By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%.
During my valedictorian keynote at the conference, I appointed the lovely Diane Bast as my independent adjudicatrix. She read out six successive questions to the audience, one by one. I invited anyone who would answer “No” to that question to raise a hand. According to the adjudicatrix, not a single hand was raised in response to any of the questions.
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that climate skeptics would answer “No” to most – if not all – of the six questions.
That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. “consensus” paper published last year. The authors listed three “levels of endorsement” supporting some sort of climate consensus.
Level 1 reflected the IPCC’s definition of consensus: that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. Levels 2 and 3 reflected explicit or implicit acceptance that Man causes some warming. The Heartland delegates’ unanimous opinion fell within Level 2.
Cook et al., having specified these three “levels of endorsement”, and having gone to the trouble of reading and marking 11,944 abstracts, did not publish their assessment of the number of abstracts they had marked as falling into each of the three endorsement levels. Instead, they published a single aggregate total combining all three categories.
Their failure to report the results fully was what raised my suspicions that their article fell short of the standards of integrity that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have expected of a paper purporting to be scientific.
The text file recording the results of Cook’s survey was carefully released only after several weeks following publication, during which the article claiming 97% consensus had received wall-to-wall international publicity from the MSM. Even Mr Obama’s Twitteratus had cited it with approval as indicating that “global warming is real, man-made and dangerous”.
The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects’ evasiveness about climate “consensus” can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition.
Amusingly, 96.8% is 97% of 97.1%. In other words, 97% of the abstracts that formed the basis of the “97% consensus” claim in Cook et al. (2013) did not endorse the IPCC’s definition of the consensus, as the article had falsely claimed they did. However, those abstracts did endorse the more scientifically credible Heartland definition.
Among the unspeakable representatives of the MSM who came to the Heartland conference to conduct sneering interviews with climate “deniers” was a smarmy individual from CNN.
He asked me, in that supercilious tone with which we are all too familiar, how it was that I, a mere layman, dared to claim that I knew better than 97% of published climate scientists. I referred him to Legates et al. (2013), the peer-reviewed refutation of the notion that 97% of scientists endorse the IPCC’s assertion that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
The CNN reporter said that the result in Legates et al. was merely my “interpretation”. So I pointed to a row of internet booths nearby and said, “If I count these booths and find that there are, say, 12 of them, and if you count them and find there are indeed 12 of them, then our finding is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of fact, that any third party can independently verify.”
I challenged him to go away, before he broadcast anything, and count how many of the 11,944 abstracts listed in the Cook et al. data file were marked by the authors themselves as falling within Level 1. If he counted only 64, I said, then his count would accord with mine. And our counts would not be an “interpretation” but a fact, whose truth or falsity might readily and definitively be established by any third party performing exactly the same count as ours.
He said he would check, but with that look in his eye that seemed to speak otherwise.
The results of my survey of the 600 Heartland delegates reveal that the difference between the Thermageddonites and us is far less than they would like the world to think. Like most of them, we fall within Cook’s endorsement levels 2-3. Unlike them, we do not claim to know whether most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made: for that is beyond what the current state of science can tell us.
Above all, unlike them we do not misreport a 0.3% consensus as a 97.1% consensus.
You may like to verify the results recorded in Cook’s data file for yourself. I have asked Anthony to archive the file (it resides here: cook.pdf ).
[UPDATE: David Burton writes: I’ve put the Cook 2013 data into an Excel spreadsheet, which makes it a lot easier to analyze than from that cook.pdf file. There’s a link to it on my site, here: http://sealevel.info/97pct/#cook ]
If the reporter from CNN who interviewed me reads this, I hope he will perform the count himself and then come back to me as he had undertaken to do. But I shall not be holding my breath.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If 100% of you guys believe that we cause some warming why is this the coldest July 14th ever?
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/266951981.html
elmer says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:28 am
If 100% of you guys believe that we cause some warming why is this the coldest July 14th ever?
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/266951981.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If natural variability is larger than the warming in the first place, there would be no surprise to that result. There is substantial evidence to suggest that it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
– – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
I think your comment has anti-intellectual merit only, and that it only demeans the spirit of this venue.
Ugly.
John
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please ignore the post from John Whitman at July 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm.
