monckton’s material, one’s first reaction is “that looks wrong”.
Considering the reaction when Trenberth et al said the same kind of thing about Spencer and Christie, I believe this to be inflammatory also.
All Lord Monckton has done here is to use peer reviewed, yes peer reviewed, analyses to point out that the figure for climate sensitivity currently recognised by the consensus is too high.
If Lucia has a problem with that, then surely her problem is with the original analysis, not with Lord Monckton’s (LM) use of it, yet she immediately bashes LM.
I thought science was built on the idea that somebody writes a paper, and then other scientists come along and build on top of that as new knowledge comes along. If the second lot of scientists had to rerun all of the original experiments first before being able to build on it, what would be the point in writing the first paper. Isn’t that what peer review is supposed to do. Yet, LM gets it in the neck for not having done all of the original analysis himself as well.
The impression I get is that Lucia doesn’t like LM, and that is fine. He is a polarising influence, you either love him or hate him (I happen to like him). What is bad about this, is that she has allowed her antipathy towards him to colour her judgment, which is something I will now have take into account any time I visit her site, which is a shame.
Spot on Dave Wendt, about Lucia’s language. One does understand and appreciate that English is not Lucia’s mother tongue. But for her to then criticise Lord Monckton’s language while writing the kind of language seen in her posts, is gobsmacking.
Lucia, when you write poor English, you should not be criticising another person’s writing in the same language, especially when the concerned person is a native english speaker with an excellent command of the language.
And spot on, Richard Courtney, for calling out the trolling.
IMHO opinion the feedback discussions are moot.
Stating without mathematical proof but based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes: every molecule in earth’s atmosphere (gas, water vapor, particulates..) has a sight factor that is greater towards space than towards the earth or all other molecules in the atmosphere.
The temperature delta between said molecule and space is much greater that the temperature delta between said molecule and earth or other molecules.
The sight factor between the sun and the earth’s surface is much greater than the sight factor between the sun and and all the molecules in the atmosphere, based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes.
Therefore, this is all moot. Man can’t do anything to change the temperature of the atmosphere unless he can change the laws of electromagnetic radiation.
So let me try to straighten this out in my head. Eq. 18 is wrong but the rest of Kimoto’s and Monckton stands, showing a low climate sensitivity from empiric evidence.
Where did Monckton get his implication that Kiehl and Trenberth(1997) assumed a value of 0.18 and where are Trenberth’s updated numbers?
Remember, lucia, that Trenberth is fundamentally unsound.
======================
He doesn’t have the soul of a scientist, lucia. You do.
====================
Next question for lucia. Why aren’t you and Steve Fitzgerald and Carrick and Dewitt Payne in charge of climate science instead of the pack of incompetent magicians now in charge?
Where’s the rabbit of global warming?
===============
The British Royal Society computes the open loop sensitivity at .4 ° C for a doubling of CO2.
“29)
Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. ”
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
By positive feedback the climate scientists do not mean what physics etc does by this term.
The earth is an overall negative feedback system with a negative feedback proportional to the 4 th power of temperature. As it warms the outgoing radiation increases until it balances out the incoming radiation.
What the alarmists call positive feedback is anything which reduces this negative feedback.
It is like “Alice in Wonderland” isn’t it ? “A word means exactly what I say it does, nothing more nothing less.”
Dave Wendt
Buckley’s style was florid but not opaque. Monckton’s prose is opaque: His letter does not provide information that permits a reader to know how the relations he used were derived, and also does not provide citations to the relevant documents. This means the reader has to guess. While we may disagree on the merit’s of Monckton’s prose, I don’t consider it an “attack” to observe that Monckton’s prose is opaque and obscure. I do consider what I write to be a criticism of its flaws– but in my opinion, criticisms are not attacks.
The closing of my post –which you quote– is not even remotely a criticism and I don’t know why you think it is. I merely anticipate that because Monckton’s letter was not limited to paragraph 3 (the topic of my blog post), contained a number of topics interesting in themselves and closed by mentioning Spencer and Braswell, people interested in those topics would wish to discuss those issues. To avoid confusion that would arise from interlacing discussion of those topics with points that were specifically relevant to the discussion in my blog post, I created a separate thread where people are free to discuss those other issues. I wanted people to post their comments on those topics on that thread.
I have found that side-thread useful. The first comment there is a question about solar cookers, and I prefer that sort of thing not to diffuse the technical discussion going on in comments in the post where I discuss the technical issues touching on paragraph 3 of Monckton’s letter to RS. So, the side blog post is functioning as I hoped: it prevents those irrelevant issues from diluting the discussion of the derivation of equations in paragraph 3 of Monckton’s letter to RS, and permits us to focus on those technical aspects specific to the topic of my main blog post.
So it is any surprise that geologists represent the most climate sceptic section of the population?
Caveat: Not government geologists! They are told what to think, so any straying from AGW cult orthodoxy dramatically increases their job insecurity.
lucia’s post at the BB on Monckton’s 3rd paragraph stated off with :
——————–
lucia,
That is negative tabloid prose and phrasing lucia, and you being a well-known blogger you can be expected to know that. Why kick off that way? It looks like you have been emotionally coiled up ready to strike at someone who, from previous experience, you already didn’t like; independent of the current math or science or logic that person presented.
If it were me that you were writing about then I would be quite offended. I do not know if Monckton was offended . . . perhaps he will engage you here at WUWT.
When someone initiates a negative emotional tone like you did, I would not consider that civil.
But it is just me, just John.
John
I don’t have any problem following the English of either lucia or Monckton. They both elegantly expose their reasoning.
=============
And so does Tom Vonk, whose mother tongue is not English, as is lucia’s.
================
Writing down some math doesn’t make you understand it Lucia.
I don’t criticize lucia’s communication style; I like it just fine. She can criticize mine, though, and does.
=============
Sometimes you realise the internet is a sane place where a discussion although slightly heated is dealt with in a grown up manner so well done everyone on this thread and I’m sure he’s bored of hearing it but our host as well.
And if you would like to know Lord Monckton’s secret he’s British so before doing anything he makes himself a good cup of tea and sits in his garden and enjoys the fresh air while contemplating life, the universe and everything. If you have not tried it pop down to your local store and buy yourself some ‘English Breakfast” and make yourself a good cuppa. Works for me.
davidmhoffer says:
September 27, 2011 at 6:09 pm
So there is the part where the scare mongerers simply stop responding to me. If we start at 400 PPM, where we are now, and produced CO2 increases every 50 years in the same order of magnitude as we did in the last 90 years, the direct effects of CO2 would be, in 50 year increments:
+ 0.3, 0.15, 0.08, 0.04
That’s two HUNDRED years, another 480 PPM, and the direct effects have dropped from 0.6 degrees per 120 PPM to 0.04 degrees per 120 PPM.
===============================================================
David, excellent post. I hope more people caught it…
If I can add one small condition….
As CO2 levels increase, it becomes easier for biology and chemistry to use more of it….
Simply adding the same amount each time…will not show the same increase in the atmosphere
….it will be less
Kim
I haven’t said whether the rest of Kimoto or Monckton “stands”. I am merely saying that my post is about equation 18. The issue of empirical evidence claimed by Monckton would be a separate matter for a separate post.
I think the issue of equation 18 is important in and of itself. It appears this equation underpins what Monckton wrote in paragraph 3 of his letter to RS: that is, Monckton uses it to obtain the magnitude of Plank Parameter he specifies in that paragraph.
The analysis deriving equation 18 in Kimoto contains unstated assumptions. One can’t really confirm or rebut the validity of an unstated, hidden assumption because we can’t know precisely what they were. But knowing math, we can identify some were made, and detect the general properties of these assumptions. Given that, it appears that the sorts of assumptions made are implausible. That said: Monckton or Kimoto could defend them if they stated the assumption they actually made and provided a reason.
During email interaction, it became clear that Monckton thought my requests that he state call out the assumptions he made was silly, and he cut off conversation. But he still has the opportunity to explain in detail how he derived his version of (18) or what he believes to be the assumptions made by Kimoto. I would be interested in reading these.
For now, given that the assumptions are unstated and appear implausible, it appears that the numerical value of any Plank parameter computed using equation (18) is as likely to be correct as some number pulled out of a hat.
Kim–
Oddly enough, my first language was Spanish. But we moved back to the US when I was 6 and I forgot it. 🙂
@Lucia
Monckton is “floridly opaque”? Perhaps you would benefit by attending a few ESL (English as a second language) sessions.
Much gracious, lucia.
==========
paulhan says: September 28, 2011 at 5:30 am
When building in science or in the physical world, one is required to detect when the foundation is rotten. Peer review is supposed to detect flaws, but often it does not. This is why papers are discussed afterwards. It happens that even valuable papers sometimes contain weaknesses and lapses. In this particular case, it seem to me the derivation of Kimoto’ eqn (18) is a weak point, and its use to compute a Plank Parameter cannot be justified.
If Monckton is going to rely on Kimoto’s equation (18) to compute the magnitude of the Planck Parameter, he needs to cite Kimoto as a source (which he did not in his letter to RS) and also to explain why he believes the assumptions and derivation in Kimoto are justified and defensible. I believe I have shown that use of Kimoto’s equation (18) is not defensible. Monckton has not explained why its use is valid and, as far as I can tell, has not attempted to do so at this blog, mine or anyother forum. (If you have seen the defense, please link to the source. I would be interested in reading it.)
I would welcome reading Monckton’s response to what I wrote about Kimoto. Or, if Monckton did not rely on Kimoto to obtain the equation he used in the 3rd paragraph of his letter to RS, I would like to read how Monckton developed the equation he used.
My Overview
Monckton says peer reviewed X says Y.
lucia says possibly X has errors about Y.
Monckton says read X.
lucia reads X and says errors in Y.
Author of X says . . .
Monckton says . . .
Commentors say . . .
I hope the discourse stays centered @ WUWT so we can track everything and benefit from 24/7 moderation and extended exposure.
John
Dewald says:
September 28, 2011 at 5:37 am
IMHO opinion the feedback discussions are moot.
Stating without mathematical proof but based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes: every molecule in earth’s atmosphere (gas, water vapor, particulates..) has a sight factor that is greater towards space than towards the earth or all other molecules in the atmosphere.
The temperature delta between said molecule and space is much greater that the temperature delta between said molecule and earth or other molecules.
The sight factor between the sun and the earth’s surface is much greater than the sight factor between the sun and and all the molecules in the atmosphere, based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes.
Therefore, this is all moot. Man can’t do anything to change the temperature of the atmosphere unless he can change the laws of electromagnetic radiation.
Since your eyes only function in the wavelength range ~0.35-0.8 μm your assertion is not well founded.
John
Precisely. In my post, I say that I would be interested in reading what Monckton or author of X says. Commenters at my blog are discussing X and the possible errors in Y. This impacts paragraph 3 in Monckton’s letter RS.
Legatus says: September 27, 2011 at 4:16 pm
CO2 has gone up.
For global warming to be true, this MUST result in increased infrared radiation.
There is the same or less infrared radiation.
Global warming is falsified.
(1) I’d love to see a post around this.
(2) I’d also luuuuuuurve Monckton to take on Miskolczi/Zagoni’s thesis. But Monckton’s theme is to use IPCC science against itself, as was said, hoist by own petards. I still have the strong feeling that Miskolczi has the correct science – and the only thing missing is an explanation that Joe Ordinary can understand (that means all technical details and esoterics need explaining in layman’s language). This would be such a gift to our grandchildren.
(3) Also I’d love to see Monckton or someone taking on and explaining in layman’s language “Bart’s” thesis (Climate Audit, Dessler 2010) that (IF I’ve understood aright) by analysing periodicities (? using FFT) and lags, one can show the direction of causation re. clouds / temperature very clearly.
kim,
For the human condition we all have a common mother language. It is body language.
Formal verbal language is always a second language for mankind.
If we were doing these discussions in person it would be easier to communicate due to the added body language factor. Understanding would be facilitated. : )
Personal Note – According to my American born native English speaking father, when I showed up at kindergarten in Upstate New York in the mid 1950’s the teacher said something like this to me, “Master Whitman please, I do not know what language mix you are using, but here we are going to speak English.” I thought my language was English, but it turned out to be a pigeon English/Polish mixture that was heavy on the Polish. The Polish was from my mother, any residual Polish is long since gone.
John
Kim–
I missed these direct questions and it seems no one answered. On this
This is a point Monckton would have to clarify.
My impression is they are in “EARTH’S GLOBAL
ENERGY BUDGET by Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl”
march 2009
I googled and downloaded from “www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Trenberth_BAMS_2009.pdf”
This paper contains an updated figure (in color!) If you were to pick out the numerical values from this paper and stuff them into equation (18) in Kimoto, you would use the flux due to evapotranspiration is now estimated = 17 w/^2, the latent heat = 80 w/m^2 and the surface radiation = 396 w/m^2.