Whitman is a troll who specialises in supporting the trolling of others as a method to help the other trolls destroy threads. He has a long history of doing it on WUWT threads.
Richard
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 8:31 am:
“What part of suggesting that Konrad research the meaning of effective black body temperature of a planet with an atmosphere did you miss?
All of it apparently.”
So tell us what meaning this effective black body temperature of planet Earth has regarding the rGHE hypothesis and relate it to what I said. Jeez.
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 8:41 am:
“Precisely how do you think the temperature of a body in space is arrived at? By satellites and telescopes extending a thermometer a thousands or millions of kilometers and sticking it under the bodies tongue? Are you daft? The temperature of a body in space can be measured by taking the mix of energy fluxes being emitted from the body and converting it into a temperature.”
Hahaha! Are you being serious? Do you have any idea what we’re talking about here at all? Apparently not. I know full well what an ‘effective black body’ temperature of a celestial body is, David. And how it’s arrived at. That’s not the issue. Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth? That’s what’s of interest here. No one cares whether you’re able to calculate the theoretical surface emission temperature of Earth IF IT WERE a black body absorbing and emitting its energy from ONE AND THE SAME solid surface, David. The 240 W/m^2 mean radiative flux to space from Earth originates from the ENTIRE system, solid/liquid surface and all layers of the atmosphere above it. It is a cumulative, a final flux going out through the ToA. And it’s purely a consequence of the flux coming IN from the Sun. Earth needs to shed this mean flux also. 240 W/m^2. To maintain energy balance. Get it? This flux intensity simply HAPPENS to correspond to a temperature of 255K via the S-B equation. That doesn’t mean that’s the ‘temperature’ of Earth. The surface is at 288K. The tropopause at 210K. Which one’s Earth’s temperature?
Kristian;
The surface is at 288K. The tropopause at 210K. Which one’s Earth’s temperature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?
Kristian;
This flux intensity simply HAPPENS to correspond to a temperature of 255K via the S-B equation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it is a coincidence? And here I thought it was a calculation.
– – – – – – – –
What to do when the signs of recursive troll namecalling start sprouting here?
Well when I was a boy about 10 on my grandparents farm I was taught when milking a cow to move the milk pail far away from the cow when she showed signs needing some bowel and/or bladder activity. Then to go get the scoop shovel, wheelbarrow and some fresh sawdust.
John
Kristian;
Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it does. Find out what “mean radiating level” is and apply it in the context of the effective black body temperature of a planet with a radiatively active atmosphere.
Friends:
I repeat. Don’t feed the troll.
Richard
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:17 pm:
“What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?”
You tell me, David. Look to the Moon. If we let a satellite circle the Moon for a while to take measurements of its emitted flux to space, what would we find? An evened out mean flux of around 300 W/m^2. This corresponds to the average flux from the Sun coming IN (the Moon’s surface has a much lower global albedo than planet Earth). Putting this flux into the S-B equation we get around 270K. This is the Moon’s ‘effective black body temperature’, David. But what is the Moon’s ACTUAL, physical mean global surface temp? It’s been measured. Because there is no atmosphere in between, this is in fact possible on the Moon. The REAL mean global surface temperature of the Moon, when evened out across the diurnal cycle, is about 200K.
This means, when ‘seen’ from space, the Moon looks like a 270K celestial body when in fact it holds an actual physical surface temperature of a mere 200K.
Funny, isn’t it?
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm:
“So it is a coincidence? And here I thought it was a calculation.”
Stop embarrassing yourself, David. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a calculation. It however bears no relevance to reality. Why are you deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ what I’m saying. It’s not hard. You only need to read it. You’re not this stupid. So why are you pretending to be?
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm:
“Kristian;
Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it does. Find out what “mean radiating level” is and apply it in the context of the effective black body temperature of a planet with a radiatively active atmosphere.”
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no ‘mean radiating level’. There is only a temperature S-B calculated from a measured mean flux. Again you’re not reading what I’m writing.
I know very well what the ‘effictive emission height’ hypothesis says, David. Difference is, I know how stupid it is. You don’t.