But my criticism of (18) is that the equation itself is unjustified. Using updated values for the fluxes wouldn’t change that criticism.
Thanks again, lucia. Batter up.
=============
willis:
“Steven , that’s a bit obscure. Care to fill in the blanks? Is it regarding Lucia’s misunderstanding, which she (properly and correctly) acknowledged above?”
yes. It’s important to get the misunderstanding put aside and focus on the math.
James
“Wouldn’t it be easier if you and Lucia would assign a modicum of character to Chris Monckton and quit assuming and insinuating that he’s trying to hide or deceive something or someone?”
I wasnt insinuating anything. My initial reaction was. free the damn mails. Put that to rest. and get down to the real math questions. duh.
John
“I hope the discourse stays centered @ WUWT so we can track everything and benefit from 24/7 moderation and extended exposure.”
really? the problem here is that people will refuse to stay on topic. The topic at Lucias is paragraph 3 and only paragraph 3. paragraph 3 and nothing but paragraph 3. and the math of paragraph 3 and only the math of paragraph three. So if anybody can justify or explain the math of paragraph 3, including monkton, they are welcome to come and explain.
If the people here want to show that kind of discipline then yes it makes no difference where the conversation happens. But all too often you see people distract from the main topic and veer off.
like this comment of mine. which will not generate comments about math, but will instead generate comments about comments
lucia says:
September 28, 2011 at 6:45 am
Dave Wendt
The closing of my post –which you quote– is not even remotely a criticism and I don’t know why you think it is.
I quoted that section not because I thought it was a criticism of Monckton, but because the writing in it was so obviously deficient. My point was meant to be a sort of “People who live in glass houses…”. I appreciate your measured response even if it was mostly off point, but I would think that the fact that you’ve felt compelled to respond to a number of commenters here should give you a better appreciation of Monckton’s lot in life. Monckton’s true counterparts in this arena are not the Climategate squad, they are Algore and and all his celebutard allies. For the skeptical community he is just about the only figure who can command media attention just by showing up. As such he is not only vastly outnumbered, but he faces a PR battlespace where the guardians are almost unanimously antagonistic. His real opponents command the highground because when the reports get published their blatherings about 20 foot sea level rises, Earth core temps in millions of degrees, and AGW causing everything from earthquakes to dandruff and ingrown toenails will be admiringly passed along without question, while every word from his mouth or pen will be subjected to much more scrutiny than even the most canonical works in the field.
I’ve spent more time rummaging about in the big dumpster of climate science than I like to think about and have yet to encounter a piece of “science” in which I couldn’t quite a number of points that I found questionable, very often not at the level of mathematical niceities that seem to be your focus, but at the level of basic premises and fundamental logic. I wouldn’t suggest that Monckton should be free from criticism, only that you consider that the mild kerfuffle you faced in this thread is several orders of magnitude less than what is his daily burden. The Lord can definitely seem a bit thinskinned, but from what I’ve observed he does try to respond in kind.
Shevva;
David, excellent post. I hope more people caught it…
If I can add one small condition….
As CO2 levels increase, it becomes easier for biology and chemistry to use more of it….>>>
Thanks Shevva, and yes I agree with your comment. I refuse to get sucked into this who-said-what-when-and-who-was-worse-and-who-was-justified nonsense. It is meaningless and a complete distraction from the science.
I’ve started using this argument presented in a variety of ways, and I have yet to have ANYONE respond in opposition to it. The physics really is that simple, and makes the rest of the argument moot. In order for temperature response of the earth to be linear when CO2 is logarithmic, we’d have to see the following (based on doubling from 280 = +3 with feedbacks)
+100 PPM CO2, feedback 2X
+200 PPM CO2, feedback 3X
+300 PPM CO2, feedback 4X
+400 PPM CO2, feedback 5X
Now I didn’t do the exact math, I’m just guestimating, but the point is pretty plain. If the IPCC accepts that CO2 is logarithmic, then the ONLY way for temperature response to be linear is for the feedback levels to INCREASE as CO2 increases.
There is no plausible explanation in physics for feedbacks to increase to compensate for the direct effects of CO2 decreasing. No warmist or lukewarmist has ever answered my challenge to propose one. No warmist or lukewarmist has ever disputed my reasoning. They all get very quiet and change the subject if they answer at all.
This debate should have been over before it started. Not once have I seen the IPCC or anyone else even try and argue that sensitivity increases with concentration of CO2. They argue what the sensitivity actually IS, but not that it changes! So, if it doesn’t change:
1. It can’t be very high or going from 280 PPM to 400 PPM would have had drastic effects.
2. If it is low, then additional CO2 is meaningless.
Pick one warmists! Which one? 1. or 2.? Or argue that sensitivity changes as concentration increases despite direct effects decreasing if you want. But stop being cowards and ANSWER!
Roger Knights says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Typo(s?)? in:
“… and atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse species, vary greatly.”
There shouldn’t be a comma, I don’t think, and “species” doesn’t sound right.
George E. Smith [September 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm] commented, but did not justify his exception to Roger Knights’s comment. I shall try to elaborate a bit. First, species is to greenhouse as model is to make, or as token is to type. Taxonomists including the great Linnaeus adopted species with a specific (please pardon the etymological pun) subordinate relationship to genus, but many in the American English-speaking world accept that narrowed meaning exclusively. Some of us still use the word as it evolved millennia ago. Members of a category are its species.
Second is the matter of the errant comma. In American English up to shortly after World War II, a comma often separated a long or complicated subject noun phrase from the verb phrase in standard literary English. I still encounter it in some conservative writings in this country (where a comma is more than part of an emoticon), and even more often in British writing, though I never adopted it myself. It use has little to do with breathing, though, and much more to do with attempting to render the phrase structure of a long clause or sentence more obvious than it otherwise might be.
Please amend in standard literary English to in standard literary usage.
You forgot one question, lucia. Where’s the rabbit of global warming?
Also, what about Tom Vonk’s point supra?
I agree with moshe. The math is on the blackboard for all students to see. Go fill your notebooks, cuz there’s a quiz in the morning.
=================
Oh, and dmh’s question above.
I agree with Shevva, too, and suspect that the biosphere has vast modulating effect.
====================
Many thanks to all who have made constructive postings on this thread. Anthony Watts has said that my full reply, which covers a great variety of interesting points from many commentators, must wait for publication until his very big news about the apparent fabrication of Al Gore’s CO2-warming “experiment” has had some time in the top slot.
For now, I shall merely say that I have stated plainly, both in my original commentary and in the posting that heads this thread, that the IPCC’s value for the Planck parameter is correct – a point that a blogger has not only withheld from her readers, misleading them from the headline onwards with the suggestion that I was using a value for the Planck parameter that was less than half the true value, but has repeatedly failed to acknowledge in this thread.
The reason for the single instance in which I used someone else’s value of the Planck parameter is explained in my original commentary with sufficient clarity to be understood by the specialist scientific audience for which it was written, and was explained clearly enough also to the blogger by email in response to her original email to me. This matter will be dealt with at greater length when my full reply is posted. In the meantime, please do not be distracted by suggestions that I have adopted an incorrect value for the Planck parameter. I haven’t, as will soon be made abundantly clear.
The plot thickens. Is Eq. 18 Ramanathan’s?
H/t Paul_K, scrawling on the blackboard.
=================
It’s useful to contrast Lucia’s blog with Dr Curry’s (climate etc). Dr Curry seems a very gracious lady and her blogs are invariably interesting, informative and well worth visiting.
—————————-
steven mosher,
It is my desire for the discourse to stay here. Yes.
I think the issues you are describing somewhat relate to the benefits of WUWT for the venue of Monckton & lucia discourse.
There is nothing that prevents main protagonists from staying focused on each other. The intellectual & scientific gene pool here is large enough to actually add to the main protagonist’s discourse.
Also, this is neutral territory.
John
Oops, time for me to clear out.
I find them equally gracious, equally curious, and equally bright, within the error bands, of course.
==============
Judy brooks more foolishness, though. Can’t babble on at lucia’s.
==============
George
I enjoy interacting with people who discuss what I wrote. That’s why I blog. I would assume Monckton enjoys having people discuss what he wrote. That’s why he posted it here.
Monckton
I have no idea what you going on about. I quoted the following from your letter to RSS:
Where in you set forth a value of 0.15K W-1 m2, computed using T/4(F+78+24) = 0.15 K W–1 m2 and use it to compute ΔT2x = ΔF2x λ0 (1 – 2.1 λ0)–1 = 3.7(0.15)(1.5) = 0.8 K.
My post engages the method of computing that value of λ0=0.15 K W–1 m2. As for whether or not you “use” it, my post does not discuss it. But clearly, you use the value of to compute ΔT2x = ΔF2x λ0 (1 – 2.1 λ0)–1 = 3.7(0.15)(1.5) = 0.8 K.
If you think my post engages something else, I would invite you to find the material in my blog post, quote it.
Kim
I don’t understand this question and for that reason will not attempt any answer.
Which point? It seems to me he wrote a long comment containing more than one point, and even broke into numbered topics to separate major issues.
Dang! RS not RSS. My fingers just want to type the second S!
John– Obviously, anything lengthy involving entering equations in LaTex, including figures etc. I will post at my blog. I have a moderate traffic blog and I wouldn’t dream of burdening Anthony with formatting my equations or having to moderate comments for my sake.
No doubt, should Monckton wish to write a long post, he will post from here. That suits me. I’ll see the incoming ping.
For some technical aspects, my blog has advantages. Comments here don’t have a preview or edit feature; mine do. (This is because I self host and Anthony uses WordPress which doesn’t support that feature.)
I always see when Anthony pings me and he sees when I ping him. This has worked for a long time.
….and despite my challenge, the thread remains locked in a titfortat ad naseum debate about who said what and when a and where and in which context…but my challenge goes unanswered. So I will repeat it:
o According to the IPCC, “doubling” of CO2 = 3.7w/m2 = ~ +1 degrees C “average”
o The reference to “doubling” is defacto acceptance of CO2′s direct effects being logarithmic, and no IPCC reference I’ve seen claims otherwise
o Initial conditions per the IPCC are 280 PPM in the atmosphere. (The IPCC quotes 278 PPM, for simplicity I’ve used 280 PPM). They fix the initial date as about 1920, the beginning of the industrial age.
o The current concentration of CO2 is close to 400 PPM, with the increase over the last ~90 years being about 120 PPM.
o Keeping in mind that CO2 is logarithmic, and lab results can easily quantify that fact, we can arrive at the following. (Gory math not shown for brevity, all values approximate for simplicity):
280 + 120 = 400 PPM
Direct warming vs 280 PPM is ~ 0.6 C
400 +120 = 520 PPM
Direct warming vs 400 PPM is ~ 0.3 C
520 + 120 = 640 PPM
Direct warming vs 520 PPM is ~ 0.15 C
640 + 120 = 760 PPM
Direct warming vs 640 PPM is ~ 0.08 C
640 + 120 = 880 PPM
Direct warming vs 760 PPM is ~ 0.04 C
Can anyone propose a feedback mechanism that would result in LINEAR (let alone exponential) increases in average temperature in response to increasing levels of CO2?
Lucia’s comments, along with the cacophony of like minded sneering and snide found at The Blackboard can do little to endear Lord Monckton, nor to lead to a civil and meaningful exchange.
Sadly, Lucia’s blog, which I now rarely visit, regularly supports caustic posts directed towards WUWT and contributors to the site. There seems little or no effort expended into maintaining civility nor attempting to moderate the “unpleasant” side.
Perhaps if Lucia devoted a little more time to being civil and promoting civility at her blog, she might see others reciprocate. With things as they are, and bearing in mind the rude and arrogant tone of her review of Lord Monckton’s work, I see little cause for complaint if she is treated with less civility than she would like.
IMHO, Lord Monckton has been more than polite enough to those who try to ridicule and insult him rather than properly counter his arguments. Don’t throw the toys out of the pram if he hits back when attacked, however much you think you’ve disguised it!
John–
Perhaps you think my recent response to Monckton is a was a complaint about lack of civility:
It was not. It is a request that he back up what he claims about what I told my readers at my blog by finding quotes where I actually say those things. Presumably, if I said those things, he can locate those quotes.
I also don’t think I or my co-authors have posted caustic posts directed toward WUWT and contributors toward this site. It is true that some blog visitors (for example Neven) make caustic comments about WUWT– but some visitors to WUWT make caustic remarks right here at WUWT. Anthony tends to moderate lightly compared to moderators at RC and permits some of this. My moderation is lighter still. So yes, you’ll find discussion of WUWT at my blog with some people criticizing it, some people supporting it and some remaining neutral.