Earth doesn’t emit its 240 W/m^2 flux to space from an atmosperic level at 255K just because this temperature happens to correspond to the S-B calculated emission temperature based on that flux. The radiative flux to space from the Earth system comes primarily from 1) the solid/liquid surface, or 2) high up in the troposphere, close to the tropopause:
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/upwelling_brightness1.jpg
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460/
The first level is on average much warmer than 255K, the other one on average much colder. What does this tell you, David? Look at the data. Look at the real world. Don’t follow theoretical dogma, David. I thought you were a sceptic. The ‘EEH hypothesis’ is probably the easiest thing in ‘science’ to be sceptical to. It has NO observational support from the real Earth system whatsoever. It is purely hypothetical. So why this utterly uncritical need to promote it?
– – – – – – – –
Jennifer Marohasy,
Since Monckton has acknowledged in a comment that he is aware of your observation that there was not a 100% yes response to some of his questions, then an erratum addendum update to his main post is appropriate action for him in order to set the record straight.
Thank you for providing your observations.
John
[“Since” or “If Lord Monckton” ? … .mod]
NO. Absolutely NOT true.
Heat exchange is instantaneous. Radiation heat transfer into space is immediate, varies according to the surface temperature ^4th power, and the surface emissivity, and does NOT occur at a “mean temperature” of anything, and -therefore, using a “mean temperature” to discuss radiation heat transfer into space is dead wrong.
Heat (SW radiation) into the moon (no atmosphere) occurs at the same radius as the earth at that day-of-year, varying between a low in July of about 1310 watts/m^2 with a peak in Jan 3 of 1405 watts/m^2. Top-of-surface (there is no Top of Atmosphere on the moon of course, but top-of-surface becomes the equivalent.) Best workable approximation is a cosine wave of DOY, varying through the year. Received radiation ALSO cannot be calculated using a “mean average” and get anything useful.
By the way, half of the lunar day, radiation at top of surface = 0.00000 watts/m^2 Be sure to include the actual radiation received per second at each location in your future approximations.
At NO time does the moon EVER receive 240 watts/m^2, which by the way, is a “earth=-bottom-of-atmosphere average value that is ALSO dead wrong. On earth, the equal radiation is TOA, which varies between 1405 to 1310watts/m^2. At the moon’s orbital distance from the earth, there is no real difference. The moon’s surface receives the same input solar radiation as the earth’s top-of-atmosphere solar radiation.
Received radiation on the moon’s surface then varies by latitude and tilt on that day-of-year, just as on earth. Using a “mean average” is WRONG.
Now, the moon’s surface does EMIT into a near-perfect black space at 0.0 K.
ALL surfaces of the moon can be considered acccurately enough to emit to that temperature. NO surface on earth emits to that temperature, by the way. The upper atmosphere comes close however.
Now, go back to your “simplified approximation of nothing” above and repeat your calc’s.
You CANNOT learn ANYTHING is you use “mean avearges” because a lunar surface emits at T^4 power all the time, and conducts what is received down about 3-6 inches. Below that depth in loose dust, the temperature in the dust remains near constant. Below 24 – 36 inches deep in solid rock, conductance heat losses nears zero, and the temperature also becomes near-constant.
The surface temperature, as on Mercury where there is ALSO no atmopshere, varies between extreme heat and extreme cold. It is never “average”
And I strongly disagree with you. Thus, you are wrong and are demeaning the spirit of this venue. 8<). And my opinion is worth more than your opinion is. In my opinion.
Please show by copy/paste exactly where Lord M has acknowledged what you claim.
John Whitman says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm
richardscourtney on July 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please ignore the post from John Whitman at July 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm.
Whitman is a troll who specialises in supporting the trolling of others as a method to help the other trolls destroy threads. He has a long history of doing it on WUWT threads.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
What to do when the signs of recursive troll namecalling start sprouting here?
Well when I was a boy about 10 on my grandparents farm I was taught when milking a cow to move the milk pail far away from the cow when she showed signs needing some bowel and/or bladder activity. Then to go get the scoop shovel, wheelbarrow and some fresh sawdust.
John
____________________________________________________________________________
It appears from casual observation Mr. Whitman that you started shoveling on arrival.
RACookPE1978 says, July 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm:
“You CANNOT learn ANYTHING is you use “mean avearges””
Why are you telling me this, RACookPE1978? Tell David M. Hoffer and the rest of the rGHE/EEH hypothesis promoters.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:11 am
“inferentially paid for their efforts”
——————————————–
Viscount Monckton, that is a big call.