This thread reminds of the words of the old philosopher
“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
davidmhoffer says:
Unfortunately, david, you did not do the “gory math” correctly. If you are correct and the no-feedback temperature increase going from 280 to 400ppm is 0.6 C (which is not exactly but close enough to being correct, particularly since the IPCC puts the no-feedback sensitivity at a little over 1 C), then these are the correct values for the subsequent increments:
400 to 520 ppm: 0.44 C
520 to 640 ppm: 0.35 C
640 to 760 ppm: 0.29 C
760 to 880 ppm: 0.25 C
So, in fact the decrease with each added increment is not nearly so fast as you think! (You seem to be under the misapprehension that a logarithmic function says each time you add an increment, you get half what you got with the previous addition. That is not what it says. What it says is that what you get is proportional to the FRACTIONAL increase in the CO2 concentration rather than the absolute increase.)
Joel Shore;
Well, at last a response from someone.
Fine Joel, let’s use your numbers. Can you propose a feedback mechanism that would result in accelerating or even linear temperature increases driven by the numbers you propose?
Joel Shore;
Your math is wrong.
1 degree PER CO2 DOUBLING.
280 x 2 = 560 = 1 degree
560 X 2 = 1,120 = 2 degrees (compared to 280)
You’ve got 1.33 degrees just going from 400 to 880!
lucia was right to question this particular part of Monckton’s paper.
I don’t think the math works here. There is a paper backing it up but it misses part of the equation and it also uses a shortcut (which is often a problem in clmate science and even in the central philosophy of global warming at 3.0C per doubling which uses shortcuts which is not how the real energy/temperature/atmosphere works.)
I would change the part of Monckton’s paper citing the 0.152C/W/m2 to something between 0.184C/W/m2 to 0.23C/W/m2 just based on how the calculations should be done. Not a big change, but a change nonetheless.
Frankly, I still don’t see how AGW proponents get around the null hypothesis of natural change – particularly when there appears to be evidence for far greater temperature changes over far shorter timeframes in the past. PETM as one example, where it appears that at least at one point there was a 10 degree shift in only a couple of decades. The rate and magnitude, even the max temperatures, of recent changes (say since 1950, or even 1900), don’t appear to be out of the ordinary for even the Holocene – at least not as best as we can presently determine.
So why does this first, most basic step of the scientific method seem to be so roundly ignored? If climate has shifted so drastically long before man began adding any fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere, how can the claim be made that such a relatively small temperature shift in the present day should somehow be attributed to anything other than natural causes? Even the isotopic ratio that was used as supposed identification of man’s CO2 contribution to the increase is now apparently under question in the peer reviewed literature, where we are at about the right point for the CO2 temperature lag from the Little Ice Age to be kicking in.
Shouldn’t we understand natural variability before assuming we’re somehow out of it, when we haven’t even met the requirements necessary to supersede the null hypothesis?
Lucia, how do you justify ignoring the null hypothesis? Or anyone else here?
Rational Debate:
At September 28, 2011 at 8:32 pm you ask:
“Lucia, how do you justify ignoring the null hypothesis? Or anyone else here?”
I think I qualify as “anyone else” so I answer for myself.
The null hypothesis stands and should not be ignored (search WUWT to see my strong views on this) but it is not relevant to this thread.
Chris Monckton has taken the IPCC model and shown that when empirical data is inserted for the constants in the model then that model indicates only minor (i.e. not catastrophic) global warming will result. That is a very important result.
His work has been disputed – notably by Lucia – on the basis that his empirical data are not correct. This would be a valid criticism if it were true but it is an unfortunate fact that Lucia’s choice of language and subsequent behaviour have obscured the criticism. There does seem to be a concern that Monckton used a value of 0.15K W-1 m2 where 0.18K W-1 m2 may have been more appropriate, but either value would make no significant difference to his result so the criticism seems unfounded.
The subject of this thread is important in its own right. It is sad that the subject has been somewhat obscured by a slanging match, and the sadness would be increased if it were further obscured by discussion of the null hypothesis.
Richard
It may be of interest to readers to know how the IPCC determines climate sensitivity to a given increase in CO2 concentration. First, consider the position in the absence of temperature feedbacks. In the IPCC’s method, the transient no-feedbacks climate sensitivity, in Kelvin (the amount of warming we might actually see in the 21st century as a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but without taking account of any resulting temperature feedbacks), is approximately equal to the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. We can use this very simple formula to demonstrate the ever-diminishing returns from adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the next century that some commentators here have rightly pointed out:
Suppose we start with 400 ppmv today and add successive increments of 100 ppmv until we reach 800 ppmv by the end of the century, close to the IPCC’s central estimate on its A2 emissions scenario. Then the no-feedbacks transient sensitivity in response to each additional 100 ppmv of CO2 concentration would fall quite rapidly:
400-500 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(500/400) = 0.223 K
500-600 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(600/500) = 0.182 K
600-700 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(700/600) = 0.154 K
700-800 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(800/700) = 0.134 K: total 0.693 K
Checksum: delta-T(transient) = ln(800/400) = ln 2 = 0.693 K. Nice when it works!
To allow for feedbacks, multiply by 14/5 to give transient with-feedbacks CO2-driven warming of 1.940 K over the 21st century. In other words, even if we were to shut down the world’s economy right now, without even being allowed to light a carbon-emitting fire in our caves, the IPCC’s central estimate is that the warming forestalled in the 21st century after a doubling of CO2 concentration would only be around 2 K at most.
It is that simple fact which – more than any other – guarantees that any measure to try to forestall global warming by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing CO2 emissions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be cost-effective.
Two-thirds of 1.940 K – or 1.293 K – represents the additional warming that will occur between the end of the 21st century and the point 1000-3000 years later (Solomon et al., 2009) when equilibrium sensitivity is reached. That gives total no-feedbacks CO2-driven equilibrium warming of 3.233 K. We don’t need to worry about this additional 1.3 K in policy terms, because it will occur so slowly that our children’s children will have plenty of time to adapt – and the warming might even stave off the next (and long-overdue) ice age, which would kill a lot more of us and our fellow-life-forms than global warming ever will.
Check: The IPCC’s central estimate of equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration, after including feedbacks, is 3.26 K (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, Box 10.2).
To allow for emissions of other greenhouse gases in the 21st century, the IPCC multiplies by ten-sevenths to bring the equilibrium warming up to 4.62 K. Dividing this by 5/3 gives transient all-forcings warming – the warming that the IPCC imagines might actually occur in the 21st century – of around 2.8 K.
Trouble is, as my commentary pointed out, it ain’t happening – not at even half the predicted rate, and there are numerous empirical and theoretical reasons why it ain’t gonna happen. Enjoy the sunshine!
Keep looking, there’s gotta be a rabbit of global warming in that hat somewhere.
===================
Richard S Courtney
I don’t.
Also, I am puzzled why you are bringing up this question when because what you call the nulll hypothesis is irrelevant to Monckton’s errors in paragraph 3 of his letter to RS.
Monckton
I note read your comment “Monckton of Brenchley says: September 29, 2011 at 4:49 am ” and note that you have not engaged my comment “lucia says:
September 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm ” in which I wrote:
I would like to clear up this matter, and request that you provide quotes to clarify what you intend to suggest when you say I mislead my readers on some point.
In addition, I would like you to clarify what you claim in your post when you write
To clarify, I request you reveal what relationship you believed Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) assumed , where you think you have used this relation; doing so should involve pointing to an equation text present in in K&T (1997).
As for what I have done: I have criticized use of equation (18) in Kimoto, saying Planck parameters computed using that relation are as likely to be correct as those computed by pulling a number out of a hat. This equation most certainly does not appear in Kiehl and Trenberth. If you can find evidence they assumed Kimoto’ equation (18) in that paper, please provide it explicitly.
I would also like you to justify that Kiehl and Trenbert (1997) somehow get an “implicit λ0 is 0.18” (W/m^2)
These questions relate simultaneously to substantive technical points, to issues of fact about what K&T 1997 actually says and to your accusation that I have mislead readers. I would like to see you provide support for what you are claiming.
lucia, Richard was answering someone else. How can I get things straight in my head when lucia keeps putting things in my speech.
=============
Monckton of Brenchley says:
September 29, 2011 at 4:49 am;
400-500 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(500/400) = 0.223 K
500-600 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(600/500) = 0.182 K
600-700 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(700/600) = 0.154 K
700-800 ppmv: delta-T(transient) = ln(800/700) = 0.134 K: total 0.693 K
Checksum: delta-T(transient) = ln(800/400) = ln 2 = 0.693 K. Nice when it works>>>
I believe you still have the math wrong. Your check sum works because you’ve calculated the formula correctly. That doesn’t mean that you have used the correct formula.
IPCC >> CO2 Doubling = 1 Degree K
400 x 2 = 800 = 1 degree K.
You\ve gotten just under .7 degree.
In a rush right at the moment but I’ll try and get back to this later in the day.
Kim-
Thank you for pointing out Richard was answering not asking the question posted by Rational Debate. It appears Richard and I both agree the question is irrelevant to the current post.
To David Hoffer: No, I don’t have the math wrong. Read carefully! I was talking of transient no-feedbacks sensitivity, not equilibrium no-feedbacks sensitivity, so 0.7 K this century (compared with 1.2 K in total by a couple of millennia hence) is correct.
To Lucia: There are no errors in my para. 3: see the posting “1 K or not 1 K, that is the question”.
To Richard Courtney: Many thanks for kindly drawing attention to the fact that the 1 K result, obtained by so many distinct methods, may be important. It is good to have an IPCC reviewer on the team, as it were. I’ too, regret that a misleading and rather vexatious attempt to divert attention from the potential importance of the overall result was made: but, thanks to you and others, that attempted disruption has failed and the commentary is circulating very widely now.
To all: thanks again for your interest, and enjoy the most recent posting, posting in which I try to reply to as many of the points of substance in this discussion as I can.
re post by: Richard S Courtney says: September 29, 2011 at 1:56 am
Yes, you definitely qualify. 😉
Richard, thank you for the reply. Yes, I completely agree with you on all counts. The problem is that there hasn’t been a recent thread where the question would be more relevant (unless I missed one). In one sense it is relevant here – that being that if the AGW hypothesis isn’t even comparable to the null, then there shouldn’t even be a need to debate various aspects of the AGW hypothesis. That said, since obviously everyone, including of course the IPCC, governments, and on and on, have skipped right past the null and are foisting AGW policies and costs upon us all, then as you say, work such as this presented by Lord Monkton is very important in its own right.
So while on the one hand I hate to ‘water down’ this thread with a discussion of the null, it is a thread that some strong AGW proponents who are scientists or educated advocates (e.g., not just talking point regurgitators) appear to be following and commenting on, and they are the very ones that can explain why climate scientists ignore the null. So I asked (and my apologies to Lord Monkton for the tangential diversion). Darn I wish that comment sections such as this had powerful or flexible enough options to allow someone to post a question as I did, then duplicate the comment in an entirely new comment thread, with a pointer/link on the original comment to that new thread. That way the folks on the original thread you were hoping for replies from would see it and hopefully follow to the new thread to answer, but the existing/old thread wouldn’t be disrupted by the tangential conversation. Ah well, so it goes.
p.s., I will search a bit for your prior comments on the issue, and see what sort of replies you got.
For that matter, I’d LOVE to hear Lord Monkton’s take on the null hypothesis too! But fully understand if he’s not inclined to dilute this thread with it. I would be delighted to see his thoughts on the issue. If he’s interested or willing to give his views on the issue to me but doesn’t want to dilute this thread, he’s more than welcome to email a reply to me at: RationalDebate “at” gmail “dot” com.
As is anyone else for that matter.
re post by: lucia says: September 29, 2011 at 7:24 am
You don’t ignore it because you believe AGW hypothesis is equal to or supersedes it? If so, why? Or you don’t ignore it because you believe it stands, but debate aspects of AGW because of it’s current position politically etc?
As to why I bring it up here:
**Because if the null hypothesis stands, we shouldn’t even need to continue debating various aspects of the AGW hypothesis such as this thread – and ought to be requiring AGW climate scientists and proponents to justify going beyond the null. Yet it rarely seems to come up.
**Because there are a number of people active on this thread whom I respect, such as Lord Monkton and yourself, and would very much like to hear their opinion on this foundation issue of the entire AGW debate.
A post worth re-reading, I think, one which may have been lost in the noise:
Dewald says: September 28, 2011 at 5:37 am
Lightly paraphrased:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
IMHO opinion the feedback discussions are moot.
… based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes: every molecule in earth’s atmosphere (gas, water vapor, particulates..) has a sight factor that is greater towards space than towards the earth or all other molecules in the atmosphere.