I am well aware that not all on climate blogs are sceptics. I tend to categorise into –
“Sleeper”
“False flag”
“pop-corn warrior”
“snow-stormer”
However I have no evidence that any of these are paid directly for their efforts and indeed I think it unlikely. I suspect the smug satisfaction of being a “climate warrior” from the security of their Mum’s basement is sufficient for most.
Some maintain sceptic “cred” and try to steer the debate (Alinsky method).
Some poorly represent hard sceptic arguments to discredit them (New! Web optimised! Reverse Alinsky).
And some just choke and derail threads that are heading in a dangerous direction. (Does the type of sparkles a unicorn snorts effect the spectrum of its rainbow excreta?)
What I would ask you to consider that one or two may have very little interest in climate, and just want the whole crazy debate away from their own particular scientific sand-pit.
From Kristian on July 14, 2014 at 1:31 pm:
Willis Eschenbach explained that two and a half years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/the-moon-is-a-cold-mistress/
Etc, good reading. The average effective temperature remains 270K as that is what S-B gives us for the average radiation emitted. The average measured surface temperature can be less without violating S-B.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says, July 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm:
“Etc, good reading. The average effective temperature remains 270K as that is what S-B gives us for the average radiation emitted. The average measured surface temperature can be less without violating S-B.”
kadaka, did you read David M. Hoffer’s question to me? The question to which my comment was a response. It went as follows: “What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?”
Note, he is NOT asking about the effective (BB) temperature. So, in your mind, kadaka, would the surface temperature of Earth without an atmosphere stop at 255K? Or would it end up somewhere else? This is central to the rGHE hypothesis.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I did read one that used the term “sky dragons”. I searched online for a definition several months back to no avail. I hear they are banned; is there someone who could summarize the sky dragon mystery for me? (Also, the comment above that I read said that they believe that CO2 does not have an effect that leads to warming). Question, is that true, and if it is not, what is all the fuss?
Sorry about the question if it leads to trouble, but I was just curious to understand.
@ur momisugly Ursa Felidae,
As I understand it (and please, anyone, jump in if I’m barking down the wrong well), the Sky Dragon is a euphemism for the theoretical heating of the Earth’s surface due to “greenhouse” gases (please note that I say theoretical, though it’s accepted by most. However, there is still slim room to doubt “Greenhouse Gas Heating Effect” (GHE) is the root cause of the current state of the climate, and hasn’t been proven, hence is still theoretical). There is a book, “Slaying the Sky Dragons” (I have not read it) which I gather holds some unpopular hypotheses about the actual impact of “greenhouse” gases, basically holding that they are not the cause of the warming of the Earth’s surface.
Since the “warming” itself is defined by the slope of the curve of a trend taken between two arbitrary points in history (positive slope, warming, negative, cooling), claims from “no warming” to “extreme warming” abound (if I chose to use Noon today and 4am tomorrow as my two points, I could claim dramatic cooling… And apparently many have cherry-picked their start dates in order to have given conditions which would result in just what their theories claim—while if someone picked dates decades earlier or later, those theories would be undermined by the results of the same algorithms with this differing input). Some argue that it’s futile to chose dates which are less than thousands, millions, billions of years, etc. Nearly all have valid arguments to back their claims for the dates they chose, hence the results they claim prove their pet hypothesis.
Laboratory experiments prove that certain gases absorb and re-radiate long-wave infrared radiation. The jury is still out about exactly how much impact that re-radiation has on surface temperatures, because the primary devices used to ‘calculate’ the effects of this re-radiation are computer models which can’t take into account all the possible variables which effect the resultant climate, for the simple reason that there is too much we don’t yet know–leaving aside the complexity of what we think we know.
The Slayers, as the 8 authors of the book and their adherents are sometimes called (proudly or derisively, depending upon your belief in their hypotheses, or so it appears to me), have tossed more excrement in the game with a set of hypotheses which are pretty universally derided. Some of their claims have been refuted by experiment by our host, and you can find them in the archives if you wish.
The gross omissions of basic knowledge of physics in some of their claims—as demonstrated here a number of times—makes it very difficult to take anything they say seriously.
They appear to be, collectively, a very large troll which tries to take over serious debate about science with whimsical non-science—-very much as if they desire to SEEM like skeptics, but wish to confuse the issue. I gather the thinking is that they desire to appear like skeptics in order to deceive the gullible who lean skeptic, and create flawed “skeptic” theories so that all skeptics can be derided at Warmist blogsites and in the papers. Sort of like saying Bonnie and Clyde were poster-kids for the Second Amendment; an argument that would only please gun-control advocates. I’m a military guy: this is what you’d expect of deceptive tactics; active measures to confuse the enemy. I can assure you it is a very real, and actively employed art in warfare and business. Why not here?
This last is not melodrama: one only has to look at the terribly inappropriately named, SkepticalScience blog to know that there are some who try very hard to distract.
This is what the very obvious-seeming troll John Whitman appears to be doing: trying to seem reasonable while sowing discontent. I can only agree with @ur momisugly richardscourtney who says that he has experience with this individual. From his very first comment, he was pretty obviously trying to provoke. He didn’t discuss the post, he fanged CM of B.
In an aside to @ur momisugly Konrad, you quoted Viscount Monckton accurately when you pasted, :
“inferentially paid for their efforts” and said, Viscount Monckton, that is a big call.
You then said, However I have no evidence that any of these are paid directly for their efforts [emphasis mine]. I agree with you that it is a big call; however, given the savagery I’ve witness in this thread… Perhaps. Even those not involved in fanging each other have tossed the adjective “stupid” around more times in this one thread than I have seen in years of casual reading on this website. Patience has been sparingly used, and the discussions a bit on the pugnacious side. That said, I have also seen a great deal of engagement by people from whom I have learned things in the past—I believe it was @ur momisugly davidmhoffer who commended about actual scientists staying engaged to educate those of us who know less but want to learn. I agree with that totally, and I’m often grateful that many who know more put up with so many questions, the answers to which probably seem quite obvious to them, without getting all elitist—a characteristic of Warmists we deplore (think Michael Mann with “My science” all the time…). So it’s with no small amount of discomfort that I read CM’s claims, apparently about people from whom I’ve learned enough that I have respect for their intellect.
But I have also witnessed the savagery on this thread myself, and can draw my own conclusions (and will, eventually, after I figure out just what the hell it was I saw. It was not civil, whatever it was).
In any case, as you quoted, CM did not ever say “paid directly” but “inferentially paid”. I would have to ask exactly what he meant by that—though I can make inferences of my own if I dare—but I don’t interpret that to mean they were directly compensated. For example, reading the Venona files and Comintern files after the fall of the Soviet Union, we learn that KGB Residents wished to pay CPUSA members for their spying efforts to encourage them, but were told in no uncertain terms by Earl Browder and others in the 1930s and again in the 1940s that being paid would be an insult! They were believers and did what they did out of loyalty to the cause—they were no mercenaries! So instead, they were given token awards, made Heroes of the Soviet Union. The pay they desired was recognition, not remuneration in coin of the realm. “Inferentially paid,” as it were.
What, exactly, this inferential pay that CM of B speaks of would be, I’ve no idea. Nor from whom it would come.
Please understand I make no accusations myself—I have no evidence of such, don’t know enough about what goes on in those circles to say i could even recognize evidence if I saw it—but also know I don’t know what CM of B may have seen. Clearly I don’t have all the facts. But I would have to believe that a declaration of that sort is something for which he has a tangible source or evidence. Whether his interpretation of that source is accurate or plain wrong aside, I can’t imagine his making a claim of that sort without a source.
I’m pretty sure we’ll have to wait a bit, but by and bye the other shoe will drop.
Meanwhile, all this has been a bit of an education, a bit of a lark, and a bit alarming. I hope that civility and calm return.
Meahwhile, how ’bout dat ice in Antarctica?
From Kristian on July 14, 2014 at 5:00 pm:
Good question, loosing the atmosphere involves loosing the oceans as they would boil and vaporize as the pressure drops. The moist ground would transform into a crunchy dry lattice and dust. The solid ice would remain but be subject to sublimation and shrinkage. What were the oceans and rivers and lakes will become valleys and vast canyons filled with dust from the formerly-dissolved minerals.
So we’d wind up with likely a similar albedo to the Moon, thus an average effective temperature of 270K, although with the diurnal swings the average measured surface temperature will be less.