The temperature delta between said molecule and space is much greater that the temperature delta between said molecule and earth or other molecules.
The sight factor between the sun and the earth’s surface is much greater than the sight factor between the sun and and all the molecules in the atmosphere, based on the fact that I can see the sun with my eyes.
… Man can’t do anything to change the temperature of the atmosphere [dramatically] unless he can change the laws of electromagnetic radiation.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I would add, Dewald, that GHGs accomplish what adding an an LC Electro-Magnetic wave ‘filter’ (RF filter) does in line to a transmission line carrying RF (high frequency or “Radio Frequency”) energy:
There will be some attendant ‘phase delay’ though the filter, due in large part to the effect that some amount of energy is ‘stored’ for a short period of time in the reactive (L and C) components as the fields build up in the coils and capacitors in said filter, above and beyond what would be ‘stored’ in a physical (not electrical) equivalent length of transmission line (on the order of just a few centimeters).
Eventually, equilibrium is achieved: though, and power flow _in_ equals power flow _out_ (assuming lossless components for this mind experiment!) …
One can see this effect in some of the more exotic filter implementations, such as in Elliptical filters near cutoff, where the individual filter component current and voltage values reach ‘peaks’ many times the filter’s input port current and voltage values, -yet- the energy _flow_ into and out of the filter remains constant and equal (again, neglecting losses in components).
The difference is, the temporary _stored_ energy within the fields (electric field in the capcitors and magnetic field in the inductors) of the reactive, non-power dissapative elements (the L and C elements) making up the filter.
So, too inserting a bunch of ‘resonant’ gas molecules (CO2 and H2O plus others like CH4 etc) will act to add ‘phase delay’ to transiting LWIR leaving the surface of the globe, to space, but eventually some amount of ‘equilibrium’ is reached, for the present anyway …
.
davidmhoffer says:
(1) That’s because 400 to 880 ppm is more than doubling the concentration, so an increase in temperature by more than 1 C is expected.
(2) As I noted in my post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/#comment-754595 , your value of 0.6 C for going from 280 to 400 ppm is not quite right if you assume the sensitivity to be 1.0 C per doubling. However, since the actual reported no-feedback sensitivity is slightly larger than 1.0 C per doubling, I went with your 0.6 C for going from 280 to 400 ppm and made my computations of the temperature increases for subsequent 120 ppm increases of CO2 concentration on that basis. (This corresponds to a climate sensitivity value of ~1.166 C per doubling.)
Yes. For example, look at the rise for going from 280 to 400ppm of 0.6 C and the rise for going from 400 to 520 ppm of 0.44 C. Now, suppose that the amount of carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere is also rising about exponentially with time (as it has been). In particular, suppose that the emissions rates averages 36% higher during the 400 to 520 ppm rise than it averaged during the rise from 280 to 400 ppm. Then, that would mean that the two rates of temperature increase with time would be equal.
The point is that a logarithmic dependence does not lead to as nearly as dramatic a decrease in temperature increment on the concentration increment as you imagined. Hence, it is not that hard for us to more than compensate for this decrease by our ever increasing rate at which we emit CO2 into the atmosphere. (And note that a mere 2% increase in our CO2 emissions each year leads to a doubling…i.e., 100% increase…in those emissions every ~35 years.)
Monckton of Brenchley says:
As a general point, however, we should note that the formula for computing a temperature increment from an certain change in emissions is
Delta_T = A * ln(C_final / C_initial) where C_initial and C_final are the initial and final concentrations, respectively and A is a constant that is adjusted to give the desired sensitivity value for a doubling of concentration. The fact that A = 1 happens to work for your desired transient no-feedbacks sensitivity is just a numerical coincidence of the fact that ln(2) just happens to be close to your desired value of 0.7 (in Celsius).
I wanna know where the rabbit is. It’s cold, and I’m getting hungry.
============
Monckton of Brenchley says:
September 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm
To David Hoffer: No, I don’t have the math wrong. Read carefully! I was talking of transient no-feedbacks sensitivity, not equilibrium no-feedbacks sensitivity, so 0.7 K this century (compared with 1.2 K in total by a couple of millennia hence) is correct. >>>
My mistake. I always use equilibrium because it reduces the debate to one number. By using transient, I find that it introduces additional concepts that distract from my main argument, which is that we have a forcing subject to the law of diminishing returns and no plausible feedback mechanism that could possibly substantiate a linear, let alone an exponential, increase in termperature.
Keeping it so simple puts the warmists in a tough bind. Claiming feedbacks that increase exponentially is just plain old silly. Claiming feedbacks that are high enough to make anything over 500 PPM significant would have resulted in something disastrous at 350 PPM. If they claim something lower to account for the lack of warming we’ve seen so far…. well then the whole thing is insignificant by their own account then.
That’s why (I think) presenting it this way makes tghem run and hide. Joel Shore took a shot at my math, but even using his numbers and calculations, he failed to propose any feedback mechanism that would result in linear temperature increases. He’s the one with the PhD in physics, not me. But he didn’t step up, and neither has anyone else I’ve posed the problem to.
Rgds,
dmh
Monckton of Brenchley says:
September 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm
To David Hoffer: No, I don’t have the math wrong. Read carefully! I was talking of transient no-feedbacks sensitivity, not equilibrium no-feedbacks sensitivity, so 0.7 K this century (compared with 1.2 K in total by a couple of millennia hence) is correct.
Could you provide a citation where the IPCC uses this value?
To Joel Shore, – You really must not impute motives to me that do not exist. You say I took the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration with an implicit coefficient of 1 because that came close to what you call my “desired” value of 0.7 K for transient, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity. That kind of insinuation really won’t do, and it’s not the first time you’ve done it. Please desist.
I do not have any “desired” values. I merely take the values the IPCC starts with and draw conclusions from them. The IPCC’s function for the radiative forcing from an increase in CO2 concentration is 5.35 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase: thus, 5.35 ln[C(b) / C(a)], where C(a) is the unperturbed concentration. In response to the CO2 doubling expected by the end of this century, the forcing is thus simply 5.35 ln 2, or 3.708 W/m2.
To get a transient, with-feedbacks climate sensitivity from this, we multiply by 0.5 K/W/m2, the 1900-2100 transient sensitivity implicit in and derivable from any or all six of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. And that gives 1.854 K. To remove the feedbacks, we divide by the IPCC’s implicit central estimate of the overall feedback gain factor G = 2.8, giving 0.66 K.
Since 0.66 is very close to the natural logarithm of 2 (which is 0.69) , one can take a short cut by obtaining the transient no-feedbacks climate sensitivity for the doubling of CO2 concentration this century simply as the logarithm of 2, because the coefficient 5.35 x 0.5 / 2.8 is close to unity; and similarly, of course, for the transient, no-feedbacks sensitivity in response to any increase in CO2 concentration other than a doubling one takes the logarithm of the proportionate increase C(b)/C(a). It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with what I “desire”, and everything to do with the IPCC’s own methods, which I have merely simplified without significant loss of accuracy.
It is increasingly evident that, even if one uses the IPCC’s methods, the warming we’re going to cause is a whole lot less than it imagines. Even if the IPCC were right about expecting an equilibrium warming of 3.26 K in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration, rather than the 1 K which is really the theoretical maximum, it would still be about an order of magnitude cheaper to do nothing about it (except to adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences that might arise) than to spend trillions shutting down the economies of the West in an attempt to control the climate that will have no more chance of success than that of King Canute, who knew perfectly well – as should all of us by now – that all such attempts are expensively futile..
To Phil, – You ask for a citation in the IPCC’s documents for the value ~0.7 K for 21st-century transient climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling in the absence of temperature feedbacks. My previous message explains the math. But one can also demonstrate it very simply, thus. The equilibrium no-feedbacks climate sensitivity is simply the radiative forcing 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W/m2 multiplied by the Planck parameter 0.3125 K/W/m2, giving 1.159 K. The IPCC’s values for the transient and equilibrium climate-sensitivity parameters respectively are 0.5 and 0.879 K/W/m2, The first is derivable from all six of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios (p. 803, Fig. 10.26); and the second is simply the IPCC’s explicit multi-model mean central estimate for equilibrium warming at CO2 doubling of 3.26 K, divided by the radiative forcing of 3.708 Watts per square meter (Myhre et al. 1998; IPCC, 2001, 2007). So, to convert from equilibrium to transient no-feedbacks sensitivity to a CO2 doubling in the 21st century one merely multiplies the equilibrium value 1.159 K by 0.5/0.879, giving 0.66 K. The small discrepancy between this value and the 0.69 K arrived at by my rule of thumb of simply taking the logarithm of 2 and calling it Kelvin is, I hope, not too unacceptable. Any questions, let me know.
davidmhoffer said:
Perhaps this post of mine http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/#comment-755311 where I address that point showed up from moderation only after you wrote this? At any rate, your math was indeed wrong…and with corrected math, it is clear that one doesn’t need any dramatic feedback mechanisms to get a linear temperature increase, just a fairly steady but not particularly large increase in our CO2 emissions, as has so far been the case…and which those who propose doing nothing to curb our emissions even in the face of growing pressures to exploit large coal and tar sands reserves are no doubt fine with.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
And, given the confusion of some commenters in this thread regarding how to compute logarithmic growth correctly, I thought it was important to make very explicit your simplification in taking advantage of this “close to unity” coincidence so that people didn’t start to believe one could simply use the formula you wrote down (i.e., assuming a constant outside the logarithm of exactly 1) with impunity in situations where this coincidence does not occur. That was the main point that I was trying to make.
Monckton of Brenchley:
I don’t believe in your economic alarmist fantasies about “shutting down the economies of the West” because they have no support from economic studies…and because it makes no sense to believe that market economies can be so successful in coping with real resource scarcity but if we impose some artificial resource scarcity on fossil fuels (by putting a cost on dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere) then the economies will just shrivel up and die. In fact, the artificial resource scarcity that we would be imposing is actually more flexible than real resource scarcity because it allows fossil fuels to still be used abundantly provided that the necessary technology is developed and used to sequester the emissions of CO2.
To Joel Shore: No, your earlier post plainly accused me of getting stuff wrong so that I could reach my “desired value”. Other posters have warned you that this nasty habit of making unwarrantable accusations – particularly when, as in this case, I was able to prove your nasty little accusation baseless – is something you need to get rid of.
Monckton of Brenchley: For the record, here is my entire post ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/#comment-755316 ) you are talking about (minus the part that quotes you):
Somehow I can’t see the part where I said your were getting stuff wrong in this particular case. And I used the term “desired” in the context of how A is determined given any sensitivity value that one might believe to be correct.
I have rightly criticized you for being wrong before when you are wrong. In this particular case, I was just noting that the approximate correctness of your formula was due to a numerical coincidence and hence one should not assume that one can just assume A=1 whenever one is computing a temperature rise due to some increment in CO2 concentration from some equilibrium or transient climate sensitivity with or without feedbacks.
(I am frankly agnostic as to your estimate of a 0.7 C transient climate sensitivity for the no-feedbacks case. I think your way of going between equilibrium and transient sensitivity is a bit simplistic but probably not too bad as a rough approximation.)
Thanks for that Anthony, I have republished this on the UKIP Scotland Blog
Monckton of Brenchley,
The discussion you have/had with Lucia started with your assertion (in your paragraph 3) that the Planck parameter lambda0 has a value of 0.15 W-1 K m^2.
In that post, you gave no clear definition, only a reference to Kimoto, and Lucia has made the argument that filling in Kimoto’s formula’s with current radiation numbers (from K&T) and then blindly plugging it into the equilibrium sensitivity formula is not going to get you the right result.
In this post, you adhere to a more conventional definition of lamba0, which refers to the Planck response of planet Earth without feedbacks. This definition is used by most climate scientists (including Lindzen) and makes much more physical sense than Kimoto’s, simply because to get the gray-body response of planet Earth, you need to be at least above the troposphere. Besides that, for equilibrium state, lambda0 is easy to calculate, since the planet as a whole needs to be in radiative balance with space, independent of the surface temperature. You correctly point out that the value, calculated as such, is 0.3125 W-1 K m^2.
Now may I point that using lambda0==0.3125 and the “IPCC central estimate” of the feedback parameters which you quote at 2.1 W/m^2/K, the resulting equilibrium temperature increase at the surface for 2xCO2 will be : 3.7*(0.3125)/(1-2.1*0.3125) = 3.36 C, and not 0.8 K that you obtained.
So it seems that your problem was rooted in the fact that you used the wrong Planck parameter formula and incorrectly filled it with invariant radiation numbers. Which was exactly what Lucia was explaining. Switching to the definition used by climate scientists (such as Lindzen) solves your problem.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate